4

In the final episode (No. 12) of TV-series, "I Claudius" (BBC, 1976), an ailing Claudius visits the Senate for the last time. There, having spoken a few sentences Claudius appears to enter a catatonic state in which he is approached by the spirits of his predecessors: Augustus, Livia, Tiberius & Caius. Each addresses Claudius in turn. Tiberius (portrayed as a dour cynic by the late George Baker):

"It (the Emperorship) wasn't worth it, was it? I could've told you that."

Translating this into Latin. The second part:

"id tibi narrerem." = "I could've told you that."

The first Part: the problem is expressing worth/ value when the price to be paid is not a monetary one. Firstly, thanks to cmw (CHAT) for his suggestions e.g. "aestimatio"; "plurimi"; "dignus" and, indicating that "valeo" = "be worth" (Oxford) is not exclusively used for monetary values with this excellent example:

bonum hoc de quo est agimus quidem illud plurimi aestimandum, sed ea aestimatio genere valet, non magnitudine," (Cicero "de Finibus" 3.10.34) =

"...so this good we are discussing ought to be considered (aestimandum) of the highest value (plurimi), but in this consideration (ea aestimatio) the value depends (valet) on kind and not on quantity,".

This ex., of course, includes "plurimi" and "aestimatio". (The use of "ago" = "to discuss" was a new one on me.)

For completion, Lewis & Short ("dignus"):

"sive adeo digna res est ubi tu nervos intendas tuos," (Ter. Eun. 2.3.20) =

"if the thing is really worth bending your energies to it,"

I recall "plurimi" from the early days of studying Latin: "So you Really Want to Learn Latin?" (Oulton) Book III, p.86:

"Value is expressed by the genitive case e.g. "He valued his friendship very highly.":

"amicitiam plurimi habuit." = "He held his friendship of a very high (value)."

RETURNING TO TIBERIUS:

"nonne id (imperium) fuit minimi haberi?" = "It (the Emperorship) was to be held of the least value, wasn't it?".

This rendered to: "it was worthless", hence, "it wasn't worth it".

Is this correct?

tony
  • 8,640
  • 3
  • 15
  • 37

2 Answers2

8

I believe the idiom you're looking for is operae pretium or pretium curae, which means "of equal value to the labor or care [involved in doing the thing]."

Num id fuit operae pretium? (It wasn't worth the trouble, was it?)

Also, fuit is preferable to erat if we're taking a retrospective point of view.

Kingshorsey
  • 6,505
  • 15
  • 21
  • Thank you. In Allen & Greenough section 470: "The perfect would refer to some particular case and not a state of things." I couldn't decide whether the disadvantages of supreme power represented "a particular case" or a permanent state-of-affairs--an accepted truth. In Q:https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/5598/1982, Tom Cotton advised that in the "erat"/ "fuit" conflict, it is largely a matter of what feels right. – tony Dec 14 '21 at 15:29
  • @tony The imperfect would place the narrative frame at some point in the past and say, "at this point, it wasn't worth it." The perfect is a retrospective summary statement. – Kingshorsey Dec 14 '21 at 16:57
6

As an alternative to Kingshorsey's answer, tanti est is also a fixed expression meaning “it is worth it.” So you could say:

Num tanti fuit?

Or perhaps:

Nonne putas tanti non fuisse?

Also note that id tibi narrarem means “I would have told you that.” Whereas “I could have told you that” is better expressed as tibi potui (prae)dicere.

Sebastian Koppehel
  • 34,011
  • 2
  • 58
  • 110
  • Thank you. My understanding of the indefinite article is that "could"/ "would"/ "should" are of equal weight and are translated interchangeably, according to context. Are you sure about, "I would have told you that"? Taking your translation, it could have been a conditional sentence: "si rogavisses, id tibi naravissem." = "If you had asked, I would have told you that." Alternatively, "si rogavisses" could be deemed to have been understood--making it all correct. Do you agree? – tony Dec 14 '21 at 10:42
  • @tony Well, how you translate it does depend on context, and the imperfect subjunctive can have the meaning "should have," but, to my knowledge, not "could have." Usually, possibility is expressed with posse in the indicative. See Bradley's Arnold. – Sebastian Koppehel Dec 14 '21 at 17:59
  • Thanks for the link to Bradley's. It is clear that "posse" is the way to go. What an interesting book. Are the answers to the exercises at the back? – tony Dec 15 '21 at 13:04
  • @tony The answers were published in a separate volume, “supplied to Tutors only, on direct application to the publishers.” It does not appear to be on Google Books (viewable for free, at least), but you can buy a reprint, which does apparently sell very well. – Sebastian Koppehel Dec 15 '21 at 19:25