Aeneid - Book XI
- Thread starter AoM
- Start date
Having finished translating the book, the only things I remembered in detail (since I first read it 6 years ago) was the very beginning with the Mezentius-trophy and the very end with Turnus giving up his ambush. Funny how the memory works.
And the latter I only remembered because of this construction that my professor kept stressing:
continuoque ineant pugnas et proelia temptent,
ni roseus fessos iam gurgite Phoebus Hibero
tingat equos noctemque die labente reducat. (912-4)
And the latter I only remembered because of this construction that my professor kept stressing:
continuoque ineant pugnas et proelia temptent,
ni roseus fessos iam gurgite Phoebus Hibero
tingat equos noctemque die labente reducat. (912-4)
B
Bitmap
Guest
Because the irrealis is expressed with a present subjunctive?
Yup. Williams also cited:
incumbens umero, spatia et si plura supersint
transeat elapsus prior ambiguumque relinquat. (5.325-6)
et ni docta comes tenuis sine corpore vitas
admoneat volitare cava sub imagine formae,
inruat et frustra ferro diverberet umbras. (6.292-4)
incumbens umero, spatia et si plura supersint
transeat elapsus prior ambiguumque relinquat. (5.325-6)
et ni docta comes tenuis sine corpore vitas
admoneat volitare cava sub imagine formae,
inruat et frustra ferro diverberet umbras. (6.292-4)
Horsfall keeping that crown of having the best commentary.
“Had Aen. in some way shared in the vigil (Con.)? Or was he anxious not to be defiled by the presence of a corpse, before he had fulfilled his vow (Ladewig)? Mercifully, the poet is less troubled by such trivia than some of his editors.”
“Had Aen. in some way shared in the vigil (Con.)? Or was he anxious not to be defiled by the presence of a corpse, before he had fulfilled his vow (Ladewig)? Mercifully, the poet is less troubled by such trivia than some of his editors.”
Horsfall says the expression nil moror is an idiom (and colloquialism) belonging to spoken Latin. It's also in book 5 (nec dona moror), right before Entellus enters the ring against Dares.
"...and I don't give a damn about gifts" definitely gives that moment some oomph.
"...and I don't give a damn about gifts" definitely gives that moment some oomph.
Good commentary overall, as expected.
And now I've finished all his Aeneid commentaries. At this point, I'm wondering if he's still working on the book 1 commentary he mentioned. Though that was over 5 years ago at this point.
Also, this looks pretty interesting from him:
https://www.amazon.com/Epic-Distilled-Studies-Composition-Aeneid/dp/0198758871
And now I've finished all his Aeneid commentaries. At this point, I'm wondering if he's still working on the book 1 commentary he mentioned. Though that was over 5 years ago at this point.
Also, this looks pretty interesting from him:
https://www.amazon.com/Epic-Distilled-Studies-Composition-Aeneid/dp/0198758871
So apparently, ingemuit is the perfect form of both ingemere and ingemiscere.
Virgil never uses the present of the inceptive, but does use the present of the former one time:
Extemplo Aeneae solvuntur frigore membra:
ingemit, et duplicis tendens ad sidera palmas
talia voce refert (1.92-3)
He uses the perfect form six times:
num fletu ingemuit nostro? num lumina flexit? (4.369, Dido talking to herself with Aeneas present)
ter sese attollens cubitoque adnixa levavit,
ter revoluta toro est oculisque errantibus alto
quaesivit caelo lucem ingemuitque reperta. (4.690-2, Dido dying)
Dardanidae, quos ille omnis longo ordine cernens
ingemuit (6.482-3, Aeneas seeing Trojans in the underworld)
ingemuit cari graviter genitoris amore,
ut vidit, Lausus, lacrimaeque per ora volutae (10.789-90, Lausus witnessing Aeneas attack his father, Mezentius)
At vero ut vultum vidit morientis et ora,
ora modis Anchisiades pallentia miris,
ingemuit miserans graviter dextramque tetendit,
et mentem patriae subiit pietatis imago. (10.821-4, Aeneas after fatally wounding Lausus)
utque procul medio iuvenum in clamore furentum
prospexit tristi mulcatam morte Camillam,
ingemuitque deditque has imo pectore voces: (11.838-40, Opis mourning Camilla's death, and about to take vengeance on Arruns)
So I was wondering if there was any point in trying to distinguish the two. Or is there really any difference to distinguish, in English at least? Maybe just 'combining' the two for "began to groan out/over".
Virgil never uses the present of the inceptive, but does use the present of the former one time:
Extemplo Aeneae solvuntur frigore membra:
ingemit, et duplicis tendens ad sidera palmas
talia voce refert (1.92-3)
He uses the perfect form six times:
num fletu ingemuit nostro? num lumina flexit? (4.369, Dido talking to herself with Aeneas present)
ter sese attollens cubitoque adnixa levavit,
ter revoluta toro est oculisque errantibus alto
quaesivit caelo lucem ingemuitque reperta. (4.690-2, Dido dying)
Dardanidae, quos ille omnis longo ordine cernens
ingemuit (6.482-3, Aeneas seeing Trojans in the underworld)
ingemuit cari graviter genitoris amore,
ut vidit, Lausus, lacrimaeque per ora volutae (10.789-90, Lausus witnessing Aeneas attack his father, Mezentius)
At vero ut vultum vidit morientis et ora,
ora modis Anchisiades pallentia miris,
ingemuit miserans graviter dextramque tetendit,
et mentem patriae subiit pietatis imago. (10.821-4, Aeneas after fatally wounding Lausus)
utque procul medio iuvenum in clamore furentum
prospexit tristi mulcatam morte Camillam,
ingemuitque deditque has imo pectore voces: (11.838-40, Opis mourning Camilla's death, and about to take vengeance on Arruns)
So I was wondering if there was any point in trying to distinguish the two. Or is there really any difference to distinguish, in English at least? Maybe just 'combining' the two for "began to groan out/over".
It isn't limited to those two verbs. As a rule, -escere inchoative verbs borrow their perfect from their non-inchoative counterparts. Or, if you look at it another way, you can say that inchoatives don't have perfect forms. I think it's simply because the inchoatives are basically the same verbs as the non-inchoatives with just an inchoative infix added (well, the conjugation can change too), and this inchoative infix can't be added to perfect forms.
B
Bitmap
Guest
That makes sense. Just noticed silescere has no perfect. Though presumably siluit would work?
Oh. Not able to scan?Guess why
B
Bitmap
Guest
That would be the logical analogy ... somehow, dictionaries don't give you a perfect for silescere, but give you one for consilescere (consiluisse).
Yes, the root of the word is ingemesc- which is – v – and cannot be fit in.
Saw where they did another Cambridge green and yellow for Book 11. Kind of a weird choice when they had eight other books to choose from.
I know Gransden's edition is 30 years old, but this seemed a little harsh lol (from the preface):
"Gransden's is the earlier Cambridge green and yellow on book 11, a thin volume of sparse, uneven notes"
I know Gransden's edition is 30 years old, but this seemed a little harsh lol (from the preface):
"Gransden's is the earlier Cambridge green and yellow on book 11, a thin volume of sparse, uneven notes"
Started going through McGill's commentary. It's pretty good so far. He's agreed with Horsfall for the most part, but here's an issue where they disagreed:
___________________huc corpora quisque suorum
more tulere patrum, subiectisque ignibus atris
conditur in tenebras altum caligine caelum.
McGill: "suorum is gen. with corpora; it is not to be taken with patrum in the next line. The periphrasis of corpora + gen. is old (see Skutsch on Enn. Ann. 88-9 corpora sancta | avium) and standard in epic."
Horsfall: "The reader who expects that the obj. of the awaited verb is complete at suorum (it so easily could be! Cf. Liv.22.7.5, 52.6) will be surprised by the enjambement, for the sense will not actually be completed until patrum. To divide suorum and patrum (so e.g. Williams, Gransden; far better, E. Henry, 125) is to play games with the Latin, above all since the verb in 186 eliminates any trace of pause at line-end and there is nothing visible to seduce us into supposing, as we listen, that s. is pronominal, not adjectival."
I guess dividing them is the common view, but McGill's note wasn't that convincing.
___________________huc corpora quisque suorum
more tulere patrum, subiectisque ignibus atris
conditur in tenebras altum caligine caelum.
McGill: "suorum is gen. with corpora; it is not to be taken with patrum in the next line. The periphrasis of corpora + gen. is old (see Skutsch on Enn. Ann. 88-9 corpora sancta | avium) and standard in epic."
Horsfall: "The reader who expects that the obj. of the awaited verb is complete at suorum (it so easily could be! Cf. Liv.22.7.5, 52.6) will be surprised by the enjambement, for the sense will not actually be completed until patrum. To divide suorum and patrum (so e.g. Williams, Gransden; far better, E. Henry, 125) is to play games with the Latin, above all since the verb in 186 eliminates any trace of pause at line-end and there is nothing visible to seduce us into supposing, as we listen, that s. is pronominal, not adjectival."
I guess dividing them is the common view, but McGill's note wasn't that convincing.
I would be very surprised if patrum went with suorum, since more patrum is a pretty natural-seeming phrase, whereas more on its own would be weird. The only way I could understand them being together is if suorum patrum both went with more, but that also seems unlikely.
I instinctively took suorum with corpora. But I haven't looked at the larger context. I could make sense to take it with patrum if we were talking about, say, different ethnic groups each burying their dead in the manner of their respective ancestors.