I think I’ve studied a grammar rule for quis in indirect discourse, but I can’t find it. Do I have this right? I am uncertain about the grammar for quis in this sentence.
Boethius, Consolation of Philosophy, Book I, prose section 4
The author narrates his political fall, and its unfairness in relation to his upright actions.
Sed innocentiam nostram quis exceperit eventus vides. . . .
In clumsy English to let the Latin show:
But what the outcome took from my innocence you see. . . .
Or in real English: But you can see how my innocence was rewarded.
Without the context it’s difficult to be quite sure, but it looks as if you have the grammar right. exceperit doesn’t mean “took from” however. Lit. “my innocence, what outcome befell it, you see” i.e. “you see what the result of my innocence was.”
Thank you, mwh. I’ll retype the quotation, because I have some questions:
Sed innocentiam nostram quis exceperit eventus vides. . . .
Boethius is writing about his desperate political/judicial situation, under arrest and probably doomed (as we know, actually doomed).
Should I read “quis” as an adjective modifying “eventus”? That’s how I’m reading it, but I’m not sure about the grammar of this.
“innocentiam nostram” is the direct object of “exceperit”, right?
“exceperit” is the perfect active subjunctive of “excipio”, right? A long definition in Lewis and Short presents us with lots of choices of meanings. “befell” looks good to me.
I find Boethius very difficult, even with the help of James O’Donnell’s commentary here:
I believe you’re correct on each point. Quis functions here as an interrogative adjective modifying eventus. The grammar books state that qui is the nominative masculine singular form of the interrogative adjective, but here the form quis seems to be used here.