Agricola XV

[Notascooby]

Cornelius Tacitus, De Vita Iulii Agricolae, chapter 15

The line "recessuros ut divus iulius recessisset modo virtutem maiorum suorum aemularentur" has me puzzled.

The Brittani are speaking.

They (The Romans) would withdraw, as divus iulius had withdrew, if only they(the Romans) rival the valour of their ancestors.

This seems off to me, unless it's sarcasm?

aemularemur would make more sense to me, giving; if only we (the Brittani) rival the valour of our ancestors.

This is what the translator of this http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:text:1999.02.0081:chapter=15 has got, whether he had a different text to what I've got or emended it himself I know not.

 

[Notascooby]

The next sentence is " neve proelii unius aut alterius eventu pavescerent"

This seems to be an imperative, if so then surely it's a continuation of another imperative?

I'm lost

Gildersleeve 270 says that Neve can be used with a single imperative but this use is colloquial or poetic, this could be what's happening here?

 

[cinefactus]

It is continuing from a previous sentence quantulum enim trānsīsse mīlitum, sī sēsē Britannī numerent?
so the subject of aemularentur is Britanni. pavescerent is an imperative.

 

[cinefactus]

I took it as a single imperative, but if aemularentur was the first, it would explain why both are in the same tense. I am guessing the imperfect is following the pluperfect about Caesar, but I confess I am also confused why it is not present.

 

[Notascooby]

Thanks.

I think because it's in oratio obliqua introduced by a past tense verb understood the present tense is not possible. The only options are imperfect and pluperfect.

 

[Pacifica]

aemularemur would make more sense to me, giving; if only we (the Brittani) rival the valour of our ancestors.

The speaker would have said "we" in direct speech. But this is indirect speech so the person naturally changes. Compare:

Direct speech: "This will happen if we emulate the valor of our ancestors."
Indirect speech: "He said that would happen if they emulated the valor of their ancestors."

pavescerent is an imperative.

More precisely, it's an imperfect subjunctive that stands for what would have been an imperative in direct speech.

I confess I am also confused why it is not present.

Because this is all in the past (the present subjunctive would have been possible through repraesentatio, but the imperfect follows the regular sequence of tenses).

 

[Pacifica]

the present subjunctive would have been possible through repraesentatio

Repraesentatio (i.e. the use of the primary sequence instead of the secondary) actually occurs earlier in the passage (which I've just taken a look at).

 

[Notascooby]

Repraesentatio (i.e. the use of the primary sequence instead of the secondary) actually occurs earlier in the passage (which I've just taken a look at).

I was just about to mention that. There is also the line at the end of the passage "quod difficilimum fuerit". Is this repraesentatio with a perfect subjunctive?

 

[Pacifica]

Yes.