# Non impiger



## Novanas

I'm hoping someone can help me out here.  I suppose I'm simply getting confused by a double negative, but I've been over and over this and I can't make sense of it.  This passage comes from Aulus Gellius XVII, 5, 3.  It concerns a gathering of educated men, one of whom is criticizing an argument advanced by Cicero in his essay _De Amicitia_.

_Hoc [the relevant passage from Cicero] cum legeretur in cœtu forte hominum doctorum, rhetoricus quidam sophista, utriusque linguæ callens, haut sane ignobilis ex istis acutulis et minutis doctoribus qui [Greek word] appellantur, *atque in disserendo tamen* *non impiger*, usum esse existimabat agrumento M. Tullium non probo neque apodictico, sed eiusdem quæstionis, cuius esset ea ipsa res de qua quæreretur . . .
_
The English translation (in the Loeb edition) goes like this:
_
When it chanced that these words were read in a company of cultured men, a sophistical rhetorician, skilled in both tongues, a man of some note among those clever and meticulous teachers known as "connoisseurs", *who was at the same time not without ability in disputation*, expressed the opinion that Marcus Tullius had used an argument which was neither sound nor clear, but one which was of the same uncertainty as the question at issue itself . . .
_
Now it seems to me that if we're going to translate as "without ability", that would be "piger", not "impiger".  The English translation "not without ability in disputation" does make sense in the context. This guy is a sophist, clever and meticulous, and well capable of expressing himself (even though at the end of the day Gellius believes his criticism of Cicero is unfounded).  So it seems to me the English makes sense.  I simply can't see how the Latin says that.  I did check a couple of other editions on-line, and they agree that the text here is "non impiger".

So if anyone can clear this up, many thanks.


----------



## exgerman

It's not a double negative, it's litotes (a ironic understatement in which an affirmative is expressed by the negative of its contrary (e.g., _you won't be sorry_, meaning _you'll be glad_ ). So "not undiligent" is a fancy rhetorical way of saying "diligent" --- as is not unexpected, given AG's style of writing....


----------



## bearded

exgerman said:


> It's not a double negative, it's litotes (a ironic understatement in which an affirmative is expressed by the negative of its contrary (e.g., _you won't be sorry_, meaning _you'll be glad_ ). So "not undiligent" is a fancy rhetorical way of saying "diligent" --- as is not unexpected, given AG's style of writing....


The problem is that 'impiger' does not mean 'undiligent', but rather the opposite ('piger' = lazy, improductive, negligent... , 'impiger' = not lazy, not negligent, diligent).
Therefore 'non impiger' means ''not diligent''.  I regard Novanas's objection as justified, and hope that some experts (e.g. Scholiast) will be able to solve the problem.


----------



## Scholiast

saluete omnes!

Yes, this is a tricky one. But the whole context needs to be considered. Here Gellius is defending Cicero, the generally educated 'gentleman', against petty and narrow-minded rhetorical 'expert(s)' (notice the implicit contempt in _acutulis...minutis..._ and the Greek τεχνικοί): these are rhetorical 'geeks' (in German, one could say 'Schulmeisterlich'), who will pore over every jot and tittle of an anaphora or a chiasmus or zeugma, rather than having a relaxed and lordly command of the whole domain and its praxis, as a 'gentleman' would and should. So the sophist in question is indeed one of the pedants who rejoice and specialise in minutiae, 'but [_tamen_] _not without some relaxed and easy fluency _[of the kind one might expect from a Cicero] in disputation'.

I hope this is helpful.

Σ


----------



## bearded

Hello Scholiast
I understand the content of your post #4, but:
wouldn't ''without..  easy fluency'' be _in disserendo piger (=lazy)_? If so, then _impiger _means ''with  easy fluency'', and _non impiger_ means ''not with easy fluency / incapable of easy fluency''. 'Not without ..easy fluency' should be _non piger._
Therefore _in disserendo tamen non impiger _should mean '' incapable, though, of easy fluency'' according to this interpretation. 'Non impiger' = piger.
Do you think I'm mistaken or my reasoning is absurd?


----------



## Novanas

I'm having the same problem as Bearded.  No surprise since I'm the one who started this thread.  I understand the passage as a whole well enough, although I'll confess that my Latin isn't world-class.  But I'm still confused about this one particular phrase

_*in disserendo tamen* *non impiger*.
_
It seems to me that this phrase should translate as something like "with not much ability in disputation."  Or if we want to view the English translation ("not without ability in disputation") as correct, it seems to me that should be,"in disserendo non piger".  I.e., it seems to me that piger = without ability, while impiger = with some ability.  This is what I can't figure out.


----------



## Scholiast

saluete omnes de nouo!

Yes, I can see where the difficulty (bearded, #5, Novanas, #6) subsists. In my own previous response (#4) I had at the back of my mind that _piger_ could mean 'effortless', 'relaxed', or in more colloquial English, 'laid back'—in contrast with the strenuous nit-picking over _minutiae_ which characterized the thinking of the τεχνικοἰ. But I realise this may seem a bit forced or far-fetched as an explanation.

I have another up my sleeve. Gellius, fount of learning that he is, constantly drifts in and out of direct and indirect discourse. The precise distinctions between exact quotation, casual reference or allusion, and paraphrase on which modern scholars would (and should) insist were not commonly observed even by men as deeply educated as he. I have a hunch therefore (compounded by the oddity of _atque..._*tamen*...) that he has, for once, been just a little careless over the strict logic of what he has written: he is half-remembering the text over which he is mulling, and has tied up his own syntax.

When I get a chance (which, _Deo volente_, should be next Friday) I shall show this passage to a learned Latinist of my acquaintance at the Uni., and see what he thinks. Please bear with me till then—I'm only a _Schulmeister_ myself.

Σ


----------



## Novanas

OK, thanks for that.


----------



## Scholiast

saluete omnes!

I think there is a solution. I owe this explanation to a leading authority on Gellius (and indeed on all things to do with Latin prose style). Scribes can sometimes make mistakes with double negatives, but Sallust, (Hist. 4 fr. 41 Maur.) and Livy (27.12.6, 32.16.11) have similarly confused expressions (_haud impigre_ for example when the opposite is meant), so it is quite possible for even so refined an author as Gellius to get caught in the toils of his own syntax. Moreover, if the rhetorical sophist had been _in disserendo non impiger_ in the sense of 'not unslothful in disputation', he would hardly have come forward to make his point in the first place.

For my own part I can add that Gellius—who was fully bilingual in Greek and Latin—might have unwittingly slipped into Greek usage, for in Greek prose, multiple negatives can reinforce each other, rather than cancel each out; this occurs too in vulgar spoken English ('He ain't coming, not never').

Σ


----------



## bearded

For that explanation, Scholiast,_ tibi gratias ago._


----------



## Novanas

Yes, and I would like to add my thanks as well for your help in resolving this difficulty.


----------

