Topic / Level 4; transport [9]: heavy duty vehicles (2) serrācum

serrācum (sarrācum), -ī [2/n]: cart; wagon

Why should an entire post be devoted to a single word? Serrācum, like plaustrum, is most often defined as a cart or wagon. It would be perfectly legitimate to leave it at that since it occurs infrequently. However, in ‘exploring’ vocabulary – especially everyday objects about which the Romans said little – the noun serves as an example of being circumspect when you read very specific definitions for which there is a dearth of evidence.

[i] There is some debate as to whether this type of cart was fundamentally different from the plaustrum.

In Vitruvius’ discussions on machines and implements he distinguishes between the plaustrum and the serrācum but without specifying what that distinction is:

portātiōnēsque eōrum nōn essent, nisi plostrōrum [ = plaustrōrum] seu serracōrum per terram, nāviculārum per aquam inventae essent māchinātiōnēs.

• ...and their transportation would not exist, unless the mechanisms of wagons or carts across land, and of small boats across water, had been invented.

[ii] It is suggested that its use was for transporting heavier payloads although we must be wary of assuming absolute distinctions when attested evidence is limited. Juvenal describes the traffic chaos caused by goods vehicles:

longa coruscat / serrācō veniente abiēs, atque altera pīnum / plaustra vehunt

• A long fir-tree sways as the cart approaches, and other wagons carry a pine tree

His reference to a long / tall fir-tree suggests that a larger, sturdier vehicle would be required, its bulk emphasised by the swaying motion. However, the choice of nouns may simply be adhering to the poetic metre

sēr-rā- | cō vĕ-nĭ- | ēn-t'ă-bĭ- | ēs, āt- | qu'āl-tĕ-ră | pī-nūm

plāus-tră vĕ- | hūnt ...

Juvenal is less concerned with specific function than with the creation of an overall effect. Describing the dangers of such freight traffic with high, bulky and precarious payloads, he continues:

nūtant altē populōque minantur. | they totter on high and threaten the people

nam sī prōcubuit quī saxa Ligustica portat axis / et ēversum fūdit super agmina montem, | for if the axle which carries Ligurian stones [ = marble] has broken and poured an upturned mountain on the crowds

quid superest dē corporibus? | what remains of the bodies?

[iii] The description of the devastating Antonine Plague from 165 – 180 AD does imply that mass transportation of human bodies would require a flatbed vehicle on four wheels to maximise stability. After all, nobody would have wished plague victims to be strewn over the streets:

Tanta autem pestilentia fuit ut vehiculīs cadāvera sint exportāta sarrācīsque. (Historia Augusta)

• ...and the plague was so great that bodies were carried out on carts and wagons

[iv] The following is a comment by Quintilian on a lost fragment of Cicero’s speech In Pisōnem:

An cum dīcit in Pīsōnem Cicerō 'cum tibi tōta cognātiō serrācō advehātur', incīdisse vidētur in sordidum nōmen, nōn eō contemptum hominis quem dēstrūctum volēbat auxisse?

• Or when Cicero, in his speech against Piso, says 'when all your relations are carted in a serrācum', does he appear to have fallen back on a vulgar word, and not rather to have increased thereby his contempt for the man whom he wanted to ruin?

i.e. the noun is used pejoratively to convey social distinction; a vehicle that is normally used for the transportation of heavy goods is transporting people.

[v] The following two quotations refer to Boötes.  Derived from Ancient Greek Βοώτης [Voótis], “the herdsman”, it is a large constellation in the northern sky.

Referring to the stars, Ovid describes them as plaustra i.e. as a yoked ‘team’ of carts being driven by ‘the herdsman’:

Tē quōque turbātum memorant fūgisse, Boōtē, quamvīs tardus erās et tē tua plaustra tenēbant. (Ovid)

• They say that you also fled in confusion, Boötes, even though you were slow and your wagons held you back.

Juvenal, however, portrays the stars in the same way as the slow, swaying wagon carrying a fir tree through crowded streets (see [ii] above). His use of serrāca is less elevated, emphasising the slow passage of time.

sīderibus dubiīs aut illō tempore quō sē / frīgida circumagunt pigrī serrāca Boōtae.

• when the stars are fading or when the cold carts of sluggish Bootes wheel round.

To conclude, we can see that a single word can be:

• open to multiple interpretations
• used both literally and metaphorically
• subject to overly confident and specific definitions

Topic / Level 4; transport [8]: heavy duty vehicles (1) plaustrum

plaustrum, -ī [2/n]: a two-wheeled or four-wheeled cart (plaustrum maius) / wagon with heavy solid wooden wheels and pulled by a pair of yoked oxen

Terram cariōsam cave nē ārēs, nēve plaustrum nēve pecus impellās; (Cato)

• Be careful not to plough crumbling / rotten soil, nor to drive a wagon or livestock over it;

Nunc quōquō veniās plūs plaustrōrum in aedibus videās quam rūrī, quandō ad vīllam vēnerīs (Plautus)

• Wherever you go these days, you see more wagons among city houses than in the country, when you visit a farm.

The wheels and axle were joined, revolving together that caused a creaking or screeching (strīdēns, -ntis) noise.

montīsque per altōs contentā cervīce trahunt strīdentia plaustra (Virgil)

• and across high mountains, with strained neck, they drag the creaking wagons

Note Virgil’s use of contentā and trahunt to convey that the wagon is a slow vehicle transporting heavy loads.

Ovid makes the same comment on the noise of the plaustrum:

...incūstōdītae dīripiuntur opēs, / rūris opēs parvae, pecus et strīdentia plaustra...

• ... unprotected wealth is plundered—the meager wealth of the countryside, the cattle, and the screeching wagons ...

Topic / Level 4; transport [7]: wheeled vehicles (7) raeda; Cicero and the defence of Milo [ii]

The following excerpt comes much later in Cicero’s speech, and invites the jury to picture the event and decide which description naturally fits an assassin. The focus is entirely on the visual.

Rēs loquitur ipsa, iūdicēs, quae semper valet plūrimum. Sī haec nōn gesta audīrētis, sed picta vidērētis, tamen appārēret uter esset īnsidiātor, uter nihil malī cōgitāret, cum alter veherētur in raedā paenulātus, ūna sedēret uxor. Quid hōrum nōn impedītissimum? vestītus an vehiculum an comes? quid minus prōmptum ad pugnam, cum paenulā inretitus, raedā impedītus, uxōre paene cōnstrictus esset?

The facts themselves speak, gentlemen of the jury, and they always carry the greatest weight. If you were not to hear these actions, but to see them depicted in a picture, it would nevertheless be clear which of the two was the ambusher and which was harbouring no evil intention, when one was being conveyed in a carriage, clad in a travelling cloak, with his wife sitting beside him. Which of these circumstances was not a very great hindrance? His clothing, his vehicle, his companion? What could have been less suited to a fight, when he was entangled in his cloak, impeded by his carriage, and almost bound fast by his wife?

Note:

[1] juxtaposition, placing two opposing ideas side-by-side, again creating the powerful antithesis evident in the first excerpt:

uter esset īnsidiātor, uter nihil malī cōgitāret

[2] rhetorical questions

Rhetorical questions do not invite answers since they are already obvious in context; rather, they are designed to persuade the jury mentally to reach their own conclusions.

Quid hōrum nōn impedītissimum?

vestītus an vehiculum an comes?

quid minus prōmptum ad pugnam, cum paenulā inretitus, raedā impedītus, uxōre paene cōnstrictus esset?

[3] Cicero’s use of the tricolon:

(1) vestītus (2) an vehiculum (3) an comes?

cum (1) paenulā inretitus, (2) raedā impedītus, (3) uxōre paene cōnstrictus esset

It could be argued that Cicero is using a tactic which, in our contemporary terms, is described as ‘anchoring’. The word is particularly associated with advertising and encourages consumers to focus on one striking feature of a product. Here, Cicero focuses on how the events look and on the circumstances pertaining to a specific part of the case to the exclusion of other factors that may be pertinent and not in his favour.

Topic / Level 4; transport [6]: wheeled vehicles (6) raeda; Cicero and the defence of Milo [i]

raeda, -ae [1/f] or rēda, -ae  [1/f]: a four-wheel wagon or coach used for long-distance travelling and / or carrying baggage

raedārius, -ī [2/m]: coachman; carriage driver

sed dum tōta domūs raeda compōnitur ūna / substitit ad veterēs arcūs (Juvenal)

• But while his whole household is being packed into a single carriage, he lingered at the ancient arches... 

Cicero and the defence of Milo

One of the tactics of a lawyer is to challenge the opposing case by introducing an element of scepticism, encouraging the jury to doubt whether the accusation has been proved or, in this case, is even logical given the circumstances.

In 52 BC, Milo was put on trial for killing his political enemy Clodius after a violent confrontation on the Via Appia. That Clodius had been killed by Milo's party was not really in dispute; the key question was whether the killing was justified. In his speech Pro Milone, Cicero argued that Clodius had planned an ambush and was the aggressor, while Milo had simply been travelling with his wife and attendants when the attack occurred. Cicero, therefore, claimed that Milo had acted in self-defence and that the killing was a legitimate response to a deadly threat.

As part of Cicero’s defence of Milo, he compares the readiness of both parties to engage in violence. He does this by means of carefully constructed antithesis. We will consider both statements:

[A] CLODIUS

Obviam fit eī Clōdius, (1) expedītus, (2) in equō, (3) nūllā raedā, nūllīs impedīmentīs, nūllīs Graecīs comitibus, (4) ut solēbat, sine uxōre, quod numquam ferē:

• Clodius meets him coming the other way, lightly equipped, on horseback, with no carriage, no baggage, no Greek attendants as he usually had, and without his wife, which was something he hardly ever did.

Notes:

(1) expeditus: lightly equipped, but does not suggest unarmed

(2) in equō: Clodius is on horseback i.e. unlike Milo, he could move quickly

(3) Cicero’s use of the tricolon (nūllā … nūllis … nūllīs…) to reinforce that Clodius was travelling unusually light

(4) ut solebat / sine uxōre quod numquam ferē; Cicero observes that the manner of Clodius’ appearance is out of character. Moreover, that his wife was absent might suggest that Clodius wished to avoid her witnessing a murder.

[B] MILO

cum hic (1) īnsidiātor, quī iter illud ad caedem faciendam (2) apparāsset, (3) cum uxōre veherētur in raedā, (4) paenulātus, magnō et impeditō et muliebrī ac dēlicātō ancillārum puerōrumque comitātū.

• While this ‘ambusher’, who had (supposedly) prepared that journey for the purpose of carrying out a killing, was being conveyed in a carriage with his wife, clad in a travelling cloak, with a large and cumbersome and womanish and delicate retinue of maidservants and boys.

Notes:

(1) Given Milo’s location in the carriage and its physical constraints, the term īnsidiātor is used sarcastically. He goes on to justify that sarcasm.

(2) cum … apparāsset: the use of the pluperfect subjunctive conveys what the prosecution has claimed; the translation of “supposedly had” neatly communicates scepticism

(3) [1] cum uxōre [2] veherētur [3] in raedā

[1] cum uxōre: Milo was with his wife, whereas Clodius was (unusually) not; the contrast of sine uxōre in [A] and cum uxōre in [B] could imply that Milo was unaware of what was to happen. 

[2] veherētur: it is appropriate to retain the passive meaning of the verb i.e. Milo was not involved in controlling the carriage; this could also contrast with obviam fit eī Clōdius, which presents Clodius as the one who comes to meet Milo, perhaps implying that it was Clodius who initiated the encounter.

[3] in raedā: Milo was in a carriage, whereas Clodius was on a horse

(4) Cicero emphasises that Milo was in no position to instigate any act:

[1] paenulātus: Milo is not dressed in a manner that would allow rapid movement

paenula, -ae [1/f]: a thick, sleeveless travelling cloak

“It was chiefly worn by people of low rank and slaves, but also by the higher classes, … in bad weather, on a journey, and in the country.” (Thurston Peck)

The image shows a statuette of a figure wearing a paenula (British Museum). In other words, if this is the type of apparel Milo was wearing, he hardly looked like a man who had set out prepared to commit a murder!

[2] [i] magnō et impeditō [ii] et muliebrī ac dēlicātō ancillārum puerōrumque comitātū

Cicero conveys two ideas in this heavily loaded statement, presenting the jury with an image of comfort and domesticity rather than a planned armed ambush:

[i] Milo’s retinue is large and cumbersome

Note the contrast between expeditus in [A] and impeditō in [B], the prefixes – both of which are stressed in pronunciation – changing the meaning.

[ii] Those around him are not the type who would be physically or emotionally capable of assisting him; while dēlicātus can translate as ‘luxurious’ it can equally mean ‘tender’ or ‘delicate’.

Note the use of comitibus in [A] and comitātū in [B], both referring to those who accompanied the travellers and reinforcing the contrast between the two parties.

Topic / Level 4; transport [5]: wheeled vehicles (5) carpentum [ii] the carpentum on the coins

The reference to the carpentum would have had cultural resonance amongst the ancient Romans. As a symbol of honour, it appeared on coins:

Image #1

22-23 AD: first depiction on a sestertius of a decorated carpentum drawn by a pair of mules

The coin refers to Livia, the wife of Augustus:

• S.P.Q.R IVLIAE AVGVST(ae); SPQR indicates that she is honoured by the Senate and the Roman people:

[i] Senatus Populusque Romanus

[ii] Iuliae Augustae: dative; honour given to her; IVLIA AVGVSTA were honorific titles given to her by Augustus

It was minted during the reign of her son Tiberius i.e. the immediate predecessor of Caligula:

• TI(berius) CAESAR DIVI AVG(usti) F(ilius) AVGVST(us) P(ontifex) M(aximus) TR(ibunicia) POT(estate) XXIIII (vicesima quarta) | Tiberius Caesar, son of the divine Augustus, Augustus, chief priest (Pontifex Maximus), holding tribunician power for the twenty-fourth time.

The coin’s production was authorised by the Senate:

• S(enatus) C(onsulto)

The coin is unlikely to be referring to her death, but to an illness from which she recovered and, in celebration of which, the Senate declared a holiday of thanksgiving.

Image #2

Bearing in mind that, as Suetonius describes, it was Caligula’s aim to reinstate his mother, there is a remarkable similarity in the design of this sestertius commemorating Agrippina the Elder, who had suffered owing to the actions of Tiberius. The coin was minted between AD 37 and 41.

[1] AGRIPPINA M(arci) F(ilia) MAT(er) C(aii) CAESARIS AVGVSTI | Agrippina, daughter of Marcus [Agrippa], mother of Gaius Caesar Augustus

[2] Unlike the previous coin, Agrippina’s image is distributed through currency circulation. In the same way that the ashes of Agrippina were brought to Rome at the busiest time of the day, the coin would have ensured maximium visibility.

[3] S P Q R MEMORIAE AGRIPPINAE | The Senate and People of Rome to the memory of Agrippina; again, there is official recognition of the status of Agrippina.

[4] The same (reversed) depiction of a decorated carpentum pulled by two mules, with its symbolic reverential significance.

What we see here is a physical reinforcement of Suetonius’ account: a deliberate piece of dynastic propaganda, confirming Caligula’s regime as a reversal of Tiberian repression, not unlike the commemorative coin issued by Brutus – with his portrait and its symbols of freedom from oppression – following the assassination of Julius Caesar.

Topic / Level 4; transport [4]: wheeled vehicles (4) carpentum [i] Caligula and the carpentum

 (1) carpentum, -ī [2/n]: a two-wheeled carriage, covered by a canopy or curved roof and sometimes enclosed with curtains; used especially, but not exclusively, by high-ranking Roman women and also employed in grand funeral processions.

(2) Suetonius on the ‘showmanship’ of Caligula:

Caligula’s mother, Agrippina the Elder, and his eldest brother, Nero Julius Caesar, had been persecuted under the Emperor Tiberius, exiled to remote islands, and left to die in confinement, while public mourning for them was suppressed. Immediately upon his accession in 37 AD, the young Caligula sought both to strengthen his legitimacy and symbolically rehabilitate his family by recovering and publicly honouring the ashes of his mother and of Nero, thereby distinguishing his rule from the perceived cruelty of his predecessor.

… cōnfestim Pandateriam et Pontiās ad trānsferendōs mātris frātrisque cinerēs festīnāvit, tempestāte turbidā, quō magis pietās ēminēret, adiitque venerābundus ac per sēmet in urnās condidit; nec minōre scaenā Ōstiam praefīxō in birēmis puppe vēxillō et inde Rōmam Tiberī subvectōs per splendidissimum quemque equestris ōrdinis mediō ac frequentī diē duōbus ferculīs Mausōlēō intulit, īnferiāsque is annuā religiōne pūblicē īnstituit, et eō amplius mātrī circēnsēs carpentumque quō in pompā trādūcerētur.

He immediately hastened to Pandataria and the Pontian islands to transfer the ashes of his mother and brother, in a violent storm, so that his piety might be more conspicuous, and he approached with reverence, and placed the ashes in urns with his own hands; he brought them to Ostia with a flag fastened to the stern of the galley and then up the Tiber to Rome, borne on two biers to the mausoleum by the most illustrious in the equestrian order in the busy middle of the day. And he officially established rites in honour of the dead with an annual religious observance, and furthermore, circus games for his mother, and a ceremonial carriage in which she [i.e. her image] would be escorted in the procession.

(3)

[i] … cōnfestim Pandateriam et Pontiās ad trānsferendōs mātris frātrisque cinerēs festīnāvit, | he immediately hastened to Pandataria and the Pontian islands to transfer the ashes of his mother and brother,

[ii] tempestāte turbidā, | in a violent storm,

[iii] quō magis pietās ēminēret, | so that his piety might be more conspicuous

[iv] adiitque venerābundus | and he approached with reverence,

[v] ac per sēmet in urnās condidit; | and placed the ashes in urns with his own hands;

[vi] nec minōre scaenā | and with no less theatricality

[vii] Ostiam … intulit | he brought them to Ostia

[viii] praefīxō in birēmis puppe vēxillō | with an ensign / a military flag fastened to the stern of the galley [birēmis: specifically, a ship with two banks of oars]

[ix] et inde Rōmam Tiberī, |  and then up the Tiber to Rome,

[x] subvectōs per splendidissimum quemque equestris ōrdinis | (having been) borne by the most illustrious in the equestrian order,

[xi] mediō ac frequentī diē duōbus ferculīs Mausōlēō | on two biers to the mausoleum in the middle of the day [i.e. at the time when Rome would be the most crowded]

[xii] īnferiāsque is annuā religiōne pūblicē īnstituit, | and he officially established rites in honour of the dead with an annual religious observance,

[xiii] et eō amplius | and furthermore,

[xiv] mātrī circēnsēs | games in the circus for his mother,

[xv] carpentumque quō in pompā trādūcerētur. | and a carriage in which she [i.e. her image] would be escorted in the procession.

(4)

One feature of Classical Latin writing can be its intensity. There is nothing superfluous in Suetonius’ description of Caligula’s reverential treatment of the ashes. This is a calculated theatrical display, not only of personal grief but also of imperial power and state-sanctioned family rehabilitation.

[1] Displays of ‘filial duty’, personal grief and determination:

• personal retrieval of the ashes
• undeterred by a violent storm

Bear in mind that  - although Suetonius does not state it - adverse weather conditions could imply dissatisfaction on the part of the gods (a tactic of Tacitus). Likewise, the action could convey Caligula’s manic obsession.

• reverential behaviour
• collecting the ashes personally, a powerful image since the handling of human remains would have been shocking, a cause of religious pollution especially for a Roman of such high rank.

[2] Political and military recognition:

• ashes carried by equestrian knights
• a military flag (vexillum) on, given the context, a military ship (birēmis)
• official announcement of annual public acts of worship

[3] Maximum visibility for the Romans themselves:

• the transferring of the ashes by boat along the Tiber flowing through the centre of Rome
• the timing of the event: at noon when the streets of Rome would be packed
• the celebration of his mother at the most public of events, namely the games
• the transporting of his mother’s image in a luxury carpentum

[4] In his ‘asides’ Suetonius leaves us in no doubt that all of this was carefully planned to achieve a deliberate effect and was taken to its extreme:

quō magis pietās ēminēret, | so that his piety might be more conspicuous,

nec minōre scaenā | and with no less theatricality

et eō amplius | and furthermore,

Level 4; literature; Bread and panthers … without the panthers [5]; Cicero’s reply

Laodiceae; prid. Non. Apr. 50 │ Laodicea, 4 April 50(BC) (see notes)

[1] Dē panthērīs per eōs quī vēnārī sōlent agitur mandātū meō dīligenter.  │ The matter concerning the panthers is, according to my order, being diligently attended to by those who usually hunt.

[i] agitur │ it is being done; impersonal construction = the matter is being attended to

[ii] per eōs ¦ quī vēnarī sōlent; soleō, -ere [2]: be accustomed to; by those ¦ who are accustomed to hunting = those who usually hunt = (less literally) by the usual hunters

[2] Sed mīra paucitās est, │ But there is a remarkable scarcity,

[3] et eās quae sunt valdē aiunt querī  │ and they say that those that there are complain greatly

aiunt: they say; this is known in grammar as a defective verb i.e. a verb that does not have a full set of conjugated forms. The English verb ‘can’ is defective because it has no infinitive; it is not *to can*, but ‘to be able’ i.e. defective. The Latin verb is aiō, aiere (say), but is most commonly found as ait (he/she says or said) and, here, aiunt (they say).

[4] quod nihil cuīquam īnsidiārum in meā prōvinciā nisi sibi fīat. │ because there are no traps for anything / anyone in my province apart from for them

[i] nihil īnsidiārum │ genitive after nihil = no traps; English uses a genitive with abstract nouns e.g. nothing of interest, but its English use is limited; the translation ‘no traps’ could equally be rendered as ‘nothing in the way of traps’ which is the closest equivalent to the Latin

[ii] cuīquam: dative of quisquam; this forms part of the next major topic to be covered at Level 3; quisquam is an indefinite pronoun, the English equivalent being ‘anyone / anything’ and is generally used, as here, in negative constructions: nihil cuīquam īnsidiārum │ no traps for anyone / anything

[iii] it’s a light-hearted response: the panthers are complaining that traps are only set for them i.e. they are referring back to themselves (sibi: reflexive)

[5] Itaque cōnstituisse dīcuntur in Cāriam ex nostrā prōvinciā dēcēdere. │ Therefore, they are said to have decided to depart into Caria from our province.

Cāria, -ae [1/f]: district in SW Asia Minor

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caria

[6] Sed tamen sēdulō fit et in prīmīs ā Patiscō. │ Nevertheless, it is being done zealously / with great care, and especially by Patiscus.

sēdūlō: zealously; diligently; carefully

[7] Quicquid erit, tibi erit; │ Literally: whatever there is [ will be], you will have [it will be for you] i.e. However many animals there are, you will have them;

quicquid (or quidquid): whatever;  a further example of an indefinite pronoun

[8] sed quid esset plānē nesciēbāmus. │ but what [i.e. how many] there might be, I obviously don’t know.

See the notes below on this part of the sentence

Notes

[i] PRID. ¦ NON. APR. 50

(1) prid: abbreviation of prīdiē ¦  (2) NON. APR.│ (1) the day before ¦ (2) the Nones of April

See previous post: the Nones is the 5^th of April. Therefore, the letter was written on the day before the Nones / 5^th of April i.e. April 4th

[ii] sed quid esset ¦ plānē nesciēbāmus │ but what / how many there might be, I obviously don’t know

There are three points to note concerning this part of the sentence

(1) nesciēbāmus: Cicero often uses the first person plural to refer to himself

(2) nesciēbāmus: the imperfect tense is used; this is an example of epistolary tense which was discussed here:

https://adckl.blogspot.com/2025/06/011025-level-3-epistolary-tenses-brief.html

The term epistolary tense refers to letters, and – fairly common in the letters of Cicero – it refers to a shift in the uses of tenses. We write letters using the time frame that applies to us, the writers e.g. “I’m not sure how many of those books I have, but, whatever I find, I’ll send them to you.” However, Cicero – as he does here – changes the sentence to the time perspective of the reader, one reasonable interpretation of this style being the lengthy period that would have elapsed from the time the writer in Ancient Rome dispatched the letter until the time the recipient read it i.e. whatever is happening as Cicero writes will have finished by the time the recipient reads about it.

In the example English sentence, Cicero’s epistolary style would most likely change it to “I wasn’t sure (at the time I was writing) how many of those books I had, but, whatever I found, I’ve sent them to you.” Therefore, although the literal translation is “We ( = I) didn’t know …” (because he didn’t know at the point at which the letter was received), the actual translations is “I don’t know …”

The usage isn’t consistent and it only tends to occur when referring to events happening to the speaker at the time of writing.

Both of the points discussed above are also here (refer to the notes at the end of the post):

https://adckl.blogspot.com/2025/06/041025-level-3-review-irregular-verbs-9.html

(3) sed quid esset ¦ plānē nesciēbāmus │ But how many there might be, I obviously don’t know.

esset is subjunctive; a further use of the subjunctive is with indirect questions e.g. Ubi est templum? │ Where is the temple i.e. a direct question > Nesciō ¦ ubi sit [subjunctive] templum │ I don’t know ¦ where the temple is i.e. an indirect question; English could convey this using an ‘equivalent’ of a subjunctive i.e. “I don’t know where the temple might be” (slightly stilted but correct)