# Ad quem cum legati venissent Romani, ...



## Whodunit

Salvete amici, 

Mihi iussu scholae haec enuntiatio Cornelii Nepotis est transferenda in linguam Germanorum, sed eam vobis causa in Anglicum transferam. Gratias vobis pro omnes correctiones in translatione Anglica antea ago. 



> Ad quem cum legati venissent Romani, qui de eius voluntate explorarent darentque operam, consiliis clandestinis ut Hannibalem in suspicionem regi adducerent tamquam ab ipsis corruptum alia atque antea sentire neque id frustra fecissent idque Hannibal comperisset seque ab interioribus consiliis segregari vidisset, tempore dato adiit ad regem, eique cum multa de fide sua et odio in Romanos commemorasset, hoc adiunxit: "Pater meus", inquit, "Hamilcar, puerulo me, utpote non amplius novem annos nato, in Hispaniam imperator proficiscens Carthagine Iovi Optimo Maximo hostias immolavit.


 
Enuntiatio antecentis contextu causa est:

_Hunc tanta cupiditate incendit bellandi, ut usque a rubro mari arma conatus sit inferre Italiae._
_This one he roused by so much greed that he tried to import weapons from the Red Sea to Italy._

Haec translatio mea entuntiationis superioris est (in una enuntiatione Anglica; vos id animis comprehendere posse spero. ):

_When Roman ambassadors had come to him, who would make inquiries about his volition and efforts to cast suspicion to Hannibal to the king by secret negotiations, equally as if (he was) ruined by themselves, supposed differently from as it was in the past, and did not do it in vain, and when Hannibal had heard about that he sah himself expelled from the secret negotations, time had been given (to him) to go to the king and, when he remembered the Romans with much trust and (simultaneously) hate added this: "Father mine," he said, "for, when my sonny had been nine years old, he did not sacrifice too many enemies to Juppiter Optimus Maximus as a general, marching from Carthage to Spain._


----------



## Lorixnt2

Here I can measure my english weakness Whodunit but anyway it seems to me that those too many enemies at the end are not there. Since _hostis/is_ is a third declension masculine noun, enemies would be _hostes_ either in the nominative or in the accusative case not hostias. Hostias instead is the plural accusative of the first declension feminine noun _hostia/ae_ meaning simply victim of the sacrifice. So it seems to me in that moment, Hamilcar was simply offering sacrifices. But this is a poor commentary I beg your pardon for.
This is an example of what we, as students,  called _period fleuve_  and, if I remember well, we proceeded changing the words order in a more (for us) comprehensible way:

cum legati Romani qui de eius voluntate explorarent darentque operam venissent ad quem ut, consiliis clandestinis, in suspicionem regi adducerent Hannibalem tamquam ab ipsis corruptum alia atque antea sentire neque id frustra fecissent idque Hannibal comperisset seque ab interioribus consiliis segregari vidisset tempore dato  adiit ad regem, eique cum multa de fide sua et odio in Romanos commemorasset, hoc adiunxit: "Pater meus", inquit, "Hamilcar, puerulo me, utpote non amplius novem annos nato, in Hispaniam imperator proficiscens Carthagine Iovi Optimo Maximo hostias immolavit.

OK. Now that it is more comprehensible for me I'll try a very difficult  for me "free"  "english" translation

Having  the Roman Ambassadors come to the person they needed to explore the will and the intentions of to raise  with obscure intrigues the suspicion of the king  against Hannibal as if he had been corrupted by themselves and he had changed mind, having they been successful in this task and having Hannibal understood it and seen he had been excluded from the more secret decisions, at a given time he went to meet the king and, after having reminded him of his fidelity and his hatred against the Romans, he added these words:
"My father Hamilcar - he said - when I was a little child since I was not more than nine years old, leaving Carthago to go to Hispania sacrificed victims to Iuppiter Optimus Maximus.

OK. After this horrible mess  we felt authorized to try a "real" free translation

Roman ambassadors came to the person they needed to explore the will and the intentions of to raise  with obscure intrigues the suspicion of the king  against Hannibal as if he had been corrupted by themselves and he had changed mind. Hannibal, aware of their success since he had realized he had been excluded from the most secret decisions, at a given time went to meet the king. After having reminded him of his fidelity and his hatred against the Romans, he added these words:
"My father Hamilcar - he said - when I was a little child since I was not more than nine years old, leaving Carthago to go to Hispania, sacrificed victims to Iuppiter Optimus Maximus.


----------



## Lorixnt2

sorry a little addendum: I forgot imperator 

So,  leaving Carthago *as commander (in chief)

*mpf


----------



## Flaminius

Whodunit said:


> Enuntiatio antecentis contextu causa est:
> 
> _Hunc tanta cupiditate incendit bellandi, ut usque a rubro mari arma conatus sit inferre Italiae._
> _This one he roused by so much greed that he tried to import weapons from the Red Sea to Italy._


He excited him with so much desire for war that he tried to bring troops from the Red Sea to Italy.

The Roman ambassadors came to him that Hannibal inspired with much hatred.  This person turns out to be a king in the later passage.

And finally, hostia may not necessarily be "victim."  I'd translate _hostias immolavit_, "He offered sacrifices."


----------



## Lorixnt2

Flaminius said:


> I'd translate _hostias immolavit_, "He offered sacrifices."



Yes it's a possibility Flaminius but  the union immolare hostias makes me still think about my version: cp e.g.

 Missae celebratio:

- _ecce *agnus* Dei qui tollit peccata mundi_ where the _Host <-> hostia_ coming out of the monstrance still preserves nowadays the metaphorical nature of an animal/man/god

or 

 Cicero:

- _hostia_ major ; _hostia_ maxima ---> big _animal_

or 

Caesar:

- pro victimis homines _immolare_ ---> killing men instead of animals in the sacrifice

or

the nowadays Italian where the verb "immolare"  has been kept unchanged with the original meaning associated with a ritual killing...


et cetera...


----------



## Whodunit

Lorixnt2 said:


> Here I can measure my english weakness Whodunit but anyway it seems to me that those too many enemies at the end are not there. Since _hostis/is_ is a third declension masculine noun, enemies would be _hostes_ either in the nominative or in the accusative case not hostias. Hostias instead is the plural accusative of the first declension feminine noun _hostia/ae_ meaning simply victim of the sacrifice. So it seems to me in that moment, Hamilcar was simply offering sacrifices. But this is a poor commentary I beg your pardon for.


 
Well, after having read your version and understood it, I can see that I completely misunderstood the last sentence. Your version might make more sense than mine, I guess, although I'm not that into Roman history in spite of my Latin lessons. 



> This is an example of what we, as students, called _period fleuve_  and, if I remember well, we proceeded changing the words order in a more (for us) comprehensible way:


 
Being a student myself, I have learned another way of understanding and especially translating the sentence: We call it "colometric method" (in German _kolometrisches Satzbild_, if you're interested) where you put each unit of meaning in its own line:

Ad quem cum legati venissent Romani, .................................|_temp.clause., anteriority_
....qui de eius voluntate explorarent darentque operam, ..............|_rel.clause to legati, simult._
........consiliis clandestinis ut Hannibalem in suspicionem regi adducerent..|_object clause_
_.............................................................................|to darent operam_
........tamquam ab ipsis corruptum....................................|_apposition_
........alia atque antea sentire......................................|_apposition_
neque id frustra fecissent
idque Hannibal comperisset
seque
ab interioribus consiliis segregari...................................|_a.c.i. simultaneity_
vidisset,
tempore dato..........................................................|_abl.abs. anteriority_
adiit ad regem,
eique
....cum multa de fide sua et odio in Romanos commemorasset,...........|_temp.clause, anteriority_
hoc adiunxit:
"Pater meus",
inquit,
"Hamilcar,
puerulo me,...........................................................|_abl.abs., anteriority_
utpote non amplius novem annos nato,..................................|_apposition_
in Hispaniam
imperator
proficiscens Carthagine...............................................|_PPA, simultaneity_
Iovi Optimo Maximo hostias
immolavit. 



> Having the Roman Ambassadors come to the person they needed to explore (1) the will and the intentions (2) of to raise with obscure intrigues the suspicion of the king (3) against Hannibal as if he had been corrupted by themselves and he had changed mind (4), having they been successful in this task and having Hannibal understood it and seen he had been excluded from the more secret decisions, at a given time he went to meet the king and, after having reminded him of his fidelity and his hatred against the Romans (5), he added these words:
> "My father Hamilcar - he said - when I was a little child since I was not more than nine years old, leaving Carthago to go to Hispania sacrificed victims to Iuppiter Optimus Maximus.


 
sorry a little addendum: I forgot imperator 

So, leaving Carthago as commander (in chief) (6)[/quote]

Okay, let me comment on your translation:

(1) Why did you choose "the person they needed to explore?" Where were you taking "need" from and about which were you speaking? "Quem" is the "rex Antiochus" from the sentence before the foregoing, which you couldn't have known, of course. I just used "him" instead of "the person." Furthermore, you seemed to have left out "darentque operam, ... ut ..." (= they made an effort to ...)

(2) Where were you taking "and the intentions" from? Is that what you understood by "de eius voluntate?" I think "the will" is sufficient.

(3) "Of the king," as you have it, is the genitive case. In Latin, however, I read the dative case in "regi," so I thought they cast suspicion against Hannibal in the presence of/before/to the king." (I'm not sure how one should express it best in English).

(4) Do you think that "alia atque antea sentire" refers to Hannibal (he changed his mind)? I thought it was a neutral comment of the speaker of the text (he often comments on Hannibal's and Hamilcar's deeds). I believed it could mean something like "people/the speaker sensed/felt/thought (this theses was) different from (the ones) in the past," hence my translation with "supposed."

(5) Here I disagree with you. Let's look again at the sentence: "eique cum multa de fide sua et odio in Romanos commemorasset, hoc adiunxit." I read it like this: "cum commemorasset in Romanos [multa de sua fide et odio], ei[que] adiunxit hoc" meaning "[and] when he had remembered the Romans [with much trust, but also hate], he added this to him." The problem in your translation is these two things: "ei" is the dative case and "remind so. (of sth.)" should require the accusative in Latin, as far as I know. I would agree with you if there was "eumque," but there isn't.  

(6) One would say "as *a* commander" in English. Would you translate it as "come uno condottiero" to Italian? If so, I agree with your suggestion. 

Thank you very much for the cooperation and all the suggestions you've made. They are really helpful and I will try to compose a new translation.


----------



## Lorixnt2

(1) Why did you choose "the person they needed to explore?" Where were you taking "need" from and about which were you speaking? "Quem" is the "rex Antiochus" from the sentence before the foregoing, which you couldn't have known, of course. I just used "him" instead of "the person." Furthermore, you seemed to have left out "darentque operam, ... ut ..." (= they made an effort to ...)

(2) Where were you taking "and the intentions" from? Is that what you understood by "de eius voluntate?" I think "the will" is sufficient.

(3) "Of the king," as you have it, is the genitive case. In Latin, however, I read the dative case in "regi," so I thought they cast suspicion against Hannibal in the presence of/before/to the king." (I'm not sure how one should express it best in English).

(4) Do you think that "alia atque antea sentire" refers to Hannibal (he changed his mind)? I thought it was a neutral comment of the speaker of the text (he often comments on Hannibal's and Hamilcar's deeds). I believed it could mean something like "people/the speaker sensed/felt/thought (this theses was) different from (the ones) in the past," hence my translation with "supposed."

(5) Here I disagree with you. Let's look again at the sentence: "eique cum multa de fide sua et odio in Romanos commemorasset, hoc adiunxit." I read it like this: "cum commemorasset in Romanos [multa de sua fide et odio], ei[que] adiunxit hoc"  meaning "[and] when he had remembered the Romans [with much trust, but also hate], he added this to him." The problem in your translation is these two things: "ei" is the dative case and "remind so. (of sth.)" should require the accusative in Latin, as far as I know. I would agree with you if there was "eumque," but there isn't. 

(6) One would say "as *a* commander" in English. Would you translate it as "come uno condottiero" to Italian? If so, I agree with your suggestion.

Thank you very much for the cooperation and all the suggestions you've made. They are really helpful and I will try to compose a new translation. [/quote]


1) As a matter of fact I really feel to be  weak in English even more than in Latin Whod.
In Italian I would have translated in a slightly different way. For instance we have the constructions _colui _and _colui che _I don't find an easier way than "person" to translate into English. And now that you make me notice it I agree that "need" that I don't dislike is, nevertheless,  a freedom excess I am not up to fix to give a readable English. Maybe something will come later to my mind and the same goes for the elision of darentque operam that is  an excess of freedom.

2) Agreed: useless hendiadys

3) O mamma mia  Agreed for the dative Whod but  in this case, having read  like you do, adducere Hannibalem in suspicionem regi I've used  the shift dative-genitive 'cause a thing like induce Hannibal in suspicion to the 
king seemed an unbearable english even to me 

4) Yes. I might be wrong but I've thought it referred to Hannibal. I've rendered with the construction "to change mind"  a thing as "feeling other/different things than before"

5) Yes and no. Yes 'cause you have made me notice another oversight of mine: not only "imperator"  but also "multa" . So not "of his fidelity and hatred" as I've written but "of many facts concerning his fidelity and hatred") . No  a)'cause even if I didn't remember anymore this grammar detail I find logically impossible Hannibal could remember the Romans with hatred and simultaneously... trust  b) cause that eique must probably be referred simply to the "hoc adiunxit"

6) This is an "italianism" in fact . In Italian you should say "come condottiero" in this particular case. Not "come un condottiero".  But an italian would understand you very well even if you said "come un condottiero" and, moreover, I like very much your analytical way of dealing with the matter man .

Tell me more about the _kolometrisches Satzbild _


----------



## Whodunit

Lorixnt2 said:


> For instance we have the constructions _colui _and _colui che _I don't find an easier way than "person" to translate into English. And now that you make me notice it I agree that "need" that I don't dislike is, nevertheless, a freedom excess I am not up to fix to give a readable English. Maybe something will come later to my mind and the same goes for the elision of darentque operam that is an excess of freedom.


 
"colui che" is what I'd translate as "ille/is qui." In this context I could go with "to him" (a lui?).



> 3) O mamma mia Agreed for the dative Whod but in this case, having read like you do, adducere Hannibalem in suspicionem regi I've used the shift dative-genitive 'cause a thing like induce Hannibal in suspicion to the king seemed an unbearable english even to me


 
Hm, I'm not even sure I'll be able to phrase it very well in German later. I know that it wasn't possible in good English to use "to the king" this way, but I guess I understand the use of the dative here anyway. 



> 4) Yes. I might be wrong but I've thought it referred to Hannibal. I've rendered with the construction "to change mind" a thing as "feeling other/different things than before"


 
I have to think about it. I can't promise anything. 



> 5) Yes and no. Yes 'cause you have made me notice another oversight of mine: not only "imperator" but also "multa" . So not "of his fidelity and hatred" as I've written but "of many facts concerning his fidelity and hatred") . No a)'cause even if I didn't remember anymore this grammar detail I find logically impossible Hannibal could remember the Romans with hatred and simultaneously... trust  b) cause that eique must probably be referred simply to the "hoc adiunxit"


 
So, are you telling me that commemorare requires the dative case? The verb government should be "commemorare alicui in aliquem/aliquid" according to your translation, then. This is strange because in German you'd use the accusative, and Latin and German case governments are _very_ often alike.



> 6) This is an "italianism" in fact . In Italian you should say "come condottiero" in this particular case. Not "come un condottiero". But an italian would understand you very well even if you said "come un condottiero" and, moreover, I like very much your analytical way of dealing with the matter man .


 
Okay, there you see that my Italian is very poor.

8quote]Tell me more about the _kolometrisches Satzbild _[/quote]

Oh my God, it took me ages to compile the overview above. It's much easier and more clearly arranged in handwriting, I think. What I can tell you is that each unit of meaning (like the ablative absolutus, accusativus cum infinitivo, PPP, PPA, ...) get their own line, subordinate clauses (such as object [ut], relative [qui], conjunctional [quod], final [ut/ne], concessive [ut/non ut], temporal [cum], ... clauses) are indented. This is how you can see if it's a second, third, or even fourth subordinate clause.


----------



## Lorixnt2

_So, are you telling me that commemorare requires the dative case? The verb government should be "commemorare alicui in aliquem/aliquid" according to your translation, then. This is strange because in German you'd use the accusative, and Latin and German case governments are very_ often alike.

No Whod, it could be so but frankly I don't remember the governance of the verb commemorare. Nevertheless if we could bind _eique_ to _hoc adiunxit_ it seems to me the difficulties could disappear


_Oh my God, it took me ages to compile the overview above. It's much easier and more clearly arranged in handwriting, I think. What I can tell you is that each unit of meaning (like the ablative absolutus, accusativus cum infinitivo, PPP, PPA, ...) get their own line, subordinate clauses (such as object [ut], relative [qui], conjunctional [quod], final [ut/ne], concessive [ut/non ut], temporal [cum], ... clauses) are indented. This is how you can see if it's a second, third, or even fourth subordinate clause. _

Very nice! As far as I remember they simply told us to check the cases and the verb-subject agreements with the sequence of the tenses


----------



## Whodunit

Lorixnt2 said:


> No Whod, it could be so but frankly I don't remember the governance of the verb commemorare. Nevertheless if we could bind _eique_ to _hoc adiunxit_ it seems to me the difficulties could disappear


 
That's very unfortunate. Maybe I'm going to open a new thread on the verb "commemorare" providing that very sentence from my text. 



> Very nice! As far as I remember they simply told us to check the cases and the verb-subject agreements with the sequence of the tenses


 
That's one possibility. There are some methods a teacher can use to make his/her students understand Latin. Another pedagocially friendly technique is to underline the verbs, conjunctions, and subjects (if it's a more complex sentence) in different colors, and so on ...


----------



## J.F. de TROYES

My congratulations for your translations into English! You rise to the challenge, as far as I can judge. 

My dictionary gives two constructions with "commemorare":

1- "Alicui aliquid commemorare " ( to remind sb. of sth.)
2- "De aliquo commemorare " (to talk about, to mention )

I am going by Lorinxt2 about "ei" that depends on "adjunxit" and also "fide sua", as it seems to me impossible that Hannibal put then his trust in Romans.

About the phrase: "Hannibalem in suspicionem regi adduce(bant)", the same value of the dative ( " dative of interest, as we say in French ) can be found in the constructon "In suspicionem alicui venire" that is used by Cicero.


----------



## Whodunit

J.F. de TROYES said:


> My congratulations for your translations into English! You rise to the challenge, as far as I can judge.


 
Thanks. 



> My dictionary gives two constructions with "commemorare":
> 
> 1- "Alicui aliquid commemorare " ( to remind sb. of sth.)
> 2- "De aliquo commemorare " (to talk about, to mention )


 
Okay, that means that it really means "to remind sb." in this context. Maybe I shouldn't trust too much in the German case governments when talking about Latin.  My problem was just that I wasn't able to find an evidence for the dative in any dictionary. 



> About the phrase: "Hannibalem in suspicionem regi adduce(bant)", the same value of the dative ( " dative of interest, as we say in French ) can be found in the constructon "In suspicionem alicui venire" that is used by Cicero.


 
Yes, that's what I thought, but I couldn't express it well in English.


----------

