Si ipse tantarum rerum gloria non accenditur, num......

[David Fields]

"Si ipse tantarum rerum gloria non accenditur, num Ascanio filio pater regnum invidet?

LLPSI Roma Aeterna, Caput XL, lines 78-80.

I have been working on the sentence all afternoon, and want to see if I got it somewhat correct.
Jupiter is telling Mercury to tell Aeneas to get out of Dodge (or, Carthage, actually).

More literally: If Aeneas (ipse) is not being inflamed by so much/many things of glory, the father (Aeneas) begrudges the kingdom/kingship to his son?

Less literally: Jupiter is saying: If Aeneas is content with being a dud, then he deprives his son of a great future?

First, I was having trouble with the verb "invideo"--the idea that seeing into someone is bad in........ some certain way. "Evil eye", "envy". In Cassell's I found "begrudge", and thought it might fit, but I still can't say I understand well the idea/constructions contained in the verb.

Secondly, I wrestled with the "num". As I put the conditional if/then statement above, the answer seems "yes" (nonne). But since Jupiter wants the answer to be "no", or the fates compel it to be "no", or Jupiter is stating something he knows contrary to fact, the word used is "num"?

The initial "Si" can be interpreted as an "even if"?

 

[Pacifica]

by so much/many things of glory

You've got the grammar backwards. Gloria is ablative, so that's where the "by" should be. Tantarum rerum is genitive, so that's where the "of" should be.

Tantus usually means "so great", "as great", "such great", and keeps that meaning in the plural. Although it came to mean "so many" later, that is not its classical meaning. "So many" is tot.

the father (Aeneas) begrudges the kingdom/kingship to his son?

then he deprives his son of a great future?

Why not make this a regular question with "does he..."?

First, I was having trouble with the verb "invideo"--the idea that seeing into someone is bad in........ some certain way. "Evil eye", "envy". In Cassell's I found "begrudge", and thought it might fit, but I still can't say I understand well the idea/constructions contained in the verb.

My theory is that the idea may have been originally that of seeing something in someone, then of seeing in someone something that you want for yourself, hence to envy them that thing, or of seeing something that you simply don't want to be there even if you don't necessarily want it for yourself. Or the direct object could have come from the idea of casting the evil eye on someone with respect to a particular thing that they have or might come to have.

Secondly, I wrestled with the "num". As I put the conditional if/then statement above, the answer seems "yes" (nonne). But since Jupiter wants the answer to be "no", or the fates compel it to be "no", or Jupiter is stating something he knows contrary to fact, the word used is "num"?

Num often conveys a nuance of disbelief or indignation, like "really...?" ,"can it really be that..."? Here Jupiter is surprised and/or indignant at the idea that Aeneas may want to deprive his son of a kingdom.

Nonne (which is simply non + -ne) is used in negative questions like "does... not?" etc. (E.g. Nonne vis rex esse? Don't you want to be a king?).

 

[David Fields]

Thank you, Pacifica. As usual, I appreciate the precision of your corrections. The correct reading of "tantarum rerum gloria" is just what I am trying to do on this reading through of Pars 2--not just "sort of getting the meaning". If Aeneas is not inspired (being inflamed) by the glory of such great things....

invideo: yes, yes. Thanks, you explain it clearly. But I am still wresting, so far, with locking the idea in my mind: that I am looking into someone, seeing what they want, and want to have it instead of them having it. I will work on it.

Orberg has a similar sentence from my OP just a few sentences later. Mercury to Aeneas: Si te non movet tanta gloria futura, at repice Ascanium filium, cui regnum Italiae debetur! Even if such great future glory does not inspire you, But! look at your son, Ascanius, to whom the kingdom of Italy is owed.

With the first sentence, I saw the "Si" and tried to make it a conditional sentence, ignoring the question mark--as you noted. When I later read the second sentence, I could see my mistake, because the "at" clearly moves the sentence in a different direction. Now I think I see the construction.

So...

The first sentence from Orberg is similar to the original (Pharr): Si nulla ascendit tantarum gloria rerum nec super ipse sua molitur laude laborem, Ascanione pater Romanas invidet arces?

If the glory of such great things does not inspire (him), nor for himself (inspire) him to endeavor to accomplish, by his repute, the task.....

(Is "begrudge" too soft a word for the coming "invidet" ? After noting Aeneas is phlegmatic, and derelict of duty, is an irritated Jupiter making an accusation?

The father maliciously denies the Roman fortresses to Ascanius? (With the -ne tacked onto his son's name, for emphasis)

 

[Pacifica]

Even if such great future glory does not inspire you, But! look at your son, Ascanius, to whom the kingdom of Italy is owed.

"But" doesn't really work that way. I know you're translating literally here but I might suggest "still" or "nevertheless" instead, which makes more sense to convey the idea.

Si nulla accendit tantarum gloria rerum nec super ipse sua molitur laude laborem, Ascanione pater Romanas invidet arces?

If the glory of such great things does not inspire (him), nor for himself (inspire) him to endeavor to accomplish, by his repute, the task.....

Ipse is nominative, so it isn't the object of accendit. It's the new subject of a new clause: "and if he himself does not..."

Maybe I would say "for his own repute" or something like that, rather than "by".

Is "begrudge" too soft a word for the coming "invidet" ?

I don't think so.

After noting Aeneas is phlegmatic, and derelict of duty, is an irritated Jupiter making an accusation?
The father maliciously denies the Roman fortresses to Ascanius? (With the -ne tacked onto his son's name, for emphasis)

Yes.