Quaestionem unam habeo atque auxilium a vobis peto, si placet. In capitulo sexuagesimo tertio, de Mario bellica virtute, qua plus notus erat quam facie aut nobilitate familiae, dicitur:
“Etiam tum alios magistratus plebs, consulatum nobilitas inter se per manus tradebat. Novos nemo tam clarus neque tam egregiis factis erat, quin indignus illo honore et is quasi pollutus haberetur”.
Cur “novos”? Idem significat atque “(inter) novos (homines) nemo tam clarus…”
Num “novis (hominibus) nemo tam clarus… erat” rectius dici potest?
novos is just an older spelling for novus, i.e., nominative singular, agreeing with nemo.
“No one new”, i.e., no novus homo, a technical term for a man who was not a member of the nobilitas, the oligarchy of powerful families that until that time occupied the consulship and to a large extent the other major magistracies of the Roman Republic.
Sæpiusque invenitur quum ante illud ‘u’ nominativi singularis (scl nouus) semivocalis ‘u’ videre est. ‘Parvos’ igitur pro ‘Parvus’ multo crebrius quam ‘Dominos’ pro ‘Dominus’, quod quidem ni fallor ipse nunquam offendi.
Olim legeram in capitulo 23.6 libri de Coniuratione Catilinae
“Namque antea pleraque nobilitas invidia aestuabat et quasi pollui consulatum credebant, si eum quamvis egregius homo novos adeptus foret. Sed ubi periculum advenit, invidia atque superbia post fuere”.
Quam sententiam legeram in editione Orbergiana ergo iam mutatum vocabulum in “novus”.
In eodem libro Cap 11.2
“Nam gloriam, honorem, imperium bonus et ignavos aeque sibi exoptant; sed ille vera via nititur, huic quia bonae artes desunt, dolis atque fallaciis contendit”.
Sine mora “ignavos” mutavi in libro meo, scripsi quidem “ignavus”!!
Sallust lived at the time when the older spellings were giving way to the newer ones, but unlike his older contemporaries, e.g., Caesar and Cicero, he seems to have preferred the older spellings (as well as archaic usages), and his text reflects this. Sallust’s self-consciously old-fashioned Latin goes with the severely moralistic character of the writings of this corrupt, extravagant and debauched author.
“the severely moralistic character of the writings of this corrupt, extravagant and debauched author.”
Nicely put, but I wonder if it’s really true. He’s exceptionally hard to get at through all the filters.