There’s this one line in Orberg that is confusing me. It’s line 246 on pg. 64.
quaecumque terrae me vocant
Is Aeneas saying that no matter where in the world he may be he will always remember her honor and praises? So would that be translated as:
whichever lands call me.
That seems right.
The thought is that while the universe continues to exist Dido’s honour and praises will remain for Aeneas wherever he might be. ( while the rivers run to the seas etc…)
For reference this is the original in verse:
in freta dum fluvii current, dum montibus umbrae
lustrabunt convexa, polus dum sidera pascet,
semper honos nomenque tuum laudesque manebunt,
quae me cumque vocant terrae.”…
Book 1.607-610
Edit note the tmesis quae… cumque
And that’s another thing I wanted to comment on; the preceding lines:
Dum fluvii in maria current, dum sidera in caelum surgent, semper honos tuus laudesque manebunt
The verbs are in the future tense so shouldn’t they be translated with will or can they just be translated as you did. I remember reading somewhere that that’s a grammatical construct for circumstantial settings with dum and the future tense indicative. Or am I mistaken?
I think there are two issues: how the grammar works in Latin and then how best to translate it.
When “dum” means while or “as long as” the “temporal clause normally has the same tense as the main clause” Woodcock A New Latin Syntax, p177.
So we have a series of futures depending on “manebunt”.
Literally then we have “will run” “will rise” and “will remain”. A series of futures like this strikes me as non idiomatic in English and “run(s)” “rise(s)” “will remain” seems more natural.
The tense used in Latin therefore is vital but how thats expressed in English seems less important. If a student translated the verbs as present I would of course ask them what tense is used in Latin to make sure they had recognised the construction.
What is the name for that grammatical construct though? Or it has no name? And where can I look it up in Gildersleeve’s grammar?
Since we’re on the same chapter, there’s another line I have a question about. It’s at the top of pg. 66.
inscia quantus deus in gremio sedeat
Why is the subjunctive used? And what is the name of that grammatical construct so I can look it up on my own unless someone could reference it for me in Gildersleeve.
And could I translate it as:
unaware of how great a god just so happens to be sitting on her lap
(the italic part being just the word sedeat)
Your translation should be ‘how great a god is sitting’. ‘Just so happens’ is not in the Latin.
The subjunctive is used here because of the indirect question introduced by quantus.
I don’t know where this is discussed in Gildersleeve, but Woodcock’s New Latin Syntax deals extensively with indirect questions starting at §177.
If you want to look up this use of dum In Gildersleeve it’s 569 “complete co-extension”. This is not as helpful as Woodcock although there are several examples.
I think the decision to use (or not) the future in the English translation is more a question of style and idiom and not at all a question of the Latin grammar which is clear. If others think I am wrong in this I would be grateful to be put right.
I urge you to get Woodcock. Its an attempt to cover grammar in a historical framework.