Et As A Subordinating Conjunction In Tacitus' Germania A Deep Dive
Let's dive into the fascinating world of Latin grammar, specifically focusing on the use of et as a subordinating conjunction, as seen in Tacitus' Germania. This can be a tricky area, so let's break it down in a way that's easy to understand, even if you're not a Latin expert. We'll be examining a specific passage and the translation choices made, which will help us unravel the nuances of this usage.
Understanding the Context: Tacitus and Germania
Before we get into the nitty-gritty of the grammar, it's helpful to understand the context. Tacitus was a Roman historian who lived in the 1st and 2nd centuries AD. His work, Germania, is a valuable (though sometimes biased) account of the Germanic tribes living outside the Roman Empire. It's a key text for understanding Roman perceptions of these groups and offers insights into Germanic culture and society. Knowing this helps us appreciate the weight and precision Tacitus likely employed in his writing. He wasn't just stringing words together; he was crafting a narrative with specific intent.
In Germania, Tacitus explores the customs, geography, and social structures of the Germanic peoples. He often contrasts their perceived virtues with the perceived decadence of Roman society. This comparative element is crucial to understanding Tacitus' overall project. He's not just describing these tribes; he's using them as a mirror to reflect on Roman identity and values. Therefore, his language choices are deliberate and significant. Each word, each grammatical construction, contributes to the overall picture he's painting.
When we encounter a seemingly unusual construction, like et used in a way that might not immediately jump out as a subordinating conjunction, it's essential to dig deeper. We need to ask ourselves: What effect is Tacitus trying to achieve? How does this particular grammatical choice contribute to his broader argument? By keeping these questions in mind, we can move beyond a purely mechanical understanding of the language and begin to appreciate the artistry of Tacitus' prose.
Consider the passage we'll be dissecting: "...tamquam per hanc gloriam sanguinis a similitudine et inertia Gallorum separentur." This isn't just a random assortment of Latin words; it's a carefully constructed clause designed to convey a specific idea. Tacitus is talking about how certain Germanic tribes see themselves in relation to the Gauls. He's suggesting that they want to distinguish themselves, to set themselves apart. The way he phrases this idea, the grammatical tools he employs, are all part of his rhetorical strategy. Understanding this strategy is key to truly grasping the meaning of the passage.
Dissecting the Sentence: tamquam per hanc gloriam sanguinis a similitudine et inertia Gallorum separentur
Now, let's get to the heart of the matter: the sentence itself. The specific clause we're focusing on is: "tamquam per hanc gloriam sanguinis a similitudine et inertia Gallorum separentur." Maurice Hutton, the Loeb translator, rendered this as "...as though..." This translation choice immediately flags the word tamquam as playing a crucial role, suggesting a sense of comparison or pretense. But let's not stop there. We need to unpack the rest of the sentence to see how et fits into the puzzle.
The key phrase here is a similitudine et inertia Gallorum, which translates roughly to "from the likeness and inactivity of the Gauls." Notice the et connecting similitudine (likeness) and inertia (inactivity). This is a classic use of et as a coordinating conjunction, linking two nouns together. However, it's the larger context of the sentence that raises the question of whether et might be functioning in a more nuanced way, perhaps even hinting at a subordinating function in conjunction with tamquam.
Let's break down the sentence structure further. Separentur is the verb, meaning "they might be separated" or "they might set themselves apart." The subject is implied, referring to the Germanic tribes. The phrase per hanc gloriam sanguinis means "through this glory of blood" or "by means of this glorious ancestry." So, the Germanic tribes seek to separate themselves from the Gauls through their perceived glorious ancestry.
The preposition a indicates separation or distancing. The phrase a similitudine et inertia Gallorum tells us what they are separating themselves from: the likeness and inactivity of the Gauls. It's important to note the negative connotations associated with inertia. Tacitus isn't just saying they want to be different from the Gauls; he's suggesting they want to distance themselves from a perceived lack of vigor or dynamism.
Now, let's zoom back out and look at the sentence as a whole. The tamquam introduces a sense of subjunctive mood, a hypothetical or imagined situation. The Germanic tribes act as though they are being separated from the Gauls by their glorious ancestry. This implies a degree of self-perception, a way in which they see themselves, rather than necessarily a concrete reality. Tacitus is giving us insight into their mindset, their aspirations, and their self-image.
The Role of et: Conjunction or More?
This is where things get interesting. While et clearly functions as a coordinating conjunction between similitudine and inertia, the question arises: Could it also be contributing to a broader subordinating function in conjunction with tamquam? This is a subtle point, and interpretations can vary. It's not a straightforward case of et acting as a typical subordinating conjunction like ut (that) or quod (because).
However, we can argue that et, in this context, strengthens the connection between the two qualities from which the Germanic tribes are trying to distance themselves. It's not just about being different from the Gauls in one aspect; it's about rejecting a whole complex of characteristics. The et emphasizes the interconnectedness of similitudine and inertia, painting a more complete picture of what the Germanic tribes are trying to avoid.
Think of it this way: the et isn't just adding two items to a list; it's creating a compound idea. It's not simply "likeness and inactivity"; it's the likeness-and-inactivity of the Gauls, a single, interwoven concept. This strengthens the idea that the Germanic tribes are rejecting a whole way of being, a specific Gallic identity.
Furthermore, the tamquam introduces a hypothetical scenario. The tribes act as if they are being separated. This sense of hypotheticality extends to the entire clause, including the a similitudine et inertia Gallorum phrase. The et, by solidifying the connection between the two qualities, reinforces the hypothetical nature of the separation. It's not just about separating from one thing or another; it's about separating from a combined set of characteristics within a hypothetical framework.
