quis rex, quae curia, quale palatium,
quae pax, quae requies, quod illud gaudium,
huius participes exponant gloriam,
si quantum sentiunt, possint exprimere.
This is a part from a medieval chant. I am unsure if this is an exclamatory sentence.
In a dictionary, it is explained that “qui, quae, quod” as an interrogative adjective has an exclamatory meaning “what a…!”. Likewise with “qualis, quale”, “how…!”. But with “quis, quid” there is no such explanation there.
Or, these “quis rex, quae curia,…” are the object clause of “exprimere” ? (I don’t think this “exprimere” has anything to do with those, though.----“quantum sentiunt” is as it were the object of it.)
They are just ordinary questions, I think, Junya. Meâ mente, Junya, sunt quaestiones simplices.
“Who [is] the king, what [is] the court, what [is] the palace,
what [is] the peace, what [is] the relief, what [is] that joy [mentioned earlier],
whose sharers [/with whom those involved] can demonstrate/tell about the glory,
if they felt so much, [or] could express [so much]?”
Thanks for the advice, but I am still vague with your explanation.
Although I am now unsure about the construction of this sentence, I have a guess.
Yesterday, I understood
“huius participes exponant gloriam, si quantum sentiunt, possint exprimere”
as, “the participants would glory (express how glorious they are), if they could express as much as they are thinking”.
But today, I got this guess:
“si quantum sentiunt, possint exprimere quis est rex, quae est curia, quale est palatium…”
“if they could describe who is the king, of what kind is the curia, what is the palatium like…as much as they know.”
“Who [is] the King…?
Is there a King, is there a court, is there a palace, is there peace or rest or that joy experienced by anyone, who, if they felt as much [as those in the coming Kingdom of Jerusalem must feel] could describe that glory, [or] would be able to express it?”
Id est, “the Glory of the Kingdom of Jerusalem to come cannot compare to any existing kingdom” // incomparabilis est gloria Jerusalem [vel Hierosolymae] regni venturi.
Adrianus, I can’t see the agreement between the construction of the Latin sentence and the construction of your translation. I am still unsure. I understand the general meaning you gave from a larger perspective. But I want to translate with more minute accuracy.
Where I am unsure about your translation is this part:
whose sharers [/with whom those involved] can demonstrate/tell about the glory,
if they felt so much, [or] could express [so much]?"
for
huius participes exponant gloriam,
si quantum sentiunt, possint exprimere.
And here I am confused about a few points.
you translate the “huius” as the relative “whose”. But “huius” is a demonstrative. Could you explain why you translate so ?
you don’t translate out the subject of “exponant” and “possint exprimere”, which makes it very hard for me to understand the translated sentence.
I don’t understand the insertion of “or” (before “could express…”)
I can’t grasp the whole meaning of your translation. (I understand the general meaning of the sentence you gave, but I don’t understand this literal translation at all.)
I’m sorry I am giving too many questions. Please take time. You can answer only one at a time. I’m not hurrying.
And, I have got my own reading, which I will present to you after you finish the above questions.
“huius” = “of this [thing] just mentioned” or “of that [thing] just mentioned” so, in my mind, “whose” fits the bill. Aptum est anglicè “whose”, id midi videtur, pro “illius rei jam citatae”
“Sharers” vel “participants” vel “those involved” subjectum est, nisi fallor.
it is an “or” inclusive // “vel” conjunctio significatur:
“the participants can tell about the glory, the participants could express…”
Thank you Adrianus. There still remain vague points, but today, I show my reading.
If I re-arrange the sentence to make it easy to understand my way of reading, it is like this.
“si quantum sentiunt, possint exprimere
quis rex, quae curia, quale palatium,
quae pax, quae requies, quod illud gaudium,
huius participes exponant gloriam.”
If they could describe, as much as they see and know ,
who is the king (there in Jerusalem), what is the church like (there), what is the temple like (there),
how good the state of peace (there) is, how nice the rest (there) is, and how great that rejoice is (there),
the participants of the rejoice there would express praises (on the greatness of the city) and their glorious sentiment.
(though they won’t be able to describe them enough because of the too much greatness of what they see and know…just as Adrianus explained for me)
quis rex, quae curia, quale palatium,
quae pax, quae requies, quod illud gaudium,
huius participes exponant gloriam,
si quantum sentiunt, possint exprimere.
Adrianus,
Is this translator taking the “si” as the “exclamatory si”, not the “conditional si”?
He translates “O that…”.
I have not studied the “exclamatory si”. If this is the exclam,atory use of “si”, then I will check the Gildersleeve. So tell me if it is so, and if you agree with that translator.
“Exclamatory si” hoc nomen ignoro // I never heard of that term.
I don’t agree or disagree with his translation, Junya. He’s not translating word for word. I admire it and think it very good and faithful. He’s probably much better at Latin than I am.
Nec consentio nec dissentio viro qui verbatìm non vertit, sed admiror et fidelem bonamque habeo illam versionem. Latinitas illius viris eam meam superat, non dubito.
quis rex, quae curia, quale palatium,
quae pax, quae requies, quod illud gaudium,
huius participes exponant gloriam,
si quantum sentiunt, possint exprimere.
Sorry, not “exclamatory si”, but correctly “si of wishes”.
Like
O mihi praeteritos referat si Iuppiter annos
O if Jupiter brought back the past years to me!
“O” can be omitted in this construction, according to Gildersleeve.
As I examine it, the “si” clause in this sentence could be of “si of wishes”.
\
What is most perplexing for me in this sentence is that there is not a ! (exclamation mark) nor ? (question mark) for the part
“quis rex, quae curia, quale palatium,
quae pax, quae requies, quod illud gaudium,”.
Can you explain it ?
To solve this problem, I rendered this part as the “indirect interrogative clauses” of exprimere.
(exprimere quis rex, quae curia, quale palatium,
quae pax, quae requies, quod illud gaudium)
As I told you, I want to be as scrupulously accurate as possible in reading.
I don’ want to make a fake translation, which translators often make when they don’t really understand the original text’s meaning and grammatical construction.
I think you are right to be scrupulous. But these are modern signs and couldn’t be in the original, and a copy might not exist in Abelard’s hand. Even an editor’s modern usage of commas can affect how you interpret the sentence.
Some translations can be plainly incorrect; some can be excellent but differ. I don’t say my attempt at translating is correct but it’s my honest attempt. Also, language usage (of the original and of the language you’re translating into) varies between groups and over time,—you can suggest that in your translation.
Laudandus qui examinatè labores. At moderna sunt haec signa, chirographum Abaelardi auctoris pristinum non attingentia, qui chirographus certim jam longè abitus est. Et virgularum quidem usus a redactore impositus mutat sensum, vel mutare potest. Meam versionem rectam esse non clamo at conatum honestum profero. Planè sunt versionum defectivae; sunt quoque bonae quae autem inter se mutant. Non minùs variat inter greges aevaque lingua in quam vertis,—quam rem per opus tuum exprimere potes.
Oh, in the medieval writing (and in Roman time) there were not the question mark and the exclamation mark ? (and even the comma!)
Really ?
Thank you for the information !
That information is a great one for me. I have never known it.
When did you know that, Adrianus ?
I know that because I look at manuscripts,—images and the real thing,—and punctuation and abbreviations interest me,—and commas did exist, just how they are used varies. Id scio quòd chirographa nosco et per imagines et vera,—quidem interpunctio abbreviatioque mihi cura sunt. Exstant autem virgulae cuius usus admodùm variat.
There still remain vague points, but today, I show my reading.