ginlindzey

So, I will confess that I’m not sure that I had ever really heard of Subjective or Objective Genitives before this summer.  Perhaps that’s an indication that you really need to know the details of grammatical terminology; or more likely it means that I’ve been sloppy for far too long, especially since I’m the teacher.  While I’m not necessarily convinced that it’s worth understanding the difference between the Possessive and the Subjective Genitive (which will be for another post, I hope), I feel that understanding the Objective Genitive is worthwhile, if for no other reason than sometimes you don’t use “of” to translate it. I had this “I should have had a V8” moment—and wondered why I had missed this for so long. There was no need to be “winging it” as I felt I was sometimes in explaining why some genitives just didn’t sound right with “of.”

Truth be told when I think of what my grounding in grammar was, what my go-to reference was before daring to open Gildersleeve and Lodge in college, it was what certamen players rely upon: good old Amsco.  My well-worn Amsco 3-4 only has four things for the genitive: possession, description, partitive, and with certain adjectives (cupidus, perītus, imperītus, and plēnus). And sadly too many of us use texts like this to guide students (at least for certamen) on which grammar items are important instead of what is actually being used in our texts and in our stories. There is no in between, no grammar reference that has an intermediate range of information. After all, reading Gildersleeve and Lodge isn’t for everyone—that’s for sure!

Anyway, let’s look at what the grammarians say first, then the list of those sentences from CLC (17-40) which I think probably are Objective Genitive, and why we should care.

(http://www.csun.edu/~hcfll004/genitive.html)
ADJECTIVAL USES
3.      objective genitive denotes the object of the activity implied by a noun or adjective (metus hostium)

Genitives, Bennett’s new Latin Grammar
195. With Nouns the Genitive is the case which defines the meaning of the limited noun more closely. This relation is generally indicated in English by the preposition of. There are the following varieties of the Genitive with Nouns:--
…
Objective Genitive, denotes the object of an action or feeling: metus deōrum, the fear of the gods; amor lībertātis, love of liberty

Genitives Gildersleeve and Lodge, p230ff
363. When the substantive on which the Genitive depends contains the idea of an action (nōmen āctiōnis), the possision may be active or passive. Hence the division into
1.The Active or Subjective Genitive: amor Deī, the love of God, the love which God feels (God loves)
2.Passive or Objective Genitive: amor Deī, the love of God, the love toward God (God is loved).
Remarks: The English form in of is used either actively or passively: the love of women. Hence, to avoid ambiguity, other prepositions than of are often substituted for the Passive Genitive, such as for, toward, and the like. So, also, sometimes in Latin, especially in Livy, and later Historians generally: voluntās Servīliī ergā Caesarem: the goodwill of Servilius toward Caesar. Odium in bonōs inveterātum, deep-seated hate toward the conservatives.

Genitives, Hale & Buck p 180ff
354. The Genitive may be used to express the Object or the Application of a Noun, an Adjective, or a Participle used adjectively.
The list of nouns is very large. The adjectives are especially those denoting desire, knowledge, skill, memory, or participation.
rēgnī cupiditāte, by desire of sovereignty
cupidum rērum novārum, desirous of a revolution
cōnscius iniūriae, conscious of wrong-doing
amantissimōs reī pūblicae virōs, firm friends of the state
reī pūblicae iniūriam, the wrong done to the state
excessū vītae, by departure from life
cui summam omnium rērum fidem habēbat, in whom he had the greatest confidence in all matters
praestantiam virtūtis, the preeminence in virtue
a.       Instead of the Objective Genitive depending on a noun, prepositions with the Accusative are often employed, especially ergā, in, and adversus, toward, against.
in hominēs iniūriam, wrong to men; deōrum summō ergā vōs amōre, by Heaven’s great love toward you.
b.      In Ciceronian Latin, only a moderate number of adjectives, mostly expressing or suggesting Activity, take this Genitive. With nouns it is more freely used.
c.       Freer poetic and later Genitive of the Object or of Application. In poetry and later Latin this Genitive is used with greater freedom.
fessī rērum, weary of trouble
integer vītae, upright of life
poenae sēcūrus, safe from punishment
indignus avōrum, unworthy of my ancestors
ēreptae virginis īrā, wrath at the loss of the maiden

Ok, here are the sentences that I think probably contain Objective Genitives.  Some may be wrong but I think most are correct.  You can decide for yourself.  I’ll discuss a few below.

·         20  mandō Quīntō Caeciliō Iucundō cūram fūneris meī.
·         21  multī medicī, ad aulam arcessītī, remedium morbī quaesīvērunt.
·         21  rēx Cogidubnus hūc venit, remedium morbī petēns.
·         23  Memorem ē cūrā thermārum iam dēmōvī.
·         25  Valerius nōs vult custōdēs carceris esse.
·         25  ūna est spēs salūtis.
·         28  Belimicus, spē praemiī adductus, mīlitēs Rōmānōs adiuvābat et incitābat.
·         28  aliī, spē praedae adductī, inter sē pugnāvērunt;…
·         28  mandō C. Salviō Līberālī cūram fūneris meī.
·         28  Belimicus, prīnceps Cantiacōrum, spē praemiī adductus, Salviō summum auxilium dedit.
·         28  Belimicus, metū mortis pallidus, surrēxit.
·         28  Belimicus, venēnō excruciātus, pugiōnem tamen in Salvium coniēcit, spē ultiōnis adductus.
·         29  nūlla spēs salūtis nōbīs ostenditur.
·         29  amōre līberōrum meōrum plūs quam timōre servitūtis afficiēbar.
·         29  amōre līberōrum meōrum plūs quam timōre servitūtis afficiēbar.
·         29  illūc multī senātōrēs, spē favōris Domitiānī, conveniēbant. * two gens
·         30  itaque ambō humum rediērunt, alter spē immortālitātis ēlātus, alter praesentī pecūniā contentus.
·         31  cēterī autem, oculīs in vultum praecōnis dēfīxīs, spē favōris manēbant.
·         31  …aliī spē pecūniae dēiectī invītī discessērunt.
·         32  etiam eī quī spē favōris cēnās magistrātibus dant, rē vērā labōrant.
·         33  labōribus cōnfectus atque spē sacerdōtiī dēiectus, ad vīllam rūsticam abierat ut quiēsceret.
·         34  Epaphprodītus “nōn modo ego,” inquit, “sed etiam Imperātor poenās Paridis Domitiaeque cupit.”
·         34  scīlicet falsa fuerat epistula, mendāx nūntius morbī!
·         34  nunc dēnique intellēxit quis esset auctor exitiī Paridis.
·         35  nūper ego et aliī senātōrēs ab Imperātōre cōnsultī sumus dē poenā illārum Virginum Vestālium quae incestī damnātae erant.
·         36  dīcis amōre tuī bellās ardēre puellās / quī faciem sub aquā, Sexte, natantis habēs. * love for you (your love = amōre tuō)
·         37  ibi mīlitēs nostrī, spē glōriae adductī, victōriam nōmine tuō dignam rettulērunt.
·         37  …omnēs scīmus Galbam cupīdine imperiī corruptum esse;…*or does cupīdō need a genitive?
·         38  est mihi nūlla occāsiō fugiendī.
·         38  est mihi nūlla spēs fugae.
·         40  subitō extrā cūriam īnfestae vōcēs sunt audītae clāmantium sē  ipsōs Salvium interfectūrōs esse sī poenam scelerum effūgisset.
·         40  eīs magnō auxiliō erat L. Mārcius Memor, haruspex et Salviī cliēns, quī, socius quondam scelerum Salviī, nunc ad eum prōdendum adductus est, spē praemiī vel metū poenārum.
·         40  eīs magnō auxiliō erat L. Mārcius Memor, haruspex et Salviī cliēns, quī, socius quondam scelerum Salviī, nunc ad eum prōdendum adductus est, spē praemiī vel metū poenārum.
·         40  patefēcerat enim Myropnous pūmiliō Salvium auctōrem fuisse exiliī Domitiae, Paridis mortis. *split from governing (?) noun (predicatively)
·         40  patefēcerat enim Myropnous pūmiliō Salvium auctōrem fuisse exiliī Domitiae, Paridis mortis. *note chiasmus, double genitive
·         40  quis tam stultus est ut crēdat mē mortem rēgis octōgintā annōrum efficere voluisse?
·         40  intereā Rūfilla, Salviī uxor, dum spēs eius firma manēbat, pollicēbātur sē sociam cuiusque fortūnae futūram esse.
·         40  intereā Rūfilla, Salviī uxor, dum spēs eius firma manēbat, pollicēbātur sē sociam cuiusque fortūnae futūram esse.
·         40  invidia Salviī aucta est suspīciōne Cogidubnum venēnō necātum esse.
·         40  subitō extrā cūriam īnfestae vōcēs sunt audītae clāmantium sē  ipsōs Salvium interfectūrōs esse sī poenam scelerum effūgisset.
·         40  …ille tamen, fīliī salūtis memor, hoc cōnsilium rēiēcit. *two gens

***
These two sentences, from Gildersleeve and Lodge, offer the kind of explanation that I think would be so helpful to students (since it was so helpful to me):

The English form in of is used either actively or passively: the love of women. Hence, to avoid ambiguity, other prepositions than of are often substituted for the Passive Genitive, such as for, toward, and the like.

And here I thought it was just more of, “eh, sometimes ‘of’ just doesn’t work.”  This is being more specific about WHEN it doesn’t work and WHY it doesn’t work.  And what we are looking for “denotes the object of an action or feeling.”

And when looking for an example of a “feeling,” why not look to spē praemiī adductus? I was never keen on “driven by the hope of a reward,” but hear how much better it sounds when we translate it as “driven by the hope FOR a reward”! There are 16 examples that I’ve pulled which have a form of spēs. I think each and every one of them sounds better with “for” (and remember from a previous post, spē is not really Ablative of Means but Cause/Reason). Here are some examples:

·         25  ūna est spēs salūtis.
There is one hope FOR safety.
·         28  Belimicus, spē praemiī adductus, mīlitēs Rōmānōs adiuvābat et incitābat.
Belimicus, driven on account of his hope for a reward, was helping and inciting the Roman soldiers.
·         28  aliī, spē praedae adductī, inter sē pugnāvērunt;…
Others, driven on account of their hope for loot, fought among themselves;…
·         29  nūlla spēs salūtis nōbīs ostenditur.
No hope for safety is shown to us.
·         31  …aliī spē pecūniae dēiectī invītī discessērunt.
…others disappointed in their hope for money left unwilling(ly).
·         40  eīs magnō auxiliō erat L. Mārcius Memor, haruspex et Salviī cliēns, quī, socius quondam scelerum Salviī, nunc ad eum prōdendum adductus est, spē praemiī vel metū poenārum.
For a great help to them was Lucius Marcius Memor, diviner and client of Salvius, who, as a one-time ally of the crimes of Salvius, now was driven to betray him, from the hope for a reward or from the fear of punishments.
·         40 intereā Rūfilla, Salviī uxor, dum spēs eius firma manēbat, pollicēbātur sē sociam cuiusque fortūnae futūram esse.
Meanwhile Rufilla, the wife of Salvius, while hope him was staying strong,was promising that she would be his partner of whatever fortune.

This last one (with eius) I was never able to translate smoothly into English, even though I understood the Latin just fine, or so I thought. But maybe my lack of understanding about the Objective Genitive and its translations other than “of” was the real problem. Moreover, I like learning that the Objective Genitive has to do with actions and feelings, so that when I see spēs and mētus (and timor) I can already understand that in all likelihood we are dealing with something different from possession, something where “of” might not sound best. Surely the original authors of CLC would not have included so many examples, repeating and repeating the concept, if this weren’t one we were supposed to take note of and help our students to understand. If we just let them guess until something sounds right, it makes Latin seem arbitrary and and even a little vicious to the learner.

Another example which benefits from understanding what the Objective Genitive is would be the Martial epigram about Sextus: dīcis amōre tuī bellās ardēre puellās / quī faciem sub aquā, Sexte, natantis habēs. If tuī was functioning as possession, it actually would be the adjective tuō to modify amōre (“your love”).  That these girls were burning with “love of you” or even “your love” always sounded so wrong to me. But, put in “FOR you” and this epigram totally makes sense, because Sextus can’t be the object of love if he has a face like someone swimming underwater (an image I’m still trying to figure out—are his cheeks totally puffed out like he’s holding his breath or what?).

Looking for a “cure FOR the illness (remedium morbī) sounds so much more logical than a “cure of the illness”—even though it is comprehensible. After all, how many times have you asked for a couple of ibuprofen “of your headache”? No! It’s always “for your headache”! So even though remedium isn’t denoting the object of an action or feeling; it is, however, an “object or application of a noun.” The cure would be applied to the illness, right? What about all the times poena is used—wouldn’t this be about who the penalty was applied to? Consider this sentence: nōn modo ego sed etiam Imperātor poenās Paridis Domitiaeque cupit. The emperor desires punishments FOR Paris and Domitia—he wants the punishments to apply to them, he wants them to be the objects of the punishments.

Of course, ideally we should be trying to teach our students to stay “in” Latin—that the goal of learning Latin is not to translate it into English but to understand what we are reading in Latin through Latin. But I am also a realist; I know how the local big universities teach their classics courses (sadly) and I know that AP wants students who understand and can translate Latin literally.

So, maybe I wouldn’t put this one in the About the Language section, but I think I would certainly include it in the Language Information section at the back of the book, especially if you are going to include the Genitive of Indefinite Price/Value which could be included under Genitive of Description, according to some of the grammarians (see previous post).  I’m not sure I would bother Latin 2 students with this concept, but the Latin 3 students usually have higher aims and crave clarity and information, so I probably will show them.  And the 4s will definitely have this information.


 

Actually, this one could be separated out into several different genitives. I found a website (http://www.csun.edu/~hcfll004/genitive.html) which had Definition and Material together, which I also realized would include the Genitive of Specification. For my own students I am combining them but will include here what the grammarians have about these.  But first, I want to say that CLC does NOT mention any of these, not even Genitive of Material, which I think is a mistake because the very first instance of a genitive not piggybacking on a prepositional phrase is with a Genitive of Material (cumulum lapidum fulgentium) and it is in Stage 17 (where genitives are introduced).

So first, let’s see what the Grammarians say:

Genitives, Bennett’s new Latin Grammar
195. With Nouns the Genitive is the case which defines the meaning of the limited noun more closely. This relation is generally indicated in English by the preposition of. There are the following varieties of the Genitive with Nouns:--
197. Genitive of Material – talentum aurī, a talent of gold; acervus frūmentī, a pile of grain

Genitives Gildersleeve and Lodge, p230ff
360. The Genitive Case is the Case of the Complement, and is akin to the Adjective, with which it is often parallel. It is the substantive form of the Specific Characteristic.
Appositive Genitive, or Genitive of Specification.
361.The Genitive is sometimes used to specify the contents of generic words instead of Apposition in the same case; there are two varieties:
1.      Appositional Genitive. – Genitive after such words as, vōx, expression; nōmen, name, noun; verbum word, verb; rēs thing, etc.
nōmen amīcītiae, the name friendship
2.      Epexegetical Genitive – Genitive after such words as genus, class, vitium, vice, culpa, fault.
virtūtēs continentiae, gravitātis, iūstitiae, fideī, the virtues of self-control, earnestness, justice, honour
Notes:
1.      The former variety is very rare in Cicero, the latter much more common. A special variety is the use of the Gen. after such words as urbs, oppidum, flūmen, etc. This is not found in Plautus and Terrence, occurs perhaps but once in Cicero, and seems to be confined to a few cases in poetry and later prose. Often personification is at work; thus, in fōns Timāvī, Timāvus is a river god, and fōns is not equal to Timāvus.
2.      Examples like arbor abietis, fir-tree, arbor fīcī, fig-tree, etc, occur only here and there
3.      Colloquial, and probably belonging here are: scelus virī, a scoundrel of a man; flāgitium hominis, a scamp of a fellow, and the like. quaedam pēstēs hominum, certain pestilent fellows.


Genitives, Hale & Buck p 180ff
339. Possession or Connection may be expressed by a Genitive attached to a Noun.
Explanatory Genitive
341. The Genitive may be attached to a Noun to define or explain its meaning.
             hoc poētae nōmen, this name of “poet”; Troiae urbem, the city of Troy
Genitive of Material or Composition
349. Material or Composition may be expressed by a Genitive attached to a Noun.
obtortī circulus aurī, a chain of twisted gold; ancillārum gregēs, crowds (composed) of maidservants

***
The following are the sentences that I think demonstrate what I am calling the Genitive of Definition/Material. I am leaving in the notes I made to myself, which are highlighted.

Piggybacking on Prepositional Phrases (as they were introduced in stage 17).
·         17  tum post cumulum gemmārum sē cēlāvit.
·         19  post multitūdinem puellārum tubicinēs et puerī prōcēdēbant.
·         19 post turbam puerōrum tubicinumque vēnit dea ipsa.
·         19  in hāc multitūdine servōrum erant nōnnūllī Aethiopes, quī hastās in manibus tenēbant.
·         20  nihil dē arte nāvigandī sciunt.
·         22  per silentium noctis thermās intrant Bulbus et Gutta.
·         29  forum ab ingentī multitūdine cīvium cotīdiē complētur.
·         39  in aulā Imperātōris, duo puerī in studiīs litterārum sunt occupātī.
           
Not Following a Prepositional Phrase (CLC assuming you have seen enough instances and can recognize them without the additional cue.)
·         17  in nīdō mōnstrī mercātor cumulum lapidum fulgentium cōnspexit.
*First instance without a prepositional phrase!
*first with a present participle?
·         19  puellae corōnās rosārum gerunt.
·         19  turba Alexandrīnōrum tōtam viam complet.
·         19  statim multitūdō spectātōrum clāmōrem sustulit.
·         19  corōna rosārum dē mālō nāvis pendēbat.
·         20  rediit, ubi artem medicīnae exercēbat.
·         20  Petrō artem medicīnae in urbe diū exercuerat.
·         21  pōculum vīnī fert.
·         21  in thermīs multitūdinem aegrōtōrum vehementer clāmantium fabrōrumque Memorem absentem vituperantium invēnit.
*2nd present participle used in the gen plural; more challenging because of the adverb.
·         21  in thermīs multitūdinem aegrōtōrum vehementer clāmantium fabrōrumque Memorem absentem vituperantium invēnit.
*3^rd present participle used in the gen plural; more challenging because of the accusative object. Both of these (see above) are emphasizing the verbal aspects of the participle. 
·         22  multī mīlitēs vulnera fingunt, quod perīcula bellī vītāre volunt.
·         22  quanta est summa illōrum? (centum, centum et quīnquāgintā, trīgintā, sexāgintā)
*or is this really just Possession? The sum belonging to these numbers?
NB: meaning of summa is different here from gen of description, etc!
·         22  volō tē persōnam Vilbiae agere.
·         23  rēgem prīncipēsque manus armātōrum custōdiēbat.
·         23  “domine,” inquit, “pōculum aquae sacrae tibi offerō.”
·         26  Agricola tamen hīs verbīs diffīsus, Salvium dīligentius rogāvit quae indicia sēditiōnis vīdisset.
·         27  iubē Aulum amphoram vīnī ferre, Pūblicum lucernam āleāsque.
·         27  subitō manum hominum per tenebrās cōnspexit.
·         27  amphoram vīnī ē manibus Aulī ēripuit et vīnum in tunicam fūdit.
·         27  statim manus mīlitum, ā Valeriō ducta, ad horrea contendit.
·         29  spectātōrum tanta erat multitūdō ut eī quī tardius advēnērunt nūllum locum prope arcum invenīre possent.
*gen first
·         29  avium cursus ab auguribus dīligenter notābātur.
*gen first
·         29  Glitus, magister fabrōrum, Haterium lēnīre temptābat.
·         30  ibi sedēbat ōtiōsus Glitus magister fabrōrum.
*not what he’s made of but it does define his job
·         30  tōta ārea strepitū labōrantium plēna erat.
*present participle, 2nd on its own?
·         31  ubīque sonitus labōrantium audiēbātur.
*present participle, 3rd on its own?
·         32  hominēs eiusmodī cīvibus urbānīs nōn placent.
·         32  “ēn Rōmānī, dominī orbis terrārum, ventris Venerisque servī!”
*note chiasmus
·         32  “ēn Rōmānī, dominī orbis terrārum, ventris Venerisque servī!”
*note chiasmus
·         33  mox Dominus noster, rēx glōriae, ad nōs reveniet; ē caelō dēscendet cum sonitū tubārum, magnō numerō angelōrum comitante.
·         34  tandem audīvit Paris strepitum cēterōrum mīlitum domum irrumpentium.
* with present participle and object of participle
·         34  …puerī puellaeque deōrum effigiēs corōnīs flōrum ōrnābunt;
*gen first
·         34  …puerī puellaeque deōrum effigiēs corōnīs flōrum ōrnābunt;
*kind of chiasmus… certainly framing in a way
·         34  Myropnous ubi strepitum pulsantium audīvit pyram incendit.
*present participle
·         34  tum manibus ad caelum sublātīs nōmen Salviī dētestātus est.
·         34  ātrium magnificē ōrnātum erat: ubīque lūcēbant lucernae, corōnae rosārum dē omnib*first time present participle used in the singular us columnīs pendēbant.
·         34  amphoram oleī ē culīnā portāvit quā flammās augēret.
·         36  nōmine Diaulus sum. artem medicīnae nūper exercēbam….
·         36  dīcis amōre tuī bellās ardēre puellās / quī faciem sub aquā, Sexte, natantis habēs.
*present participle, only one used as a substantive in the singular
·         37  initiō huius aestātis, exercitus noster ad ultimās partēs Britanniae pervēnit.
·         38  diēs nūptiārum adest.
·         38  ō mea fīlia, tibi haud lacrimandum est; diē nūptiārum nōn decet lacrimāre.
·         38  chorus musicōrum carmen nūptiāle cantāre incipit.
·         40  septimō annō Domitiānī prīcipātus, C. Salvius Līberālis, quī priōre annō fuerat cōnsul, ab Acīliō Glabriōne falsī accūsātus est.
*double genitive
·         40  eīs magnō auxiliō erat L. Mārcius Memor, haruspex et Salviī cliēns, quī, socius quondam scelerum Salviī, nunc ad eum prōdendum adductus est, spē praemiī vel metū poenārum.
*separated from governing noun (?) (quondam is post-positive?) Separation not used until after a few instances of being used predicatively.
·         40  interim, ut sollicitūdinem dissimulāret et speciem amīcitiae praebēret, Salvium dōnīs honōrāvit, ad cēnam invītāvit, cōmiter excēpit.
·         40  fāma praetereā vagābātur reliquiās corporum in thermīs Aquārum Sūlis repertās esse, dēfīxiōnēs quoque nōmine Cogidubnī īnscrīptās.
·         40  fāma praetereā vagābātur reliquiās corporum in thermīs Aquārum Sūlis repertās esse, dēfīxiōnēs quoque nōmine Cogidubnī īnscrīptās.
·         40  prīmō diē cognitiōnis Glabriō crīmina levia et inānia exposuit.
·         40  postrīdiē Ursus Serviānus, quī cognitiōnī praefuerat, sententiam prōnūntiāvit: nōmen Salviī Fāstīs ēradendum esse;…
·         40  aliī exīstimābant Domitiānī  īram magis timendam esse quam minās accūsantium;…
*present participle
·         40  postulāvit tabulās testāmentī.

Genitives nested inside prepositional phrases or inside noun/adjective pairs.    
·         29  illā nocte Eleazārus, dē rērum statū dēspērāns, Iūdaeīs cōnsilium dīrum prōposuit.
·         30  apud Haterium tamen nūllae grātulantium vōcēs audītae sunt.
*present participle, 1^st on its own?
·         32  …sed Euphrosynē ab eiusmodī actīs abhorruit.
·         40  ingēns senātōrum multitūdō in cūriā convēnerat, ubi Gāius Salvius Līberālis accūsābātur.
·         40  diē dictā, magnā senātōrum multitūdō ad causam audiendam in cūriā convēnit.
·         40  eōdem diē mīrum fideī exemplum oculīs populī Rōmānī obiectum est.

Genitives used predicatively? (Separated from the noun it modifies by the verb? I am uncertain what the grammarians mean by “predicatively” and I found the examples unhelpful.)
·         28  Belimice, tē rēgem creō mortuōrum.
·         37  Domitiānus autem nūllum signum dedit neque odiī neque gaudiī neque invidiae.
·         39  ipse tridente suō terram percussit, at ill / intremuit mōtūque viās patefēcit aquārum. (Ovid)
·         40  subitō extrā cūriam īnfestae vōcēs sunt audītae clāmantium sē  ipsōs Salvium interfectūrōs esse sī poenam scelerum effūgisset.
*present participle used predicatively modifying vōcēs and governing an indirect statement.


The first set above are those that are piggybacking on prepositional phrases to add that additional visual cue that we indeed have genitives at hand. There is only one example in Stage 17, post cumulum gemmārum. There is only one from the 2^nd set, those without the visual cue of the prepositional phrase, cumulum lapidum fulgentium. Both of these come from the story mercātor Arabs. This latter example I find curious. To begin with, it is the first example of a genitive occurring without a prepositional phrase. There’s also one in Stage 18, the very last sentence in the chapter (nunc Clēmēns est prīnceps tabernāriōrum). We don’t begin to see genitives without a prepositional phrase regularly until Stage 19. The second curious thing about this example is that it is the first time time we see a genitive with a present participle, fulgentium, which we don’t see again until Stage 21 (more on that in a moment). In fact, we don’t even get present participles until Stage 20. Then again, CLC often sneaks in previews of grammar to come. I’m betting, though, that this one hardly gets noticed.  It is glossed thus we don’t need the visual cue to help students understand that this is a genitive and most students (or teachers) never reread old stories to notice those details.

In Stage 19 we get five examples of the Genitive of Definition/Material with both words for “crowd”—post multitūdinem puellārum, post turbam puerōrum tubicinumque, in hāc multitūdine servōrum, turba Alexandrīnōrum, multitūdō spectātōrum. Students and teachers never question theses phrases being genitives because “of” flows so naturally in the English, but it’s not like these crowds belong to the girls, the boys, the trumpeters, the slaves, the Alexandrians, or even the spectators.  However, they are made up of these people; the crowd is defined by what it is made of.

I’m making a point about “crowds” because it is with multitūdō that CLC throws students a curve ball in Stage 21 with this sentence: in thermīs multitūdinem aegrōtōrum vehementer clāmantium fabrōrumque Memorem absentem vituperantium invēnit. This is the first time we see present participles in the genitive plural once we have formally been introduced to present participles. And in fact in this one sentence we have two of them, and each is demonstrating that half verb/half adjective quality of the participle: aegrōtōrum vehementer clāmantium has an adverb modifying the participle, nested in the middle of the phrase; fabrōrumque Memorem absentem vituperantium has a direct object governed by vituperantium—and even it has its own participle, absentem. (Ok, and I love the Memorem absentem line because of the line in Book 4 of the Aeneid: illum absens absentem auditque videtque.) It’s definitely a loaded sentence. I would like to think that if we as teachers make a big deal of having “crowds OF people” already, this more extended version with a present participle is doable. And if students think that this sentence is overly long and overwhelming, we can remind them that this is exactly the way Cephalus is supposed to feel here—overwhelmed by what he has been ordered to deal with, and certainly people shouting and cursing would be upsetting for him.

The present participles used in the genitive, especially those on their own acting as substantitives with the meaning “of those verbing,” have always interested me. It’s the sort of thing that trips up my students and I have wondered whether there was a better approach to teaching them. If we have discussed with students, whether formally or informally, about Genitive of Definition/Material, then I think these genitives can be easier to recognize. Consider the first example from Stage 30, apud Haterium tamen nūllae grātulantium vōcēs audītae sunt, which has the genitive all by itself nicely nested between the adjective and noun. We can assume that those missing voices of those congratulating him would be of clients, since in the previous paragraph in the story Salvius is being congratulated by clients. And in fact we discover in the next sentence that Haterius hasn’t been allowing clients nor friends into his house.  The next two genitives on their own are tōta ārea strepitū labōrantium plēna erat (later in Stage 30), which is followed fairly closely in Stage 31 with ubīque sonitus labōrantium audiēbātur. If we compared these to the ones in in thermīs multitūdinem aegrōtōrum vehementer clāmantium fabrōrumque Memorem absentem vituperantium invēnit, we could discuss with students that it was necessary to specify that it was the crowd of sick people shouting as opposed to the crowd of craftsmen cursing. But when there is nothing to specify in that regard, one doesn’t need to include virōrum or hominum. There are a few more instances of the present participle in the genitive without a noun acting as a substantive: strepitum pulsantium (34), faciem…natantis (36, Martial; the only singular), and minās accūsantium (40).  Although they are nowhere called “substantives” in the Language Information section, they are remarked upon under Uses of the Participle. (Adjectives used as substantives are not remarked upon whatsoever that I can find, which is disappointing.)

In Stage 22, where we have the difference between Genitive of Possession, Partitive Genitive, and Genitive of Description explained, we also have this one time (at least through Stage 40) occurrence of summa = sum, total.  I think it is worth taking a diversion to discuss with students that we see forms of summus in several different constructions in Latin and the translation does vary depending upon context:


·         22  quanta est summa illōrum?
How great is the sum of those [figures]?
(with a Genitive of Definition/Material or perhaps Possession)
·         22  prope virum SUMMAE VIRTŪTIS stō.
I am standing near a man of the highest/greatest courage.
(in a Genitive of Description)
·         15  intereā Dumnorix, quī summā cum cūrā nāvigābat, circum mētam nāvem dīrēxit.
Meanwhile Dumnorix, who was sailing with the highest/greatest care, steered his boat around the turning point.
(in an Ablative of Manner)
·         29  …ultimae marmoris massae ad summum arcum tolluntur.
…the last blocks of marble are being raised to the top of the arch.
(simple adjective—not sure how better to explain)

In Stage 29 we start seeing Genitives appearing before the noun they modify. The first example is ūnā cum eīs in carcere erant quīnque līberī, QUŌRUM Simōn nātū maximus sōlācium mātrī et aviae fere temptābat, where we are not surprised to find the relative pronoun, which naturally comes first in a relative clause, being in a case that is not normally first in a sentence. The next two examples having a genitive come first are these, and both are Genitive of Definition/Material:

·         29  spectātōrum tanta erat multitūdō ut eī quī tardius advēnērunt nūllum locum prope arcum invenīre possent.
·         29  avium cursus ab auguribus dīligenter notābātur.

Of these two, the very first one harkens back to “crowd” (see above). I do not know whether it is significant, but the first instance of the genitive occurring after the verb and separated from the noun it modifies appears in Stage 28 (Belimice, tē rēgem creō mortuōrum), perhaps to get us used to the genitive being in different places depending on context or emphasis. Placement can also be determined because the genitive doing more than just modifying the noun, such as this substantive present participle:

·         40  subitō extrā cūriam īnfestae vōcēs sunt audītae clāmantium sē  ipsōs Salvium interfectūrōs esse sī poenam scelerum effūgisset.

Not only does it come after the verb, it also governs the indirect statement, sē  ipsōs Salvium interfectūrōs esse, which follows it. This is something I really like about the progression or evolution of constructions in CLC: once you get a handle on the construction, it gets combined with other constructions to make that densely packed periodic Latin that we love (or should love). After all, this sentence has a perfect passive verb with the participle coming after sunt and not before it, a present participle in the genitive plural acting as a substantive which in turn is governing an indirect statement which also contains a condition!

So, let me say that I think that the Genitive of Definition/Material is one of the types of genitives which CLC should mention. Clearly we get by without it because if you know that the genitive means “of” you can easily translate cumulus gemmārum as “a pile of gems” or multitūdō spectatōrum as “a crowd of spectators” etc. But I think it would be a much easier shift in concept when we get to strepitus pulsantium, “the noise of those pounding (on the door)” if we already had this concept in our mind of the genitive defining that pile or that crowd or that noise by explaining what material the pile, the crowd, or the noise is made of. We are, indeed, specifying what the pile consists of, what kind of crowd it is, and even what the noise is from.

If you use the About the Language with students, you may note that in the one in Stage 17 provides this information:

A.    Study the following sentences:
·         ad portum Alexandrīae mox pervēnimus.
We soon arrived at the harbor of Alexandria.
·         in vīllā Barbillī erant multī servī.
In the house of Barbillus were many slaves.
·         mīlitēs Rōmānī per viās urbis incēdēbant.
Roman soldiers were marching through the streets of the city.
[A variation of what is really seen in the model sentences:
 multī mīlitēs per viās urbis incēdunt.]
·         in multitūdine Aegyptiōrum erat senex.
In the crowd of Egyptians was an old man.
·         agmen mīlitum per urbem incēdit.
A column of soldiers is marching through the city.
[I cannot find any use of agmen with a genitive in CLC, not that anything is wrong with this sentence, and mīlitum used in the genitive this way only occurs 3 times (in 24, 27, & 34)].
The words in the boldface are in the genitive case.

I do take issue with the last example because nothing like it is seen in this stage and I believe all examples in the About the Language section should be taken straight from the stories. But I digress. In the About the Language II: More About the Genitive in Stage 22, you will find:

A.    In Unit 2 you met examples of the genitive case like these:
·         marītus Galatēae erat Aristō.
Galatea’s husband was Aristo.
[No, this sentence was not used.]
·         prō templō Caesaris stat āra.
In front of the temple of Caesar stands an altar.
[Actually it was prō templō Caesaris erat āra.]

These are obvious examples of Genitive of Possession. Although not called such here (which I have no issue with), the Language Information section does have Possession identified as a use of the genitive case. The About the Language section in Stage 22 then continues on with examples of Partitive Genitive/Genitive of Quanitity, and Genitive of Description. What is notably absent now are the examples of Genitive of Definition/Material. It’s not in the examples, it’s not mentioned or shown subsumed in another category in the Language Information section. And yet it was important enough to include in the Stage 17 About the Language. Why does it disappear? Why not get students who want to understand the workings of language with that tiny bit of extra information to think on—that genitives can be used to define and specify?

But no matter.  Teachers should always remember that textbooks are merely tools to use and that they as teachers are in charge of what is taught.  I find CLC to be a fantastic tool which I learn more and more from each year, and I have been teaching from it for over 15 years now. We teachers can use our own ingenuity to reinforce what we think is important.

Teachers could have great fun orally engaging students by changing up some of these genitives in an effort to point out that these are Definition/Material when encountering pōculum vīnī (estne pōculum aquae? lactis? CocaColae?) or perīcula bellī (suntne perīcula pacis? scholae? lūdōrum? dormiendī? autoraedam agendī?).  Or if you feel as if you don’t have enough time for such side diversions when reading a story with students, perhaps you could compose a humorous paired reading activity for a “musical pairs” warm-up/ice-breaker for the beginning of class.

Another concern of mine is that not properly addressing the Genitive of Definition/Material could lead to problems later on. I found a page on the internet (which I won’t cite; I am not trying to ridicule the teacher) that had this:

Specification: The purpose of this genitive is to specify or narrow down the meaning of another word. This is also what I like to call the cop-out genitive. If you don't know how to parse the genitive, put this and you just might get it right.

I found this terribly disappointing but not surprising because we all get in a rut of teaching what we feel we need to teach (what’s in the textbook) and not thinking about the rest.  I have been guilty of this laziness—or maybe not laziness but a type of blindess—from time to time, which is why I have been obsessing this summer over ablatives and genitives. The easiest (though time-consuming) part of this project has been going through and finding the sentences with genitives.  The trickier part was labeling them. Sure, I understood what was going on in the sentence, but there’s a reason why those grammarians of past ages got so nitpicky. They wanted complete understanding of how things were functioning—that scientific dissection of language.  We avoid it now because parsing a sentence doesn’t improve your fluency and turns into a totally tedious and mind-numbing drill. It is bad teaching if done constantly. And since the goal of CLC is not producing fluent language but being able to read fluently, the need to understand in order to produce is not necessary.

HOWEVER, piling up example after example after example as I have done, comparing and contrasting, and in the case of CLC, watching the evolution of usage, is truly enlightening.  In my mind I feel like this sort of examination is like future doctors doing dissections for better understanding of human anatomy and all its variations. I love noticing something in CLC, and asking myself, “how long have they been sneaking this in?” or “how are they comparing and contrasting this concept?” and then hunting down the answer.   But I digress.

Teachers jumping from CLC to AP need not feel like they suddenly have to teach all of these structures that we haven’t met before—because we HAVE met them all before.  We don’t have to call it a Genitive of Specification or Material or Definition or Explanation; but we can discuss the concept.  CLC’s strength is learning through reading and the repetitions in the readings.  It’s just that sometimes we aren’t aware of those repetitions or evolutions. I’m hoping these little articles (which I suppose I should really be posting on my old blog which I stopped using a few years back) will raise awareness of how much “grammar” truly is in CLC in an organized way, even if it is never formally addressed in the texts.

I'm working on my Latin 1 exam, which is needing much revision from last year as did my other two exams because of the stage quizzes I implemented this year. The passages from the stage quizzes now make up the 2nd half of the exam--the "midterm" portion of it. 

Each year I become more obsessed about making sure I utilize exactly what's in the book for examples.  I will comb the stages for examples of usage, examine them with students, work them, review them, etc.  And each year I find that somehow I've overlooked something good.  A lot of times it has to do with Latin 1, because I've taught that level for so long and have quia material for that level already developed.  But for instance, I'm looking right now at the genitive material I have for review for stages 17 and 18, and realize that I did not pull examples from EVERY story.  This year I was able to read stories that often I have to skip because of time. 

So right now I'm looking at stage 17, ad templum, which I usually skip. I didn't skip it this year, but we only read it, I believe.  I'm looking now at it again, thinking/reminding myself that one thing I discovered that was nice about this stage was that it really worked particular prepositions (de, for instance).  I did skip in stage 18, Clemens tabernarius.  Not enough time.  A pity, because I'm noticing, among other things, that it is the first story in which we have UT meaning AS.  "haec tabernam, ut dixi, prope templum deae Isidis erat." 

I like looking at when we have the first instance of something that becomes important in reading Latin.  For instance, I believe stage 13 has the first use of ille = he... wait, I can't find it.  I do find the first use of illi = they in stage 15 in caerimonia: illi, postquam atrium intraverunt, magnam turbam viderunt.  AH, first use of ille = he is in tumultus in stage 17: ille tabernam prope portum Alexandriae possidebat.  And it is from this point that we begin discussing how ille is used to indicate a change of subject.  This is a very important reading cue, especially when reading Vergil.  I noticed when I was reading some Eutropius with a student after school this year that he used forms of is, ea, id instead to indicate a change in subject--but it was something I was now trained to EXPECT.

And building up reading expectations is so critical in being able to read Latin well.

Anyway, I wish I had pulled ALL THE GENITIVES in stages 17 and 18 for my review material so I'd have more sentences to choose from for the test.  And I'm becoming distracted by teaching issues instead of just writing the damned test.  So, back to work for me.

p.s. I also just noticed, though I may be wrong, that the first use of the genitive NOT piggy-backing on a prepositional phrase is in the last sentence of the last story of stage 18 (pro taberna Clementis): nunc Clemens est princeps tabernariorum.  This is something I want to watch at the beginning of Latin 2--how to recognize the genitive, where we can expect to see it, etc.