|
|
Post by callaina on Jul 13, 2023 22:36:54 GMT
Having a few difficulties with the last two lines here:
absenti Aeneae currum geminosque iugalis
semine ab aetherio spirantis naribus ignem,
illorum de gente patri quos daedala Circe
supposita de matre nothos furata creavit.
The first two lines are easy: "for the absent Aeneas, a chariot and twin yoked horses, of a heavenly line, breathing fire from their nostrils..."
But then things get a bit tangled: "(horses) of the race [de gente] of those horses [illorum] which [quos], bastards [nothos], cunning Circe created [daedala Circe creavit] from a (mortal) (mare) substituted (as) mother [supposita de matre], having stolen them from her father [furata patri]...
But how could she possibly steal them from her father before creating them? Or is the tense of "furata" a bit loose here?
|
|
|
|
Post by Bitmap on Jul 14, 2023 2:36:31 GMT
I don't know the myth behind that, but it sounds like it may just be a hysteron proteron, as she obviously had to create them first before she could steal them ... if it is to be taken as a stylistic device at all; the PPP of deponent verbs can often be taken like present participles (especially in poetry) and do not necessarily have to convey anteriority.
|
|
|
|
Post by callaina on Jul 14, 2023 2:52:07 GMT
Come to think of it, now I remember a similar passage in Book 1:
Ipsa, Iovis rapidum iaculata e nubibus ignem,
disiecitque rates evertitque aequora ventis,
illum expirantem transfixo pectore flammas
turbine corripuit scopuloque infixit acuto.
Clearly, his chest hasn't been transfixed until he's impaled on the sharp rock.
|
|
|
|
Post by Bitmap on Jul 14, 2023 3:11:05 GMT
Come to think of it, now I remember a similar passage in Book 1: Ipsa, Iovis rapidum iaculata e nubibus ignem, disiecitque rates evertitque aequora ventis, illum expirantem transfixo pectore flammas turbine corripuit scopuloque infixit acuto. Clearly, his chest hasn't been transfixed until he's impaled on the sharp rock. I think it is different in this passage. That one simply hints at the myth of Ajax Oileus's death in which Athene first impaled him with a lightning bolt (=transfixo pectore) and then thrust him on a rock. |
|
|
|
Post by Pacifica on Jul 14, 2023 14:20:34 GMT
Knowing the myth behind the furata creavit lines would help give a definitive answer. I tried to find it but couldn't. A hysteron proteron is possible, but even that seems a bit weird: she creates them and then steals them? It's possible if she created them as a gift so that they were no longer hers afterward. But could it also be that she stole them in a metaphorical way, by creating copies of them? I really can't tell what is meant without knowing the story.
|
|
|
|
Post by Bitmap on Jul 14, 2023 14:46:24 GMT
A hysteron proteron is possible, but even that seems a bit weird: she creates them and then steals them? My first impression was that she kindly borrowed the stallions from her father and added the lower class mare herself. Maybe I can find it. |
|
|
|
Post by Etaoin Shrdlu on Jul 14, 2023 14:48:11 GMT
That was what I assumed, but couldn't find a reference to the story.
|
|
|
|
Post by Pacifica on Jul 14, 2023 14:53:45 GMT
Oh, so quos and nothos don't go together. Quos are the stallions (object of furata) and nothos are the offspring (object of creavit). That makes sense.
|
|
|
|
Post by Pacifica on Jul 14, 2023 14:54:33 GMT
There's no hysteron proteron then. She did steal the stallions before breeding their offspring.
|
|
|
|
Post by Bitmap on Jul 14, 2023 15:13:51 GMT
Oh, so quos and nothos don't go together. Quos are the stallions (object of furata) and nothos are the offspring (object of creavit). That makes sense. That's not what I meant, though. I just thought about the semen being stolen, i.e. having them mate with the mare and then taking the offspring away ... but they're effectively already stolen at the time of conception. I'm merely talking about the contextual interpretation. Not taking quos with nothos makes the sentence a bit weird grammatically. Unless you think illorum starts a new main clause. |
|
|
|
Post by LonginusNaso on Jul 15, 2023 2:43:48 GMT
Is it not possible for creō merely to mean 'cause to be', not necessarily 'create'? So that the sense would be 'of those [horses] whom Circe, in stealing [them] from [their] father, made spurious.'
|
|
|
|
Post by callaina on Jul 15, 2023 5:01:05 GMT
Oh, so quos and nothos don't go together. Quos are the stallions (object of furata) and nothos are the offspring (object of creavit). That makes sense. I'm merely talking about the contextual interpretation. Not taking quos with nothos makes the sentence a bit weird grammatically. Unless you think illorum starts a new main clause. No, I think it works: of the race [de gente] of those [illorum] having stolen which [quos furtata] Circe created bastards [nothos creavit] from a substituted mother [supposita de matre]. That syntax is horrible in English because it doesn't use relative pronouns like Latin does, but you see what I mean. |
|
|
|
Post by callaina on Jul 15, 2023 5:01:38 GMT
Come to think of it, now I remember a similar passage in Book 1: Ipsa, Iovis rapidum iaculata e nubibus ignem, disiecitque rates evertitque aequora ventis, illum expirantem transfixo pectore flammas turbine corripuit scopuloque infixit acuto. Clearly, his chest hasn't been transfixed until he's impaled on the sharp rock. I think it is different in this passage. That one simply hints at the myth of Ajax Oileus's death in which Athene first impaled him with a lightning bolt (=transfixo pectore) and then thrust him on a rock. I remember someone (years ago) presenting this passage to me as a hysteron proteron situation, but maybe they got it wrong. |
|
|
|
Post by Bitmap on Jul 15, 2023 6:42:59 GMT
I'm merely talking about the contextual interpretation. Not taking quos with nothos makes the sentence a bit weird grammatically. Unless you think illorum starts a new main clause. No, I think it works: of the race [de gente] of those [illorum] having stolen which [quos furtata] Circe created bastards [nothos creavit] from a substituted mother [supposita de matre]. That syntax is horrible in English because it doesn't use relative pronouns like Latin does, but you see what I mean. Hmm ... maybe. That would still mean that the nothos is a complement to quos. I find the Circe references in book 7 rather weird in general |
|
|
|
Post by Bitmap on Jul 15, 2023 6:44:39 GMT
I think it is different in this passage. That one simply hints at the myth of Ajax Oileus's death in which Athene first impaled him with a lightning bolt (=transfixo pectore) and then thrust him on a rock. I remember someone (years ago) presenting this passage to me as a hysteron proteron situation, but maybe they got it wrong. You could think that if you dont know the story, but I'm pretty sure it is what I said. The flames he exhaled come from the lightning bolt that pierced him. |
|
