Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Cicero Academica 1
42 views
Skip to first unread message
Ed Cryer
Oct 21, 2012, 1:18:28 PM10/21/12
to
[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.
Ed
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.
Ed
Johannes Patruus
Oct 21, 2012, 2:37:44 PM10/21/12
to
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
Ed Cryer
Oct 21, 2012, 3:23:14 PM10/21/12
to
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?
Ed
B. T. Raven
Oct 21, 2012, 3:36:38 PM10/21/12
to
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.
>
> Comments please if I'm wrong.
I remember that Avellanus said somewhere that the ancients themselves
were confused by the reflexive pronoun.
>
> Ed
<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.
"
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.
> 2. "venturum fuisse" = "would have come". A simple "would come" would
> have been ""venturum esse".
>
> Comments please if I'm wrong.
were confused by the reflexive pronoun.
>
> Ed
Johannes Patruus
Oct 21, 2012, 4:33:53 PM10/21/12
to
> Ed
Patruus
Ed Cryer
Oct 21, 2012, 5:21:22 PM10/21/12
to
[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.
Ed
B. T. Raven
Oct 21, 2012, 8:25:06 PM10/21/12
to
Die Sun Oct 21 2012 16:21:22 GMT-0500 (Central Daylight Time) Ed Cryer
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.
>
>
> Ed
>
>
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.
>
>
> Ed
>
>
0 new messages