Livy thread

Notascooby

Civis Illustris
God I miss Cicero. I suspect Livy is going to be giving me problems so I thought I'd make one thread with which to pester the forum with questions.

Today's one is to do with 1.11

Inde contra Crustiminos profectus bellum inferentes ibi minus etiam quod alienis cladibus ceciderant animi certaminis fuit.

When I read this I was quite happy. I read certaminis as a partitive genitive after minus and alienis cladibus as causal after causal quod.

This gave me something like: then, there was less of conflict because their spirits had fallen due to the disasters of the others.

I'm not aiming to do a good translation so forgive the shoddyness.

So all was going( I thought) well until I consulted the commentary which says.

Ibi(bellum) minus etiam...fuit there (the war) was even smaller: neut. Comparative as pred

Quod...certaminis fuit because the spirit for combat had fallen off because of the losses of the others.

I'm happy to defer to the commentary but if someone could explain what the situation is I'd be grateful.

Cheers
 

Pacifica

grammaticissima
Staff member
The commentary is wrong. You are right.

Note that Inde contra Crustiminos profectus bellum inferentes ibi minus etiam quod alienis cladibus ceciderant animi certaminis fuit is actually two sentences: Inde contra Crustiminos profectus (est) bellum inferentes. Ibi minus etiam quod alienis cladibus ceciderant animi certaminis fuit.
 

Notascooby

Civis Illustris
Didn't realise it was two sentences, thanks.

Today's conundrum comes from book 1.13

Imperium omne conferunt Romam. Ita geminata urbe ut Sabinis tamen aliquid daretur Quirites a Curibus appellati.

I'm understanding this as: They brought all Imperium to Rome, for this reason, when the city was doubled, in order that something might nevertheless be given to the Sabine's, the ( Citizens) were named Quirites (derived) from Cures.

The commentary however says that the UT clause is a result clause, presumably with ita. Seems to me that ita refers to the preceding sentence and the UT clause is explaining the purpose of Quirites a Curibus appellati.

Any clarification on this would be appreciated

Cho cho
 

Pacifica

grammaticissima
Staff member
Once again, you are right.

Perhaps you should throw away that commentary.
 

Notascooby

Civis Illustris
Once again, you are right.

Perhaps you should throw away that commentary.
Thanks

There are other mistakes in it that were very obvious as well but I think it is mostly good. Though I'm nowhere near qualified to tell all the time if something's a mistake or not.

I've got a whole bunch of commentaries by the same guy, many in Greek which I have a lot less experience in so I'm a lot less likely to spot if there is an error.

On the plus side, they were free!

Edit; most of them were free
 

Notascooby

Civis Illustris
Could someone tell me what 'ita' is doing here and why 'haud' is being used?

Haud ita multo post pestilentia laboratum est.

Cheers

Edit: from 1:31
 

Pacifica

grammaticissima
Staff member
Haud ita multo post = pretty literally "Not so much afterward", which you could also put as "Not much later", and the like.

Ita isn't referring to anything in particular, but rather to some vague standard in the writer's mind. "So" is often used like that in English too, even if it may not be very common in this particular expression. Think of when you say stuff like "It isn't so hard" — So hard as what? Nothing in particular... Just something vague enough that the expression is pretty much equivalent to "It isn't very hard".
 

Dantius

Homo Sapiens
Staff member
Is this Steadman's commentary? I have definitely seen quite a few mistakes in his (haven't looked at the Greek ones, but at least in the Latin ones), and I find that they give too much information to really be helpful (because it makes it too easy to just rely on it as a crutch without making an effort to understand the Latin — though you seem to be doing a good job of questioning where he gets it wrong).

I used Greenough's commentary (also available freely on Google Books or the like) for Livy books 1 and 2.
 

Notascooby

Civis Illustris
It is Steadman' s commentary. I agree that there is too much grammatical help in them. For the most part I'm okay with grammar, though I do get stuck now and again and get things confused. The great advantage of Steadman's commentaries for me is the vocabulary. I have wasted so many hours in the past wading through dictionaries.

I do have another text and commentary for Livy 1 by Gould and Whitely ( Bristol Classical Press). This commentary however seems fully geared toward translating Livy, though if you ignore that there is some good info in it. Also I got it in a charity shop for the princely sum of £1 which has elevated its status in my opinion.

I just had a look at Greenoughs commentary which seem good but lack a vocabulary.

I've noted down the errors in Steadman's commentary and will email him. His Livy commentary is from 2012 though and doesn't seem to have been fixed in that time so I'm not sure if he's doing corrections, though he is still making commentaries.
 

Notascooby

Civis Illustris
Could someone explain to me what deinde is doing in this sentence. I was of the believe that deinde meant then/ next. Could in quadraginta deinde annos simply mean 'for the next forty years'?

ab illo enim profecto viribus datis tantrum valuit ut in quadraginta deinde annos tutam pacem haberet.

From 1.15
 

Pacifica

grammaticissima
Staff member
You can translate it that way, even if it isn't entirely literal of course (literal is "for forty years next/afterward").
 

Notascooby

Civis Illustris
Thanks Pacifica

It seems to be a feature of Livy's style to put adverbs between words that I would expect to be together. Just got another example a few lines after that one "maestum aliquamdiu silentium".

Maybe I'm just now becoming aware of it but I don't recall Tully doing this too often. I quite like it though.
 

Notascooby

Civis Illustris
Couple of things I'm not 100% on here.

From 1, 44

Pomerium verbi vim solam intuentes postmoerium interpretantur Esse; est autem Magis circamoerium

My thinking is: 'Those looking at the meaning alone of the word interpret pomerium to be postmoerium but it is rather circamoerium'

is this correct?

Leading directly on from the previous sentence

Locus quem in condendis urbibus quondam etrusci qua murum ducturi erant certis circa terminis inaugurato consecrabant ut neque interiore parte aedificia moenibus continuarentur quae nunc volgo etiam coniungunt et extrinsecus puri aliquid ab humano cultu pateret soli

My somewhat literal translation ' a place which the Etruscans, in establishing their cities, where they were intending to build a wall, used to make sacred with fixed boundary lines around after taking the auspices, with the result that in the inner part buildings which are now even commonly joined together could not be connected to the walls and with the result that something of clear ground could extend outside from human cultivation.

Why is locus in the nominative? I kind of what it to be in agreement with quem.
Is the qua clause adverbial?
Is "in condendis urbibus" temporal?

Any help as always much appreciated
 

Pacifica

grammaticissima
Staff member
Pomerium verbi vim solam intuentes postmoerium interpretantur Esse; est autem Magis circamoerium

My thinking is: 'Those looking at the meaning alone of the word interpret pomerium to be postmoerium but it is rather circamoerium'

is this correct?
Yes.
buildings which are now even commonly joined together could not be connected to the walls
I think continuarentur is about placing them next to the walls, and coniungunt is about joining them to the walls (i.e. building them directly against the walls) rather than joining them together among themselves.
that something of clear ground could extend outside from human cultivation.
"From human cultivation" goes with "clear". I'm not sure it you got that. It isn't obvious from your translation.
Why is locus in the nominative?
It's in apposition to circamoerium, and therefore agrees with it in case.
Is the qua clause adverbial?
Yes.
Is "in condendis urbibus" temporal?
I'm not sure. Maybe kind of, since "in (the act of) establishing cities" isn't much different from "when establishing cities". Does it matter?
 
Last edited:

Notascooby

Civis Illustris
Thanks Pacifica

I'm not sure whether it matters if it's temporal. I just thought if I was translating that it'd be nice to make it another clause instead of having one very long sentence.

Translating Latin in a way that is understandable to others is so much more difficult than just reading the Latin in my own head.
 

Pacifica

grammaticissima
Staff member
I'm not sure whether it matters if it's temporal. I just thought if I was translating that it'd be nice to make it another clause instead of having one very long sentence.
There is probably a way to split the sentence, though turning "in establishing their cities" into something involving "when" (which is fine) would not, by itself, achieve it.
Translating Latin in a way that is understandable to others is so much more difficult than just reading the Latin in my own head.
Yes, translating a text is more difficult than simply understanding it.
 
Top