Could you please help me with the following (all from De Ira):
1. cui de paedagogo satisfactum est (De Ira, 2.21.6)
Could you translate this sentence?
2. cum quidquid leve et inane in animo erat secunda se aura sustulit. (De Ira, 2.21.7)
What does “secunda se aura” mean?
3. quod flenti negatum fuerit quieto offeratur. (De Ira, 2.21.8)
Is the following understanding correct?
“flenti” is the dat. of present participle “flens”, and “quieto” is abl. abs.
4. non irascetur aliquem sibi comparari (De Ira, 2.21.11)
I thought “irascentur” requires dat. So why “aliquem”?
1.”Non resistet offensis……cui de paedagogo satisfactum est” (Seneca, De Ira, 2.21.6)
literally means:” He will not resist (non resistet) to offences/injures ( offensis,
dative depending on "resistet") to whom (cui, relative pronoun) satisfaction has been
given (satisfactum est, impersonal construction of “satisfacio” which governs the dative "cui") about/against (de)[ his] preceptor/teacher(paedagogo)”, i.e.: “He will not resist to offences...who has been allowed to have his own way with his tutor ”,
just to point out that spoilt child who has been allowed to get the better of his
tutor will not be able to withstand rebuffs because they will be used to have always
his own way.
2. In “…cum quidquid leve et inane in animo erat secunda se aura sustulit" (De Ira, 2.21.7) the ablative of Cause “secundā … aurā” means “because of a propitious (secundā)
As for the reflexive pronoun “se” in the accusative case, it depends on “sustulit” so that “..cum quidquid leve et inane in animo erat secunda se aura sustulit” literally
means:”…when (cum) what (quidquid, nominative neuter) was (erat) light (leve) and vain
(et inane) in the mind (in animo) increased/ raised (sustulit, from “tollo”) itself (se) thanks to a propitious (secundā ) breeze (aurā)”, with reference to the fact that a higher level of fortune shows a greater tendency to anger which is “especially apparent in the rich, in nobles, and in officials when all that was light and trivial in their mind soars aloft
upon the breeze of good fortune”.
3.In “…. quod flenti negatum fuerit quieto offeratur” (De Ira, 2.21.8) “flenti” is
just the dative of the present participle “flens”, as you say, but “quieto” is not an
abl. abs., as it is another dative depending on “offeratur”.
In short, “…. quod flenti negatum fuerit quieto offeratur” literally means:” ….what (quod) was refused (negatum fuerit) to a wepting ( flenti) [ child] let be offered (offeratur, hortatory subjunctive) to the quiet (quieto) [child]”, just to point out that a child must gain nothing by anger and only when he is quiet he will obtain what was refused when he wept.
4. In “…non irascetur aliquem sibi comparari (De Ira, 2.21.11) the accusative “aliquem”
does not depend on "irascetur" here, but is the subject of the object-clause "aliquem
sibi comparari" and then the sentence literally means:
”…..he (i.e. the boy/child) will not irritate (irascetur) that somebody (aliquem) is compared (comparari) with himself (sibi, dative depending on “comparari”)”, with reference to the fact that a boy will never be angry at some one being compared with himself, if you have from the first compared him with many.
As you can see, in this context the verb "irascor" is not followed by the person
with whom someone is angry and therefore there is no dative depending on “irascor”.