# illam inter deos Romuli receptionem putatam magis significat esse quam factam



## Enrico Davide Torò

Hi everybody, 

Many thanks for checking in. I'm Enrico, a PhD student in philosophy with a passion for classics. I'm trying to translate a Latin passage from Augustine's _De civitate dei, _III, 15, in which he quotes from Cicero's _De re publica, _II, 17. I can't get my head around this. The original Latin is the following: 

" _Satis et Cicero illam inter deos Romuli receptionem putatam magis significat esse quam factam, quando et laudans eum in libris de re publica Scipionisque sermone:_ [it follows the citation from Cicero's _De re publica_, II, 17]"​
Now, I would translate like this: 

"Cicero himself made it sufficiently clear that the reception of Romulus among the gods is a fiction rather than a fact. Even while playing a tribute to him in the Books of the _De re publica_, he says by the tongue of Scipio: [it follows the citation from Cicero's _De re publica_, II, 17]."​
Now, these are my problems: 

1) I now for certain from the context that the fact that 'the reception of Romulus among the gods is a fiction' and Cicero's 'playing a tribute' to Romulus are opposites in sense. Hence, the 'even while'

2) Moreover, I am quite sure that the citation from Cicero's _De re publica, _II, 17 that follows does contain the claim that 'the reception of Romulus among the gods is a fiction.'

3) But I'm not sure about this: When Augustine refers to _the 'libris de re publica' _is he referring to the citation from Cicero's _De re publica, _II, 17, that he's about to quote? Or is it referring to another passage of Cicero's _De re publica? _

4) Moreover is the '_Scipionis sermone' _referred to the Books of the _De re publica_? Or else? 

Many thanks for any help you might provide,

Best,

Enrico


----------



## Scholiast

saluete omnes, praesertim Enrico Taure—qui in Forum Latinum bene mehercle uenisti.

(1) I think your 'even while' is more or less OK—but note that (especially by Augustine's time) _laudare_ can mean no more than 'to mention', or 'to cite'.
(2) 
(3) I have been unable to check either passage or their contexts (I am without direct access to my own books at the moment), but yes, _prima facie _I suppose this is a direct reference to the passage Augustine quotes.
(4) The meaning of the question is opaque to me, but in the dialogue _de Re Publica_, Scipio (Africanus) is a participant if that is any help.

Σ


----------



## Enrico Davide Torò

Scholiast said:


> saluete omnes, praesertim Enrico Taure—qui in Forum Latinum bene mehercle uenisti.
> 
> (1) I think your 'even while' is more or less OK—but note that (especially by Augustine's time) _laudare_ can mean no more than 'to mention', or 'to cite'.
> (2)
> (3) I have been unable to check either passage or their contexts (I am without direct access to my own books at the moment), but yes, _prima facie _I suppose this is a direct reference to the passage Augustine quotes.
> (4) The meaning of the question is opaque to me, but in the dialogue _de Re Publica_, Scipio (Africanus) is a participant if that is any help.
> 
> Σ



Dear Scholiast,

Many thanks for your reply and for having taken the time to go over this with me. I really appreciate it. I collected some of the main translations of this passage in literature, and I thought I would post them here as reference:

*Zema et Walsh’s translation (Catholic University of America Press) *​​Cicero himself made it sufficiently clear that the reception of Romulus among the gods is a fiction rather than a fact. Even while playing a tribute to him in the _De re publica, _he says by the tongue of Scipio…​​*Marcus Dods’s translation (Modern Library)*​​Cicero, too, shows plainly enough that the apotheosis of Romulus was imaginary rather than real, when, even while he is praising him in one of Scipio’s remarks in the _De Republica, _he says…​​*Dyson’s Translation (Cambridge)*​​Cicero also shows plainly enough that Romulus’ reception into the company of the gods was more believed in that real. Evn while praising him in his book _De republica, _he says, in the person of Scipio…​​*Henry Bettenson’s translation (Penguin)*​​Cicero clearly gives us to understand that the reception of Romulus among the gods is a supposition rather than a fact, when in his work _On the Commonwealth _he puts a eulogy of Romulus into the mouth of Scipio, in the course of which he says…​​*Luigi Alici’s Italian translation (Bompiani)*​​Lo stesso Cicerone fa sufficientemente capire che la deificazione di Romolo è più una credenza che una realtà, quando lo fa elogiare da Scipione con queste parole…​​[eng. tras. ‘Cicero himself makes sufficiently clear that Romulus’ deification was more a belief than reality, when he makes Scipio praising him with these words]​
As for my question (3), let me clarify: if, as we have ascertained, according to Augustine, Cicero claims that 'the reception of Romulus among the gods is a fiction'; and that Augustine is going to make that case by quoting Cicero, _De re publica, _II, 17 (which does contain the claim that 'the reception of Romulus among the gods is a fiction'); and if Cicero's claim that  'the reception of Romulus among the gods is a fiction' (in _De re publica, _II, 17) amounts to saying that Cicero _did not _praise Romulus; how could the reference to '_in libris de re publica_ _Scipionisque sermone_' refer to the quote from _De re publica, _II, 17 that Augustine is about to quote?

Does not this mean that in _De re publica, _II, 17 (which Augustine quotes) Cicero makes the claim that 'the reception of Romulus among the gods is a fiction'  and that _elsewhere _in _De re publica _Cicero is praising Romulus? Isn't what Augustine intends here the following: 'Although Cicero _laudat_ (somewhere else) in _De re public _Romulus, he makes clear (in _De re public, _II, 17) that his reception among the gods was a fiction (that is, it is not to be praised) in the following quotation [_i.e. De re publica, _II, 17]...'


Many thanks for any additional help you might feel like giving to this cause!

Looking forward to hearing from you,

Best,

Enrico


----------



## Starless74

I have found *this translation* from an 1822 edition, which seems to make perfect sense.
I don't know if it's of any help (I guess I am completely missing the OP's point).

«Now Cicero himself intimates that this reception of Romulus into heaven was *rather imaginary than really performed* and when he praises him in his books De Re publica in the words of Scipio he says:​_He arrived at such a degree of excellence and virtue that not being to be found immediately after the sun's eclipse he was supposed to have been admitted into the number of the gods and no mortal could have attained such an opinion without extraordinary reputation for virtue._​But in the above sentence when he says that he disappeared suddenly and no marks of him could any where be found we must certainly attribute it to the violence the tempest or to the secrecy with which his Round means to perpetrate the murder».​


----------



## Scholiast

Greetings once more

Τranslators who have entered contributions, or been mentioned, on this Thread may wish to be reminded that _laudare_ may mean simply 'to cite', or 'to quote'. There is classical, as well as mediaeval or late Latin, testimony for this, as adduced here, under 'II'. Sadly, both L&S and _OLD_ are inadequate on this usage.

Σ


----------



## Sobakus

The meaning Scholiast cites seems to be a figment of the earlier lexicographical tradition; in the examples with _auctōrem,_ _laudāre_ simply has the weakened meaning "to commend as" (_inter alia_ a remedy), and by extension "to call on" (_Jovem testem_ "God as witness"), but not "quote"; certainly _aliquem laudāre_ with no relation to writings cannot mean that. OLD gives the correct meanings and makes no mention of the "quote, cite" of the earlier lexicographic tradition.

I must confess I can't find heads or tails in the OP's reasoning. When Cicero denies the reality of the myth of Romulus' apotheosis (struck by lightning and then disappeared), he's simply being a rational human being making a statement on the reality of things, the possible and the impossible. When he's praising Romulus, he's presumably doing precisely the same thing, but in relation to the parts of the mythos that he takes to be true. How are the two connected? How on Earth can calling out a fictional myth be interpreted as saying "he's not to be praised"? That is as reasonable as taking "you have something on your blouse" as a death threat. All Augustine is saying is "even Cicero, who praises Romulus, doesn't believe in that story" - talk about pots and kettles! 

Maybe I'm seriously misinterpreting the question?


----------



## Scholiast

saluete de nouo, amici!



Sobakus said:


> The meaning Scholiast cites seems to be a figment of the earlier lexicographical tradition


I must confess to some mystification about this. Of course _laudare_ was one of the first Latin verbs I remember learning (at the age of about 9, I suppose—my school's motto, incorporated into the heraldic arms we used to wear on our blazers' breast-pockets, was _lauda finem_). And I remember too as a student coming across, and being at first mildly startled by, this usage while reading the Latin _praefatio_ in one of my Oxford Classical Texts, before figuring out what in the context it meant. Moroever _Logeion_, as cited (!) in my earlier post, refers to this sense of the word in Plautus and some passages of Cicero.

Σ


----------



## Sobakus

Scholiast said:


> Moroever _Logeion_, as cited (!) in my earlier post, refers to this sense of the word in Plautus and some passages of Cicero.


Logeion itself is only a dictionary interface - one can switch the dictionary using the tabs above the text which say LewisShort etc. The precise dictionary that has this definition on Logeion is L&S and its later Elementary version, which is the prime exponent of said lexicographic tradition, being an edited translation of Freund's German dictionary, itself rooted in Forcellini; Gaffiot being more or less the French version of the same thing a few moments half a century laterrrr (no YouTube links allowed ).

Surpisingly enough, even the otherwise modern LaNe (Latijn-Nederlands, also on Logeion) has "citeren, aanvoeren, noemen". Yet I don't see where this meaning is to be suspected over "to speak highly of; to commend" - there's no reference to any words or writings. Even the further semantic drift of "to call on" has only one quotation in OLD, the one that I cited from Plautus; another has Gellius call this meaning archaic/obsolete and rephrase it with _nōmināre appellāreque_, which is totally in line with my interpretation.

My guess at the culprit is the semantic ambiguity of either the English _cite_ or its equivalent in another language: it does in fact mean "to summon officially or authoritatively to appear in court", which is that archaic meaning of _laudāre._


----------



## Scholiast

@Sobakus 
Thank you for the clarification. I think we may have to agree to differ!😀
Σ


----------



## Sobakus

Scholiast said:


> @Sobakus
> Thank you for the clarification. I think we may have to agree to differ!😀
> Σ


I'm awfully sorry about my insistence, but what is the exact passage about whose interpretation we seem to be disagreeing? If all we can find of this meaning is mentions in old dictionaries, then we would be in full agreement that it exists only in those dictionaries  In DLMBS too, there's only one suitable quotation, and it's filed under "to name", with no hint at the existence of the meanings in question.

Notice how in the same passage he (John of Salisbury) rephrases it with _falsus citaretur auctor_, which doesn't mean "to cite, quote, to adduce another's words", but "to name as the author", further semantically bleached from "to mention by name, to call as a trustworthy witness" (perhaps simply misinterpreted, since he's clearly modelling it on the classical usage). Forcellini employs the same word in its rephrasing of _laudare_: '¶ 2. Est etiam appellare, citare, _nominare, citare' _[sic twice also in print] in describing its legal sense. This then was misinterpreted by English translations as the present English meaning of "cite, quote", really a standard practice in the field by now.


----------



## Scholiast

saluete amici, praesertim Sobakus!

In support of my view, stated earlier in this Thread, that _laudare_ may mean 'cite' or 'refer to' in the sense of appeal to (more or less) academic authority, I present two extracts from the (massive, naturally) entry in _TLL_ s.v. _laudo_:

_de notione_: PAVL. FEST . p. 118 -_are_ apud antiquos ponebatur pro _nominare_. GELL. 2, 6, 16 -_are_ significat prisca lingua _nominare_ _appellare_que; sic in actionibus civilibus auctor -_ari_ dicitur, quod est _nominatus_ (nominari MACR. Sat. 6, 7, 16 qui verba Oellii repetit). NON. p. 335, 10 -_are_ est v_erbis ecferre_ (affertur VERG. georg. 2, 412) . . . , -_are_ etiam significat _nominare_ (affertur PLAVT. Capt. 426). GLOSS. V29, 41 -_are_ nominare vel referre (111, 39). SCHOL. Iuv. 3,42 -are: adulari...legitur inde a LIV. ANDR. (? V. p. 1046, 23), NAEV., PLAVTO, ENN., CAECIL., CATONE, TER.


*B* fere i. q. nominare, appellare (cf. p. 1045, 40 et testimonia grammaticorum supra allata; aliter p. 1042, 76 et Cic. Font. 2 Ov. am. 3, 10, 23 QVINT. inst. 3, 7, 2): 1 t e s t e m: PLAVT. Capt. 426 Iovem supremum t. -o (testatur Non., do codd. Plauti), Hegio, me infidelem non futurum Philocrati. 2 a u c t o r e m : Cic. Flacc. 93 illo absente auctore -to tantum te crimen probaturum putasti. de orat. 3, 68 auctores certissimos -are possum. 3, 187 quod eo saepius testificor, ut auctoribus -andis ineptiarum crimen effugiam. Brut. 44 te audiente, quem rerum Romanarum a. -are possum religiosissimum. rep. 1, 16 quem . . . a. de illo Socrate locupletiorem Platone -are possumus? GELL. 3, 16, 6) sententiae . . . Aristotelem a. -at.

Σ


----------



## Sobakus

Yes, this is also the meaning I've been describing: 'to mention X by name as Y, to call/commend X as a trustworthy witness/authority/Y'. _aliquem auctōrem/testem laudāre_ does have this contextual meaning, and in fact these seem to be idioms; _aliquem sermōne laudāre_, however, cannot, because as far as I can see, it depends at the very least on the object complement 'as someone' being expressed: here instead it means "to praise someone in a speech".

It seems the origin of the misunderstanding here is indeed English: from your words I surmised that the meaning you wished to express with 'to quote, to cite' was 'to adduce another's words'; otherwise, I don't see a reason to single out this meaning or be surprised at it, as it's a simple combination of the basic meaning of _laudāre_ 'to commend' and an object complement 'as someone', albeit semantically diluted somewhat in becoming idiomatic. Yet another reason I think this meaning is impossible in the OP's example is because it was archaic legalese already by the 2nd century AD, and after that seems to pop up only in the jurists.


----------



## exgerman

Remember that the OLD rigorously excludes meanings that arose after about 200AD. L&S is less systematic in that regard.


----------



## Sobakus

exgerman said:


> Remember that the OLD rigorously excludes meanings that arose after about 200AD. L&S is less systematic in that regard.


The meaning we were discussing is included in the OLD and was archaic by the cut-off period. What relevant meaning do you think might have been excluded?


----------

