"Fabulae Ab Urbe Condita" 3b

[iamrian]

Any help confirming this translation would be appreciated. I am not sure about "expositōs” especially.

Ab initiō Faustulus crēdiderat puerōs iussū rēgis expositōs apud sē ēducārī.

From the beginning Faustulus had believed that the boys, as set forth by order of the king, were to be raised at his house.

 

[Pacifica]

- iussu regis goes with expositos.

- expositos = "exposed" (as in abandoning a child somewhere, "exposing" it to the elements or so. A frequent usage of the term in Latin).

- educari is a present infinitive, not future or gerundive, so in classical Latin it should mean "were being raised". That makes for a strange meaning in the context, though; your translation seems more logical; so maybe the author was using a non-classical construction. Where is the text from?

 

[Pacifica]

Or I suppose it could mean "Faustulus had believed from the beginning that [it was] children exposed by order of the king [that] were being raised in his house", i.e. he believed that the children that were being raised in his house had been exposed by order of the king. Hard to tell without context, though.

 

[Pacifica]

Or I suppose it could mean "Faustulus had believed from the beginning that [it was] children exposed by order of the king [that] were being raised in his house", i.e. he believed that the children that were being raised in his house had been exposed by order of the king. Hard to tell without context, though.

From Livy's original, that seems likely to be it:

Iam inde ab initio Faustulo spes fuerat regiam stirpem apud se educari; nam et expositos iussu regis infantes sciebat et tempus quo ipse eos sustulisset ad id ipsum congruere; sed rem immaturam nisi aut per occasionem aut per necessitatem aperiri noluerat.

 

[Bitmap]

pueros expositos = pueros in alveo Tiberis positos.

 

[Bitmap]

From Livy's original, that seems likely to be it:

Iam inde ab initio Faustulo spes fuerat regiam stirpem apud se educari; nam et expositos iussu regis infantes sciebat et tempus quo ipse eos sustulisset ad id ipsum congruere; sed rem immaturam nisi aut per occasionem aut per necessitatem aperiri noluerat.

Looks like the textbook author rewrote that one pretty badly.

 

[Pacifica]

Maybe it isn't that bad and I was just confused from reading the sentence out of context.

 

[iamrian]

Pacifica and Bitmap,

Thank you for the help. It is comforting to know it is a wonky sentence. Here is my second draft:

"From the beginning Faustulus had belived that the children exposed by order of the king were to be raised in his house".

Moving forward, I'll include the context, like this:

Dum quoddam lūdicrum celebrātur, latrōnēs īrātī ob praedam āmissam impetum in Rōmulum et Remum fēcērunt; captum Remum rēgī Amūliō trādidērunt. Puerōs praedam ex agrīs Numitōris ēgisse incūsābant. Sīc ad supplicium Numitōrī Remus dēditur. Ab initiō Faustulus crēdiderat puerōs iussū rēgis expositōs apud sē ēducārī. Tum perīculō Remī mōtus rem Rōmulō aperit.

Perhaps that will help. I will also include more info on where I am getting my text from too.

Thanks again!

 

[Pacifica]

It's "were being raised".

Or I suppose it could mean "Faustulus had believed from the beginning that [it was] children exposed by order of the king [that] were being raised in his house", i.e. he believed that the children that were being raised in his house had been exposed by order of the king. Hard to tell without context, though.

From Livy's original, that seems likely to be it:

Iam inde ab initio Faustulo spes fuerat regiam stirpem apud se educari; nam et expositos iussu regis infantes sciebat et tempus quo ipse eos sustulisset ad id ipsum congruere; sed rem immaturam nisi aut per occasionem aut per necessitatem aperiri noluerat.