Huc naves undique ex finitimis regionibus et quam superiore aestate ad Veneticum bellum fecerat classem iubet convenire.
He orders ships from the neighboring regions everywhere to assemble the fleet here which the previous summer he had used in the Veneti war.
convenire is intransitive, to assemble in the sense of to come together (con-venire). Huc goes with it, “to assemble here, to come together to here.” So classem cannot be the object of convenire, as you take it. classem is a second object of iubet, just as naves is the first. You ignore the all-important et, which links these two objects—(1) naves undique ex finitimis regionibus and (et) (2) quam superiore aestate ad Veneticum bellum fecerat classem (the fleet that he had built the previous summer …).
Thanks, mwh. I read the same story a couple of years ago and funnily enough that time I translated this sentence correctly with no problem but this time I had a mental block for some reason.
It happens. Incidentally, the second object of iubet is strictly speaking not classem but that entire clause (quam - classem), of which classem is a part.
Really? I read the quam clause as simply predicate to classem, describing it adjectively, so that strictly speaking classem is the object of iubet, and is not part of the quam clause.
That would be the case if classem preceded the quam clause, i.e. if it were the literal antecedent of quam. As it is, classem is incorporated into the relative clause. Cf. e.g. quam habes pecuniam da (and English “Give what money you have”—quam habes/habeas pecuniam da). Of course it makes little or no difference to the meaning, but it is a rather fine point of latinity
I agree completely that it makes little difference in meaning, and you may well be right. At the same time, I think this is simply a proleptic use of the pronoun. Fronting the relative clause places a certain rhetorical emphasis on the fact that it was the prior fleet.
It’s a matter of syntax. You might find it easier to grasp when there’s a case difference, e.g. in quem primum egressi sunt locum Troia vocatur, where locum would be locus if it preceded in quem. Both in quem primum egressi sunt locum and quam … fecerat classem are noun clauses, serving as subject and object respectively.
We could think of the construction as a kind of attraction, making for a smoother and more compact sentence.
Hope this helps.
Certainly it makes the sentence more compact, much easier (not that such is really a consideration for Livy) to say in quem primum egressi sunt locum than locus in quem primum egressi sunt (I would call the use of quem here adjectival). But the syntax is not the same between the two examples, and it still makes better sense to read classem as the direct object of iubet and the quam clause as descriptive of which fleet it was.
None so blind …
In agris caecorum, monophthalmus rex. It’s not that I can’t or won’t see your point, just that I disagree in this particular instance. Nevertheless, if a choice must be made between me or thee, I myself would choose thee. Palmam tibi do.