# defessa senem passus componere membras



## bacchebenevenies

Hello.

I have this verses from Georgicon, Liber IV:



> Cuius Aristaeo quoniam est oblata facultas,
> vix defessa senem passus componere membra
> cum clamore ruit magno manicisque iacentem
> occupat. Ille suae contra non immemor artis



I have three doubts. 1) I have an accusative and infinitive construction, but I'm not sure about which verb generates it. Is it the participle "passus"?
2) Is est oblata a passive form, and facultas the subject?
3) Which is the role of cuius?

Thank you very much, and excuse my horrible English.


----------



## Scholiast

saluete amici!

Ahah. Virg. _Georg._ 4.437ff. To take the questions in order:

(1) yes, _senem componere membra_ depends on _passus_, but it is not (as Acc. + Infin. usually is) an indirect statement: _componere_ is a so-called 'prolative' infinitive. So the sense is 'Not allowing (/giving no opportunity for) the aged fellow [Proteus] to settle his weary limbs';
(2) yes, _oblata est_ is passive (from _offerre_), and _facultas_ is its subject ('Since the opportunity was offered...');
(3) _cuius_ is a linking relative, referring to the entirety of the preceding episode, in which Aristaeus has ensnared Proteus. So '[Aristaeus], seizing the opportunity offered _by the situation..._'.

Σ


----------



## bacchebenevenies

Excellent! So clear. Thank you very much.


----------



## Scholiast

saluete de nouo!

To my previous answer (# 2) here I should perhaps have added: the fact that _passus_ is a past participle should not be regarded as significant, as:
(a) the present participle _patiens_ could indeed have fitted instead (in the same position in the line), but already by Cicero's time, a generation and more before Virgil, it had become an independent adjective in its own right, so might here have generated obscurity or ambiguity; and in any case...
(b) For both substance and style, Virgil is of course hugely indebted to his Greek models, and in Greek, the distinction between present and aorist participles is of aspect rather than primarily of tense, so _passus_ here has a flavour something like 'unhesitatingly', 'immediately'. Hence the 'liberty' I took in rendering it as 'not allowing...'.



bacchebenevenies said:


> So clear. Thank you very much.


Only too happy to be of service.
Σ


----------



## bacchebenevenies

Scholiast said:


> saluete de nouo!
> 
> To my previous answer (# 2) here I should perhaps have added: the fact that _passus_ is a past participle should not be regarded as significant, as:
> (a) the present participle _patiens_ could indeed have fitted instead (in the same position in the line), but already by Cicero's time, a generation and more before Virgil, it had become an independent adjective in its own right, so might here have generated obscurity or ambiguity; and in any case...
> (b) For both substance and style, Virgil is of course hugely indebted to his Greek models, and in Greek, the distinction between present and aorist participles is of aspect rather than primarily of tense, so _passus_ here has a flavour something like 'unhesitatingly', 'immediately'. Hence the 'liberty' I took in rendering it as 'not allowing...'.
> 
> 
> Only too happy to be of service.
> Σ



Thank you again. I found 'passus' again in _Georgicon IV_, couldn't it be also an eliptical passive form? 'Passus [est]?' It says, v. 502: 'nec portitor Orci / amplius obiectam passus transire paludem.' Clearly it is the same use than before.


----------



## Scholiast

Greetings once more


bacchebenevenies said:


> couldn't <_passus>_ be also an el*l*iptical passive form?


Yes and no. _patior_, _pati_, _passus sum_ is a deponent verb: that is, it follows the conjugational system of a passive verb, but it has an active (or intransitive) sense.
Σ


----------



## bacchebenevenies

Well, yeah, that's what I meant. So it doesn't work as a participle, but as a verb. Thank you! (And, again, excuse my poor Latin and worse English )


----------

