“restim, qua erat intextus, aggredior expedire”–How does masculine “intextus” fit here?
I think intextus actually goes with grabatulus in the previous sentence. He’s attempting to unravel the rope (restim), with which (qua) the cot(grabatulus)was made (by interweaving)(erat intextus).
The previous lines are: Iam iam, grabatule,’ inquam ‘animo meo carissime, qui mecum tot aerumnas exanclasti conscius et arbiter quae nocte gesta sunt, quem solum in meo reatu testem innocentiae citare possum, tu mihi ad inferos festinanti sumministra telum salutare.’
The subject of intextus is grabulatus.
So “qua (sc. grabulatus) erat intextus” “which was laced (weaved) into the (mean) couch”.
Edit: cross post
qua (sc. grabulatus) … “which was…”
But “grabatulus” is masculine, so, on this reading, “qua” should be taken, rather, as an ablative of means, agreeing with “restim,” right?
Strangely, the Loeb translation still seems to have taken the subject of “intextus” to be “restis”: “With these words I set to work unravelling the rope which was laced into the cot-frame.”
This is the translator putting the Latin sentence into idiomatic English. The sense is still the same - he set about unravelling the rope from the cot. In the Latin sentence, restim (note it’s in the accusative)is the object of expedire. grabatulus is the implied subject of erat intextus. “qua (sc. grabatulus)erat intextus” is a subordinate clause that helps define restim. You could remove this clause and the sentence would still make sense.
I think qua is the abl instrumentalis of quae agreeing with restim
It’s certainly not the nominative. Qua is indeed an ablative of means (instrumentalis) which is being used to introduce the subordinate clause (…erat intextus)
Thanks to all who responded! It makes perfect sense now.