# canum custodia… et custodum vigilantia contestatur



## Sniegurochka

This comes from _Contra Paganos_ by Maximus of Turin, a Latin Church father (c. late 4th-early 5th century). This treatise is written against polytheism and determinism of the heathen.

*Question: *a) Are _custodia_ and _vigilantia_ subjects of _contestatur_? If so, why is _contestatur_ singular? b) What other meanings of _custodia_ and _vigilantia_ could possibly work to make a better sense out of this sentence?

*Background:* In what precedes, Maximus points out a contradiction in the conduct of the heathen. On the one hand, they say that everything is predetermined by fate. On the other hand, they still pray to their gods and goddesses. Why pray? They say, “To avoid the gods harming us.” He relies, “How can those who cannot manifest themselves harm you?” Then, he continues:

*Sentence in question:* Et quia vere nihil nec nocere nec praestare possunt, canum custodia circa eos deos quos dicitis vestros, et custodum vigilantia contestatur; quando enim eos inveniunt fures, abripiunt adque confractos distrahunt.

*My translation: *And since they truly can neither do any harm nor manifest themselves, dogs’ custody with respect to those gods whom you call yours and the vigilance of the guards bears witness; but when the thieves find them, they drag them away and tear them into pieces.

My translation does not make sense to me since I am apparently missing something. Any help will be greatly appreciated!


----------



## Scholiast

Greetings again.

My hunch here is that _quia_ is functioning as a conjunction: see L&S s.v. _quia_:

*III.* Introducing an _object-clause_, = quod, _that_ (postclass.): “nescitis quia iniqui non possidebunt?”  *Vulg. 1 Cor. 6, 9*; *id. 4 Reg. 2, 3*: “credo, quia mendacio possunt (animas movere),”  _Tert. Anim. 5_; _id. Idol. 20_: “ignoras, quia, etc.,”  _Aug. Serm. 9, 3_; _Macr. Somn. Scip. 1, 6, 62_: “non advertentes, quia, etc.,”  _Cael. Aur. Tard. 1, 5, 71_.—Quia very rarely follows the verb, *Hor. S. 1, 9, 51*.​
The whole thing is metaphorical and ironic:

'That they in fact can neither do harm nor manifest themselves, the guardianship of your watchdogs in regard to the gods you call your own, and the watchfulness of these guards, bears witness'. Which is then further explained in the _enim_-clause that follows: despite all precautions [through prayers, sacrifices and other offerings to your gods] you find those precautions useless when a real thief breaks in.

In other words, worshipful piety towards their gods does not protect the heathen from misfortune.

Grammatically, it is not uncommon, even in Classical Latin (as opposed to this late stuff), to find a singular verb with more than one subject, if the last nominative subject is itself singular. Quite unconsciously, I have just done the same in my English rendering, and only now notice that I have done so.

Σ


----------



## Sniegurochka

Once again, thank you for an excellent explanation!


----------



## wandle

Scholiast said:


> Grammatically, it is not uncommon ... to find a singular verb with more than one subject, if the last nominative subject is itself singular


Particularly when, as here, the second element is not really additional to the first, but explaining or expressing it further.


----------



## Scholiast

Greetings again

Since my earlier reaction in this thread (# 2), I have been wondering about the sense of _praestare_. Literally it is "to stand before/in front of", hence... (L&S s.v. _praesto_)

*2.* In partic.
*a.* _To keep_, _preserve_, _maintain_, _retain_: “pueri, quibus videmur praestare rem publicam debuisse,”  *Cic. Att. 10, 4, 5*; *Ov. M. 11, 748*: “omnes socios salvos praestare poteramus,”  *Cic. Imp. Pomp. 18, 55*: “mors omnia praestat Vitalem praeter sensum calidumque vaporem,”  *Lucr. 3, 214*. —​
It could therefore _in this context_ mean 'look after', 'defend', 'protect', which, admittedly unusual in Classical Latin, to me would make better sense—the gods of the heathen cannot do anything either to cause or to prevent harm to their devotees.

What think the other pundits?

Σ


----------



## Sniegurochka

wandle said:


> Particularly when, as here, the second element is not really additional to the first, but explaining or expressing it further.


Good point, thank you!


----------



## Sniegurochka

Scholiast said:


> Greetings again
> 
> Since my earlier reaction in this thread (# 2), I have been wondering about the sense of _praestare_. Literally it is "to stand before/in front of", hence... (L&S s.v. _praesto_)
> 
> *2.* In partic.
> *a.* _To keep_, _preserve_, _maintain_, _retain_: “pueri, quibus videmur praestare rem publicam debuisse,”  *Cic. Att. 10, 4, 5*; *Ov. M. 11, 748*: “omnes socios salvos praestare poteramus,”  *Cic. Imp. Pomp. 18, 55*: “mors omnia praestat Vitalem praeter sensum calidumque vaporem,”  *Lucr. 3, 214*. —​
> It could therefore _in this context_ mean 'look after', 'defend', 'protect', which, admittedly unusual in Classical Latin, to me would make better sense—the gods of the heathen cannot do anything either to cause or to prevent harm to their devotees.
> 
> What think the other pundits?
> 
> Σ


I think you are right. It makes more sense to take nocere and praestare as two opposite ends of a range: the gods of the heathen can do nothing to either harm or protect (and nothing at all in between). Isn't that a certain rhetorical figure? I can't remember its name though...


----------



## Scholiast

Greetings once more, Sniegurochka



Sniegurochka said:


> It makes more sense to take nocere and praestare as two opposite ends of a range: the gods of the heathen can do nothing to either harm or protect (and nothing at all in between). Isn't that a certain rhetorical figure?



'antithesis'.

Σ


----------



## Sniegurochka

Thank you!


----------

