This is from Orberg’s LLPSI Cap XLIV (adapted livy).
Medium erat in Anco ingenium, et Numae et Romuli memor. Pacem avi regno magis necessariam fuisse credebat, cum in novo tum feroci populo, se vero otium sine iniuria haud facile habiturum.
Three questions about this:
Medium erat in Anco ingenium, et Numae et Romuli memor.
Orberg provides the following hint for memor : memor : simile
Assuming medium means something like ‘central’ I would take this sentence to simply be:
Central to Ancus’ thoughts was both Numa and Romulus.
How does memor equate with simile or do I have the wrong end of the stick?
2) Pacem avi regno magis necessariam fuisse credebat, cum in novo tum feroci populo, se vero otium sine iniuria haud facile habiturum.
He believed peace to have been more necessary in the reign of the grandfather, in a people that was new and [therefore?] violent,
Then I’m a bit perplexed. se vero otium sine iniuria haud facile habiturum.
Orberg provides the hint: habiturum esse (credebat).
he was not to easily believe in peace without conflict.
As I translate this it seems to be something of a non sequitur.
A general question. Assuming my take on 2) above - tum feroci - is correct - is feroci somehow consequential on novo? In other words did Livy believe / or Romans in general believe in some doctrine that new populations were like young adult predators are more inclined to be fractious and aggressive.
How does memor equate with simile or do I have the wrong end of the stick?
Ancus’ disposition (nature) was midway (central) between Numa’s and Romulus’ and he was mindful of both. Simile seems like an obscure hint. Perhaps he wants to interpret the sentence as a simile?
Pacem avi regno magis necessariam fuisse credebat, cum in novo tum feroci populo, se vero otium sine iniuria haud facile habiturum.
cum .. tum is here “both … and”. in populo cum novo tum feroci
novus here is young rather than new. In a people both young and violent.
he was not to easily believe in peace without conflict.
As I translate this it seems to be something of a non sequitur.
se vero otium sine iniuria haud facile habiturum [esse (credebat)]
iniuria is injustice, injury not conflict.
So “he did not think in truth (vero) that there could be an absence of conflict (otium) without (there being) injustice or injury.” The idea is “if you never fight then you have to endure injustice”.
If you grasp the idea at the beginning that Romulus and Numa are representatives of warlike and peaceful kingship and that Ancus is midway between these two and deciding which course to adopt this seems to make sense.
A general question.
Your logic is right even if the translation isnt quite correct.
Agreeing with rather than qualifying although you might think this is pedantic.
Hylander’s "Memor ..“reminiscent of” or “similar to.” Gives a different nuance to the meaning. If you take this passage in its original context Livy 1.32 I think it is clear that Ancius Marcus was mindful (had in mind) the example of Romulus and Numa not that his ingenium was similar to both of the them. Indeed the first half of the sentence tells us that his ingenium was midway between the two. It is of course possible to read it as Hylander does which implies that Ancius Marcus had some characteristics of Numa and some of Romulus. perfectly valid of course but to me a slightly different nuance.
However you interpret the meaning in English we all agree on how the grammar works.
…se vero otium sine iniuria haud facile habiturum esse.
I may be missing something very obvious but, given that, we understand ‘habiturum esse’ to mean something like ‘he was believing’ - Orberg hints that it means ‘credebat’, why on earth, is it (does it appear to be) a future participle accusative (adjective) in the infinitive..?
If it meant ‘would (in the future) be had’ - ordinary meaning of habeo - then it would seem to make sense if it was an infinitive governed by the earlier ‘credebat’. I just can’t understand how, aiming for the meaning, ‘he was believing’ Livy is using future accusative participle + infinitive.
If I ignore Orberg’s hint ‘habeo = credo’ (and some of what you are saying!) and translate the piece trying to reflect English idiom AND the grammar I get.
Within Ancus was a disposition that was equally mindful both of Numa and Romulus. Believing [credebat] that the peace of the grandfather’s reign was more necessary, while the population was young and violent, certainly to him [se vero?] peace without injustice was not easily to be had [in the future].
The hint doesn’t mean that habiturum is equivalent to credebat. It means that you should supply credebat from the previous clause, continuing indirect discourse subordinate to credebat.
vero here means “however”.
Treat this as a unit: se vero otium sine iniuria haud facile habiturum esse.
The subject will be accusative, and the participial component of the periphrastic verb will agree with the case of the subject.
…OK, apart from my misunerstanding of ‘Vero’, I was kind of on the right track when I thought I was defying Orberg and the authorities here.. ?
Having read Orberg very closely up to this Chapter of LLPSI I haven’t seen him give a hint like this before. I don’t see why he feels the need to give it. It threw me off somewhat. Having said that it is in brackets and he doesn’t usually do that to suggest equivalence. Usually he uses an = sign.
Hylander’s interpretation of things must surely be right. It’s certainly straightforward enough; since ingenium is the subject, memor, in agreement, is descriptive of it, not of Ancus himself. Freinsheim’s comment on “et Numae et Romuli memor” takes it this way, at any rate: “eorum ingenio respondens, indolem referens”.
Though I know there are many fans of LLPSI, all this confusion would have been entirely avoided if Orberg hadn’t insisted on writing all his explanations in Latin. Examples like this surely run counter to the principle embodied in the title of his book. Or perhaps the real title is actually Lingua Latina per se Inligata.
Medium erat in Anco ingenium, et Numae et Romuli memor.
So if memor agrees with ingenium then it is not referring (as per Seneca2008’s idiomatic translation above) to the ‘mindfulness’ of Ancus but, in fact, means something closer to reminiscent - i.e. it is the ingenium that is reminiscent and not Ancus who is ‘mindful’.
This works if one assumes that Livy is leaving out the words in square brackets below.
So we get literally: In Ancus was a disposition (ingenium) midway [between and] reminiscent of both Numa and Romulus.
Should not Orberg’s hint have been to rearrange the order of words (and supply implied text) as follows:
In Anco ingenium [quod] medium [et]memor et Numae et Romuli erat ?
The difficulty arises (at least for me) in that the ingenium is both between and (according to Orberg’s unhelpful hint) similar (simile) to those of Numa and Romulus. But given that Numa and Romulus are set up as having opposing natures then suggesting that a third person’s nature is similar to theirs makes no sense. What he’s actually saying is that Ancus’ ingenium contained equal elements of both.
..Right.. “moderate was in Ancus the disposition, of both Numa and Romulus reminiscent”. Now I get it - despite Hylander’s suggesting ‘moderate’…
One problem (amongst several) was ‘medium’. At first I thought it was something like ‘Central to Ancus’ nature’. Then it was suggested - or I took it to be suggested - that it was something like ‘half way between the two natures’ - and I couldn’t figure out how to connect the adjective to Numa and Romulus.
