An ascerbic commentator in 1581 has this to say about prior commentators such as Duns Scotus and Nicolaus Dorbellus. He has just presented an argument in the form of a sorites.
Utinam Aristotelicae, disciplinae interpretes istum soritem diligentius attendissent.
Oh, if only the commentators on Aristotle’s teaching had paid better attention to this sorites.
Nunquam aut tot Scoti et Dorbelli viguissent, aut tot argutiarum commenta in liberales artes irrepsissent.
If only so many Scotuses and Dorbelluses had not thrived, or so many cunning comments not crept into the liberal arts.
Am I reading those pluperfect subjunctives, especially the second, with the nunquam, correctly?
Yes the word order shows that the numquam applies to both. But I wouldn’t apply the initial Utinam to the subjunctives in this second sentence, which I take more as a regular apodosis, “Then either would so many Scotuses and Dorbelluses never have thrived or so many cunning comments never have crept into the liberal arts” (so much better in Latin).
Acerbic indeed! Those were the days, when rhetoric was not constrained by hypocritical civility.