Homework inter omnes constat Themistoclem omnium qui Graecos contra Persas duxerint sapientissimum fuisse, etc.

[CaeciliusEtBregans]

I've translated the following passage but there are some sections I am unsure of and I don't know how correct it is. Any help is greatly appreciated.

inter omnes constat Themistoclem omnium qui Graecos contra Persas duxerint sapientissimum fuisse: sed astutiae eius ceteros duces pigebat.
It is agreed between all, Themistocles, who will lead all of the Greeks against the Persians, is very wise: but his cleverness was irking other leaders.

cum apud Salaminam pugnatum esset, Graeci praemium proponebant ei qui dux fortissimus a ducibus iudicaretur.
When they fought a Salamina, the Greeks were proposing apirze to he which is the bravest leader, was judged by other leaders.

tum omnes se hoc praemio maximē dignos censebant: sed omnibus nomen Themistoclis secundum scribere placuit.
Then they all were deciding that he is worthy of the great prize: but all wrote the name of Themistocles second. (I wasn't sure where placuit fitted into this sentence)

itaque ceteris ducibus singulae sententiae dabantur, sed Themistocli plurimae: praemium igitur huic tradere eos oportuit.
And so a single vote had been given to all of the leaders, but many to Themistocles: therefore, this prize was ordered to give to him.

 

[Pacifica]

Hi,

Let's take it one sentence at a time.

inter omnes constat Themistoclem omnium qui Graecos contra Persas duxerint sapientissimum fuisse: sed astutiae eius ceteros duces pigebat.
It is agreed between all, Themistocles, who will lead all of the Greeks against the Persians, is very wise: but his cleverness was irking other leaders.

- "Among" would work a little better than "between" here.

- Themistoclem... fuissse is an accusative-and-infinitive indirect statement. Are you familiar with this concept?

- You left omnium untranslated.

- Duxerint is perfect subjunctive, not future. It is also plural, and therefore can't refer to Themistocles, as your translation would make it appear due to your leaving out omnium, which (rather tha Themistocles) is the antecedent of qui.

- Mind the tense of fuisse.

 

[Pacifica]

- You left omnium untranslated.

Wait, you actually translated it but put it in the wrong place.

 

[CaeciliusEtBregans]

Wait, you actually translated it but put it in the wrong place.

Thank you for your help.

Would the correct translation of the sentence be: It is agreed between all that Themistocles is the wisest of all the greeks they were leading against the Persians

 

[Pacifica]

It is agreed between all that Themistocles is the wisest of all

That part is almost correct. Just look again at fuisse. What tense of the infinitive is that?

the greeks they were leading against the Persians

No. Let's take care of the biggest issues first: which case is qui?

And which case is Graecos? Not the same case as omnium.

 

[CaeciliusEtBregans]

That part is almost correct. Just look again at fuisse. What tense of the infinitive is that?

No. Let's take care of the biggest issues first: which case is qui?

And which case is Graecos? Not the same case as omnium.

Fuisse is perfect so it would be Themistocles was the wisest.

qui is nominative plural so is it referring to the all in the first part of the sentence?

Graecos is accusative plural, but is it actually the subject of the sentence because its in an indirect statemnet?

 

[Pacifica]

Fuisse is perfect so it would be Themistocles was the wisest.

That's right.

qui is nominative plural so is it referring to the all in the first part of the sentence?

Yes. How would you put that in English: omnium qui... = ?

Graecos is accusative plural, but is it actually the subject of the sentence because its in an indirect statemnet?

No. It is the direct object of the relative clause (the qui clause), which does not take the acc.-inf. The subject of that clause is the nominative qui itself.

 

[CaeciliusEtBregans]

That's right.

Yes. How would you put that in English: omnium qui... = ?

No. It is the direct object of the relative clause (the qui clause), which does not take the acc.-inf. The subject of that clause is the nominative qui itself.

Would the final sentence be:

It is agreed among all that Themistocles was the wisest of all who were leading the Greeks against the Persians: but his cleverness was irking other leaders.

 

[Pacifica]

who were leading

Or just "who led". But overall, good.

Now to the next sentence:

When they fought a Salamina,

This is just a detail, but you could be more precise, temporally speaking. The pluperfect pugnatum esset indicates that the rest took place after the battle. It's often OK to translate cum + pluperfect subjunctive as "when" + simple past as you did there, but in this case I feel that something indicating "after" would work better, e.g. "after they fought at Salamina".

to he which

You seem to have got the idea, more or less, but I'm afraid "to he which" isn't very grammatical. "To him who" would be better, or even "to the one who".

which is the bravest leader, was judged by other leaders.

No, no, no. You've split a single idea into two there, so to speak. There is no "is" anywhere. Remove the "is" and the comma, and see where it makes sense to put "the bravest leader" then.

 

[CaeciliusEtBregans]

Or just "who led". But overall, good.

Now to the next sentence:
This is just a detail, but you could be more precise, temporally speaking. The pluperfect pugnatum esset indicates that the rest took place after the battle. It's often OK to translate cum + pluperfect subjunctive as "when" + simple past as you did there, but in this case I feel that something indicating "after" would work better, e.g. "after they fought at Salamina".

You seem to have got the idea, more or less, but I'm afraid "to he which" isn't very grammatical. "To him who" would be better, or even "to the one who".

No, no, no. You've split a single idea into two there, so to speak. There is no "is" anywhere. Remove the "is" and the comma, and see where it makes sense to put "the bravest leader" then.

Would this be correct?

After they fought at Salamina, the Greeks were proposing a prize to he who was judged as bravest leader by the other leaders

 

[Pacifica]

"To him" would be more strictly correct but basically yes, you've got it.

On to the next bit:

Then they all were deciding that he is worthy of the great prize:

- Se is reflexive, which means that it refers back to the subject, so it can't be "he" in this sentence.

- Maxime is not an adjective in agreement with praemio, but a superlative adverb.

but all wrote the name of Themistocles second. (I wasn't sure where placuit fitted into this sentence)

"It pleased them all to write...", i.e. "they all decided/chose to write..."

 

[CaeciliusEtBregans]

"To him" would be more strictly correct but basically yes, you've got it.

On to the next bit:

- Se is reflexive, which means that it refers back to the subject, so it can't be "he" in this sentence.

- Maxime is not an adjective in agreement with praemio, but a superlative adverb.
"It pleased them all to write...", i.e. "they all decided/chose to write..."

Would this be correct:

Then they all were deciding that themselves were greatly worthy of the prize: but it pleased them all to write the name of Themistocles second.

 

[Pacifica]

That's pretty much it, though I would take maxime as a relative superlative in this case (i.e. "most").

Now the last:

had been given

Check the tense.

all of the leaders

Rather "(all) the other leaders" or "the rest of the leaders".

this prize was ordered to give to him.

That doesn't make much sense, does it?

Oportet is an impersonal verb meaning roughly "it is necessary", and its subject is usually an infinitive, an accusative-and-infinitive clause or a subjunctive. Here it has an accusative-and-infinitive clause. The construction can often be reworded to a personal one in English like "one needs/has to/must/should".

Look more closely at praemium and huic and their cases in particular. They are not the same case, right? So it can't be "this prize". Or perhaps it's eos you took as "this", I'm not sure. It doesn't agree with praemium either. If you took eos as "to him", the problem is that the number doesn't fit, neither does the case. Huic is "to him".

 

[CaeciliusEtBregans]

That's pretty much it, though I would take maxime as a relative superlative in this case (i.e. "most").

Now the last:

Check the tense.

Rather "(all) the other leaders" or "the rest of the leaders".

That doesn't make much sense, does it?

Oportet is an impersonal verb meaning roughly "it is necessary", and its subject is usually an infinitive, an accusative-and-infinitive clause or a subjunctive. Here it has an accusative-and-infinitive clause. The construction can often be reworded to a personal one in English like "one needs/has to/must/should".

Look more closely at praemium and huic and their cases in particular. They are not the same case, right? So it can't be "this prize". Or perhaps it's eos you took as "this", I'm not sure. It doesn't agree with praemium either. If you took eos as "to him", the problem is that the number doesn't fit, neither does the case. Huic is "to him".

So it would be: they must give the prize to him?

 

[Pacifica]

Almost, but "they had to" would fit better with the tense.

 

[CaeciliusEtBregans]

Almost, but "they had to" would fit better with the tense.

Thank you so much for your help!

 

[Pacifica]

NP.