[5]
Ait pater:
"Quandō prius dīxistī, quod obligāta iūrāmentō fuistī etc., tāle
obligāmentum nōn valet, quia praetendit ad malum fīnem, scīlicet ad mortem.
Iūrāmentum semper dēbet esse ratiōnābile et ideō iūrāmentum tuum nūllum est.
Ad aliam ratiōnem,
quandō dīxistī, quod istud est commendābile, quod uxor moriātur prō virō, nōn
valet, quia, licet sint ūnum in corpore per carnālem affectiōnem, tamen in
animā duo sunt, quae abinvicem reāliter differunt. Et ideō nōn valet, quod
allēgāstī." Puella haec audiēns nōn poterat ulterius arguere, sed dictīs
patris adhaesit, nec ulterius sē ipsam praecipitāre volēbat, nec amplius virō
suō cōpulārī.
(1) “Ait pater
… nūllum est.”
[a] Why does her
father reject her view of an oath?
[b] What is his
interpretation?
(2) “Ad aliam …
cōpulārī.”
[i]
[a] Translate: …
licet sint ūnum in corpore per carnālem affectiōnem, tamen in animā duo
sunt, …
[b] Explain the
use of the subjunctive.
[ii] Et ideō
nōn valet, quod allēgāstī
The word in bold
is an example of a syncopated verb form. Explain the meaning of the
term.
[iii] dictīs
patris adhaesit:
Identify the case
of the noun in bold and explain why it is being used here.
____________________
[5]
(1)
[a] it
is directed towards an evil end, namely death.
[b]
an oath must always be reasonable
(2)
[i]
[a] Although
they are one in body through physical affection, nevertheless they are two in
soul.
[b] concessive
clause introduced by licet [ = although]
https://adckl.blogspot.com/search/label/subjunctive%3A%20concessive%20clauses
[ii]
a syncopated form is one where letters or syllables have been omitted; allēgāstī
is shortened from allēgāvistī
https://adckl.blogspot.com/search/label/syncopated%20verb%20forms
[iii]
dative plural; adhaereō takes the dative; she adhered to [ = accepted]
her father’s words
____________________
[5]
The father said:
“Since you said earlier that you were bound by an oath, etc., such an
obligation is not valid, because it tends towards an evil end, namely death. An
oath must always be reasonable, and therefore your oath is invalid.
As for the other
argument, when you said that it is praiseworthy that a wife should die for her
husband, it is not valid, because, although they are one in body through
physical affection, nevertheless in soul they are two, which differ from one
another in reality. And therefore what you have argued is not valid.”
The girl, hearing this, could no longer argue further, but she adhered to her father’s words; and she no longer wished either to throw herself down again or to be united with her husband.





















