This one passage is throwing me off. It’s at the bottom of pg. 59.
Sed in somnis Didoni apparuit imago coniugis mortui, qui mirum in modum os pallidum tollens aram cruentam et pectus suum vulneratum nudavit et scelus regis omne patefecit
Did his pale face raise the bloody altar and then he bared his wounded chest? Or did he bare his pale face raising the bloody altar and his wounded chest? Or is os pallidum tollens a phrase on its own and then he bared the bloody altar and his wounded chest?
Here is a clue.
The main verb of the relative clause (subject being quī) appears at the end of the clause, and is patefēcit.
Patefēcit has three direct objects (linked by et).
Actually that may not be quite right; it looks like patefēcit only has two objects, one of which is aram cruentam, and the other is the wounded chest.
So the participle tollens has the object ōs pallidum, and “mirum in modum” is an adverb of tollens.
qui mirum in modum os pallidum tollens aram cruentam et pectus suum vulneratum nudavit…
who wonderfully/ strangely raising his pale face laid bare the bloody altar and his wounded breast …
cf Vergil Aeneid 1.353-356
ipsa sed in somnis inhumati uenit imago
coniugis ora modis attollens pallida miris;
crudelis aras traiectaque pectora ferro
nudauit, caecumque domus scelus omne retexit.
Excellent. Got it. I was off but thank you for this confirmation.
So, to recap, phrase by phrase the latter part runs:
os pallidum tollens |
aram cruentam et pectus suum vulneratum nudavit |
et scelus regis omne patefecit. ||
It follows the norms of Latin word order, with the verb at the end of each phrase. (nudavit has two objects, patefecit has one.) It effectively articulates itself, and really shouldn’t have needed seneca to solve the difficulties. And the Vergilian original is scarcely less clear-cut.
So you’re saying it’s more noticeable in the original poetry? How’s that for Orberg making it more vague than the original.
No, I’m saying that Orberg turns it into ordinary prose, while respecting Vergil’s syntactical organization.
In either version it’s best to read it in the order in which it comes, otherwise you’re liable to make difficulties for yourself.
I hope people will take to heart MWH’s advice about reading Latin in the order it’s written. I have taught two Latin classes today in which I had to repeatedly say this. When you dont know a word just hold it in your head until you come to the end of the clause (syntactical unit) you are reading. Trying to rearrange things invariably leads to confusion or trying to make the Latin fit to what you think it says rather than what it actually says.
I included the Vergil passage not with the intention of criticising Ørberg but to show it to those who may not be familiar with it. In previous threads this has been thought helpful.