Lupus Servatus to Eginhard

[Shenoute]

Shenoute omnibus sodalibus s. p. d.,

I'm reading Lupus Servatus' Letters and have trouble understanding the following sentence (Epistola I, PL CXIX, 433) :

Et nisi intercessisset inopia præceptorum, et longo situ collapsa priorum studia pene interissent, largiente Domino meæ aviditati satisfacere forsitan potuissem. Siquidem vestra memoria per famosissimum imperatorem Karolum, cui litteræ eo usque deferre debent ut æternam ei parent memoriam, cœpta revocari, aliquantum quidem extulere caput, satisque constitit veritate subnixum præclarum dictum : Honos alit artes, et accenduntur omnes ad studia gloriae. Nunc oneri sunt qui aliquid discere affectant (...)

My main problem is how to understand coepta revocari. Analysing vestra memoria as the subject of coepta (est) revocari leaves me unsatisfied (why a past tense ? what could mean coepta revocari per ?).
So another idea was to read something like per Karolum (...) coepta (sunt) revocari (studia) : "Studies began to be called back by Carolus Magnus, they raised their head a bit". But then the Si quidem vestra memoria bit is left hanging alone...

Any help would be appreciated !

[adrianus]

Ut opinor,

Since even within your own lifetime [/memory] things had started to be revived by the most renowned Emperor Charles [Charlemagne], whom literature [/letters] must credit to such an extent that it ensures his memory is eternal, those schemes have indeed raised their head a good deal, and enough that it confirms that based in truth is the famous saying: "it is a noble thing to support the arts and by glory all are aroused to learning".

"ad studia gloriâ", credo

[Qimmik]

Norden quotes this passage in Die Antike Kunstprosa, vol. 2, p. 702 (reprint, 1958 Wissenschaftlich Buchgesellschaft Darmstadt), but his text exhibits some differences, and is punctuated differently, from the version you are using (apparently Teulet 1843), as follows:

. . . et nisi intercessisset inopia preceptorum, et longo situ collapsa priorum studia pene interissent, largiente domino meae aviditati satisfacere forsitan potuissem, siquidem vestra memoria per famosissimum imperatorem Karolum, cui litterae eo usque deferre debent ut aeternitati parent memoriam, coepta revocari aliquantulum quidem extulere caput, satisque constitit veritate subnixum praeclarum tum dictum : Honos alit artes, et accenduntur omnes ad studia gloria.

I think studia must be the referent of coepta and the implicit subject of extulere, and as Adrianus suggests, vestra memoria should be taken as ablative "within your memory."

Crudely: ". . . since, within your memory, learning, having begun to be restored [revocari] by the Emperor Karolus, . . ., has raised its head a little, and it has been quite well (satis) established that that famous saying, 'Recognition nourishes the arts and everyone is inspired to learning by the prestige it confers [gloria--ablative rather than genitive, in Norden's version]' is supported by truth." (The quote is apparently from Cicero's Tusculan Disputations.)

[Shenoute]

Thanks to you both !
I didn't know the extended meaning "lifetime" for memoria, this will ensure I won't forget it from now.

I am using Migne's Patrologia Latina which has studia gloriae. I don't know if this is found in some manuscripts and thus found its way in the Patrologia or if it is a typo.

[Qimmik]

The quote Honos alit artes, . . . is from Cicero's Tusculan Disputations, I, ii, 4. The Loeb text of the Disp. Tusc. is actually slightly different from the form in which Norden quotes Lupus: Honos alit artes, omnesque accenduntur ad studia gloria, but it does read gloria, not gloriae. It's difficult to know whether gloriae is a mistake by Migne (a notoriously careless production) or one that actually originated with Lupus, who was probably quoting from memory. Somewhere I have the Teubner edition of the Disp. Tusc., but I haven't been able to lay my hands on it to see whether gloriae is a variant reading in the Ciceronian text--my Loeb text doesn't have a critical apparatus. But the reading in the Migne text of Lupus, gloriae, which is difficult to make sense out of, draws into question the accuracy of the rest Migne's text.

[Shenoute]

I did a quick Google books search and apparently the reading studia gloriae can be found in different publications of various centuries. Based on one (recent) French translation, it seems to have been understood as a dative, "nous nous enflammons de zèle pour la gloire".

[Qimmik]

"the reading studia gloriae can be found in different publications of various centuries."

I found my Teubner text of the Tusculan Disputations (Pohlenz 1918, repr. Stuttgart 1982). The text adopts gloria, but gloriae is listed as a variant reading in the apparatus, found apparently in a quotation from Augustine and several mss. Lupus is specifically cited. Interestingly, Texts and Transmissions, ed. Reynolds (Oxford 1983), p. 133, states: "Lupus does not quote from the Tusculans, and may never have received the copy he sought." But if that's correct, Lupus may himself have been quoting a quotation from some other source (Augustine?).

I think gloriae, if that's the right reading, would be (objective) genitive, not dative--studia gloriae "desires" or "eagerness for glory." But if the expression meant zèle pour la gloire, I would expect singular studium, "eagerness," rather than plural studia, "studies," "intellectual activities."

[Shenoute]

Thanks for your interesting comments, Qimmik !

[adrianus]

I agree that "zèle pour la gloire" isn't good but the dative is perfectly fine as a dative of purpose and better than the genitive, I'd say: "for the end [or purpose] of [achieving] glory, all are aroused to learning". Though I like the ablative better still.

Concurro ut malum sit francicè "zèle pour la gloire", at bonus est dativus casus in ae (scilicet gloriae) ut finis dativus et melius arbitrium quam genetivus, ut opinor, etiamsi maxima electio mihi ablativus in â (scilicet gloriâ).