Apiarius favum plenum eximit, quippe qui mel quaerat.

It has two parts:

• Apiarius favum plenum eximit = the main clause
• quippe qui mel quaerat = a subordinate clause explaining the reason

So the sentence is built like:

• subject: apiarius
• direct object: favum plenum
• main verb: eximit
• explanatory/causal clause: quippe qui mel quaerat

The second part gives the reason or motivation for the action in the main clause.

Favum plenum is accusative singular masculine.

Why?

• favum is the direct object of eximit
• plenum is an adjective agreeing with favum

So both words must match in:

• case: accusative
• number: singular
• gender: masculine

That is why it is favum plenum, not favus plenus.

Because it agrees with favum.

• favus is a masculine noun
• here it appears as favum, its accusative singular form
• the adjective plenus, -a, -um must match it

So:

• nominative singular: favus plenus
• accusative singular: favum plenum

This is a very common Latin pattern: adjectives agree with the nouns they describe.

Not necessarily. Latin can simply say favum plenum = a full honeycomb, and the context makes clear what it is full of.

If Latin wanted to be more explicit, it could say something like:

• favum melle plenum = a honeycomb full of honey
• favum plenum mellis = a honeycomb full of honey

But in this sentence, that extra detail is left unstated because it is obvious from the context, especially since mel appears later.

Eximit is from eximere.

Here it means something like:

• takes out
• removes
• draws out

It is:

• 3rd person singular
• present tense
• active voice
• indicative mood

So apiarius ... eximit means the beekeeper removes/takes out ...

Quippe qui is an idiomatic expression. It introduces a clause that explains the reason for something.

Here it means something like:

• since he...
• inasmuch as he...
• being someone who...
• as one who...

It is not just an ordinary who-clause. It adds explanatory force.

So quippe qui mel quaerat means roughly:

• since he seeks honey
• as one who is seeking honey

Because after quippe qui, Latin normally uses the subjunctive.

This is one of those constructions where Latin does not simply say the bare fact. Instead, it presents the clause as an explanation with a certain nuance: the beekeeper acts this way, being the sort of person who is looking for honey / since his aim is honey.

So:

• quaerit would be a plain indicative statement: he seeks
• quaerat is subjunctive because it is inside the quippe qui clause

This is a standard feature of the construction.

Qui is a relative pronoun referring back to apiarius.

It is:

• masculine singular because apiarius is masculine singular
• nominative because it is the subject of quaerat

So the logic is:

• apiarius = the beekeeper
• qui quaerat = who seeks

If the antecedent were feminine, you would expect quae. If it were neuter, quod.

Mel is the accusative singular here, the direct object of quaerat.

That may look confusing because mel is a neuter noun of the third declension, and in neuter nouns:

• nominative singular and accusative singular are often the same

So here:

• mel = honey
• it is the thing being sought
• therefore it is accusative

Even though the form looks unchanged, its function in the sentence is clear from the verb.

Not quite. It is a relative clause, but not just a simple descriptive one.

Because of quippe and the subjunctive quaerat, it has a special force. It explains the reason for the action in the main clause.

So it is more than:

• the beekeeper, who seeks honey

It is closer to:

• the beekeeper removes the honeycomb, since he is after honey

That is why learners often treat quippe qui as a special idiom rather than just translating each word separately.

Yes, but it is normal Latin word order.

Latin often places words for emphasis and balance rather than following a fixed English-like order.

Here you get:

• Apiarius first: the person doing the action
• favum plenum next: the object, grouped neatly with its adjective
• eximit after that: the main action
• then the explanatory clause
• quaerat at the end of its clause, which is very common in Latin

So the order is natural and stylistically smooth for Latin, even if English would arrange things differently.

Yes. Latin could have used something simpler, for example a clause with nam or quod.

But quippe qui gives a more literary and compact effect. It does not just state the reason mechanically; it presents the reason as something characteristic or self-explanatory.

So compared with a simpler wording, quippe qui mel quaerat sounds a bit more elegant and pointed.