# Gauius hic, quem dico, Consanus, cum....



## Buonaparte

Forum,

Here is a rather lengthy passage I'm trying to translate: 

Gauius hic, quem dico, Consanus, cum in illo numero ciuium Romanorum ab isto in uincla coniectus esset et nescio qua ratione clam e lautumiis profugisset Messanamque uenisset, qui tam prope iam Italiam et moenia Reginorum ciuium Romanorum, uideret, et ex illo metu mortis ac tenebris quasi luce libertatis et odore aliquo legum recreatus reuixisset, loqui Messanae et queri coepit se ciuem Romanum in uincla coniectum, sibi recta iter esse Romam, Verri se praesto aduenienti futurum.

I have come up with the following:

This Gauis, [of] whom I speak, [was] from Consa, although in that number of Roman citizens [who] had been thrown into chains by that man, and I do not know by which method he had secretly escaped from the stone quarries and come to Messana, but since he had now almost seen Italy and the walls of Rhegium, citizens of Rome, and out of that fear of death and in the dark he had come back to life as if by the light of liberty and the smell of some renewed law, he began to speak and complain [that] he a Roman citizen had been thrown into chains, [that] he be taken directly to Rome, [that] while arriving was about to face Verres. 

Would some kind soul look over my tentative translation and comment? I've used the accusative/infinitive construction for the last couple of clauses, but am unsure whether this is a correct reading of the Latin. 

Square brackets indicate where I've attempted to use English to produce a 'smoother' translation, and shouldn't be taken literally. 

Many thanks, Buonaparte


----------



## Anne345

_Gauius hic, quem dico, Consanus,_ 


> This Gauis, [of] whom I speak, [was] from Consa,


_cum in illo numero ciuium Romanorum ab isto in uincla coniectus esset :_ 


> although in that number of Roman citizens [who] had been thrown into chains by that man,


cum causal, not concessive : *since* he had been... 

_et nescio qua ratione clam e lautumiis profugisset Messanamque uenisset_


> and I do not know by which method he had secretly escaped from the stone quarries and come to Messana,


lautŭmĭae : *a prison* cut out of the rock : At Syracuse: carcer Syracusis vocantur latomiae, Varr. L. L. 5, so you can use _Latomies_

_qui tam prope iam Italiam et moenia Reginorum ciuium Romanorum, uideret,_


> but since he had now almost seen Italy and the walls Rhegium, citizens of Rome,


prope = near 
Reginorum : inhabitants of Rhegion 
In Latin, the relative clause with a subjunctive verb may be a relative clause of purpose, a relative clause of characteristic, or a relative clause of result.
Here it is a purpose clause : He came from Syracuse to Messan in ordre to see... 

_et ex illo metu mortis ac tenebris quasi luce libertatis et odore aliquo legum recreatus reuixisset,_


> and out of that fear of death and in the dark he had come back to life as if by the light of liberty and the smell of some renewed law,


ac *(ex)* tenebris 
recreatus : perf part pass masc nom sg, : *he* was renewed by the light... 

_loqui Messanae et queri coepit se ciuem Romanum in uincla coniectum, sibi recta iter esse Romam, Verri se praesto aduenienti futurum._


> he began to speak and complain [that] he a Roman citizen had been thrown into chains, [that] he be taken directly to Rome, [that] while arriving was about to face Verres.


Messanae ? locative of Messana 
I do'nt understand "he be taken", is it "he was going" ? 
aduenienti : dative, as Verri...


----------



## wonderment

Hi Buonaparte: On the whole, your translation is quite good. Let me add some comments to Anne's many helpful corrections:


I think it’s fine to translate _lautumiis_ as stone-quarries (but know that they were used as prisons). 
_nescio qua ratione_ = by some means (it’s idiomatic: _nescio quis_ = somebody, _nescio quid_ = something)
I would take the _qui_ clause as relative clause of result: “being so close now, he could see...” 
You’re right to translate the last 3 clauses as indirect statements. The 2nd clause has a “dative of possession” construction. In the 3rd clause, _se_ refers to subject accusative “he”, _praesto esse_ + dative = meet with, _advenienti_ modifies _Verri_ (dative)
I made the following translation very very literal to help you see more clearly (I hope) the grammar and syntax:

_Gavius hic quem dico, Consanus,
_This Gaius, of whom I’m speaking, a native of Consa,

_cum in illo numero civium Romanorum ab isto in vincla coniectus esset_
since he, among that number of Roman citizens, had been thrown into chains by that man 
_et nescio qua ratione clam e lautumiis profugisset Messanamque venisset, 
_and by some means had secretly escaped from the stone quarries and had come to Messana,​_qui tam prope iam Italiam et moenia Reginorum, civium Romanorum, videret_
being so close now, he could see Italy and the walls of the Rhegians, Roman citizens​_et ex illo metu mortis ac tenebris quasi luce libertatis et odore aliquo legum recreatus revixisset,_ 
and from that fear of death and darkness, he had come back to life, refreshed, as it were, by the light of liberty and some sweet scent of the laws​_loqui Messanae et queri coepit 
_he began to talk at Messana and to complain

_se civem Romanum in vincla coniectum, _
that he, a Roman citizen, had been thrown into chains 
_sibi recta iter esse Romam, 
_that he had a journey straight for Rome
_Verri se praesto advenienti futurum._
that he would meet Verres on his arrival.​


----------



## Buonaparte

Thanks very much for these responses, they're really helpful. Buonaparte


----------



## William Stein

wonderment said:


> _loqui Messanae et queri coepit
> _he began to talk at Messana and to complain_se civem Romanum in vincla coniectum, _
> that he, a Roman citizen, had been thrown into chains
> _sibi recta iter esse Romam,
> _that he had a journey straight for Rome
> _Verri se praesto advenienti futurum._
> that he would meet Verres on his arrival.​



I was having trouble with the same passage so I found this translation very helpful but I'm not sure about the very end. One of the meanings of "praesto" is "waiting for" so I think the most likely interpretation is probably "that he would travel directly to Rome where he would be waiting for Verres to arrive (literally the "arriving Verres"). Is that possible? Is "praesto + dative" a known idiom meaning "to wait for someone"?


----------



## CapnPrep

William Stein said:


> Is "praesto + dative" a known idiom meaning "to wait for someone"?


Not really. Where did you see that _praesto_ could mean "waiting for"? "Waiting _on_", yes, that is "standing ready in someone's presence to serve them". But in this case the perspective is hostile: "that he would be present to confront the arriving Verres".

Unfortunately, his travel plans were cancelled…


----------



## William Stein

CapnPrep said:


> Not really. Where did you see that _praesto_ could mean "waiting for"? "Waiting _on_", yes, that is "standing ready in someone's presence to serve them". But in this case the perspective is hostile: "that he would be present to confront the arriving Verres".
> 
> Unfortunately, his travel plans were cancelled…



I got "waiting for" from note 311 of the Wheelock's Latin Reader: praesto: adv., on hand, ready, waiting for.
No mention of "waiting on". Anyway, I fail to see your point. The intention is obviously hostile since Verres sent Gavius to the quarries as a prisoner. I didn't suppose Gavius wanted to reward Verres by serving him a nice little candle-light dinner. Since the hostility of Gavius is so obvious, I don't see any difference between "where he would be waiting for Verres to arrive" and "that would be present to confront the arriving Verres", except that the latter is not very idiomatic English and you just threw in the word "confront" with no real linguistic counterpart in the original. I'm not saying that the idea of "confront" is incorrect but it's superfluous in context and it doesn't correspond to anything in the text. 
Anyway, you seem to agree with me on my main point, which is that the translation I'm criticizing in post 5 (that he would meet Verres on his arrival) is dubious. First of all, "his" is ambiguous but since the preceding phrase is "that he (Gavius) would go directly to Rome and meet Verres on his arrival" the natural assumption is that "his arrival" refers to the arrival of Gavius, not of Verres. Even if one assumes that "his arrival" refers to the arrival of Verres (which is obviously the intended meaning), it still seems strange to "meet him on his arrival", since they're not likely to arrange any kind of meeting, although the idea is not incompatible with the notion of waiting for his arrival or "be present to confront him" if you prefer.
If you look at the interpretation I'm criticizing in post 5 "that he would meet Verres on his arrival"


----------



## CapnPrep

William Stein said:


> If you look at the interpretation I'm criticizing in post 5 "that he would meet Verres on his arrival"


I have no problem with this translation. Maybe "that he would be there to meet Verres on his arrival" would be better. It doesn't have to imply an arranged meeting.

The central meaning of _praesto alicui esse _is to be in the presence of someone, face to face. That meaning is captured in all of the translations suggested so far in this thread, except for yours.


----------



## William Stein

CapnPrep said:


> I have no problem with this translation. Maybe "that he would be there to meet Verres on his arrival" would be better. It doesn't have to imply an arranged meeting.
> 
> The central meaning of _praesto alicui esse _is to be in the presence of someone, face to face. That meaning is captured in all of the translations suggested so far in this thread, except for yours.



I don't see any point in discussing the matter with somebody who refuses to see that "where he would be waiting for Verres to arrive" implies to be in the presence of someone.


----------

