Suetonius' Life of Augustus

 

rothbard

Aedilis

  • Aedilis

  • Patronus

Location:
London
From ch. 17:
M. Antonii societatem semper dubiam et incertam reconciliationibusque uariis male focilatam abrupit tandem, et quo magis degenerasse eum a ciuili more approbaret, testamentum, quod is Romae etiam de Cleopatra liberis inter heredes nuncupatis reliquerat, aperiundum recitandumque pro contione curauit. remisit tamen hosti iudicato necessitudines amicosque omnes atque inter alios C. Sosium et T. Domitium tunc adhuc consules.
I take it this means he actually sent them to Antonius, rather than simply spared their lives, although it seems a bit strange. Would you agree?
Bononiensibus quoque publice, quod in Antoniorum clientela antiquitus erant, gratiam fecit coniurandi cum tota Italia pro partibus suis.
Does this mean he thanked them for swearing loyalty to him, or that he exempted them from doing so?
From ch. 16:
Siculum bellum incohauit in primis, sed diu traxit intermissum saepius, modo reparandarum classium causa, quas tempestatibus duplici naufragio et quidem per aestatem amiserat, modo pace facta, flagitante populo ob interclusos commeatus famemque ingrauescentem; donec nauibus ex integro fabricatis ac uiginti seruorum milibus manumissis et ad remum datis portum Iulium apud Baias inmisso in Lucrinum et Auernum lacum mari effecit
Not sure how to reconcile "manumissis" with "ad remum datis". Are we to understand that they were freed on condition they join the navy as oarsmen?
 
 

Dantius

Homo Sapiens

  • Civis Illustris

Location:
in orbe lacteo
He exempted them from doing so, according to my Loeb edition.
Seems he actually sent them.
Your interpretation for the third passage seems to make sense.
 
 

rothbard

Aedilis

  • Aedilis

  • Patronus

Location:
London
I have another question on Suetonius, this time on ch. 31 of the Life of Tiberius:
quaedam aduersus sententiam suam decerni ne questus quidem est. negante eo destinatos magistratus abesse oportere, ut praesentes honori adquiescerent, praetor designatus liberam legationem impetrauit. iterum censente, ut Trebianis legatam in opus noui theatri pecuniam ad munitionem uiae transferre concederetur, optinere non potuit quin rata uoluntas legatoris esset.
Am I correct that this appears to be an exception to the rule that the subject or object of the ablative absolute cannot be the same as the subject of the main clause?
 
 

Dantius

Homo Sapiens

  • Civis Illustris

Location:
in orbe lacteo
I think so.
 
 

Godmy

Sīmia Illūstris

  • Censor

Location:
Bohemia
It might be an interesting discussion on why this is done. That is, I don't believe that even with these silver-age writers it's just completely arbitrary to here and there adhere and not adhere to the rule. My hypothesis is that when the writer wants to state more facts on what the subject is doing and perhaps even more long-winded facts (adjoined by their own subordinate clauses), he might use the ablative absolute in contrast with a more 'tight/compact' sentences where the participles are visibly 'closer' to the subject. (but this hypothesis would have to be tested on all the possible examples in the author's work to hold some ground... which I'm not about to do atm., I'm just randomly generating ideas I consider interesting in some way.)
 
 

Dantius

Homo Sapiens

  • Civis Illustris

Location:
in orbe lacteo
It's not just silver age writers. Caesar breaks the rule as well.

Mediocri spatio relicto Pullo pilum in hostes immittit atque unum ex multitudine procurrentem traicit; quo percusso et exanimato hunc scutis protegunt, in hostem tela universi coniciunt neque dant regrediendi facultatem.

I think there are more examples but that's the one I know off the top of my head.
 
 

Dantius

Homo Sapiens

  • Civis Illustris

Location:
in orbe lacteo
I think in Suetonius' case, it's just to achieve a parallel construction with negante eo (and it sounds better to me).
 
Top