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.