Diu denique deliberaverat secum Thrasyllus quo vel clandestinis colloquiis opportunum reperiret locum, cum et adulterinae Veneris magis magisque praeclusos aditus copia custodientium cerneret, novaeque atque gliscentis affectionis firmissimum vinculum non posse dissociari perspiceret, et puellae, si vellet, quanquam velle non posset, [copia custodientum] furatrinae coniugalis incommodaret rudimentum:
From Lucii Apuleii Madaurens. opera omnia. In usum Delphini
https://archive.org/stream/delphinclass ... 3/mode/1up
Strange use of "vel"
-
huilen
- Textkit Member
- Posts: 185
- Joined: Thu Oct 17, 2013 10:19 pm
- Location: Argentina
Strange use of "vel"
Could any one explain the function of vel here?
-
anphph
- Textkit Enthusiast
- Posts: 593
- Joined: Fri Nov 09, 2007 1:35 am
Re: Strange use of "vel"
There seems to be quite the discussion around that very word in the commentary, saying that maybe it should be read as 'cum nec', which does seem to be a more reasonable reading. If forced to read 'cum vel', I'd say it would seem like he's indicating (faked) outrage at the fact that they are searching for seccluded moments, but that reading doesn't sound at all likely. My suggestion is to read that as: «cum clandestinis colloquiis non reperiret locum, et adulterinæ Venus...»
If it helps, my paper edition has «quod nec clandestinis colloquiis opportunum repperiret locum et adulterinæ Veneris...»
If it helps, my paper edition has «quod nec clandestinis colloquiis opportunum repperiret locum et adulterinæ Veneris...»
-
Qimmik
- Textkit Zealot
- Posts: 2090
- Joined: Mon Mar 18, 2013 10:15 pm
Re: Strange use of "vel"
Vel can mean "at least."
http://perseus.uchicago.edu/cgi-bin/phi ... isandshort
Roughly: He was trying to figure out where he could find a suitable place for at least clandestine meetings, since he could see that access to adulterous love was more and more being blocked by the large number of guards . . .
The reading of the Medicean ms. "F", dating from the 11th c., is quo nec, which Helm (3rd ed., Teubner, 1931; there are later editions, but this is the one I have) and Zimmerman (Oxford OCT 2012), following Salmasius, correct to quod nec.
quo uel is a reading found in later mss., but Helm and Zimmerman apparently prefer the reading of F, with Salmasius' correction, here.
http://perseus.uchicago.edu/cgi-bin/phi ... isandshort
Roughly: He was trying to figure out where he could find a suitable place for at least clandestine meetings, since he could see that access to adulterous love was more and more being blocked by the large number of guards . . .
The reading of the Medicean ms. "F", dating from the 11th c., is quo nec, which Helm (3rd ed., Teubner, 1931; there are later editions, but this is the one I have) and Zimmerman (Oxford OCT 2012), following Salmasius, correct to quod nec.
quo uel is a reading found in later mss., but Helm and Zimmerman apparently prefer the reading of F, with Salmasius' correction, here.
-
huilen
- Textkit Member
- Posts: 185
- Joined: Thu Oct 17, 2013 10:19 pm
- Location: Argentina
Re: Strange use of "vel"
Thank you both for your answers.
First I was convinced that "quod nec" was the correct lecture, but I like this interpretation of "at least", it has much sense.Roughly: He was trying to figure out where he could find a suitable place for at least clandestine meetings, since he could see that access to adulterous love was more and more being blocked by the large number of guards . . .
-
Qimmik
- Textkit Zealot
- Posts: 2090
- Joined: Mon Mar 18, 2013 10:15 pm
Re: Strange use of "vel"
Incidentally, cum is omitted in the Helm and Zimmerman editions--it's unnecessary if you read quod nec-- and they also read et adulterinae veneris, as in Miguel's edition.
quod nec is the reading chosen by the two modern editors, based on the ms. F, which, according to Zimmerman, is the ancestor of all the other mss. and the early printed editions. F is apparently very mutilated and illegible in many places, and Zimmerman sometimes adopts readings from the later mss., but here she follows F, with Salmasius' (17th c.) conjectural emendation of quod for quo--and without even mentioning the alternative reading found in your text (Valpy, 1825). Zimmerman claims to have personally collated F and to have been working with an accurate photocopy.
I'd be inclined to assume that the Helm and Zimmerman are right, or at least that they know more about the matter than I do and are working with the benefit of a century or nearly two centuries (in Zimmerman's case) of scholarship that was unavailable to Valpy. And they're in agreement with one another here.
quod nec is the reading chosen by the two modern editors, based on the ms. F, which, according to Zimmerman, is the ancestor of all the other mss. and the early printed editions. F is apparently very mutilated and illegible in many places, and Zimmerman sometimes adopts readings from the later mss., but here she follows F, with Salmasius' (17th c.) conjectural emendation of quod for quo--and without even mentioning the alternative reading found in your text (Valpy, 1825). Zimmerman claims to have personally collated F and to have been working with an accurate photocopy.
I'd be inclined to assume that the Helm and Zimmerman are right, or at least that they know more about the matter than I do and are working with the benefit of a century or nearly two centuries (in Zimmerman's case) of scholarship that was unavailable to Valpy. And they're in agreement with one another here.