14.11.25: Level 3; Wild beasts [8] from the authors: Bread and panthers … without the panthers [5]; Cicero’s reply

Laodiceae; prid. Non. Apr. 50 │ Laodicea, 4 April 50(BC) (see notes)

[1] Dē panthērīs per eōs quī vēnārī sōlent agitur mandātū meō dīligenter.  │ The matter concerning the panthers is, according to my order, being diligently attended to by those who usually hunt.

[i] agitur │ it is being done; impersonal construction = the matter is being attended to

[ii] per eōs ¦ quī vēnarī sōlent; soleō, -ere [2]: be accustomed to; by those ¦ who are accustomed to hunting = those who usually hunt = (less literally) by the usual hunters

[2] Sed mīra paucitās est, │ But there is a remarkable scarcity,

[3] et eās quae sunt valdē aiunt querī  │ and they say that those that there are complain greatly

aiunt: they say; this is known in grammar as a defective verb i.e. a verb that does not have a full set of conjugated forms. The English verb ‘can’ is defective because it has no infinitive; it is not *to can*, but ‘to be able’ i.e. defective. The Latin verb is aiō, aiere (say), but is most commonly found as ait (he/she says or said) and, here, aiunt (they say).

[4] quod nihil cuīquam īnsidiārum in meā prōvinciā nisi sibi fīat. │ because there are no traps for anything / anyone in my province apart from for them

[i] nihil īnsidiārum │ genitive after nihil = no traps; English uses a genitive with abstract nouns e.g. nothing of interest, but its English use is limited; the translation ‘no traps’ could equally be rendered as ‘nothing in the way of traps’ which is the closest equivalent to the Latin

[ii] cuīquam: dative of quisquam; this forms part of the next major topic to be covered at Level 3; quisquam is an indefinite pronoun, the English equivalent being ‘anyone / anything’ and is generally used, as here, in negative constructions: nihil cuīquam īnsidiārum │ no traps for anyone / anything

[iii] it’s a light-hearted response: the panthers are complaining that traps are only set for them i.e. they are referring back to themselves (sibi: reflexive)

[5] Itaque cōnstituisse dīcuntur in Cāriam ex nostrā prōvinciā dēcēdere. │ Therefore, they are said to have decided to depart into Caria from our province.

Cāria, -ae [1/f]: district in SW Asia Minor

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caria

[6] Sed tamen sēdulō fit et in prīmīs ā Patiscō. │ Nevertheless, it is being done zealously / with great care, and especially by Patiscus.

sēdūlō: zealously; diligently; carefully

[7] Quicquid erit, tibi erit; │ Literally: whatever there is [ will be], you will have [it will be for you] i.e. However many animals there are, you will have them;

quicquid (or quidquid): whatever;  a further example of an indefinite pronoun

[8] sed quid esset plānē nesciēbāmus. │ but what [i.e. how many] there might be, I obviously don’t know.

See the notes below on this part of the sentence

Notes

[i] PRID. ¦ NON. APR. 50

(1) prid: abbreviation of prīdiē ¦  (2) NON. APR.│ (1) the day before ¦ (2) the Nones of April

See previous post: the Nones is the 5^th of April. Therefore, the letter was written on the day before the Nones / 5^th of April i.e. April 4th

[ii] sed quid esset ¦ plānē nesciēbāmus │ but what / how many there might be, I obviously don’t know

There are three points to note concerning this part of the sentence

(1) nesciēbāmus: Cicero often uses the first person plural to refer to himself

(2) nesciēbāmus: the imperfect tense is used; this is an example of epistolary tense which was discussed here:

https://adckl.blogspot.com/2025/06/011025-level-3-epistolary-tenses-brief.html

The term epistolary tense refers to letters, and – fairly common in the letters of Cicero – it refers to a shift in the uses of tenses. We write letters using the time frame that applies to us, the writers e.g. “I’m not sure how many of those books I have, but, whatever I find, I’ll send them to you.” However, Cicero – as he does here – changes the sentence to the time perspective of the reader, one reasonable interpretation of this style being the lengthy period that would have elapsed from the time the writer in Ancient Rome dispatched the letter until the time the recipient read it i.e. whatever is happening as Cicero writes will have finished by the time the recipient reads about it.

In the example English sentence, Cicero’s epistolary style would most likely change it to “I wasn’t sure (at the time I was writing) how many of those books I had, but, whatever I found, I’ve sent them to you.” Therefore, although the literal translation is “We ( = I) didn’t know …” (because he didn’t know at the point at which the letter was received), the actual translations is “I don’t know …”

The usage isn’t consistent and it only tends to occur when referring to events happening to the speaker at the time of writing.

Both of the points discussed above are also here (refer to the notes at the end of the post):

https://adckl.blogspot.com/2025/06/041025-level-3-review-irregular-verbs-9.html

(3) sed quid esset ¦ plānē nesciēbāmus │ But how many there might be, I obviously don’t know.

esset is subjunctive; a further use of the subjunctive is with indirect questions e.g. Ubi est templum? │ Where is the temple i.e. a direct question > Nesciō ¦ ubi sit [subjunctive] templum │ I don’t know ¦ where the temple is i.e. an indirect question; English could convey this using an ‘equivalent’ of a subjunctive i.e. “I don’t know where the temple might be” (slightly stilted but correct)