In LLPSI XLV Livy (and it is the original Livy I think) tells us of Tarquin
Custodibus armatis corpus saepsit, neque enim ad ius regni quicquam [quic-quam = quidquam] praeter vim habebat...
He surrounded his person with an armed guard, and it wasn't the right to the throne but rather (praeter) strength that he had...
-- the above is somewhat literal..
Does 'quicquam' modify 'ius'? I'm taking it that 'ius' has a disjunctive relationship to 'vim' - ...nor indeed had he any right to the throne except that he had force'...? (more idiomatically..)
Neque ad ius
-
- Textkit Zealot
- Posts: 1341
- Joined: Tue Apr 27, 2010 5:15 am
Re: Neque ad ius
On reflection 'ad' creates a difficulty for me.
neque enim ad ius regni quicquam [quic-quam = quidquam] praeter vim habebat
what does 'ad ius regni' mean - literally? ...to the rule of kingdom...?
so .. nor had he anything except force ..... ad ius regni... literally 'to the rule of the kingdom'...
so 'rule' doesn't have a disjunctive relationship to 'vim'.
Do I have that right?
neque enim ad ius regni quicquam [quic-quam = quidquam] praeter vim habebat
what does 'ad ius regni' mean - literally? ...to the rule of kingdom...?
so .. nor had he anything except force ..... ad ius regni... literally 'to the rule of the kingdom'...
so 'rule' doesn't have a disjunctive relationship to 'vim'.
Do I have that right?
-
- Textkit Zealot
- Posts: 4791
- Joined: Fri Oct 18, 2013 2:34 am
Re: Neque ad ius
Understandable that ad should puzzle you. Lit. for he didn’t have anything towards (i.e. contributing to, relating to) right of kingship except force. Cf. the saying nihil ad Dionysum, nothing to do with Dionysus.