Preparation for first class of the term

I have had a couple of e-mails about the start of term. I had neglected to reaffirm that we would read the Chronicle by Isidore (M.M. pages 84 - 85), and then start on Andomnan (R.M.L. 6.3). As usual, I do not know how far we will get, so do as you did last term and prepare what seems like a reasonable amount. I would suggest the first section (p. 89).

If you haven`t noticed, a revised reading list for the start of term is available in the Dec. 5 entry, below.

Some suggestions for review

I was thinking about review work and remembered this very interesting learner's edition of part of Caesar's Gallic War. Caesar isn't medieval, of course, but it looks like it this book offers some very useful experience in how sentences are constructed. It gives the central clause of each sentence, then adds more words or single phrases to what has already been seen, and slowly builds the full, real Latin sentences. I strongly recommend that anyone interested in some basic review should have a look at it. You can use this in conjunction with Perseus' morphological analysis tool.

In case anyone is really keen, here is a practice unseen translation on a seasonal theme. See how far you can get in roughly seventy minutes. I'll post a key in January.

Apologies

As I said at the start of classes, if I wasn't around the department much this year outside of class it was because I am technically on disability leave and am teaching a course as a sort of ongoing work therapy... Anyway, health issues have caught up with me and I will not be able to post any regular review material for the near future. I'll still try to get a few things up for those of you who want to try to keep their Latin fresh or who need review, but it won't be as much as I had hoped. I apologize for this.

Of course, using Perseus and other sites I've metioned, you can get some practice through further reading of the Vulgate (the mostly narrative passages in the gospels and Acts are all relatively straightforward).

At last!

It is finished: the Dictionary of Medieval Latin from British Sources, all 4000 pages of it. This is a great day for me.....

First sight translation and revised reading list for winter term

The grades for the first sight translation exam are below. As required by privacy regulations, to prevent anyone from being identified by his or her student number, the student numbers have been stripped of their first four digits and then sorted numerically by the remaining four (that is, if your number were 12345678, it would be given below as 5678):

4061	C+
5150	B+
5846	A-
6269	A+
6272	A+
6360	C
6739	B
7298	A
7969	B-
8453	B+
8645	B+
9149	B+

If you are desperate to see your translation before January, send me an e-mail and I will arrange for you to get it.

As usual, please go over the key for the translation carefully. 

And in case you wanted to read ahead, here is the revised reading list for the start of the winter term. 

Starting next week, I will regularly post some review exercises and simple readings. Don't forget to look over what we covered in November, so that it will not be too stale by the time of the second midterm.

Grades for second assignment and meaning of letter grades

I forgot to include the grade spread on the key to the second assignment: A = 2, A- = 2, B+ = 3, B+/B = 1, B/B- = 1, B- = 1, C+/B- = 1, C+ = 1.

The split grades mean that when I calculate the marks at the end of the year, the numerical value for that grade is the average of the two. Therefore a B+/B is halfway between a B and a B+.

I would like to remind you of the Faculty of Arts and Science's grading regulations (Academic Regulation 10). There is a detailed long description, but the short summary adequately indicates what each letter grade means:

A+	Exceptional
A	Outstanding
A-	Excellent
B+	Very Good
B	Good
B-	Reasonably Good
C+	Acceptable
C	Minimally Acceptable (Honours)
C-	Minimally Acceptable (General)
D+	Unsatisfactory Pass
D	Unsatisfactory Pass
D-	Unsatisfactory Pass
F	Failure - No Course Credit

Since the difference between exceptional, outstanding, and excellent is not immediately clear, note the following:

A+	Indicates exceptional performance that exceeds the highest standards. The course content has been mastered, the ability to apply the material in new ways has been demonstrated, and an understanding of the wider context is evident, all to an exceptional degree. Consistent performance at this level leads to placement on the Dean's Honour List with Distinction (see Academic Regulation 12).
A	Indicates outstanding performance that meets the highest standards. The course content has been mastered, the ability to apply the material in new ways has been demonstrated, and an understanding of the wider context is evident.
A-	Indicates excellent performance that meets very high standards. Mastery of the course material and ability to apply the material in new ways have been demonstrated.

This is a bit belated, but look at what I found: a dragon attacking an elephant!

Isidore and fastum regium, again

I have had a bit of luck with fastum regium. The Oxford Classical Text of Lindsay has fastum regium but his apparatus is sparse. He cites only one manuscript, but it is a pretty good one and is also very early (eight century, possibly). He does not offer any other readings. Lindsay was a very distinguished scholar of the history of Latin and his acceptance of the reading suggests it is to be taken seriously. The edition of the Etymologies in Brepols' classical texts series (which I mentioned in yesterday's post) is based on Lindsay's text. Reydellet's edition (Les Belles Lettres) gives a more detailed apparatus which cites manuscripts in three different major families. He also cites the fourth/fifth century grammarian Lactantius Placidus as saying Fastus superbia et est quarta declinatio. This suggests that there was perhaps some doubt about its declension. Perhaps the noun fastidium had some influence. On the other hand, no dictionary of later Latin or medieval Latin I could consult contained fastum -i in the sense of fastus here.

So, to wrap it up. If fastum regium is correct, then we must suppose that it is a very rare alternative form of fastus -us, here neuter and nominative and in apposition to benevolentia consulentis. It would then be translated as if it were fastus regius.

Or, as I said in yesterday's  post, we can follow the reading in the Patrologia Latina edition, which has fastus regius and which, to me, has the strong support of the virtually identical phrase in Augustine. But this requires that corruption into fastum occurred very early in the manuscript tradition.

To minimize confusion, I would like you to change in your text the reading to fastus regius. That will be the reading I will use should the passage appear on the exam. You would then have to translate it as I did in the last paragraph of yesterday's post:  "For regal pride was not the benevolence of someone consulting, but was the arrogance of a master."  

Isidore de regibus

The second thing first. There is no manuscript authority for the exact reference to the Aeneid, about which Kim asked. So that is an editorial insertion (which, as I said in class, is common).

The reading in line 10 Nam fastum regium ... still defeats me. As it stands, it appears to be the accusative singular of the fourth declension noun fastus with the adjective regius -a -um. I'm not sure why I didn't puzzle over it earlier. But I still do not see any easy way to explain the accusative. It could conceivably be an adverbial use of the accusative, but, aside from the typical adverbial use of the neuter accusative singular of adjectives, that usually exists only in a few established phrases and I can't find a classical or late antique parallel. It also seems very improbable that the reader is supposed to understand fert from ferrent in the previous sentence. It would then also have to mean "put up with" (which is fine), but the switch to superbia ... erat would be intolerably abrupt. It would also be odd to have to jump over fecerunt to find the verb one needs to understand.

I find myself wondering if a neuter noun fastum comes into existence in late antiquity: I haven't been able to find evidence of that yet, but I don't have some of the larger medieval Latin dictionaries at home.

I will have to find a good modern edition of Isidore with an apparatus criticus (the notes at the bottom of the page that indicate variant manuscript readings and scholarly conjectures; you can see a few poor images of them here) to see what sort of manuscript authority fastum regium has. I have found one edition online that reads fastum regium (what should be a good edition from the publisher Brepols), but the electronic version doesn't have an apparatus. Godfrey (in Medieval Mosaic) doesn't say what edition he uses.

However, the text of Isidore's Etymologies in the Patrologia Latina offers fastus regius! That makes eminent sense as a nominative in apposition to benevolentia consulentis: "For regal pride was not the benevolence of one consulting, but was the arrogance of a master." Interestingly, Augustine says something very similar (City of God Book 5, chapter 12): cum et reges utique a regendo dicti melius videantur, ut regnum a regibus, reges autem, ut dictum est, a regendo; sed fastus regius non disciplina putata est regentis, vel benevolentia consulentis, sed superbia dominantis. This makes me think even more that it is the correct reading for this passage in Isidore.

I hope to have a more definite answer for you on Wednesday.

Assignment 2

I will hand it out in class today, but as a backup here is the key for the second assignment.

Did you know Alexander the Great fought dragons? At least a fifteenth-century life says he did....

And a page from Les Tres riches heures, with Saint Michael slaying a (the?) dragon over Mont Saint Michel:

Second extra reading for Latin 410 students

The second extra reading comes from Einhard's life of Charlemagne (from Harrrington and Pucci Medieval Latin, 2nd ed.). You will be reading some the Vita Karoli Magni in R.M.L., but I figured it's important enough that a bit extra wouldn't hurt. It's also less freaky than a lot of what you've been reading.

I apologize for the size of the file.





Right: crowning of Charlemagne (from Les Grandes Chroniques de France, c. 1375-9; gallica.bnf.fr Bibliotheque nationale de France).

Below: reliquary bust of Charlemagne in silver and gold from Aachen Cathedral (started by Charlemagne, c. 790-800), 1349. Charlemagne was canonized in 1166 by one of the Anti-popes and never properly recognized by Rome. But he was eventually beatified on the grounds of long-standing cult.

Pange lingua gloriosi proelium certaminis

The early music for this hymn is one of the more haunting tunes in the chant repertoire. I have had trouble finding a performance of it (as opposed to Aquinas' version) online, but this version for organ will give you a good idea nonetheless. The "Sarum" means it is from the rite as performed in Salisbury. The hymn is often performed in a truncated version, "Crux fidelis" (the last three stanzas). The first tune is audible in this performance.

Deletions from reading list

This is just a reminder in writing that we will skip the following passages:

Isidore of Seville, reading "c" ("Praise of Christain poets"),  M.M. p. 53. We will do the excerpt from his chronicle, on page 54.

Aldhelm, everything in R.M.L.

Bede, "De Psalmo 83" in M.M. pp. 97-98.

Trouble with dragons.

I have had some questions about the phrase Hunc Graeci draconta vocant.

I thought it was a decent, but surmountable, little challenge. What I've said to two students is that I expected that, not having found the right word in your Cassell's, you would use the online Lewis & Short (in the instructions: "although for “draconta” you might want to see Lewis & Short"; the link among the favourites list to the right of this entry), find draco and under it find the Greek, which you would connect to the hunc Graeci vocant. So, to the best of your ability, put something in there for draconta which fits hunc Graeci vocant. For comparison, consider: "The Romans called it the "senate," but the Spartans the "Gerousia."

And remember that it is only one word in an assignment worth five percent of the year.

Assignment 2 and Lewis & Short

In case anyone needs another copy, here is the second assignment.

I mention that you might want to consult Lewis & Short, which I have mentioned several times before in this blog and in class. In case you can't remember, it is a large dictionary that includes a fair number of later Latin authors through the fourth century or so. That makes it useful for reading later Latin. At the right-hand side of the blog, under "Useful links," you will find a link to the online version hosted by The Perseus Project.

Note that, using that version, you can search the entire text of the dictionary, not just the headwords. You have to be careful to make sure you're using the right fields, etc. If you click on the link, the page you are taken to should have four grey boxes at the right, titled "Dictionary Entry Lookup," "References," "Search," and "Display Preferences." You might need to play around with these to get familiar with them, but for the moment you should know that if  you use the "Dictionary Entry Lookup," and choose Latin for the "in" field, you will search both the full and abbreviated versions of Lewis & Short. You can use this search feature to find many inflected forms that you might be having attaching to a Latin headword. The "Search" field lets you search English definitions.

The Table of Contents field on the left lets you browse entries like you can do with hard copy and see what entries are near the one you are interested in. Sometimes they can help you find something that doesn't at first seem to be in the dictionary.

Adjustment to schedule of readings

Last class I told you to cross off R.M.L. 7.1(b) from your list. Today I'm making that all of Aldhelm in R.M.L., i.e., 7.1. Therefore, after M.M.'s Vita Sancti Ciarani de Saigir we will go to Bede's Ecclesiastical History in R.M.L. (7.2).

Key for the first midterm

Here is the key for the first midterm.

On the whole the marks were good: 2 A+, 3 A+/A, 1 A, 1 B, 3 B-, 1 D/D+, 1 F.

Those students that did not get an A grade all showed continued weakness with basic morphology and grammar. This was particularly notable in the questions. If you didn't know that a gerund is a noun and that they are neuter and decline like second declension nouns, you are in trouble. If you didn't know that bibentibus is a present active participle, as well as being masculine dat. pl., your basics are weak. If you thought solius was nom., when there was no nom. it could be modifying, you need to do lots of review. Similarly, in the translations there were too many instances of someone simply not paying any attention to case endings that go back to early in first-year Latin and so translating accusatives as subjects, nominatives as objects, plurals as singular etc.

By the next midterm you will have two more months of the course behind you and my standards and the difficulty of at least some of the material on the exam will increase.

Last bit o' Boethius

The last sentence...

I said in class that there are three ways I can see taking key parts of the sentence (more as one adjusts certain words), but I'll restrict myself to the more probable two.

First is as Godfrey does: intuitus (not in Cassell's: it is a fourth-declension noun, rarely used, meaning a look or a view; L&S say that in the sense regard or consideration it is used only in ablative, but this work is out of the date range) is the subject. If that is the case, then I don't see that ille can modify anything else, or stand as a substantive. We have to note that there is one finite verb from Quae to cernit, and the et before suis starts a new clause. There is no conjunction nor any punctuation in the first clause. Therefore:

1. All which things (quae ... cuncta taken together, although quae is the relative pronoun and cuncta is the antecedent -- this is common -- and cuncta is simply everything; that is the intuitus sees everything), however, looking forth upon from eternity, that (ille) consideration (i.e., providence is doing the considering) of providence discerns, and disposes whatever is predestined by one's merits.

          1.a. (preferable in many ways) That consideration of providence, however, looking forth from eternity, discerns all these things....

2. Which things (what has gone before), however, that consideration of providence discerns, looking upon everything (cuncta is now a neut. pl. substantive and not directly connected to quae) from eternity, and ....

But, ille is quite removed from intuitus, and so intuitus could be acc. pl., and the object of cernit, whose subject is ille, God:

3. But God, however, looking upon all these things (all which things--quae being what has gone on before) from eternity, discerns the view of providence and ....

Extra "help" for Boethius

Here are some extra notes on the excerpt from The consolation of philosophy in Medieval Mosaic. I apologize for being so emphatically didactic, but I want to help you find the answers as much as give them to you. 

lines 12-13: est ends a clause (and note the following conjunction cum);

        necesse est: sets up an acc./inf. construction;

        liberiores: predicative (see A&G 283 and 284);

13-14: cum: introduces new clause;

        conservant: understand as subject the subject (in this case, the subject accusative) of the previous clause;

        se: acc.;

        speculatione: see Lewis and Short and note how this passage is cited as an example of one definition; note also the typical word order when something is modifying the noun in a prepositional phrase;

        dilabuntur: = di-labor; still the same subject; Cassell’s doesn’t offer a genuinely satisfactory definition—I would say “sink down.” Just for your reference, look up the entry dis-, di-, dir- in Cassell’s;

15: colligantur: none of the other verbs in this series of clauses is subjunctive, so this almost certainly isn’t; therefore it is from conligo –are, not conligo –ligere;

        extrema: feminine, so modifies the next feminine noun, which is the subject of est;

        servitus: look it up for a suitable definition;

        cum starts a new clause;

16: vitiis deditae is parenthetical and I would put it within commas; there is only one word in your dictionary that could generate vitiis, and it is not vitis –is;

        deditae: for its number, compare conservant, dilabuntur, colligantur, and ceciderunt (that is, it’s plural, so it must be fem. nom.; it does not modify rationis, which is followed by an adjective that can agree with it and does);

        vitiis predictable case after verb dare;

        possessione: from the noun posessio and so can only be ablative, the basic use of which is to indicate separation—take with ceciderunt;

17: ubi: “when”—probably used here just for some variation after all those cums;

        oculos: obviously accusative, there is no preposition before it so it is most likely going to be the object of the verb;

        a summae luce veritatis: interwoven word order again; note that a(b) can only govern the ablative, so there should be no confusion as to what noun it governs (the first ablative that follows it);

17-18: ad inferiora et tenebrosa: this is very close to the typical substantive use of the neuter, but I think one is supposed to supply loca or some such noun;

18: deiecerint: still the same subject… ; note that it is not deiecerunt and that ubi does not take the subj. in CL;

        caligant: Cassell’s gives both transitive and intransitive uses: is there a nearby accusative noun that could be its object?

19: turbantur: one would expect this after affectibus, at the end of its clause;

        affectibus: “states of mind”;

        quibus: antecedent is the last plural noun; dative

        quibus accedendo consentiendoque: see Godfrey;  -endo –endo: ablative; gerund or gerundive? Note that there is nothing around here that an ablative masc. or neuter could be modifying;

        quam: rel. pronoun, so introduces relative clause; here it does not end with the verb, but rather with sibi, which, as a reflexive, is so closely linked to invexere that it wouldn’t give a reader any real trouble; as a pronoun it needs a fem. sing. antecedent and nube is fem. sing., but in this case the relative clause is coming before its antecedent, servitutem. This ends the clause (note the following et) that started with quibus (quibus accedendo consentiendoque adiuvant servitutem, quam invexere sibi);

20: invexere:  < inveho (and so cannot be an infinitive--see A&G 163a);

        adiuvant: Cassell’s gives “support,” which would work; L&S has “further,” and “sustain”;

        quodam modo: quidam + modus (Cassell’s, s.v., 3); parenthetical; translate the abl. by using “in”;

        propria libertate: perhaps an instrumental abl. (A&G 409), maybe an abl. of specification (A&G 418), possibly an ablative of cause (A&G 404); whichever way, take with captivae (i.e., sunt propria libertate captivae [sunt captivae propria libertate]).

Boethius

Just in case anyone was having trouble staying calm in the face of such excitement, I thought I'd better say that I have to delay posting the extra help for the Boethius. It will come today, just later in the afternoon.

Philosophy visits Boethius. On the right is Fortune with her wheel, which symbolizes the fickle nature of fate: sometimes one is rising in the world or on the top, and at other times one is falling or is at the bottom. Note that Philosophy is playing a viol: music was one of the seven liberal arts advocated by Boethius. By the Coëtivy Master (Paris) about 1460 - 1470. 

First Assignment

I will be handing out a key for the first assignment, but I am also posting it here in case you lose your hard copy.

I neglected, before I printed the key, to say as much as I perhaps should have about the two points raised in the blog post of Oct. 25 titled "Assignment". There I directed you to the online Lewis and Short dictionary in connection with uti and flos. Since some people had difficulty negotiating the directions, I'll spell it out. Under utor, I.A.2h and l, you will find "enjoy," which I think fits the context. The reflexive use of the deponent makes it "enjoy himself". As for flos, under II.A. you can find "splendour, glory," and under II.B "ornament" (usually of speech, but only usually, not always). The latter is also in Cassell's. 

Sample exam question

To give you a further idea of what the exam will look like (also see the course outline) here is one passage from an previous exam for this course.... The exam had three passages of similar length for third-year students to translate, and one further passage for fourth-year students.


2. Nam singulis diebus ante pullorum cantum aperiuntur omnia hostia Anastasis et descendent omnes monazontes et parthene, ut hic dicunt, et non solum hii, sed et laici preter, uiri aut mulieres, qui tamen uolunt maturius uigilare. Et ex ea hora usque in luce dicuntur ymni et psalmi responduntur, similiter et antiphonae: et cata singulos ymnos fit oratio. Nam presbyteri bini uel terni, similiter et diacones, singulis diebus uices habent simul cum monazontes, qui cata singulos ymnos uel antiphonas orationes dicunt.

i. Who is the author of this passage and approximately when was it written? [4 marks]
ii. Parse descendent and explain why it is what form it is. [5 marks]
iii. Parse parthene. [3 marks]
iv. What is odd, by the standards of CL, about cata? [3 marks]

Accuracy and idiomatic English

I apologize: I wrote this on Wednesday, but I only now noticed that I had not actually posted it (fortunately, it had been saved as a draft). So here it is....

There is, honestly, nothing to worry about. All I mean when I say "idiomatic English" is English following correct grammar and syntax, and in words are used in what could be called a correct way that reflects modern English usage. As I said in yesterday's note, the prime concern when translating is to give an accurate version in English of what the Latin means. Most of the time that will involve paying attention to details of morphology, grammar, and syntax. A nominative noun in the Latin should be kept as a subject if the particular word or English usage allows it. An object in the Latin should stay an object, etc. An active verb in the Latin will usually become an active verb in English. Sometimes English will not allow you to offer a slavishly literal representation of the Latin grammar and syntax and you will have to diverge from the Latin. That is what I mean by idiom.

For example, take the phrase dimisi habenas lacrimis, which I discussed in a post on Monday. In that post I offered several possible English translations, suggesting that "gave free rein to" was the best option: it is the most idiomatic English possibility. We don't normally say "I gave loose rein to my anger," but it is tolerable and understandable English and I would accept it. What we don't say is "I sent away my reins" or the like. Although the Latin verb dimisi can mean that in certain contexts, it is simply wrong to use that English translation in this context. Too many offered "rivers of eyes", omitting "my", or even "rivers of my eyes" for flumina oculorum meorum. To say "rivers of eyes" is wrong. While the genitive case is often represented in English by the preposition "of", it is not always (this use of the genitive is not common; it can be seen as either a type of the genitive used with verbs of plenty [in A&G, #356], suggested by the idea of overflowing in prorumpere [this is related to the partitive genitive]; or an imitation of a common Greek use of the genitive for separation [Greek does not have the ablative case]). In addition, to translate proruperunt as anything but an intransitive verb (which it is in the Latin: it has no object), e.g. "sent forth," would also be wrong. Or consider solitudo mihi ... suggerebatur in line 4 of that passage. "Solitude was suggested to me" is not idiomatic English and would not get full marks, since, simply put, it is not an accurate representation of the meaning of the Latin. Cassell's in this case doesn't offer a suitable synonym, but only the largest dictionaries might (and even then they usually don't). This is an instance where you have to think about what the Latin means and represent it in English. It is not a matter of simply swapping in one particular English word or stem for a Latin word or stem. Of course, we cover such instances in class: I don't expect you to figure them out on your own.  And so on....

In short, I am not asking for great English style, ready to be published. I am asking for accurate translations that are in acceptable, correct English. I do not want (for they are ipso facto not accurate) translations that say things in ways that no reasonably capable speaker of English would say.

Assignment

I have had a couple of questions about the assignment, which make me think I should clarify two points at least.

Line 3: uti: a reflexive use of the deponent--see A&G 190e and 156a; see Lewis and Short, s.v., I.A.2h and l (errant OCR has rendered it as a "1", but it is in between "k" and "m".

Line 4: flore: sort of in Cassell's, noted as being used of speech; see Lewis and Short, s.v. II.a.

Augustine and Jerome

Eventually Augustine conceded that, while he had the better hat and a big stick, those things were trumped by Jerome`s beard, his skill at model-building and his idiosyncratic Latin.

A few extra comments on The City of God

(ii)
You really need to pay careful attention to Sidwell's notes. If it helps, look at the notes first, find what they refer to in the text, and somehow mark those words or phrases (I'd put a little asterisk before the first word), just so you don't miss a note.

line 2: hoc: despite the alius, A. uses hoc since he is thinking of the bonum that follows. hoc .... bonum forms a noun phrase, with the adjectives that modify the noun in between the demonstrative and the noun. Of course, in English we have to make the adjectives predicative: hoc bonum est pariter.... et coaeternum.
3: nec ... non: another double negative.
4: propter hoc: hoc refers to the quia clause that follows; I would translate the quia by something like "in that", "inasmuch as".
5: uero: "moreover"
    sola: "only"
8: utique: one word, look it up;
9: in quo ... alterum: Sidwell's capitalization and punctuation could be misleading. If you read the Latin as he suggests, it should be: "In the respect in which it is spoken of in relation to itself and not to another,...." I would suggest translating in quo as "In as much as..." or "In that". The in might be redundant, or A. might be thinking of quo as a proleptic (that is, coming before) relative pronoun, referring to the idea of the clause ad semet ipsum dicitur.
10: hoc est: word order is est hoc (as you would expect in Latin, with the verb coming at the end of its clause) and quod habet is a relative clause.
11: dicitur uiuus: "it is said to be alive," "it is called 'living'".

(iii)
1: itaque: delayed, as usual: put it first.
    natura: sc. "Trinitatis".
    sit: in Cassell's, s.v. (1)b, "with subj.".... (The subj. is there because it is a type of relative clause of characteristic).
    uel: not "or"; in Cassell's, s.v. "Adv. (1)."
5: Hinc est quod: or "Hence there is the fact that...."
9: secundum: preposition
    dicuntur illa simplicia: read as illa dicuntur simplicia.
    uereque: uērē + que
10: quod: relative conjunction
11: vel ... vel ... vel: conj., in Cassell's s.v. (2)
     sunt: delayed, as usual in Latin, but you'll want to move it to the start of its clause

Translation, literalness, accuracy, and idiom

Since I know some of you are a bit concerned about producing acceptable translations for the next assignment and the exams, in a post tomorrow I will clarify what I mean by translation, literalness, accuracy, and idiom.

But for the moment the big issue is accuracy: if you accurately represent in English what the Latin is saying, and don't leave out any words that you absolutely don't have to, you will be fine. Accuracy is the fundamental, underlying issue that affects all the others. If you get the person of a verb wrong, then that word is inaccurately translated. If you get a noun's case wrong, you will probably have translated it incorrectly. Worry more about knowing your morphology and vocabulary than any abstract ideas of idiom and style.

Giving free rein to one's grief.

In the first passage from Augustine, the phrase dimisi habenas lacrimis (l. 9) gave everyone some trouble, so I thought I'd clarify it here rather than ten times in writing.

As I said in my note, you really need to consider both the verb and its object together. Dimitto can mean a lot of things, but its basic senses are "to send forth" and "to send away, let go" (Cassell's, s.v., 1 and 2). Habena means "that by which anything is held",
           
              Hence (1) a strap; of a sling ...; (2) a bridle, reins (gen. in pl.). Lit., habenas fundere,
              dare, to give the rein, loosen the rein,... (Cassell's, s.v.)

So how does one put together the two words? You could notice the "habenas fundere, dare" and see that dimitto is a rough synonym for dare. You have habenas in pl., and Cassell's says that "reins" is a common definition for the plural. Does "send forth the reins" make sense? No, so try something else. "Send away the reins"? No. "Let go the reins"? Compare the suggested translation in Cassell's for habenas dare, "loosen the rein."

So you could force your English a bit and say "I loosened the reins for my tears," or "I let go the reins for my tears." Or you could try to think of something more idiomatic and come up with "gave free rein to my tears."

My point is mostly that dictionaries usually give translations for common phrases or combinations of words. Be careful to look at the Latin in your dictionary, not just at the English translations or definitions, and you will find these phrases. Compare other phrases such as opus est, quid agis (under ago), etc. Secondarily, there is the fact that as you deal with real Latin, you need to put behind you the temptation to translate a given word always by one definition (that you probably learned in your first year) and keep your mind open to the fact that a word in Latin has a semantic range rather than a single sense.

Tears of Augustine

I wonder what Saint Augustine, sitting under that fig tree, was really crying about....

Effodiens in solo

Dr. Colivicchi is now recruiting for the coming summer's excavation at Caere: here is a short introduction to the Caere Excavation Project  and the project's web page is caeresite.com.

Yes, I've changed the title of this post. The participle is much better than the gerund.

Egeria (i).1-3

I promised you a bit of clarification of the first sentence in the excerpt from Egeria. I will say right away that I'm mostly interested in you being able to translate this sentence accurately and I don't really expect you to be able to explain everything as I am going to do. 

So, a translation first: 
                         In order that your affection might know what divine service is practised/
                         performed on each day, every day, in those holy places, I am obliged to 
                         inform you (facere certos), being aware that you would gladly know those 
                         things.

A lot depends on the tense of debui. It is possible that Egeria is thinking of the common use of debitum and so using a present perfect here ("I have come to be obliged/I have incurred the obligation"). More probably, she is copying the common Latin use of the perfect as an epistolary tense (A&G 479). That is, the tenses of the verbs used reflect the perspective of the reader: when the reader reads this, Egeria will have been, in the past, obliged....

Since debui is perfect, the verbs that depend on it (in dependent subjunctive clauses) must follow the general sequence of tenses. 
               sciret: subj. in purpose clause (ut …), imperfect because of sequence of tenses (i.e., main verb is perfect; so the imperfect is used to indicate incomplete action; A&G 482 ff., for here see esp. 484).  

               habeatur: subj. in indirect question (implied after sciret: sciret … quae …). It is present tense because it is a general statement. (sequence of tenses doesn’t apply here).

               haberetis … cognoscere: (see G.4 (c)): habeo + inf. = future; here haberetis is impf. subj., subj. because of an implied conditional sense (“would be…”), imperfect because it is still ultimately governed by debui (tense also caught by “would”—as in “he would go to the store every day” [imperfect]), sciens being a participal that takes its tense from is relationship to the main verb, debui. “Habetis cognoscere” would be the simple future, this use of the imperfect haberetur indicates the future from the perspective of the past (hence Sidwell’s “you would be glad to know”). 

But if I were to ask you any questions on an exam about these verbs they would be restricted to: 

          1. parse sciret and identify what type of clause it is in (3s impf. subj. act.; purpose clause);

          2. parse habeatur and explain its mood (3s pres. subj. pass.; indirect question); and

          3. explain the presence of the verb habeo in haberetis cognoscere (it, in effect, forms a future).

As an aside, for the phrase affectio uestra, see Part 1, 5.7 sed cum leget affectio vestra libros sanctos Moysi...; 7.3 Nam mihi credat volo affectio vestra...; 12.2 Nam mihi credit volo affection vestra...; 20.13 Nam nolo aestimet affectio vestra...; 22.10 10. De quo loco, dominae, lumen meum, cum haec ad vestram affectionem darem...

You may go take an analgesic now.

Egeria, RML iv.3-4

Felix dies gratiarum!

          There was a lot of confusion over lines 3-4 of the fourth passage from Egeria in RML, particularly because of the verb eicitur. So here's one more attempt to put it simply.
          First, you must pay attention to the context, in this case the previous sentence, where E. says that "all the candles and wax tapers are lit and an infinite light arises/comes into existence." The lumen that starts the following sentence is clearly referring to the lumen in the previous one, and autem emphasizes the continuation: "Moreover, the light (i.e., of the candles etc.)...." This makes it clear that the light being referred to is not the light of the sun coming in from outside. It is possible that Egeria is saying "Moreover, light (in general) ...", but that will be unsatisfactory in light of the next clause. The candles etc. have to be lit from something (no matches), which is another source of flame. That source is not brought in from the outside, but comes from within the cave of the Anastasis. Admittedly, Egeria's use of eicio here is odd and very vivid. When eicio is used with physical things, it is usually boats being brought to land or people being ejected from somewhere. But given what comes before, lumen eicitur ([e + iacio] in constrast to affertur [ad + fero] has to refer to the source of the light for the candles and tapers. There is not some huge fire in the cave that would "cast" a lot of light into the church. It is possible that E. is influenced by the occasional use of eicio with nouns meaning "fire" and, very very rarely, "light," and is making what might be considered a type of pun (the light is brought out of/casts its light out from) but "cast" is still not what is needed for a good English translation in this particular context. It is more a problem that in English we use "cast" commonly in such a way, and that dictionaries often give "cast out" as a definition for eicio (note that we do not say usually say that a lamp "cast out" light).
          Since E. is, therefore, meaning that the source of light (for the candles, etc.) is physicallyl brought out from the cave, we have to use an appropriate verb in English: "driven out", "expelled" etc. are not appropriate in English ("the light was driven out of the cave"). "Thrust out" is not really tolerable, either. But, as one can see from Lewis and Short, the meaning of eicio does come very close to "remove" and the like. In short, I would favour "produced".

          Later in the day I'll say something about the first sentence (i.1-3).

        

Start of Augustine's Confessions in RML

Here are the extra comments on the first excerpt from Augustine's Confessions in R.M.L.(p. 46). A copy of the assignment is available here.

Line 1. … traxit et congessit:  a nice chiastic structure: prepositional phrase + subject (for both verbs) + verb + verb + object  (for both verbs) + prepositional phrase.

2. oborta est: finite verb (compound of orior).

3. ut: to determine what type of clause this introduces, you need to look to secessi (ut totum effunderem cum uocibus suis …. secessi remotius…). Then put in surrexi ab Alypio and the parenthetical phrase within dashes.

4. ad negotium flendi: keep together as prepositional phrase. You’ll need to be careful with your translation of negotium.

5. quam: after comparative remotius (, s.v. 3b in Cassell’s). I would omit the “that” suggested in Sidwell’s note (“further away than … his”).

6. nescio quid … dixeram: for nescio, s.v. I. in Cassell’s. It is sometimes even written as one word.

quo: antecedent is last stated masculine or neuter noun or pronoun.

7. grauidus: given its form, what noun must it modify?

8. nimie: cf. longe, alte, etc. (see A&G 214).

sub: starts a prepositional phrase that ends with a noun—keep it together.

nescio: see on l. 6, i.e., keep  “nescio quo modo” together.

9. dimisi: di + misi. What verb does misi come from? You’ll probably need to look it up in the dictionary to get a good translation, and also consider carefully the definition of habena. As so often, you cannot really settle on a translation for a verb until you’ve considered its object or associated adverbial or prepositional phrase.

proruperunt: note the –erunt: this is, therefore, what tense? And so what do you need to pay proper attention to in order to look it up in your dictionary?

10: sententia: as opposed to the uerbis.

11. Et tu … usquequo: no verb, but you don’t need one to translate it acceptably. Otherwise, look ahead to find the verb you need to understand.

Vsquequo, Domine, irasceris …:  You can either take as “Vsquequo, Domine, irasceris? In finem?” or “Vsquequo, Domine? Irasceris in finem?”

 12. ne … fueris: a regular form of negative command or prohibition—A&G 450.

iniquitatum: see Sidwell’s vocabulary.

13. eis: refers to the last plural noun

Iactabam: an appropriate definition is in your Casell’s.

Quandiu: “m” (voiced) is often changed to “n” (unvoiced) before another unvoiced consonant.

14. modo: in Cassell’s, s.v. 2.

Quare … meae?: the sentence lacks a verb, so understand an appropriate form of esse.

Egeria in Reading Medieval Latin (i and ii)

Sidwell gives a lot of help, but here is a bit more. I hope we'll get through the first section today, in which case this won't be of much help.....

(i)
line 1: ut: note sciret; only one type of ut-clause really makes sense here, when you consider certas uos facere debui.

5: sed et laici preter: et = "even".

6: responduntur: "are sung with responses".

7: simul et antiphonae: et = "also".

8: uices habent: "take turns" (in dictionary s.v. uicis ).

(ii)
4: cathecuminos: in Sidwell's vocabulary, under its usual spelling.

5: omnes: nom. (if it were acc. masc. pl., one would expect it to come before cancellos; and without it there is no good subject for the verb).

Actual help with Egeria

Extra notes on excerpt from Egeria's Itinerarium, M.M. p. 50.

line 1: completo: s.v. Cassell's, "transf." (3)
         quo: rel. pron.; its antecedent is the last masc./neut. sing. noun.

line 2: et: "also" (Cassell's, "As adv., also, even")

line 4: in Choreb: a very odd use of in, probably with some sense of CL's in + acc., indicating aim or purpose. Just translate as "by" (as in "called by the name..."). See R.M.L. p. 367 for more on prepositions.
         hic: "this"

line 5: quā, adv., s.v. Cassell's.
         Achab: "Ahab", genitive.

line 6: Helias: "Elias" = "Elijah". (For this appearing and disappearing initial aspirate, think of English accents that drop initial "h"s, and French (esp. Quebecois) ones that add them. See R.M.L. O.3. Compare Catullus 84.)
         quid: sc. agis (common Latin phrase)

line 7: regnorum: i.e., the Bible's Book of Kings.

line 8: hostium: = ostium (R.M.L. 0.3).
          que: R.M.L. 0.1

line 10: illi sancti: the monks giving the tours.
            singula: neut. pl. as substantive, or sc. loca.

line 12: in primo capite: "in the first bit of the head", i.e., "at the top of the head".
            ubi ... igne: parenthetical. The main sentence is Nam in primo capite ipsius uallis ... uideramus etiam et illum locum....

line 14: etiam et: "even too".

line 16: sic ... quemadmodum: I think these go together as correlatives (LSJ "Corresp. with sic, ita, etc., just as, as...."): "And so ... just as ... they began...."

line 17: ceperunt: R.M.L. 0.1.

line 19: in montem = in monte (R.M.L. G.15–16).

line 21: quemadmodum = (probably) simply as.

line 22: que (R.M.L. 0.1; cf. line 8, above).

line 24: qua: possibly CL adv. quā, more probably a singular relative pronoun where there should be a plural: Egeria is thinking of the "days" as a single period.

line 25: Iesu: yes, "Joshua."

line 27: quemadmodum: basic definition in your Cassell's.

line 28: abitationes: the disappearing "h" again.

line 289: parent: < pareo.

Help with Egeria, and maximum corrigendum

I just wanted to reassure any of you waiting for it that I will post some extra comments on the first bit of Egeria (in MM ) early tomorrow morning. I apologize for not getting it done earlier.

Stephanie has pointed out to me that, mirabile dictu, in the vocabulary list I have given you, the definition for disco is "teach," not "learn." I don't know what list I got that entry from (I merged several), but I will try to identify it and appropriately punish the author. I'm presuming that I didn't do that....

Study and review

Some students have asked about studying the material and learning new vocabulary. I believe strongly that when dealing with real Latin texts like we are, it is best to focus one's review on the readings, not on learning vocabulary from the readings out of context (in general). That is, spend your study and review time going through what we have read. Working from a clean text (no notes or comments, no interlinear translations), try to read a sentence and make as much sense out of it as you can. Then check your notes or translation. Note where you have made mistakes and review them again carefully. If you think you are having recurring trouble with particular vocabulary items, by all means keep a separate list. But don't add to that list every new word you meet. Then move on to the next sentence, and so on. I found it useful when I was an undergraduate to underline lightly what I got wrong the first time so I could focus on those bits again when I next reviewed. I presumed that if I knew something three weeks before the exam, I would probably know it when I wrote the exam. Then as I reviewed I put a little mark by anything that I got right the second time. Then I did the same for a third review. I could be fairly certain that I knew well enough anything that had two marks, and then I could easily focus any further review on what I was still getting wrong. 

The exams will give you excerpts from what we have read in class, without any vocabulary or notes. You will have to translate the passages into reasonably idiomatic English but without paraphrasing (which can let you dodge vocabulary or grammar you don't really know). I will also ask a few questions about the passages. I will definitely ask you to name the author, to give a rough date (e.g. "c. 375" or "latter half of the fourth century" for Ambrose), and, possibly, to name the work. I will also ask a few questions about grammar or morphology, such as to parse a particular verb or noun, explain why something is subjunctive, or give the standard classical Latin spelling for a medieval form of a word. 

Readings for Monday

First, a general reminder that you must pay close attention to Sidwell's notes. They will alert to you oddities that will otherwise cause your brains to hurt.

RLM 1.1(b) second paragraph: "quaestionibus" has to be taken as something like "troublesome points," "issues of dispute," "disputed points" ("things that provoke questions"; within its classical semantic range). The "de" at the start is, I think, more likely introducing the subject: "As for those ...." "Unusquisque" is nominative. "As for those issues that are read but not, by chance, understood, let each ...."

RLM 2.1(i).2 (line 2): "Qui septenarius sacratus numerus": "septenarius" means "containing seven", but here must simply equal "seven". "This sacred number of seven", "This sacred number, seven,..."
          (lines 2-3) "si matutino ... tempore": make sure you read Sidwell carefully on this. What he means by "all depends on tempore" is that "primae" etc. are genitives governing "tempore": "at the time of prime".
          (lines 9-10) "matutinis .... completorio": in contrast with the previous list, these are all ablatives of time.
        2.1(ii).1 (line 1): "Iam ... digessimus": "We have already arranged..." (from "digero").
                     (line 3): "Deus in adiutorium": as you might deduce from the italics, these are titles of hymns or parts of the Mass.
                     (line 7): "Kyrie eleison" in modern spelling (from the Greek: "Kyrie" is a vocative meaning "Lord", and "eleison" an aorist imperative second person singular of the verb "have mercy," "pity"; Κύριε ἐλέησον). These are the first words of the Mass.
                                  "missas": from the last words of the Mass, "ite, missa est."

RLM 2.3 (line 25): "Aequalis" is vocative.
               (line 29): "Praesepe" is nom.

Reading Medieval Latin 1.1(b), line 1

I hope only a few of you have still to prepare for the next class, but if you haven't, I thought I should add a note on "custos sacrarii" in the first line of the excerpt from the Rule of St. Isidore. "Sacrarium" means "shrine", and I presume the phrase amounts to "the sacristan."

Abbreviations in the extra reading for fourth-year students

I have noticed two abbreviations in the notes for the extra reading for fourth-year students. On line 22, page 172, "A&G" refers (I would hope, "of course") to Allen and Greenough, and "LS" on line 25 is "Lewis and Short".  "LL" is "late Latin."

The "big" Lewis and Short

One of the links to the right takes you to the "big" Lewis and Short (officially A Latin dictionary founded on Andrews' edition of Freund's Latin Dictionary, revised enlarged and in great part rewritten by Charlton T. Lewis and Charles Short), dating originally from 1879 but subsequently revised and updated. As I have said, because of its inclusion of later authors than the Oxford Latin Dictionary, it is the standard dictionary for those working in late antiquity and the early middle ages. It is still in print and is available from Amazon.ca for $282. At abebooks.com used versions start at $79 (plus shipping) and rapidly rise after that. But I have a copy (1962 impression) in very good condition that I would sell for $75 Canadian. If anyone is interested, please see me.

Monastic Hours

If you are interested in seeing how the Divine Office has survived into modern Catholic use (there are, of course, also Anglican monasteries), you can visit this web site. Across the top (or down the left-hand side: it seems to vary by day) are listed the hours currently observed: Matins ("Morning prayer"), Terce, Sext, None, Vespers (Evening), and Compline (Night). The "Office of Readings" has replaced Prime and may be said at any time during the day. The site also offers a brief explanation of the structure of the liturgy. This is a decent hypertext book of hours.

The Divine Office is written in a book (usually several books) called a breviary. The famous medieval books of hours were condensed versions of the Breviary for personal devotional use. Books of hours are some of our richest sources for illuminated manuscripts. This is a good brief introduction to books of hours, and at the same site you can go through several complete books. Wikipedia has some very good illustrations from a range of books, and separate entries on a fair number of specific books (such as the very famous Très Riches Heures of the Duc de Berry).

The Anglican Church has a unique Evensong service, originally a conflation of Vespers and Compline. The BBC offers weekly choral Evensong broadcasts.

First extra reading for Latin 410 students

Here is the first extra reading for Latin 410 students (from, K.P. Harrington, Medieval Latin, 2nd ed., rev. J. Pucci, Chicago and London: The University of Chicago Press): a letter by pope Gregory I. I think I have picked something with relatively few medieval oddities. You will have to work on mostly on your own (or with other students). You can come and see me and ask specific questions, but I won't go over it word-by-word as we do in class. By all means use a translation to check your work. Remember that a passage from this handout will appear on the first exam for translation by those of you who are Latin 410 students, and that means that you will also have more material to translate within the same time as Latin 327 students. The remaining two extra readings will be a bit more challenging.

And all flesh shall see it together ...

Those of you who experienced first-year Latin with me know that I sometimes manage to get intolerably confused when I'm tired. But that's no excuse for the fact that that wonderful chorus from Handel's Messiah (fourth number of the score: "And the glory of the Lord shall be revealed, and all flesh shall see it together: for the mouth of the Lord hath spoken it.") did not come screaming to mind when we read Isaiah 40:5 "et videbit omnis caro pariter" today and set me straight. And of course caro could not be accusative.  I know I didn't read it that way yesterday. So a big juicy mea culpa from me.

In case you haven't noticed, there is a link to the REED Anglo-Latin word book to the right under the useful links. You can download it as a single file for easy reference.

Reading list for fall term

I will stand hand out the remaining hard copies in class on Monday, but I'm posting an electronic version in case you lose your printed one.

Salvete, discipuli Latinitatis medii aevi

Here is the link for the vocabulary list.

Allen and Greenough 1905 version.

Greek and Roman texts at the Perseus Project.
          If you scroll down the alphabetical list, you will find "Latin Vulgate." Check out the 50th Psalm
(you get there by clicking on "Psalms", and then the number [here labelled "Chapter" on the left of the screen,] or entering the number in the field roughly in the middle of the screen near the top). Here is a direct link to the third verse (first of the text given in Medieval Mosaic). Note the third grey box on the left of the screen "View text chunked by." If you choose "chapter" you should get the whole psalm. If you don't, put "50" in the search field. Regardless, once you have the text of the psalm up there, you can click on each word to link to a series of possible definitions (if there can be more than one), which will in turn will usually let you choose from several dictionaries (usually Lewis & Short and the Elementary Lewis). You can also search other Latin texts for the same word. Using this can help you translate more efficiently.
          Browse around the site and you'll find other useful tools.

Finally, this site (link to Psalm 51) does seem to have some sectarian allegiance, but it offers a useful tool for those reading the Bible. One can view on a verse-by-verse basis twenty-eight different translations, and a few commentaries. If you get stuck, it might be helpful. Just note the differences between translations and the fact that they cannot all be equally accurate. Note that you use the directional arrows near the top (next to the printer icon) to move forward and back verse-by-verse. This is only one of many web sites where one can view parallel texts or translations of the Bible and I have mentioned it simply as an example of what is available if one looks.