Fable 3: Partus Montium

Here's the next fable with a kind of running commentary that is not entirely possible within the confines of the forthcoming Aesop book from Bolchazy-Carducci. This will be Fable 3 in the book: De Partu Montium. For more information Fable about this fable, see the Discussion Forum for this fable at the Aesopus Ning.

Rumor erat parturire Montes. Homines undique accurrunt et circumstant, monstri quidpiam non sine pavore expectantes. Montes tandem parturiunt; exit ridiculus Mus.

Rumor erat
= This fable nicely introduces the main theme in the first word: rumor, the same word in Latin and in English. Unlike other Aesop's fables which feature a confrontation between two opposing characters, this is one of the more atypical fables in which the fool - in this case, the fools, the human beings who believe the rumors - figure out their mistake on their own, without an antagonist to unmask it for them. The lioness rebuked the fox in the first fable, and the ox rebuked the dog in the second fable, but in this fable you will see that the humans end up having to rebuke themselves for their own foolishness.

parturire Montes.
= The accusative plus infinitive construction here is introduced by the previous phrase, rumor erat, "Rumor had it (that)..."

Homines undique accurrunt et circumstant,
= The wonderful word undique conveys the sense of "from all sides," a compound of unde, "from where, whence" with the same suffix as in the familiar form quisque, "each, every." Compare the English word "ubiquitous," meaning everywhere. If we were to borrow the Latin undique in the same manner, we would have something that is "undiquitous," coming from all sides!

monstri quidpiam
= The word monstri is a partitive genitive: quidpiam (something) monstri (of an unnatural thing) = “something unnatural.” The word quidpiam is a compound, quid + piam, of which only the first part declines, giving forms such as cuiuspiam (genitive), cuipiam (dative), etc.

non sine pavore expectantes.
= The double negative, non sine, "not without" (meaning with!), is an example of the rhetorical figure of speech called "litotes."

Montes tandem parturiunt;
= The Latin word tandem refers to something at the end of a series, something long awaited, "finally." In English, the word has been adopted directly from Latin, "tandem," and it originally referred to draft horses that were harnessed one behind the other in a series (hence Latin tandem), as opposed to being side by side. The term was also used to refer to a two-seated bicycle, with the riders "in tandem," one after the other. Over time, this serial dimension of English "tandem" was lost, and the word came to refer to any kind of team effort, without the specific sense of being aligned in a row.

exit ridiculus Mus.
= Notice the lovely balance in the word order: although Latin generally has verb-final sentences, the emphasize last position here is reserved by the big surprise: the mouse, which was all that emerged in the end.

Here is the illustration of the fable by Francis Barlow:

---

The Aesopus Ning is now open for business - so, for more fables and to share your questions and comments with others, come visit the Ning!

Fable 2: Canis et Bos

Here's the next fable with a kind of running commentary that is not entirely possible within the confines of the forthcoming book from Bolchazy-Carducci.

This will be Fable 2 in the book: De Cane et Bove, the story of the dog in the manger. For more information Fable about this fable, see the Discussion Forum for this fable at the Aesopus Ning.

I was really glad to be able to include this fable in the book, since "the dog in the manger" is still a well-known proverbial saying in English, but you will not find this fable attested in the classical Greek or Roman tradition. The earliest attestions of the fable are medieval; thanks to its inclusion in Steinhowel's Aesop, it became well-known throughout Europe. Here is the version from Barlow's Aesop:

In praesepi faeni pleno decumbebat Canis. Venit Bos ut comedat faenum, cum Canis, confestim sese erigens, tota voce elatravit. Cui Bos: “Dii te, cum ista tua invidia, perdant (inquit): nec enim faeno ipse vesceris, nec me vesci sines.”

In praesepi faeni pleno
= This elegant prepositional phrase sets the scene: not only is this a manger; it is a manger which is full of hay.

decumbebat Canis.
= The use of the imperfect verb also contributes to setting the scene. The dog was lying there. The use of the perfect would let us know that the dog had lain dog. What the imperfect tells us is that the action is ongoing: there he is, a dog, lying down in the manager.

Venit Bos
= The perfect verb signals an action: the entrance into the scene of the ox. As often, the fable is a confrontation between two characters, and so with the ox, both characters are now on the scene.

ut comedat faenum,
= The ut clause introduces the ox's purpose.

cum Canis ... (elatravit).
= Although we will not get the verb until the end of the sentence (as so often in Latin), it is worth noting that the word cum here introduces an indicative verb, signifying a simple statement of the time when something is happening, without any causal or other connection implied. You might even translate cum here as "as" rather than "when" in order to emphasize the almost instantaneous sequence of events.

confestim sese erigens,
= In English, we make a distinction between "raising" something (transitive) and something "rising" (intransitive). In Latin, the verb erigere is transitive (to raise something up, to erect something). If you are going to use the verb in the sense of "rising" (raising yourself up), the reflexive pronoun is required: sese.

tota voce elatravit.
= The ablative phrase serves an adverbial function: how did the dog bark? As loudly as he could!

Cui Bos:
= The combination of a dative and a nominative here lets you know that the ox (said something) to the dog; you'll get the verb of speaking parenthetically later. The referent of the relative pronoun is canis in the previous sentence: cui (cani) bos.

“Dii te
= As often in Latin, you get the nominative subject of the verb and the direct object, with no mention of the verb. Of course, you can guess what it is: "God (blank) you" would be very clear in English, too!

cum ista tua invidia,
= Here cum is a preposition taking the ablative case. The use of ista is typical. Linguistically, the word iste commonly refers to "that there (of yours)," often with a derogatory or dismissive connotation. You can even find iste defined as "the demonstrative pronoun of the second person." The usage here is clearly derogatory!

perdant
= This gives us the verb we were waiting for: perdant. The subjunctive expresses the ox's fervent wish. In the first subjunctive you saw, the ox came in hopes of eating the hay (comedat). Now his hopes have taken a different turn: he hopes the gods will destroy the dog.

(inquit):
= This is the other verb we were hoping for, but which we could easily have done without; it is the verb of speaking which goes with the earlier cui bos. For all practical purposes this verb is really like a bit of punctuation in verbal form, alerting us that the words being reported here are direct speech. Just as in the fable about the fox and the lioness, the ox is granted the privilege of being directly quoted in the story, while the poor dog can only howl!

nec enim faeno ipse vesceris,
= Note the postpositive particle enim in second position. It lets you know that something explanatory is going to be forthcoming. Just why should the gods destroy that dog? Here is the reason! The verb takes an ablative complement (“feed on”), and ipse modifies the implied subject of the verb: (tu) ipse vesceris.

nec me vesci sines.”
The nec is part of a parallel construction, equivalent to the English correlative construction "neither...nor..." (you can think of nec...nec... in Latin as the negation of the et...et... construction). The verb in the first part of the construction, vesceris, is ambiguous: it could be present or future. The verb in this clause, sines, is unambiguously future: "you will not let me eat." The form vesci is a passive infinitive, a complement to the verb sines.

Here is the illustration of the fable by Francis Barlow:

---

The Aesopus Ning is now open for business - so, for more fables and to share your questions and comments with others, come visit the Ning!

Fable 1. Leaena et Vulpes

Finally, the order of fables has been settled for the Barlow book, along with the Latin text! (That's what I've been busy with the past few weeks, and why I have not posted.) Starting today, I'll be doing presenting the fables from the Barlow book with a kind of running commentary that is not entirely possible within the confines of the book. There's some commentary in the book, of course, but there's not room for this much commentary - thank goodness for the wide open space of the Internet!

So, to get started, here is what will be the first fable in the collection: Leaena et Vulpes. For more information about this fable, see the Discussion Forum for this fable at the Aesopus Ning.

Leaena, cum a Vulpe saepe exprobraretur quod, quolibet partu, unum dumtaxat catulum parturiret, respondit, “Unum sane, at pol Leonem!"

Leaena,
= There are not very many animal names in Latin which offer both masculine and feminine forms, but the lion is one, so you can have a male lion, leo, and a lioness, leaena, as here. Another one of the fables in Barlow's Aesop tells about the lupa, the female wolf (in this case, English does not have a distinctive form for the female wolf!).

cum a Vulpe saepe exprobraretur
= This is a cum clause with a subjunctive verb - so the fact that the lioness is being reproached by the fox for something is causal - "given that she was being reproached by the fox on frequent occasions" or "because she was often the object of the fox's reproaches." Both characters in the fable - the lioness and the fox - have now been introduced.

quod,
= The quod is going to introduce the substance of the fox's complaint against the lioness: (on account of the fact) that

quolibet partu,
= "with each and every childbirth" - The Latin compound with libet is one of my favorites: it conveys the sense of whatever you like, whatever you please, it doesn't matter which one you pick, because each and every one of them will prove my point! Rhetorically it's perfectly suited to conveying the sense of the fox's tone, even if the fox is not being quoted directly here. There's an English abbreviation with this term: QL, quantum libet, "as much as it pleases, as much as you want" Apparently the word "quidlibet" was also used in English - quidlibet is defined in the Oxford English dictionary as "A verbal nicety, a minor or quibbling point in an argument; an equivocation."

unum dumtaxat catulum parturiret,
= This picks up the clause introduced by quod here - explaining the reason why the fox reproached the lioness. The use of the subjunctive here is great; this is one of those subjunctives that puts you into the mind of the speaker - "because (according to the fox anyway) she only gives birth to one cub only." The word dumtaxat is, like quolibet, a compound word built with what was originally a parenthetical verb - quo + libet, and here dum + taxat. The word dumtaxat is less obvious, since the Latin verb is not a highly productive verb: taxare means to reckon the size or value of something. So the Latin dumtaxat conveys the idea of "when you add it up" or "so long as you're keeping track," etc.

respondit,
= Notice that while the fox's words were reported in indirect speech only (although with little words like quolibet and dumtaxat conveying some of the pointedness of the fox's speech), it is the lioness alone who is given the privilege here of being quoted directly.

“Unum sane,
= The verb is implied but not stated here, and has to be supplied from the fox's claim: Unum (catulum) sane (parturio). The use of sane is very nice here also - anyone who's not deranged knows that a lioness does not give birth to a whole little of pups. That is so obvious as to not even bear commenting on... although the fox seems to think it worth bringing up again and again, insanely!

at pol Leonem!”
= The lioness swears like any good Roman: By Pollux! The implied contrast, of course, is that one is a lion, as opposed to all those little fox pups, who all of them together do not add up to equal a single lion. The fact that she is also very economical in her speech - few words, few offspring, but high quality ones - fits in perfectly with the theme of the fable itself!

Here is the illustration of the fable by Francis Barlow:

---

The Aesopus Ning is now open for business - so, for more fables and to share your questions and comments with others, come visit the Ning!