Uncategorized

Translation help: Apocolocyntosis 5.2-5.3

quaesisse se cuius nationis esset: respondisse nescio quid perturbato sono et voce confusa; non intellegere se linguam eius: nec Graecum esse nec Romanum nec ullius gentis notae.

esse in the final clause could have two different subjects. The first is Claudius, with the clause expressing a conclusion drawn from the preceding description of the messenger’s interrogation; that is, Claudius is neither Roman, nor Greek, nor of any other known people.

Alternately, it could be taking the linguam from the previous clause as its subject, with the three possibilities raised refering back to it, emphasizing the unknown nature of Claudius with the fact that the language he is speaking is not even important enough to have an adjective in Latin.. Also note that Graecum and Romanum are in the accusative, while ullius gentis notae is in the genitive. This may be a simple possessive genitive referring back to linguam, or a case usage retained from earlier Latin to mark the inferiority of the words put into the genitive relative to those in the accusative.

tum Iuppiter Herculem, qui totum orbem terrarum pererraverat et nosse videbatur omnes nationes, iubet ire et explorare quorum hominum esset.

The use of explorare is interesting in this context, given its connection to the Roman army’s exploratores, its scouts and spies. The implication that Hercules is intended to spy on Claudius to learn about him is particularly amusing given that Hercules is explicitly stated to be a man of minime vafro in 6.1.

quorum hominum could be a possessive genitive or a genitive of description, but requires a bit of wrangling to sound natural in English. Literally “of which people he was,” it works better if translated as “who his people were” or more loosely “what country he was from” or “where he was from,” the sense of which is provided in the assertion that Hercules is being sent for his knowledge of various nations. The fact that this is the question that Hercules is sent to answer supports the interpretation of the preceding clause as addressing Claudius’ nationality rather than the language he speaks, in my opinion.

The use of homo instead of vir, which would normally be used of Roman men, is another calculated insult against Claudius.

Translation help: Nero 39.

ignominia ad Orientem, legionibus in Armenia sub iugum missis aegreque Syria retenta.

The primary issue with this section is the phrase in the middle, legionibus in Armenia sub iugum missis. To begin with, this is an ablative absolute, describing a military disaster.

A frequent translation of this seems to be that the legions have been sent into Armena in order to subjugate the people there, taking the words effectively as legionibus missis in Armenia sub iugum; this reading does not work. First, in this case, in would have to take the accusative rather than the ablative as it actually appears. Further, mitto sub iugum is an idiom, referencing “an arrangement of two vertical and one transverse spear under which a conquered army was made to pass” [OLD iugum 5]. Taking the idiom collectively to mean “conquered,” “defeated” or “subjugated” conveys the sense of this quite effectively.

Thus in order to accurately deal with the Latin presented here, the order legionibus in Armenia missis sub iugum is better; that is, the legions in Armenia, whether recently sent there or stationed there on a permanent basis, have been subjugated. Alternately, in Armenia could simply be describing where they suffered their defeat, though that would be ignoring the positioning of the prepositional phrase between the noun and the participle modifying it, which seems ill-advised when it reads well as written.

Once the meaning of the ablative absolute has been understood, the preceding and following comments are given important context: the loss of the legions is the shame in the East, and Syria is barely held onto because the troops tasked with that have been killed or enslaved.

 

Translation Help – Life of Nero 10

SESTERCES

We saw two mentions of sesterces in this section.

sestertius, -i [<*semis-tertius] as a noun [OLD 2]:
A coin or unit of money, equivalent to 2 ½ asses or a quarter of a denarius (4 asses after 217 BCE when a denarius was divided into 16 asses); sestertius nummus, a sesterce piece.

quadringenis nummis: masc. abl. plur. of the adjective quadringeni, -ae, a, four hundred (400).  and the noun nummus, -i. Suetonius is thus referring to 400 sesterce pieces.

This gift to the public, congiarium, was originally a distribution of wine or oil made to the people by magistrates. Julius Caesar was the first to convert it into one of cash. What started out as an act of munificence became an obligation for the emperors if they wanted to maintain popular support (see K. R. Bradley’s historical commentary on Suetonius’ Life of Nero, p. 75).

sestertius, -a, -um as an adjective [OLD3]:
The adjective is used with multiples of thousands, miliummilia. The milia often undergo an ellipsis.

quingena: neutr. acc. plur. of the adjective quingeni, -ae, a, five hundred (500). “et quibusdam quingena… constituit” thus refers to 500’000 sesterces where the thousands are ellipted.

Translation Aid – Cena Trimalchionis 62.9

qui mori timore nisi ego

The storyteller Niceros asks a rhetorical question: what sort of person could die from fright if not himself?

In this construction, a form of possum in the subjunctive appears to have undergone ellipsis.  The construction likely a relative clause of characteristic.  A relative clause in the indicative would state something as fact, whereas a relative clause of characteristic conveys a sense of potential (A&G 534)—given that Niceros’ statement is rhetorical, a subjunctive mood is more fitting than the indicative.

qui: there is no antecedent for the relative pronoun qui; where the antecedent is undefined, a relative clause with the subjunctive indicates a characteristic of the antecedent (A&G 535).

mori: the present active infinitive of the deponent verb morior; here, a complementary infinitive to the absent form of possum.

timore: ablative of cause (A&G 404a).

nisi: although often used with conditions, nisi may be used by comic poets in the sense of only when a negative is expressed or understood in the main clause (A&G 525e).  There is no main clause preceding, but there is an understood negative: Niceros implies that no one could be more afraid than he.  Translate here as “save” or “except”.

ego: Niceros emphasizes his exceptional state of fright.

contactu suo polluit (3.4)

As the heart and hearth of the city, the Temple of Vesta demanded an exceptional level of ritual purity. Servius describes how the water used for cleansing the temple had to be brought from a nearby spring in a container that did not touch the ground (A. 7.150), while the dirt swept from the floor was ritually discarded in the Tiber (Ov. Fast. 6.227). Iulius Bassus claims that the sacred purity instilled in this space by such rituals has been desecrated by the return of the unchaste Vestal.

The idea that a supernatural, polluting force could be transmitted through contact was certainly not unique to the Romans. James Frazer famously argues in The Golden Bough that this “law of contagion” is a governing principle of magic across all human cultures.

fas (3.4)

Fas provides the divine counterpart to ius, the law of the people and the state. By invoking fas is his condemnation of the Vestal’s return from the Tarpeian Rock, Iulus Bassus recalls the extent to which her act of unchastity was a religious offence (cf. the comment on stuprum).

Albucius Silus

Albucius Silus

Augustan rhetorician from Novaria in Cisalpine Gaul. Seneca the Elder considered him one of the top four declaimers he had seen, and describes him in the preface to Controversia 7. He studied as an older man in the school of Gaius Papirius Fabianus, under whom Seneca’s son Seneca the Younger also studied. Suetonius in his On Grammarians and Rhetoricians 6 has this biographical sketch:

Gaius Albucius Silus of Novaria, while he was holding the office of aedile in his native town and chanced to be sitting in judgment, was dragged by the feet from the tribunal by those against whom he was rendering a decision. Indignant at this, he at once made for the gate and went off to Rome. There he was admitted to the house of the orator Plancus, who had the habit, when he was going to declaim, of calling upon someone to speak before him. Albucius undertook that rôle, and filled it so effectively that he reduced Plancus to silence, since he did not venture to enter into competition. But when Albucius had thus become famous, he opened a lecture room of his own, where it was his habit after proposing a subject for a debate, to begin to speak from his seat, and then as he warmed up, to rise and make his peroration on his feet. He declaimed, too, in various manners, now in a brilliant and ornate style, and at another time, not to be thought invariably academic, speaking briefly, in everyday language and all but that of the streets. He also pleaded causes, but rather seldom, taking part only in those of greatest importance, and even then confining himself to summing them up. Later he withdrew from the Forum, partly through shame and partly through fear. For in a case before the Hundred [an ancient tribunal] he had offered his opponent, whom he was inveighing against as undutiful towards his parents, the privilege of taking oath but merely as a figure of speech, using the following language: "Swear by the ashes of your father and mother, who lie unburied"; and made other remarks in the same vein. His opponent accepted the challenge; and since the judges made no objection, Albucius lost his case to his great humiliation. Again, when he was defending a client in a murder trial at Mediolanum before the proconsul Lucius Piso, and the lictors tried to suppress the immoderate applause, he grew so angry, that lamenting the condition of Italy and saying that "it was being reduced once more to the form of a province," he called besides upon Marcus Brutus whose statue was in sight, as "the founder and defender of our laws and liberties"; and for that he narrowly escaped punishment. When already well on in years, he returned to Novara because he was suffering from a tumour, called the people together and explained in a long set speech the reasons which led him to take his life, and then starved himself to death.

Fulvius Sparsus

Fulvius Sparsus

We do not know his origins, although he may be Spanish as there are Spanish inscriptions referring to the Fulvii Sparsi. He studied under Porcius Latro. Seneca described him as “hominem inter scholasticos sanum, inter sanos. scholasticum” (Cont 1.7.15). Seneca cites him c. 25 times in the extant material, and judging by these, he was fond of opposition and antithesis, sometimes leading to affectedness in his style: this citation is a good example of that.

For further information see:

GOMEZ-PANTOJA, JOAQUIN L. “Another rhetor from Calagurris.” Faventia (1987): 79-84.

Arellius Fuscus

Arellius Fuscus

Augustan declaimer. Seneca says he was one of the 4 best orators of his day and cites from him more than any other declaimer; famous students including the poet Ovid studied at his school in Rome. He declaimed in Latin and Greek, but Seneca says he preferred to declaim in Greek and was one of the Asiani: that may refer to his ethnic origin (Greek from Asia Minor) or to the style of his oratory. It is possible that he was a Roman from the Greek East, whose family had been settled there for a while as businesspeople.

His style is very poetic and one of his favourite poetic models is Virgil, whose influence can be seen on this passage. According to Seneca he did so in part to appeal to Maecenas, the patron of Virgil (Suasoriae 3.4-5). Seneca discusses him at length at Controversia VII Praef 1-9.