Translation of: PUBLIUS GOES TO ROME TO FINISH HIS EDUCATION

Textbooks Latin For Beginners by D'Ooge
1

On pg. 211 of D’Ooge’s book.

PUBLIUS GOES TO ROME TO FINISH HIS EDUCATION
And now, Publius, (at) fifteen years old, after having completed the first elements of learning, wanted to travel to Rome to attend the schools of the grammarians and of the philosophers. And he easily persuaded his father, who himself was interested in the study of philosophy. And so, after having prepared all (their) things for (their) departure, the father and the son, being borne by spirited horses, set out to the great city. As they were leaving, Julia and the whole family escorted them with vows and prayers. Then, through a flat region and hills covered with forests, they entered the road to Nola, the town that received them with modest hospitality. They lingered at Nola for two hours, because the midday sun was blazing. Then, by way of a straight road about twenty miles to Capua, they hurried to the extraordinary city of Campania. They arrived there exhausted late at night. On the next day, having been refreshed with sleep and with food, they left from Capua, and having entered upon the Appian Way, which reaches Capua and leads all the way to the city of Rome, they arrived at Sinuessa before midday, the town that reaches the sea. Leaving from there at dawn, they hurried to Formia, where Cicero, the most renowned orator, who by chance was at his villa, kindly received them. After having made a trip of twenty-five miles from this place, they saw Terracina, a town located on remarkably high rocks. And now, the large swamps weren’t far away, which lie open for many miles from every direction. Through them, the way on foot is dangerous and travellers are conveyed on a ship. And so, the horses having been left behind, Lentulus and Publius boarded a ship, and, one night having been spent on transit, they came to the Appii Forum. Then, in a short period of time, Aricia received them. This town, located on a hill, is sixteen miles away from the city of Rome. From there, a downhill road leads all the way to the wide field where Rome stands. When Publius came to that spot and caught sight of Rome, the greatest city of the whole world, (though) still far off, he was overcome with the greatest admiration and joy. They descended without delay, and, the (middle) interval/distance having been passed as quickly as possible, they entered the city by way of the Porta Capena.

Note: Is it really necessary to include the word (middle) there? I don’t think it is, which is why I put it in parentheses. I understand why it was included in Latin, so I put it in parentheses to signify that that would be the literal translation of the Latin text (thought I’d point that out because I have put words that weren’t included in the Latin text in parentheses until this point). But when it comes to English writing (speech as well), when a person or people are standing between two points we really don’t refer to the distance/interval between said points as the middle distance/interval. Just thought I’d point all this out to those that are still learning. Unless I’m horribly wrong. Then correct me on this, bedwere (I’m still learning too).

2

If you check medius in the dictionary, you’ll see that it means “in the middle” when it precedes the noun:

medium intervāllum = the distance in between
intervāllum medium = a middle distance

Se also 58 in
A Parallel Of Greek And Latin Syntax.

3

I stand corrected.

4

Then, > directly for > about twenty miles

The original for this reads:

Tum recta via circiter viginti milia pasuum

What happens to via in the translation? If you see the note, it takes you back a few pages back to another note of the same construction, that being the ablative of the way by which motion takes place. You translated recta as the adverb. I’m not sure if you’re wrong, but you did leave out via. I’m barely giving your corrections a more in depth look. Been quite busy with school. Just thought I’d point that out. I don’t know who’s right.

Vale.

P.S. recta via is in the ablative in the original. I just don’t know how to add those lines on the top of letters. I’m not sure what they’re called either. Just thought I’d save anyone the time who wanted to look it up in the book.

5

In L&S https://logeion.uchicago.edu/rego we have

rectā (sc. viā). straightway, straightforwards, right on, directly

You could literally translate through the direct way, but nobody writes or, even less, speaks like that. I try to strike a balance between being faithful to the Latin and using idiomatic expressions (your mileage may vary :smiley: ).

As for the macron, depending on your system, you should be able to add it to a vowel by typing in order the Compose/Apple Key, the underscore _ , and the vowel itself: ā, ō, ī

6

Your fondness for the literal rather mars the great work you do on trying to correct the translations you have found. “after having…” is an expression which only seems to occur in English “translations” of elementary Latin exercises. You would be well advised to be more idiomatic here. When is a better choice.

Allen and Greenough’s New Latin Grammar for Schools and Colleges: “A noun or pronoun, with a participle in agreement, may be put in the ablative to define the time or circumstances of an action.”

See the examples here http://dcc.dickinson.edu/grammar/latin/ablative-absolute

The OLD entry for rectus ,a, um gives this:

2. (of a route) Straight, direct. b (abl.)
uia, etc., by a direct route, straight; (transf.)
by direct means. c (in advl. phrs., in
or w. prep.) providing a straight route
transl. ‘straight along’, ‘through’, etc.)…

So I think Bedwere is completely correct to translate rectā viā as he did. its idiomatic rather than literal.

On Macrons I use, on my Mac, the Maori keyboard.

Edit I see Bedwere has answered your post while I was typing this out.

7

Your fondness for the literal rather mars the great work you do on trying to correct the translations you have found. “after having…” is an expression which only seems to occur in English “translations” of elementary Latin exercises. You would be well advised to be more idiomatic here. When is a better choice.

What’s wrong with translating the ablative absolute as “after having…”? It’s better than translating it as “with…”. I think that would be the way a true novice would translate the ablative absolute. You really shouldn’t take it out on me. I’m just going by what D’Ooge recommended in his book. He mentions it, and even translates some examples using after… in section 380 beginning in the bottom of pg. 164. Here’s the link to the book. I don’t know how to link pages so it’s the best I can do.

file:///C:/Users/Joel/Downloads/BLD_Latin_For_Beginners%20(2).pdf

You’ll have to read the whole section. It’s a bit long.

8

I am sorry! I didnt mean to take anything out on you! You are doing a valuable job. :smiley:

Clearly it would be wrong to translate the ablative absolute here as “with” because it is a temporal phrase.

D’Ooge is translating “literally” for beginners. I dont think that is helpful as it encourages beginners to assume that it makes sense to do this, that there is a one to one correspondence with a Latin phrase and an English phrase. As I have said repeatedly this is not the case. In fact if you look at the examples at the top p 165 he writes “with caesar leading or when caesar leads or if caesar leads or caesar leading” for caesar ducente.

My intervention was solely designed to help you make your translation more idiomatic. As I said some of these phrases only occur in textbooks but never in normal written English. Rather than use a formula just think what it means and write that in English.

Incidentally I am not sure that D’Ooge is correct in his rule 381 which asserts that the ablative absolute expresses attendant circumstances. This implies that this is the only thing being expressed. I prefer the formulation I quoted in my post from Allen and Greenough which explicitly refers to time.

Its not worth falling out over.

9

You would be well advised to be more idiomatic here. When is a better choice.

Correct me if I’m wrong, but wouldn’t using when imply circumstance and wouldn’t using after imply time? So should I really replace ever after with when when translating the ablative absolute? Surely, not every ablative absolute implies circumstance?

Take this ablative absolute for example:

Itaque omnibus rebus ad profectionem comparatis, pater filiusque equis animosis vecti ad magnam urbem profecti sunt.

Would it really be better if I translated it as:

And so, when they had prepared all their things for their departure, the father and son, carried by spirited horses, set out to the great city.

To me, this ablative absolute seems to imply time, because it’s only after they prepared their things that they set out. And as you may have noticed, I dropped having. The only reason I never translated it like that is because I always thought that translating the participle in the ablative absolute as they had prepared would imply that the original is in the indicative, and which is why I always translated it as having prepared since that implies that the original is a participle that is a part of an ablative absolute. I always thought that that was incorrect, but I just took a look through my copy of Gildersleeve and he does the same thing, so it must be correct since the great Gildersleeve translated it thus? It’s in section 410 of his grammar. He translates a few examples. And I find the note at the bottom of section 409, or right above section 410 before it begins, to be of interest as well, which I’m just reading after having written all of this, and which makes me want to take back what I said in the very beginning of this post.


P.S. Sorry if I’m dragging on this discussion longer than it should, but I just want to learn how to translate it the best way possible. And I didn’t think this discussion was leading to a falling out between us. I’m sorry you felt that way. :smiley:

10

I was concerned about the direction, not the place we had reached, so all is good between us.

I use when as a temporal term with the meaning “at what time; at the time at which”. I am not suggesting you “replace every “after” with “when” when translating the ablative absolute”. I am suggesting you decide what the ablative absolute means in the context and translate it by English you would use normally, not by English that only occurs in textbooks written in the 19th century and first half of the 20th.

Itaque omnibus rebus ad profectionem comparatis, pater filiusque equis animosis vecti ad magnam urbem profecti sunt.

Would it really be better if I translated it as:

And so, when they had prepared all their things for their departure, the father and son, carried by spirited horses, set out to the great city.

In this sentence “when” and “after” would mean exactly the same thing. You could use either.

I agree that Gildersleeve is very clear. I see that he advises what I have said that “.. for the purposes of style , it is often well to analyse the thought, to change Passive to Active, to make use of an abstract substantive.”

As I said in my previous post D’Ooge is misleading in his “rule 381” which describes the ablative absolute as “expressing attendant circumstances”.

Unsurprisingly Gildersleeve is in line with the reference I gave to Allen and Greenough.

The discussion has to continue until the point has been clarified so dont worry about that. :smiley: