You are viewing latin

[icon] The latin community - Why this ut?
View:Recent Entries.
View:Archive.
View:Friends.
View:Profile.
View:Website (The Perseus Project).

Security:
Subject:Why this ut?
Time:03:12 pm
From the Apocolocyntosis of (pseudo-)Seneca:

"Nimis rustice" inquies: "cum omnes poetae, non contenti ortus et occasus describere, ut etiam medium diem inquietent, tu sic transibis horam tam bonam?"

(Loeb translation: "Clumsy creature!" you say. "The poets are not content to describe sunrise and sunset, and now they even disturb the midday siesta. Will you thus neglect so good an hour?")

What is that ut doing there? Inquietent is the main verb of the cum-clause, so isn't the ut extraneous? Is ut etiam some kind of idiom? Or am I misparsing this sentence?
comments: Leave a comment Previous Entry Add to Memories Share Next Entry


svetlanacat4
Link:(Link)
Time:2013-07-15 10:37 am (UTC)
There is another version of the text:
'Nimis rustice! Adquiescunt omnes poetae, non contenti ortus et occasus describere, ut etiam medium diem inquietent: tu sic transibis horam tam bonam?'
Clumsy creature! All the poets, non content with describing sunrises and sunsets, agree to disturb even the middle of the day; and you, you'll miss out on such a favorable hour?

http://bcs.fltr.ucl.ac.be/apo/apoco1.html
This is the link to the text (sorry, the translation is in French)

Edited at 2013-07-15 10:50 am (UTC)
(Reply) (Thread)


goliard
Link:(Link)
Time:2013-07-15 04:59 pm (UTC)
That makes a lot more sense, thanks! I wonder if "adquiescunt" is any of the manuscripts, or is someone's emendation.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)


goliard
Link:(Link)
Time:2013-07-15 05:31 pm (UTC)
Interesting. So as far as I can tell from the notes, "cum" is an emendation by someone named Scioppius for the "acquiescunt" of the sources -- a very strange one, given that it spoils the syntax.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)


ioanna_ioannina
Link:(Link)
Time:2013-07-15 05:42 pm (UTC)
Wow!?! 8-) :-))
Maybe he thought it was more Seneca like this, given that Seneca likes to break sentences somewhere in the middle.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)


ioanna_ioannina
Link:(Link)
Time:2013-07-15 03:09 pm (UTC)
The other different reading is much, much more intellegible, but still, lectio difficilior est potior - from where is the first reading? I don't have access to any critical editions here, I would have to go to our uni library.
The first reading seems to me to be a typical Seneca breaking of the sentence in its middle. There are two possible explanations.
1. It's cum causale (therefore the coniunctive) and ut comparativum (therefore no verb at all).
2. It's cum temporale with ellipsis of a verb (an ellipsis is possible only if the ellided thing is symptomless, so there had to be an indicative) and ut consecutivum.
(Reply) (Thread)


goliard
Link:(Link)
Time:2013-07-15 05:04 pm (UTC)
The "cum" reading is from the Loeb edition, which follows a 1904 edition by Buecheler. I don't know where the "adquiescunt" reading is from, but I suppose it's possible that a scribe miscopied the end of that word as "cum".
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)


ioanna_ioannina
Link:(Link)
Time:2013-07-15 05:38 pm (UTC)
"Inquies" in future is rare enough for me and "adquiescere" is common enough to believe your original version to be difficilior, ergo potior. The scribes usually replaced things they did not understand with things they did (and which made sense in the context - of course we are speaking about scribes who knew Latin well enough; as the illiterate ones were making completely different mistakes and much less difficult to emendate).
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

[icon] The latin community - Why this ut?
View:Recent Entries.
View:Archive.
View:Friends.
View:Profile.
View:Website (The Perseus Project).