Aeneid - Book VI

[Symposion]

In line 68 is written errantisque deos. The participle errantis is in singularis genetivus. How is it then translated with the wandering gods?

In line 69 is written Triviae. Who is that Trivia? If I have understood my teacher correctly Trivia is another name for Diana (?) but Wikipedia mentions a goddess in Roman mythology named Trivia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trivia_(mythology)

In line 70 is written de nomine Phoebi. I wonder why here is used the preposition de and not in as in nomine Patris?

In line 72 is written tuas sortis. Should it not be sortes instead? This seems to differ in different Latin editions.

I notice now that I maybe should read Latin grammar. A Latin teacher said that to improve my Latin that would be something to focus on. Maybe I should start writing in Latin with a friend or here on this forum. I am not sure what to write though. People should really start using Latin more often in written form. Why cannot Latin be thought as a modern language? I think the learning process could be better if we also would learn to write and use Latin. The best latinist in the world right now Reginald Foster would agree on not teaching Latin as a dead language! I would myself want to read or use the language every day. I also try to do that.

 

[Dantius]

errantis and sortis can be explained in the same way: -īs is an alternate form for -ēs in the accusative plural of i-stem 3rd-decl. nouns and adjectives. It's not literally "with the wandering gods", it's literally "and the wandering gods" but a translation might render it as "with".

Yes, Trivia is Diana. It seems from the Wiki article that Trivia started off as her own goddess but eventually became associated with Artemis/Diana.

de nomine Phoebi – "festosque dies de nomine Phoebi" seems to me to suggest that the festivals are named after Phoebus, not just in the name of Phoebus.

I notice now that I maybe should read Latin grammar. A Latin teacher said that to improve my Latin that would be something to focus on. Maybe I should start writing in Latin with a friend or here on this forum. I am not sure what to write though. People should really start using Latin more often in written form. Why cannot Latin be thought as a modern language? I think the learning process could be better if we also would learn to write and use Latin. The best latinist in the world right now Reginald Foster would agree on not teaching Latin as a dead language! I would myself want to read or use the language every day. I also try to do that.

I think reading more about Latin grammar is useful.
As for why Latin is not generally taught as a modern language, it's because Latin is generally taught to enable one to read literature of the great classical (or even medieval) authors. Generally the stuff we write or talk about in everyday usage is completely different than the elevated style of most surviving Latin prose and poetry. It would be like learning how to read Shakespeare or Milton by having conversations with English speakers every day – the style used in conversation would not prepare you for reading Shakespeare and Milton.

 

[AoM]

For de nomine, Horsfall cites:

Romanosque suo de nomine dicet (Aen. 1.277)

quem Magneta vocant patrio de nomine Grai (De Rerum Natura, 6.908)

 

[Symposion]

Why is hanc in 6.85 in accusativus and not in genetivus as in the translation in the Loeb Classical Library?

How do I translate sed non et venisse volent as Yet they shall not also rejoice in their coming in 6.86!?

Should salutis in 6.96 not be in ablativus when it means to safety?

 

[Pacifica]

Why is hanc in 6.85 in accusativus and not in genetivus as in the translation in the Loeb Classical Library?

The translation says "relieve your heart of this care" but the Latin says literally "send this care from your heart": hanc curam is direct object of mitte, hence the accusative.

How do I translate sed non et venisse volent as Yet they shall not also rejoice in their coming in 6.86!?

A literal translation is "but they shall not also wish to have come"; the translator however has rendered the idea in more standard English.

Should salutis in 6.96 not be in ablativus when it means to safety?

I think you meant to say dativus, since the ablativus never means "to". But anyway, no. The genitive is the more normal case to use here in Latin; literally, the Latin says "way of safety", but here, as in many cases, Latin and English just work differently.

On a general note, unless a translation claims to be purposedly absolutely word-for-word, you should not expect it to be so. Most translators will follow the rules and conventions of the English language (or whatever language they're translating into) while translating, and that will require many differences such as those above to occur, because one language doesn't work the same as another.

 

[AoM]

On a general note, unless a translation claims to be purposedly absolutely word-for-word, you should not expect it to be so. Most translators will follow the rules and conventions of the English language (or whatever language they're translating into) while translating, and that will require many differences such as those above to occur, because one language doesn't work the same as another.

Though the literal translation for sed...volent works perfectly fine in English (with some rearranging of what you wrote). I think many translators use that as an excuse, giving them license to change the text to whatever barely captures the sense, or, even worse, to whatever feels right to them at the moment. In the case of the latter, anything becomes fair game (within reason).

 

[Pacifica]

Though the literal translation for sed...volent works perfectly fine in English (with some rearranging of what you wrote).

Ah, what would your version be?

I think many translators use that as an excuse, giving them license to change the text to whatever barely captures the sense, or, even worse, to whatever feels right to them at the moment. In the case of the latter, anything becomes fair game (within reason).

Yes, you are right, some seem to depart from the original for the sake of departing from the original even when it isn't needed. But this matter is difficult because it's a bit subjective, I guess.

 

[AoM]

"...but they will also wish not to have come."

I'm slightly fine with it as long as the sense is captured, but taking such liberties can lead to egregious choices (e.g., Fitzgerald's from book 5).

 

[Symposion]

I meant that I do not know how to translate the sentence "sed non et venisse volent" from Latin into English. How should I proceed? I have a problem understanding the Latin construction of that sentence.

 

[AoM]

What don't you understand about it?

 

[Araneus]

Perhaps if you think of it as sed et non venisse volent. The placement of non before et is perhaps what's most bewildering about it. And note that et here translates as 'also' rather than 'and'.

Or even simpler, sed volent et non venisse.

 

[Symposion]

In 6.104 is used the adjective inopinave. I have found out that there are an adjective inopinatus and one inopinus that both have the same meaning unexpected or unlooked for. Right? Vergilius uses inopinus, -a, -um because of metrics? My professor told us that inopina(ve) is first attested in poetry by Vergilius.

The sentence in 6.108 is a bit weird. The sentence is ire ad conspectum cari genitoris et ora contingat. What does ora contingat mean!? Why is contingat in subjunctive and not in indicative here and some verbs more?

In 6.114 is written viris ultra sortemque senectae. What does men do in this sentence? I just noticed that it is a plural accusative but then again sortem is either a lot or faith so I am still confused. This is again a sentence I somehow seem to find extra difficult to translate as is the case with sed non et venisse volent did somehow confuse me with the word order.

There is a lot of begging in 6.115. Here is written Quin, ut te supplex peterem et tua limina adirem, idem orans mandata dabat. Even the Loeb translator seems to have been confused as the translation is He is was who prayed and charged me humbly to seek you and draw near to your threshold. Vergilius is not that easy to understand. Is this a hysteron proteron? What even is that?

 

[Pacifica]

In 6.104 is used the adjective inopinave. I have found out that there are an adjective inopinatus and one inopinus that both have the same meaning unexpected or unlooked for. Right?

Right.

Vergilius uses inopinus, -a, -um because of metrics?

Well, yes, at least partly, I guess, since inopinatus couldn't fit in the same way.

My professor told us that inopina(ve) is first attested in poetry by Vergilius.

According to the examples found in L&S and the OLD, that seems to be true.

The sentence in 6.108 is a bit weird. The sentence is ire ad conspectum cari genitoris et ora contingat. What does ora contingat mean!?

Ora goes with ad, not with contingat. It's ad conspectus et ora.

Why is contingat in subjunctive and not in indicative here and some verbs more?

Because it's a wish dependent on oro earlier in the passage. Remember unum oro.
"I beg for one thing: [...] that it be granted [me] to go to the sight and face (literally "sights and faces", poetic plurals) of [my] dear father."

In 6.114 is written viris ultra sortemque senectae. What does men do in this sentence? I just noticed that it is a plural accusative but then again sortem is either a lot or faith so I am still confused. This is again a sentence I somehow seem to find extra difficult to translate as is the case with sed non et venisse volent did somehow confuse me with the word order.

Viris here is the accusative plural of vis. The accusative plural of vir is viros.
Viris, although placed before ultra, is one of its objects together with sortem. A more prose-like order would be ultra viris sortemque senectae.
Sortem here means "lot, condition".
A literal translation is "beyong the strength and lot/condition of old age". The idea is that his father endured more than would usually be expected from an old man.

There is a lot of begging in 6.115. Here is written Quin, ut te supplex peterem et tua limina adirem, idem orans mandata dabat. Even the Loeb translator seems to have been confused as the translation is He is was who prayed and charged me humbly to seek you and draw near to your threshold.

Assuming "is" should be "it", that translation looks OK to me. If you need a more literal one, here you are: "Indeed, the same, begging, was giving orders that I, humble, should seek you and go to your thresholds."

Is this a hysteron proteron?

I think so.

What even is that?

Hysteron proteron is when something that logically comes first is mentioned after something that logically comes after it. A more obvious example would be "He died and uttered a last groan": obviously, he must have uttered a last groan before dying, but what came last (he died) is mentioned before what came first (he uttered a last groan).

 

[Dantius]

The famous example of hysteron proteron is moriamur et in media arma ruamus from Aeneid book 2. (let us die and rush into the middle of battle). I haven't seen any other examples as obvious but I think talibus adfata est dictis seque obtulit ultro from book 8 is one (as Venus has to show herself before she can address Aeneas), as is referes ergo haec et nuntius ibis Pelidae genitori, also from book 2 (as one goes as a messenger first, then reports the news once they're arrived)

 

[AoM]

Though Horsfall disagrees about the hysteron proteron:

et tua limina adirem Not, as Au. remarks, hyst.-prot.; the linked verbs describe a compound action, supplication at the Sibyl's shrine.

 

[Symposion]

6:121 What is the Thesea in Quid Thesea, magnum quid memorem Alciden? Why can magnum not refer to Thesea? I do not understand the form Thesea if it refer to Theseus, The greatest King of Athens!

6:126 Should Tros Anchisiade be translated as Trojan son of Anchises or son of Trojan Anchises as in Loeb Classical Library?

6:129 Should gradum in sed revocare gradum not be in plural gradus and not singularis accusativus?

6:133 Why is menti in singularis dativus in Quod si tantus amor menti when the translation is But if such love is in your heart. I think this is not a direct translation but rather quite freely made. Am I correct?

 

[Dantius]

Thesea is accusative singular. Greek nouns in -eus, like Perseus and Theseus take an accusative in -a.
6.126: I would say the first. The Loeb translation is weird to me.
6.129: revocare gradum is an idiom meaning "to retreat", "to return".
6.133: It's a dative of possession. literally "if there is such love to your heart", i.e. "if your heart has such love". I think Pacifica has a guide on the dative of possession so it might help.

 

[Glabrigausapes]

Why can magnum not refer to Thesea?

It very well can; in fact, I prefer it that way.

I do not understand the form Thesea if it refer to Theseus

As the Wise Man says, Thēseā is a Greek accusative in the standard Attic dialect; the latter two vowels are read as a diphthong.

 

[Symposion]

6:134-6:135 Here Vergilius has written "bis nigra videre Tartara, et insano iuvat indulgere labori". Is Tartarus not a 2nd declension masculine noun and not a 1st declension feminine noun!? Is not the Loeb translation into English "and if you are pleased to give rein to the mad endeavour" quite freely done? I would translate this sentence once again in another way.

6:136-6:137 Here Vergilius wrote "Latet arbore opaca aureus et foliis et lento vimine ramus". Once again I disagree with the English translation in Loeb "There lurks in a shady tree a bough, golden leaf and pliant stem". This as it is the bough that is golden. Secondly the leaf should be in plural. 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?

6:144 What is a virga in Vergilius text "et simili frondescit virga metallo."?

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?

6:147 Vergilius wrote "si te fata vocant". It is translated in Loeb in English as "if Fate be calling you". I would translate it rather if fates call you because that is closer to the Classical Latin original.

 

[AoM]

6:134-6:135 Here Vergilius has written "bis nigra videre Tartara, et insano iuvat indulgere labori". Is Tartarus not a 2nd declension masculine noun and not a 1st declension feminine noun!? Is not the Loeb translation into English "and if you are pleased to give rein to the mad endeavour" quite freely done? I would translate this sentence once again in another way.

And don't take most translations seriously when it comes to staying close to the text.

6:136-6:137 Here Vergilius wrote "Latet arbore opaca aureus et foliis et lento vimine ramus". Once again I disagree with the English translation in Loeb "There lurks in a shady tree a bough, golden leaf and pliant stem". This as it is the bough that is golden. Secondly the leaf should be in plural. 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?

Yup. Both are golden.

6:144 What is a virga in Vergilius text "et simili frondescit virga metallo."?

Twig, branch, etc.

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?

Horsfall's note:

"A moment's thought detaches rite from repertum, pace (e.g.) Au., Bell, 293f., EV 4, 441, and despite the alliteration ('both finding and plucking must be done in due solemnity'. Au.) not only rings improbably but does not square with the agreeable accident of the GB's actual discovery. One learns often to take advb. with both partic. and vb. in such cases, but clearly sometimes that is best not done."

6:147 Vergilius wrote "si te fata vocant". It is translated in Loeb in English as "if Fate be calling you". I would translate it rather if fates call you because that is closer to the Classical Latin original.

See above.