Martini Cromeri ex quinto libro de origine & rebus gestis Polonorum nonnulli loci dubii

Matthaeus

Vemortuicida strenuus

  • Civis Illustris

  • Patronus

1628866310218.png


Eas nuptias Sbigneus non modo non cohonestavit, sed pene defoedavit & interturbavit, si eventus conatui respondisset.

Why perfect indicative in the apodosis and pluperfect subjunctive in the protasis?
 

Matthaeus

Vemortuicida strenuus

  • Civis Illustris

  • Patronus

1628868368363.png


Abbati praeterea & monachis non contemnenda dant munera principum suorum nomine: exponunt quid veniant, quidve postulent.

Just making sure here that these verbs after quid are in a colloquial register, sort of like in Cic. In Cat. I quid taces?
"They explain why they're coming or what they're demanding."
Am I right in thinking thus?
 

Pacifica

grammaticissima

  • Civis Illustris

  • Patrona

View attachment 15752

Eas nuptias Sbigneus non modo non cohonestavit, sed pene defoedavit & interturbavit, si eventus conatui respondisset.

Why perfect indicative in the apodosis and pluperfect subjunctive in the protasis?
The fact that he paene defoedavit et interturbavit the wedding was real (hence the indicative) but he didn't quite succeed—he only would have si eventus conatui respondisset (hence the subjunctive).
View attachment 15753

Abbati praeterea & monachis non contemnenda dant munera principum suorum nomine: exponunt quid veniant, quidve postulent.

Just making sure here that these verbs after quid are in a colloquial register, sort of like in Cic. In Cat. I quid taces?
"They explain why they're coming or what they're demanding."
Am I right in thinking thus?
I don't know how colloquial it is—I've never considered the question, to be frank—but you've got the meaning right.
 

Matthaeus

Vemortuicida strenuus

  • Civis Illustris

  • Patronus

1628939524803.png


Sed viderit Dlugossus, ne alius ille sit Miezislaus, nempe Boleslai tertii filius, cuius diploma illud fuerit.
Should I interpret this as future perfect indicative or perfect subjunctive? How do you understand this?
 

Matthaeus

Vemortuicida strenuus

  • Civis Illustris

  • Patronus

1628939971107.png


Huic sententiae facile omnes assensi sunt. & movebat illud quoque plurimos, quod sacrum Paschae tempus pro foribus aderat, etc...

Literally "at the door", right? But figuratively speaking, something like "Easter is just around the corner", "approaching"?
 
  • Like
Reactions: LCF

Matthaeus

Vemortuicida strenuus

  • Civis Illustris

  • Patronus

1628940670427.png


What in the hell is that word??? :D
 

Matthaeus

Vemortuicida strenuus

  • Civis Illustris

  • Patronus

1628941220610.png


De Secechi crudelitate eos queri: eum ne plus pateretur posse, quam ipse sibi sumat princeps: ne omnium voluntates propter unum hominem, qui dominatum omnem ad se transutilisset, pergat offendere.

This leaves me baffled. Is there an error?
 

Matthaeus

Vemortuicida strenuus

  • Civis Illustris

  • Patronus

1628942187664.png


Ad Grezum iam Boemi pervenerant, cum subito murmure & fremitu castra complentur, ad iniustum se bellum et contra cognatos et confoederatos duci: minime necessaria expeditione: nec minoribus propemodum, quam in quos eant Polonos, incommodis se ab avaro principe suo confici.

What's the function of this relative pronoun here? Seems completely unnecessary to me. And by the way, would it also have been correct to write quam ut eant in Polonos?

... and, in like manner, that they were being weakened with no lesser troubles, than by going to the Poles(?), by their greedy prince
 

Matthaeus

Vemortuicida strenuus

  • Civis Illustris

  • Patronus

1628943527720.png


Quem Boleslaus princeps, collaudatum pro meritis et virtute, aurea manu donavit.

Any idea what "a golden hand" could be? :D
 

Pacifica

grammaticissima

  • Civis Illustris

  • Patrona

View attachment 15766

Sed viderit Dlugossus, ne alius ille sit Miezislaus, nempe Boleslai tertii filius, cuius diploma illud fuerit.
Should I interpret this as future perfect indicative or perfect subjunctive? How do you understand this?
The question is disputed among grammarians.
View attachment 15767

Huic sententiae facile omnes assensi sunt. & movebat illud quoque plurimos, quod sacrum Paschae tempus pro foribus aderat, etc...

Literally "at the door", right? But figuratively speaking, something like "Easter is just around the corner", "approaching"?
Yes.
View attachment 15771

What in the hell is that word??? :D
Copias.
View attachment 15772

De Secechi crudelitate eos queri: eum ne plus pateretur posse, quam ipse sibi sumat princeps: ne omnium voluntates propter unum hominem, qui dominatum omnem ad se transutilisset, pergat offendere.

This leaves me baffled. Is there an error?
No. It's an indirect command: "He should not let him have more power..."
What's the function of this relative pronoun here?
It's the object of the preposition in. "The poles against whom they were going."
And by the way, would it also have been correct to write quam ut eant in Polonos?
It would mean something different.
View attachment 15777

Quem Boleslaus princeps, collaudatum pro meritis et virtute, aurea manu donavit.

Any idea what "a golden hand" could be? :D
Maybe a figurative expression for great generosity?
 
Last edited:

Pacifica

grammaticissima

  • Civis Illustris

  • Patrona

But isn't the quam comparative?
It is in both case, but the meanings of the constructions are different (and the second one would hardly make sense):

nec minoribus propemodum, quam in quos eant Polonos, incommodis se ab avaro principe suo confici = (they said) that they were being afflicted by their greedy leader with hardly lesser harm than the Poles against whom they were marching.

nec minoribus propemodum, quam ut eant in Polonos, incommodis se ab avaro principe suo confici = (they said) that they were not being aflicted... with almost too little harm to march against the Poles.
 

Matthaeus

Vemortuicida strenuus

  • Civis Illustris

  • Patronus

Ah ok, so it's comparing se and Polonos.
The question is disputed among grammarians.
Do you know what type of subjunctive this is? It might as well have been videat, nonne?
Seems kinda inconsistent as there's viderit ... sit ... fuerit.
Perfect, present, perfect.
 

Pacifica

grammaticissima

  • Civis Illustris

  • Patrona

Ah ok, so it's comparing se and Polonos.
Yes.
Do you know what type of subjunctive this is?
If it is subjunctive, it's jussive.
It might as well have been videat, nonne?
In theory yes, except that viderit is more common, I think.
Seems kinda inconsistent as there's viderit ... sit ... fuerit.
Perfect, present, perfect.
No really... "Let him see (I leave it to him to decide) if it isn't that other guy whose diploma it was."
 

Pacifica

grammaticissima

  • Civis Illustris

  • Patrona

As already said...
 

Matthaeus

Vemortuicida strenuus

  • Civis Illustris

  • Patronus

1629110696709.png


Subdiderunt colla iugo maiores nostri, suis magis quam Polonorum armis victi, cum civili & parricidiali bello mutuo se aflixissent, & alii contra alios Polonorum opem, suo iuxta ac adversariorum malo, implorassent: hostes experti, quos in auxilium advocarant.

Surely this is either dative singular of expers, but what does it modify, bello or malo? or it's plural of expertus.
So it would rather be "experienced enemies"?
 

Matthaeus

Vemortuicida strenuus

  • Civis Illustris

  • Patronus

1629111344614.png


Illi nobis servierint, nobisque militaverint, quae nos dudum ipsis praestitimus, si vos volueritis.

Sorry, question regarding the subjunctive mood again: is this optative here?
Like, "if you guys want, let them serve us and make war for us, things we've proved to themselves a while ago"?
 

Matthaeus

Vemortuicida strenuus

  • Civis Illustris

  • Patronus

1629111941731.png


Ad eamque rem operam suam pollicetur: cetera quietos esse iubet.

Accusative of respect?
 

Matthaeus

Vemortuicida strenuus

  • Civis Illustris

  • Patronus

1629118924206.png


Forte fortuna optatam eis occasionem obtulit.
Isn't that a little tautological?
 
Top