Aeneid - Book VI

 

Dantius

Homo Sapiens

  • Civis Illustris

Location:
in orbe lacteo
I think you're far too concerned about the fact that the translation is not literal. As AoM mentioned, most translations are not going to stay close to the text.

I have lately noticed that it is better to read a Latin text in Latin and not in a translation. The translations seem to be slightly different. I prefer to read the original version if possible. What do you think?
Definitely. I think it's better to always focus on the Latin, resolving problems with a dictionary or commentary, and only checking a translation as a last resort.

6:145-6:146 Vergilius wrote "Ergo alte vestiga oculis et rite repertum carpe manu". The Late antique grammarian Maurus Servius Honoratus commented that the imperative singular verb carpe refers to the adverb rite and not to repertum. Can the imperative carpe refer to a adverb? Why not to an object in a sentence like the singular accusative repertum?
You're misinterpreting Servius. He writes: "rite repertvm carpe: 'rite carpe', {⁴³id est cum observatione,}⁴³ non 'riterepertum'." What he's saying is that the adverb rite should be taken with the verb carpe, rather than with the participle repertum. Of course, repertum is the direct object of carpe.
 

Symposion

Active Member

Location:
Helsingia (Finnia)
Why do you say both are golden? As far as I see it Vergilius only mentions that the ramus est aureus?

What is Horsfall? Should I get that from the Library? What does Horsfall's comment mean? It does not open to me as of now!?

But I need to be able to translate the Latin text correctly into a modern language. That is why I check the original version with the translation to see if I can translate the Latin correctly. The point with me learning Latin is to know what is said in Latin and often why a word is chosen and not another word. This especially with medieval Latin texts.
 

Symposion

Active Member

Location:
Helsingia (Finnia)
I did not get your comment about Servius. He wrote "rite carpe", non "rite repertum".
 

Pacifica

grammaticissima

  • Aedilis

Location:
Belgium
Why do you say both are golden? As far as I see it Vergilius only mentions that the ramus est aureus?
aureus et foliis et lento vimine ramus means literally "a bough golden both in [its] leaves and in [its] pliant twig". So I suppose that what AoM meant where he said "both are golden" was that since the bough is golden in its leaves and twig, it follows that both the leaves and the twig are golden.
I did not get your comment about Servius. He wrote "rite carpe", non "rite repertum".
Servius says that rite modifies the verb carpe; that rite and carpe should be taken together as rite carpe = "pluck with due ceremony". He says that, although rite comes directly before repertum in the word order, it should not be taken to modify repertum; that carpe and repertum should not be taken together as rite repertum = "having been found with due ceremony". Horsfall agrees with this.
 

Symposion

Active Member

Location:
Helsingia (Finnia)
I did translate the sentence as The golden bough is hidden under the shady tree and its leaves and pliant twig. The adjective "aureus" correlates with "ramus". In other words Vergilius only tells that the bough is golden.
 

Pacifica

grammaticissima

  • Aedilis

Location:
Belgium
While aureus does refer to ramus, your translation isn't quite right.

Latet arbore opaca aureus et foliis et lento vimine ramus = literally: "There hides in a shady tree a bough golden both in [its] leaves and in [its] pliant twig."

First, the bough is hidden in a tree, not under a tree. Secondly, the bough isn't hidden in its leaves and twig, but is golden in its leaves and twig (both its leaves and its twig are golden; it is entirely golden).
 
 

Dantius

Homo Sapiens

  • Civis Illustris

Location:
in orbe lacteo
Note also the sandwiched word order: aureus ... ramus bookends the phrase et foliis et lento vimine. It is very common in Latin to sandwich dependent phrases within what they depend on (e.g. something like Marcus, Iulium in foro videns would be more common than Marcus, videns Iulium; in the first, the noun and participle bookend the words that depend on the participle). Thus the word order suggests that foliis et lento vimine are ablatives of respect going with aureus (gold in respect to / gold in its leaves...), not ablatives of place where like arbore opaca.
 

Symposion

Active Member

Location:
Helsingia (Finnia)
I read the Latin text, look up the words that are unfamiliar to me and check the English translation. When I do not understand something I many times ask you about the texts. So you think that I should focus on the Latin text and not on the English translation!? I agree that understanding the original Latin text is most essential for learning latin.

I am a very slow reader when it comes to Latin texts. That is not good at all! I need to speed up my pace a lot when reading. How do I do that? I think that I need to get quicker. I also have a hard time learning or remembering the words. In grammar my biggest concern now is the huge amount of cases for the verbs. I have never learnt all the forms. I have noticed that my Latin has improved because I read quite often articles in Latin on Vicipedia. I have decided that I want to read everything regarding Catholic topics in Latin. Would that help with Classical Latin? I also prefer to read about ancient Rome in Latin but because that is a second field to me I read not often about that topic. I am interested in Social history of ancient Rome. The medieval annals seem to be too easy for me. The chronicles are on the more easier side. For example Adamus Bremensis seems to work ok for me but Saxo Grammaticus is still very difficult! I am a bad Latin reader! :(

Vergilius wrote in 6:160-6:162 as follows "Multa inter sese vario sermone serebant, quem socium exanimum vates, quod corpus humandum diceret.". Should it not be exanimem as in some sources? I wonder why Loeb Classical Library does not often refer to various manuscripts with a critical aparatus as is usually the case with the medieval texts that I have looked at in for example Monumenta Germaniae historica? Is it not typical to use the critical aparatus in source editions dealing with ancient Roman texts!? I have almost exclusively used Loeb Classical Library. The pronoun quem and quod mixes me up because I do not really get that entire sentence to make sense because who is the dead comrade? Is it Achates? Does the soothsayer ask a question? In that case my Latin text lacks a question mark! I am confused...

Vergilius wrote in 6:162-163 in Latin "Atque illi Misenum in litore sicco, ut venere, vident indigna morte peremptum". Is it Aeneas and Achates that come to the dry beach and see Misenus or is it Misenus that they see being on the dry beach? I think Vergilius is a bit unclear here as this can actually be interpreted in two ways here.
 
 

Dantius

Homo Sapiens

  • Civis Illustris

Location:
in orbe lacteo
The adjective exanimis can also appear as a 1st/2nd declension adjective exanimus, so both exanimem and exanimum are different forms. The Loeb Classical Library has some critical notes but they are not a truly critical edition as their main purpose is to be accessible for a large audience.


I do not really get that entire sentence to make sense because who is the dead comrade? Is it Achates?
You're not supposed to know who the dead comrade is. That's the whole point. In a few lines, you'll learn that it's Misenus.
In lines 149-150, the soothsayer told Aeneas that one of his comrades is dead and must be buried. In 6.160-162, the Trojans are wondering who this comrade might be. In English word order with implied words, the lines would read: Troiani serebant multa inter sese vario sermone, quem socium vates diceret exanimum esse, quod corpus vates diceret humandum esse. The quem to the end is an indirect question, functioning in apposition to the multa (these questions are the "many things" the Trojans are conversing about). quem socium exanimum [esse] and quod corpus humandum [esse] are indirect statements dependent upon diceret.

Do you think you could do a literal translation of those lines based on the hints above? Try that and I or someone else will give more hints/explanations if you need it. If you're confused on how to translate the word serebant, you can look at the dictionary here. Search sero, and look at the second word that comes up (sero, serui), definition II (Trop.), and go down to the examples starting with "quod mihi servus sermonem serat".

Vergilius wrote in 6:162-163 in Latin "Atque illi Misenum in litore sicco, ut venere, vident indigna morte peremptum". Is it Aeneas and Achates that come to the dry beach and see Misenus or is it Misenus that they see being on the dry beach? I think Vergilius is a bit unclear here as this can actually be interpreted in two ways here.
They see Misenus on the dry beach, killed with an undeserved death.
 
 

Dantius

Homo Sapiens

  • Civis Illustris

Location:
in orbe lacteo
What is Horsfall? Should I get that from the Library?
I notice no one has responded to this. Nicholas Horsfall is a scholar who has written commentaries on several (maybe all, but I'm not sure) books of the Aeneid. His commentaries are very dense and thorough and cover a lot of information, but they can also be rather hard to read and make sense of if you're not used to his abbreviations and style.
 

AoM

nulli numeri

  • Civis Illustris

I notice no one has responded to this. Nicholas Horsfall is a scholar who has written commentaries on several (maybe all, but I'm not sure) books of the Aeneid. His commentaries are very dense and thorough and cover a lot of information, but they can also be rather hard to read and make sense of if you're not used to his abbreviations and style.
He's done commentaries for 2, 3, 6, 7, and 11. He's working on 1 now, apparently.
How do you get to that conclusion and not the other interpretation option that I proposed?
So, you're saying:

"They see Misenus as they came on the dry shore."

vs.

"They see Misenus on the dry shore as they came."

It's kind of going with both, since you can understand something like, "as they came there, i.e., onto the dry shore".

But strictly speaking, it's going together with Misenum...vident, since I imagine you'd want in + acc. with venere.
 

Pacifica

grammaticissima

  • Aedilis

Location:
Belgium
I read the Latin text, look up the words that are unfamiliar to me and check the English translation. When I do not understand something I many times ask you about the texts. So you think that I should focus on the Latin text and not on the English translation!? I agree that understanding the original Latin text is most essential for learning latin.
You should definitely focus on the Latin text and use an English translation only when you're really stuck.
I am a very slow reader when it comes to Latin texts. That is not good at all! I need to speed up my pace a lot when reading. How do I do that?
I don't really know of any way to get quicker except for acquiring experience. You should become able to read quicker as you get used to it.
I have never learnt all the forms.
You should do so now.
I have noticed that my Latin has improved because I read quite often articles in Latin on Vicipedia.
Unfortunately, Vicipaedia often contains bad Latin, so the usefulness of reading Vicipaedia for your Latin learning will be rather limited. You should never blindly trust that what you read there is correct Latin.
 
 

Dantius

Homo Sapiens

  • Civis Illustris

Location:
in orbe lacteo
You should do so now.
Indeed, that's very important. If you can parse things very quickly and have the forms so well-learned that you're basically subconsciously identifying the forms as you go, your reading speed will go up a lot.

Also, Symposion, just out of interest, you've done some works like De Bello Gallico for a class, right? Are you doing the Aeneid for a class as well or is this your personal reading?
 

Symposion

Active Member

Location:
Helsingia (Finnia)
You should definitely focus on the Latin text and use an English translation only when you're really stuck.
I don't really know of any way to get quicker except for acquiring experience. You should become able to read quicker as you get used to it.
But philologists want to translate Latin all the time into a modern language. How else can you relate to what you are reading!? Why is not a translation like Loeb Classical Library good for learning Latin?

You should do so now.
Yes. Latin is a very hard Language to learn because almost all words are unfamiliar as this is my first romance language that I have studied. There are also a lot to learn in Latin morphology. It might be that Vergilius is too difficult for me. I have read Caesar before. I find Pro Archia poeta by Cicero to be really boring. I participated in that class and got trough with it without really reading the work. I skipped him in other words... How is Vergilius easier than Horatius!? Vergilius is really difficult!!! I have read that you do not recommend me to use Wiktionary. That is why I have been thinking about using Numen instead. What do you think about Numen? Here is a link to it: http://latinlexicon.org/word_study_tool.php

Unfortunately, Vicipaedia often contains bad Latin, so the usefulness of reading Vicipaedia for your Latin learning will be rather limited. You should never blindly trust that what you read there is correct Latin.
I think that the more Latin we read the more words and grammar we come across. In English we read anything just to read it as well. I think I find interesting texts on Vicipaedia so that is why I read that almost every day now. What should I study instead according to you? Did you only read Classical texts when learning Latin!?

Also, Symposion, just out of interest, you've done some works like De Bello Gallico for a class, right? Are you doing the Aeneid for a class as well or is this your personal reading?
Why do you ask?


Vergilius wrote in 6:180 in Latin "procumbunt piceae". The Latin noun picea is here in pluralis nominativus. There is a confusion between what three this is. According to my professor it is a Pine, according to Loeb it is a Pitch pine but are those not pinus in Latin? I know that Picea abies is a Spruce because my sister did once her MA thesis on Picea abies. I would therefore translate Picea as Spruce and not Pine! On the other hand there are very few Spruces in Italy and non in southern Italy were Aeneis is in this context. Now I have learnt that the Latin names for trees and other taxonomy differs from scientific Latin. I am more for the old traditional names because they are telling about the situation during Antiquity and the Middle Ages. Then one can learn the taxonomy in modern languages.

The manuscripts have different text in 6:186 where either reads "et sic forte precatur" or as in Vergilius Romanus were forte is voce. Which one do you think is better? I understand better voce in this context. How would the adverb forte (by chance) function here? Maybe I am like the scribe for Vergilius Romanus too much influenced by Church Latin!? Is the verb precor, precari, precatus sum in the meaning of "I pray" used in Church Latin or is it like the noun ara, -ae, f. in the meaning of "altar" only used for heathen altars and not for Christian altars?
 

Pacifica

grammaticissima

  • Aedilis

Location:
Belgium
But philologists want to translate Latin all the time into a modern language. How else can you relate to what you are reading!?
By reading and understanding it on its own.
Why is not a translation like Loeb Classical Library good for learning Latin?
It can be good for learning Latin if you use it to check interpretations that you aren't sure of. I think, however, that you should first try to understand the Latin by yourself. Otherwise you risk ending up always relying on translations and never being able to read Latin.
Latin is a very hard Language to learn because almost all words are unfamiliar as this is my first romance language that I have studied.
To be exact, Romance languages are those languages that are derived from Latin (e.g. Italian, Spanish, French...). Latin itself isn't a Romance language.
I have read that you do not recommend me to use Wiktionary.
Wiktionary can be useful, but as a dictionary it isn't as complete and reliable as L&S, for example. Wiktionary will not give you all the meanings of a word and little, if any, information on usage.
What do you think about Numen?
At first sight it looks like it can be helpful, but I'm not familiar with it.
I think that the more Latin we read the more words and grammar we come across.
That's absolutely true, but it's better when you know that what you read is reliable.
What should I study instead according to you?
Classical texts are best, but some later authors are good too (Erasmus has a good reputation, though I haven't read him myself).
Did you only read Classical texts when learning Latin!?
No. I read medieval texts as well. However, it's when I started reading a lot of classical Latin that I became good at it.
Vergilius wrote in 6:180 in Latin "procumbunt piceae". The Latin noun picea is here in pluralis nominativus. There is a confusion between what three this is. According to my professor it is a Pine, according to Loeb it is a Pitch pine but are those not pinus in Latin? I know that Picea abies is a Spruce because my sister did once her MA thesis on Picea abies. I would therefore translate Picea as Spruce and not Pine! On the other hand there are very few Spruces in Italy and non in southern Italy were Aeneis is in this context. Now I have learnt that the Latin names for trees and other taxonomy differs from scientific Latin. I am more for the old traditional names because they are telling about the situation during Antiquity and the Middle Ages. Then one can learn the taxonomy in modern languages.
It seems uncertain. According to L&S, it is a pitch pine; according to the Oxford Latin Dictionary, it is a spruce, "probably" Picea abies.
The manuscripts have different text in 6:186 where either reads "et sic forte precatur" or as in Vergilius Romanus were forte is voce. Which one do you think is better? I understand better voce in this context.
I don't know. I suppose sic forte precatur could sort of make sense in a way like "he happened to pray thus". In either case, forte and voce feel like metrical fillers.
Is the verb precor, precari, precatus sum in the meaning of "I pray" used in Church Latin
I think it is, though I may have seen oro used a bit more often.
 
 

Dantius

Homo Sapiens

  • Civis Illustris

Location:
in orbe lacteo
I'll check Horsfall to see what he has to say about the uncertain lines in a few minutes.
 
 

Dantius

Homo Sapiens

  • Civis Illustris

Location:
in orbe lacteo
How is Vergilius easier than Horatius!? Vergilius is really difficult!!!
Horace has more complicated word order, delayed conjunctions, some weird Greek-derived genitive/infinitive uses, more so than Vergil. Also there are a lot more proper names that have specific connotations that you have to know which makes the process of reading it a lot slower.

Why do you ask?
Just interested.


Vergilius wrote in 6:180 in Latin "procumbunt piceae". The Latin noun picea is here in pluralis nominativus. There is a confusion between what three this is. According to my professor it is a Pine, according to Loeb it is a Pitch pine but are those not pinus in Latin? I know that Picea abies is a Spruce because my sister did once her MA thesis on Picea abies. I would therefore translate Picea as Spruce and not Pine! On the other hand there are very few Spruces in Italy and non in southern Italy were Aeneis is in this context.
Horsfall isn't sure either, so there's no definitive answer here:
piceae Maggiulli has discussed the problematic identification of p. with care but with no certain outcome (the word, adj. formation from pix, not found in Lat. before V.): EV 4, 91f., ead., Incipiant siluae, 399-401. For her preferred pinus Halepensis (Aleppo pine, which does grow near the coast), cf. Hora (182), 66, Meiggs (182), 43f.. Aliter, Sargeaunt (182), 99- 101. There is a good deal of uninformed speculation on the topic, not here cited.
The manuscripts have different text in 6:186 where either reads "et sic forte precatur" or as in Vergilius Romanus were forte is voce. Which one do you think is better? I understand better voce in this context. How would the adverb forte (by chance) function here? Maybe I am like the scribe for Vergilius Romanus too much influenced by Church Latin!? Is the verb precor, precari, precatus sum in the meaning of "I pray" used in Church Latin or is it like the noun ara, -ae, f. in the meaning of "altar" only used for heathen altars and not for Christian altars?
Horsfall adopts the reading forte, but notes that Vergil uses voce in book 11 in the same phrasing. Servius, the ancient commentator, says forte was just added to fill out the meter and doesn't really make much sense here.
 

Symposion

Active Member

Location:
Helsingia (Finnia)
Classical texts are best, but some later authors are good too (Erasmus has a good reputation, though I haven't read him myself).
No. I read medieval texts as well. However, it's when I started reading a lot of classical Latin that I became good at it.
Even when I am now interested in The Classical Latin Language and Roman Litterature as well as the Social history of Ancient Rome my primary goal is Medieval Latin and the Middle Ages.

It seems uncertain. According to L&S, it is a pitch pine; according to the Oxford Latin Dictionary, it is a spruce, "probably" Picea abies.
First of all it is not to be translated literarely. This is because a Pitch pine or Pinus rigida is only found in North Eastern USA so were L&S was published. I think a Spruce is closer as it exists here in Europe. On the other hand there are not many Spruces in Italy and as far as I know non in Southern Italy were Aeneis is in the text at the moment. In other words we do not know what tree Vergilius meant here in this text.

Horsfall adopts the reading forte, but notes that Vergil uses voce in book 11 in the same phrasing.
Yes check out 11:784 for that but also in 9:403.


Vergilius wrote in 6:189-6:190 in Latin "Quando omnia vere heu nimium de te vates, Misene, locuta est.". According to my Oxford Latin Course book the Latin noun nimium, -i, n. requires an genitive. For example nimium vini too much (of) wine.

Vergilius wrote in 6:190-6:191 in Latin "geminae cum forte columbae ipsa sub ora viri caelo venere volantes". Is ipsa sub ora because of sub supposed to be in ablative? The noun ora is not in ablative as it should be ore and ipso instead of ipsa! Is viri meaning the men? I am confused here now. For me sub correlates better with caelo as that noun is in ablative singular.

Vergilius wrote in 6:197-6:198 in Latin "Sic effatus vestigia pressit observans quae signa ferant, quo tendere pergant.". Does Aeneis press pressit marks vestigia and observe observans what signs they make or bring with them? Does tendere and pergant both mean proceed? So is it not tautology to write something like they proceed to proceed? What does that mean? Did I understand this correctly? In any case it is an interesting manner to express that they advanced to where they were going!
 

Pacifica

grammaticissima

  • Aedilis

Location:
Belgium
Even when I am now interested in The Classical Latin Language and Roman Litterature as well as the Social history of Ancient Rome my primary goal is Medieval Latin and the Middle Ages.
Perhaps reading a lot of medieval Latin will serve your purpose, then, but classical Latin can still help a lot.
Vergilius wrote in 6:189-6:190 in Latin "Quando omnia vere heu nimium de te vates, Misene, locuta est.". According to my Oxford Latin Course book the Latin noun nimium, -i, n. requires an genitive. For example nimium vini too much (of) wine.
First, nimium as a substantive can take a partitive genitive, but doesn't absolutely require one. You can say nimium alone just as in English you can say "too much" without specifying too much of what. Secondly, in this line it works as an adverb.
Vergilius wrote in 6:190-6:191 in Latin "geminae cum forte columbae ipsa sub ora viri caelo venere volantes". Is ipsa sub ora because of sub supposed to be in ablative? The noun ora is not in ablative as it should be ore and ipso instead of ipsa! Is viri meaning the men? I am confused here now. For me sub correlates better with caelo as that noun is in ablative singular.
Sub is here followed by the accusative because there is an "under and toward" motion. It's the same as with in: both sub and in take the ablative when a location is expressed and the accusative when a direction is expressed.
Viri is singular genitive, "of the man".
Vergilius wrote in 6:197-6:198 in Latin "Sic effatus vestigia pressit observans quae signa ferant, quo tendere pergant.". Does Aeneis press pressit marks vestigia and observe observans what signs they make or bring with them? Does tendere and pergant both mean proceed? So is it not tautology to write something like they proceed to proceed? What does that mean? Did I understand this correctly? In any case it is an interesting manner to express that they advanced to where they were going!
It's something like "where they continue going". It does feel a bit unnecessarily wordy but well. Poets sometimes just have to fill up their lines, you know.
 
Top