Could you please help me with the following (all from De Ira III):
1. Hi nempe oculi, qui non ferunt nisi uarium ac recenti cura nitens marmor (De Ira, 3.35.5)
Is “nitens marmor” the obj. of “ferunt”? but the case seems to be nomi.
2. Quid ergo aliud est quod illos in publico non offendat (De Ira, 3.35.5)
Is “illos” the obj. of “offendat”, meaning “[offended at] those people”
3. Iratum vidisti amicum tuum ostiario causidici alicuius aut diuitis (De Ira, 3.37.2)
Could you give a literal translation?
4. et beati hominis iudicat ac potentis indicium difficilem ianuam (De Ira, 3.37.3)
Does “iudicat” have double objects: “beati hominis ac potentis indicium” and “difficilem ianuam”?
1.In “Hi nempe oculi, qui non ferunt nisi uarium ac recenti cura nitens marmor..” (Seneca, De Ira, 3.35.5) the neuter noun “marmor” modified by the adjectives “varium” and “nitens“ which governs the ablative “recenti cura” is exactly the direct object of “ferunt”, so that the sentence literally means:”Just/certainly (nempe, adverb) these (hi) eyes (oculi) which (qui) do not tolerate(non ferunt) [to see] a marble (marmor, neuter noun, direct object) if not (nisi) variegated (varium, agreeing with "marmor") and bright (nitens, from niteo. This participle used as an adjective agrees with "marmor") because of a recent (recenti) diligence (curā, ablative )..”, i.e.:”These same eyes that cannot tolerate marble unless it is mottled and polished with recent rubbing...”(Basore).
As you can see, the neuter noun “marmor”, which can be both nominative and accusative, is used as a direct object in the accusative depending on “ferunt”.
2. In “Quid ergo aliud est quod illos in publico non offendat …”(De Ira, 3.35.5) the pronoun “illos”-literally meaning “those [eyes]”- is the direct object of “offendat”, because “illos” refers to “oculi” in “Hi nempe oculi...”(see above), so that “Quid ergo aliud est quod illos in publico non offendat..” literally means:” What other (quid aliud) [reason] then (ergo) there is (est) that (quod,relative pronoun,nominative neuter agreeing with "quid aliud") does not offend (non offendat, present subjunctive whose subject is “quod”, i.e. “reason”) those [eyes] (illos) in a public place/ on the street (in publico)..”, just to point out that our eyes, which at home cannot tolerate marble unless it is mottled and polished with recent rubbing (see above), are not offended on the street by rough and muddy paths and dirty people (see "scabras lutosasque semitas spectant et maiorem partem occurrentium squalidam",at the previous lines).
3. Here’s the literal translation for “Iratum vidisti amicum tuum ostiario causidici alicuius aut diuitis..” (De Ira, 3.37.2):” You saw (vidisti) your friend/ one of your friends (amicum tuum) angry (iratum) with the porter (ostiario, dative depending on “iratum”) of some (alicuius) lawyer (causidici) or (aut) rich man (divitis)…”, i.e.: “You have seen your friend in rage with the porter of some lawyer or rich man” because this porter has sent him back when he was about to enter.
4.In “….. et beati hominis iudicat ac potentis indicium difficilem ianuam” (De Ira, 3.37.3)the verb “iudicat” governs the direct object “difficilem ianuam” as well as the accusative “indicium” which however is used as a predicate accusative (See AG 391-392).
In short, the sentence literally means:” ..and he considers (iudicat) a door (ianuam, direct object) difficult [of access ](difficilem) as the mark (indicium, predicate accusative) of a fortunate and powerful man (beati hominis …ac potentis)....”, just to point out that someone thinks that a street door through which it is hard to gain entrance is the mark of a successful and powerful man.