[1] Until now you have seen relative clauses with quī,
quae and quod used with indicative verbs. Below is a brief
reminder with some examples of relative clauses together with links to earlier
posts.
Magister puerum quī tē amat videt. │ The
teacher sees the boy wholoves you.
Poēta dē fēminā quae in Ītaliā vīvit scrībit. │ The
poet writes about the woman who lives in Italy.
Poēta dē oppidō quod Aenēās amat scrībit. │ The poet
writes about the town which Aeneas loves.
Magister puerum cuius canis vīvit videt. │ The
teacher sees the boy whose dog is alive.
Magister puerum cui dōnum dēdī videt. │ The teacher
sees the boy to whom I gave a gift.
Magister puerum quem amās videt. │ The teacher sees
the boy whom you love.
Arbor, sub quō sedēbam, dēcidit. │ The tree, under
which I was sitting, fell.
Poēta dē virīs quī in Ītaliā vīvunt scrībit. │ The
poet writes about the men who live in Italy.
Poēta dē virīs quōrum domus in Ītaliā est scrībit. │
The poet writes about the men whose home is in Italy.
Poēta dē virīs quibus rēgīna dōna dat scrībit. │ The
poet writes about the men to whom the queen gives gifts.
Poēta dē fēminīs quās nautae amant scrībit. │ The
poet writes about the women whom the sailors love.
Dux lēgātōs quibuscum vēnimus laudat. │ The leader
praises the envoys with whom we came.
[2] All of the relative clauses (also known as adjectival
clauses) describe a noun that is in the main clause, known in grammar as the antecedent:
Poēta dē fēminā [antecedent] ¦ quae in Ītaliā
vīvit ¦ scrībit. │ The poet writes about the woman ¦ who lives in
Italy.
Below are revision links to the topic of relative clauses:
[i] All of the relative clauses above refer to facts;
that is, they describe something that is true about the antecedent, and
the verb of the relative clause is in the indicative.
[ii] However, a relative clause does not always describe a
particular individual. It may instead describe the type or sort of
person or thing that the antecedent is.
English can do something similar:
[i] That’s the man ¦ who lives in our street.
This is factual and refers to a specific person.
[ii] He’s the type / sort of man ¦ who
never tells you the truth.
This does not describe the man individually, but a
characteristic he shares with others.
English can take this a step further:
He’s the type of man ¦ who would do something
like that.
Again, this does not describe the man individually, but a
characteristic that he may share with others.
In Latin the subjunctive is used to convey [ii] i.e. relative
clauses that do not describe fact, but a characteristic of the antecedent.
Quis est ¦ cui credāmus? │ Who is there ¦ whom
we can trust?
The subjunctive idea of that sentence could equally be
translated as:
Who is there whom we could / would / might trust?
[4] Compare [i] indicative and [ii] subjunctive use in the
relative clauses.
[i] Vir est ¦ qui pecūniam meam semper rapit [indicative]
│ He is the man ¦ who always steals my money [fact].
[ii] Vir est ¦ quī pecūniam meam rapiat [subjunctive]
│ He is the kind of man ¦ who steals / would steal my
money [characteristic].
[i] Vir est ¦ quīfēcit [indicative] │
He is the man ¦ who did / has done this [fact].
[ii] Vir est ¦ qui fēcerit [subjunctive]
│ He is the sort of man ¦ who would have done this[characteristic].
[5] Examples of relative clauses of characteristic:
Eī nōn sunt ¦ quī hoc faciant │ They are
not the kind of people ¦ who would do this.
Nēmō est ¦ quī hostem petere possit. │ There
is no one ¦ who can / could attack the enemy.
Mīles est ¦ quem mirēmur │ The soldier is the
kind of man ¦ whom we would marvel at.
Is erat ¦ quī veritātem dīceret. │ He was the
sort of person / man ¦ who would speak the truth.
[6] Phrases that act as signals for relative clauses may be
followed by the indicative or subjunctive depending precisely on what is meant
i.e. either fact or characteristic; English can render them differently:
[i] Est (is, ea) quī / quae │ (s)he is the one / the kind of
person who … [the subject pronoun in Latin may be omitted]
Is est ¦ quī illam habet [indicative]
(Plautus) │ He is the one ¦ who has her [fact].
Nōn is est ¦ quī rogāre nesciat
[subjunctive] (Seneca the Elder) │ He is not the sort of man ¦ who
would not know how to ask [characteristic].
Itaque etiam sī indifferēns mors est, nōn tamen ea est ¦
quae facile neglegī possit [subjunctive] (Seneca the Younger) │ And
so, even if death is indifferent, it is nevertheless not such a thing ¦ that
could easily be disregarded.
Similarly:
Ille est ¦ quī in lupānārī accubat [indicative]
(Plautus) │ He’s / that’s the one ¦ who’s lying in the brothel (fact:
he’s not ‘the kind of person’ who does it – he’s actually doing
it!)
Quis autem hic est, quī ēmendet pūblicōs
mōrēs? [subjunctive] (Pliny the Younger) │ Who is this person ¦ who would
reform public morals?
[ii] Sunt (eī, eae) quī … │ There are those who …
Improbī sunt ¦ quī pecūniās contrā lēgēs cogunt
[indicative] (Cicero) │ They are wicked men ¦ who collect money
contrary to the laws.
At sunt ¦ quī vōs hortentur [subjunctive] (Caesar)
│ Yet there are those ¦ who (would) encourage you
The clause of characteristic may not refer to any particular
person or thing or they may suggest that what is being referred to does not
exist:
[iii] Nihil est quod … │ There is nothing that …
Nihil est ¦ quod timeās (Plautus) │ There is
nothing ¦ that you should fear.
[iv] Nēmō est quī … │ There is nobody who …
Nūlla est enim laus ibi esse integrum ubi ¦ nēmō est quī
aut possit aut cōnētur corrumpere (Cicero)
For there is no praise in integrity where ¦ there is no
man who either can or attempts to corrupt it.
English does not always reflect the subjunctive idea of the
Latin original. That does not matter since the sense is clear. However, what
the Latin literally conveys is that “there is no man who … could / may (might)
be able … could / may (might) attempt …
[v] Quis est quī … ?│ Who is there who …?
Quis est ¦ quī nōn intellegat …? (Cicero) │ Who is
there ¦ who does not / would not understand?
… vel
ēiaculandō globōs tormentāriōs ē mortāriīs (ballistīs) in urbem per
ballistāriōs, quī latitant post gerrās, vel subvertendō cūniculīs per
fossōrēs.
The translator of
Comenius’ work uses the noun “leaguer-baskets”, a now obsolete term and only
recorded in the mid-1600s, leaguer meaning a siege. The term
“beleagured” (surrounded by enemy troops or tormented by trouble or
difficulty) still exists in Modern English. Images #1 and #2 show bundles of
sticks woven together as a “basket” and filled with sand as a means of defence
against missile attack. We still use sandbags.
A Roman army on the move isn’t building stone castles;
fortifications need to be constructed quickly, and our interest here is the use
of wicker or timber as a means of protection
asserēs enim pedum XII cuspidibus praefīxī
atque hī maximīs ballistīs missī per quattuor ōrdinēs crātium in
terram dēfīgēbantur (Caesar)
For they had wooden bars, twelve feet in length,
armed at the point with iron, which were shot with such force from their
ballistae, that they pierced four rows of hurdles, and entered a
considerable way into the ground.
asser, -is [3/m]: stake; beam; pole
cuspis, cuspidis [3/f]: tip / point of an object e.g.
an arrow
Note: ‘hurdles’ referring here to wickerwork fortifications
Images #3 andd #4:
Dē Mīlitiā Rōmānā (Lipsius: 1596) shows wickerwork
defences: [A] vīnea, -ae [1/f], providing overhead protection; [B]
pluteus, -ī [2/m], providing frontal protection. Both are moveable, and
both can be referred to as mantlets.
glāns, glandis [3/f]: [i] acorn; acorn-shaped nut e.g.
chestnut [ii] (military) the lead sling-shot projectile (glāns plumbea)
used by slingers. Its almond or acorn shape improved aerodynamics and
penetration.
This example,
discovered at Córdobais exceptional. It bears:
[i] the name CAESAR
[ii] IPSCA,
a fortified Iberian settlement.
Inscribed sling
bullets often carried insults or taunts directed at the enemy. In this case,
however, the inscription is interpreted as signalling the loyalty of Ipsca to
Julius Caesar during the civil war against Pompey (mid-1st century BC).
Hoc cōnsilium erat
grātum puerō. Posteā eōdem diē Cassius oppidō appropinquāvit. Deinde in
aedificium magnum vēnit. Ibi virī et fēminae pictūrās spectāvērunt. Ante
Cassium in pictūrīs erant mīlitēs quī multās rēs faciēbant. Imperātor, Iūlius
appellātus, erat vir magnae virtūtis. Multōs mīlitēs dūcēbat. Ante imperātōrem
erat legiō magna quae tria mīlia mīlitum habēbat. Mīlitēs arma et signum
portābant et hostēs vincere parātī erant. Dux imperābat et legiō in duās partēs
dīvīsa est. Alia ad dextram iter faciēbat, alia ad sinistram.
[1] What did the
boy think of the advice? (1)
[2] What did
Cassius do on the same day? (1)
[3] What did he
see in the large building? (2)
[4]
What information
is given about:
(a) Julius? (3)
(b) what the
soldiers were doing? (4)
(c) number and
division of the legions? (4)
____________________
[1] Pleased
/ it was pleasing to him (1)
[2] Approached
the town (1)
[3] Men
and women (1) looking at pictures (1)
[4]
(a)
commander (1), man of great virtue (1), leading many soldiers (1)
(b)
performing many tasks (1); carrying weapons (1); carrying the standard (1);
ready to defeat the enemies (1)
(c)
three thousand soldiers (1); divided into two parts (1); one part marching to
the right (1), one part marching to the left (1)
