de Bello Gallico

[supranistria]

I appear to be stuck on a passage from Caesar's "Commentarii de Bello Gallico".

It's from V.19, after Caesar says that Cassivellaunus has been following the troops in Britain and sent out his charioteers to prevent the Roman army from wandering into the forest. ...Or something to that effect. But this section I am not able to translate, and it's due on Tuesday.

Relinquebatur ut neque longius ab agmine legionum discedi Caesar pateretur, et tantum in agris vastandis incendiisque faciendis hostibus noceretur quantum labore atque itinere legionarii milites efficere poterant.

I came up with what I thought was a delightful translation, but when I checked it with someone else's, they were not even close, and I believe that I am the one with the erroneous translation. Can anyone help?

Vale,
Emily.

 

[QMF]

What did you get? I don't quite want to try to translate it fully myself (as that's about the level of Latin that I'm studying, although I'm reading Catullus and Ovid, having read Vergil last year) but I think I can probably look at it and see if you got it pretty much right.

 

[Cato]

I appear to be stuck on a passage from Caesar's "Commentarii de Bello Gallico"...

Relinquebatur ut neque longius ab agmine legionum discedi Caesar pateretur, et tantum in agris vastandis incendiisque faciendis hostibus noceretur quantum labore atque itinere legionarii milites efficere poterant.

A few tips to help you untangle this:

• Reliquebatur is impersonal - "it was left, it resulted"; the ut clause then explains what this result was.
• ut...pateretur - Caesar is obviously the subject, while legionum...discedi is an accusative w. infinitive clause after pateretur. Students often overlook a passive infinitive form of the third conjugation like discedi...
• Note now the tantum...quantum - "as much...as" pair, which give the structure for the next part. The verb controlling this contruction is noceretur - "it was harmed", again an impersonal use and again filling out the ut clause (the "direction" of the harm is explained by the adjacent dative hostibus).
• The items in the tantum...quantum pair describe more fully the "harm" implied in noceretur. Note the gerundives after in in the first part--describing the extent (tantum - "as much") of the harm--and how the second part descibes the limit (quantum - "as") by using poterant + the infinitive efficere.

[/list]

 

[supranistria]

Now that I look at what I have, I'm embarrassed. It was late at night and now I can point out a few obvious errors (like verb number), but I will post it as is and perhaps one of you can work with me on it.

"The result was that Caesar was not allowing them to leave the line of the legions any further, and that the enemies were as harmed by the ravaging in the fields and the starting of fires as by the laborious journey the soldiers of the legion were able to carry out."

It doesn't make a shred of sense. Where did I first go wrong?

 

[Cato]

Relinquebatur ut neque longius ab agmine legionum discedi Caesar pateretur - ""The result was that Caesar was not allowing them to leave the line of the legions any further," Your translation is spot-on here.

et tantum in agris vastandis incendiisque faciendis hostibus noceretur quantum labore atque itinere legionarii milites efficere poterant. - "and that the enemies were as harmed by the ravaging in the fields and the starting of fires as by the laborious journey the soldiers of the legion were able to carry out." There are two problems here:

• The interpretation of tantum..quantum - "as much...as". I perhaps should have been clearer that this means "just as much...as, only as much...as". Caesar's point here is that the enemy could only be harmed by the ravaging and fires to the extent that the legion itself was able to carry out.
• labore atque itinere are two separate things--"by effort and march"--rather than as a noun-adjective pair "by the laborious journey". Iter, as you are no doubt aware after reading Caesar, can mean "march (of troops)" rather than simply "journey".

The point of the passage is that Caesar did not want to use excursions or cavalry to ravage his enemy's lands; destruction was to be performed only by the main body of the legion.

The reason for this was practical: The Britons had resorted to guerilla tactics against the Romans, and Cassivellanus was hoping to attack smaller bands of Romans as they plundered the countryside.[/list]

 

[supranistria]

Thank you SO much for your help. Sometimes, especially at this point in the semester, my brain simply freezes and simple things don't make sense anymore. Your explanations were nice and clear, and helped out tremendously.

 

[Cato]

No problem; please drop by any time if you have further questions.