Genesis 27:45

Posted on January 27, 2006 by Eusebius Sophronius Hieronymus

Gn 27:45 et cesset indignatio eius, obliviscaturque eorum quæ fecisti in eum: postea mittam, et adducam te inde huc. cur utroque orbabor filio in uno die?

and let his indignation cease, and let him forget the things that you have done to him; afterwards I will send and bring you from there to here. Why should I be deprived of both my sons in one day?”

# Latin Gloss GRAMMAR TAG
1 et and CONJ
2 cesset let it cease 3SG.PRES.ACT.SUBJ
3 indignatio anger / indignation NOM.SG.F
4 eius his GEN.SG.M.PRON
5 obliviscaturque and let him forget 3SG.PRES.DEP.SUBJ + ENCLITIC
6 eorum of those things GEN.PL.N.DEMONSTR.PRON
7 quæ which / the things which ACC.PL.N.REL.PRON
8 fecisti you have done 2SG.PERF.ACT.IND
9 in against / toward PREP+ACC
10 eum him ACC.SG.M.PRON
11 postea afterwards ADV
12 mittam I will send 1SG.FUT.ACT.IND
13 et and CONJ
14 adducam I will bring 1SG.FUT.ACT.IND
15 te you ACC.SG.2P.PRON
16 inde from there ADV
17 huc to here ADV
18 cur why INTERROG.ADV
19 utroque of both ABL.SG.M/NEUT.DISTRIB.ADJ
20 orbabor I should be deprived 1SG.FUT/PR.SUBJ.DEP
21 filio of son / from son ABL.SG.M
22 in in / within PREP+ABL
23 uno one ABL.SG.M.NUM.ADJ
24 die day ABL.SG.M

Syntax

Independent Subjunctives (Optative): et cesset indignatio eius, obliviscaturque eorum quæ fecisti in eum — two independent subjunctive clauses expressing Rebekah’s wish or prayer: “May his indignation cease, and may he forget what you have done to him.”
Temporal Sequence: postea mittam, et adducam te inde huc — two coordinated future indicative verbs describing what she will do after Esau’s anger subsides.
Rhetorical Question: cur utroque orbabor filio in uno die? — “Why should I be bereaved of both my sons in one day?” expresses fear of losing both Jacob (if killed) and Esau (through vengeance or curse).

Morphology

  1. et — Lemma: et; Part of Speech: conjunction; Form: invariant; Function: links two optative clauses; Translation: “and”; Notes: Connects the two subjunctives of hope — both part of Rebekah’s emotional appeal.
  2. cesset — Lemma: cesso; Part of Speech: verb; Form: present subjunctive active 3rd person singular; Function: jussive or optative; Translation: “let it cease”; Notes: Expresses Rebekah’s wish for Esau’s anger to subside, signaling an emotional plea.
  3. indignatio — Lemma: indignatio; Part of Speech: noun; Form: nominative singular feminine; Function: subject of “cesset”; Translation: “anger / indignation”; Notes: Personifies Esau’s wrath as something active yet capable of calming.
  4. eius — Lemma: is; Part of Speech: pronoun; Form: genitive singular masculine; Function: possessive modifier of “indignatio”; Translation: “his”; Notes: Refers to Esau, clarifying the source of indignation.
  5. obliviscaturque — Lemma: obliviscor; Part of Speech: deponent verb; Form: present subjunctive (active meaning) 3rd person singular + enclitic “-que”; Function: coordinated optative verb; Translation: “and let him forget”; Notes: Deponent construction carries hopeful nuance; the enclitic joins with “cesset” to express two linked desires.
  6. eorum — Lemma: is; Part of Speech: pronoun; Form: genitive plural neuter; Function: object of “obliviscatur”; Translation: “of those things”; Notes: General reference to Jacob’s deceitful acts against Esau.
  7. quæ — Lemma: qui; Part of Speech: relative pronoun; Form: accusative plural neuter; Function: introduces relative clause; Translation: “which / the things which”; Notes: Links “eorum” to “fecisti,” specifying the content of Esau’s memory.
  8. fecisti — Lemma: facio; Part of Speech: verb; Form: perfect indicative active 2nd person singular; Function: verb of relative clause; Translation: “you have done”; Notes: Addresses Jacob directly; past action referring to the deception over the blessing.
  9. in — Lemma: in; Part of Speech: preposition; Form: governs accusative; Function: expresses direction or target; Translation: “against / toward”; Notes: Used idiomatically for hostile action — “what you did against him.”
  10. eum — Lemma: is; Part of Speech: pronoun; Form: accusative singular masculine; Function: object of “in”; Translation: “him”; Notes: Refers explicitly to Esau, the victim of Jacob’s deception.
  11. postea — Lemma: postea; Part of Speech: adverb; Form: invariant; Function: temporal adverb; Translation: “afterwards”; Notes: Marks sequence — after reconciliation, Rebekah’s next plan follows.
  12. mittam — Lemma: mitto; Part of Speech: verb; Form: future indicative active 1st person singular; Function: main verb; Translation: “I will send”; Notes: Promise of future action, expressing maternal reassurance of recall.
  13. et — Lemma: et; Part of Speech: conjunction; Form: invariant; Function: coordinates “mittam” and “adducam”; Translation: “and”; Notes: Shows that both sending and retrieving are parts of one intended action.
  14. adducam — Lemma: adduco; Part of Speech: verb; Form: future indicative active 1st person singular; Function: main verb; Translation: “I will bring / lead back”; Notes: Indicates Rebekah’s expectation of Jacob’s safe return from exile.
  15. te — Lemma: tu; Part of Speech: pronoun; Form: accusative singular second person; Function: direct object of “adducam”; Translation: “you”; Notes: The promise centers on Jacob — maternal assurance of reunion.
  16. inde — Lemma: inde; Part of Speech: adverb; Form: invariant; Function: indicates origin; Translation: “from there”; Notes: Refers to Haran, the place of Jacob’s refuge; directional complement to “huc.”
  17. huc — Lemma: huc; Part of Speech: adverb; Form: invariant; Function: indicates destination; Translation: “to here”; Notes: Balances “inde” — together forming a movement pair “from there to here.”
  18. cur — Lemma: cur; Part of Speech: interrogative adverb; Form: invariant; Function: introduces rhetorical question; Translation: “why”; Notes: Expresses anguish or rhetorical despair rather than inquiry.
  19. utroque — Lemma: uterque; Part of Speech: distributive adjective/pronoun; Form: ablative singular masculine; Function: object of “orbabor”; Translation: “of both”; Notes: Refers to both sons (Esau and Jacob); in ablative after verbs of separation or deprivation.
  20. orbabor — Lemma: orbo; Part of Speech: deponent verb; Form: future indicative (or jussive) 1st person singular; Function: main verb in rhetorical question; Translation: “shall I be deprived / bereaved”; Notes: Deponent construction expressing emotional lament — maternal fear of losing both sons at once.
  21. filio — Lemma: filius; Part of Speech: noun; Form: ablative singular masculine; Function: ablative of separation; Translation: “of son”; Notes: Used after deponent “orbo” to express deprivation — “to be bereaved of (a son).”
  22. in — Lemma: in; Part of Speech: preposition; Form: governs ablative; Function: expresses time within which; Translation: “in / within”; Notes: Temporal use — “in one day.”
  23. uno — Lemma: unus; Part of Speech: numeral adjective; Form: ablative singular masculine; Function: modifies “die”; Translation: “one”; Notes: Restricts the temporal phrase — all within a single day.
  24. die — Lemma: dies; Part of Speech: noun; Form: ablative singular masculine; Function: ablative of time; Translation: “day”; Notes: Completes the temporal phrase — a poetic hyperbole of simultaneous loss.

 

About Eusebius Sophronius Hieronymus

Born around 346 A.D. in Stridon, St. Jerome was a scholar fluent in Latin, Greek, and Hebrew whose ascetic discipline and deep engagement with Scripture prepared him for a monumental task: translating the Bible into Latin. Commissioned by Pope Damasus I around 382 A.D., Jerome began by revising the flawed Old Latin Gospels, then expanded his work to the entire Bible. For the New Testament, he corrected Latin texts using Greek manuscripts; for the Old Testament, he translated most books directly from Hebrew—a controversial but principled choice. His final Psalter, however, followed the Greek Septuagint tradition for liturgical use. This composite translation, later known as the Vulgate (editio vulgata), became the authoritative biblical text of the Western Church, formally endorsed at the Council of Trent in 1546. The Vulgate’s influence extends beyond theology into textual criticism and Latin education. As one of the earliest translations grounded in original-language scholarship, it offers a vital witness to the state of biblical texts in late antiquity. Jerome’s lexical and syntactic decisions are studied to trace manuscript history and assess variant readings. Its elegant Latin, consistent in grammar and rich in vocabulary, became a model for medieval and Renaissance learning, bridging classical and ecclesiastical Latin. More than a translation, the Vulgate helped define Christian doctrine, preserved the Latin language, and laid essential groundwork for the critical study of Scripture—remaining indispensable to students of Latin, theology, and textual history.
This entry was posted in Genesis. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.