Neque ad ius

Here you can discuss all things Latin. Use this board to ask questions about grammar, discuss learning strategies, get help with a difficult passage of Latin, and more.
Post Reply
pmda
Textkit Zealot
Posts: 1317
Joined: Tue Apr 27, 2010 5:15 am

Neque ad ius

Post by pmda » Mon Jun 04, 2018 7:21 pm

In LLPSI XLV Livy (and it is the original Livy I think) tells us of Tarquin

Custodibus armatis corpus saepsit, neque enim ad ius regni quicquam [quic-quam = quidquam] praeter vim habebat...

He surrounded his person with an armed guard, and it wasn't the right to the throne but rather (praeter) strength that he had...

-- the above is somewhat literal..

Does 'quicquam' modify 'ius'? I'm taking it that 'ius' has a disjunctive relationship to 'vim' - ...nor indeed had he any right to the throne except that he had force'...? (more idiomatically..)

pmda
Textkit Zealot
Posts: 1317
Joined: Tue Apr 27, 2010 5:15 am

Re: Neque ad ius

Post by pmda » Mon Jun 04, 2018 7:29 pm

On reflection 'ad' creates a difficulty for me.

neque enim ad ius regni quicquam [quic-quam = quidquam] praeter vim habebat

what does 'ad ius regni' mean - literally? ...to the rule of kingdom...?

so .. nor had he anything except force ..... ad ius regni... literally 'to the rule of the kingdom'...

so 'rule' doesn't have a disjunctive relationship to 'vim'.

Do I have that right?

mwh
Textkit Zealot
Posts: 2836
Joined: Fri Oct 18, 2013 2:34 am

Re: Neque ad ius

Post by mwh » Mon Jun 04, 2018 9:07 pm

Understandable that ad should puzzle you. Lit. for he didn’t have anything towards (i.e. contributing to, relating to) right of kingship except force. Cf. the saying nihil ad Dionysum, nothing to do with Dionysus.

pmda
Textkit Zealot
Posts: 1317
Joined: Tue Apr 27, 2010 5:15 am

Re: Neque ad ius

Post by pmda » Tue Jun 05, 2018 8:34 am

Thanks mwh..!

Post Reply