5

In pagina 132ª primi libri Linguae Latinae Per Se Illustratae, auctoris Iohannis Ørbergi, est scriptum:

Deus ab hominibus nec vidētur nec audītur.

Estne deducta a scriptura antiqua haec sententia? Si est, quanam?

Quaero quia scio nonnullos locos huius libri ab antiquitatis operibus celebribus deductos redditosque ad simplices esse, ac huic libro insolitum mihi videtur in narratoris voce—id est, in voce impartiali omniaque animadvertenti—tale dictum affirmare nisi eum inter deorum "scientiam communem" illius temporis erat quandoquidem nonnullas disputationes subabsurdas inter Christianos paganos atheosque narrantur in quibus praestat nullum.

Ben Kovitz
  • 15,914
  • 2
  • 32
  • 86
  • 1
    Hanc phrasem verbatim non invenio, sed forsitan paulis mutationibus huic libro adaptata est. – Joonas Ilmavirta Jul 24 '16 at 22:08
  • Equidem mihi non videtur haec sententia esse quae in pagana saltem antiquitate scripta fuerit: illo enim tempore di corpora habere plerumque credebantur sicut homines, ut causam non videam quin vidi audirive possent. Ergo si antiqua est, in Christianis scriptoribus petenda. – TKR Jul 25 '16 at 00:20
  • Hic videri licet, in fine paragraphae voce "nauta" incipientis – brianpck Jul 25 '16 at 22:01
  • 1
    Sorry, are you surprised by the use of the passive voice, or by the use of this sentence to teach passive voice? It looks a lot like a paraphrasing of the New Testament: Deum nemo vidit umquam / Quod oculus non vidit, nec auris audivit, nec in cor hominis ascendit, quae praeparavit Deus his, qui diligunt illum – Rafael Mar 20 '18 at 15:15
  • @Rafael That might be the answer! I wasn't surprised by the passive voice, but that this sentence is written in the (omniscient) narrator's voice. Paganism, Christianity, and atheism all come up in the book, treated (I think) as seen in Ancient Rome, and Ørberg avoids taking any side, though poking a little fun at all of them. So, I'm wondering if the sentence reflects a common understanding of gods at the time—maybe as expressed in some well-known poem or writing. But TKR and brianpck suggest otherwise. – Ben Kovitz Mar 20 '18 at 19:14
  • @JoonasIlmavirta Latin pun: phrasem Pauli mutationibus huic libro adaptata mihi videtur. In fact, that's what I thought your comment was about at the beginning. – Rafael Mar 20 '18 at 20:00
  • 1
    @Rafael My comment was meant literally. I had no intention of having pun in the comments. :) – Joonas Ilmavirta Mar 20 '18 at 20:06
  • 1
    @JoonasIlmavirta I thought so. But it seemed funny to me anyway. – Rafael Mar 20 '18 at 20:11
  • I've edited the question to (hopefully!) make clear why it seems surprising to me that the book would say this in the narrator's voice (merely illustrating grammar) if it were not a commonly accepted view at the time. (My longest sentence in Latin yet!) – Ben Kovitz Mar 20 '18 at 21:38

2 Answers2

4

Quamquam difficile sit, talem orationem a quodam auctore antiquiore esse scriptam annon comprobare, cum haud ornatis verbis utatur, mihi videtur illam potius ex Orbergi inventione quam ex operibus antiquis tolli, ex duobus rationibus, quarum altera practica, altera theoretica:

  1. Patet in contextu orationem hanc vocis passivae discendae causā scriptam esse. Quamobrem? Capitula libri Familia Romana semper a lectione incipiunt; deinde sequitur pars grammatica, cui adiiciuntur pensa. Haec "pars grammatica" ex qua tua oratio carpitur manifeste componitur ad monstrandam vocem passivam tribus personis grammaticis pertinentem, scilicet: 2o, "nec videris nec audiris," 1o, "nec videor nec audior", et 3o, "nec videtur nec auditur." Haec duo paragrapha perlegenti, dubium haud oriri potest quin auctor hoc modo breviter illustrare tabulam grammaticam (supra positam in libro) conetur. His ex rationibus, non intelligo quare "insolitam" esse hanc docendi formam dicas.

  2. Sicut @TKR iam indicavit, Romani non arbitrantur deos esse invisibiles: immo invisibilitas Dei magis eis incommoda et mira videretur, exorita ex traditione iudaica (et hac via ad christianitatem). Deis esse formas, corpora, libidines, habitacula, et cetera huiusmodi non dubitant attribuere. Fabulae antiquae deorum, ex quibus Orci galea mihi in memoria venit exempli gratia, nonnumquam asserunt deis opus esse huiusmodi artificia ut sese ab hominum visu occultent. Quomodo di invisibiles effici possunt, qui iam tales sunt?

brianpck
  • 40,688
  • 5
  • 94
  • 204
  • Mihi videtur "insolitam" quia pronuntiat rem religionis et in libro semper nullius partis stante inter religionum disputantes.
  • Conicio "scientiam communem" fuisset deos invisibiles esse. Nam sententia prior videtur illustrant quod etiamsi Neptunus precationem meam respondat, etiamsi adsit, eum videre audireque non potero. Improbabilisne?
    • – Ben Kovitz Jul 28 '16 at 02:00
  • Hmm, I think I wrongly picked up a meaning or connotation of insolitus as awkward or somewhat inappropriate beyond just being not customary (maybe from some medieval writing). I'll think of a different word and then edit the question. – Ben Kovitz Mar 21 '18 at 01:48