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]).
