One question on gerund, another on pronouns

[interprete]

Hello,

My current chapter is on the Latin gerund.
The first sentence of the illustrative text is this:

Inter majores M. Junii Bruti fuit ille L. Brutus qui reges coegerat ad fugiendum.

I’m not sure how to understand that. ’To force someone to do something’ as far as I understand only requires an infinitive after cogere. So am I to understand here that he had gathered the kings in order to flee (as opposed to ’forced them to flee")? This sounds somewhat surprising.

Also, the text continues thus:

Is filius erat Serviliae, sororis Catonis philosophi, cui ipse perpetuam admirationem praestitit. Servilia autem nimio amore Caesarem amaverat, ubi ille adhuc adelescens erat. Itaque Caesar credere Brutum filium suum esse.

Now I have a problem with the pronoun. Why "is"? Doesn’t ’is’ normally refer to the last person mentioned (i.e. L. Brutus, whereas here I can only assume that the subject is M. Junius Brutus, right?

Thanks.

 

[Pacifica]

Inter majores M. Junii Bruti fuit ille L. Brutus qui reges coegerat ad fugiendum.

I’m not sure how to understand that. ’To force someone to do something’ as far as I understand only requires an infinitive after cogere. So am I to understand here that he had gathered the kings in order to flee (as opposed to ’forced them to flee")? This sounds somewhat surprising.

It undoubtedly means that he forced them to flee, but it seems an unusual construction.

Doesn’t ’is’ normally refer to the last person mentioned

I don't think it always does but I think the use of is here is indeed a bit weird/confusing.

 

[cinefactus]

It undoubtedly means that he forced them to flee, but it seems an unusual construction.

L&S has one example ingratiis ad depugnandum omnes Nep. Them. 4,4
There are many more examples of different constructions though.

 

[interprete]

L&S has one example ingratiis ad depugnandum omnes Nep. Them. 4,4

Sorry, could you explain a bit more? I don’t understand this example, so I’m not sure how it relates to the sentence you responded to. Thanks!

 

[interprete]

It undoubtedly means that he forced them to flee, but it seems an unusual construction.

I don't think it always does but I think the use of is here is indeed a bit weird/confusing.

Thanks! Then I’ll just ascribe this to the fact that the texts are all slightly contrived, probably to try and apply as many of the grammar explanations as possible.

 

[Pacifica]

Sorry, could you explain a bit more? I don’t understand this example, so I’m not sure how it relates to the sentence you responded to. Thanks!

L&S cites one example of the verb cogo with ad + gerund: (some form of cogo) ingratiis ad depugnandum omnes, from Nepos.