Lucan Pharsalia Book 1

[adastra]

Hello everyone,

I've been reading Lucan lately and thought I'd start this thread to ask my questions instead of creating a new one each time. (If this is against forum rules, then please let me know as I haven't been here for long)

So right now I'm stuck on ll.94 (underlined):

...nec gentibus ullis
credite nec longe fatorum exempla petantur:
fraterno primi maduerunt sanguine muri.

My translation is 'and may examples of fate be sought not from far away' i.e. not from the gentibus ullis, but from Rome's own history.
However, I also realised that there might be an alternative interpretation, 'nor may examples of fate from far away be aimed for' i.e. let's avoid events from long ago, like Romulus tainting Rome with fraterno sanguine.
Which of the two would be more accurate?
Thank you!

 

[Dantius]

The first sense is right. The point is "we don't need far-away examples: we have Romulus and Remus." If he wanted to avoid examples like Romulus, he wouldn't've then placed the fraterno primi... sentence in the indicative as the resolution/follow-up to the nec longe... idea.

A similar sentiment in Propertius 2.6:

aspera Centauros eadem dementia iussit
frangere in adversum pocula Pirithoum.
cur exempla petam Graium? tu criminis auctor
nutritus duro, Romule, lacte lupae:
tu rapere intactas docuisti impune Sabinas:
per te nunc Romae quidlibet audet Amor.

 

[cinefactus]

could it also be, not any further?

 

[Pacifica]

No.

 

[Dantius]

That would have to be longius or amplius or the like.

 

[adastra]

Gratias vobis for your replies

Today my question is on ll.126 (talking about Caesar and Pompey):

...quis iustius induit arma
scire nefas...

(Supply est) "it is a crime to know who more justly put on arms"
Why is induit indicative, and quis iustius induit arma not indirect speech, either indirect statement or indirect question?
Thanks!

 

[Dantius]

indirect questions sometimes use indicative in poetry (and in colloquial speech)

 

[Pacifica]

This is a moot point, I suppose, but although what Dantius said is true and an indicative indirect question wouldn't be too surprising here, I can't help wondering: how do we know that this question isn't a direct one? Like so:

Quis iustius induit arma?
Scire nefas!

Perhaps it's less likely, dunno. But still, the punctuation of Latin texts is always editorial...

 

[adastra]

how do we know that this question isn't a direct one?

Oh, that's an interesting point!

 

[adastra]

Hello,

I have come across another bit which I am puzzled about; it is in lines 210-212, part of a simile comparing Caesar to a lion.

tum torta leuis si lancea Mauri 210
haereat aut latum subeant uenabula pectus,
per ferrum tanti securus uolneris exit.

Here's my literal translation:
'Then if the light lance of a Moor clings twisted, or hunting spears sink into his broad chest, he proceeds through the weapons, careless of such a wound.

Firstly, I don't understand how the word 'haereat' makes sense here. Apparently it should mean something like 'pierced', but isn't this translation stretching the word's meaning kind of far?

Secondly, I noticed that the conditional clause in these lines has a present subjunctive protasis and a present indicative apodosis: what is this construction and how should it be interpreted?

Thanks in advance for your help!

 

[Pacifica]

twisted

In the context of a missile, it's more like "hurled" or something like that.

Apparently it should mean something like 'pierced'

No. It means "clings" or "sticks". The idea is of the lance sticking in a wound/clinging to the lion's body.

Secondly, I noticed that the conditional clause in these lines has a present subjunctive protasis and a present indicative apodosis: what is this construction and how should it be interpreted?

It's a mixed conditional. If you want to translate it literally I guess it's something like "if the lance should cling... he proceeds..."

 

[adastra]

Thank you for your reply!

It's a mixed conditional

Is it somewhat related to this (attached image)

https://dcc.dickinson.edu/grammar/latin/classification-conditions

Or is it something different?

 

[Pacifica]

It's a bit different since the verbs here aren't in the second person.

 

[Dantius]

It's a bit different since the verbs here aren't in the second person.

It could be a Greek-inspired version of a general condition (like ἐὰν τοῦτο ποιῇ, ἀεὶ δίκην δίδωσι)