Vita Divi Juli

G

Gnaeus Marcius

Member

Slowly working my way through Suetonius' Vita Divi Juli. I've don't quite understand the grammatical structure of these two sentences:

Sed cum Lucius Domitius consulatus candidatus palam minaretur consulem se effecturum quod praetor nequisset adempturumque ei exercitus

Why is consulem in the accusative? The translations say he would effect as consul what he couldn't as praetor. Why is it 'consulem se' and not 'consulus se' or 'consule se'?

Qua cognita re optimates, quos metus ceperat nihil non ausurum eum in summo magistratu concordi et consentiente collega, auctores Bibulo fuerunt tantundem pollicendi

I'm thrown by both 'quos' and 'eum' being in the accusative. Is quos referring to optimates or auctores? What is acting upon the quos and the eum?
 
B

Bitmap

Guest

Gnaeus Marcius dixit:
Sed cum Lucius Domitius consulatus candidatus palam minaretur consulem se effecturum quod praetor nequisset adempturumque ei exercitus

Why is consulem in the accusative? The translations say he would effect as consul what he couldn't as praetor. Why is it 'consulem se' and not 'consulus se' or 'consule se'?
Click to expand...
It as an AcI. The finite clause would have been "(ego) consul efficiam, quod praetor nequii." - but since minaretur triggers an AcI, it becomes se consulem effecturum (esse).
The ablative absolute, se consule, would only be needed if the term couldn't agree with any other element of the sentence (like minatus est se consule Romam perituram esse), but here, it is the subject of the AcI.

Gnaeus Marcius dixit:
Is quos referring to optimates or auctores?
Click to expand...
optimates.

eum should refer to a person mentioned in the previous sentence. I'm too lazy to look up the passage right now, though.

Gnaeus Marcius dixit:
What is acting upon the quos and the eum?
Click to expand...
What?
 
G

Gnaeus Marcius

Member

So the grammatical composition is more to the effect of 'he would effect a consulship that...', as opposed to 'effect as consul'?
I think maybe the translation threw me on that one.

What I meant to ask with the second one is which verb is acting upon both words. It can't be that metus ceperat both quos (optimates) and eum (Caesar), right? Why not they were gripped by the fear that is nihil non ausurum?
 
B

Bitmap

Guest

Gnaeus Marcius dixit:
So the grammatical composition is more to the effect of 'he would effect a consulship that...', as opposed to 'effect as consul'?
I think maybe the translation threw me on that one.
Click to expand...
No. The grammatical composition means exactly "he (se) would effect (effecturum) as consul (consulem)".

Gnaeus Marcius dixit:
What I meant to ask with the second one is which verb is acting upon both words. It can't be that metus ceperat both quos (optimates) and eum (Caesar), right? Why not they were gripped by the fear that is nihil non ausurum?
Click to expand...
eum ausurum (esse) is an AcI, again. It is triggered by the phrase metus ceperat.
 
Pacifica

Pacifica

grammaticissima

  • Aedilis
Location:
Belgium
quos metus ceperat nihil non ausurum eum in summo magistratu concordi et consentiente collega


Fairly literally: "whom fear had seized that [there would be] nothing he wouldn't dare in the highest magistracy with a like-minded and agreeing colleague"
 
john abshire

john abshire

Well-Known Member

  • Patronus
Pacifica dixit:
quos metus ceperat nihil non ausurum eum in summo magistratu concordi et consentiente collega


Fairly literally: "whom fear had seized that [there would be] nothing he wouldn't dare in the highest magistracy with a like-minded and agreeing colleague"
Click to expand...
What noun does quos refer to?
I think it must be masculine and singular, and is what “fear seized” (It is the direct object of ceperat) ?
Edit;I see where you said quos is the direct object of ceperat (I just saw, reread) above
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top