Could you please help me with the following (all from De Ira):
1. pro cuiusque natura quidam ebrii efferuescunt, quidam saucii. (De Ira, 2.19.5)
Are “ebrii” and “saucii” abl. abs.?
2. quibus talis natura color est qualis fieri ceteris inter iram solet (De Ira, 2.19.5)
Could you give a literal translation of this sentence?
3. Et quia aliis contra iram, aliis contra tristitiam remediis utendum est nec dissimillimis tantum ista sed contrariis curanda sunt (De Ira, 2.20.4)
Does “ista” refer to “iram” and “tristitiam”?
4. Ideo unicis quo plus indulgetur (De Ira, 2.21.6)
Why dat. “unicis”? I thought it is the subj. of “indulgetur” and therefore should be nom.
1.In “….. pro cuiusque natura quidam ebrii effervescunt, quidam saucii” (Seneca, De Ira, 2.19.5)the adjectives “ebrii” and “saucii” in the nominative masculine plural refer to the subject “quidam” and the verb “effervescunt”, as they both are predicate adjectives (See AG 272) so that “…quidam ebrii effervescunt, quidam saucii” literally means:
”…some (quidam) seethe (effervescunt) drunk(ebrii), some (quidam) [seethe (effervescunt)] enfeebled (saucii)”, in the sense that wine which increases the heat kindles anger so that some seethe with rage because they are drunk, others because they are enfeebled, each according to their nature.
Please note that the nominatives “ebrii” and “saucii” cannot be abl. abs., of course.
2. Here’s the literal translation of “Neque ulla alia causa est, cur iracundissimi sint flavi rubentesque quibus talis natura color est qualis fieri ceteris inter iram solet” (De Ira, 2.19.5):
“There is (est) no other reason (neque ulla alia causa) why (cur) fair-haired (flavi) and red-haired people (rubentesque) are very hot-tempered (iracundissimi) [than the fact that ] to them (quibus, dative of Possession, relative pronoun used instead of the personal pronoun to link two sentences) is (est. See AG 373) by nature (naturā) such (talis) colour (color) as (qualis, correlative of “talis”) to others (ceteris, Dative) it uses (solet) to be produced (fieri) in anger (inter iram”, i.e.:
“And the only reason why fair-haired and red-haired people are extremely hot-tempered is that they have by nature the colour which others use to assume in anger”.
3.In “Et quia aliis contra iram, aliis contra tristitiam remediis utendum est nec dissimillimis tantum ista sed contrariis curanda sunt “ (De Ira, 2.20.4) the nominative neuter plural “ista”(literally, “these things”/"faults”, i.e. “ira” and “tristitia”) refer to “iram” as well as to “tristitiam” just to point out that these faults (ista, i.e. anger and sadness) are to be cured (curanda sunt, passive periphrastic) not only (nec tantum ) by different remedies ( dissimillimis [remediis] , ablative of instrument]), but even by contrary (sed contrariis) [remedies]".
4. In “Ideo unicis quo plus indulgetur……..corruptior animus est” (De Ira, 2.21.6) the dative “unicis” depends on the verb “indulgeo” which takes the dative case(See “indulgetur” in the impersonal passive construction).
So, “Ideo unicis quo plus indulgetur……..corruptior animus est” literally means:
”Therefore (ideo) the more (quo plus) it is inclined /we are inclined indulgently (indulgetur, impersonal passive construction) to only children(unicis), the more spoiled (corruptior) is (est) [their] mind/ disposition/ character (animus)”, just to emphasize that the more an only child is treated indulgently.... the more his temperament can be spoiled.
As you can see, the dative plural “unicis” is not the subj. of “indulgetur”, though in a free translation we could say correctly:” …the more only children are treated indulgently…”.