# senis mensibus



## PowerOfChoice

> Senecae, L. Annaei, Quaestiones Naturales, Liber VII - De Cometis:[2,1] Ad haec inuestiganda proderit quaerere num *cometae* condicionis sint cuius superiora. Videntur enim cura illis quaedam habere communia: ortus et occasus, ipsam quoque, quam uis spargatur et longius exeat, faciem (aeque enim ignei splendidique sunt).​[2,2] Itaque si omnia terrena sidera sunt, his quoque eadem sors erit; si uero nihil aliud sunt quam purus ignis manensque *mensibus senis *nec illos conuersio mundi soluit et uelocitas, illa quoque possunt et tenui constare materia nec ob hoc discuti assiduo caeli circumactu.​
> . . . . . . . ​
> Senecae, L. Annaei, Quaestiones Naturales, Liber VII - De Cometis:
> 
> [10,1] Praeterea manere in alto non potest ignis turbine illatus, nisi ipse quoque permanet turbo. Quid porro tam incredibile est quam in turbine longior mora, utique ubi motus motu contrario uincitur? (Habet enim suam locus ille uertiginem, quae rapit caelum "sideraque alta trahit celerique uolumine torquet"). Et ut des ei aliquam aduocationem, quod fieri nullo modo potest, quid de his *cometis* dicetur qui *senis **mensibus *apparuerunt?​
> . . . . . . . ​
> 
> Senecae, L. Annaei, Quaestiones Naturales, Liber VII - De Cometis:
> 
> [12,4] Si cometen faceret stella stellae superueniens, momento esse desineret. Summa enim uelocitas transeuntium est, ideoque omnis defectio siderum breuis est, quia cito illa idem cursus qui admouerat abstrahit; uidemus solem et lunam intra exiguum tempus, cum obscurari coeperunt, liberari: quanto celerior debet fieri in stellis digressio tanto minoribus? Atqui cometae *senis mensibus* manent, quod non accideret, si duarum stellarum conuentu gignerentur: illae enim diu cohaerere non possunt et necesse est illas lex celeritatis suae separet. ​
> . . . . . . . ​


 




*Re the context:*​The context of the words “senis” and “mensibus” in the first passage above seems to be referencing the ages of fixed stars generally. Certainly it was well known at the time of Seneca and Nero that fixed stars are very very old. It does not seem far fetched from a natural science point of view to suggest that this is how Seneca is using those words in the latter two passages also. Thus:​*Option #1:* ​Contextually it makes little or no sense in any of the above passages to translate the words "senis" and "mensibus" in terms of "six months." ​*Option #2:* ​Contextually it makes much more sense in each of the above three passages if said words are translated in terms of "months and ages of long ago." ​
*Question:*​
Is the latter option, (#2) above, at all grammatically and linguistically permissible in any or all of the above three passages? How would the above three passages be translated using option #2 above?​


----------



## Anne345

Why comets may not appear during six months ?


----------



## PowerOfChoice

Anne345 said:


> Why comets may not appear during six months ?


 

Sorry about being so ignorant about Latin, but your question - or is it an answer? - doesn't make any sense to me. Can anyone please help me?


----------



## modus.irrealis

_Senis_ here cannot mean "old" because then it would be singular genitive, while _mensibus _is dative plural. I would say _s__enis_ is the dative plural of _seni_, which means "six each."


----------



## PowerOfChoice

modus.irrealis said:


> _Senis_ here cannot mean "old" because then it would be singular genitive, while _mensibus _is dative plural. I would say _s__enis_ is the dative plural of _seni_, which means "six each."


 



Thanks! I really like specific explanatory answers like that!  

Now I believe I can understand the thinking behind the common translations of the above passages, i.e. "six months."  



Nevertheless, because I believe I have very strong contextual as well as real time evidence that "six months" is in fact  a mistranslation of the above Latin passages I'll venture to ask these questions:

1. Isn't it quite possible, even likely, that an educated man like Seneca in writing the above passages used the above words for the purpose of conveying the meaning "months of old," or "months of long ago?" Isn't that a beautiful and learned way of word smithing?​2. Wouldn't a translation like one of the latter be consistent with "of old," "of long ago," and "senis" all being singular genitive, and "months" and "mensibus" being dative plural?​I am asking because I need to know. I do not have enough insight into Latin to know whether I am indeed correct or not.


----------



## modus.irrealis

My experience is very limited but I would be very surprised if _senis_ here were in fact from _senex_ "old" -- the problem is that _senex _means old in the sense of "so many years old", i.e. "aged", and I don't think it can bear the sense "of old" that you are asking about. Plus you would be asking for _senex_ to be used as a noun and as a noun it seems to always mean "aged person."

You can check out the dictionary entry I consulted at http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/ptext?doc=Perseus:text:1999.04.0059:entry=#43635  (although their server is a little unreliable at times).

And then in these contexts it seems "six month each" makes sense while "months of old" does not. For example with _cometae senis mensibus manent_, "comets remain for six months each" makes sense but "comets remain for the months of old" I'm not sure what that would mean.


----------



## PowerOfChoice

modus.irrealis said:


> My experience is very limited but I would be very surprised if _senis_ here were in fact from _senex_ "old" -- the problem is that _senex _means old in the sense of "so many years old", i.e. "aged", and I don't think it can bear the sense "of old" that you are asking about. Plus you would be asking for _senex_ to be used as a noun and as a noun it seems to always mean "aged person."​You can check out the dictionary entry I consulted at ...perseus.tufts...(although their server is a little unreliable at times).​And then in these contexts it seems "six month each" makes sense while "months of old" does not. For example with _cometae senis mensibus manent_, "comets remain for six months each" makes sense but "comets remain for the months of old" I'm not sure what that would mean.​


 

My sincere thanks for those insights!  


Yes, I can see your point re "senis" mostly being used in relation to the age of a living being. Looking at your reference, which I also have been using as my main Latin dictionary in the past, I see only one instance where that entry is not used that way: "nomen Nostra tuum senibus loqueretur pagina seclis, _in later ages_, Verg. Cir. 40." Nor do I know whether even that one exception would be applicable to the passage under consideration here?









However, I do not understand why you see a problem with using "senex" as a noun? I can see at least two or three ways that so doing would be only natural:1. "Time periods" and "ages" can both be considered nouns, can't they? Using "of old" as I suggested above is the same as saying "months of old times," "months of old ages," "months of ancient comets," "months of the ancients," or even "months of the old man," is it not?​2. It would not be too farfetched to apply "senex" to a person even within the context of the above considered passages of Seneca, would it?For instance, consider this: Nero was at the time of this writing (about 47 CE (sic) [Cf. my posts re chronology in other threads of this forum]) only about 28 years old, quite a young man. Seneca was Nero's appointed teacher and could potentially reference himself as "the old man," or, more likely perhaps, Seneca could be giving reference to either Nero's predecessor on the throne, Claudius, or even to Nero's father, or perhaps even more likely, he could have used the Latin term as the English term "the ancients" is being used, or what do you think? Is such usage at all impossible from a grammatical and linguistic point of view?​3. Celestial events were, as you know, in those days very closely associated with omens relating to then current rulers. That fact considered, what would be more natural than referencing prior comets, and the months associated with each of those comets, in terms of the rulers whose demise was closely related to this or that comet? Accordingly I see quite a natural linguistic association between a comet, the month(s) of such a comet, and the ruler being associated with such a comet. Is that too farfetched you think?






​And of course I totally agree with you that the sentence as written by Seneca has to make sense. The question is: What makes sense in real terms and what does not?

I have already explained at some length in another thread in this forum (cf. "intra sextum mensem") why it does not make sense to use a translation such as you suggest "comets remain for six months each." You may recall that comets just don't do that! And I certainly agree with you that "comets remain for the months of old" does not make any sense either. But how about translating that sentence, i.e.:

"Atqui cometae senis mensibus manent, quod non accideret, si duarum stellarum conuentu gignerentur:"​...into something like this:​“Yet comets last for_ *many months and years*_, which would not *be* if they sprang from the union of two stars.”​…or:​“Yet comets last for_ *long ages*_, which would not *be *if they sprang from the union of two stars.”​…or:​“Yet comets last for_ *long ages*_, which *they *would not if they sprang from the union of two stars.”​ 

…or:​“Yet comets last _*since months of old*_, which *they *would not if they sprang from the union of two stars.”​ 

…or:​“Yet comets last _*since the months of ancient rulers*_, which *they *would not if they sprang from the union of two stars.”​
…or:​“Yet comets last _*since the months of the comets and omens of ancient rulers*_, which *they *would not if they sprang from the union of two stars.”​ 

…or paraphrasing:​“Yet comets last _*and come back over and over again*_, which *they *would not if they sprang from the union of two stars.”​​As I see it, the point Seneca is trying to make is that comets do have a considerable life span, they do come back in a predictable and cyclical manner like other objects on the sky, and they do not have merely a momentary existance such as "a falling star" (cf. meteor) has. 

Doesn't a translation like any of those make sense?

Please feel free to share with me any translation of the above passages of Seneca that not only makes sense in terms of real events, but is also more closely in line with the Latin grammar and linguistics than my suggestions above may be!

Thanks again!


----------



## modus.irrealis

I checked and it seems that for describing time, the ablative is used for time-within or, more rarely, for duration. So I don't see how you can get the "since" meaning. Let's say "senis" here did come from "senex" -- I think you'd have to read it as

Comets last for the months of the old person

or maybe

Comets last for the months of the old age

Your other translations don't seem possible to me, but I'm hardly an expert here.


----------



## PowerOfChoice

modus.irrealis said:


> I checked and it seems that for describing time, the ablative is used for time-within or, more rarely, for duration. So I don't see how you can get the "since" meaning. Let's say "senis" here did come from "senex" -- I think you'd have to read it as
> 
> Comets last for the months of the old person
> 
> or maybe
> 
> Comets last for the months of the old age
> 
> Your other translations don't seem possible to me, but I'm hardly an expert here.


 

Many thanks Modus.irrealis! That's why I need someone like you!  

I take it that the ablative is in reference to "mensibus." This makes a lot of sense to me in terms of any comet generally being referred to as having been seen within one or more months sometime in the past. (I.e. in contradistinction to anything that would infer that comets generally are being seen for a duration of "six months.")

I notice also that "cometae" may be read as either singular or plural? And also that there is no definite article anywhere in this clause? In fact, isn't the singular case getting support also from the word "accideret," which, if I am not mistaken, is in the 3rd person singularis?

Now, based upon what you said, may I improve upon my prior suggestions with something like this:

"Nevertheless, a comet [seen] within the months of the old [man or men, and] still remaining [in existance, is a phenomenon that] could not happen [or befall,] if comets were born out of the union of two stars."​Or simplified:​"Nevertheless, a comet of the months of old still remaining could not happen if it issued out of the union of two stars."​Or paraphrasing:​"Nevertheless, a comet seen within months of generations past and which is still in existance, is a phenomenon that could not be if comets were born out of the union of two stars."​The above translation would seem even more sensible if the 2nd of Seneca's passages above...

"Et ut des ei aliquam aduocationem, quod fieri nullo modo potest, quid de his cometis dicetur qui senis mensibus apparuerunt?"​...was to be translated something like this:​“How, in this context, are we to account for comets that are asserted by some to have been sighted [and re-sighted] also in months of old [men?”]​As always I'm only doing my best based upon what little I may think I know. Thanks for bringing me back into harmony with Latin grammar and linguistics!


----------



## Anne345

"Atqui cometae senis mensibus manent, quod non accideret, si duarum stellarum conuentu gignerentur:" 
However, there are comets which remain six months, what would be impossible, if they owed the existence to the union of two planets 

From french translation : 
Cependant, il est des comètes qui durent six mois, ce qui serait impossible, si elles devaient l'existence à l'union de deux planètes 
there 
http://neptune.fltr.ucl.ac.be/corpora/Concordances/seneque_qn/ligne05.php?numligne=310&mot=non


----------



## modus.irrealis

A little bit of delay in answering, but here goes.



PowerOfChoice said:


> I take it that the ablative is in reference to "mensibus."



Yup, that's right.



> I notice also that "cometae" may be read as either singular or plural?


Yes, but I think the most natural reading is that it is plural and the subject of _manent_ which requires a plural subject -- Latin word order is fairly free but subject-first verb-last is the natural word order and it would seem to be the case here as well.



> And also that there is no definite article anywhere in this clause?


Of course, but remember that Latin has no articles at all.



> In fact, isn't the singular case getting support also from the word "accideret," which, if I am not mistaken, is in the 3rd person singularis?


The most natural reading is that the subject of _accideret_ is _quod_, which being neuter cannot refer back to _cometae_, and almost certainly refers back to the statement as a whole. Nor could _cometae_, if it were singular, be the subject of _accideret_ directly because it wouldn't be nominative.

About your translations, if you take comet to be singular then it cannot be the subject of _manent_, so it is not the comet that would be doing the remaining, and your translations completely ignore the _quod_. I think the translations that Anne has given fit the sentence quite well and naturally, and any other translation would give a somewhat torturous reading.


----------

