By Symposion, in 'Reading Latin', Feb 9, 2016.
From these excerpts that certainly seems to be the case, yes.
Thank you for your insight Araneus!
Glad to help!
Saxo Grammaticus tells after that in 14:12:6 of Gesta Danorum:
Igitur cum pleraque sibi ex uoluntate respondere cognosceret, foelicibus fortune experimentis euectus in omnem se Suetiam effundere statuit.
This certainly agrees with what we discussed above. The question now is... Does the Latin verb effundere here mean to conquer (all of Sweden). I understand the verb to mean to pour out as can be seen here: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:text:1999.04.0059:entry=effundo
The L&S gives this explanation for its use with se:
a. With se, or mid. of persons, to pour out in a multitude, to rush out, spread abroad (a favorite expression with the historians)
Perhaps it could be interpreted as that he decided (statuit) to conquer all of Sweden, if we understand se effundere to mean "to spread oneself - i.e. spread one's influence/rule".
Thank you for your comment. I interpret that Konge Svend Eriksen af Danmark deceided to spread out his dominance over all of Sweden of that time!
How come Saxo Grammaticus writes imbelliam in 14:11:3 of Gesta Danorum? I would have used imbellem!
Could you give us the full sentence? imbellia is a word (a noun), but I need the full sentence to know whether he's using that:
The first part was universally true, the second is more complicated. Depends on the region. In the ecclesiastical style (reflecting Italian norms) <c> before <i,e> plus vowel is pronounced as ch.
According to wiki (don't know why it has such a bad rep tbh) that pronunciation wouldn't have been universal at all back in the era of the Gesta Danorum. Presumably the main determiner was the speaker's native language, or at least the native language of the monks of whatever monastery they learned Latin in (or the native language of the monks from the monastery whose norms that monastery learned/adopted).
In early French and Spanish, but not in Italian, original Latin t/c before an i/e in hiatus underwent palatalization and merged eventually into the sound ts, later reducing to s. Italian kept them distinct, e.g. puteum > puzzo versus bracchium > braccio.
Since a lot of Spain was under Moorish occupation, and the French are geographically closer to Denmark and for example significantly affected the traditional English pronunciation of Latin, it seems likely that, as usual, the French are to blame for this orthographic tomfoolery.
Saxo Grammaticus seems to use the word imbelliam as an adjective describing King Sverker and not as a noun. Here is the sentence that I refer to:
Maximam siquidem inuadende eius opportunitatem tum ob senium imbelliamque Suerconis
Edit: nvm. The better question is, how is it supposed to be an adjective there ?
To be an adjective, first it'd have to be a word that can be an adjective, but also it would have to match Suerconis in gender, case, and number. It meets only the third of those criteria.
That is why I would have used imbellem.
Does it not say in the sentence that the Sverker's high age and unwillingness to fight was one reason that made this the very right opportunity for King Svend Eriksen of Denmark to invade Sweden?
Since we know for a fact that such a noun exists, it's reasonable to conclude that imbelliam is not meant as an adjective.
That bolded bit is pretty much how you translate senium imbelliamque suerconis. Although it's more like 'unsuitability', but close enough.
You (correctly, and puzzlingly) didn't use an adjective to translate the word in question.
I can't find the noun imbellia in my dictionaries and that puzzled me.
You would translate it so that Sverker was old and unsuitable to fight (because of his age?) rather than being peaceful (pacifistic?) and unwilling to fight?
A Latin-Italian dictionary I have translates it as "ineptitude for war", and says it was used by Gellius.
Ob: because of
Senium: the old age
Imbelliamque: and unsuitability for war
Suerconis: of Suerco
Saxo Grammaticus entire sentence is here below written in Latin:
Maximam siquidem inuadende eius opportunitatem tum ob senium imbelliamque Suerconis, tum ob factiones inter eundem et plebem recenter ortas – nam Ioannem agrestes concionantem occiderant - arbitrabatur.
I cannot find the nominative form of the participle concionantem in any reliable dictionary. What does the word mean? I also wonder if it was Saxo himself or people in general assumed that the killing of Johan Sverkersson led to the struggles between King Sverker and the people which in its turn led to the unsuitability of war. I mean what does Saxo try to tell by using the verb arbitrabatur?
present participle of concionor
Looks like the peasants killed him whilst he was preaching
The form concionor buffled me as I find it only written as contionor in my dictionaries.
So how is it with the function of the verb arbitrabatur?
As I am sure you know, t often becomes c in mediaeval manuscripts.
Arbitrabatur goes with the rest of the sentence. I don't know the context but to me it reads like:
It was considered his best opportunity for invasion both because of Suerconis being old and unwarlike, and because divisions had recently arisen between him and the common people (because John had been killed by the peasants whilst preaching)
Our Latin forum is a community for discussion of all topics relating to Latin language, ancient and medieval world.
Separate names with a comma.