Magistri Vincentii l.IV c. XXIV

[Matthaeus]

The bit in question is nec nisi ... astrinxit. Is the subject here extraneum vinculum or rather res from the previous clause?

Hic autem agitur de cum quo ... reperitur. Granted, the critical apparatus has secundus gradus, which makes a heck of a lot more sense, but is the present edition grammatically correct? It doesn't seem to make sense to me.

I'm having trouble understanding why the author wrote those two verbs in the passive voice, as to me, the meaning is something like "it certainly is a horrible, abominable thing to be either wanting in kindness towards a relative or not to return a loan to a kinsman." I mean, I think I get why the first one is passive, but the second? "not to be returned to a relative as a loan?"??

So, I assume iubeo may occasionally take a dative object? (Yes, I've checked L&S, just wanted your confirmation.) A new one on me.

Are the first two words a partitive genitive? If not, how are they to be parsed?

 

[Pacifica]

The bit in question is nec nisi ... astrinxit. Is the subject here extraneum vinculum or rather res from the previous clause?

The subject is vinculum. Extraneum is the direct object.

Hic autem agitur de cum quo ... reperitur. Granted, the critical apparatus has secundus gradus, which makes a heck of a lot more sense, but is the present edition grammatically correct? It doesn't seem to make sense to me.

It could be taken (more or less literally) as "whith whom he (i.e. the other person) is found to be of the second degree of consanguinity", with secundo ... gradu as an ablative of quality.

it certainly is a horrible, abominable thing to be either wanting in kindness towards a relative

You do need the passive destitui to produce that meaning (literally it's something like "to be failed by kindness"—that is, to be left without a supply of kindness, so to speak; hence to be wanting in kindness).

but the second? "not to be returned to a relative as a loan?"??

The loan is the subject here: "for a loan not to be returned..."

So, I assume iubeo may occasionally take a dative object? (Yes, I've checked L&S, just wanted your confirmation.) A new one on me.

It's not the classical construction but yes, it's occasionally found.

Are the first two words a partitive genitive? If not, how are they to be parsed?

Beneficii is a partitive genitive. Quod isn't genitive, obviously, but it's modified by beneficii.

 

[Matthaeus]

Thanks! I guess extraneo is an indirect object, then? Very literally, "only rarely does a bond of an individual agreement bind an outsider." Still kind of unclear.

 

[Pacifica]

Yes, extraneo is an indirect object. I'm not sure what's meant by individui. Besides what you said, it could mean something like "indivisible/unbreakable". You presumably know the context better than I do; I don't know if anything in it can help decide what the intended meaning is.

 

[Pacifica]

By default I took the clause to mean that contracts between strangers are easily broken; but I could be off for lack of context.

 

[Pacifica]

By default I took the clause to mean that contracts between strangers are easily broken; but I could be off for lack of context.

I took a look at the context and the next sentence seems to confirm that interpretation (quia qui causa utilitatis assumitur, tam diu placebit, quam diu utilis erit). Though I guess "alliance" or so might be a better word than "contract" for this kind of foedus.

 

[Matthaeus]

Yes, that's much better. "Only rarely does a bond of an unbreakable alliance bind an outsider to an outsider" is I guess the best we can do.

 

[Pacifica]

It looks correct to me, at least.