Nineteenth-Century Latin Help

Latin Medieval and Neo-Latin
1

In his 1870 edition of the fragments of Eudemus (a student of Aristotle), Leonhard von Spengel, a German scholar writing, as was customary at the time, in Latin, is citing a section from Proclus’ Commentary on Euclid’s Elements which traces the development of Greek geometry from Thales to Euclid.

For context, Spengel is keen to argue that the content of Proclus’ ‘Catalogue of Geometers’ is owed, almost in its entirety, to Eudemus’ lost work ‘History of Geometry’, and as a result justify its inclusion as a genuine fragment of Eudemus. His Latin runs like this:

“Maioris momenti erant libri quibus historiam astrologiae, geometriae, arithmeticae enarraverat; astrologics usus est Simplicius in commentariis de coelo, arithmeticis Porphyrius ad Ptolemaeum, geometricis Proclus ad Euclidem qui primo loco quo geometriae disciplinam ab Aegyptiis ortam usque ad Philippum Platonis discipulum paucis comprehendit, Eudemi nomen non affert, sed verbis οἱ μὲν οὖν τὰς ἱστορίας ἀναγράψαντες μέχρι τούτου προάγουσι τὴν τῆς ἐπιστήμης ταύτης τελείωσιν ita iudicat, ut nemo dubitare possit, qui utinam nusquam ubi Eudemum sequitur, eius nomen negelxisset!”

Now, despite my research interests inclining heavily towards the Greek side these past few years, I have enough latent Latin to muddle my way through most of this:

the books in which he [i.e. Eudemus] had recorded the history of astronomy, geometry, and arithmetic, were of great(er) importance; Simplicius made use of Eudemus’ books on astronomy in his commentary on [Aristotle’s] De Caelo, Porphyry made use of Eudemus’ books on arithmetic commentary on Ptolemy, and Proclus made use of Eudemus’ books on geometry in his commentary on Euclid, Proclus who briefly recounted the science of geometry, beginning from the Egyptians all the way to Philip, the student of Plato. He does not mention Eudemus’ name, but by the words [translating the Greek] “those who have thus written histories [i.e. of geometry] extend the completion of the science up to this [either man (= Philip) or point]”

Here’s where I start to struggle. ita iudicat ut nemo dubitare possit, qui utinam nusquam ubi Eudemum sequitur, eius nomen neglexisset" = “he judges (‘decides’ / perhaps even ‘declares’) that no-one could doubt, who [???] follows Eudemus, that it is his name that he has omitted”.

My main queries are over the utinam, which I only know as a particle of wishing, and the nusquam ubi (lit. ‘nowhere where’).

Any help on this last bit would be greatly appreciated.

2

Possibly a typo, qui instead of quin?

“He says so, so that no one can doubt that in no place where he follows E. he had neglected E’s name”.

I am not sure this fits the context but that’s one way I can (try and) make sense of the sentence right now.

But the utinam is troublesome then. It seems to be left hanging alone…

3

Would be nice, right? Unfortunately, there’s two editions of Spengel’s commentary, and both have qui not quin. What’s more, this passage was quoted in a recent work of scholarship, with no indication that there’s a typographical error (not even a ‘[sic]’).

4

Okay, having thought about it, I think I’ve got enough to make sense of it, though it does assume some sloppiness on Spengel’s part (forgetting about quin with negativized verbs of doubting).

A reminder of the Latin:

Maioris momenti erant libri quibus historiam astrologiae, geometriae, arithmeticae enarraverat; astrologics usus est Simplicius in commentariis de coelo, arithmeticis Porphyrius ad Ptolemaeum, geometricis Proclus ad Euclidem qui primo loco quo geometriae disciplinam ab Aegyptiis ortam usque ad Philippum Platonis discipulum paucis comprehendit, Eudemi nomen non affert, sed verbis οἱ μὲν οὖν τὰς ἱστορίας ἀναγράψαντες μέχρι τούτου προάγουσι τὴν τῆς ἐπιστήμης ταύτης τελείωσιν ita iudicat, ut nemo dubitare possit, qui utinam nusquam ubi Eudemum sequitur, eius nomen neglexisset!

My revised translation:

The books in which he [i.e. Eudemus] had recounted the history of astronomy, geometry and arithmetic were of great(er) importance. Simplicius used his books on astronomy in his commentaries on [Aristotle’s] De Caelo, Porphyry used his books on arithmetic in his commentary on Ptolemy, and Proclus used his books on geometry in his commentary on Euclid, Proclus who, in the first place where he briefly recounts the science of geometry, all the way from its origin among the Egyptians down to Philip [of Mende], the student of Plato, does not mention the name ‘Eudemus’, but by the words, “those who have compiled histories extend the perfection of this science up to this [either ‘man’ (= Philip) or ‘point’]”, he decides in such a way that nobody (even–I hope!–one who nowhere followed Eudemus where [he leads]) could doubt that he had neglected this man’s name!

Like I say, it requires understanding that Spengel has forgotten, perhaps in the process of constructing the subordinate clause beginning qui utinam, that nemo dubitare possit should be followed by quin + subj., and not the bare subj. neglexisset.

5

Hi. As this is my first post to the forum, it is liable to be delayed while getting vetted by the moderators. My apologies if you have already received better suggestions in the interim.

I think we can get the stray utinam to make sense by treating utinam nusquam as an interjection, along the lines of “would that such a thing occurs nowhere”. But then wouldn’t the author have enclosed it in parentheses? Anyway putting that to a side for the moment, I would interpret the remainder of the clause like this: “he concludes in such a way (ita judicat) that no one can doubt (ut nemo dubitare possit), Proclus (qui) – when he does follow Eudemus (ubi Eudemum sequitur) – has purposely omitted his name (ejus nomen neglexisset)”.

As for utinam nusquam I think the author is qualifying the verb sequitur here as if to say “oh if only Proclus had nowhere (i.e. in none of his writings) followed Eudemus”. Admittedly I’m speculating, but it’s an interesting passage!