Assorted questions about the Aeneid (Books I, II, IV, VI)

aegor

magister

  • Civis Illustris

I apologize for the question dump in advance.

Book I:

ll. 160-1: quibus ominis ab alto/ frangitur inque sinus scindit sese unda reductos.

What on earth does in sinus reductos mean? I remember it puzzling me at university, and the few commentators I have access to at the moment also seem divided about whether it refers to the topography of the bay or the structure of the waves.

ll. 505-6: tum foribus divae, media testudine templi,/ saepta armis solioque alte subnixa resedit.

I am confused about the imagery here. It seems to suggest Dido is in the middle of the doorway yet also the middle of the temple sitting on a throne. I have not heard of any temple layout like that.

ll. 551-4: The entire construction involves a string of infinitives dependent on liceat, but then a protasis followed by a purpose clause. I assume that the syntax is poetic, since I understand the purpose clause to be the apodosis, with the ut (in sense) introducing the entire conditional. Is this correct?

l. 577: What is the meaning of et in this line? I cannot make sense of its connection to the previous statement without construing it as something like vel.


Book II:

l. 227: Should I construe the first -que as conjoining petunt and teguntur or pedibus and orbe? I know this is trivial, so perhaps my bigger question is whether there are true standards in use of conjunctions (e.g. should -que...-que typically be construed as a pair, versus, say et...-que?)

l. 234: Is there a distinction between muri and moenia? Generally, I mean. Lewis and Short is not too helpful. Specifically, some commentators have suggested that moenia can also refer to buildings attached to or encircled by the wall.

l. 292: etiam hac defensa fuissent. What is the sense of etiam here? Also, is defensa fuissent a variant of defensa essent? Was using the pluperfect instead of the imperfect of sum in the pluperfect passive really that acceptable, even when there is no way to construe the participle as an adjective versus true perfect participle?

l. 579: Virtually the same question as in line 227. Should the first -que (coniugiumque) be construed as joining the entire clause to the previous one or as polysyndeton with the other objects of videbit?
2

Book IV:

l. 210: inania murmura miscent. Is murmura nominative, retaining animos from the previous clause, or accusative, with ignes being the implied subject?

l. 273: nec super ipse tua moliris laude laborem. I know the line of of questionable authenticity, but the grammar still is uncertain to me. Is super here adverbial? = "moreover?" Also, is laude ablative of cause?

l. 308: What should I do with crudeli funere? I cannot tell what the sense is. Some sort of ablative of manner? Attendant circumstances? I do not even know whether I should take it as "funeral," "death," or "destruction."

l. 311: My text (that my students will be using) has Quid, si... Some others appear to separate quid, with the sense that it refers to the previous questions: "Why [would you do these things, etc.]?" How do I make sense of it idiomatically with the conditional?

l. 704: ...omnis et una/ dilapsus calor... Is the et here joining this clause to the previous clause (i.e. "and all the warmth slipped away at the same time") or joining omnis et una, with asyndeton between the clauses ("the warmth, all of it and at the same time, slipped away")?


Book VI:

l. 453: Is qui short for aliqui, itself a substitute for aliquis? If not, what on earth is it doing?

l. 470: Is there a particular reason that stet is in the present? We would normally expect staret for the present contrafactual, correct? Or am I misunderstanding the condition?

l. 473: Is illi going with pristinus?

l. 858: Why is Gallum rebellem singular? Is it referring to Viridomarus specifically and by extension to all Gauls?

l. 880: non illi se quisquam impune tulisset/ obvius armato, seu cum pedes iret in hostem seu...

Is this a common use of cum? I suppose it is idiomatic: "whether when... or when...," but it still seems a little odd. Am I understanding it correctly when I simply take it as introducing a circumstantial cum clause that is just restating the condition? The cum does not seem necessary.



Many thanks in advance for any help on any of these.
 

AoM

nulli numeri

  • Civis Illustris

Here's the questions for 1 and 2. I'll look into 4 and 6 in a few.

quibus ominis ab alto/ frangitur inque sinus scindit sese unda reductos.

What on earth does in sinus reductos mean? I remember it puzzling me at university, and the few commentators I have access to at the moment also seem divided about whether it refers to the topography of the bay or the structure of the waves.
Yup. There seems to be a split. Ganiban: “sinus can be taken either as 1) “curves of the shore,” “bays”; or 2) “ripples” of the water... In either case, the sinus are “receding” (reductos).”

Personally, I take the latter interpretation.

tum foribus divae, media testudine templi,/ saepta armis solioque alte subnixa resedit.

I am confused about the imagery here. It seems to suggest Dido is in the middle of the doorway yet also the middle of the temple sitting on a throne. I have not heard of any temple layout like that.
Ganiban: “the fores are the doors of the shrine at the back of the main hall, which has an arched or vaulted roof (testudine).”

Conington/Nettleship: “The simplest way of reconciling “foribus” and “media” is to suppose that Dido sat in the centre of the entrance; the “testudo” (vaulted roof) extending over the whole building.”

Williams: “Foribus divae refers to the inner sanctuary of the goddess, where her statue would be...”

The entire construction involves a string of infinitives dependent on liceat, but then a protasis followed by a purpose clause. I assume that the syntax is poetic, since I understand the purpose clause to be the apodosis, with the ut (in sense) introducing the entire conditional. Is this correct?
Williams: “The order is ut Italiam, si datur . . . tendere, laeti . . . petamus.” And I believe the liceat clause is the apodosis.

What is the meaning of et in this line? I cannot make sense of its connection to the previous statement without construing it as something like vel.
There’s no et in 527. What line did you mean?

Should I construe the first -que as conjoining petunt and teguntur or pedibus and orbe? I know this is trivial, so perhaps my bigger question is whether there are true standards in use of conjunctions (e.g. should -que...-que typically be construed as a pair, versus, say et...-que?)
petunt and teguntur.

Is there a distinction between muri and moenia? Generally, I mean. Lewis and Short is not too helpful. Specifically, some commentators have suggested that moenia can also refer to buildings attached to or encircled by the wall.
Line 234, right? And those commentators are right.

etiam hac defensa fuissent. What is the sense of etiam here? Also, is defensa fuissent a variant of defensa essent? What using the pluperfect instead of the imperfect of sum in the pluperfect passive really that acceptable, even when there is no way to construe the participle as an adjective versus true perfect participle?
Servius: etiam multi distinguunt, ut sit ‘adhuc’, ut “etiam currus”, “etiam arma tenentem”: intellegunt enim, eum ostendere voluisse, Troiam voluntate divina certo tempore esse defensam, et nunc, si salutem tenere per fata potuisset, ipsius quoque dextera potuisse defendi: sed melius est ‘etiam hac’, ut et particeps gloriae sit Aeneas, et Hector vitet superbiam. quidam ‘etiam’ pro ‘denique’ vel ‘postremo’ accipiunt.

As for fuissent, Ganiban says the condition is mixed contrary-to-fact, but doesn’t comment on the word specifically. Besides being necessary for scansion, it is something you see in the early Latin writers.

Virtually the same question as in line 227. Should the first -que (coniugiumque) be construed as joining the entire clause to the previous one or as polysyndeton with the other objects of videbit?
None of the commentaries I have say anything about it. Either works, but I may be partial to the latter.
 
 

Dantius

Homo Sapiens

  • Civis Illustris

Location:
in orbe lacteo
As for fuissent, Ganiban says the condition is mixed contrary-to-fact, but doesn’t comment on the word specifically. Besides being necessary for scansion, it is something you see in the early Latin writers.
And late Latin writers. (and, more rarely, even Augustan writers like Livy).
 
 

Dantius

Homo Sapiens

  • Civis Illustris

Location:
in orbe lacteo
I've tried to answer these as best I can.
l. 210: inania murmura miscent. Is murmura nominative, retaining animos from the previous clause, or accusative, with Iuppiter being the implied subject?
The subject is "caeci ignes" (it can't be Jupiter, because "miscent" is plural). The fires (i.e. lightning) terrify people and raise empty murmurs

l. 273: nec super ipse tua moliris laude laborem. I know the line of of questionable authenticity, but the grammar still is uncertain to me. Is super here adverbial? = "moreover?" Also, is laude ablative of cause?
Perhaps "super tua laude" is a prepositional phrase. I'm not sure because I can't really figure out the meaning of the line either.

l. 308: What should I do with crudeli funere? I cannot tell what the sense is. Some sort of ablative of manner? Attendant circumstances? I do not even know whether I should take it as "funeral," "death," or "destruction."
moritura crudeli funere = About to die (with/in) a cruel death, essentially. morte mori appears as "to die a death" sometimes, I suppose this is the same construction. I'd call it manner, I guess.

l. 311: My text (that my students will be using) has Quid, si... Some others appear to separate quid, with the sense that it refers to the previous questions: "Why [would you do these things, etc.]?" How do I make sense of it idiomatically with the conditional?
The apodosis is "quid Troia per undosum peteretur classibus aequor", with "quid" in the sense of "why"? (i.e. why would Troy be headed towards through wavy/tempestuous water?)


l. 704: ...omnis et una/ dilapsus calor... Is the et here joining this clause to the previous clause (i.e. "and all the warmth slipped away at the same time") or joining omnis et una, with asyndeton between the clauses ("the warmth, all of it and at the same time, slipped away")?
the first interpretation seems more likely.



l. 453: Is qui short for aliqui, itself a substitute for aliquis? If not, what on earth is it doing?
The grammar of that sentence is rather tricky to translate into English. "qui" is "he who". Here's Aurifex's translation:
"whom as soon as the Trojan hero stood next to and recognized obscure through the shadows, [such] as [he sees] who in the beginning of the month sees or thinks he has seen the moon rise through the clouds, he shed tears..."
"qualem" goes with "lunam", almost with an implied "talem" in the main clause. It's hard to explain.

l. 470: Is there a particular reason that stet is in the present? We would normally expect staret for the present contrafactual, correct? Or am I misunderstanding the condition?
Present is sometimes used for imperfect in these conditionals in early Latin and poetry.

l. 473: Is illi going with pristinus?
"pristinus" seems to be going with "coniunx" (her old spouse), and "illi" seems dative, referring to Dido.

l. 858: Why is Gallum rebellem singular? Is it referring to Viridomarus specifically and by extension to all Gauls?
Singular names of peoples can be used collectively, "Romanus" for "the Romans". cf. Livy book 2:
Fusis Auruncis, victor tot intra paucos dies bellis Romanus promissa consulis fidemque senatus exspectabat.
Here "Romanus" refers to the plebeians as a whole.

l. 880: non illi se quisquam impune tulisset/ obvius armato, seu cum pedes iret in hostem seu...

Is this a common use of cum? I suppose it is idiomatic: "whether when... or when...," but it still seems a little odd. Am I understanding it correctly when I simply take it as introducing a circumstantial cum clause that is just restating the condition? The cum does not seem necessarily.
I think you've got it right.
 

AoM

nulli numeri

  • Civis Illustris

l. 273: nec super ipse tua moliris laude laborem. I know the line of of questionable authenticity, but the grammar still is uncertain to me. Is super here adverbial? = "moreover?" Also, is laude ablative of cause?
Both Williams and O’Hara point out that it’s interpolation suggested by 233, and the former suggests that it be omitted.

Kline’s translation: “and won’t exert yourself for your own fame...”

l. 308: What should I do with crudeli funere? I cannot tell what the sense is. Some sort of ablative of manner? Attendant circumstances? I do not even know whether I should take it as "funeral," "death," or "destruction."
Either means or manner.

l. 880: non illi se quisquam impune tulisset/ obvius armato, seu cum pedes iret in hostem seu...

Is this a common use of cum? I suppose it is idiomatic: "whether when... or when...," but it still seems a little odd. Am I understanding it correctly when I simply take it as introducing a circumstantial cum clause that is just restating the condition? The cum does not seem necessarily.
The only note I could find on the line (881):

Conington/Nettleship: “Instead of repeating “cum,” Virg. has chosen to express himself differently, as if the doubt expressed by “seu” were about the fact of Marcellus fighting on horseback.”
 

aegor

magister

  • Civis Illustris

Thank you for the help!

There’s noetin 527. What line did you mean?
I mean line 577. The OP has been corrected.


The grammar of that sentence is rather tricky to translate into English. "qui" is "he who". Here's Aurifex's translation:
The translation makes sense. I suppose what threw me off is that both the implied antecedent (is) and the main verb (videt) need to be supplied.


"pristinus" seems to be going with "coniunx" (her old spouse), and "illi" seems dative, referring to Dido.
Of course. I suppose I could have phrased that better. Is illi going with pristinus coniunx ("the former spouse for that one," i.e. "her former spouse") or something else (e.g. respondet curis) in the clause?
 
 

Dantius

Homo Sapiens

  • Civis Illustris

Location:
in orbe lacteo
It seems like it's going with respondet.
 
Top