Prose composition or comprehension

Constructed illustrative sentence (not a quotation): cōnsul mīlitibus imperāvit ut pontem dēlērent. Set out what Section A could ask about this sentence and what Section B would require you to do with the same grammar, and say what is different about the two demands.

1. 01What Section A might ask

   Three kinds of question are available on this one sentence. A comprehension question: 'What did the consul order?' - answered in English, in one line: 'that the bridge should be destroyed', or 'his soldiers to destroy the bridge'. An accidence question: 'Parse dēlērent' - third person plural imperfect subjunctive active of dēleō. A syntax question: 'In what case is mīlitibus, and why?' - dative plural, because imperō governs a dative of the person commanded. All three test recognition of something already on the page.

2. 02What Section B would require

   Given the English 'the consul ordered his soldiers to destroy the bridge', you must produce the Latin. That means choosing imperō rather than iubeō, and therefore the dative mīlitibus rather than the accusative mīlitēs; choosing ut with the subjunctive rather than an infinitive; recognising that imperāvit is a historic tense and so selecting the imperfect subjunctive dēlērent rather than the present dēleant; getting pontem into the accusative as the object of the subordinate verb; and putting the words in a Latin order, with the verb at the end of its clause. Five decisions, all of which had to be made before a word was written.

3. 03The asymmetry

   In Section A the sentence tells you that imperō took a dative. In Section B nothing tells you: you must know it, and if you do not, you will write iussit mīlitēs pontem dēlēre, which is also correct Latin but for the wrong verb, or imperāvit mīlitēs ut ..., which is simply wrong. Recognition is a weaker form of knowledge than production, and every candidate has a large zone in which they can recognise what they cannot produce. Composition shrinks that zone; comprehension works comfortably inside it.

4. 04The tense decision in detail

   The English 'ordered' is a past tense, so the main verb is imperāvit, a perfect with past force and therefore a historic tense. Historic sequence requires the imperfect subjunctive for an action contemporaneous with or subsequent to the main verb, and the destroying of the bridge is subsequent to the ordering. Hence dēlērent. Had the English been 'the consul orders his soldiers to destroy the bridge', the main verb would be the present imperat, the sequence would be primary, and the subordinate verb would be the present subjunctive dēleant. That single substitution is the whole of the sequence of tenses in miniature.

5. 05What both routes share

   Both required knowing that imperō governs a dative and ut with the subjunctive, that dēleō is second conjugation, and that Latin sequences its subjunctives. The knowledge is identical; only the direction of travel differs. This is why the first year of the course is the same whichever route you take, and why the choice can safely be deferred to the end of it - but not beyond.

Result: Section A asks you to describe the sentence: dative because imperō governs it, imperfect subjunctive in historic sequence, an indirect command. Section B asks you to build it from the English, making five separate decisions in the right order. The grammatical content is the same; the demand is not, and the difference is the whole basis of the choice.

Constructed illustrative passage (not a quotation): dux hostium, postquam in Ītaliam pervēnit, nūllam urbem oppugnāre cōnstituit, sed agrōs sociōrum vāstāvit, ut Rōmānōs ad pugnam ēliceret. cōnsul autem, cui paucī mīlitēs erant, in castrīs manēre mālēbat quam tantum perīculum subīre. mīlitēs tamen, quod nihil agēbant, eum timidum vocābant; quibus ille respondit sē nōn timōre sed cōnsiliō morārī. Answer the six questions below in the style of Component 02 Section A.

1. 01What did the enemy leader decide not to do after reaching Italy? (1)

   Answer: he decided not to attack any city. One mark, one point, one line. The Latin is nūllam urbem oppugnāre cōnstituit, and note that nūllam attaches to urbem, so the decision is against attacking any city at all rather than against attacking one particular city - a distinction that a careless answer loses.

2. 02What did he do instead, and for what purpose? (2)

   Answer: he laid waste the fields of the allies (one mark), in order to lure the Romans out to battle (one mark). Two marks, two visibly separate points. The purpose is carried by the ut-clause with the imperfect subjunctive ēliceret, which is where a candidate who has identified the grammar will look first. Writing only 'he ravaged the allies' fields' answers half the question and earns half the marks, however well it is phrased.

3. 03Why was the consul reluctant to fight? (1)

   Answer: because he had only a few soldiers. The Latin is cui paucī mīlitēs erant, a dative of possession inside a relative clause - literally 'to whom there were few soldiers'. This is a good example of the answer being carried by a construction rather than by a word: a candidate who does not recognise the dative of possession may read cui as an indirect object and miss the point entirely.

4. 04What did the consul prefer, and to what? (2)

   Answer: he preferred to stay in camp (one mark) rather than run so great a risk (one mark). The Latin is in castrīs manēre mālēbat quam tantum perīculum subīre - mālō with two infinitives and quam between them. Both halves of the comparison are needed, because the question says 'and to what'; the mark allocation confirms it.

5. 05What did the soldiers call the consul, and why? (2)

   Answer: they called him a coward, or cowardly (one mark), because they were doing nothing (one mark). The Latin has a double accusative with vocō - eum timidum vocābant - and a causal quod-clause with the indicative agēbant, which gives the reason in the writer's own voice rather than as an alleged reason. If the Latin had had a subjunctive there, the answer would have had to be 'on the grounds that they were doing nothing', and the difference is examinable.

6. 06How did the consul answer them? (1)

   Answer: he replied that he was delaying not out of fear but as a matter of deliberate policy. The Latin is sē nōn timōre sed cōnsiliō morārī: an indirect statement with the reflexive sē as its accusative subject, referring back to the consul as the speaker, and two ablatives of cause in antithesis. Note quibus at the head of the clause, a connecting relative in the dative after respondit - 'to whom he replied', that is, 'he replied to them'. Total for the six questions: nine marks, and not one of the answers is longer than a line.

Result: Nine marks in six answers, each one sentence long, each in English, each drawn from a construction identified in the Latin: a negative object phrase, a purpose clause, a dative of possession, a comparison with mālō and quam, a double accusative with a causal quod-clause, and an indirect statement with a reflexive subject. The grammar is not incidental to the comprehension - it is where the answers live.

Turn into Latin: 'The consul, who had been sent to Gaul by the senate, ordered his soldiers to build a camp near the river.' Show every decision in order.

1. 01Step 1: the main clause

   'The consul ordered his soldiers to build a camp' is the main clause; 'who had been sent to Gaul by the senate' is a relative clause modifying the subject, and 'near the river' is a prepositional phrase attached to the building. So the frame is subject plus verb plus an indirect command, with a relative clause inserted.

2. 02Step 2: choose the constructions

   'Ordered somebody to do something' is an indirect command. Two Latin constructions are available and they are not interchangeable: iubeō takes an accusative and an infinitive, imperō takes a dative of the person and ut with the subjunctive. Either would be correct here; imperō with ut is chosen because the sequence of tenses can then be demonstrated. The relative clause is a plain statement of fact, so it takes the indicative. 'To build a camp' is idiomatically castra pōnere, to pitch camp - a Latin writer would not say aedificāre.

3. 03Step 3: case, number and gender

   cōnsul, nominative singular, the subject. quī, nominative singular masculine - number and gender from cōnsul, case from its own clause, where it is the subject of the passive missus erat. ā senātū, ablative of the agent with ā because the senate is here treated as a personal agent; senātus is fourth declension, so senātū. in Galliam, accusative after in because the sense is motion towards. mīlitibus, dative plural, governed by imperō. castra, neuter accusative plural, the object of pōnerent, and note that castra is plural in form and singular in sense. flūmen, accusative after prope.

4. 04Step 4: tense, mood and sequence

   missus erat: pluperfect passive indicative, because the sending is prior to the ordering and the clause states a fact. imperāvit: perfect indicative, the main verb. pōnerent: the sequence decision. imperāvit is a perfect with past force, so the sequence is historic, and the pitching of the camp is subsequent to the order, so the imperfect subjunctive is required. Third person plural, because the soldiers are the ones pitching it: pōnerent.

5. 05Step 5: word order

   Latin puts the subject early and the verb of each clause at its end. The relative clause is inserted immediately after its antecedent. Prepositional phrases stand before the verb they modify. That gives: cōnsul, quī ā senātū in Galliam missus erat, mīlitibus imperāvit ut castra prope flūmen pōnerent. Note that the main verb imperāvit is not at the very end of the sentence, because the ut-clause follows it; the verb-final rule applies within each clause, not to the sentence as a whole.

6. 06Step 6: read it back

   Check the agreements one at a time. quī masculine singular nominative with cōnsul - yes. missus masculine singular nominative agreeing with quī - yes. erat singular agreeing with quī - yes. imperāvit singular agreeing with cōnsul - yes. mīlitibus dative because imperō requires it - yes. pōnerent plural because its subject is the soldiers - yes, and imperfect subjunctive because the sequence is historic - yes. castra accusative plural neuter as the object of pōnerent - yes. Nothing is unjustified.

Result: cōnsul, quī ā senātū in Galliam missus erat, mīlitibus imperāvit ut castra prope flūmen pōnerent. Decisions: indirect command with imperō plus the dative and ut rather than iubeō plus the accusative and infinitive; the idiom castra pōnere for 'build a camp'; ā with the ablative for a personal agent; in with the accusative for motion; the indicative in a factual relative clause; and the imperfect subjunctive in historic sequence.

Turn each pair into Latin and say which cell of the sequence grid it occupies: (a) He asks why the soldiers have fled. / He asked why the soldiers had fled. (b) He asks what the enemy will do. / He asked what the enemy would do. (c) He orders them to build a bridge. / He ordered them to build a bridge. (d) So great is the fear that no one dares to remain. / So great was the fear that no one dared to remain.

1. 01(a) primary and historic, prior action

   quaerit cūr mīlitēs fūgerint. quaesīvit cūr mīlitēs fūgissent. Both are indirect questions, so both take the subjunctive. The fleeing is prior to the asking in both. In the first, quaerit is present, so primary sequence, so the perfect subjunctive fūgerint. In the second, quaesīvit is a perfect with past force, so historic sequence, so the pluperfect subjunctive fūgissent. Note that the English marks the same distinction with 'have fled' and 'had fled'.

2. 02(b) primary and historic, future reference

   quaerit quid hostēs factūrī sint. quaesīvit quid hostēs factūrī essent. There is no future subjunctive, so the periphrasis is required: the future active participle factūrī, nominative plural masculine agreeing with hostēs, plus the subjunctive of sum in the appropriate sequence. sint in primary, essent in historic. A candidate who writes quid hostēs faciant for the first has said 'what the enemy are doing', which is a different question.

3. 03(c) primary and historic, subsequent action

   eīs imperat ut pontem faciant. eīs imperāvit ut pontem facerent. Indirect command with imperō, which governs the dative eīs and ut with the subjunctive. The building is subsequent to the ordering, which for sequence purposes is treated the same as contemporaneous. Primary gives the present subjunctive faciant; historic gives the imperfect facerent. Had the verb been iubeō, the construction would have been eōs iussit pontem facere, with an accusative and an infinitive and no sequence question at all.

4. 04(d) result clauses in both sequences

   tantus est timor ut nēmō manēre audeat. tantus erat timor ut nēmō manēre audēret. A result clause, announced by tantus and introduced by ut. Primary gives the present subjunctive audeat; historic gives the imperfect audēret. Note that audeō is semi-deponent, so its present system is active in form, and the subjunctives here are ordinary active forms; the deponent perfect ausus sim would only appear if the result were being reported as an accomplished fact, which is the licence result clauses have.

5. 05The one that does not follow the grid

   Add a ninth: 'He says that the soldiers have fled' and 'He said that the soldiers had fled'. These are dīcit mīlitēs fūgisse and dīxit mīlitēs fūgisse - the same Latin both times. Indirect statement does not use the sequence of tenses; it uses a perfect infinitive for any action prior to the main verb, and the English tense follows from the main verb rather than from the infinitive. This is the distinction candidates most often collapse, and it is worth writing out on its own card.

6. 06Checking the grid

   Four cells were used: primary with a prior action (perfect subjunctive), historic with a prior action (pluperfect subjunctive), primary with a subsequent action (present subjunctive), historic with a subsequent action (imperfect subjunctive), plus the two periphrastic futures. That is the entire system. Everything else - purpose, result, indirect command, indirect question, fearing, preventing, doubting - is a matter of which conjunction introduces the clause; the tense of the subjunctive is always decided by these same four cells.

Result: (a) quaerit cūr mīlitēs fūgerint / quaesīvit cūr mīlitēs fūgissent. (b) quaerit quid hostēs factūrī sint / quaesīvit quid hostēs factūrī essent. (c) eīs imperat ut pontem faciant / eīs imperāvit ut pontem facerent. (d) tantus est timor ut nēmō manēre audeat / tantus erat timor ut nēmō manēre audēret. And the ninth pair, dīcit and dīxit mīlitēs fūgisse, which is identical in both sequences because indirect statement obeys a different rule.

Turn into Latin: 'The soldiers, who were very tired, wanted to rest. But the general, because he knew that the enemy were near, ordered them to march on. They obeyed him, although they were angry.' Write a poor version first and then a good one, and identify every fault.

1. 01The poor version

   mīlitēs, quī erant valdē fessī, volēbant requiēscere. sed dux, quia sciēbat quod hostēs erant prope, imperāvit eōs prōgredī. pāruērunt eī, quamquam erant īrātī. Every clause is intelligible and several are actually correct, but the passage is English wearing Latin endings.

2. 02Fault one: verb position

   quī erant valdē fessī puts the verb before its complement, and volēbant requiēscere puts the finite verb before the infinitive it governs, both on the English pattern. Latin puts the verb at the end of its clause: quī valdē fessī erant, and requiēscere volēbant. The same applies to pāruērunt eī, which should be eī pāruērunt, and to erant īrātī, which should be īrātī erant.

3. 03Fault two: an indirect statement rendered with quod

   sciēbat quod hostēs erant prope translates the English 'knew that' word for word, using quod and a finite verb. Classical Latin does not do this after a verb of knowing or saying: the construction is an accusative and infinitive, hostēs prope adesse. This is the single most damaging error available in a composition, because it announces that the candidate has not internalised the central construction of Latin prose.

4. 04Fault three: the wrong indirect command

   imperāvit eōs prōgredī uses imperō with an accusative and an infinitive, which is the construction of iubeō. imperō takes a dative of the person and ut with the subjunctive: eīs imperāvit ut prōgrederentur. Either eōs iussit prōgredī or eīs imperāvit ut prōgrederentur would be right; the hybrid is not.

5. 05Fault four: coordination where Latin subordinates, and a missing connective

   sed dux ... is acceptable but flat; Latin would more naturally use the postpositive tamen in second position, dux tamen. And 'because he knew' is better as a causal cum-clause with the subjunctive than as quia with the indicative, because Latin prefers to subordinate a circumstance of this kind: cum ... scīret. Similarly the last sentence reads better with the concessive clause first, which is the Latin habit: quamquam īrātī erant, ducī pāruērunt.

6. 06The good version

   mīlitēs, dēfessī, requiēscere cupiēbant. dux tamen, cum hostēs prope adesse scīret, eīs imperāvit ut prōgrederentur. quamquam īrātī erant, ducī pāruērunt. Note the further improvements: dēfessī, a single strong adjective, replaces valdē fessī, since Latin prefers an intensified word to an adverb plus a weak one; cupiēbant is a stronger and commoner verb than volēbant here; and ducī replaces the pronoun eī in the last clause, which is clearer and avoids two pronouns in three words. pāreō governs the dative, so ducī is right and ducem would be wrong.

Result: mīlitēs, dēfessī, requiēscere cupiēbant. dux tamen, cum hostēs prope adesse scīret, eīs imperāvit ut prōgrederentur. quamquam īrātī erant, ducī pāruērunt. Faults corrected: verb position in four clauses, quod with a finite verb replaced by an accusative and infinitive, imperō given its proper dative and ut-clause, sed replaced by the postpositive tamen, a causal clause subordinated with cum and the subjunctive, and pāreō given its dative.

Turn into Latin, showing the plan, the writing and the check. English (shorter than the examination minimum of a hundred words, for reasons of space): 'After the city had been captured, the general sent envoys to Rome to announce the victory. The senate, which had long been afraid, was so delighted that it decreed a thanksgiving of three days. But the general himself did not return at once; for he knew that many enemies still remained in the mountains, and he was unwilling to leave the province before everything was safe.'

1. 01The plan

   Four sentences. Sentence one: main clause 'the general sent envoys'; 'after the city had been captured' - abl. abs.; 'to announce the victory' - relative clause of purpose or ad with a gerundive. Sentence two: main clause 'the senate was so delighted'; 'which had long been afraid' - relative clause, indicative; 'that it decreed ...' - result clause. Sentence three: main clause 'the general did not return'. Sentence four: 'for he knew' - main clause with enim; 'that many enemies remained' - indirect statement; 'he was unwilling to leave' - nolo plus infinitive, or a negatived volo; 'before everything was safe' - priusquam with the subjunctive, anticipation. Characters: dux masculine singular throughout; senātus masculine singular; hostēs masculine plural.

2. 02Sentence one

   urbe captā, dux lēgātōs Rōmam mīsit quī victōriam nūntiārent. The ablative absolute urbe captā carries 'after the city had been captured'. Rōmam is a bare accusative, because Rome is a town and towns take no preposition for motion towards. quī ... nūntiārent is a relative clause of purpose, imperfect subjunctive in historic sequence after mīsit - and it is more idiomatic than ut with the subjunctive when the purpose attaches to a person who has been sent.

3. 03Sentence two

   senātus, quī diū timuerat, tantō gaudiō affectus est ut trium diērum supplicātiōnem dēcerneret. The relative clause states a fact, so the indicative timuerat, pluperfect because the fear preceded the delight. tantō signposts the result clause, exactly as tam and adeō do. affectus est, perfect passive of afficiō with an ablative - the Latin idiom is to be 'affected with' an emotion. trium diērum is a genitive of description with supplicātiōnem; trium is the genitive of trēs and diērum the genitive plural of diēs. dēcerneret is imperfect subjunctive, historic sequence.

4. 04Sentences three and four

   dux tamen ipse nōn statim rediit; sciēbat enim multōs hostēs adhūc in montibus manēre, neque prōvinciam relinquere volēbat priusquam omnia tūta essent. tamen and enim are both postpositive and stand second in their clauses. The indirect statement after sciēbat is an accusative and infinitive with the present infinitive manēre, because the remaining is contemporaneous with the knowing - not the imperfect subjunctive, and this is the trap the sequence grid does not cover. neque means 'and not' and is the normal Latin for a negatived coordinate clause. priusquam with the imperfect subjunctive essent expresses anticipation.

5. 05The check, passes one and two

   Verbs: mīsit, third singular perfect, subject dux - correct. nūntiārent, third plural imperfect subjunctive, subject the envoys - correct in person and in sequence. timuerat, third singular pluperfect indicative, subject quī referring to senātus - correct. affectus est, third singular perfect passive, and affectus is nominative singular masculine agreeing with senātus - correct. dēcerneret, third singular, subject senātus - correct. rediit, sciēbat and volēbat are all third singular with dux as their subject - correct. essent, third plural, subject omnia, neuter plural - correct. Nouns and agreements: captā feminine singular ablative with urbe - correct; multōs hostēs accusative plural masculine - correct; tūta neuter plural nominative with omnia - correct; trium diērum both genitive plural - correct.

6. 06The check, passes three, four and five

   Constructions against the plan: ablative absolute - present; relative purpose clause - present; factual relative with indicative - present; result clause with tantō and ut - present; indirect statement with an accusative and infinitive - present; priusquam with the subjunctive - present. All six planned constructions are on the page and complete. Small things: tamen and enim are both second in their clauses; every clause has its verb at the end except where a subordinate clause follows the main verb, which is correct; the sentences are joined by tamen, enim and neque. Reading it aloud: the passage runs as Latin prose, with no clause whose sense has to be reconstructed.

Result: urbe captā, dux lēgātōs Rōmam mīsit quī victōriam nūntiārent. senātus, quī diū timuerat, tantō gaudiō affectus est ut trium diērum supplicātiōnem dēcerneret. dux tamen ipse nōn statim rediit; sciēbat enim multōs hostēs adhūc in montibus manēre, neque prōvinciam relinquere volēbat priusquam omnia tūta essent. Six required constructions demonstrated, two postpositive connectives correctly placed, one bare accusative of motion towards a town, and one idiom (afficī with an ablative of the emotion) used where the English invited it.