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.
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.