# Quae cum intuerer stupens, ut me recepi



## wolfwood27

*Ch. 16 Somnium Scipionis 1st line help*

Hey all, I was wondering about this line in Part 18 of Somnium Scipionis.

"*Quae cum intuerer stupens, ut me recepi*, "Quid? Hic," inquam, "quis est, qui complet aures meas tantus et tam dulcis sonus?"

In the bolded part, I was wondering if that cum is in a cum clause. I have "ut me recepi" translated as "when I regained my senses", but the first part has me miffed. Also, the Quae refers back to something in the previous passage. I'm pretty sure it's Tellus (with a macron). I just put the rest in case you needed reference. Thanks


----------



## modus.irrealis

Hi,

Yes, it is a cum-clause. With this _quae_, it's hard to translate it literally because this is one of the places where Latin (in my opinion) is more elegant than English but if you translated _quae_ as "and it" you get something like

And as I, being amazed, was looking at it,...

I'm not entirely happy with saying "as" for _cum_, but in general with the subjunctive it describes the circumstances of the main action, but depending on the context it can be translated as "as, when, after, since, although" and I'm not sure which best fits here.


----------



## Whodunit

wolfwood27 said:


> In the bolded part, I was wondering if that cum is in a cum clause.


 
Yes, it is. I agree with Modus.irrealis's translation of the cum-clause, although I'm not sure what "quae" exactly means. If it belongs to "intuere," I wonder whether it shouldn't be in the accusative. Nevertheless the meaning of the two clauses (quae ..., ut ...) puzzles me a bit.

While I was looking at it, as soon as I had recovered, ...

There's something missing after that clause, in my opinion. 



> I have "ut me recepi" translated as "when I regained my senses", but the first part has me miffed. Also, the Quae refers back to something in the previous passage. I'm pretty sure it's Tellus (with a macron). I just put the rest in case you needed reference. Thanks


 
Yes, actually, your translation is ok. "Ut" means "as soon as" or "just after/when" or something like this. Strangely, they didn't use the past perfect (receperam) after "ut," which I would even prefer in English. Hm, let's wait for other opinions.


----------



## modus.irrealis

Whodunit said:


> I agree with Modus.irrealis's translation of the cum-clause, although I'm not sure what "quae" exactly means. If it belongs to "intuere," I wonder whether it shouldn't be in the accusative.



The relative and interrogative pronouns always trip me up, and I agree with you that _quae_ has to be accusative which means that it has to be neuter plural. So _quae_ can't refer back to _tellus_, and I'm guessing now the first part is probably either

While I was considering these things in amazement,...

or

While I was looking at these things  in amazement,...

depending on whether these things refer to actual things the person is looking at or are they just the general things he's thinking about. That sound better?


----------



## Whodunit

modus.irrealis said:


> That sound better?


 
How should I know? I've already given my translation. I'm not sure how we could translate "quae" best, unless we get the preceding sentence. It could indeed be the neuter plural accusative, but that doesn't necessarily mean that we have to translate it as a plural in English. "Cuncta" and "omnia" are translated as singular "much" and "everything," respectively.

Post scriptum: Meanwhile, I have figured out what the main clause after the two subordinate clauses (cum .../ut ...) is. It is "inquam" I didn't pay attention to in my earlier post.


----------



## wolfwood27

Thanks for the help. Like the last time, your explanations/translations were very illuminating


----------



## illecebra

here is my opinion, I notice a clause in Cicero's In Catilinam Oratio:
Quae cum ita sint, Catilina, perge quo coepisti...
Wheelock's footnote states: quae= et haec, conjunctive use of the rel. pron,
thus, I think "quae" here doesnt hold any essential meaning in grammar,
just making the context more coherent, or meaning "and... consequently“ in translating


----------



## Starfrown

illecebra said:


> here is my opinion, I notice a clause in Cicero's In Catilinam Oratio:
> Quae cum ita sint, Catilina, perge quo coepisti...
> Wheelock's footnote states: quae= et haec, conjunctive use of the rel. pron,
> thus, I think "quae" here doesnt hold any essential meaning in grammar,
> just making the context more coherent, or meaning "and... consequently“ in translating


Having read your post and those of the earlier contributors, I think it might be best to provide a clear explanation for learners who may happen upon this thread.

_Quae_ in this sentence is the neuter accusative plural of the relative pronoun (alternatively, you could view it as the relative adjective functioning as a substantive) and is indeed serving a conjunctive role.  This use of the relative is extremely common in Latin, and is not difficult to grasp, though literal translation of such a relative is often awkward.  Thus I must disagree with your statement that _quae_ holds no "essential meaning in grammar" and also your recommendation of "and...consequently" as a general translation.

Let's say that an author, for some reason, had just concluded a sentence in which he mentioned rocks rolling down a hill.  He might begin his next sentence with:

_Quae [saxa] intuerer..._

Literally:

"Which [rocks] I was looking at..."

The relative here functions just as it does anywhere else--as a reference to something previously mentioned by the author.  It's just that in this case, the antecedent occurs in an earlier sentence.  The above literal translation leaves a bit to be desired, so one might instead render it as:

"(And) I was looking at these [rocks]..."

In general, the conjunctive relative is best rendered by either "this/these" or "such," though it is possible to render it literally in some cases.


----------

