# erant omnia communia et indivisa omnibus...



## MinaDidi

Hi.  So, I was reading a text by Blackstone (English jurist) in which he quotes the following Lating phrase: 

"errant omnia communia et indivisa omnibus, veluti unum cunctis patrimonium esset"

My own rough, first-glance translation seems to be "They wandered over all, which was undivided and communal for everyone, just as there would be but one inheritance for all."  Thoughts?  Comments?  Suggestions?  The context of the quote is below.

thanks,
Mina

"...and from the ancient method of living among the first Europeans themselves, if we may credit either the memorials of them preserved in the golden age of poets, or the uniform accounts given by historians of those times, wherein 'errant omnia communia et indivisa omnibus, veluti unum cunctis patrimonium esset.'"


----------



## Flaminius

I assume _errant_ (they wandered or erred) is a typo for _erant_ (they were).
The whole sentence means,
Everything was communal and indivisible belonging to all, just as if they were one whole patrimony.


----------



## MinaDidi

You know what?  I originally was going to post with my confusion about "errant" and whether or not it was a typo for "erant."  Then, I thought of a way it might work with "errant" and thought I would try it instead.  Do you think that the sentence makes more sense with "erant" or is there some reason that you think "errant" does not work grammatically?


----------



## Flaminius

First, the verb _errant_, to my mind, appears to claim an animate subject with either of the meanings.  In the sentence only neuter forms are in nominative and neuters are used for inanimate objects.  The neuters could have been accusative but I guessed that _errant _is an intransitive verb.

Second, your solution did not make sense, particularly in view of the context wherein Blackstone introduced the quote in his passage.


----------



## MinaDidi

Hm.  This is an interesting discussion.  Well, I thought that perhaps the subject ("they") of "errant" could refer to the "first Europeans" in context.  

I also agree that "errant" is intransitive, but thought that the accusative could perhaps be used here to indicate the extent of space traversed.  

Perhaps, however, the easiest explanation is the typo.


----------



## Anne345

"sed omnia communia et indiuisa omnibus *fuerint*, ueluti unum cunctis patrimonium esset."

Marcus Junianus Justinus
Epitome of the Philippic History of Pompeius Trogus. Liber XLIII 1.3


but all things were common to all, and undivided, as one estate for the use of every one;


----------



## jazyk

But if the original is _fuerint_, as you seem to claim, then the translation would be _will have been_ (anterior future - not sure of the English name), not _were_ (perfect).


----------



## Anne345

fuerint is there perfect subjonctive.


----------



## MinaDidi

Thanks guys!

So, I guess the final verdict is that it's a misquote that also includes a typo!?  Geez!


----------



## jazyk

There's no future subjunctive in Latin. Fuerint is futur antérieur.


----------



## MinaDidi

According to my analysis, "fuerint" can be EITHER 1) future perfect indicative OR 2) perfect subjunctive.  In this case, however, I think perfect subjunctive makes the most sense.

(Future perfect: fuero, fueris, fuerit, fuerimus, fueritis, fuerint)
(Perfect subj:    fuerim, fueris, fuerit, fuerimus, fueritis, fuerint)


----------



## jazyk

I agree, it must be perfect subjunctive (or as we call it in Brazil, futuro anterior) here. However, it would be much better if we had the entire sentence. But anyway, the perfect subjunctive couldn't be translated with the past in English, unless the context (which is scarse) says otherwise.


----------

