Horatius Sermones I,6
- Thread starter Katarina
- Start date
Dissimile hoc illi est, quia non, ut forsit honorem iure mihi invideat quivis, ita te quoque amicum, praesertim cautum dignos adsumere, parva ambitione procul.
How does this work? Which part non negates? And this seems like ACI following but I have no idea why. As much as I understand it I would try with translation: because (not), even though perhaps anyone justly envies me for my honor (being tribune) , still also that you friend being very cautious, choose the worthy.
How does this work? Which part non negates? And this seems like ACI following but I have no idea why. As much as I understand it I would try with translation: because (not), even though perhaps anyone justly envies me for my honor (being tribune) , still also that you friend being very cautious, choose the worthy.
There should be a -que after concurrant.
"That which."
"Just as perhaps someone would justly envy me my position, so (would they) not (justly envy me because) you (are my) friend, especially (since you are) careful to take worthy men (as your friends)."
It's an ablative of description modifying honestum.
It should read placui, not placuit.
I don't get it. He will sound, he overcomes horns and trumpets. That is how I understand the sentence, leaving the quod out.
Ok so, quia non should be transfered after quivis? I still don't get where do we get ACI from ...
He will sound that which may overcome (or surpass) horns and trumpets. That is, he will be louder than horns and trumpets, or something like that.
There isn't really any ACI, just two direct objects of invideat: honorem and te, and then further stuff referring to te: amicum, cautum.
Now I get it! Thanks!
pudicum,
qui primus virtutis honos, servavit ab omni
non solum facto, verum opprobrio quoque turpi
Could be this used as a substantive? Otherwise I don't know how to understand this. I haven't though find that option in three dictionaries I have looked up ...
qui primus virtutis honos, servavit ab omni
non solum facto, verum opprobrio quoque turpi
Could be this used as a substantive? Otherwise I don't know how to understand this. I haven't though find that option in three dictionaries I have looked up ...
nec timuit, sibi ne vitio quis verteret, olim
si praeco parvas aut, ut fuit ipse, coactor
mercedes sequerer; neque ego essem questus.
Trying to understand the use of subjunctive here ... Verteret is in the past at the same time as nec timuit. Sequerer is conj. irealis (= if I would follow, but I don't). Or could it be conj. potencialis for the past (= if I would perhaps in my past or at that time follow)?
essem questus - conj. plpf. pass. - is he saying that about the past in relation to nec timuit? Another possibility is conj. irrealis. But I don't know what it would mean here really. And also the first option is odd to me. Any idea here?
si praeco parvas aut, ut fuit ipse, coactor
mercedes sequerer; neque ego essem questus.
Trying to understand the use of subjunctive here ... Verteret is in the past at the same time as nec timuit. Sequerer is conj. irealis (= if I would follow, but I don't). Or could it be conj. potencialis for the past (= if I would perhaps in my past or at that time follow)?
essem questus - conj. plpf. pass. - is he saying that about the past in relation to nec timuit? Another possibility is conj. irrealis. But I don't know what it would mean here really. And also the first option is odd to me. Any idea here?
nil me paeniteat sanum patris huius, eoque
non, ut magna dolo factum negat esse suo pars,
quod non ingenuos habeat clarosque parentes,
sic me defendam.
Turning it around:
...
eoque non sic me defendam, ut magna pars negat: factum dolo suo esse, quod non ingenuos habeat clarosque parentes.
... as the great part of sons of freedmens says that the fact? that they don't have noble and famous parents in not because? of their fault.
So the question is:
- does factum means ''te fact'', or what does it mean?
- what kind of ablative is dolo suo? If I was making this sentence, I would just leave it in Nominative as to say "it is not their fault".
non, ut magna dolo factum negat esse suo pars,
quod non ingenuos habeat clarosque parentes,
sic me defendam.
Turning it around:
...
eoque non sic me defendam, ut magna pars negat: factum dolo suo esse, quod non ingenuos habeat clarosque parentes.
... as the great part of sons of freedmens says that the fact? that they don't have noble and famous parents in not because? of their fault.
So the question is:
- does factum means ''te fact'', or what does it mean?
- what kind of ablative is dolo suo? If I was making this sentence, I would just leave it in Nominative as to say "it is not their fault".
his me consolor victurum suavius ac si
quaestor avus pater atque meus patruusque fuisset.
I console myself, who will live? more sweetly then if my grandfather, father and uncle have been quaestors.
Is it like that? I am not sure how to understand victurum.
quaestor avus pater atque meus patruusque fuisset.
I console myself, who will live? more sweetly then if my grandfather, father and uncle have been quaestors.
Is it like that? I am not sure how to understand victurum.
his me consolor victurum suavius ac si
quaestor avus pater atque meus patruusque fuisset.
I console myself, who will live? more sweetly then if my grandfather, father and uncle have been quaestors.
Is it like that? I am not sure how to understand victurum.
quaestor avus pater atque meus patruusque fuisset.
I console myself, who will live? more sweetly then if my grandfather, father and uncle have been quaestors.
Is it like that? I am not sure how to understand victurum.
Ne verteret is a fear clause (which takes the subjunctive as a rule), and the conditional (si) clause naturally takes the subjunctive as well because it depends on the clause of fearing (it's all potential future-in-the-past).
It's past unreal: "and I would not have complained (of my fate if that had been so)."
It's ablative: "by this", "because of this"... hence idiomatically "for this".
It means factum (esse), "to have been done" or "to have happened".
It's some kind of instrumental ablative; maybe you can call it an ablative of cause. In any case the idea is that it didn't happen by their fault.
You've got the meaning.