Saevitum?

[ohammer]

Dear all,

Livy's Ab urbe condita I:1 starts "Iam primum omnium satis constat Troia capta in ceteros saevitum esse Troianos,..."

The sense is clear, something like "To begin with, it is well known that, after Troy was captured, the other Trojans were massacred..."

What puzzles me is the -tum in saevitum. It is not grammatically congruent with the Trojans who are massacred, that would presumably be saevitos. This seems to be a neuter form of the perfect participle, but why neuter? Is this some kind of impersonal construction?

I hope there are some Latin buffs out there who can enlighten me on this!
Thanks!

[IreneY]

well, I am not that good at Latin I am afraid, but according to Perseus, it can be masculine plural. It's a poetic form it says. I am sure others will enlighten you more

[Adelheid]

Masculine plural, but then a genitive. I think it is a accusative neutral here, belongs with 'esse', perhaps a accusativus cum infinitivo: 'that there was raged' and that 'in ceteros Troianos' defines what that rage was directed against. So, 'that there was raged against the other Trojans'.

Does that make sense?

[IreneY]

my bad and I completely forgot the X +esse in aliquem/quid form

Perhaps the best translation would be a reversal of object/subject kind of thing? a reverse of voice? "that the other Trojans were treated harshly, brutally" ? ( I am just asking out of curiosity, not suggesting in anyway)

[Adelheid]

I think translating 'that the other Trojans were treated harshly' would be just fine. Just like the translation ohammer suggested.

[Skylax]

It is a passive used impersonally, a frequent use in Latin.

See Allen & Greenough, § 318 :

"A passive verb is often used impersonally without a subject expressed or understood (§ 208 d) .
Diu atque acriter pugnatum est (B.G., I, 26) "They fought long and vigorously."

[ohammer]

Thanks Skylax, that makes sense! (and thanks especially for the Allen & Greenough reference)