Symmachus and his letters

[Philhellene]

I want to translate a passage from Symmachus' letter to Flavius Nikomachus (Sym., Ep., II, 66). I mean

 

conperto ex relatione Victoris spectabilis viri negotio judicabis

 

Am I right if I translate this as follows: " found out it in connection with remarkable man named [Aurelius] Victor who practiced jurisprudence"?

[Maladict]

I want to translate a passage from Symmachus' letter to Flavius Nikomachus (Sym., Ep., II, 66). I mean

 

conperto ex relatione Victoris spectabilis viri negotio judicabis

 

Am I right if I translate this as follows: " found out it in connection with remarkable man named [Aurelius] Victor who practiced jurisprudence"?

 

My Latin is pretty bad, but (viri) spectabilis is a title and should probably left in its Latin form.

The spectabilate was the middle senatorial class of the late empire. (illustrate - spectabilate - clarissimate).

You'll find a lot of references in Symmachus to "illustrious" men, but those, too, are just titles.

Edited March 4, 2007 by Maladict

[Philhellene]

Thanks a lot. "Vir spectabilis" was the late Roman title, you`re right.

 

So, now we have:

 

" found out it in connection with spectabilate named [Aurelius] Victor who practiced jurisprudence".

[suzhannah]

Thanks a lot. "Vir spectabilis" was the late Roman title, you`re right.

 

So, now we have:

 

" found out it in connection with spectabilate named [Aurelius] Victor who practiced jurisprudence".

 

hi,

in Latin, negotio and victoris are in what is called the ablative/dative case, so they mean either with/from, ie with duty from victories, victoris is first declention feminine, meaning that the is at the end is plural. conperto as far as i can see is two words, con, is usually doing somethin, ie, condo = i build. congredio = i come together. coniungo = i unite. consentio = i agree. i think conperto as, i beseech or i beg.

viri is plural also, so it is men not man. spectabillis, can indeed be a title, but it can also mean, spy or messenger. ex means, out of, on account of, or with, from.

all a bit muddled i know. there are no questions in this, i do not see quis/quo, cui etc, so i cant see where you have 'who' nor 'practiced' from'.

also ' i found out' seems wrong because it would be, inuenio.

 

 

it is just that no sentence in latin has to be from start to finish, sometimes the last word can be first when translated and the endings of words change the structure of the sentence too. so, i am in my latin class tomorrow, and will check with my prof for you. if i am totally wrong, then sorry and much for MA Latin!!

[Gaius Octavius]

Doesn't 'ex' also mean 'without', as in 'ex Caesar'?

[Philhellene]

'ex' has so many meanings....

 

My translation was absolutely wrong. It`s not "in connection with", but "from", and we have:

 

" found out it from spectabilate named [Aurelius] Victor who practiced jurisprudence".

 

By the way, this is the link to the whole letter.

Edited March 5, 2007 by Philhellene

[suzhannah]

hi there,

well i asked my latin prof today, over 40 yrs experience teaching latin and the best he could do for you, out of context or not seeing whole text, is this.

 

i discover from the naration of victoris (Aurelis), i/you will judge by the duty/business/matters of a special man/notable person.

 

if you have the paragraph in full, he could help further.

 

suz

 

 

ps.

 

ex usually means:

 

out of

on account of

out from

from within

[Philhellene]

if you have the paragraph in full, he could help further.

 

I gave a link to the whole text in the previous post.

 

i discover from the naration of victoris (Aurelis), i/you will judge by the duty/business/matters of a special man/notable person.

 

"Special man/notable person"? He sad that? It is wrong, 'vir spectabilis' was the Late Roman title, I didn`t know that, but now I know, with the help of Maladict. And I already corrected my translation. Then "i/you will judge by the duty/business/matters"... It`s wrong again, because it is Aurelius Victor who was the judge.

[Andrew Dalby]

if you have the paragraph in full, he could help further.

 

I gave a link to the whole text in the previous post.

 

i discover from the naration of victoris (Aurelis), i/you will judge by the duty/business/matters of a special man/notable person.

 

"Special man/notable person"? He sad that? It is wrong, 'vir spectabilis' was the Late Roman title, I didn`t know that, but now I know, with the help of Maladict. And I already corrected my translation. Then "i/you will judge by the duty/business/matters"... It`s wrong again, because it is Aurelius Victor who was the judge.

 

Thanks for the link to the whole text -- it's really not a good idea to try this kind of thing without having the full context, which is why I didn't touch it yesterday! You didn't give us the whole clause: three words were missing at the beginning.

 

ut ipse etiam comperto ex relatione Victoris spectabilis viri negotio judicabis

 

Now, here's a translation:

 

... as you yourself will also determine (ut ipse etiam iudicabis)

when you understand the business fully (comperto negotio, ablative absolute)

from the report/statement of Victor vir spectabilis (ex relatione Victoris spectabilis viri).

 

... as you yourself will also determine when you understand the business fully from the statement of Victor.

 

The sentence is addressed to Symmachus's brother. Symmachus is saying "you'll think so, too, when you hear the full story". There's no mention of a judge. That's how I see it, anyway.

[Philhellene]

hanks for the link to the whole text -- it's really not a good idea to try this kind of thing without having the full context, which is why I didn't touch it yesterday! You didn't give us the whole clause: three words were missing at the beginning.

 

Thanks to the creators of PLRE, I took this excerpt from this encyclopedia. I can`t even imagine how to read PBE or PBW, with that middle greek.... Nevertheless I gonna buy the first one.

 

... as you yourself will also determine (ut ipse etiam iudicabis)

when you understand the business fully (comperto negotio, ablative absolute)

from the report/statement of Victor vir spectabilis (ex relatione Victoris spectabilis viri).

 

It cant be true, because this excerpt is given in PLRE to prove that Aurelius Victor was "iudex sacrarum cognitionum" or appellate judge.

Edited March 6, 2007 by Philhellene

[Andrew Dalby]

hanks for the link to the whole text -- it's really not a good idea to try this kind of thing without having the full context, which is why I didn't touch it yesterday! You didn't give us the whole clause: three words were missing at the beginning.

 

Thanks to the creators of PLRE, I took this excerpt from this encyclopedia. I can`t even imagine how to read PBE or PBW, with that middle greek.... Nevertheless I gonna buy the first one.

 

... as you yourself will also determine (ut ipse etiam iudicabis)

when you understand the business fully (comperto negotio, ablative absolute)

from the report/statement of Victor vir spectabilis (ex relatione Victoris spectabilis viri).

 

It cant be true, because this excerpt is given in PLRE to prove that Aurelius Victor was "iudex sacrarum cognitionum" or appellate judge.

 

Yes, it can be true. It depends. I haven't time to study the whole letter in depth, or to read up about Symmachus and his circle or about the way cases were handled in the late Roman empire. But IF Victor, as an appellate judge, had researched or already tried this case, and would be the right person to explain it, or write a report about it, or even to set it out formally on appeal before Symmachus's brother (three possibilities), then in that case my translation is right, and PLRE is right (which it probably is) and everyone is happy. IF that is so, it would probably be truer to say that the whole letter proves Victor's position, but these words were still the right ones for PLRE to quote: they clinch it because they show that he was fully apprised of the case and was in a position to write, had perhaps already written, a report about it.

 

Especially in highly literary texts like this one you have to be prepared to read between the lines (and I'm sure the editors of PLRE know this very well). There is no noun 'judge' in this text, but it may still help to prove, in context, that Victor was iudex sacrarum cognitionum. That's what PLRE thinks, and, as I say, it is probably right.

 

I have edited this reply to add a third possibility. Just possibly, one of the researchers for PLRE misunderstood the letter to prove that Victor was an appellate judge when he wasn't. I think PLRE is pretty trustworthy, but such mistakes can happen. To verify that, you would have quite a lot more reading to do. All I can do is tell you what this text means, and that's what I've done.

Edited March 7, 2007 by Andrew Dalby

[Philhellene]

In any case, thanks.