# utroque patriarcha



## Novanas

Hello to all!

I have a sentence (still from William of Tyre, Book 10, chapter 30) which I've had a hard time figuring out.  For me the difficulty revolves around "utroque patriarcha" (referring to Bernard, patriarch of Antioch, and Daimbert, patriarch of Jerusalem).  The situation here is very simple: the Crusaders are preparing to go into battle with the Turks outside Haran/Carrhae (which battle turned out to be a total disaster for the Crusaders):

_Videntes igitur nostri principes hostes praeparari ad praelium, ipsi quoque aciebus et agminibus congruo digestis ordine, *utroque patriarcha* sermonibus exhortatoriis addere militibus nituntur animos; sed Domini gratia destituti, nec verbis juvantur, nec admonitionibus. 
_
Now I have two translations of this history that I can consult, and both translators deal with this sentence the same way. They neatly break it into two parts: the military commanders arrange the troops in battle formation, while the two patriarchs go around encouraging the men.  But I cannot see how the Latin can be so neatly divided.

For one thing, "utroque patriarcha" must be ablative.  Secondly "ipsi" (I believe) can only refer to "nostri principes" and must be connected to the only main verb in the sentence, "nituntur".  So for me, this leaves the phrase "utroque patriarcha sermonibus exhortatoriis" rather hanging in the air.

The only way I can interpret the Latin is this: the military commanders arranged the troops in battle formation while trying to encourage them at the same time, as did the two patriarchs with their "sermonibus exhortatoriis".  But "as did" refers only to the effort to encourage the men, not to arranging them in battle formation, which duty would not have concerned the patriarchs in any way.  It seems to me that two things are happening here, and whereas the patriarchs would only have been involved in one of them, the Latin doesn't neatly express that.

So this is how I see the sentence.  Whether this is good, accurate Latin I can't say.  It doesn't really strike me as such.  But if anyone can confirm or overrule my analysis of the sentence, your comments will be welcome.


----------



## Scholiast

Greetings again, Novanas and everyone else.

First, Novanas _noster_ is quite right that _ipsi_ refers to _nostri principes_, and that _utroque patriarcha_ ought to be ablative.

Secondly, I agree that the sentence is awkward and puzzling, because (a) at first sight there is no obvious verb to go with _ipsi..._, unless as Novanas surmises we take _nituntur_ as referring to the actions both of the military commanders and of the patriarchs; and (b) if the patriarchs are, along with the _principes_, striving to 'stiffen the sinews' of the troops (_addere militibus nituntur animos_), they ought to be nominative.

I am therefore wondering whether rather than _utroque_, _ut*er*que patriarcha_ should be read (the simplest explanation); or if something has dropped out from the _textus receptus_. Judging by previous discussions here of William's Latinity, I am not convinced that the text Novanas is reading is 100% accurate.

One other possibility occurs to me: _aciebus et agminibus...digestis_ is an ablative absolute, and it may be that _utroque patriarcha_ continues this syntactical train of thought ('with both patriarchs by means of encouraging harangues...'), but this would be to say the least clumsy.

Σ


----------



## bearded

Hello Scholiast
If it was 'uterque', shouldn't the verb be conjugated in the singular (nititur)? Or should one read ''ipsi ...uterque'' as ''ipsi et uter'' (-que = et) and 'patriarcha' in the nominative? It sounds wrong anyway.


----------



## Novanas

Scholiast said:


> . . . I am not convinced that the text Novanas is reading is 100% accurate.



It is a fact that there are problems from time to time with the text as I have it.  Now I only have access to two other versions on line, and they are virtually always identical to the version I'm reading.  Very rarely do I find any disagreement among the three--which means I'm pretty much stuck with the text I have before me.

I myself felt that perhaps the easiest solution would be to amend "utroque" to "uterque", in which case both "ipsi" and "patriarcha" would be connected to the verb "nituntur".  In that case, I suppose, the sentence would be saying that both parties stiffened the troops, the commanders by putting them in battle formation and the patriarchs with their words of encouragement.  I don't know that this is logical: do commanders stiffen their troops merely by arranging them in battle formation?  Perhaps so.

If this isn't a problem with the text--i.e., if the text as I have it is what William actually wrote--I'd have to say it's unusual.  I would certainly never compare William as a stylist to the writers of the classical age, but his Latin does virtually always strike me as correct (bearing in mind that I don't claim to be the best authority on what is correct Latin).


----------



## Scholiast

atque saluete de nouo!


bearded said:


> shouldn't the verb be conjugated in the singular (nititur)?


There is a case for this. When multiple subjects are 'listed', and the last-mentioned is singular, it's quite common in classical Latin (somewhat illogically) to find a singular verb. But by no means is this a mandatory rule.


Novanas said:


> do commanders stiffen their troops merely by arranging them in battle formation


I think they do, at least in a sense appropriate to the present context: this drill will let flow the adrenaline, and set the men on appropriate edge.


Novanas said:


> I only have access to two other versions on line, and they are virtually always identical to the version I'm reading


Completely ignorant as I am of the textual tradition of this work (are there for example any surviving MSS, or is it only known from printed or (now) online editions of the 15th century or later?),* I now wonder how dependent these are for accuracy of detail on each other.
I'll be back in my Uni. Library tomorrow and will try to find out more.
Σ
*Edited afterthought: and if so, do any of them include an _Apparatus Criticus_?


----------



## Scholiast

Ahah!

I have tracked down a critical edition, ed. R.B.C. Huygens, in _Corpus Christianorum: Continuatio Mediaevalis_, LXIII, published by Brepols, Turnhout, 1986.

Huygens' main text is the same as Novanas' (in # 1), apart from (a) the spellings of _praeparari_ and _proelium_ according to mediaeval convention as _preparari_ and _prelium_; and (b) with the significant difference that he posits (printing '***') a lacuna of indeterminable length after _utroque patriarcha.
_
In his Apparatus Criticus to these lines, Huygens writes: 'utroque patriarcha] _exciderunt quaedam_', and notes that one 14th-century MS, designated 'C', now in the Library of Corpus Christi College, Cambridge, indeed has the reading 'uterque patriarcha'; but among the various MSS, it seems to be unique in this, and in his discussion of them, Huygens remarks 'la qualité du texte de C est...mauvaise'. So my suggestion that the text is faulty (in # 2 above) seems vindicated.

Based on this, one might try supplementing with something like _utroque patriarcha <suadente> _or <_uso>_ _sermonibus exhortatoriis..._, thus forming an ablative absolute.

But my impression is that that is as far as we can go with this text.

Σ


----------



## Novanas

Thanks very much for that detective work.  It is a bit deflating to work so hard to try to understand something that can't be understood, but, what can you say?  It's an occupational hazard.

Thanks for your good work here.


----------



## Scholiast

Hello Novanas

Re your # 7: I positively enjoy this sort of intriguing question, and I derive some satisfaction from helping others. I'm sorry if you find it 'deflating', but at least you have been proven right to have found the grammar or rather syntax of the sentence problematic.

I should perhaps have added: given that there is a lacuna after _utroque patriarcha_, which to judge by Huygens' editorial treatment must go right back to the textual archetype, it could just as easily have come after _sermonibus exhortatοriis_, particularly if what is missing was originally some such participle as I conjectured in #6.

Happy reading!

Σ


----------



## Novanas

I'm not really complaining.  Actually, the reason it takes me so long to get through any book in Latin is that I strive for word-perfect understanding of the text, which obviously is rather ambitious.  But my objective is not just to enjoy the text, but also to improve my Latin.  So little puzzles like this do actually help, if only in a rather backward sort of way.


----------



## Scholiast

saluete iterum, Novanas et collectores!


Novanas said:


> I strive for word-perfect understanding of the text, which obviously is rather ambitious


Nothing wrong with that kind of ambition! I like to get to the bottom of things too.
Σ


----------



## Snodv

I don't think anyone brought this up: without any textual emendation, since _nitor_ takes the ablative, I think it could be that the chiefs, having arranged their battle lines and columns in suitable order,  are _depending on both patriarchs_ to add spirit to the soldiers with their pep talks.


----------



## Scholiast

saluete iterum


Snodv said:


> since _nitor_ takes the ablative, I think it could be that the chiefs, having arranged their battle lines and columns in suitable order, are _depending on both patriarchs_ to add spirit to the soldiers with their pep talks.


_nitor_ does indeed (a) take an ablative noun in the sense of 'lean on', 'rely on' (_OLD s.v. _§§ 1-3), and can (b) in the sense of 'striving' towards (or to prevent) something be found with a standard-issue purpose-clause (i.e. _ut_/_ne_ and subjunctive) or _ad_ + a gerundive phrase (§ 8b). It can (c) also take a simple infinitive, as in 'strenuously trying to achieve' something (§ 8c), which may in turn have an accusative object, though this seems rare (_OLD_ cites three passages for this, Vitruv. _de Archit._ 'haec nisus sum scribere'; Plin. _Ep_. 9.19.3, 'famam...prorogare nituntur'; Suet. _Aug._ 10.2, 'D. Brutum...expellere armis nituntur')—which is what Snodv's construal requires us here to suppose (_addere...animos_), simultaneously with the idea of the commanders 'relying on' the prelates.
Ingenious though Snodv's suggestion is, it overloads _nituntur_: it assumes that William is here zeugmatically combining usage (a) with that of (c). While Tacitus or Ammianus might have been capable of such condensation, I'm not (yet) convinced that this is within William's range of linguistic adventure. In his introduction, Huygens (cited in # 6) remarks that of the classical authors, William's style most closely resembles Livy's.
I think 'utroque patriarcha..._ad addendos_ [or _augendos_] militibus nituntur animos' might have been just possible, however.
Σ


----------



## Snodv

It's true that we were taught Latin doesn't use an infinitive as English does to express purpose, but later in my studies we encountered exactly that.  Hmm.


----------



## Scholiast

Greetings once again, especially Snodv!


Snodv said:


> It's true that we were taught Latin doesn't use an infinitive as English does to express purpose, but later in my studies we encountered exactly that


I'd be interested to know where. I'd guess that if anywhere, it would be precisely in late or mediaeval Latin like William's; and in the introduction to his edition (cited in my #6) Huygens has quite a long discussion of William's stylistic idiosyncrasies, which I have not been through with a fine-toothed comb, but I can do this tomorrow.
Cheers,
Σ


----------



## Scholiast

Right. I think we can lay this to rest.

First, the unsatisfactory nature of the syntax was already seen by some copyists, as the scribes of two other MSS ('B' and 'W') felt the need to 'correct' what was before them, with 'ipsi quoque aciebus et agminibus congruo digestis ordine se _ad resistendum parabant. patriarch*e*_ sermonibus exhortatoriis addere militibus nituntur animos'—omitting _utroque_ altogether and making _patriarcha_ nominative pl. This surely does too much violence to what WofT presumably wrote.

Secondly, nowhere does Huygens produce (let alone discuss) other examples of simple infinitives being used in the sense of purpose, either from William's _opus_ or from anywhere else.

So there we are. But I see from Novanas' latest enquiry that he has moved on.

Σ


----------



## Novanas

Thanks very much for your hard work on this question.  When I posted it, I didn't realize it was going to turn out to be such a problem.  I assumed that I simply wasn't reading the sentence right.

However, I am content now.  Whatever the failings of the syntax, the meaning of the sentence is more or less clear, something which isn't at all the case with many other lacunæ, which leave entire sentences unintelligible.  That's just the way it is when you're working with such old texts.



Scholiast said:


> But I see from Novanas' latest enquiry that she has moved on.


----------



## Scholiast

saluete omnes, praecipue Novanas


Scholiast said:


> that she has moved on


[My apologies. As it happens, my own baptismal name is ambiguous as regards gender, and in England, usually taken as a girl's name. As a boy I found this infuriating, though in maturer life I have sometimes found it quite useful.]

That apart, I have found this series of enquiries about William's Latinity very absorbing, and my interest in him and his work has been piqued. I worked systematically today through Huygens' section, in his (her?!) introduction, on 'Langue et Style', and for anyone who has access to the _Corpus Christianorum_ series, there is much to learn from it, not only about William's own, but about mediaeval Latinity in general.
Now for '*discurrendo*'.
Σ


----------

