I recently listened to a BBC Radio 4 programme in MP3 format, “Latin R.I.P.”, presented by Edward Stourton, produced by Simon Crow, but I don’t know when it was first broadcast.
Nuper programma quoddam anglicè “Latin R.I.P” nomine Radiophoniâ Societatis Emissivae Britannicae Quartâ emissum per MP3 formam auscultavi. Edouardus Stourton locutus est, Simon Crow produxit, quando autem id primùm emissum sit ignoro.
Edward Stourton (presenter)> : “For aspiring citizens in far flung provinces, it must have been comforting to know that the rules of grammar could fox even the giants of the Golden Age. [Here is] Peter Jones.” Peter Jones: > "The Romans were fascinated by exactly the same problems of Latin grammar that we were. For example, Pompey built the first stone theatre in Rome and he spent a long time wondering how he should inscribe it. Should he inscribe it “this theatre was built in Pompey’s third consulate” or “this theatre was built during Pompey’s third consulate”? The point is that “in Pompey’s third consulate” is > time when > and would go into the ablative case, > tertio consule> , while “throughout Pompey’s consultate” is > time throughout > and would go into the accusative case, > tertium consulem> . So he phoned up Caesar who was also an expert on grammar and actually wrote a book on grammar when he was crossing the Alps going into Gaul. Caesar said he didn’t know… so he phoned up Cicero. Cicero played around with it and said “Oh Hell!” he said, “Write “tert. cons.” In other words, leave out the endings entirely and let people make up their own mind. That’s the sort of debate these people had.”
I was interested and checked possible sources. It seems to me now that the details aren’t correct. Here is what Aulus Gellius says about the matter. Fontes credibiles quaesivi quòd id mihi curae erat. Nunc perperàm eum dixisse id mihi videtur. Ecce quod dicit Aulus Gellius de hâc re:
Is Varro right about “quarto locum adsignificat ac tres ante factos; quartum, tempus adsignificat et ter ante factura”? [The Disciplinae is a lost work.]// Recténe dicit Varro in eo quod attinet ad “quartum/quarto”? [Perditum est opus Disciplinarum.]
This might be one of those “rules” though that nobody follows. At least looking it up in L&S, “tertio” and “tertium” can both mean “for the third time”, and similarly with “quarto” and “quartum”.
But the BBC thing with ablative and accusative of time strikes me as really strange, mostly because it left me wondering if “consul” could be used for “consulate”.
Or that was once followed but changed over time and between groups of speakers.
Aut quae olim oboediebatur ac in tempore abiit aut inter dictores mutata est.
L&S, §419a: “L. Domitio Ap. Claudio consulibus (id. v. 1), in the consulship of Lucius Domitius and Appius Claudius (Lucius Domitius and Appius Claudius [being] consuls).”
but “L. Domitium Ap. Claudium consules” for “throughout the consulship of…”? I don’t think so! // Id valdè dubito!
But then I’d expect such a distinction to have left some trace behind but I can’t seem to find any – I mean, I couldn’t find any examples of “tertio” meaning what Varro says it means. It just seems that “tertio” was a rarer version of “tertium”. (I can’t claim to have done the most thorough investigation, though.)
L&S, §419a: “> L. Domitio Ap. Claudio consulibus > (id. v. 1), > in the consulship of Lucius Domitius and Appius Claudius > (Lucius Domitius and Appius Claudius [being] consuls).”
But like you say, this is just the ablative absolute, so “consul” here still means “consul” and not “consulship”.
Well, Gellius, who himself employs the distinction when replying to his friend in Rome who thinks tertio is more normal, is happy to defer to Varro by way of explanation. Ut Varronis explicationem deferat contentus est Gellius, qui ipse distinctionem tenet et rationem amico suo Romam reddat cur tertium ac non tertio scripsisset.
The following may explain part of Peter Jones’ confusion about the adverb tertiùm being an accusative when he imagines time duration: Hoc partim illuminet confusionem Petri Jones praeter tertium adverbium quod ratione spatii temporis subintellecti cum accusativo casu admiscet.
Oxford Latin Dictionary, “tertiō, adv. [TERTIVS + -O]…2. As the third item in an enumeration, thirdly; also, in third place (in a race)…” Le Grand Gaffiot, “tertiō, adv…2. en troisième lieu, troisièmement: CAES. C.3.43.4; VARR. L.5.80…”
How do you mean that he employs the distinction? I did read the letter but he doesn’t seem to do so.
Thanks for the cite from the OLD. Do they give an example for that meaning (the “in third place (in a race)”) since L&S doesn’t have it and I couldn’t find it mentioned in my search?
Concerning how many times he had already written, he (Gellius) deliberately wrote “tertium” not “tertio” in his original letter to his friend in Rome. His friend had asked him why. [He had written previously that he was writing for the third time, i.e., tertiùm.]
De quotiens iam scripsisset, consultò scripserat Gellius in epistulâ ad amicum Romam “tertium” non “tertio”. Qui amicus rescribens cur ille sic scripsisset rogaverat. [Priùs Gellius se tertiùm scribere scripserat.]
[quote=“OLD inter alia”]
“vicit Euryalus, accepit praemium equum. . secundo Helymus. .pharetram, ~ [id est, tertio] Diores galeam HYG. > Fab> . 273.16.”
[/quote]
Quoàd istam distinctionem, denotat Gellius ut ille ipse Varroni congruat. Solus huius auctoris liber qui nobis restat est “Noctes Atticae” in quo “tertio” semper ablativo casu adjectivum vel substantivum non adverbium invenitur.
The gist of his passage is that he goes along with Varro in the distinction. All we have is his book “Noctes Atticae” and he never uses “tertio” adverbially in it, just adjectivally or substantively (as an ablative). For example: