# discurrendo



## Novanas

Hello to all!

Another question from William of Tyre (Book 11, Chap. 7).  This time it isn't a textual problem (sorry to disappoint you), but a simple point of grammar.

In this passage, the Turks have raised an army and invaded the region around Edessa across the Euphrates, marauding all over the place and creating all sorts of havoc.  Tancred, the acting governor of Antioch, and Baldwin, the king of Jerusalem, have gathered their forces and headed towards Edessa to counter the threat.

_Cui _[Tancred]_ sic acceleranti et pro regione sollicito infra paucos dies rex _[Baldwin]_ adfuit, junctisque simul agminibus Euphratem transierunt; quo pervenientes hostes reperiunt, ut eis fuerat nuntiatum, per universam regionem liberis discursibus evagantes; qui, cognito nostrorum adventu, coeperunt se ad invicem recolligere, et illam quam prius habuerant, *discurrendo *minus experiri licentiam_. 

My question here concerns the word "discurrendo".  Is it dative or ablative?  If dative, I suppose it might be interpreted as, "the Turks enjoyed less freedom for roaming around."  If ablative, perhaps, "The Turks, in roaming around, enjoyed less freedom."

I'm leaning towards the ablative myself, but I'm far from certain of that, so anyone's enlightened comments will be appreciated.


----------



## bearded

Hello
I agree that it must be ablative.  For ''freedom for doing../ permission to do...''_ licentia_ is usually followed by genitive. There are innumerable examples, like 'licentia docendi', 'licentia generandi', etc. , so it would be 'discurrendi' in this case, and not 'discurrendo'. I found no examples of 'licentia+dative' (there could be 'licentia ad faciendum..', if at all). Experts will hopefully confirm.


----------



## Scholiast

Scholiasta amicis collectoribusque S.P.D.

First, in the context 'marauding' is an excellent translation for _discurrere_ (and in the previous sentence for the cognate noun _discursio_).

Secondly, bearded (# 2) is spot on: in classical authors _licentia_ + genitive gerund/gerundive is idiomatic and quite common, likewise _licentia _+ _ad_ + (acc.) gerund/gerundive; while a dat. is unheard of.

My initial instinct therefore is to agree with bearded, that _discurrendo_ must be ablative. I cannot easily, however, pinpoint an authoritative classical precedent for the ablative either—at least not without the preposition _in_.

A possible solution might be to repunctuate: instead of ..._et illam quam prius habuerant, discurrendo..._, place the comma after _discurrendo_: _et illam quam prius habuerant discurrendo, minus experiri licentiam_: hence roughly, '[The Turks] began in turn to regroup themselves, and to try their luck/exploit their freedom less than _in their marauding_ previously [they had]'.

Then, however, I had a subversive thought. Though apparently born in Jerusalem, William was from a French family (he had a brother with the unmistakably French name 'Raoul'). And in French, it is proper to use _pour _+ infinitive with a sense of purpose: 'for marauding/pillaging' can be translated as _pour piller_. Could it then be that William's native French has overridden his Latinity and that _discurrendo_ is in fact dative after all?

At the moment, I don't think this can be definitively answered, except by someone much more adept in mediaeval Latin (and French!) than I. Mercifully, it makes little difference to the overall sense.

Σ


----------



## Novanas

Scholiast said:


> A possible solution might be to repunctuate . . .



I've remarked before on the punctuation supplied by whoever the editor was.  It is quite often a nuisance as it actually hampers understanding of the text.  I myself generally eliminate lots of unnecessary commas.  So there's no reason not to repunctuate if you find it helpful.



Scholiast said:


> Could it then be that William's native French has overridden his Latinity and that _discurrendo_ is in fact dative after all?



Here is the last part of this sentence as translated in the early 19th-century French version that I found:

_. . . ils commencèrent à se rallier, et se montrèrent beaucoup moins entreprenans dans leurs excursions.
_
If anything, this would indicate that the French translator took it as an ablative, I think.  But this is perhaps neither here nor there.  I personally don't find much of a French flavor in William's Latin.  We must remember, too, that this was the 12th century, when French was nothing like it is today.  You can actually find online a 13th-century French translation of William's history.  It is an adventure.


----------



## Scholiast

saluete iterum


Novanas said:


> this was the 12th century, when French was nothing like it is today. You can actually find online a 13th-century French translation of William's history


Yes please. Specific reference?

I would love to know what edition(s) Novanas is primarily using.

Σ

Edit: yes, 'dans leurs excursions' would be (or originate from) an ablative.


----------



## Novanas

Sorry, I can't seem to find it now.  I thought I had a link to it, but it turns out I don't.  Now a while back, when I wasn't looking for it, I came across it in at least two or three places.  Now that I am looking for it, I can't find it.  This may possibly be a link to it, though I'm not at all sure of that:

A Manuscript of the Old French William of Tyre (Pal. Lat. 1963) in Norway

In any case, I never had any intention of using that translation.  I've had quite enough to do trying to figure out the Latin without attempting to decipher 13th-century French.  This work is called "L'Estoire d'Eracles" or "Le Livre d'Eracles".  It appears that part of the work is a translation of William, the rest of it being a continuation of William's history.

Anyway, very sorry.  I'll keep looking.  Maybe I'll come across it somewhere.  You wouldn't think it would be that hard.


----------



## Scholiast

Thanks, Novanas, for trying!

Yes, of course I fully realise (re your #4 here) that mediaeval French is not the 'pen of my aunt' of today. But it might still have coloured William's (generally good) Latin occasionally. And further to my observations (in #3) about punctuation: this is particularly subject to mis-transmission in MSS of classical authors' works of the same period, not least because minor blemishes or other accidental marks on the surface could sometimes be mistaken by copyists as representing the original author's intentions.

Σ


----------

