# circa partes illa turri vicinior



## Novanas

I have a phrase here (still from William of Tyre's history of the crusades, Book 8) which I cannot fit together.  Perhaps somebody can explain this to me.

The situation is this: the Crusaders have just taken Jerusalem by storm.  In the ensuing (and apparently obligatory) massacre, some of the Turkish residents took refuge in the Citadel of David.  There they were besieged by the forces commanded by Raymond, Count of Toulouse.  Now it's also useful to know that after the capture of the city, the leaders of the crusade took over houses owned by Muslim residents of the city to serve as lodgings.

So, the phrase in question is found in this sentence (in which the Muslims surrender the citadel to Raymond in exchange for a safe conduct out of the city):

_Interea vero pars hostium ea quae in arce David, a facie gladii fugiens se contulerat, videntes quod urbem universam sibi populus noster vindicaverat et quod ipsi diutius obsidionem tolerare non possent, petita et impetrata a domino comite Tolosano fiducia, qui *circa partes illa turri vicinior *hospitatus erat, quod cum uxoribus et liberis et omni substantia quam secum intulerant, liberum haberent exitum et securum usque Ascalonam conductum, arcem ei resignaverunt._

Now, I can't see how this whole clause, "qui circa partes illa turri vicinior hospitatus erat", fits together.  I can understand why the adjective "vicinior" would be linked to "hospitatus" rather than "partes".  Now Lewis and Short tell me that "turri" is an alternate form of the ablative, so that "illa" could be linked to "turri"--in which case we'd have "illa turri vicinior".  But it seems to me that would mean "closer than that tower", not "somewhat close to that tower".  And if you adopt that solution, it seems to me you leave "circa partes" hanging on its own, with reference to nothing else.

So, the only answer I've come up with is to consider "illa" (with a long "a") as an adverb meaning "there, in that direction", so that the whole clause would read, "who had lodged somewhat close to the tower in that sector (there)."  But I'm not at all sure that's right.

If anyone would like to comment, many thanks.


----------



## Scholiast

saluete omnes!

_Chapeau_ to Novanas, for persisting with this not always straightforward text.

This passage is indeed puzzling. How confident can we be that the text is secure? If _turri_ is read as a dative, an 'emendation' suggests itself, namely of _illa_ to _illas_, making it agree with _partes_.

I'm not able to make further enquiries into this until next week at earliest—by which time another Foreaster may have come up with a suggestion or even a solution. But this kind of knotty issue both intrigues and challenges me.

Keep them coming, Novanas, please!

Σ


----------



## Novanas

Scholiast said:


> How confident can we be that the text is secure? Σ



Not completely confident, unfortunately.  E.g., in this same sentence I came across the word "intuterant", which of course, as I suspected when I consulted the text on another website, turned out to be "intulerant".  The fact is that there are mistakes in this text, but most often when I look at other versions of the text, they give the same readings.  So whenever I suspect there might be a mistake in the text, I'm often unable to confirm that.

"Circa partes illas" had occurred to me as a possibility.  I also considered "circa partes illae turri viciniores".  I don't know if that would be correct.

I will say, though, that I find this history a thoroughly enjoyable read.  The little textual problems I encounter here and there are, all in all, a very minor annoyance.


----------



## exgerman

The subject of the relative clause must be the _comes Tolosanus_, since he is the only masculine noun anywhere in the preceding part of the sentence.

W uses _vicinior_ with dative or ablative, see here. So: "who was encamped closer (than the other leaders of the crusade) to that tower, (the _arx David_, presumably), in the surrounding area".

The relative clause explains why it was the count of Toulouse who guaranteed the safety of those who had fled to Mount Zion. He was the man on the spot.


----------



## bearded

exgerman said:


> W uses _vicinior_ with dative or ablative, see here. So: "who was encamped closer (than the other leaders of the crusade) to that tower, (the _arx David_, presumably), in the surrounding area


So would you suggest ''illae turri'' rather than ''partes illas''...?


----------



## Scholiast

Greetings again.

It seems to me that with the exception of the passage we are now discussing, of the dozen or so other specimens of 'dative or ablative' indicated by exgerman's link (# 4), none can be regarded as unambiguously ablative. Thus the present passage remains as anomalous as before.

If _ill-_ is to agree with _turri_ in the dative, however, it would have to be _ill_*i*.

Σ


----------



## Novanas

Scholiast said:


> If _ill-_ is to agree with _turri_ in the dative, however, it would have to be _ill_*i*.
> 
> Σ


 
Yep.  I slipped up there.

To answer one little question that has come up: it appears that the word "turri" in this instance does in fact refer to the citadel.  When referring to a citadel, William doesn't by any means always use the word "arx".  I'd say most often he uses "praesidium".  But I just read one little passage where, in the space of two sentences, he referred to the citadel three times as "arx", "praesidium" and "turris".

I'd also agree that of the instances of "vicinior" found in William's history, none are clearly ablative.


----------



## bearded

"illi" (Dat.)
You are right, Scholiast.


----------



## exgerman

Novanas said:


> Yep.  I slipped up there.
> 
> To answer one little question that has come up: it appears that the word "turri" in this instance does in fact refer to the citadel.  When referring to a citadel, William doesn't by any means always use the word "arx".  I'd say most often he uses "praesidium".  But I just read one little passage where, in the space of two sentences, he referred to the citadel three times as "arx", "praesidium" and "turris".
> 
> I'd also agree that of the instances of "vicinior" found in William's history, none are clearly ablative.


I didn't read _eidem_ _civitati__ pinea __silva_ *vicinior*_,_ carefully enough. I agree that there are no ablatives.
He uses_ turri David_ 3 times (and other cases of_ turris_ with David appended many more times), say the concordances. I expect it is a case of elegant variation, since he called it an _arx _in the previous sentence.
According to the concordance of partes, W uses _circa partes_ at least twenty times, always with an explicit indication of what parts he is talking about --- except this one time.

So now I'm thinking _qui circa partes illi turri viciniores hospitatus erat _makes most sense.


----------



## Scholiast

saluete de nouo amici!


exgerman said:


> now I'm thinking _qui circa partes illi turri viciniores hospitatus erat _makes most sense


This chimes with my own thinking. And (forgive me if I am teaching my grandmother to suck eggs) in phrases such as _arx_/_turris David_, _David_ is a 'hidden' genitive, as the NT authors had no standard method of converting Hebrew declensions into Greek forms, and this persists in much of Jerome's (and therefore much subsequent Christian) Latin.

Σ


----------



## Novanas

Scholiast said:


> . . . in phrases such as _arx_/_turris David_, _David_ is a 'hidden' genitive . . .



Yes, and this is a problem (for readers like me at any rate).  The overwhelming majority of Biblical names are indeclinable.  There are some exceptions.  E.g., for Moses I find "Moȳses/Mōses, -is/-ī m."  And of course "Jesus" is declinable.  But the exceptions are rare, which means you have to bear in mind that a proper name can be any case, depending on the context.

At any rate, the proposed solution for the clause in question is acceptable to me.  I personally could see "circa partes illas turri vicinior".  But I'm not at all sure that would be preferable to the other proposal, and I would be perfectly happy with that one.


----------



## Scholiast

Greetings once more


Novanas said:


> But the exceptions are rare, which means you have to bear in mind that a proper name can be any case, depending on the context


This is most certainly true for biblical and later Christian Latin. For readers of the original Greek NT (or for that matter the LXX) the difficulty is greatly mitigated by the use, even with proper names, of the definite article (which is itself declined for gender and case), as a glance at Matthew's genealogy of Jesus (from Abraham via King David: 1:2-16) illustrates. Latin of course has no comparable linguistic feature or resource.
Good reading and good luck to Novanas with this interesting project.
Σ


----------

