# dux fuerat belli. proximus ille duci.



## Lamb67

Hic, qui Sidonio fulget sublimis in ostro,
dux fuerat belli. proximus ille duci. 
hic, qui nunc in humo lumen miserabile figit, 
non isto vultu, cum tulit arma, fuit

Hi,

The underlined part is really intriquing, my try is:
 he had been a leader of war. (Now) at the time of war, he is the next to the leader.

What's your ideas please?

Thank.


----------



## Cagey

This is from _Tristia_ by Ovid; 4.2.25-28.  (In the Latin Library.)
_Always _name the source.


----------



## relativamente

I think in this context duci is infinitive passive of verb duco.With this meaning
  A legal t. t., to take, lead away, drag, carry off a person before court, to prison, to punishment, etc.:


----------



## Scholiast

salvete!

With respect to relativamente: _duci_ is (here) the dative singular of the noun _dux_, though it is of course homographic with the present passive infin. of the cognate verb _ducere_. The sense is "This [man, i.e. the one wearing Carthaginian purple garb] had been commander in (the) war; the other (had been) next to his commander [i.e. either "second in command" or "his right-hand man" - as in the _Aeneid_ Achates is to Aeneas, or (historically) Agrippa was to Octavian/Augustus]".

Note that _hic_ and _ille_ are often used like this to distinguish two different, but specific, individuals.

valete


----------



## Lamb67

So the first _hic _is equal to _the one wearing Carthaginian purple garb; _the 2nd _hic second in command" or "his right-hand man" ?_


----------



## Scholiast

salvete omnes!

Sorry, Lamb67, in the passage as a whole, a spectator at a triumphal parade is explaining to a fellow bystander who the various prisoners-of-war are. There are three contrasting pairs of _hic_ and _ille_ (look at the lines that follow the extract you have quoted); strictly, each demonstrative should refer to the _same_ individual. On no account can _ille_ in l. 26 be the same individual as _hic_ in l. 27. The sense is: "This one, who was formerly the proud commander-in-chief, now has his eyes cast down in dejection; the other, who was his deputy, still shows by his expression a proud defiance."


----------



## relativamente

I have not read the preceding lines but after reading your explanation that is describing a triumphal parade, I suppose the first line means that the person wearing purple was the general of the defeated army, later while the next one is appraching the poet says "proximus ille duci" meaning "the next one" and when this arrives  then proceeds saying this one who is casting a sad look upon the ground, had very different looks when he was armed.
Vt ualeatis


----------



## Scholiast

Sorry, relativamente, you need to read the lines that follow those quoted, as well as what precedes:

The defeated c-in-c (_hic_ throughout) is the man with the purple cloak and his gaze fixed dejectedly on the ground: he no longer wears the proud bearing or look he once did when he was fighting (_non isto vultu, cum tulit arma, fuit_); the other, however, his deputy, whom Ovid goes on to describe in the next line as:
_
ille ferox et adhuc oculis hostilibus ardens_

...'still [_adhuc_, in spite of everything] wears an expression of proud, fierce defiance, his eyes blazing with hatred' (I paraphrase).

The drama here is in the contrast between the two men's different reactions to their humiliation: the chieftain is completely downcast and unmanned by it, whereas his no. 2 still carries himself with a certain arrogant dignity.


----------

