Aeneid - Book X
- Thread starter AoM
- Start date
vos etiam, gemini, Rutulis cecidistis in arvis,
Daucia, Laride Thymberque, simillima proles,
indiscreta suis gratusque parentibus error;
at nunc dura dedit vobis discrimina Pallas. (390-3)
Two things:
- most seem to take suis and parentibus separately, but is it possible to take them together?
- this is more of an English problem, but Rossi emphasizes that it's suis, not vestris, which "generalizes the picture as the poet returns to the descriptive mode." But it's a little clunky to go from "you" to "their" back to "you". Harrison and Kline just keep the second person throughout.
Daucia, Laride Thymberque, simillima proles,
indiscreta suis gratusque parentibus error;
at nunc dura dedit vobis discrimina Pallas. (390-3)
Two things:
- most seem to take suis and parentibus separately, but is it possible to take them together?
- this is more of an English problem, but Rossi emphasizes that it's suis, not vestris, which "generalizes the picture as the poet returns to the descriptive mode." But it's a little clunky to go from "you" to "their" back to "you". Harrison and Kline just keep the second person throughout.
I think so (and that's actually how I initially took it).
I guess I would keep it all in the second person too, if I were to translate it.
Rossi's synopsis for 479-509: "Turnus kills Pallas and strips the gold-decked baldric from his body, little thinking in his pride that the trophy would one day decide his doom. The narrator interrupts the narrative to comment on Turnus' action."
I thought the bold sounded out of place and old-fashioned, and yup, taken verbatim from Page. I just don't see the point of it, especially when right below that, she writes nearly a whole page of analysis in her own words.
I thought the bold sounded out of place and old-fashioned, and yup, taken verbatim from Page. I just don't see the point of it, especially when right below that, she writes nearly a whole page of analysis in her own words.
interea biiugis infert se Lucagus albis
in medios fraterque Liger; sed frater habenis
flectit equos, strictum rotat acer Lucagus ensem. (575-7)
Using sed like this seems to be rare. I guess it falls under the OLD section of "(affirming and elaborating an idea) Yes and what's more, and... too".
Most seem to translate it as "while", which also helps with the asyndeton.
Maybe one way to keep "but" is like a clarification: "but it's his brother who..."
--
Lucage, nulla tuos currus fuga segnis equorum
prodidit aut vanae vertere ex hostibus umbrae: (592-3)
The meaning is apparently "cowardly", but it's just strange that the OLD doesn't have that under any of the meanings. L&S don't mention it either.
in medios fraterque Liger; sed frater habenis
flectit equos, strictum rotat acer Lucagus ensem. (575-7)
Using sed like this seems to be rare. I guess it falls under the OLD section of "(affirming and elaborating an idea) Yes and what's more, and... too".
Most seem to translate it as "while", which also helps with the asyndeton.
Maybe one way to keep "but" is like a clarification: "but it's his brother who..."
--
Lucage, nulla tuos currus fuga segnis equorum
prodidit aut vanae vertere ex hostibus umbrae: (592-3)
The meaning is apparently "cowardly", but it's just strange that the OLD doesn't have that under any of the meanings. L&S don't mention it either.
quo feror? unde abii? quae me fuga quemve reducit/reducet? (670)
Context is Turnus having been led away from the fight onto a ship by the phantom of Aeneas that Juno created.
It looks like Harrison is only one I'm seeing that goes with the variant reducet instead here. "What flight is leading me away" vs. "What flight will lead me back". Harrison says that Virgil never uses reducere with the former meaning, so that's what's giving me pause here.
Laurentisne iterum muros aut castra videbo? (671)
At first, I was wondering if the adjective was going with both the walls and camp, or just the walls. Harrison has: "Shall I see again the Laurentian walls, or my camp?"
Then Rossi says castra is referring to the Trojan camp in front of the walls, pointing back to 635 (Iliacamque aciem et Laurentia castra petivit), but... it's called Laurentia there. Or is she saying that the aciem is the Trojan camp? Whereas Harrison says both the walls and camp are Laurentine, also pointing back to 635.
Context is Turnus having been led away from the fight onto a ship by the phantom of Aeneas that Juno created.
It looks like Harrison is only one I'm seeing that goes with the variant reducet instead here. "What flight is leading me away" vs. "What flight will lead me back". Harrison says that Virgil never uses reducere with the former meaning, so that's what's giving me pause here.
Laurentisne iterum muros aut castra videbo? (671)
At first, I was wondering if the adjective was going with both the walls and camp, or just the walls. Harrison has: "Shall I see again the Laurentian walls, or my camp?"
Then Rossi says castra is referring to the Trojan camp in front of the walls, pointing back to 635 (Iliacamque aciem et Laurentia castra petivit), but... it's called Laurentia there. Or is she saying that the aciem is the Trojan camp? Whereas Harrison says both the walls and camp are Laurentine, also pointing back to 635.
ac velut ille canum morsu de montibus altis
actus aper, multos Vesulus quem pinifer annos
defendit multosque palus Laurentia silva
pascit harundinea, postquam inter retia ventum est,
substitit infremuitque ferox et inhorruit armos,
nec cuiquam irasci propiusve accedere virtus,
sed iaculis tutisque procul clamoribus instant;
ille autem impavidus partis cunctatur in omnis
dentibus infrendens et tergo decutit hastas:
haud aliter, iustae quibus est Mezentius irae,
non ulli est animus stricto concurrere ferro,
missilibus longe et vasto clamore lacessunt.
The simile comparing Mezentius to a boar. The bolded lines have been moved up by most editors; in the manuscripts, they come at the end of the passage (so referring to Mezentius directly instead).
Rossi notes that those editors argue dentibus infrendens can't refer to a human (though she points out that the phrase is used for Polyphemus and Hercules. I would counter that neither of them is fully human) and tergum meaning "shield" is exceptional.
She agrees with Page in keeping them at the end and adapts his reasoning:
1) the lack of textual authority
2) the awkwardness of ille autem after sed iaculis...
3) the actions would neatly mirror the actions of the boar (substitit / cunctatur; infremuitque ferox / dentibus infrendens; inhorruit armos / tergo decutit hastas)
4) "in Vergil the language of the simile often trespasses into that of the narrative"
One thing that's probably keeping me in the "move them" crowd is that it would create an unusually long follow-up for a simile. Not sure Virgil has ever given five lines of follow-up like that.
actus aper, multos Vesulus quem pinifer annos
defendit multosque palus Laurentia silva
pascit harundinea, postquam inter retia ventum est,
substitit infremuitque ferox et inhorruit armos,
nec cuiquam irasci propiusve accedere virtus,
sed iaculis tutisque procul clamoribus instant;
ille autem impavidus partis cunctatur in omnis
dentibus infrendens et tergo decutit hastas:
haud aliter, iustae quibus est Mezentius irae,
non ulli est animus stricto concurrere ferro,
missilibus longe et vasto clamore lacessunt.
The simile comparing Mezentius to a boar. The bolded lines have been moved up by most editors; in the manuscripts, they come at the end of the passage (so referring to Mezentius directly instead).
Rossi notes that those editors argue dentibus infrendens can't refer to a human (though she points out that the phrase is used for Polyphemus and Hercules. I would counter that neither of them is fully human) and tergum meaning "shield" is exceptional.
She agrees with Page in keeping them at the end and adapts his reasoning:
1) the lack of textual authority
2) the awkwardness of ille autem after sed iaculis...
3) the actions would neatly mirror the actions of the boar (substitit / cunctatur; infremuitque ferox / dentibus infrendens; inhorruit armos / tergo decutit hastas)
4) "in Vergil the language of the simile often trespasses into that of the narrative"
One thing that's probably keeping me in the "move them" crowd is that it would create an unusually long follow-up for a simile. Not sure Virgil has ever given five lines of follow-up like that.
proripuit iuvenis seseque immiscuit armis,
iamque adsurgentis dextra plagamque ferentis
Aeneae subiit mucronem ipsumque morando
sustinuit (796-9)
Both Harrison and Rossi have the meaning as "slipped under (Aeneas' sword)", but that gives me the sense that he's dodging the strike. But he's not, right? He "went up to" the sword strike so it didn't hit Mezentius. Maybe that's the meaning they had in mind, but it makes it sound like a dodge.
iamque adsurgentis dextra plagamque ferentis
Aeneae subiit mucronem ipsumque morando
sustinuit (796-9)
Both Harrison and Rossi have the meaning as "slipped under (Aeneas' sword)", but that gives me the sense that he's dodging the strike. But he's not, right? He "went up to" the sword strike so it didn't hit Mezentius. Maybe that's the meaning they had in mind, but it makes it sound like a dodge.
I'm not saying you necessarily have to translate subiit as "went under" (if you're translating the text). It's just the literal meaning. For what it's worth, the OLD cites this passage under the definition "to place oneself or be placed under so as to support, sustain, carry, etc." Which makes sense since he's sustaining the blade.
Oh, thanks for checking that. I was just a little confused since "up to" is technically the literal meaning too, right (since sub can mean "up to")?
In the L&S entry, under the section for "to come or go under, to enter; to submit to; to approach", they have this use, but also uses like with collem (to go up a hill) and another from the Aeneid with people directly: Fadumque Herbesumque subit Rhoetumque Abarimque (9.344), with the meanings "comes up to, attacks, assails".
In the L&S entry, under the section for "to come or go under, to enter; to submit to; to approach", they have this use, but also uses like with collem (to go up a hill) and another from the Aeneid with people directly: Fadumque Herbesumque subit Rhoetumque Abarimque (9.344), with the meanings "comes up to, attacks, assails".
Not really confusing, just not entirely clear since "slipped" is more specific than just "went".
Yes, it can convey that idea, but "go under" is the most literal meaning if you analyse the word (sub + eo) and it's also what's being expressed here, I think.
tantane me tenuit vivendi, nate, voluptas,
ut pro me hostili paterer succedere dextrae,
quem genui? tuane haec genitor per vulnera servor
morte tua vivens? heu, nunc misero mihi demum
exitium/exilium infelix, nunc alte vulnus adactum. (846-50)
While the main reading in the manuscripts is exitium, Servius and others (including Harrison and Williams) prefer the variant exilium. Harrison in particular says that exitium doesn't make sense here, but Page's note (which Rossi agrees with) seems like a clear enough explanation: "He knew before that he was wounded to the death, but death, while his son lived, caused him little grief; now, however, all his fondest hopes as well have received a death-blow."
--
Rhaebe, diu, res si qua diu mortalibus ulla est,
viximus. aut hodie victor spolia illa cruenti
et caput Aeneae referes Lausique dolorum
ultor eris mecum, aut, aperit si nulla viam vis,
occumbes pariter; neque enim, fortissime, credo,
iussa aliena pati et dominos dignabere Teucros. (861-6)
Rossi mentions this, and I didn't notice (or forgot) that Conington/Nettleship also pointed it out: "Lausus' pain" or "my pain for Lausus"? Rossi adds that both ideas are possibly present, but the former seems a little more likely (especially with mecum already here).
ut pro me hostili paterer succedere dextrae,
quem genui? tuane haec genitor per vulnera servor
morte tua vivens? heu, nunc misero mihi demum
exitium/exilium infelix, nunc alte vulnus adactum. (846-50)
While the main reading in the manuscripts is exitium, Servius and others (including Harrison and Williams) prefer the variant exilium. Harrison in particular says that exitium doesn't make sense here, but Page's note (which Rossi agrees with) seems like a clear enough explanation: "He knew before that he was wounded to the death, but death, while his son lived, caused him little grief; now, however, all his fondest hopes as well have received a death-blow."
--
Rhaebe, diu, res si qua diu mortalibus ulla est,
viximus. aut hodie victor spolia illa cruenti
et caput Aeneae referes Lausique dolorum
ultor eris mecum, aut, aperit si nulla viam vis,
occumbes pariter; neque enim, fortissime, credo,
iussa aliena pati et dominos dignabere Teucros. (861-6)
Rossi mentions this, and I didn't notice (or forgot) that Conington/Nettleship also pointed it out: "Lausus' pain" or "my pain for Lausus"? Rossi adds that both ideas are possibly present, but the former seems a little more likely (especially with mecum already here).
But the father uses the words servor and vivens right before that. Would he be saying those words if he knew himself mortally wounded?
From what I gather from skimming the passage, this man is killed a little later in a fight with Aeneas. Admittedly, I haven't studied the context in detail, but my impression from what I've seen is that that interpretation seems strange.
The former would be the more normal meaning.
I suppose the apparent contradiction could be the point, like "it looks as if you saved me, but you've actually killed me". Hmmm...
But I'd be bothered by infelix in that context.