battle of Marathon
jsqu...@gmail.com
the chapter on Marathon, an anonymous source is quoted:
"Quibus actus uterque Europae atque Asiae fatis concurrerit orbis."
Which I srumise, says that the Battle of Marathon determined
the fates of Europe and the Middle East.
I get something like this as a translation:
"The course of the world rushed to the fates of both Europe and Asia."
("History rushed to the fates of Europe and of Asia.")
I have
quibus dat. pl. 3rd decl
actus nom. sg. 4th decl.
uterque .
both
Europae Asiae gen. sg. 1st decl.
fatis dative sg. 2nd decl.
orbis gen. sg. 3rd decl.
concurrerit
3rd sg. active past
I am not at all sure if I have this right in the large, or in the
details.
Help would be much appreciated.
Johannes Patruus
It's from the Aeneid 7:223-224.
The translation is beneath the Latin text on this (slow-loading) page:
http://tinyurl.com/ydnvs4
Patruus
Ben C
> In Creasey's "15 battles that changed the world", at the start of
> the chapter on Marathon, an anonymous source is quoted:
>
> "Quibus actus uterque Europae atque Asiae fatis concurrerit orbis."
>
> Which I srumise, says that the Battle of Marathon determined
> the fates of Europe and the Middle East.
>
> I get something like this as a translation:
>
> "The course of the world rushed to the fates of both Europe and Asia."
> ("History rushed to the fates of Europe and of Asia.")
>
> I have
> quibus dat. pl. 3rd decl
I think that's ablative plural, and goes with fatis (also ablative
plural).
> actus nom. sg. 4th decl.
> uterque .
> both
> Europae Asiae gen. sg. 1st decl.
> fatis dative sg. 2nd decl.
abl. plural I think.
> orbis gen. sg. 3rd decl.
> concurrerit
> 3rd sg. active past
Probably, note that it's subjunctive.
>
> I am not at all sure if I have this right in the large, or in the
> details.
I think it works like this:
quibus fatis actus uterque Europae atque Asiae orbis concurrerit.
"by what fates, both the path of the sphere of Europe and [the path of
the sphere of] Asia came together in war"
Subjunctive for the same reason ierit is after quanta. Here is the whole
sentence (thanks to Johannes Patruus for finding it):
Quanta per Idaeos saevis effusa Mycenis
tempestas ierit campos, quibus actus uterque
Europae atque Asiae fatis concurrerit orbis,
audiit et siquem tellus extrema refuso
summovet oceano et siquem extenta plagarum
quattuor in medio dirimit plaga solis iniqui.
jsqu...@gmail.com
perspective on the translation.
I am still confused when I try to do the translation in detail:
1. Is "quibus" in the dative or in the ablative? (In
your translation it seems to be in the latter)
2. Likewise, is "fatis" in the dat. or the abl.?
3. Is "actus" in the nom. or in the gen.?
4. What is the meaning in your translation of "actus"?
5. Do I treat "actus" and "orbis" together, as a
genitive phrase "actus orbus"?
6. Is not a plural form of the verb
for coming together required? (It seems to me
that such is so because the verb references
two paths)
I would greatly appreciate some further comments. I also greatly
appreciate what you have already done and would
understand a reluctance to go on.
Ben C
> Thanks so much for the thoughtful reply. It has given me a whole new
> perspective on the translation.
>
> I am still confused when I try to do the translation in detail:
>
> 1. Is "quibus" in the dative or in the ablative? (In
> your translation it seems to be in the latter)
> 2. Likewise, is "fatis" in the dat. or the abl.?
I had both of these as ablative, "by what fates...!" As a sort of
exclamation.
> 3. Is "actus" in the nom. or in the gen.?
Nom., I think, as the subject of concurrerit.
> 4. What is the meaning in your translation of "actus"?
"path":
>> quibus fatis actus uterque Europae atque Asiae orbis concurrerit.
>>
>> "by what fates, both the path of the sphere of Europe and [the path of
>> the sphere of] Asia came together in war"
> 5. Do I treat "actus" and "orbis" together, as a
> genitive phrase "actus orbus"?
I think it must be "actus orbis (Europae atque Asiae)", "the path of the
sphere of Europe". This accounts for the genitives Europae and Asiae and
fits the word orbis in.
> 6. Is not a plural form of the verb
> for coming together required? (It seems to me
> that such is so because the verb references
> two paths)
Yes I was also a bit worried about that, but "uterque" also means "each"
for which we would use a singular verb in English, and which means the
same really.
> I would greatly appreciate some further comments. I also greatly
> appreciate what you have already done and would understand a
> reluctance to go on.
We must go on. With luck one of the gurus currently busy with
Proto-Indo-European will step in and confirm or correct the translation.
[snip]
jsqu...@gmail.com
could
have gotten it myself because I saw many, many ways to take "actus" and
"orbis", and because the singular verb form was disturbing.
Why is fiddling around with this nearly dead language so much fun?
gratia.
resur...@bellsouth.net
> Thanks so much for the thoughtful reply. It has given me a whole new
> perspective on the translation.
>
> I am still confused when I try to do the translation in detail:
>
> 3. Is "actus" in the nom. or in the gen.?
> 4. What is the meaning in your translation of "actus"?
I think actus is in the nominative, modifying orbis: "driven by what
fates, the orbis... ." I like the translation in the Works Johannes
linked to: "under the influence" or agency of what destiny, &c.
[. . .]
> 6. Is not a plural form of the verb
> for coming together required? (It seems to me
> that such is so because the verb references
> two paths)
>
I think "uterque" here means 'each/either (of the two)' so it agrees
with a singular verb: uterque orbis, either world = both worlds, the
world of Europe and of Asia.
Macte Maro!
Rodericius
Neeraj Mathur
jsqu...@gmail.com wrote:
> Thanks so much for the thoughtful reply. It has given me a whole new
> perspective on the translation.
>
> I am still confused when I try to do the translation in detail:
>
> 1. Is "quibus" in the dative or in the ablative? (In
> your translation it seems to be in the latter)
> 2. Likewise, is "fatis" in the dat. or the abl.?
These go together and are ablative of 'agent' with the passive
participle 'actus' (see below).
> 3. Is "actus" in the nom. or in the gen.?
This you can confirm by the metre: 'actus uterque' is the
dactyl-spondee coda of the dactylic hexametre verse. This means that
the -u- is short, and the word thus nominative.
(But anyway, I don't think the word is the 4th dec noun at all, but a
2nd dec participle.)
> 4. What is the meaning in your translation of "actus"?
I disagree very slightly with Ben here. I take 'actus' as the past
participle of the verb 'ago', thus meaning something like 'acted upon'.
(Johannes' link gives 'under the influence of'; you could also say
'driven'.)
> 5. Do I treat "actus" and "orbis" together, as a
> genitive phrase "actus orbus"?
Take them together, but as a nominative phrase 'actus orbis'.
> 6. Is not a plural form of the verb
> for coming together required? (It seems to me
> that such is so because the verb references
> two paths)
As Ben says, ''uterque' takes a singular verb, just as English 'each'.
The verb is subjunctive because it is indirect discourse, depending on
'audiit' ('he heard') in the next line - unfortunately, the excerpt
omits this, but we can see it thanks to Johannes and Ben.
Putting that all together, the sentence works as follows:
1) orbis concurrerit (audiit) - '(he heard how) the world rushed
together (ie, in war)'.
2) uterque orbis concurrerit - 'each world rushed together'.
3) uterque orbis Europae et Asiae concurrerit - 'each world - that of
Europe and that of Asia - rushed together'.
4) orbis actus concurrerit - 'the world, when acted upon, rushed
together'.
5) orbis actus fatis concurrerit - 'the world, when acted upon by the
fates, rushed together'.
6) orbis actus quibus fatis concurrerit - 'the world, when acted upon
by what fate, rushed together'.
7) quibus fatis actus uterque orbis Europae atque Asiae concurrerit
audiit - 'he heard how when acted upon by what fate the worlds of
Europe and Asia each rushed together in war'.
That's how I would understand that sentence, with a fairly literal
translation. I'd suggest that a readable translation would approach it
in a different way, but I'm sure that that's what the sentence means.
Note that the ablative with a passive participle or even just an
adjective of sorts modifying a noun is very common and not very
remarkable; somewhat colourless verbs like 'ago' lend themselves easily
to such a construction. (An easy example, and quite parallel to this
one, is at the start of the Aeneid: qui primus ... fato profugus ...
venit litora, '[the man] who first, compelled by fate, arrived at the
shores [of Lavinium]'.)
Neeraj Mathur
Ben C
[snip]
> I disagree very slightly with Ben here. I take 'actus' as the past
> participle of the verb 'ago', thus meaning something like 'acted upon'.
> (Johannes' link gives 'under the influence of'; you could also say
> 'driven'.)
>
>> 5. Do I treat "actus" and "orbis" together, as a
>> genitive phrase "actus orbus"?
>
> Take them together, but as a nominative phrase 'actus orbis'.
I think I prefer that too, which is also what Rodericus suggested. "Path
of the sphere of Europe" seems a less Latin way to say things (too many
abstract nouns) than "the driven sphere of Europe".
Klaus Scholl
@Johannes
Do you know, how i can put a set of scanned book-pages
into the format under your link, with scrollbar and all that fancy stuff?
Greet, Klaus.
Johannes Patruus
I don't know, but perhaps this page on E-book compilers might give you some
pointers:
http://www.ebookapprentice.com/compiler/index.html
Greet, Uncle
jsqu...@gmail.com
My Beginner's mind found "actus", "orbis", and "actus orbis"
offering many, many
possible translations. For example, having put actus in the 4th
decl., it seemed natural to me to make a genitive phrase
with actuus....
"sphere of action"
using therein, "orbis" in the nominative
I completely missed both your point about actus being
alternatively in the 2nd decl. as the participle of ago,
and your point that one can use meter sometimes
to distinguish longs from shorts.
gratia
Ed Cryer
<jsqu...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1167497636.1...@s34g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> This is very helpful to me:
>
> My Beginner's mind found "actus", "orbis", and "actus orbis"
> offering many, many
> possible translations. For example, having put actus in the 4th
> decl., it seemed natural to me to make a genitive phrase
> with actuus....
>
> "sphere of action"
>
> using therein, "orbis" in the nominative
>
>
> I completely missed both your point about actus being
> alternatively in the 2nd decl. as the participle of ago,
> and your point that one can use meter sometimes
> to distinguish longs from shorts.
>
> gratia
>
Your version is quite an education in language. Many aspects of it are
possible, but we regulars followed internal prompts and associations
that we've acquired over many years of reading Latin.
Quibus actus uterque
Europae atque Asiae fatis concurrerit orbis
This is very difficult to pin down, but I can give one or two ideas
about what guides us.
As soon as we read "quibus actus uterque" (and right at the end of a
line) something just said "ablative+past participle".
And then we've been given an anticipation of a coming masculine noun,
which we eventually find in "orbis".
But before this there's the "Europae atque Asiae" which once again
points us to a coming masculine noun.
And then when "fatis" comes it just kind of clicks with the "quibus".
We're into territory way outside grammar and syntax here; a lot of it
being simply familiarity with Vergil's style. But there are similar
associations in other classical writers; including Caesar, Cicero and
others. And this territory is probably nothing more than "the linguistic
fashion of the day".
And, I have all the sympathy in the world for a beginner.
Ed
Klaus Scholl
Alright, i have to pay for it. It is just that i dont like PDF for
beeing a proprietary Format.
Thanks, Klaus.
jsqu...@gmail.com
Altho I know far less Latin than
most members of the group, I find translation
and the help I get in doing it fascinating.
This back and forth about what to do with
words so long not spoken is strangely
pleasant...... Beats thinking about Iraq, say I.
Having right brained it for a while, I think I find myself
more or less converging with what seems to emerge
as a consensus:
By what way, by either, [following] the fate of Europe, [ or,
following]
the fate of Asia, might bustle the world?
Ben C
> This fascinates me.
>
> Altho I know far less Latin than
> most members of the group, I find translation
> and the help I get in doing it fascinating.
> This back and forth about what to do with
> words so long not spoken is strangely
> pleasant...... Beats thinking about Iraq, say I.
>
> Having right brained it for a while, I think I find myself
> more or less converging with what seems to emerge
> as a consensus:
>
> By what way, by either, [following] the fate of Europe, [ or,
> following]
> the fate of Asia, might bustle the world?
Not quite. "Driven by what fates (quibus actus fatis) the spheres of
Europe and Asia (uterque Europae atque Asiae orbis) came together
(concurrerit)."
[snip]
jsqu...@gmail.com
To me, putting "actus"
as the particple of "ago" in the 2nd decl. nom. sing., instead
of in the 4th (actus, uus), is key.
Philosophically, I seem to have a remaining problem with "fatis", and
with
"quibus fatis". Namely, as someone who spends some time studying
physics
and math, "to what fates" makes more sense to than "by what
fates"......
It seems, therefore, that I am excused by the syntax and grammar
to use
Set to what fates, did the world of Europe and the world of
Asia
rush together?
Does this fly?
Again, many thanks to all who have given me feedback. I am
so impressed with the thoughtfullness and lack of
ego evinced by all.
Ben C
> I like the directness of this translation.
>
> To me, putting "actus"
> as the particple of "ago" in the 2nd decl. nom. sing., instead
> of in the 4th (actus, uus), is key.
>
> Philosophically, I seem to have a remaining problem with "fatis", and
> with
> "quibus fatis". Namely, as someone who spends some time studying
> physics
> and math, "to what fates" makes more sense to than "by what
> fates"......
>
> It seems, therefore, that I am excused by the syntax and grammar
> to use
>
> Set to what fates, did the world of Europe and the world of
> Asia
> rush together?
>
> Does this fly?
If you like, but remember as Neeraj pointed out it's "audiit quibus
fatis"-- "he heard by what fates...", not a direct question.
Neeraj Mathur
jsqu...@gmail.com wrote:
> I like the directness of this translation.
>
> To me, putting "actus"
> as the particple of "ago" in the 2nd decl. nom. sing., instead
> of in the 4th (actus, uus), is key.
>
> Philosophically, I seem to have a remaining problem with "fatis", and
> with
> "quibus fatis". Namely, as someone who spends some time studying
> physics
> and math, "to what fates" makes more sense to than "by what
> fates"......
>
> It seems, therefore, that I am excused by the syntax and grammar
> to use
>
> Set to what fates, did the world of Europe and the world of
> Asia
> rush together?
>
> Does this fly?
What you need to remember is that the ablative case gives the agent of
the passive verb (in this case, the passive participle). English
normally represents the agent with 'by', and never with 'to'; if you
are still uncomfortable with it, the best thing to do is to convert it
into an active voice sentence in English. (This is something that you
will often need to do to produce readable English translations of Latin
verse.)
Try something like this: 'He heard what fates caused the worlds of
Europe and Asia to come together in war.'
Neeraj Mathur
jsqu...@gmail.com
very precise, and very helpful indeed.
I had overlooked, no,
I simply did not know, that "actus" being
passive requires the ablative. I understand
that just because my english mind leads me
to what amounts to the dative in Latin, the
rules of the Latin syntax restrict my semantic
choices.
Anyway, I found the excursion elucidating
because I had never reflected on the possibility
that, to the classical mind, Fate might
have had connotations different than it
does for me.
BTW, back to the original question..
got a caption for that amazing image?
dhanya vaada
Ed Cryer
<jsqu...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1167838988.7...@s34g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> That clears it up for me. Very perceptive,
> very precise, and very helpful indeed.
> I had overlooked, no,
> I simply did not know, that "actus" being
> passive requires the ablative. I understand
> that just because my english mind leads me
> to what amounts to the dative in Latin, the
> rules of the Latin syntax restrict my semantic
> choices.
>
> Anyway, I found the excursion elucidating
> because I had never reflected on the possibility
> that, to the classical mind, Fate might
> have had connotations different than it
> does for me.
>
The Fates were women;
http://messagenet.com/myths/bios/fates.html
and like most female deities in Greek mythology they were a pretty nasty
and vindictive lot.
Not like modern, liberated women, of course, who always rise above such
pettiness;
http://www.thefates.ca/
Ed
Ben C
[snip]
> The Fates were women;
> http://messagenet.com/myths/bios/fates.html
> and like most female deities in Greek mythology they were a pretty nasty
> and vindictive lot.
Now that's unfair, what about Athene in the Odyssey?
Ed Cryer
"Ben C" <spam...@spam.eggs> wrote in message
news:slrnepnnjt....@bowser.marioworld...
She doesn't do a thing for Odysseus for years, during which he loses all
his men and ends up the virtual prisoner of a sex-goddess. Only when he
gets shipwrecked on Phaeacia does she start to lift a finger and help
him against Poseidon's wrath. And then she schemes and lies and cheats
with all the skill of her mother Metis ("Cunning" in Greek). She's the
Olympian ideal of "Wily Odysseus", the guy who came up with the plan for
the wooden horse. Like her symbol the owl, she belongs out of the light;
she's no Phoebus Apollo.
Ed
Neeraj Mathur
Ed Cryer wrote:
> "Ben C" <spam...@spam.eggs> wrote in message
> news:slrnepnnjt....@bowser.marioworld...
> > On 2007-01-03, Ed Cryer <e...@somewhere.in.the.uk> wrote:
> > [snip]
> >> The Fates were women;
> >> http://messagenet.com/myths/bios/fates.html
> >> and like most female deities in Greek mythology they were a pretty
> >> nasty
> >> and vindictive lot.
> >
> > Now that's unfair, what about Athene in the Odyssey?
>
> She doesn't do a thing for Odysseus for years, during which he loses all
> his men and ends up the virtual prisoner of a sex-goddess.
Ed! Maybe I'm more Antonian than Augustan, but you're not honestly
saying that your opinion of Athene would _improve_ if she'd intervened
in the process that freed him from that filthy riff-raff and left him
the willing prisoner of a sex-goddess!?
Neeraj
Ed Cryer
"Neeraj Mathur" <neeraj....@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1167853915.0...@42g2000cwt.googlegroups.com...
Well, according to Homer she only intervened when Poseidon was away from
Olympus. Now, there's something very women-quarters about this; the
powerless female who has to resort to devious ways in order to get
anything at all. The men call the shots; the women are snakes like Eve
in Eden.
Ed
Robert Stonehouse
You need to consider the rules that governed what gods could
do. They couldn't interfere with what another god did. They
had to wait for a chance to do something themselves that the
other (in turn) could not interfere with.
Poseidon, by the way, was not just a male god. He was one of
the three greatest gods, brother of Zeus and Hades. Athene
and all the rest had to look out for him. (I don't remember
where the passage is, that recounts how Zeus used to come
home and throw the children - the lesser gods - all around
the hall.)
--
Robert Stonehouse
To mail me, replace invalid with uk. Inconvenience regretted
Ed Cryer
"Robert Stonehouse" <ew...@bcs.org.invalid> wrote in message
news:1ddop2tms4i7q9dfr...@4ax.com...
http://www.wku.edu/~jan.garrett/pgodscht.htm