# Si desperaveris lassus in die angustiae



## Encolpius

Hello, source: Bible Proverbs 24:10 Si desperaveris lassus in die angustiae inminuetur fortitudo tua
I do not understand why the adjective lassus is in the sentence. What does desperare lassus mean? Is lassus an adverb? Thanks.


----------



## jazyk

I would say it is a masculine nominative adjective agreeing with the subject. The adverb form of lassus would be lasse.


----------



## Encolpius

Hello, you mean: (tu) lassus?


----------



## jazyk

Yes, it works in Latin's descendants as well, as in:

Se desesperas lasso/cansado/esgotado no dia da tua angústia, diminui a tua força/fortaleza.

It means If you are weary (and) despair...


----------



## Scholiast

salvete omnes!

jazyk is of course right...


jazyk said:


> masculine nominative adjective agreeing with the subject


...but it may still be worth explaining that Latin tends to prefer adjectives over adverbs or participles in this kind of structure. "If, [being] _weary_ (or _faint_), you lose hope in the day of adversity, your strength will be reduced". Does this help?

Σ


----------



## metaphrastes

Encolpius, for what is worth, the Latin text of the Vulgate has no token of any influence from the Greek LXX (as the so-called Gallican Psalter of Jerome suffered), which reads so in Brenton's version: _He shall be defiled in the evil day, and in the day of affliction, until he be utterly consumed_. Such differences, specially in the verses of the Psalms or the Proverbs, are quite common, maybe due to issues of metric and non-literal rendering.

Now, the Latin text is neither a servile rendering of the Hebrew, which begins by the verb _râphâh_, which in Hithpael (a verbal form that expresses either reflexive or reciprocal action) is defined as _to show oneself slack. _Thus, _desperaveris lassus _is a kind of poetical liberty taken by the translator (that, by the way, sounds very very natural to a native speaker of a Latin language as Portuguese). I think the King James version gives a more literal rendering from the Hebrew than the Vulgate: _If thou faint in the day of adversity, thy strength is small. _Thus we have in an interlinear Hebrew-English version: 
*הִ֭תְרַפִּיתָ* _[If] thou faint_ *בְּ·י֥וֹם* _in the day_ *צָרָ֗ה* _of adversity_ *צַ֣ר* _[is] small_ *כֹּחֶֽ·כָה׃* _thy strength_.

Now, regarding the adjective _lassus _used as if an adverb, this happens in other languages. The Romanian version seems to adopt some of the phrasing of the Vulgata: _Dacă (if) te (yourself) arăţi (show) *slab *(weak) în ziua strâmtorării (in the day of adversity), puterea ta nu este decât slăbiciune (_roughly: _your power is nothing but weakness). *Slab *_is clearly an adjective and not an adverb.

The Russian version also uses an adjective, in instrumental case: Если ты в день бедствия оказался *слабым*, то бедна сила твоя (rough wooden rendering: _If you in day of calamity find yourself weak, that [is] poor/barren your strength_).

Now, probably what is perplexing in the Latin sentence is that, strictly, _despero _is not a copula or linking verb as _to be _or _to become, _simply linking to an adjective that defines an intrinsic attribute or a passing condition of being. But now, in Latin languages, it is perfectly idiomatic to use other verbs as such - all the more in this case, when _despero _reinforces hyperbolically the meaning of _lassus_, being both in a close semantic field: the subject is not only _weak _but in _despair_. Saint Jerome assumedly was not a strictly literal translator, and probably this case is one of the least freedoms he took throughout the Vulgata.


----------



## metaphrastes

I apologize for posting twice in a row, but I just found a Czech version of the verse, and it reads: _Budeš-li se lenovati ve dni ssoužení, špatná bude síla tvá_. Simply it seems to follow more closely the Hebrew wording, beginning by a verb: _if thou faint_, instead of using a copula and an adjective as _weak/weary/loose_, as we find in the Vulgata, the Romanian or the Russian versions.

The Czech version is the following: 
Česká Bible kralická: Bible svatá aneb všechna svatá písma
Starého i Nového Zákona podle posledniho vydani kralického z roku 1613.

@jazyk: the Portuguese version of Ferreira de Almeida, printed in 1911, reads so: _Se te mostrares *frouxo *no dia da angustia, a tua força será estreita_. This shade of meaning, very typical today in popular Brazilian speaking, would be better rendered by the English _loosen_, and I wonder if it is not a cognate of the Latin _lassus._


----------



## Scholiast

saluete omnes!

To metaphrastes' highly impressive and erudite contribution(s) here (## 6, 7) I can add little. But there are a couple of details still worth pointing out.

First, the question of Jerome's knowledge and understanding of Hebrew is still a matter of controversy. He was of course virtually bilingual in Greek and Latin, and knew the LXX exceedingly well. But for the Old Testament, it is not (yet) clear that he could read (let alone translate) it with metaphrastes' fluency as a Hebraist.

Secondly, Luther's rendering (and Luther certainly did know Hebrew, probably better than Jerome) has only "Der ist nicht stark, der in der Not nicht fest ist", which strikes me as rather lame compared with the KJV wording (which metaphrastes amiably quotes and commends).

Thirdly, for whatever reasons, Jerome's Latin is unambiguously in the future (_desperaveris_, _inminuetur_). Modern English idiom of course suppresses the futurity of subordinate verbs; and it remains to me (sadly, not a Hebraist myself) unclear whether that is ascertainable from the original text of the _Proverbs_ passage.

Σ


----------



## metaphrastes

Scholiast said:


> First, the question of Jerome's knowledge and understanding Hebrew is still a matter of controversy. He was of course virtually bilingual in Greek and Latin, and knew the LXX exceedingly well. But for the Old Testament, it is not (yet) clear that he could read (let alone translate) it with metaphrastes' fluency as a Hebraist.


Thanks for your kind words, Scholiast, but for goodness' sake I am not a Hebraist but for truth's sake I am rather an amateur of some languages, to begin with my own native one. It happens today there is a lot of good resources such as interlinear Bibles linked to dictionaries, who are the best friends of ignorant people as me. Thus from comparison of texts and making use of such resources I may draw some conclusions.
Regarding Saint Jerome, from what I know, no matter how deep was his actual knowledge on Hebrew, he reportedly wanted to highlight all christological figures or hidden prophecies in the Hebrew text. Thus, where many modern renderings of OT read an abstract word as "salvation", he reads rather the concrete, proper noun "Savior" (Salvator). There is the well-known verse _"Rorate, cæli, desuper, et nubes pluant *justum *: aperiatur terra, et germinet *Salvatorem*, et justitia oriatur simul"_ (Is 45:8 clm) where the Hebrew word for "justum" (a righteous one), _tsedeq, _is generally rendered as the abstract noun _righteousness - _this not only in King James and most post-Reformation versions, but also in the LXX that reads δικαιοσύνην (righteousness). See the KJ: _"Drop down, ye heavens, from above, and let the skies pour down *righteousness*: let the earth open, and let them bring forth *salvation*, and let righteousness spring up together"_ (Is 45:8 kj). On other hand, the Douay-Rheims version, from the Vulgata, agrees with its concrete meaning: _"Drop down dew, ye heavens, from above, and let the clouds rain the *just*: let the earth be opened, and bud forth a *saviour*: and let justice spring up together"_ (Is 45:8 dr).

Now, it happens Hebrew is a very concret language and the least theological one, the least proper to render abstract philosophical/theological concepts. A true Hebraist might expose properly how very concrete words were used to render more abstract concepts. There is for example _nephesh _that primarily, originally, means _throat, _and by some symbolical association (obscure to our modern minds) came to mean _soul. _And thus in many cases, so that yes _tsedeq _may be read in a concrete, personal sense, meaning a righteous man, a judge, a ruler, a king and, ultimately, God or His Messiah (the Christ or Anointed One). From what I know (and I may be wrong) there are no grammatical markers to point a concrete or an abstract meaning, only context and (theological) interpretation may point out the true or the truer, deeper meaning.

From what I know, Saint Jerome systematically gave preference to this concrete, messianic meaning, wherever it was possible - what would not match in any way modern scholar criteria, for sure. Thus, _Salvator _instead of _salvation _and _Justum _instead of _righteousness. _A more knowledgeable person than me might find other similar examples of this Saint Jerome's conscious translation's philosophy, about which he himself wrote, explained and defended.



Scholiast said:


> Thirdly, for whatever reasons, Jerome's Latin is unambiguously in the future (_desperaveris_, _inminuetur_). Modern English idiom of course suppresses the futurity of subordinate verbs; and it remains to me (sadly, not a Hebraist myself) whether that is clear from the original text of the _Proverbs_ passage.


Dear Scholiast, what I know, sadly not being a Hebraist too, is that Biblical Hebrew usage of verbs has no true tenses, but rather aspects - such as perfective and imperfect. Thus, in a prophecy of a future event, a perfective verb form - that in general would be thought as past, because it means a perfected, finished, fulfilled action - may be used to express that a future event, since it is foreknown by God, most certainly shall succeed. It might be called a _perfectum confidentiae _if a future fact is seen by the speaker as already accomplished, or _perfectum propheticum, _if part of a prophecy from God.
Now, this explains how many prophecies are rendered in past tense by modern versions based on the Hebrew text, while the LXX uses properly the future or the present and, I suppose, the Vulgata probably follows the same trend in general.
One striking example of that is Isaiah 53 and the prophecy of the Suffering Servant, that some say are in the past tense and thus might not refer to Jesus Christ Who was not yet born. To be true most verbs are in the Perfective Aspect, that Post-Reformation versions as KJ render as past tense, but both the LXX as well the Vulgata render them as present tense. Let us compare:

King James (in past tense): _Surely he *hath borne* our griefs, and *carried *our sorrows: yet we did esteem him stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted._ (Is 53:4 kj).

Greek LXX (in present tense): _οὗτος τὰς ἁμαρτίας ἡμῶν *φέρει *καὶ περὶ ἡμῶν *ὀδυνᾶται *καὶ ἡμεῖς ἐλογισάμεθα αὐτὸν εἶναι ἐν πόνῳ καὶ ἐν πληγῇ καὶ ἐν κακώσει_ (Is 53:4 lxx&ptr).

Sir Lancelot Brenton's LXX version (in present tense): _He *bears *our sins, and *is pained* for us: yet we accounted him to be in trouble, and in suffering, and in affliction._ (Is 53:4 lxx).

Vulgata (in present tense): _Vere languores nostros ipse *tulit*, et dolores nostros ipse *portavit* ; et nos putavimus eum quasi leprosum, et percussum a Deo, et humiliatum._ (Is 53:4 clm).

Surprisingly enough, the Douay-Rheims version, from the Vulgata, _as revised by Bishop Richard Challoner in 1749-1752, _does not follow the traditional trend and uses past tense: _Surely he *hath borne* our infirmities and *carried *our sorrows: and we have thought him as it were a leper, and as one struck by God and afflicted._ (Is 53:4 dr). My guess is that this shift from its very source (the Vulgata) might be due to Protestant surveillance and criticism, but this would deserve a closer study.

Now, it remains that in OT Hebrew the Perfective Aspect of Perfect "Tense" is in itself neither past, nor present nor future, and the way the translation is made necessarily reflects an exegetical/theological bias, and this was openly assumed by Saint Jerome.

There is a good overview of this whole matter of Hebrew verb aspects here: Hebrew Tenses, and probably it is relevant to Latin so far it shows that regarding verb tenses, Saint Jerome was not betraying the Hebrew source (as well he had the precedent example of the Greek LXX, produced by the Jewish community a few centuries before the coming of Christ and which could not be accused of being an instrument of Christian "propaganda").

I hope this whole digression may be useful to clarify in some way the relationship between Hebrew verb aspects and Latin verb tenses in the Vulgata.


----------



## metaphrastes

Encolpius said:


> Si desperaveris lassus in die angustiae inminuetur fortitudo tua


Now, coming back to the OP and the Proverb verse in relation with the Hebrew source, the Hebrew verb _râphâh _[(Hithpael) _to show oneself slack_] is in Perfect Mood that, as per Brown Driver Briggs Hebrew Lexicon, may be summarized so:

_The Perfect expresses a completed action. 

1) In reference to time,  such an action may be: 
_
_1a) one just completed from the standpoint of the present 
"I have come" to tell you the news 

1b) one completed in the more or less distant past 
in the beginning God "created" 
"I was (once) young" and "I have (now) grown old" but 
"I have not seen" a righteous man forsaken 

1c) one already completed from the point of view of another 
past act 
God saw everything that "he had made" 

1d) one completed from the point of view of another action 
yet future 
I will draw for thy camels also until "they have done" 
drinking _​_
2) The perfect is often used where the present is employed in 
English. 
_
_2a) in the case of general truths or actions of frequent 
occurrence--truths or actions which have been often 
experienced or observed 
the grass "withereth" 
the sparrow "findeth" a house 

2b) an action or attitude of the past may be continued into 
the present 
"I stretch out" my hands to thee 
"thou never forsakest" those who seek thee 

2c) the perfect of intransitive verbs is used where English 
uses the present; The perfect in Hebrew in such a case 
emphasises a condition which has come into "complete 
existence" and realisation 
"I know" thou wilt be king 
"I hate" all workers of iniquity 

2d) Sometimes in Hebrew,  future events are conceived so 
vividly and so realistically that they are regarded as 
Having virtually taken place and are described by the 
perfect. _​
_2d1) in promises,  threats and language of contracts 
the field "give I" thee 
and if not,  "I will take it" 

2d2) prophetic language 
my people "is gone into captivity" 
(i.e. shall assuredly go).
_​It seems to allow a great latitude to the translator on how it will be interpreted timewise. Now, @Scholiast, I wonder if _desperaveris _in this case might be parsed as Perfect Subjunctive, active voice (as in Portuguese any verb after the particle _se-if _would come most often in Subjunctive mood).


----------

