4

In an attempt to prove that deponent verb, "periclitor", is used passively, I lifted two examples from Lewis & Short: (https://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dpericlitor

(i) "ut potius Gallorum vita quam legionariorum periclitaretur" =

"in order that the life of the Gauls might be hazarded in the woods rather than the legionary soldiers" (Caes. de Bel. Gal. 6.34.8).

(L & S gave this ref. as 6.33)

Looking at the sources, Perseus and The Latin Library, this quote is actually:

"ut potius [in silvis] Gallorum vita quam legionarius [miles] periclitetur".

Apart from omitting the three [...] words, L & S changed nominative, "legionarius", to genitive-plural, "legionariorum", and present subjunctive, "periclitetur", to imperfect subjunctive, "periclitaretur".

(ii) "ne de summa imperii populus Romanus periclitetur" =

"lest the Roman people be in peril for the safety of their empire" (Suet. Tiberius 21.7).

(This ref. given by L & S, less helpfully, as Suet. Tib. 21)

Why would "summa" be translated as "safety" (Perseus); shouldn't it be "height", giving: "...for the (maintainig) of the height of their empire"?

This quote is actually:

"et ego et mater tua expiremus et summa imperii [sui] populus Romanus periclitetur" =

"the news prove fatal to both your mother and I, and the Roman people who should be in peril...".

Firstly, note the passive nature of "periclitor", which started all this; secondly, why is original text corrupted in L & S entries?

tony
  • 8,640
  • 3
  • 15
  • 37
  • 4
    I don't have a critical edition handy, but I'd be willing to bet that there are recorded variations on your first sentence. – brianpck Sep 12 '23 at 14:40
  • @brianpck: Therefore, these variations are entirely legitimate? Well, if they are then it's good to be made aware of it. – tony Sep 12 '23 at 15:30
  • 4
    Even if to this specific example there are recorded variations, it is still a common practice for L&S to trim and modify sentences like converting ACl and removing many "irrelevant" words. Sometimes in the digital (maybe even the printed) there are simply typos (I should have kept record of those); Lastly, note that in this particular case they don't make it accusative but genitive plural (to contrast with Gallorum); I believe they did it to save place; but as it is already so big a book, some would say making it double the size won't matter anyway. – d_e Sep 12 '23 at 15:51
  • 2
    @brianpck I checked Du Pontet, and he has nothing recorded here. – cmw Sep 12 '23 at 15:53
  • 3
    @d_e You should make that an answer. Lewis and Short basically "trim" the examples so that they get the usage across. Sometimes they trim too much or change it too much. It happens. – cmw Sep 12 '23 at 15:55
  • @cmw I found one 18th c. version that lists legioniariorum periclitaretur as a varia lectio, though I'm not sure what "vulgo" means in this context. Perhaps it's a bad manuscript that Du Pontet rejected entirely. – brianpck Sep 12 '23 at 17:20
  • 3
    @brianpck I wonder if there's a list of the editions that Lewis and Short (or Andrews) used? That might solve some of the cruces. – cmw Sep 12 '23 at 19:52
  • 1
    @cmw: Any thoughts on the translation of "summa" to "safety"? – tony Sep 13 '23 at 08:39
  • 1
    Regarding summa translated to 'safety', I imagine they wished to take somewhat figurative language whose intended meaning would be obvious to a Roman but less obvious to an Anglophone and render it in more idiomatic English: 'lest [they] be imperiled with regard to the height of the empire' feels ambiguous, since the concern is actually not about its height but about its potential fall therefrom; in English, the word safety better conveys the notion, even if the focus is somewhat adulterated. – gaufridus Sep 14 '23 at 00:26

0 Answers0