eum ducem belli poposcit

[itaque]

I am trying to translate these sentences from the Oxford Latin Course, which refer to Octavian:

tota Italia in verba eius iuravit atque eum ducem belli poposcit. ei senatores qui Antonio favebant Roma egressi ad Antonium confugerunt.... Octavianus autem, Maecenate Romae relicto qui Italiam administraret, Brundisium profectus est.

Here is my attempted translation:

All Italy swore allegience to him and demanded that he (be) the leader of the war. The senators who favored Antony, having exited Rome, fled to Antony.... But Octavian, who was administrating Italy (by way of) having left behind Maecenas, set out for Brindisi.​

In addition to wondering if my translation is correct, I have these questions:

• Is my insertion of "(be)" in the first sentence correct? Why was "esse/fuisse/fore" not included?
• What is the purpose of "ei" in the second sentence?
• Why is "administraret" in the subjunctive mood?

 

[Bitmap]

• Is my insertion of "(be)" in the first sentence correct? Why was "esse/fuisse/fore" not included?

Yes, your translation works. esse can often be left out (ellipsis).

• What is the purpose of "ei" in the second sentence?

It's just a demonstrative pronoun that prepares the subsequent relative clause.

• Why is "administraret" in the subjunctive mood?

The qui in that relative clause refers to Maecenas. The subjunctive means that it has an additional nuance in meaning, in this case it means that it is to be taken as a final clause. qui Italiam administraret = ut (Maecenas) Italiam administraret.

 

[Dantius]

I wouldn't even say esse is implied, you can just translate it "demanded him as a leader of the war" (I don't think posco commonly takes acc + inf)


I don't know what terminology the Oxford Latin Course uses, but I say "purpose clause" rather than "final clause"

 

[Pacifica]

I wouldn't even say esse is implied, you can just translate it "demanded him as a leader of the war" (I don't think posco commonly takes acc + inf)

Yeah, there's no ellipsis here.

I don't know what terminology the Oxford Latin Course uses, but I say "purpose clause" rather than "final clause"

I've seen both terms.

I mean in general; I don't know about the Oxford Latin Course.

 

[Dantius]

Yes, I've seen both terms too. But back when I was first learning about those subjunctive clauses, if someone had said "final clause", I would've had no idea what they were talking about, so I just wanted to make sure both terms were provided since I don't know which itaque is used to.

 

[Bitmap]

Yes, I've seen both terms too. But back when I was first learning about those subjunctive clauses, if someone had said "final clause", I would've had no idea what they were talking about, so I just wanted to make sure both terms were provided since I don't know which itaque is used to.

Sorry, somehow I keep forgetting that English has a completely different terminology. When I say 'final', I mean 'purpose' of course.

 

[Dantius]

A&G says "final", I think, so at least it's totally fine in slightly older English

 

[Gregorius Textor]

I, too, was unfamiliar with the term "final clause", but I understood it by analogy with Aristotle's notion of "final cause", i.e., the purpose or reason for a thing to be. In fact I was wondering at first if Bitmap had omitted the "l" as a typo.

 

[Pacifica]

In fact I was wondering at first if Bitmap had omitted the "l" as a typo.

You mean added.

 

[Bitmap]

Aristotle omitted the l.

 

[Gregorius Textor]

You mean added.

Yes, of course.

If only I had written "he had omitted," I could claim that I was referring to Aristotle instead of Bitmap.

 

[Pacifica]

Yes, of course.

If only I had written "he had omitted," I could claim that I was referring to Aristotle instead of Bitmap.

More likely to Aristotle's English translator.