genitos Agrippa / genitos Agrippae

limetrees

Civis Illustris

  • Civis Illustris

  • Patronus

Location:
Hibernia
Tacitus Annals 1. 3 Nam genitos Agrippa Gaium ac Lucium in familiam Caesarum induxerat, necdum posita puerili praetexta principes iuventutis appellari, destinari consules specie recusantis flagrantissime cupiverat.

In English, this could be:
He [Augustus] had brought Agrippa’s sons Gaius and Lucius into the imperial family ...

Why is this not “Agrippae”? Some use of ablative?
Thanks for any help.
 
B

Bitmap

Guest

Why is this not “Agrippae”? Some use of ablative?
Thanks for any help.

Yes ... you'd call this an ablativus originis.
Technically, a genitive would also be possible, but with words of origin (that essentially mean 'child') like natus, satus, genitus you often find an ablative.

So it's literally 'the men/boys fathered by Agrippae'.
 
B

Bitmap

Guest

NB I used to believe this was a technique mainly used in poetry, but with Tacitus, nothing really surprises me.
 
Yes ... you'd call this an ablativus originis.
Technically, a genitive would also be possible, but with words of origin (that essentially mean 'child') like natus, satus, genitus you often find an ablative.

So it's literally 'the men/boys fathered by Agrippae'.
Is it ironic that the phrase "ablativus originis" puts origo in the genitive?o_O
 

Mafalda

Civis Illustris

  • Civis Illustris

Location:
Paulopolis
Is Agrippa not nominativus by any chance? I do not know what the context is, but if it were Augustus, it would be taking or accepting someone into the imperial family rather than bringing.
 
B

Bitmap

Guest

If you read the whole paragraph (or just the whole sentence), I think it's pretty likely that Augustus is the subject there.
(Without context, Agrippa could theoretically be nominative as well, though).

edit: snail'd
 

Mafalda

Civis Illustris

  • Civis Illustris

Location:
Paulopolis
Actually it does not. It might as well mean that it was Agrippa who had introduced his sons into the family before he died. Also the existing translations are divided on this point. I think it is rather Agrippa because 1) Agrippa is the nominative case (highly likely); 2) the choice of the verb itself, if it were Augustus, then using introducere is somewhat strange.
 
B

Bitmap

Guest

Also the existing translations are divided on this point.
Do you have a translation that takes Agrippa as a nominative?

I think it is rather Agrippa because 1) Agrippa is the nominative case (highly likely);
Grammatically and stylistically speaking, it would be more likely to be an ablative. I've just browsed through book 1 and 2 quickly and Tacitus always seems to be using genitus with an anteceding ablative. So that's the kind of grammar expectancy you'd have here.

2) the choice of the verb itself, if it were Augustus, then using introducere is somewhat strange.

I don't see anything strange with it. I'd actually find it strange if Agrippa was taken as the subject because it would make it sound like he was the one who initiated the adoption.
I suppose translators chose Augustus as the subject because he also was the one who had them become principes iuventutis and designated consuls while officially pretending to disapprove of it.
 
Context makes it perfectly clear that Augustus is the subject. As for genitus (from gigno), it is regularly used with the ablative when parentage is intended:

b (with ancestry indicated).
▶ (with ablative) dis genite et geniture deos Verg. A. 9.642; sanguine natus eodem, quo genita est ‥ Arctos Ov. Ib. 472; hic genitus proauo M. Catone Vell. 2.35.2; Vistilia praetoria familia genita Tac. Ann. 2.85; Catone auunculo genita 3.76; —(with ex) ex agricolis ‥ uiri fortissimi ‥ ~untur Cato Agr. pr.4; —(with adverb) honeste genitos Liv. 26.2.11.

Glare, P. G. W. (Ed.). (2012). Oxford Latin Dictionary (Second Edition, Vol. I & II). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
 

Mafalda

Civis Illustris

  • Civis Illustris

Location:
Paulopolis
Do you have a translation that takes Agrippa as a nominative?
If we are talking of English translations this one for example https://infnts.blogspot.com/2011/03/tacitus-annales.html
Grammatically and stylistically speaking, it would be more likely to be an ablative. I've just browsed through book 1 and 2 quickly and Tacitus always seems to be using genitus with an anteceding ablative. So that's the kind of grammar expectancy you'd have here.
I don't see anything strange with it. I'd actually find it strange if Agrippa was taken as the subject because it would make it sound like he was the one who initiated the adoption.
I suppose translators chose Augustus as the subject because he also was the one who had them become principes iuventutis and designated consuls while officially pretending to disapprove of it.
You are probably right. But while reading a text you visualize it, like pictures of what is going on, and somehow for me this mental movie has more sense and logic with Agrippa being in the nominative.
 
B

Bitmap

Guest

If we are talking of English translations this one for example https://infnts.blogspot.com/2011/03/tacitus-annales.html
I'm sorry, but that's a very poor translation (less so of the passage in question, but of the rest of the text)

You are probably right. But while reading a text you visualize it, like pictures of what is going on, and somehow for me this mental movie has more sense and logic with Agrippa being in the nominative.

Well, I've mentioned above that the nominative is theoretically possible. I just think that the ablative is the *more likely* reading based on Tacitus's style and the context.

If the above had been a stand-alone sentence, I might have considered Agrippa to be the subject as well.
 
Top