[1] In Cumano nuper cum mecum Atticus noster esset, nuntiatum est nobis a M. Varrone venisse eum Roma pridie vesperi et, nisi de via fessus esset, continuo ad nos venturum fuisse.
(Cicero Academica 1.1)
Two points;
1. Who is the "eum"?
2. "venturum fuisse".
1. Why is it not "se" because surely Varro is the implied subject. I think Cicero's got himself into a bit of a twist here because of cultural norms that applied in his day but don't here in ours.
I translate this as "When our Atticus was with me recently at my place in Cumae we were informed by Marcus Varro that he had come from Rome on the previous evening and, had he not been tired from the journey, he would have come straight to us."
I should think that in the "nuntiatum est nobis a M. Varrone" what really happened was that Varro sent a slave with a message; probably verbal. And thus the "eum" is Varro but the slave was the speaker.
2. "venturum fuisse" = "would have come". A simple "would come" would have been ""venturum esse".
> [1] In Cumano nuper cum mecum Atticus noster esset, nuntiatum est nobis a
> M. Varrone venisse eum Roma pridie vesperi et, nisi de via fessus esset,
> continuo ad nos venturum fuisse.
> (Cicero Academica 1.1)
> Two points;
> 1. Who is the "eum"?
> 2. "venturum fuisse".
> 1. Why is it not "se" because surely Varro is the implied subject. I think
> Cicero's got himself into a bit of a twist here because of cultural norms
> that applied in his day but don't here in ours.
> I translate this as "When our Atticus was with me recently at my place in
> Cumae we were informed by Marcus Varro that he had come from Rome on the
> previous evening and, had he not been tired from the journey, he would
> have come straight to us."
> I should think that in the "nuntiatum est nobis a M. Varrone" what really
> happened was that Varro sent a slave with a message; probably verbal. And
> thus the "eum" is Varro but the slave was the speaker.
> 2. "venturum fuisse" = "would have come". A simple "would come" would have
> been ""venturum esse".
> Comments please if I'm wrong.
"When my friend Atticus was with me recently at my place at Cumae, a message came from Marcus Varro that he had arrived from Rome the previous evening and that if he wasn't too tired from the journey he would come straight on to us."
http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=GFx-WN64xSQC&pg=PA109
"Would have come" seems the natural translation of "venturum fuisse"; on the other hand, wouldn't your "had he not been tired" translate back as "nisi ... fessus fuisset" (rather than "esset")?
Johannes Patruus wrote:
> On 21/10/2012 18:18, Ed Cryer wrote:
>> [1] In Cumano nuper cum mecum Atticus noster esset, nuntiatum est nobis a
>> M. Varrone venisse eum Roma pridie vesperi et, nisi de via fessus esset,
>> continuo ad nos venturum fuisse.
>> (Cicero Academica 1.1)
>> Two points;
>> 1. Who is the "eum"?
>> 2. "venturum fuisse".
>> 1. Why is it not "se" because surely Varro is the implied subject. I
>> think
>> Cicero's got himself into a bit of a twist here because of cultural norms
>> that applied in his day but don't here in ours.
>> I translate this as "When our Atticus was with me recently at my place in
>> Cumae we were informed by Marcus Varro that he had come from Rome on the
>> previous evening and, had he not been tired from the journey, he would
>> have come straight to us."
>> I should think that in the "nuntiatum est nobis a M. Varrone" what really
>> happened was that Varro sent a slave with a message; probably verbal. And
>> thus the "eum" is Varro but the slave was the speaker.
>> 2. "venturum fuisse" = "would have come". A simple "would come" would
>> have
>> been ""venturum esse".
>> Comments please if I'm wrong.
> "When my friend Atticus was with me recently at my place at Cumae, a
> message came from Marcus Varro that he had arrived from Rome the
> previous evening and that if he wasn't too tired from the journey he
> would come straight on to us."
> http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=GFx-WN64xSQC&pg=PA109
> "Would have come" seems the natural translation of "venturum fuisse"; on
> the other hand, wouldn't your "had he not been tired" translate back as
> "nisi ... fessus fuisset" (rather than "esset")?
>> Ed
> Patruus
It's all a question of reconstructing it as it probably happened. I can get "were he not tired from the journey, he would have come straight to us" from the Latin. And that conjurs up a scenario like this;
Varro arrives from Rome at his place nearby.
Tired and weary he has a rest; all night.
Next day summons slave, tells him to go tell Cicero; "I would have come straight over if I weren't too tired".
(nisi de via fessus essem, continuo ad vos venturus fuissem).
And that turns into oratio obliqua as "nisi de via fessus esset, continuo ad vos venturum fuisse".
Does "venissem" instead of "venturus fuissem" seem more natural?
> [1] In Cumano nuper cum mecum Atticus noster esset, nuntiatum est nobis
> a M. Varrone venisse eum Roma pridie vesperi et, nisi de via fessus
> esset, continuo ad nos venturum fuisse.
> (Cicero Academica 1.1)
> Two points;
> 1. Who is the "eum"?
> 2. "venturum fuisse".
> 1. Why is it not "se" because surely Varro is the implied subject. I
> think Cicero's got himself into a bit of a twist here because of
> cultural norms that applied in his day but don't here in ours.
> I translate this as "When our Atticus was with me recently at my place
> in Cumae we were informed by Marcus Varro that he had come from Rome on
> the previous evening and, had he not been tired from the journey, he
> would have come straight to us."
> I should think that in the "nuntiatum est nobis a M. Varrone" what
> really happened was that Varro sent a slave with a message; probably
> verbal. And thus the "eum" is Varro but the slave was the speaker.
See Gildersleeve and Lodge at # 309 (reflexives, second example):
"
NOTES. 1. The writer may retain forms of is, if he desires to emphasise
his own point of view. So too in prepositional combinations.
(Caesar) Ciceronem pro eius merito laudat, CAES., B. G., v. 52, 4;
Caesar praises Cicero according to his desert. [Pompeius] cum decretum
de me Capuae fecit, ipse cunctae Italiae eius fidem imploranti signum
dedit, C., Mil., 15, 39.
"
> 2. "venturum fuisse" = "would have come". A simple "would come" would
> have been ""venturum esse".
Ioannes already answered.
> Comments please if I'm wrong.
I remember that Avellanus said somewhere that the ancients themselves
were confused by the reflexive pronoun.
> Johannes Patruus wrote:
>> On 21/10/2012 18:18, Ed Cryer wrote:
>>> [1] In Cumano nuper cum mecum Atticus noster esset, nuntiatum est nobis a
>>> M. Varrone venisse eum Roma pridie vesperi et, nisi de via fessus esset,
>>> continuo ad nos venturum fuisse.
>>> (Cicero Academica 1.1)
>>> Two points;
>>> 1. Who is the "eum"?
>>> 2. "venturum fuisse".
>>> 1. Why is it not "se" because surely Varro is the implied subject. I
>>> think
>>> Cicero's got himself into a bit of a twist here because of cultural norms
>>> that applied in his day but don't here in ours.
>>> I translate this as "When our Atticus was with me recently at my place in
>>> Cumae we were informed by Marcus Varro that he had come from Rome on the
>>> previous evening and, had he not been tired from the journey, he would
>>> have come straight to us."
>>> I should think that in the "nuntiatum est nobis a M. Varrone" what really
>>> happened was that Varro sent a slave with a message; probably verbal. And
>>> thus the "eum" is Varro but the slave was the speaker.
>>> 2. "venturum fuisse" = "would have come". A simple "would come" would
>>> have
>>> been ""venturum esse".
>>> Comments please if I'm wrong.
>> "When my friend Atticus was with me recently at my place at Cumae, a
>> message came from Marcus Varro that he had arrived from Rome the
>> previous evening and that if he wasn't too tired from the journey he
>> would come straight on to us."
>> http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=GFx-WN64xSQC&pg=PA109
>> "Would have come" seems the natural translation of "venturum fuisse"; on
>> the other hand, wouldn't your "had he not been tired" translate back as
>> "nisi ... fessus fuisset" (rather than "esset")?
>>> Ed
>> Patruus
> It's all a question of reconstructing it as it probably happened. I can
> get "were he not tired from the journey, he would have come straight to
> us" from the Latin. And that conjurs up a scenario like this;
> Varro arrives from Rome at his place nearby.
> Tired and weary he has a rest; all night.
> Next day summons slave, tells him to go tell Cicero; "I would have come
> straight over if I weren't too tired".
> (nisi de via fessus essem, continuo ad vos venturus fuissem).
> And that turns into oratio obliqua as "nisi de via fessus esset, continuo
> ad vos venturum fuisse".
> Does "venissem" instead of "venturus fuissem" seem more natural?
The latter would seem to place more stress on the intention of the speaker.
B. T. Raven wrote:
> Die Sun Oct 21 2012 12:18:28 GMT-0500 (Central Daylight Time) Ed Cryer
> <e...@somewhere.in.the.uk> scripsit:
>> [1] In Cumano nuper cum mecum Atticus noster esset, nuntiatum est nobis
>> a M. Varrone venisse eum Roma pridie vesperi et, nisi de via fessus
>> esset, continuo ad nos venturum fuisse.
>> (Cicero Academica 1.1)
>> Two points;
>> 1. Who is the "eum"?
>> 2. "venturum fuisse".
>> 1. Why is it not "se" because surely Varro is the implied subject. I
>> think Cicero's got himself into a bit of a twist here because of
>> cultural norms that applied in his day but don't here in ours.
>> I translate this as "When our Atticus was with me recently at my place
>> in Cumae we were informed by Marcus Varro that he had come from Rome on
>> the previous evening and, had he not been tired from the journey, he
>> would have come straight to us."
>> I should think that in the "nuntiatum est nobis a M. Varrone" what
>> really happened was that Varro sent a slave with a message; probably
>> verbal. And thus the "eum" is Varro but the slave was the speaker.
> See Gildersleeve and Lodge at # 309 (reflexives, second example):
> "
> NOTES. 1. The writer may retain forms of is, if he desires to emphasise
> his own point of view. So too in prepositional combinations.
> (Caesar) Ciceronem pro eius merito laudat, CAES., B. G., v. 52, 4;
> Caesar praises Cicero according to his desert. [Pompeius] cum decretum
> de me Capuae fecit, ipse cunctae Italiae eius fidem imploranti signum
> dedit, C., Mil., 15, 39.
> "
>> 2. "venturum fuisse" = "would have come". A simple "would come" would
>> have been ""venturum esse".
> Ioannes already answered.
>> Comments please if I'm wrong.
> I remember that Avellanus said somewhere that the ancients themselves
> were confused by the reflexive pronoun.
>> Ed
(Caesar) Ciceronem pro eius merito laudat.
[Pompeius] cum decretum de me Capuae fecit, ipse cunctae Italiae eius fidem imploranti signum dedit.
I think those two are very orthodox uses of "eius". They refer away from the subject of the phrase.
Try comparison with these;
(Caesar) Ciceronem pro *suo* merito laudat.
ipse cunctae Italiae *suam* fidem imploranti signum dedit.
> B. T. Raven wrote:
>> Die Sun Oct 21 2012 12:18:28 GMT-0500 (Central Daylight Time) Ed Cryer
>> <e...@somewhere.in.the.uk> scripsit:
>>> [1] In Cumano nuper cum mecum Atticus noster esset, nuntiatum est nobis
>>> a M. Varrone venisse eum Roma pridie vesperi et, nisi de via fessus
>>> esset, continuo ad nos venturum fuisse.
>>> (Cicero Academica 1.1)
>>> Two points;
>>> 1. Who is the "eum"?
>>> 2. "venturum fuisse".
>>> 1. Why is it not "se" because surely Varro is the implied subject. I
>>> think Cicero's got himself into a bit of a twist here because of
>>> cultural norms that applied in his day but don't here in ours.
>>> I translate this as "When our Atticus was with me recently at my place
>>> in Cumae we were informed by Marcus Varro that he had come from Rome on
>>> the previous evening and, had he not been tired from the journey, he
>>> would have come straight to us."
>>> I should think that in the "nuntiatum est nobis a M. Varrone" what
>>> really happened was that Varro sent a slave with a message; probably
>>> verbal. And thus the "eum" is Varro but the slave was the speaker.
>> See Gildersleeve and Lodge at # 309 (reflexives, second example):
>> "
>> NOTES. 1. The writer may retain forms of is, if he desires to emphasise
>> his own point of view. So too in prepositional combinations.
>> (Caesar) Ciceronem pro eius merito laudat, CAES., B. G., v. 52, 4;
>> Caesar praises Cicero according to his desert. [Pompeius] cum decretum
>> de me Capuae fecit, ipse cunctae Italiae eius fidem imploranti signum
>> dedit, C., Mil., 15, 39.
>> "
>>> 2. "venturum fuisse" = "would have come". A simple "would come" would
>>> have been ""venturum esse".
>> Ioannes already answered.
>>> Comments please if I'm wrong.
>> I remember that Avellanus said somewhere that the ancients themselves
>> were confused by the reflexive pronoun.
>>> Ed
> (Caesar) Ciceronem pro eius merito laudat.
> [Pompeius] cum decretum de me Capuae fecit, ipse cunctae Italiae eius
> fidem imploranti signum dedit.
> I think those two are very orthodox uses of "eius". They refer away from
> the subject of the phrase.
> Try comparison with these;
> (Caesar) Ciceronem pro *suo* merito laudat.
> ipse cunctae Italiae *suam* fidem imploranti signum dedit.
Your second substitution yields the same difference as above: "eius"
refers to "Pompeius." In the first example "pro suo merito" would mean
"for his (Caesar's) merit. I don't know why Gildersleeve cites these two
passages together.
