Thanks. I believe I’ve got it all now.
Looking at this again, it appears I was wrong and you were right. Livy tells us that when Hasdrubal was killed, Hannibal was already slated to take his place, and he was already in Spain. The debate in the Carthaginian senate occurred before young Hannibal went to Spain, while Hasdrubal was still alive. Hasdrubal had sent for Hannibal, but Hanno opposed letting Hannibal go to Spain, claiming that the Carthaginians would be setting up an imperial dynasty controlling the army. Hanno says Hannibal should be kept at home and forced to accommodate himself to a republican form of government. Ego istum iuuenem domi tenendum sub legibus, sub magistratibus docendum uiuere aequo iure cum ceteris censeo, ne quandoque paruus hic ignis incendium ingens exsuscitet.
The optimi (where have we heard this term before?) supported Hanno, but the masses defeated the optimi (maior pars meliorem uicit). We have here Livy’s projection onto Carthage of the conflict between the senatorial class and the masses (or at least the soldiers) that was smouldering in the late Roman republic and that broke out into civil war at the end, ultimately leading to the dictatorship of Octavian. Young Hannibal here looks very much like young Octavian, marching into Rome in 43 BCE and, in the face of senatorial opposition (the optimates), obtaining the consulship at age 19 with the backing of an army. Livy was known for his republicanism well into the Augustan era, during which this must have been written.
Okay. That’s basically how I took it – “Hasdrubal … petit” in Hanno’s speech makes it clear he was still alive (the commas which I had interpreted as possibly being direct address I had misread: the first comma followed an “inquit”; I’m not quite sure why the second was used – this text sometimes uses commas oddly. I’m all but certain that “Hasdrubal” goes with “petit”). I think I’ve got the whole chapter and number four doesn’t look terribly difficult.
Thanks for the historical context. I don’t know all that much about this period in Roman history: what I remember from the class was reading the first several books of Livy (in translation of course) and reading some Tacitus and about half of the first three books of the Decline and Fall. I’m sure this period was covered in more depth than I remember but it was from a textbook instead of from literature.
The editor has placed a comma after inquit – “he [Hanno] said”. That’s Livy’s interjection into Hanno’s speech marking it as a quotation. inquit is never at the beginning of a quotation–it’s always postponed. What Hanno said (or what Livy has him say) is: Et aequum postulare uidetur Hasdrubal, et ego tamen non censeo quod petit tribuendum. The editor separates the two statements joined by et with a comma. You might translate the compound sentence by “on the one hand . . ., on the other hand . . .”
Of course, Livy didn’t have quotation marks or commas, but modern editors ordinarily set inquit off by commas.
Et aequum postulare uidetur Hasdrubal, et ego tamen non censeo quod petit tribuendum.
I had this as “although it seems (a) right (thing) to demand, I nevertheless…”. I suppose it should be “although Hasdrubal seems right to demand (it)”
Ed: in that case it should be passive instead of active: “aequum postulari uidetur”.
Hasdrubal is the subject of uidetur, and aequum must be neuter “something fair/right/just”: “Hasdrubal seems to be asking for something fair/right/just”.
By the way, when you get to 4, you’ll encounter the “historical infinitive”–the infinitive with nominative (!!!) subject.
Chapter four wasn’t much trouble at all so I decided to squeeze in chapter 5 today. To my knowledge I’ve got all of it except for the key “et ex parte altera ripae … comminus eminusque rem gereret”. I have a tentative idea about what might be going on here: the Carpetan footmen are crossing the river and are concerned about being upended by unarmed (?) horsemen whose horses are being hard-driven and they are unsure of the ford in the rushing river. What I’m less sure of is that the horsemen drove the foot-soldiers into deeper waters. I’m a bit confused about which bank of the river is which but I think I’ve got that sorted out. The (Carthaginian) “uis ingens equitum” doesn’t seem to gibe with “ab inermi equite”. As it is now I have no idea what to make of “eques corpore armisque liber” – “a horseman free of body and arms”. Is “body” body armor?
“Uel … uel” takes the subjunctive in general? Or is it like some kind of indirect question?
Ed: fixed the (inadvertent) typo
The two uel here aren’t coordinate–each means “even”, and the subjunctive verbs are in relative clauses “of characteristic” introduced by quippe ubi, the antecedent of which is medio alueo.
“especially since there [medio alueo] a footsoldier, unstable and hardly able to move reliably [loosely translating uis uado fidens] in the ford, would be brought down even by an unarmed cavalryman, with his horse driven haphazardly, [while] a cavalryman, with free body and weapons [literally, free with/in/as to body and weapons], with his horse stable even in the middle of the deep water, would manage/be on top of the situation [rem gereret] both at close quarters and at a distance.”
NB: eques corpore armisque liber
The quppe idiom with a relative and subjunctive verb is discussed at Allen & Greenough 535e, which I linked to earlier today in hlawson’s thread:
quippe qui > + subjunctive – this is an idiom: “especially since”. A&G 535e, Note 1. The antecedent of qui is the understood subject of the main verbs > scio > and > ausim> , i.e., > ego> .
http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=AG+535&fromdoc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0001
The two clauses – the infantryman and the cavalryman – are neatly balanced, and the parallelism is reinforced by the two instances of uel.
No problems with chapter 6. You were right: a few passages aside, which is the case with many authors, this doesn’t seem that much more difficult than Cicero so far (famous last words). I’m going to take the weekend off to review and recharge; it seems that I might benefit by writing down difficult parts in a notebook and parsing them, and then at intervals come back and look over them.
By the way, the Barcids’ names still live on: the composer of “La Gioconda” Amilcare Ponchielli, middle infielder Asdrubal Cabrera, and several people have been named Hannibal.
Reviewed chapters 1-6 and I believe I get all of it except for a few things:
2.5
Is plura consilio quam ui gerens, hospitiis magis regulorum conciliandisque per amicitiam principum nouis gentibus quam bello aut armis rem Carthaginiensem auxit.
(“He, conducting (war) more with planning than violence, increased the Carthaginian interests more with the hospitality of petty kings and by winning over through friendship the new peoples of princes than with war and arms.”)
“Principum nouis gentibus” is tripping me up.
4.3
Dein breui effecit ut pater in se minimum momentum ad fauorem conciliandum esset.
(“And then in a short time he ensured that the least importance to good will should be won over by similarity to his father.”)
This is a wild guess formed from throwing words together; I believe the thought is that “he didn’t use his father’s name for his own influence”. “Conciliandum” goes with “momentum” clearly but then you have the other nominative “pater in se” (“similarity to his father”, provided from a note from Wheelock’s Latin Reader, which has this chapter as an excerpt). Perhaps this is neuter and goes with “conciliandum esset”? But then you have “momentum” doing nothing.
5.3
Quibus oppugnandis quia haud dubie Romana arma mouebantur, in Olcadum prius fines – ultra Hiberum ea gens in parte magis quam in dicione Carthaginiensium erat – induxit exercitum, ut non petisse Saguntinos sed rerum serie finitimis domitis gentibus iugendoque tractus ad id bellum uideri posset.
This is the other long sentence in chapter 5, which I had neglected, spending more time on the infantryman-and-cavalryman sentence. “If they attacked Saguntum, without a doubt Roman arms would be moved against them; before, he led his army into the borders of the Olcades – beyond the Ebro the people in the part greater than that which was in the control of the Carthaginians – (that they didn’t seek/attack the Saguntines) but, by joining together a chain of (events?) with their subdued neighboring peoples, that they be able to seem dragged into war.” The second half is giving me trouble; I don’t quite understand the “rerum”; does “non petisse Saguntinos” also go with “uideri”?
5.5
Ibi large partiendo praedam stipendioque praeterito cum fide exsoluendo cunctis ciuium sociorumque animis in se firmatis uere primo in Vaccaeos promotum bellum.
(“There by generously apportioning the booty and paying out the arrears of pay with trust, with all of the citizens’ and allies’ spirits in themselves firm, war was advanced against the Vaccaei when spring first came.”)
“Cum fide” – “with interest”? The second half of the sentence doesn’t logically follow the first.
6.5
…omnium spe celerius Saguntum oppugnari allatum est.
“Spe celerius” is an ablative of comparison? “Faster than the hope of all”?
Walsh calls it “a shameless lie” that Scipio and Sempronius Longus were consuls during the Saguntine crisis. Why? I believe that Scipio is the same Scipio Africanus who was a brilliant young general in the war that Livy idolized and I’ve never heard of Longus.
My understanding of chapter 7: it lays out some setbacks the Carthaginians faced when first besieging Saguntum. They pick a strategic part of the wall to batter down, but “sed etc”. “Sed” introduces the setbacks. The place level enough to build siege-sheds is too far from the walls for it to be effective, and there’s one part I can’t understand: “postquam ad effectum operis uentum est”. “Uentum est” is an impersonal passive: “afterwards, people came to finish the siege-works”.
The Saguntines have fortified the weak spots in their walls and built a great tower; “et iuuentus delecta ubi plurimum periculi ac timoris ostendebatur ibi ui maiore obsistebant”. “And chosen (conscripted?) youth, wherever a great amount of danger and fear was shown, there they were resisting with great force.” I’m not sure about this because “iuuentus” is singular and “obsistebant” is plural. I figure it’s the Saguntines’ tower because “non pro moenibus modo atque turri tela micare” – “not in front of just the walls but the tower also they flashed forth their darts” (taking both “micare” and “pati” as historical infinitives). It would make more sense for javelins and projectiles to be raining down from above, and “moenibus … turri” makes it clear that they are on the same side, and “hostem” and “hostium” would make more sense to refer to the Carthaginians, as it was earlier in the case of the Carpetans. The Saguntines make sallies and charge the enemy positions, and the effect of all of this is that large numbers of enemy are killed, and even Hannibal is wounded, leading to panic among his men.
I didn’t mean to make this as long as I did but am I reading this right? It took some logic and leaps of faith and I’m not sure about it. Taking tomorrow off.
2.5
Is plura consilio quam ui gerens, hospitiis magis regulorum conciliandisque per amicitiam principum nouis gentibus quam bello aut armis rem Carthaginiensem auxit.
plura concilio quam ui gerens – “acting more through diplomacy/politics than violence/warfare”
rem Carthaginiensem auxit – “he advanced Carthaginian interests”
hospitiis magis regulorum – “more by [cultivating] relationships with minor rulers”
hospitium is “guest friendship”, a widespread institution in antiquity whereby an important individual in one city would have a network of important friends elsewhere in the Mediterranean world and beyond who could be called upon to act in his interests and, when he visited, would entertain him and put up in their mansions. These relationships were reciprocal. Amicitia in the next clause is the same sort of mutually beneficial relationships. A number of prominent Romans, for example, including some of the Roman generals, had hospitium relationships with prominent Carthaginians.
conciliandisque per amicitiam principum nouis gentibus – conciliandis modifies gentibus:
“and by winning over new nations through friendship relationships with their leaders”.
4.3
Dein breui effecit ut pater in se minimum momentum ad fauorem conciliandum esset. “After that he quickly brought it about that his father was of very little importance [minimum momentum esset] for winning favor [ad favorem conciliandum] for himself [in se].” In other words, his own personal character traits won the soldiers over, and their adulation of his father played little role in this.
5.3:
Quibus oppugnandis quia haud dubie Romana arma mouebantur, in Olcadum prius fines – ultra Hiberum ea gens in parte magis quam in dicione Carthaginiensium erat – induxit exercitum, ut non petisse Saguntinos sed rerum serie finitimis domitis gentibus iugendoque tractus ad id bellum uideri posset.
"Since if they attacked Saguntum, without a doubt Roman arms would be moved/raised against them [your translation], he first [prius] led his army into the territory [finis] of the Olcades –
beyond the Ebro this nation was on the side of/aligned with [in parte], rather than under the dominion of [in dicione], the Carthaginians –
so that he could appear [uideri posset] not to have gone after [petisse] the Saguntians
but rather to have been drawn [in]to that war [tractus ad id bellum] by a series of events, with the neighboring nations having been conquered, and by linking [one event to another] [iugendo]."
That’s the best I can do. iugendoque is a problem here–it doesn’t quite fit, but I take some comfort from the fact that no one is satisfied with the text here, and various solutions have been proposed, but obviously something is wrong and there’s no clear solution. Some words likely dropped out. You have to deal with these situations in reading classical authors.
Addendum: perhaps “by annexation” for iugendo? The text still seems incomplete.
5.5:
Ibi large partiendo praedam stipendioque praeterito cum fide exsoluendo cunctis ciuium sociorumque animis in se firmatis uere primo in Vaccaeos promotum bellum.
large partiendo praedam stipendioque praeterito cum fide exsoluendo is adverbial to cunctis ciuium sociorumque animis in se firmatis: an elaborate ablative absolute.
cunctis ciuium sociorumque animis in se firmatis: “all of the minds/hearts of the citizens and allies having been solidly won over [firmatis] to him”
large partiendo praedam stipendioque praeterito cum fide exsoluendo: "by generously distributing the booty and scrupulously [cum fide] discharging the [obligations for] [exsoluendo] back pay [the pay that had been foregone, stipendio praeterito]
large partiendo . . . exsoluendo precedes cunctis . . . firmatis because partiendo and exsoluendo occurred before firmatis.
uere primo – “at the beginning of spring”
The rest is easy.
7.7:
et iuuentus delecta ubi plurimum periculi ac timoris ostendebatur ibi ui maiore obsistebant
iuuentus, literally, “youth,” means here “a group of young men” by a sort of synecdoche.
delecta probably means “select,” not “conscripted.” These were their best young men.
periculi ac timoris hendiadys: “fear of danger”
obsistebant is “constructio ad sensum”; plural because there are a number of “select” young men defending the weak points, even though iuuentus is technically singular.
“and where the most [reason for] fear of danger was evident, a select group of young men were resisting with even greater [maiore contrasts with plurimum] vigor.”
It’s the Saguntines’ tower.
ac primo missilibus submouere hostem nec quicquam satis tutum munientibus pati; deinde iam non pro moenibus modo atque turri tela micare, sed ad erumpendum etiam in stationes operaque hostium animus erat
“and at first they [the Saguntines] dislodged the enemy with missiles and didn’t allow any safe enough [place] for those who were setting up [munientibus] [the sheds with battering rams]; then, they wanted [animus erat] not just [modo] to flash their weapons in front of the walls and the tower, but even to break out [of the walls] into/against the positions and siege-works of the enemy.”
Sed ut locus procul muro satis aequus agendis uineis fuit, ita haudquaquam prospere, postquam ad effectum operis uentum est, coeptis succedebat.
“But, as a place far from the wall was level enough to bring up the sheds [for the battering rams], he followed up the initial stage [coeptis succedebat] by no means successfully [haudquaquam prospere], when the stage of completing the work [ad effectum operis] was reached [uentum est ].”
The contrast is between coeptis and effectum operis.
6.5
...omnium spe celerius Saguntum oppugnari allatum est.
“Spe celerius” is an ablative of comparison?
Yes.
“Faster than the hope of all”?
spes is like Greek elpis – it usually, but not necessarily, means “hope” for something desirable, but it can mean just “expectation.”
“sooner than anyone expected”
Lewis & Short spes:
II An anticipation or apprehension of something not desired, ἐλπίς (very rare): si meam spem vis improborum fefellerit atque superaverit, Cic. Cat. 4, 11, 23: mala res, spes multo asperior, Sall. C. 20, 13: Metellus contra spem suam laetissimis animis excipitur, id. J. 88, 1: id (bellum) quidem spe omnium serius fuit, Liv. 2, 3, 1: > omnium spe celerius, id. 21, 6, 5: > in malā jam spe, id. 22, 48: in spe Hannibali fuit defectio Tarentinorum, id. 25, 7: dum spes nulla necis, Stat. Th. 9, 129; cf.: naufragii spes omnis abit, Luc. 5, 455.
http://perseus.uchicago.edu/cgi-bin/philologic/getobject.pl?c.17:2869.lewisandshort
Walsh calls it “a shameless lie” that Scipio and Sempronius Longus were consuls during the Saguntine crisis. Why? I believe that Scipio is the same Scipio Africanus who was a brilliant young general in the war that Livy idolized and I’ve never heard of Longus.
See pp. 32-3: P. Cornelius Scipio and Ti. Sempronius Longus were elected consuls at the beginning of 218, after the capture of Saguntum at the end of the previous year, and apparently Livy was aware of this inconsistency.
This man was the father of Scipio Africanus (also P. Cornelius Scipio), who was consul in 205 and 194. (Source: Oxford Classical Dictionary).
The Cornelii Scipiones were prominent in this period, and there were a number of them, several with the praenomen Publius.