De Bello Civili

[Quaeso]

You already have suggestions for less literal translations above

Thank you, but what do you mean? It looks like those two translations omit the concept of patentes.

 

[Pacifica]

They don't translate patentes as an individual word, but they translate the meaning of the whole phrase quadratas regulas III(I) patentes digitos.

Quadratas regulas IIII patentes digitos = literally "square laths extending (over) four fingers" = "laths four fingers square" or "four-inch-square shingles" (correcting "three" to "four", though "three" may be based on a variant reading; I haven't checked).

I'm not sure there's a way to translate patentes individually in a way that sounds very good in English.

 

[Quaeso]

Thank you, I looked into the three vs. four inches, and it seems that the issue is that a digitus is different from an uncia. There are 12 unciae (nearly equal to a British Imperial Inch) in a Roman foot, whereas there are 16 digiti in a Roman foot.

 

[Pacifica]

Ah, I see!

 

[Quaeso]

I'm not sure there's a way to translate patentes individually in a way that sounds very good in English.

What about just the adjective "wide"? (L&S-pateo-patens. A.2.)

 

[Pacifica]

Except here it's not just about width, but about both length and width, since the shingles are square. Hence the translations above.

 

[Quaeso]

Eo super tigna bipedalia iniciunt eaque laminis clavisque religant. Ad extremum musculi tectum trabesque extremas quadratas regulas IIII patentes digitos defigunt, quae lateres, qui super musculo struantur, contineant. -Dbc II.X.4

To the upper covering of the musculus and the upper beams, they fastened laths, four fingers square, to support the tiles which were to cover the musculus. -M

On the outside of the roof of the gallery and on the edges of these beams they fasten •three-inch-square shingles⁠ to keep in place the bricks to be laid on the roof. -L

This is all rather technical in my opinion, and secondary to the main plot; but interesting nonetheless. I think it's amazing how much punishment the little musculus could take.

Except here it's not just about width, but about both length and width, since the shingles are square.

I'm not sure what type of shingles you envision here, but it seems to me that "lath" is a more literal (and accurate) translation of regula than "shingle". What I've been imagining is a board (regula) like that below continually running along along both eaves (1), nailed to the roof of the musculus. This allowed the bricks to afterwards be stacked upwards from the regula/eaves upon the verge (2) of the roof up to ridge (5). This arrangement makes sense to me because otherwise the heavy bricks might slide off the roof under abuse.

So the length of the musculus from tower to tower was like 60 yards if I recall correctly, and that dimension would be the length of the combined regulae once affixed to the eave end on end. And so if in theory, you have a squared (quadrata) regula, and if the width (patentes IIII) were x, then the height of the board would be same as the width (because its squared), the total dimension of a regula would be 60 yards by 3 inches by 3 inches. In carpentry they commonly call the board shown above a 4 by 4 without reference to its length, which varies. But feel free to disagree if you like.

 

[Quaeso]

Quod ubi hostes viderunt, ea, quae vix longinquo spatio refici non posse sperassent, paucorum dierum opera et labore ita refecta, ut nullus perfidiae neque eruptioni locus esset nec quicquam omnino relinqueretur, qua aut telis militibus aut igni operibus noceri posset, eodemque exemplo sentiunt totam urbem, qua sit aditus ab terra, muro turribusque circumiri posse -Dbc II.XVI.1

But when the enemy perceived that those works, which they had hoped could not be replaced without a great length of time, were put into so thorough repair by a few day's labor and diligence, that there was no room for perfidy or sallies, and that no means were left them by which they could either hurt the men by resistance or the works by fire, and when they found by former examples that their town could be surrounded with a wall and turrets on every part by which it was accessible by land-M

And when the enemy saw that the losses which they had hoped could hardly be repaired within a long period of time had been so thoroughly repaired by the work and toil of a few days, that there was now no opportunity for treachery or sortie, and that no possible chance was left for any injury to be done either to the men by weapons or to the works by fire; and when they become aware that in a like manner the whole city, where there is an approach to it by land-P

A few questions here: The main one is noceri, and why it would be in the passive instead of active; but there is also the sequence qua aut telis militibus aut igni operibus. It looks like telis and igni ablative of instrument whereas militibus and operibus are the dative objects of noceri. The two qua's look like they are both adverbs, but with a different sense, the first meaning "by which means", and the second "where"? And then lastly I'm not sure how to understand eodemque exemplo what exactly that is a reference to, and if that's instrumental as well?

 

[Pacifica]

The main one is noceri, and why it would be in the passive instead of active

Caesar simply chose to talk about harm being done rather than about someone or something doing harm.

It's an impersonal passive, by the way.

It looks like telis and igni ablative of instrument whereas militibus and operibus are the dative objects of noceri.

Correct.

The two qua's look like they are both adverbs, but with a different sense, the first meaning "by which means", and the second "where"?

You could argue that the first qua is slightly more figurative but basically, both quas refer to some way by which someone or something can approach or get in.

And then lastly I'm not sure how to understand eodemque exemplo what exactly that is a reference to, and if that's instrumental as well?

It's an ablative of manner. It means "in the same manner".

 

[Quaeso]

eodemque exemplo

"in the same manner".

Thank you, so what "nec... posset" and "sentiunt... posse" have in common is that they both indicate that the continued defense of the city was desperate?

 

[Pacifica]

Yes (and the rest of the passage does too).

 

[Quaeso]

Itaque duabus legionibus missis in ulteriorem Hispaniam cum Q. Cassio, tribuno plebis, ipse DC cum equitibus magnis itineribus progreditur edictumque praemittit, ad quam diem magistratus principesque omnium civitatum sibi esse praesto Cordubae vellet. -Dbc II.XIX.1

So, having sent two legions into further Spain with Q. Cassius, tribune of the people, he himself proceeds ahead with six hundred horsemen by forced marches, and sends on an order stating on what date he wished the magistrates and chief men of all the communities to meet him at Corduba.-P

Having therefore sent two legions into Further Spain under the command of Quintus Cassius, tribune of the people; he himself advances with six hundred horse by forced marches, and issues a proclamation, appointing a day on which the magistrates and nobility of all the states should attend him at Corduba.-M

Thank you, it looks like ad...vellet is describing edictumque, and therefore would that be considered an adjectival clause in Latin? and also here an indirect question? But if not, then why subjunctive?

 

[Pacifica]

It is an indirect question.

I don't know if "adjectival" is the right term to describe this, but in any case the clause defines what the proclamation consisted in.

 

[Quaeso]

Quo edicto tota provincia pervulgato nulla fuit civitas, quin ad id tempus partem senatus Cordubam mitteret, non civis Romanus paulo notior, quin ad diem conveniret. -Dbc II.XIX. 2

This proclamation being published through the whole province, there was not a state that did not send a part of their senate to Corduba, at the appointed time; and not a Roman citizen of any note but appeared that day. -M

Thank you, can you tell if the quin clauses are result or characteristic (AG559) ?

 

[Pacifica]

They look like what A&G calls characteristic, but I think that's essentially result as well.

 

[Quaeso]

Ille [C.Caesar] ad eum [Varrum] Sextum Caesarem mittit atque huic tradi iubet. Tradita legione Varro Cordubam ad Caesarem venit; relatis ad eum publicis cum fide rationibus quod penes eum est pecuniae tradit et, quid ubique habeat frumenti et navium, ostendit. -Dbc II.XX.6

He sends to him Sextus Caesar, and orders him to deliver it up to him. Varro, having delivered up the legion, went to Caesar to Corduba, and having laid before him the public accounts, handed over to him most faithfully whatever money he had, and told him what quantity of corn and shipping he had, and where.

Thank you, why would the indefinite pronoun quod be used for pecuniae, but the definite pronoun quid with frumenti?

 

[Pacifica]

In this context, quod is relative and quid is interrogative. Quod penes eum est pecuniae is a relative clause, so it uses a relative pronoun; quid ubique habeat frumenti et navium is an indirect question, so it uses an interrogative pronoun.

 

[Quaeso]

definite pronoun quid with frumenti?

Thank you, and sorry if I'm being dense here; but was I mistaken, that quid could be a definite adjectival pronoun? For that function, wouldn't a demonstrative pronoun be needed?

Quod penes eum est pecuniae is a relative clause

Also, if rationibus is the antecedent of the relative quod, then why in the singular? and then for pecuniae, genitive modifying the relative quod?

 

[Pacifica]

Thank you, and sorry if I'm being dense here; but was I mistaken, that quid could be a definite adjectival pronoun? For that function, wouldn't a demonstrative pronoun be needed?

I'm not sure what you mean by "definite pronoun". Quid can, in some contexts (often after si, nisi, num, and ne), be an indefinite pronoun, meaning "something" or "anything". But here it's an interrogative pronoun. And it's never adjectival (at least in classical Latin).

Also, if rationibus is the antecedent of the relative quod

It isn't. There is no antecedent.

and then for pecuniae, genitive modifying the relative quod?

Yes, a partitive genitive. Quod penes eum est pecuniae = literally "what is in his possession [in the way] of money" or "what [amount] of money is in his possession."

By the way, I just noticed a mistake in the English translation that you quoted above. I don't always take the time to read the translations, so I may have missed other mistakes. Is the translation yours? I just assumed until now that you were always quoting someone else's translation.

 

[Pacifica]

It's probably not yours, because its author seems to have understood quod and quid. Anyway, the mistake is a detail, but still:

The translation makes it look as if cum fide were modifying tradit, but the word order makes it very clear that cum fide belongs within the ablative absolute relatis... rationibus.