In capitulum triginta sex of Ørberg’s Roma Aeterna,there is a passage (lines 63-66), that is giving me some trouble. It involves Curtius, who plunged headlong into a whirlpool.
Here is the Latin:
63 Postremus siccatus est locus in medio foro
64 qui ‘lacus Curtius’ dicitur a nomine equitis cuiusdam
65 qui se armatum cum equo suo in voraginem ibi factam
66 praecipitavisse narratur.
Does the “se” in line 65 refer to the act of precipitating himself into the pool, or does it refer somehow to him being armed (“armatum”)? It is so close to the latter and so far from the former that it confuses me.
Next is the word “factam.” Ørberg glosses this in his vocabulary supplement as the adjective “wrought.” Its form is accusative feminine. It seems like it should mate with “voraginem”, and it looks like it has verbal force.
My provisional translation for these lines would be:
“Finally a place in the middle of the forum was drained, which is called “Lake Curtius” from the name of a certain armed knight who, it is said, plunged [himself] headlong with his horse into a whirlpool [that was wrought] there.”
If “se” relates to plunging, then “he plunged himself” (and his poor horse). If not it must mean something like “self-armed.” And could “factam” have something to do with causing the whirlpool to come about (by his plunging?).
Anyway, I am in a whirlpool of doubt and I am ready to join Curtius.
You’ve taken postremus to be an adverb, but you’ll note that it does not have the form of an adverb (postremo) so it can’t be so. I understand postremus to go with the locus: the final place.
You are correct in that the factam goes with the voraginem. The predicative nature of the participle is in full force here: into the whirlpool that had been formed or as Lovecraft would put it, spawned into existence.
The se is reflexive from armatum (equipped himself).
Salve Timothee
Last drained is/was a place in the middle of the forum which is called “Lake Curtius” after the name of a certain knight who is said to have thrown himself in his armour with his horse into the [drain] hole/pit made there.
The “se” is indeed reflexive but with the verb “praecipitavisse”. Benè reflexivum est “se” praenomen at cum “praecipitavisse” verbo.
“se armatum praecipitavisse” = “to have thrown himself armoured”, id est “in his armour”
About the distance between “se” and “praecipitavisse”, in Latin there’s a tendency for weak pronouns (those without any emphasis) to come in second position in their clause. I think there was a discussion here on this so others can probably explain this more.
I’m saying you might like to read the pages from the book, that’s all. Those authors know more than I do. But even there it’s more description than a fundamental explanation. Hoc dico, non plus: fortassè hic liber tibi curae sit. Scientia illorum auctorum meam scientiam superat. Plus autem descriptio istius rei in istis paginis de quâ scripsisti quàm vera explicatio.
Alright then. I had taken a look at that book and my post was an attempt to paraphrase where they say “As has been known for over a century, with various qualifications weak pronouns tend to appear in second position in the clause, that is after the first phrase or after the first word.” Although a second look finds where they specifically discuss relative clauses, where they say “Similarly in relative clauses the weak pronoun usually raises to be left sister of the constituent in the scope of the relative phrase” which is not so clear to me but they give a number of examples like “quae tibi ex alio genere frumentum suppeditare possit (Verr 2.3.172)”.
But in any case, I just wanted to point to tjnor that this kind of separation between a pronoun and its verb is not strange.
.
OK, I understand. I wrongly thought when you wrote that you were hoping others might explain something that really is better just described. Licet, te intellego. Perperàm te credi sic in scribendo quandam explicationem ab alio expectasse de re quae verò satiùs describenda est.
The se is not reflexive indeed.