# fixus



## Sniegurochka

This is also from _Contra Paganos_ by Maximus of Turin.

Criticizing the Roman gods and pointing out contradictions in their mythology, Maximus takes on Mercury. Sometimes, he is said to abide in the Lower Regions with Pluto and Proserpine; at other times, he is said to possess a part of the sky. The following sentence is the one I have trouble with:

*Sentence: *Ergo iste nullas habet proprias sedes, sed ut vagus et miser incertis et nullis propriis sedibus [fixus] semper exerrat. (JThS vol. 17, no. 68 [1916], p. 327])

[A variant reads _fisus_, another one omits the word altogether.]

*My translation: *Consequently, he has no regions of his own, but, to the extent as he is unsettled and miserable; bound, he always wanders away from uncertain regions which are not his own.

*Question: *If _fixus_ is in fact there, how should it be translated and what does it add to the sentence? “Tied up”? “Strangled”? “Pierced”? With _fisus_, I can’t make sense out of it at all. To me, it makes more sense with either word omitted, but I still want to consider possibilities with _fixus_.

Thank you very much in advance!


----------



## wandle

_Fixus_ (settled) actually contradicts the meaning of the statement  _incertis sedibus errat_. A similar point applies to _fisus _(relying on)_. 
_
Accordingly, I believe it is an interpolation by a commentator or copyist who failed to see that it was a contradiction.


----------



## Scholiast

Pardon me, wandle, but _fixus_ makes perfect sense here:

'That god of yours has no place of his own, but like an impoverished hobo *settled* in no proper home of his own is always wandering astray'.

This is perfectly good (and classical) Latin.

Σ


----------



## wandle

The problem is one of logic rather than grammar.





Scholiast said:


> *settled* in no proper home of his own


This does indeed make good sense and correctly renders _nullis propriis sedibus fixus_.

However, _incertis sedibus fixus, _'settled in unsettled lodgings' (the Latin plural allows for more than one location, which is the point here) is a contradiction in terms.

We know we are considering an uncertain text, with lacunae and possible interpolation already in evidence, and the various readings (_fixus, fisus_, or no word at all) do raise suspicion here.


----------



## Scholiast

Dear all


wandle said:


> The problem is one of logic rather than grammar.


It is of neither. The sentence makes perfect sense as written in the original version, with no grounds for textual suspicion or intervention whatever. The alleged deity is fastened 'to no proper place of his own'. How pedestrian his worshippers can be is of course a different question.
Σ


----------



## wandle

Scholiast said:


> The alleged deity is fastened 'to no proper place of his own'.


Nothing wrong with that. As  indicated, that is not where the problem is.





> no grounds for textual suspicion or intervention whatever.


The three significant variant readings are typical grounds for suspecting it.


----------



## Scholiast

Greetings again

_figere _is indeed commonly used and idiomatic for 'to settle', 'to make one's home in' (from L&S s.v., e.g. “sedemCumis,” _to fix his abode_,  *Juv. 3, 2*: “domos,”  *Tac. A. 13, 54*.), but my contention remains that in the phrase _incertis et nullis propriis sedibus fixus_ the emphasis is on the adjectives (after all there are two of them and moreover they precede the noun _sedibus_, which rhetorically gives them the weight of the sense, rather than _fixus_ itself. Both in English and in Latin it makes perfectly proper sense to say 'properly settled nowhere in a home of his own'.

Σ


----------



## wandle

Scholiast said:


> _figere _is indeed commonly used and idiomatic for 'to settle', 'to make one's home in' (from L&S s.v., e.g. “sedemCumis,” _to fix his abode_, *Juv. 3, 2*: “domos,” *Tac. A. 13, 54*.),


Certainly: no one has suggested otherwise.


> the emphasis is on the adjectives (after all there are two of them and moreover they precede the noun _sedibus_, which rhetorically gives them the weight of the sense, rather than _fixus_ itself. Both in English and in Latin it makes perfectly proper sense to say 'properly settled nowhere in a home of his own'.


And that remains a valid analysis of _nullis propriis sedibus fixus_, as previously mentioned. No one has suggested any problem there. However, there are three adjectives involved, not just two.

As I have observed more than once, the problem lies in the combination _incertis sedibus fixus: _'settled in unsettled lodgings'.
_Incertis sedibus_ does not imply one abode that moves around, but a movement between different abodes. That directly contradicts the sense of _fixus, _which implies being settled in a particular abode.

There are alternative ways to express the point which escape contradiction:
_ut vagus et miser incertis et nullis propriis sedibus semper exerrat _(this, I suspect, was the original text) _'_wanders about for ever as a sad vagrant, having varying abodes and no proper one of his own';
_ut vagus et miser nullis propriis sedibus fixus semper exerrat _'wanders about for ever as a sad vagrant, settled in no proper abode of his own';
_ut vagus et miser nullis certis aut propriis sedibus semper exerrat:  _'wanders about for ever as a sad vagrant, having no settled or proper abode of his own'.

The fact that there are variant readings for _fixus_ (_fisus_ and no word at all) shows that the problem is apparent in the manuscript tradition. I remain of opinion that _fixus_ is probably an interpolation by a copyist, resulting from a gloss on _nullis propriis sedibus_ by one who did not take _incertis _into account_._


----------



## Scholiast

salvete de novo!

wandle and I must, it seems, agree to differ on this. The sentence is somewhat rhetorical and repetitive as things are, and I am taking _incertis et nullis propriis_ as a kind of hendiadys, in amplification of what has gone before.

Also, while there are indeed variant readings, I'd have thought that on grounds of method, if sense can be construed in a _textus receptus_ without editorial intervention, it should be preferred; in any case, it is easier to account for omissions by careless scribes than it is for scholiastic[!] insertions. Moreover, I don't know the date of this Maximus of Turin, but I do know that the Italian for 'fixed' is _fisso_: is it not possible, given that vulgar, late (and ecclesiastical) Latin shows developments in the direction of Italian pronunciation (already by Quintilian's time), the variant _fis_[_s_]_us_ could have crept into the textual tradition in dictation to a scribe?

Σ


----------



## wandle

Scholiast said:


> if sense can be construed in a _textus receptus_


That is just the issue.


Scholiast said:


> taking _incertis et nullis propriis_ as a kind of hendiadys


I do not see how that could negate or reduce the contradiction between _incertis_ and _fixus_.


----------



## Scholiast

@wandle (# 10 and throughout this thread):

Were the text to read instead _*non* certis et nullis propriis sedibus fixus_, I wonder whether wandle would still protest its illogicality? If then we just regard _incertus _as a synonym for _non certus_, what objection can there be?

In a text of this rhetorical character it seems to me to be pedantically and rigidly literalist to regard _fixus_ as bearing the strong sense wandle wants to impose on it—or for that matter, to expect the kind of logic we would expect from Aristotle.

Σ


----------



## wandle

Scholiast said:


> Were the text to read instead _*non* certis et nullis propriis sedibus fixus_, I wonder whether wandle would still protest its illogicality?


I would.
I have mentioned above a valid alternative with _nullis certis aut_ _propriis sedibus_. That seems to me the proper mode of incorporating the negative and applying it across both characteristics.

I do not see what sense _fixus_ can have here other than 'settled' or 'established'. Any suggestions?


----------



## Scholiast

wandle said:


> I do not see what sense _fixus_ can have here other than 'settled' or 'established'. Any suggestions?


Yes: 'at home'.

Also, at the risk of committing the same sort of error of which I have accused wandle (# 11, at the end), I think there is more than one way of understanding _incertus_ in the context. Bearing in mind that Maximus is...


Sniegurochka said:


> [...]Criticizing the Roman gods and pointing out contradictions in their mythology


, he may be thinking primarily of the inability of adherents of that mythology unambiguously and consistently to represent Mercury as inhabiting the Underworld or Olympus, as much as (or rather than) meaning that he is of 'no fixed abode'. But I am inclined to suppose there is a bit of both here. Once again, the rhetoric is more pronounced in writings of this kind than formal logic.

Σ


----------



## wandle

Scholiast said:


> 'at home'.


That seems to me definitely too weak a sense, unless it is read as covering the idea of 'settled'.


Scholiast said:


> represent Mercury as inhabiting the Underworld or Olympus, as much as (or rather than) meaning that he is of 'no fixed abode'.


It seems to me (a) that in this context each idea implies the other and (b) the issue of_ fixus_ is not affected, since the intended semantic meaning of the passage is the same with or without _fixus_.


----------



## wandle

The apparatus criticus of the text presented in JTS, July 1916, shows that _fixus_ is a conjectural emendation of _fisus_. Thus it is neither directly attested in ms nor an accidental interpolation. It shows that even if Maximus did not write it, other scholars agree with *Scholiast* at least in thinking that the context will bear it.

It is certainly true that an author could have written what is not strictly logical, though that argument I think has less value in support of an emendation than of an attested reading. By the same token, the logical objection tells more strongly against an emendation and my preference for the version which does not contain the word at all is strengthened.


> The Journal of Theological Studies
> JULY, 1916
> MAXIMUS OF TURIN AGAINST THE PAGANS.
> CONTRA PAGANOS.
> 
> A. SPAGNOLO.
> C. H. TURNER.
> 
> p. 327
> l. 200
> 
> ergo iste nullas habet proprias sedes, sed ut uagus et miser incertis et nullis propriis sedibus [ fixus ] semper exerrat.
> 
> 201. propriis ui uid V : om V'     fixus scripsi:  fisus V; om V'


----------



## Scholiast

Greetings once more

I have not access to the _JThS_ publication from where I sit, but will try to track it down tomorrow. Migne (_PL_ vol. 57) certainly shows a very lacunose text and prints what looks like _fisus_ (for which I briefly suggested a possible explanation for in # 9 above). For reasons briefly stated in this thread (# 7, I) don't find the omission of _fixus _at once persuasive, but hope to be persuaded—or more persuasive myself—in the morning.

Σ


----------



## wandle

Scholiast said:


> access to the _JThS_ publication


 Post 15 contains the link, and also quotes the app. crit. ad loc.


----------



## wandle

Scholiast said:


> For reasons briefly stated in this thread (# 7, I) don't find the omission of _fixus _at once persuasive


Without _fisus _or_ fixus_, I take the phrase _incertis et nullis propriis sedibus_ as ablative absolute.


----------



## Scholiast

salvete consobrini!

I have now read through the entire tract in the 1916 _JThS _edition by Spagnolo and Turner, and studied the app. crit. A number of observations are now pertinent. Line numbers are as in that edition, which runs to about 520 lines in all.

First, up to about l. 350 the thing has the appearance, structurally and stylistically, of a finished work, with only intermittent quotations from scripture or elsewhere to support the author's argument. And though repetitious, at its best it is stylistically sophisticated and 'classical' in flavour (including occasional quotations from Cicero (53-4) and Virgil (167ff., 186ff.)), not far short of Christian rhetoricians of the better sort such as Tertullian and Augustine. From l. 351 on, however, there is a marked contrast: thereonwards, most of the text consists of real quotations from scripture, from 'St Peter' [whose 'Gospel', though not canonical, was still in circulation], Clement and Cyprian, and imaginary quotations from pagan interlocutors introduced for the sake of argument. But these are only sporadically and briefly annotated or commented on in Maximus’ own authorial persona. This gives the final 170-odd lines the the appearance of preliminary notes still to be worked up to the argumentative and stylistic proficiency of the first 350.

The app. crit., secondly, shows a corresponding caesura. Up to about l. 350 the edd. felt able to rely chiefly on V—clearly Spagnolo and Turner regarded this (for whatever reasons) as generally preferable to V'. But after this point they seem to have thought that the reliability of V declined sharply. Unfortunately they supplied no _praefatio_ or other explanation of the textual tradition or of their reasons for treating it so, apart from what appears in the app crit. itself. For this reason I confine the rest of my remarks here to the 'good', or more 'finished', portion of the work.

Thirdly, while in about six places the edd. preferred the readings of V' over V, there are thirty occasions (apart from the sentence under discussion here, l. 204), where V' omits words, parts of words or short phrases which are given (and make sense) in V. There are also several more severe mutilations, omissions or illegibilities in V' (by my calculations about nine), so it appears usually that V provides a preferable reading, albeit itself imperfect.

Fourth, in the 'good' portion, the text as constituted has four-and-a-half ablatives absolute (_succedentibus sibi temporibus_ (127); _precibus fusis_ (272-3—but a dubious case as this may be instrumental with _meruit_ —'who through the prayers he poured out deserved…'); _omnibus ubique pereuntibus_ (274); _reiectis et spretis diis paganorum_ (304); _dicente scribtura_ (340)), these are without exception equipped with participial apparatus. All the other ablatives can be explained as instrumental or causal or descriptive: there is no other example of an absolute construction comparable with _incertis et nullis propriis sedibus_.

Fifth, on four other occasions Maximus uses participles in the fashion referred to in my post elsewhere (here # 7), _viz_.:
[_Christus…_] _qui et ipsi Dauid uictoriam dedit et Goliae superbam frontem fastu temeritatis _*erectam*_ potenti uirtute deiecit_ (21-23);
_GYRUM STELLARVM colunt pagani, ab artifice Deo perfectum ad mundi ornatum discriminato colore_ *conpositum* (115-6);
_ita uidens … hunc mundum uelut amplissimam et sublimem domum ad habitationem omnium nostrum _*conditam*_, intellege…_(139-141);
_cur hodie in theatris…striones exprimunt…Iouem illum principem uitiorum…nunc in plumis oloris magiis _*inmutatum*_ albescere nunc aureo imbre defluere_ (229-233).​Stylistically and otherwise, this recommends completion of the text (as in Migne) of _incertis..._&c. in Sniegurochka's text with a participle.

Sixth, Maximus uses _incertus_ in one other place: _tu _[sc. Paganus] _dicis fato omnia fieri: sed quae tu dicis fato fieri, _*nescio qua opinione incerta*_, ego dico uoluntate uel permissu Dei fieri…_ (42-3). Which brings me to _TLL _(s.v.)_, _which states more precisely the distinction I suggested in # 13, namely between its usage _vi passiva et obiectiva (de quo dubitata)_ and _vi activa (qui dubitat)._ This instance belongs clearly in the first category, and corresponds with Cicero’s definition (_Acad._ 2.54): _ea dico incerta quae _ἄδηλα _Graeci_, and with other glosses recorded in _TLL_, such as ἀσαφἐς. Which does not mean Maximus was incapable of using it in the 'active' sense, but it makes it harder to insist on a logical contradiction between _incertis_ and _fixus_ in the passage we are discussing.

Next, Maximus does use the word _fixus_, or rather the neuter _fixum_, several times early on, as an attribute of _fatum_ as the pagans conceive it (27-29, 31-36 _bis_, 246), on three of these occasions in the phrase _fixum et inmobile_. But this is in a rather different sense from that of 'domestic settlement' implied at 204f., which we are discussing, so hardly relevant, except to make it essential to draw a distinction (unnecessary in my view) between _fixed_ and _immobile_.

Finally, both V and V' (the latter more so) show tendencies to 'Italian' spelling or pronunciation (V' persistently mixes up -e- with the written diphthong -ae- (e.g. _aequae_ for _aeque_ 128, _preteriri_ 247; but _querite_ (for _quaerite_) 62, and _piaetate_ in V' at 268, 272, _aeclesia_ 309), and between consonantal -u- and -b-; my hunch then is that these scribes, if not Maximus himself, are already pronouncing their Latin 'ecclesiastically', and sometimes spelling things accordingly. From _fixus_ in a written text to _fisus_ in pronunciation is easy, and vice versa.

Cumulatively, then, I think this all points to:

(a) the need for some such participle as _fixus_ to take the place of Migne’s _fisus_, as clearly Spagnolo and Turner felt—who after all, were better acquainted with these MSS and their foibles than most of us can ever be; and...
(b) that Maximus himself, in his rhetorical and as Gibbon might call it, 'enthusiastic', hyperbole has perpetrated a minor illogicality, in favour of a resounding phrase, which included _incertis et nullis propriis sedibus fixus._​Σ


----------



## wandle

I still see no difficulty in the grammar of V': _incertis et nullis propriis sedibus semper exerrat_.

The ablative may perhaps be instrumental. The Vulgate 2 Maccabees 2.2 has:
_et dedit illis legem ne obliviscerentur praecepta Domini et ut non exerrarent mentibus videntes simulacra aurea et argentea et ornamenta eorum_.

_Incertis sedibus errare, vagari,_ etc. seems to be a recognised form of expression., e.g.:

Sallust Catalina 6 [Scroll up for main text.]
_Troiani qui Aenea duce profugi sedibus incertis (v.l. incertis sedibus) vagabantur. _

Jerome Life of Malchus
_De Beroa Edessam pergentibus, vicina est publico itineri solitudo, per quam Saraceni incertis sedibus huc atque illuc semper vagantur.
_
A medieval example:

Historiae Aevi Salici Vita Theogeri abbatis.
_Iam plurimi dies effluxerant, et episcopus sanctus primicerio duce incertis sedibus vagabatur . _

And a scholiast quoting other scholiasts on Isaiah 23 v 13:

Schulz - Bauer  Scholia In Vetus Testamentum: Posteriorem Iesaiae Partem Complectens, Volume 9




Thus a participle does not seem required on grounds of grammar or style. If we take into account that V' also omits _propriis, _and that _nullis propriis_ is in any case redundant coming so soon after _nullas habet proprias sedes, _then it may be that the original read simply: _ergo iste nullas habet proprias sedes, sed ut uagus et miser incertis sedibus semper exerrat._

We might then reconstruct as follows: _nullis propriis_ was a gloss on _incertis_; _et_ was then added to connect the adjectives; and _fisus_ was a gloss on _nullis propriis_. Finally, the two editors in 1916, finding _fisus _illogical, because it makes Mercury the one choosing his lodgings, suggested _fixus_ instead, because that makes the pagans the ones who decide the god's abode.
_
_


----------



## Scholiast

Greetings all once more



wandle said:


> _Incertis sedibus errare, vagari,_ etc. seems to be a recognised form of expression



Yes indeed—from which it is not a monumental leap to _*vagus*...incertis...sedibus_ &c.

And further, as this is indeed a stock idiom, it is inadvisable to press its precise logical, semantic (or indeed grammatical) relationship with its contextual surroundings too far.



wandle said:


> If we take into account that V' also omits _propriis, _and that _nullis propriis_ is in any case redundant coming so soon after _nullas habet proprias sedes..._



This, however, contributes little. The entire text is replete (as this kind of literature, ancient and modern, often is) with repetitious stuff. 'Redundancy' is not an argument in textual criticism of a Sermon. In fact my father (an Anglican priest) once said to me that the key to a 'good' (effective?) sermon is to have one message, and say it once, then say it again in different words, then say it again.

Σ


----------



## wandle

Scholiast said:


> have one message, and say it once, then say it again in different words, then say it again.


Yes, but say the same three words again, in the same short sentence, while adding no point?
That would be feeble enough in a sermon, but in a polemical tract subject to the critical scrutiny of educated opponents, it could be rather counter-productive.


----------



## Scholiast

Greetings all



wandle said:


> but say the same three words again, in the same short sentence



As native English speakers we would of course find this tedious and horrid. But in an inflected language, the same words used in different constructions, with varied conjugated verbs or substantive cases, would not psychologically be so objectionable.

There's plenty more in the text of Maximus' treatise here to illustrate the point, but I would have to go back to my local Uni. Library to find chapter and verse.

Σ


----------



## wandle

Scholiast said:


> chapter and verse


The full text is freely available for download at the link I gave in post 15.
Certainly when answering the objections he has put in the mouth of a pagan interlocutor, he tends to repeat the form of words to show that he is answering it, but that is not the same thing.

No doubt there is room for more than one opinion on the conjecture of Spagnolo and Turner. As I said, it is not impossible for the author to have expressed himself with some illogicality. It is a question of probability. Which reading is the most probable? It is not unreasonable to conclude that the conjecture is not needed. In any case, it makes no difference to the effective semantic meaning.


----------

