I’m having trouble parsing this sentence (Livy XXII.25.11). A tribune of the plebs proposes giving magister equitum Minucius greater power:
Nec tamen ne ita quidem prius mittendum ad exercitum Q. Fabium, quam consulem in locum C. Flamini suffecisset.
The translation gives:
That notwithstanding, he concluded, Quintus Fabius must not be sent back to his army until he had seen to the election of a consul to replace Gaius Flaminius.
The part I’m having trouble with is “nec tamen ne ita quidem prius mittendum”. I have “nec … mittendum (esse) (ad exercitum) Q. Fabium” “prius … quam” is “priusquam”, and “tamen” is self-explanatory. I can’t make the rest work.
quas ob res, si antiquus animus plebei Romanae esset, audaciter se laturum fuisse de abrogando Q. Fabi imperio; nunc modicam rogationem promulgaturum de aequando magistri equitum et dictatoris iure. nec tamen ne ita quidem prius mittendum ad exercitum Q. Fabium, quam consulem in locum C. Flamini suffecisset.
“[He said] if the Roman plebs had the courage of yesteryear, he would have boldly passed a measure to abrogate Q. Fabius’ command, but as things stood [nunc] he would [merely] promulgate a modest measure to give equal power to the magister equitum and the dictator. But even so [i.e., even with that “modest” measure, ne ita quidem], Fabius shouldn’t be sent to the army before he [the tribune. I think] conducted the procedure to select a consul to replace C. Flaminius.”
When a consul died in office, the term for the process of selecting a new consul to fill out his term was sufficere, and the new consul was known as a consul suffectus, a “suffect consul.”
Am I parsing this correctly? 26.7. The measure has passed as Fabius returns to his army:
Acceptisque in ipso itinere litteris de aequato imperio satis fidens haudquaquam cum imperii iure artem imperandi aequatam, cum invicto a civibus hostibusque animo ad exercitum rediit.
The bolded part is what I’m having trouble with. “Fidens” introduces indirect discourse, with an understood “esse”: “fidens haudquaquam artem imperandi esse aequatam” i.e. between Minucius and Fabius.
haudquaquam cum imperii iure artem imperandi aequatam – the contrast here is between the legal authority of command and the art or skill of exercising command: Fabius is confident that even if Minucius has been given the authority to exercise command jointly, the mere legal authority isn’t the same thing (haud aequatam) as the ability to command an army, to exercise true generalship–so he isn’t perturbed by the fact that Minucius has been given the authority in an effort to undercut him (i.e., Fabius). Does this help?
Fabius got the letter informing him that Minucius’ command authority had been made equal [to his], but he was quite certain that Minucius’ skill as a general had by no means been made equal [to his] along with the command authority.
“Cum imperii iure” is, now that I see it, easy enough, but I couldn’t figure it out – I wanted to see it either as an ablative absolute (“imperii iure Minucio”) or a cum-clause (circumstantial or adversative – “cum imperii iurem [Minucius] haberet”) but the text doesn’t allow it. It’s all so obvious explained…
Livy XXII.29.10. Minucius has just been bailed out by Fabius and admits he is unequal to the task:
“Castra cum Fabio iungamus; ad praetorium eius signa cum tulerimus, ubi ego eum parentem appellavero, quod beneficio eius erga nos ac maiestate eius dignum est, etc.”
Let us join our camp with Fabius’; when we shall have carried the standards to his headquarters, where I shall have called him “parent”, a title which is worthy of his kindness towards us and his dignity, etc.
I’m confused as to the future perfects. My best guess is “at that time when we shall have carried the standards and at the time [and in that place] when I shall have called him ‘parent’, let us join with his camp.”
These are pluperfect in the subordinate clause because the events will be completed before the verb of the main clause, which is in the future tense, salutabitis. Again, the full sentence needs to be taken into account to see how it fits together. In English we would use the future tense for the verbs in the subordinate clause, but Latin requires the future perfect because the events, although future, occur before the verb of the main clause.
Allen & Greenough sec. 478 (emphasis added):
The Future Perfect denotes an action as completed in the future:—
“ut sēmentem fēceris, ita metēs ” (De Or. 2.261) , as you sow (shall have sown), so shall you reap.
“carmina tum melius, cum vēnerit ipse, canēmus ” (Ecl. 9.67) , then shall we sing our songs better, when he himself has come (shall have come).
sī illīus īnsidiae clāriōrēs hāc lūce fuerint, tum dēnique obsecrābō; (Mil. 6), when the plots of that man have been shown to be as clear as daylight, then, and not till then, shall I conjure you.
“ego certē meum officium praestiterō ” (B. G. 4.25) , I at least shall have done my duty (i.e. when the time comes to reckon up the matter, I shall be found to have done it, whatever the event).
[*] Note.–> Latin is far more exact than English in distinguishing between mere future action and action completed in the future. Hence the Future Perfect is much commoner in Latin than in English. > It may even be used instead of the Future, from the fondness of the Romans for representing an action as completed:—
“quid inventum sit paulō post vīderō ” (Acad. 2.76) , what has been found out I shall see presently.
“quī Antōnium oppresserit bellum taeterrimum cōnfēcerit ” (Fam. 10.19) , whoever crushes (shall have crushed) Antony will finish (will have finished) a most loathsome war.
Thanks. Aside from my casting too narrow a net, is it generally profitable to look for a future verb whenever you see a future perfect? Kind of like how a pluperfect verb must have some sort of past tense with it?
It looks like my troubles with long sentences might be back.
Actually looking at that one example “oppresserit … confecerit” makes sense without a future verb. I guess it’s just experience and spending more time with a future perfect when encountering it.
is it generally profitable to look for a future verb whenever you see a future perfect?
I would put it differently: when you encounter a future perfect verb in a temporal or conditional subordinate clause, it should set up the expectation that there will be a future tense in the main clause. You should get in the habit of reading word by word and clause by clause as the author presents them to you–that will help in reading fluently and understanding complex periodic Latin and Greek sentences. A future perfect verb shouldn’t set you skipping ahead and hunting for a future verb; rather it should set up the expectation of a future event or state that will follow the completion of the future perfect verb. You should try not to read by “deciphering.”
By “look for” I meant “expect” but it is very true that I need to put forth a bit more effort to consecutive reading and spend a good hour or however long a day trying to read it as it’s supposed to be read. I try now and again to put more effort into doing so but old habits die hard, and it’s easy to revert to them lazily – when I come across a modifier I immediately look for its complement without thinking, for instance, and flipping back and forth to the commentary doesn’t help matters. (Though afterwards I read the sentence again – I “decipher” when I can’t easily understand a sentence, going clause-by-clause and trying to put them all together at the end, which can prove problematic with one such as this – to get its force.)
I’ve actually got Cicero’s Pro Archia ordered and on its way anyway; it’s supposed to be a bit easier than Livy (the student edition to be sure, judging by the Amazon reviews), and if I apply myself it could help a lot with consecutive reading. I also have a few other works I’ve been through already which would be good practice. Until then I’ll keep plugging away at Livy with your advice in mind, spending that hour a day.
I’ve been reading sequentially since last week. Today I wasn’t as successful at it because it was a trickier chapter but with the last few it actually hasn’t been that hard to do, taking little if any more time than reading more analytically, and it really helps with learning the force of the word order.
This is Livy’s narrative, reflecting his anti-plebeian bias, in which populist demagogues are supposed to have tried to undermine Fabius’ winning strategy of eating away at Hannibal little by little instead of attacking him directly. It leads immediately to the Roman disaster at Cannae. You have to take Livy’s account with a grain of salt.
Livy XXII.44.4. Hannibal hopes to provoke the Romans into a fight at Cannae.
Hannibal spem nactus locis natis ad equestrem pugnam, qua parte virium invictus erat, facturos copiam pugnandi consules, derigit aciem lacessitque Numidarum procursatione hostis.
Hannibal, finding the hope of an equestrian fight, the place being suited for it, the cavalry being the part of his forces that was unbeatable … drew up the battle-lines and harassed his enemy with raids by the Numidians.
Ed: I see that I misconstrued the first clause, reading “spem nactus ad equestrem pugnam” where it should be “locis natis ad equestrem pugnam”.
What I can’t figure out is “facturos copiam pugnandi consules”. There’s no finite verb and it seems like an accusative + infinitive construction; would this go with “spem nactus”? I’m reading this “the consuls would make an abundance/a great deal of fighting” (as acc/inf).
I think you are right that this is an infinitive and acc construction after an “expression of hope”. You have to supply esse to go with facturos. Hannibal hoped that the consuls would make (provide) an opportunity( copia) for fighting.