Dear Maria,
Could you please help me with the following (all from De Ira III):

1. O dignum in quem omnium suorum arcus verterentur! (De Ira, 3.14.4)
Could you give a literal translation?

2. Persarumque suaserit, quo offensus liberos illi epulandos adposuit (De Ira, 3.15.1)
Could you give a literal translation of the quo-clause?

3. deinde, ut satis illum plenum malis suis vidit (De Ira, 3.15.1)
Is “esse” understood in the accu. + inf. clause after “vidit”?

4. utique hoc sortitis vitae genus (De Ira, 3.15.3)
Is “sortitis” from “sortitus”, pp of “sortio”?

Thank you.

Dear Robert,

1.“O dignum in quem omnium suorum arcus verterentur!” (Seneca, De Ira, 3.14.4) literally means:”O (o) [king] worthy (dignum, accusative of Exclamation. See AG 397 d)  that towards whom  (in quem, relative sentence depending on “dignum”) are directed (verterentur) the bows (arcus, nominative plural, 4th declension) of all his subjects (omnium suorum)!”, just to point out that such a  cruel  king is worthy to be the target for the bows of all his subjects

2.” Non dubito quin Harpagus quoque tale aliquid regi suo  Persarumque suaserit, quo offensus liberos illi epulandos adposuit…” (De Ira, 3.15.1) literally means:”I am not in doubt that (non dubito quin) also (quoque) Harpagus  has suggested  (suaserit) something (aliquid) similar (tale, neuter agreeing with “aliquid”)  to his king (regi suo, dative singular depending on “suaserit”) ) and of the Persians (Persarumque) , [who ] being offended (offensus, past participle, nominative masculine singular referring to the implied “king Astyages” ) by which thing (quo, i.e. the advice given to extremely powerful men. See Herodotus, The Histories, book I, chapters 108-120 at the link below) set (adposuit) before him (illi, dative depending on “adposuit”. Note that “illi” refers to Harpagus) [Harpagus's own ] children (liberos) to be eaten in the banquet  (epulandos, gerundive agreeing with “liberos”) “, i.e.: “I am not in doubt that Harpagus also gave some such advice to his king, the king of the Persians, who, taking offence thereat, caused the flesh of Harpagus's own children to be set before him as a course in the banquet”.

In short, Seneca says that both Prexaspes and Harpagus had given to their kings, Cambyses and Astyages respectively, some suggestions that were fatal to them because of  cruel arrogance of  those powerful men.

For  the story of Harpagus and king Astyages see Herodotus, The Histories, book I, chapters 108-120 at:

3. In “…..deinde, ut satis illum plenum malis suis vidit”(De Ira, 3.15.1) literally meaning “… then (deinde) when (ut) he saw (vidit) him (illum) fairly  (satis) sated (plenum) with his ills (malis suis, abl of abundance depending on “plenum”) “ there is no object-clause after “vidit”, but simply the  direct object “illum” with the predicate adjective “plenum” modified by the adverb “satis”.

4. In “….utique hoc sortitis vitae genus…”(De Ira, 3.15.3)  the dative plural “sortitis” from “sortitus” (literally, “drawn by lot”/”assigned or obtained by lot”)  is just the past participle  of  the verb “sortio” (4th conjugation).

Best regards,


All Answers

Answers by Expert:

Ask Experts




I am an expert in Latin Language and Literature and I'll be glad to answer any questions concerning this matter.


Over 25 years teaching experience.

I received my Ph.D. in Classics (summa cum laude) from Genova University (Italy).

This expert accepts donations:

©2017 All rights reserved.