What kind of infinitve and what's up with the relative pronoun? Aeneid Bk II, Line 347.

[lat192]

Hello,
The text reads: quos ubi confertos audere in proelia vidi

1. I'm wondering how the infinitive is being used here. The only possible solution I could find is from
A&G 461, "many adjectives take the infinitive in poetry.". This would make audere dependent on confertos. That would read as "gathered to be bold in battle", which is fine (if you agree with my grammatical solution), but then...

2. I'm wondering why quos instead of eos. Is eos implied, i.e. "those who"? Or else sunt is implied with confertos, right? Then it would read "I saw who was gathered to be bold in battle". But quos by itself without either eos or sunt implied? I don't know what to do with that.

Thanks!

 

[Pacifica]

Audere is part of an accusative-and-infinitive clause dependent on vidi: "When I saw that they, thickly packed, were daring (to venture) into battle."

I'm trying to stay fairly literal so as to show you how the Latin grammar works, but audere in proelia is a bit difficult to translate literally. There isn't really a verb like "to venture" implied, but the idea is that they were daring or bold "for" or "towards" battle, i.e. they were ready, bold enough to go into battle.

Quos is what's called a connective relative. In Latin, sentences sometimes start with a relative pronoun where it wouldn't normally be done in English. It's a way to create a connection and "flow" between sentences. Literally, quos ubi vidi is "whom when I saw...", but that's equivalent, in more normal English, to "(and/but) when I saw them..." You could have eos instead of quos (not both at the same time) and the sentence would still be correct and mean overall the same thing; but it just wouldn't have the same "connectedness" with what precedes.

There is no way sunt could be implied with confertos, since confertos is accusative. If sunt were implied, it would be nominative.

"I saw who was..." would require an entirely different construction (an indirect question).

 

[lat192]

Audere is part of an accusative-and-infinitive clause dependent on vidi: "When I saw that they, thickly packed, were daring (to venture) into battle."

I'm trying to stay fairly literal so as to show you how the Latin grammar works, but audere in proelia is a bit difficult to translate literally. There isn't really a verb like "to venture" implied, but the idea is that they were daring or bold "for" or "towards" battle, i.e. they were ready, bold enough to go into battle.

Quos is what's called a connective relative. In Latin, sentences sometimes start with a relative pronoun where it wouldn't normally be done in English. It's a way to create a connection and "flow" between sentences. Literally, quos ubi vidi is "whom when I saw...", but that's equivalent, in more normal English, to "(and/but) when I saw them..." You could have eos instead of quos (not both at the same time) and the sentence would still be correct and mean overall the same thing; but it just wouldn't have the same "connectedness" with what precedes.

There is no way sunt could be implied with confertos, since confertos is accusative. If sunt were implied, it would be nominative.

"I saw who was..." would require an entirely different construction (an indirect question).

I'm assuming by "accusative-and-infinitive clause" you mean what is also known as an indirect statement?

 

[Pacifica]

Yes.

 

[lat192]

Yes.

That was very helpful. Thank you.

 

[AoM]

Worth noting that Mynors prints ardere, and Horsfall follows.

And, in classic Horsfall fashion, he calls audere "decidedly pallid by comparison".