Reading Cicero - need recommendations

[Callaina]

Okay, this part I found rather confusing in several spots. (Apologies in advance for any stupid blunders; I really did try...)

(16) Sed sic, Scipio, ut avus hic tuus, ut ego, qui te genui, iustitiam cole et pietatem, quae cum magna in parentibus et propinquis tum in patria maxima est; ea vita via est in caelum et in hunc coetum eorum, qui iam vixerunt et corpore laxati illum incolunt locum, quem vides.' Erat autem is splendidissimo candore inter flammas circus elucens. 'Quem vos, ut a Graiis accepistis, orbem lacteum nuncupatis.' Ex quo omnia mihi contemplanti praeclara cetera et mirabilia videbantur. Erant autem eae stellae, quas numquam ex hoc loco vidimus, et eae magnitudines omnium, quas esse numquam suspicati sumus; ex quibus erat ea minima, quae ultima a caelo, citima a terris luce lucebat aliena. Stellarum autem globi terrae magnitudinem facile vincebant. Iam ipsa terra ita mihi parva visa est, ut me imperii nostri, quo quasi punctum eius attingimus, paeniteret.

"But thus, Scipio -- like your grandfather here, like I who beget you -- honor justice and piety [...]*; this life [i.e. a life lived by these principles] is the way into the sky and the assembly of those, who already have lived and, released from their body, dwell in this place that you see." It [i.e. the place that Africanus spoke of] was a circle shining between the flames with a most splendid brilliance. "Which you (as you learned from the Greeks) call the Milky Way." From which all the other splendid and wonderful things appeared to me as I watched. There were stars we never saw from this place [i.e. Earth] and the great sizes of them all, which we never suspected to be; there was the smallest of them which shone from the furthest heaven [all the way] to Earth** with its alien light. And the spheres of the stars easily surpassed the size of the earth. Thus the earth itself now seemed pathetic to me, so that our empire (by which we almost touch its limits)*** dissatisfied me.

*I really couldn't make this out in any coherent way. I don't know what magna is modifying, unless it's an implied pietatem from earlier, and the syntax of the clause as a whole stumped me. "The great piety in (of) your parents and your kindred now in the land", perhaps; but then I'm not sure what maxima est refers to.
** Perseus lists this as a reference under citima, but simply gives citima terris (no preposition). I wasn't sure about its meaning here, either way...
*** Simply my best guess, but I really don't know what punctum eius (its point? its place? its location?) refers to.

 

[Pacifica]

Sed sic, Scipio, ut avus hic tuus, ut ego, qui te genui, iustitiam cole et pietatem
But thus, Scipio -- like your grandfather here, like I who beget you -- honor justice and piety

Begot. Genui is perfect. Perhaps you can get rid of those brackets and of "thus".

quae cum magna in parentibus et propinquis tum in patria maxima est

Cum... tum... serves to introduce two clauses/phrases/words both of which are stated as true, but the emphasis often being on the second one. It can be rendered in a few different ways; "both X and Y", "while X, Y", or "X, and especially Y", and perhaps you'll find others if you look up cum or tum in a dictionary. Here I think I'd say something like "which, while it is important in/towards parents and relatives, is most important in/towards one's fatherland" or perhaps simply "which is important... and most important...".

illum incolunt locum
dwell in this place

Ille = "that" rather than "this".

Ex quo omnia mihi contemplanti praeclara cetera et mirabilia videbantur.
From which all the other splendid and wonderful things appeared to me as I watched.

"As I contemplated everything from it (lit. "from which to me contemplating everything"), all the other things appeared to me splendid and wonderful."

ex quibus erat ea minima, quae ultima a caelo, citima a terris luce lucebat aliena.
there was the smallest of them which shone from the furthest heaven [all the way] to Earth** with its alien light.

Ultima and citima both modify (agreeing in fem. sg. nom.) the heavenly body. "The smallest of which was the one that, farthest from the sky and closest to the earth, shone with a light not of its own (i.e. the moon)".

Iam ipsa terra ita mihi parva visa est, ut me imperii nostri, quo quasi punctum eius attingimus, paeniteret.
Thus the earth itself now seemed pathetic to me, so that our empire (by which we almost touch its limits)*** dissatisfied me.

"Now the earth itself seemed so small to me that I felt sorry about our empire, by which we touch as it were a dot of it".

 

[Callaina]

Begot. Genui is perfect.

Oops; I understood the Latin perfectly well there, but should have looked up the English (I thought "beget" WAS past tense)

Ille = "that" rather than "this".

Aaarrghhh! Sorry, I keep doing that!

"As I contemplated everything from it (lit. "from which to me contemplating everything"), all the other things appeared to me splendid and wonderful."

"From" in what sense -- like "from" the place where he's standing? Or looking "from" the Milky Way to the rest of the sky? Or everything "from" (in) the Milky Way?

"Now the earth itself seemed so small to me that I felt sorry about our empire, by which we touch as it were a dot of it".

Confused. By which we touch what, exactly? (And as if it were a dot of...what?)

 

[Pacifica]

"From" in what sense -- like "from" the place where he's standing? Or looking "from" the Milky Way to the rest of the sky? Or everything "from" (in) the Milky Way?

First option I think.

Confused. By which we touch what, exactly? (And as if it were a dot of...what?)

By which we touch, as it were, a dot of the earth. I.e. the earth seems so small to him that the Roman territory, which takes only as it were a dot of it, seems ridiculous.

 

[Callaina]

First option I think.
By which we touch, as it were, a dot of the earth. I.e. the earth seems so small to him that the Roman territory, which takes only as it were a dot of it, seems ridiculous.

LOL, come to think of it, "like" in contemporary (slang) English usage probably sums up the idea pretty well. "By which we touch, like, a dot of it..."

 

[Pacifica]

LOL, come to think of it, "like" in contemporary (slang) English usage probably sums up the idea pretty well. "By which we touch, like, a dot of it..."

Indeed.

 

[Callaina]

Next part! I quite enjoyed this part (since most of the ideas were familiar from other works I've read...)

(17) Quam cum magis intuerer: 'Quaeso,' inquit Africanus, 'quousque humi defixa tua mens erit? Nonne aspicis, quae in templa veneris? Novem tibi orbibus vel potius globis conexa sunt omnia, quorum unus est caelestis, extimus, qui reliquos omnes complectitur, summus ipse deus arcens et continens ceteros; in quo sunt infixi illi, qui volvuntur, stellarum cursus sempiterni. Cui subiecti sunt septem, qui versantur retro contrario motu atque caelum. Ex quibus summum globum possidet illa, quam in terris Saturniam nominant. Deinde est hominum generi prosperus et salutaris ille fulgor, qui dicitur Iovis; tum rutilus horribilisque terris, quem Martium dicitis; deinde subter mediam fere regionem Sol obtinet, dux et princeps et moderator luminum reliquorum, mens mundi et temperatio, tanta magnitudine, ut cuncta sua luce lustret et compleat. Hunc ut comites consequuntur Veneris alter, alter Mercurii cursus, in infimoque orbe Luna radiis solis accensa convertitur. Infra autem iam nihil est nisi mortale et caducum praeter animos munere deorum hominum generi datos; supra Lunam sunt aeterna omnia. Nam ea, quae est media et nona, Tellus, neque movetur et infima est, et in eam feruntur omnia nutu suo pondera.'

Which [the Earth] as I gazed at even more [i.e. As I gazed at it even longer]: "Please," said Africanus, "how long will your mind be fixed on the earth? Don't you see those things for which you came into space? All things are connected to you [your world?] by nine orbs -- or rather, spheres -- of which one, the furthest, is the celestial [sphere], which surrounds all the others, itself the supreme god enclosing and holding the others; in which are fixed those eternal courses, which are rotated, of the stars. Of its subjects there are seven, which are turned backward with a contrary motion to the heavens;* of which, the highest sphere holds that [planet] which on Earth they call Saturn. Next is the one most fortunate and beneficial to the human race, which is called Jupiter [Jove]; then the one, red and dreadful to [those on] Earth, which you call Mars; then underneath Sol holds all the middle regions**, leader and prince and ruler of the remaining lights, the mind [or soul/guiding spirit?] of the world and the ordering principle***, of such a magnitude, that all things are illuminated and filled with its light. So first Venus, then the course of Mercury, follow this company, and in the lowest orb the Moon [Luna], illuminated by the rays of the sun, is turned. And lower still there is nothing that is not mortal and fallen, except the souls gifted to the human race by the gods; above the Moon all things are eternal. For the one that is central and ninth, Earth, does not move and is lowest, and into it all heavy things are carried by their gravity."

* This seemed to make sense, though I don't know if atque can be used this way -- but no other way of reading it fit.
**Not totally sure on this.
***According to Perseus.

 

[Pacifica]

Nonne aspicis, quae in templa veneris?
Don't you see those things for which you came into space?

Templum, templi = temple.
Quae is in agreement with templa.
"Don't you see into what temples you have come?"

Novem tibi orbibus vel potius globis conexa sunt omnia
All things are connected to you [your world?] by nine orbs -- or rather, spheres --

Hm, tibi doesn't really mean "to you" here; it looks like an ethical dative, often difficult to render in English. Maybe here you can render it by "before you", "as you can see", or maybe "look" or something...

Cui subiecti sunt septem
Of its subjects there are seven

Is it usual to use the noun "subject" this way in English? Because literally in any case it's more like "to which are subjected seven".

qui versantur retro contrario motu atque caelum
which are turned backward with a contrary motion to the heavens
* This seemed to make sense, though I don't know if atque can be used this way -- but no other way of reading it fit.

Yes, atque/ac can mean "as" or "to" in comparisons.
I think I'd say "turn" rather than "are turned".
Technically, caelum is singular. Is there a particular reason why you should say "heavens" rather than "heaven"?

Ex quibus summum globum possidet illa, quam in terris Saturniam nominant. of which, the highest sphere holds that [planet] which on Earth they call Saturn.

It's the contrary. Illa (nom.) is subject and summum globum (acc.) direct object.

Deinde est hominum generi prosperus et salutaris ille fulgor, qui dicitur Iovis
Next is the one most fortunate and beneficial to the human race, which is called Jupiter [Jove]

You've overlooked fulgor.
Iovis is genitive. (Though possibly a freer translation could be accepted, as below too with Mars.)

quem Martium dicitis
which you call Mars

Rather "(that) of Mars". Fulgor is still implied here.

deinde subter mediam fere regionem Sol obtinet
then underneath Sol holds all the middle regions**

Fere = here "more or less" or sim.
Regionem is singular .
"Holds more or less the middle region".

ut cuncta sua luce lustret et compleat.
that all things are illuminated and filled with its light.

Do you have a particular reason to turn this into the passive?

Hunc ut comites consequuntur Veneris alter, alter Mercurii cursus
So first Venus, then the course of Mercury, follow this company

Comites (which is nominative plural, and so can't be going with hunc, masculine singular accusative and representing the sun) refers to the courses. Ut comites = as companions.
Veneris is genitive. Understand cursus there as well.
First the course of Venus, (and) then that of Mercury follow it as companions.

in infimoque orbe Luna radiis solis accensa convertitur.
and in the lowest orb the Moon [Luna], illuminated by the rays of the sun, is turned.

Here again wouldn't it be more usual to use the active "turns" (or perhaps "revolves") in English rather than "is turned"?

Infra autem iam nihil est
And lower still there is nothing

Iam is basically "now" or "already" rather than "still"; when used with a negative it expresses the idea of "no more, no longer..."
Maybe "but" for autem rather than "and" here.
"But lower there is nothing any more..."

caducum
fallen

In this context rather "perishable", "transitory"...

 

[Callaina]

Templum, templi = temple.
Quae is in agreement with templa.
"Don't you see into what temples you have come?"

Apparently it can mean space (as in outer space, the heavens, etc.); in fact that's the first definition given in Perseus, and it made sense to me in the context.
But, if this isn't (as I thought) a clause expressing purpose, then why the subjunctive?

Hm, tibi doesn't really mean "to you" here; it looks like an ethical dative, often difficult to render in English. Maybe here you can render it by "before you", "as you can see", or maybe "look" or something...

Huh -- this is new to me. Thanks, I'll look this up.

Is it usual to use the noun "subject" this way in English? Because literally in any case it's more like "to which are subjected seven".

Yes, like the subjects of a king or of a ruler. But I misread cui as genitive somehow...

I think I'd say "turn" rather than "are turned".
...Here again wouldn't it be more usual to use the active "turns" (or perhaps "revolves") in English rather than "is turned"?

I found this to be a difficult question throughout -- the "turn" vs. "are turned" distinction. How do I know when this is a passive and when this is taking more of a "middle voice" sense -- i.e. is turning itself (especially because it's about a thing we know nothing about, i.e. the heavenly spheres, where either could really be the case...)
For what it's worth, I took the overall sense in the passage to be that the outer sphere was turning (of its own accord) and thus making the other spheres (passively) turn backward with a contrary motion (but not by their own power, rather as a sort of "equal and opposite reaction"); this was my rationale for keeping them in passive.
(Edit: which accords well with the classical model of cosmology, in which the outermost sphere, the Primum Mobile, is the sphere that moves all the other spheres -- though this wasn't fully developed until after Cicero's time...)

Technically, caelum is singular. Is there a particular reason why you should say "heavens" rather than "heaven"?

Yes, that was deliberate; "heaven" in English usually has too many connotations of the Christian heaven, i.e. with angels playing harps and so on.

You've overlooked fulgor.

I have absolutely no clue how I did that. Sorry. (And I thought I'd been careful!)
I think my big issue throughout this part was that I forgot that planet names have to decline.

Fere = here "more or less" or sim.
Regionem is singular .
"Holds more or less the middle region".

Hmmm, it still sounds weird, but maybe it's just weird in the original. Isn't it exactly the middle region (of the seven spheres in question)? Why "more or less..."?

Do you have a particular reason to turn this into the passive?

Gah! No. Though I understood the original as active; I honestly don't know why I put it into passive.

In this context rather "perishable", "transitory"...

Ah, I think I was reading too much of a Christian/Biblical context into that.

Anyway, thanks again for your patience with my ridiculous mistakes!

 

[Pacifica]

Apparently it can mean space (as in outer space, the heavens, etc.); in fact that's the first definition given in Perseus, and it made sense to me in the context.

Ah, ok I didn't know that. They say it's rare, but it makes sense here.

But, if this isn't (as I thought) a clause expressing purpose, then why the subjunctive?

Because it's an indirect question.
It seems you're a bit misunderstanding what a purpose clause is. In a purpose clause, the purpose is in the subjunctive verb, the meaning being "so that one may.../in order to..." Nonne aspicis quae in templa veneris can't possible contain a purpose clause. How could it be? "Don't you see so that you may (in the future) have come into these temples?" It doesn't make sense.

Yes, like the subjects of a king or of a ruler. But I misread cui as genitive somehow...

I suppose it could make sense metaphorically to say that one globe is a king and the other his subjects, but is there really a reason to introduce that metaphor, which isn't present in the Latin, in the translation rather than translating it more literally? But if you thought cui was genitive, I suppose you were actually thinking that subiecti was here used as a noun meaning "subjects".

I found this to be a difficult question throughout -- the "turn" vs. "are turned" distinction. How do I know when this is a passive and when this is taking more of a "middle voice" sense -- i.e. is turning itself (especially because it's about a thing we know nothing about, i.e. the heavenly spheres, where either could really be the case...)
For what it's worth, I took the overall sense in the passage to be that the outer sphere was turning (of its own accord) and thus making the other spheres (passively) turn backward with a contrary motion (but not by their own power, rather as a sort of "equal and opposite reaction"); this was my rationale for keeping them in passive.
(Edit: which accords well with the classical model of cosmology, in which the outermost sphere, the Primum Mobile, is the sphere that moves all the other spheres -- though this wasn't fully developed until after Cicero's time...)

I don't know, but it just seems more natural to me to take them as middle sense here.

Hmmm, it still sounds weird, but maybe it's just weird in the original. Isn't it exactly the middle region (of the seven spheres in question)? Why "more or less..."?

Maybe what is exactly in the middle is the earth (at any rate I know that some thought that, that the earth was in the center of everything), or maybe it's just a way of speaking.

Anyway, thanks again for your patience with my ridiculous mistakes!

Np.

 

[Callaina]

Because it's an indirect question.

Ah -- the light dawns.

It seems you're a bit misunderstanding what a purpose clause is. In a purpose clause, the purpose is in the subjunctive verb, the meaning being "so that one may.../in order to..." Nonne aspicis quae in templa veneris can't possible contain a purpose clause. How could it be? "Don't you see so that you may (in the future) have come into these temples?" It doesn't make sense.

Yes, this is something I was never formally taught (apart from a very basic use with ut) -- so I'm still trying to figure it out. So you're saying that perfect subjunctive refers to the future in a purpose clause? What would be used for a completed past action, then (i.e. "why you have come into these temples") -- pluperfect subjunctive?

To be honest I'm still really struggling with the whole question of how the subjunctive relates to time, in general. Is there a single rule (or set of rules) that explains it?

I suppose it could make sense metaphorically to say that one globe is a king and the other his subjects, but is there really a reason to introduce that metaphor, which isn't present in the Latin, in the translation rather than translating it more literally? But if you thought cui was genitive, I suppose you were actually thinking that subiecti was here used as a noun meaning "subjects".

Yes, exactly. It was the line about summus ipse deus arcens et continens ceteros -- since the outermost sphere was personified, in a way, as a god, it seemed natural to describe the other spheres as its subjects.

 

[Pacifica]

Yes, this is something I was never formally taught (apart from a very basic use with ut) -- so I'm still trying to figure it out. So you're saying that perfect subjunctive refers to the future in a purpose clause?

The perfect subjunctive in a purpose clause would be used with a present or future main verb to refer to a completed action in the future, yes, but it's quite rare.

What would be used for a completed past action, then (i.e. "why you have come into these temples") -- pluperfect subjunctive?

"Why you have come into these temples" would be an indirect question, not a purpose clause, and it would take the perfect subjunctive.

Edit: Or perhaps you mean more like the answer to that question (I came in order to...)?

To be honest I'm still really struggling with the whole question of how the subjunctive relates to time, in general. Is there a single rule (or set of rules) that explains it?

Roughly:

Purpose clauses:

- When the main verb is present or future: almost always present subjunctive; perfect subjunctive if you have a very particular context in which you want to stress the completion of the action (if the state resulting from the action is stated as a purpose rather than the action itself or something... as I said above, this is rare). Examples: Illi praemium promitto ut opus bene peragat = "I promise him a reward so that he should carry out his job well". Propera ut cena parata sit cum adveniet, "Hurry so that the dinner may be ready (have been made ready) when he arrives", but perhaps one might argue that parata was adjectival here... Ire propero ut iam advenerim cum veniet = "I hurry to go so that I may already have arrived when he comes". Though there are probably several other more natural ways to express the same idea (like ut adsim antequam veniat, "so that I may be there before he comes"...), but I had to excogitate something...

- When the main verb is past: take the same explanation as above and substitute "imperfect" and "pluperfect" for "present" and "perfect". Examples: Illi praemium promisi ut opus bene perageret, "I promised him a reward so that he should carry out his job well". Ire properavi ut iam advenissem cum veniret, "I hurried to go so that I might already have arrived when he came".

Indirect questions:

- When the main verb is present or future: present subjunctive if the verb of the question is contemporaneous to the main verb (if the actions are simultaneous). Example: Nescio quid faciat, "I don't know what he's doing (or "does" habitually)". Perfect subjunctive if the action referred to in the question happened (or would have happened if it had actually happened, lol, if it's a yes-no question and the answer is "no") before that of the main verb. Example: Nescio quid fecerit, "I don't know what he did/has done/was doing/had done".

- When the main verb is past: imperfect subjunctive if both actions are simultaneous (example: Nesciebam quid faceret, "I didn't know what he was doing/did"); pluperfect subjunctive if the action of the question is previous (example: Nesciebam quid fecisset, "I didn't know what he had done").

Result clauses:

Since these express facts rather than purposes or questions in someone's mind, they are not so dependent on the tense of the main verb and many more patterns are possible. For example, you can have a past main verb and a result clause in present subjunctive if the result is present now, and vice versa a present main verb and a result clause in the past if something that is generally true caused something in the past.

 

[Callaina]

"Why you have come into these temples" would be an indirect question, not a purpose clause, and it would take the perfect subjunctive.

Edit: Or perhaps you mean more like the answer to that question (I came in order to...)?

I'm not even sure now that I knew what I meant, so never mind.

Thank you -- this is extremely helpful. I think I've been blundering around in the dark a bit when it comes to using the subjunctive, LOL. After reading this, a lot of things make more sense to me.

You really should consider writing a Latin textbook sometime!

 

[Pacifica]

You really should consider writing a Latin textbook sometime!

Oh, lol, I don't think I could make anything better than what already exists, so no need.

 

[Callaina]

Oh, lol, I don't think I could make anything better than what already exists, so no need.

Well, you explain things better than any of my textbooks do

 

[Pacifica]

Well, you explain things better than any of my textbooks do

Really? Thanks.

But it's one thing to answer specific questions here and there; it's another to write a book explaining EVERYTHING (well, at any rate all principal things) in an orderly way.

 

[Imber Ranae]

Result clauses can also use a periphrastic construction with sim/essem and a future participle to refer specifically to a future result. The same is true for indirect questions about the future. Purpose clauses don't do this, however, because they automatically refer to the future (or future in the past) by virtue of their meaning.

 

[Callaina]

Next part:

(18) Quae cum intuerer stupens, ut me recepi: 'Quid hic?' inquam, 'quis est, qui complet aures, tantus et tam dulcis sonus?' 'Hic est,' inquit, 'ille, qui intervallis disiunctus imparibus, sed tamen pro rata parte distinctis, impulsu et motu ipsorum orbium efficitur et acuta cum gravibus temperans varios aequabiliter concentus efficit; nec enim silentio tanti motus incitari possunt, et natura fert, ut extrema ex altera parte graviter, ex altera autem acute sonent. Quam ob causam summus ille caeli stellifer cursus, cuius conversio est concitatior, acuto et excitato movetur sono, gravissimo autem hic lunaris atque infimus; nam terra nona immobilis manens una sede semper haeret complexa medium mundi locum. Illi autem octo cursus, in quibus eadem vis est duorum, septem efficiunt distinctos intervallis sonos, qui numerus rerum omnium fere nodus est; quod docti homines nervis imitati atque cantibus aperuerunt sibi reditum in hunc locum, sicut alii, qui praestantibus ingeniis in vita humana divina studia coluerunt.

As I gazed amazed at them [the spheres], then recovered myself [i.e. my senses]: "What now?" I said, "What is the sound, so great and so sweet, that fills my ears?" "It is," he said, "that which, divided by intervals that are unequal yet separated proportionally, is brought about by the impulse and motion of these very spheres and, tempering high with low, uniformly makes the diverse into harmonious music; for all these motions cannot be carried out in silence, and nature ordains that from one extreme part they sound low; from another, high. By which cause that highest star-bearing path of the heavens, whose revolution is swifter, is moved to [or by?] a high and bright sound, and this lowest sphere of the moon, to a low sound; but the ninth immobile world, remaining in a single spot, always stays fixed, having embraced the central position of the cosmos. And these eight paths, in which there is the same force of the two*, produce seven sounds divided by intervals, which number [i.e. seven] is the central node of all things [i.e. the cause of all things? that which connects all things?]; whereby learned people, having imitated [this music] with strings and voices, discovered it -- returned to this place -- for themselves**; like all who, with eminent and intelligent ones, cultivate in human life the study of [or dedication to] the divine.

*I think he must mean the low and high sounds, but maybe I'm wrong...
**This sounds very weird, but I can't figure out what else reditum could refer to...

 

[Pacifica]

Quae cum intuerer stupens, ut me recepi
As I gazed amazed at them [the spheres], then recovered myself [i.e. my senses]

Ut = "when".

Hic est,' inquit, 'ille
"It is," he said, "that which

Rather "the one which", because we're talking about a sound specifically and not just some unspecified "thing" (in which case it would have been hoc and illud, and not hic and ille in agreement in the masc. with sonus).

varios aequabiliter concentus efficit
uniformly makes the diverse into harmonious music

Varios is in agreement with concentus.

tanti motus
all these motions

Such great motions.

incitari
be carried out

Hm, it isn't really that. "Caused" or "stirred" maybe?

ut extrema ex altera parte graviter, ex altera autem acute sonent
that from one extreme part they sound low; from another, high

Extrema is neuter plural, used as substantive, subject of sonent.

Quam ob causam
By which cause

Too literal, isn't it? "This is why", "wherefore", "therefore" or so.

acuto et excitato movetur sono
is moved to [or by?] a high and bright sound

"With".
Excitatus = loud, shrill (when talking about a sound).

gravissimo
low

This is a superlative. Very low.

terra nona immobilis manens una sede semper haeret
the ninth immobile world, remaining in a single spot, always stays fixed

The earth [which is] the ninth [planet], remaining immobile, always stays fixed in a single spot.

in quibus eadem vis est duorum
in which there is the same strength [virtue? meaning? force?] of two things,
*I wasn't sure what two things he meant: the low and high sounds? Or something else?

I don't know...

qui numerus rerum omnium fere nodus est
which number [i.e. seven] is the central node of all things [i.e. the cause of all things? that which connects all things?]

Something like that which connects all things, I guess.
You forgot fere.

quod docti homines nervis imitati atque cantibus
whereby learned people, having imitated [this music] with strings and voices

It's quod, not quo. So quod is the direct object of imitati: "Which having imitated", i.e. "having imitated this".
Actually you could probably say "imitating" here instead of "having imitated". It sometimes sounds more natural to turn past participles into present ones in translation.

aperuerunt sibi reditum in hunc locum
discovered it -- returned to this place -- for themselves**
**This sounds very weird, but I can't figure out what else reditum could refer to...

Reditum is a noun; reditus, us = a going back, way back...
"Opened for themselves the way back to this place."
By the way, you can't call someone/something that has returned reditum (thinking it's the past participle of redeo), because perfect participles (except those of deponent verbs and a couple more exceptions) have a passive meaning, and since this verb is intransitive, it can't have a passive except impersonal. You can't "go someone/something back", so someone/something can't be "gone back" (in a passive sense; in English you can be gone back but it has an active sense; the person/thing has gone back, it isn't someone/something that has "gone them back".).

alii
all

Others.

praestantibus ingeniis
eminent and intelligent ones

I don't know why you keep mistaking the noun ingenium for an adjective (well, it's the second time you do ).

coluerunt
cultivate

Wrong tense.

 

[Callaina]

Ut = "when".

But there's already an "as" in the sentence, so that sounds weird. "As I gazed, amazed, at the spheres, when I recovered myself..." Wouldn't you need a "then" in English in any case, just to make it flow? "...then when I recovered myself..."

Varios is in agreement with concentus.

I considered that, but it made no sense to me (and still doesn't.) How can something "uniformly make diverse music" (or literally "musics", LOL)? It seems like a contradiction in terms. Doesn't it make more sense to uniformly make a single music out of diverse sounds (though I guess then sonos would need to be implied...)

Extrema is neuter plural, used as substantive, subject of sonent.

Ah, that makes more sense. "The extremes from (of) one part sound low..." etc.

Excitatus = loud, shrill (when talking about a sound).

Well, I know that's what it literally means, but we're talking about the ethereal music of the spheres here, and neither seemed to fit...

The earth [which is] the ninth [planet], remaining immobile, always stays fixed in a single spot.

That does flow rather better. In a sentence like this, though, I find it hard to tell what idea connects most directly to which (e.g. manens referring to immobilis, remaining immobile -- not una sede, remaining in a single spot) when either is possible. Any general tips, or is this just the sort of thing that comes with practice?

It's quod, not quo. So quod is the direct object of imitati: "Which having imitated", i.e. "having imitated this".

That's what I'd thought at first, but I couldn't find a neuter subject around to connect it to (neither the "number" nor the "sound" worked.) Is it just a general "imitating this thing/concept/idea"?

By the way, you can't call someone/something that has returned reditum (thinking it's the past participle of redeo), because perfect participles (except those of deponent verbs and a couple more exceptions) have a passive meaning, and since this verb is intransitive, it can't have a passive except impersonal. You can't "go someone/something back", so someone/something can't be "gone back" (in a passive sense; in English you can be gone back but it has an active sense; the person/thing has gone back, it isn't someone/something that has "gone them back".).

Ah, thanks for the explanation; I'll look out for that.

I don't know why you keep mistaking the noun ingenium for an adjective (well, it's the second time you do ).

No, I knew it was a noun; I just couldn't think of a single word that encapsulated the idea in English. "Genius" seemed a bit strong since I got the feeling he was talking about intelligent and learned people in general, not "one in a million" -- though perhaps I was wrong about that? Anyway, LOL, I do know it's a noun now