Tacitus Historiae 1

Pacifica

grammaticissima

  • Aedilis

Location:
Belgium
Ah, OK.

There are three clauses that depend on intellegit:

1) neque dari donativum sub nomine Galbae promissum

2) neque magnis meritis ac praemiis eundem in pace quem in bello locum: here the verb could be an implied esse or the dari of the previous clause could apply to this one as well. I'm leaning more towards the implied esse interpretation but I'm not entirely sure. Both are possible and in any case the essential meaning doesn't really change.

3) praeventamque gratiam apud principem a legionibus factum: here esse is implied with preventam.

Let's see if that helps. If there are details of the clauses that you don't get, let me know.
 

Katarina

Civis

  • Civis

Location:
Slovenia
So ...

neque magnis meritis ac praemiis eundem in pace quem in bello locum esse - this should be AcI

intellegit eundem locum esse in pace quem in bello - it is the same space (not sure in what meaning) in peace and in war
magnis meritis ac praemiis - not sure what kond of ablative ...
 

Katarina

Civis

  • Civis

Location:
Slovenia
praeventamque gratiam apud pricipem a legionibus factum

that there is a better/higher inclination made with princeps (so the princeps is an agent of the inclination) - not sure what the legions did.
 

Pacifica

grammaticissima

  • Aedilis

Location:
Belgium
neque magnis meritis ac praemiis eundem in pace quem in bello locum esse - this should be AcI
It is.
intellegit eundem locum esse in pace quem in bello - it is the same space (not sure in what meaning) in peace and in war
Don't forget the neque, which negates the clause. "There was not the same place..."
magnis meritis ac praemiis - not sure what kond of ablative ...
It's dative. "There was not the same place for great deserts and rewards in peace as in war", i.e. those things didn't have as much influence in peace as in war.
 

Pacifica

grammaticissima

  • Aedilis

Location:
Belgium
praeventamque gratiam apud pricipem a legionibus factum

that there is a better/higher inclination made with princeps (so the princeps is an agent of the inclination) - not sure what the legions did.
I guess I don't know enough context to know exactly what's meant here, but it's something like "favor had been prevented with an emperor made by the legions". Maybe the subject of intellegit thought he couldn't get the favor of an emperor who had been elected by the legions.
 

Katarina

Civis

  • Civis

Location:
Slovenia
I am with Tacitus again. :)

I am wondering how to understand pro crimine [sunt] (omissi gestique honores pro crimine). I can't find a meaning of pro that would fit in here.
 

Katarina

Civis

  • Civis

Location:
Slovenia
nec minus praemia delatorum invisa quam scelera, cum alii sacerdotia et consulatus ut spolia adepti, procurationes alii et interiorem potentiam, agerent verterent cuncta odio et terrore.

I can't find a reason for subjunctive here ...
 

Pacifica

grammaticissima

  • Aedilis

Location:
Belgium
It's a circumstantial cum clause, which takes the subjunctive as a rule.
 

Katarina

Civis

  • Civis

Location:
Slovenia
Hmmm ... I don't have that in my grammar. My grammar says there are two ''cums'' that take subjunctive: cum narrativum/historicum and cum adversativum.
 

Katarina

Civis

  • Civis

Location:
Slovenia
Milites urbanus ... postquam neque dari donativum sub nomine Galbae promissum neque magnis meritis ac praemiis eundem in pace quem in bello locum praeventamque gratiam intellegit apud principem a legionibus factum ...

I am struggling with this part, especially with quem. My commentary says it is a co.ntraction of a case but I am not sure how this process work here. quam is a word that would be more logical to me to make a comparison...
 

Pacifica

grammaticissima

  • Aedilis

Location:
Belgium
That should be miles.
I am struggling with this part, especially with quem. My commentary says it is a co.ntraction of a case but I am not sure how this process work here. quam is a word that would be more logical to me to make a comparison...
Eundem locum quem = "the same place that (or less literally "as")..."
 
 

Dantius

Homo Sapiens

  • Civis Illustris

Location:
in orbe lacteo
Consider sentences like:
Caesar bella eodem modo gerit quo antea (i.e. quo antea gessit). Hoc idem est quod semper (i.e. quod semper fuit). Magnis meritis idem in pace, qui in bello, locus est (i.e. idem locus est in pace, qui est in bello).

Literally these all have relative pronouns ("wages war in the same way, in which he waged it before"), but you can translate with "as" ("in the same way as before"). In indirect discourse, you might have something like Credo Caesarem bella eodem modo gerere quo antea.

Now, technically saying intellegit magnis meritis eundem in pace, quem in bello, locum esse is barely logical (you'd have to supply something like intellegit magnis meritis eundem in pace, quem in bello esse intellegit, locum esse; more logical would be intellegit magnis meritis eundem in pace, qui in bello sit, locum esse), but that sort of attraction is very common with this construction, and that is what your commentary is trying to point out, I think. There are even more illogical types of attraction out there (e.g. something like ea quae quisque poterat elata sunt makes sense with efferre implied, but then in Livy you get (iis) quibus quisque poterat elatis, where there's really no way to supply anything that makes grammatical sense, and it should be iis quae quisque poterat elatis).
 

Katarina

Civis

  • Civis

Location:
Slovenia
That should be miles.
Lapsus.

Consider sentences like:
Caesar bella eodem modo gerit quo antea (i.e. quo antea gessit). Hoc idem est quod semper (i.e. quod semper fuit). Magnis meritis idem in pace, qui in bello, locus est (i.e. idem locus est in pace, qui est in bello).

Literally these all have relative pronouns ("wages war in the same way, in which he waged it before"), but you can translate with "as" ("in the same way as before"). In indirect discourse, you might have something like Credo Caesarem bella eodem modo gerere quo antea.

Now, technically saying intellegit magnis meritis eundem in pace, quem in bello, locum esse is barely logical (you'd have to supply something like intellegit magnis meritis eundem in pace, quem in bello esse intellegit, locum esse; more logical would be intellegit magnis meritis eundem in pace, qui in bello sit, locum esse), but that sort of attraction is very common with this construction, and that is what your commentary is trying to point out, I think. There are even more illogical types of attraction out there (e.g. something like ea quae quisque poterat elata sunt makes sense with efferre implied, but then in Livy you get (iis) quibus quisque poterat elatis, where there's really no way to supply anything that makes grammatical sense, and it should be iis quae quisque poterat elatis).
Thank you, that was very helpful.
 

Katarina

Civis

  • Civis

Location:
Slovenia
ingens novis rebus materia, ut non in unum aliquem prono favore ita audenti parata.

novis rebus -
why dative/ablative?

Let's first see if I get cases right.
prono favore - ablative of respect
audenti - dative of interest
parata - nominative, gong with materia

Even though not determined for particular individual regarding favourable inclination, yet determined for someone daring.
Something like that?

But if materia is determined that is a bit odd ...
 
Last edited:

Pacifica

grammaticissima

  • Aedilis

Location:
Belgium
Novis rebus is dative. Ingens novis rebus materia = "great material (a great opportunity) for new things (i.e. a revolution, revolt, or the like)". And this "material" was prepared for one who would dare (audenti) to seize the occasion not because he was favoring a particular person—but for some other reason, I guess. I don't know much about the context here, but this is more or less what the sentence seems to be saying. (This was wrong; see below.)
 
Last edited:

Pacifica

grammaticissima

  • Aedilis

Location:
Belgium
Actually, maybe non in unum aliquem prono favore goes with parata rather than with audenti: the opportunity wasn't in favor of any particular person, but of anyone who would have the guts to seize it. Yes, this seems more likely.
 
Top