Seneca

I was really confused about what tantum was doing in the phrase una tantum parte audita, as I would have expected it to be in the ablative like the rest of that phrase. Ignoring tantum, I took it to mean “he than whom no one could more quickly learn the motive, with one part having been heard, and often neither.” After reading the whole dictionary entry for tantus I saw that tantum can also be an adverb with the meaning “only”–is that what’s happening here? That would explain why it’s not declined, and would give the phrase the meaning “with only one part having been heard,” which would make sense.

I’m really interested in vosque poetae lugete novi, not only for our editors ridiculously pretentious translation, but also because it just feels so random to throw poets into the mix while Seneca is talking about Claudius’ affect on lawyers.  Is this related to some of Claudius’ policies?  Is this a natural progression for Seneca to make here?

I’m not sure how the several feminine nominatives una, audita, and neutra work together. I think they all work under causa. 

I’m also trying to read una parte as referring to Claudius’ affair/case and functioning as an object, but I don’t understand why this wouldn’t take an accusative after audita. The ideal translation would read “having heard so much as one part (of the affair). Does tantum act as the object instead?

Is this phrase referring to something outside of causa? And what are the objects of audita ?

Concerning the grammar of silenti, Eden translates it as “of silence”, taken with populo to be “to the people of silence”. But this seems odd and I do not know what he could be taking about here. Silenti could technically be a present participle, agreeing with the dative populo and thus rendering the phrase, “to the people being silenced”. This makes more sense without any knowledge of an idiom that the phrase might be incorporated into.

I thought the back-handed compliments were very interesting and humorous in this section. I particularly was interested in the apparent/potential complexity of the section pertaining to Claudius’ ability to draw a bow. At first I was surprised, as the stringing/drawing of a bow is a sign of power and skill, but this is clearly sarcastic when coupled with knowledge of Claudius’ physical condition and the following passages about the “small wounds” and the firing into the “backs of fleeing Medes.” Was the bow still even at this point in Greco-Roman History looked down upon as a coward’s weapon? Apparently so. I thought it was particularly interesting to invoke the heroic style with so much complexity; to perhaps liken him to Odysseus at first, but then to remind everyone that often in Heroic verse (and even now) the bow was the weapon of the weak.

Also concerning the phrase about pursuing the Persians with light spears, what sort of insult is this? Is he likening Claudius to the velites in an army as opposed to what he should be acting as – consul?

I was confused a bit by the phrase quid sibi velit ille concursus hominum. Neither of the translations seem to take into account sibi velit. I took it to mean, he asked “what that mob of men would want (with respect to) him”. Is this what is being said and the translations choose not to phrase it this way? Or is velit serving a different grammatical function than I am understanding?

I’m curious about the word conventus/concentus.  I find it interesting that Perseus chooses to use concentus while our book’s editor chooses conventus.  Conventus, our book’s choice, means “a meeting” while concentus has a more musical meaning of “symphony” which makes much more sense in the context of this procession of a brass band.  This clearly is not a meeting of brass players, but a moving symphony, leading me to feel as though our book should use concentus over conventus.

Do we know if Claudius had trouble hearing as well as a speech impediment? I thought it seemed like that was what ut etiam Claudius audire posset was suggesting.

Regarding the sentence beginning with ille citato vincere cursu poterat celeres, are we supposed to take poterat with all the parts of this sentence up to qui praecipites? I think that makes the most sense. About this same passage, is it supposed to be taken humorously since Claudius obviously can’t physically do any of these things himself?

I’m finding the numerous accusative cases in the phrase caeruleos scuta Brigantas dare Romueleis colla catenis iussit difficult to navigate.

I feel like caeruleos scuta needs to have an ablative sense (even though it appears in the accusative). I want the translation to read “He ordered that the Brigantes with their azure shields give their necks to Roman chains/shackles”. But how does this work with another accusative in addition to Brigantas?

Perhaps Seneca lumps caruelos scuta into Brigantes and all three words function as the subject of the indirect discourse? Or are these accusatives somehow objects of dare that work with colla?