Seneca - Consolatio ad Marciam

[Pacifica]

It instinctively made sense to me that way.

 

[Matthaeus]

Non uidisset strictos in ciuilia capita mucrones nec diuisa percussoribus occisorum bona, ut etiam de suo perirent, non hastam consularia spolia uendentem nec caedes locatas publice nec latrocinia, bella, rapinas, tantum Catilinarum.

Not sure what type of clause is being introduced here, nor what is being meant; and surely he wasn't referring to the Catilinarian orations here? lol

Adice incendia ruinas naufragia lacerationesque medicorum ossa uiuis legentium et totas in uiscera manus demittentium et non per simplicem dolorem pudenda curantium;

How does this word fit in with the rest of the sentence?

Propone illud acerbissimum tibi tempus, quo Seianus patrem tuum clienti suo Satrio Secundo congiarium dedit.

I take this to be in apposition to patrem.

Irascebatur illi ob unum aut alterum liberius dictum, quod tacitus ferre non potuerat Seianum in ceruices nostras ne inponi quidem sed escendere. Decernebatur illi statua in Pompei theatro ponenda, quod exustum Caesar reficiebat: exclamauit Cordus tunc uere theatrum perire. Quid ergo? non rumperetur supra cineres Cn. Pompei constitui Seianum et in monumentis maximi imperatoris consecrari perfidum militem?

It [the theater] would not be violated if Seianus were placed above Pompey's ashes???

Vsus itaque balineo quo plus uirium poneret, in cubiculum se quasi gustaturus contulit et dimissis pueris quaedam per fenestram, ut uideretur edisse, proiecit; a cena deinde, quasi iam satis in cubiculo edisset, abstinuit.

What does vires ponere mean? Having dismissed the servants, he threw forth some things out the window?

Complexus itaque te, 'carissima' inquit 'filia et hoc unum tota celata uita, iter mortis ingressus sum et iam medium fere teneo; reuocare me nec debes nec potes.'

I have entered upon this one journey of death with my entire life having been hidden???

Nec umquam magis ingenis cara in corpore mora est; exire atque erumpere gestiunt, aegre has angustias ferunt, uagi per omne, sublimes et ex alto adsueti humana despicere.

To wander through each thing?

Ignis quo clarior fulsit, citius extinguitur;

The meaning is clear, "The brighter the fire shines, the faster it gets extinguished," but why perfect then suddenly present tense?

Numquam e conspectu tuo recessit; sub oculis tuis studia formauit excellentis ingeni et aequaturi auum, nisi obstitisset uerecundia, quae multorum profectus silentio pressit.

Is this the nominative singular of the noun profectus?

Haec quae uides circumdata nobis, ossa neruos et obductam cutem uultumque et ministras manus et cetera quibus inuoluti sumus, uincula animorum tenebraeque sunt. Obruitur his, offocatur, inficitur, arcetur a ueris et suis in falsa coiectus.

Are these impersonal passives? What is the subject of the PPP?

 

[Pacifica]

Not sure what type of clause is being introduced here, nor what is being meant

It's a result clause: "so that they (i.e. the slain) would even perish at their own (financial) expense"—i.e. they would kind of pay for their own murders: the hitmen would be paid with the possessions of their victims.

and surely he wasn't referring to the Catilinarian orations here? lol

No. Notice it's Catilinarum, not Catilinariarum. "So many Catilines".

How does this word fit in with the rest of the sentence?

It's a dative of reference (or disadvantage) with legentium.

I take this to be in apposition to patrem.

I think you're understanding the meaning correctly but "apposition" isn't the right term for this. It's rather a predicate accusative.

It [the theater] would not be violated if Seianus were placed above Pompey's ashes???

"How could he not have exploded (with anger) at the fact that Seianus was being placed...?"

What does vires ponere mean?

I think it means something like "to (deliberately) lose strength" (literally "to lay down strength").

Having dismissed the servants, he threw forth some things out the window?

Yes. That is, some of the food, not just some random things.

I have entered upon this one journey of death with my entire life having been hidden???

Celata agrees with filia: "having had only this one thing (unum) hidden from you (by me) in your (or my, I'm not sure) entire life".

To wander through each thing?

Vagi is not vagari (it's the nom. masc. pl. of vagus) but it seems like it should perhaps indeed read vagari: https://latin.packhum.org/search?q=ngustias+ferunt It makes for a smoother construction.
I would translate omne as "everything".

The meaning is clear, "The brighter the fire shines, the faster it gets extinguished," but why perfect then suddenly present tense?

The perfect tense is often used in conditional, temporal and the like clauses in general statements when one thing happens before another. It's the same principle as with the future and future perfect, except transposed into the (habitual) present.

Is this the nominative singular of the noun profectus?

No, it's the accusative plural.

Are these impersonal passives?

No.
It looks like the implied subject is animus and Seneca kind of forgot that he'd just used that word in the plural.

 

[Matthaeus]

It's a dative of reference (or disadvantage) with legentium.

So something like .... "and doctors' lacerations, who extract the bones out/from of the living?" Sounds pretty gruesome, like something out of a zombie film, lol.

 

[Pacifica]

So something like .... "and doctors' lacerations, who extract the bones out/from of the living?" Sounds pretty gruesome, like something out of a zombie film, lol.

Yes.

 

[Matthaeus]

It's a result clause: "so that they (i.e. the slain) would even perish at their own (financial) expense"—i.e. they would kind of pay for their own murders: the hitmen would be paid with the possessions of their victims.

I had no idea suo could refer to money here. Sorry, how did you arrive at such an ingenious interpretation?

"How could he not have exploded (with anger) at the fact that Seianus was being placed...?"

I couldn't find any satisfactory meaning in L&S for this context, but I guess it's 2b in the OLD.

Vagi

is not vagari (it's the nom. masc. pl. of vagus) but it seems like it should perhaps indeed read vagari: https://latin.packhum.org/search?q=ngustias+ferunt It makes for a smoother construction.

So my hunch was right!

No, it's the accusative plural.

So the subject of pressit must be verencundia, then?

t looks like the implied subject is animus and Seneca kind of forgot that he'd just used that word in the plural.

Darn him!

 

[Matthaeus]

Btw this concludes all the questions from this dialogue.

 

[Pacifica]

I had no idea suo could refer to money here. Sorry, how did you arrive at such an ingenious interpretation?

De suo = "at one's own expense, with one's own money" is a common phrase.

So the subject of pressit must be verencundia, then?

Yes (well, technically quae, whose antecedent is verecundia).

 

[Matthaeus]

De suo = "at one's own expense, with one's own money" is a common phrase.

I've never come across it before.