Word: Superficiatenus

[NubusLatinae1770]

Salvete omnes!

I am currently reading Pietro Alighieri's commentary on the Divine Comedy, and in the prologue, Pietro quotes from Gregory the Great and his Moralia, to illustrate the ways of interpreting scripture. I came across a word there that I cannot seem to find a definition for anywhere. I will post the entire section, with the word in bold (I will use Pietro's medieval Latin spellings). If anyone can help me decipher this one word, I would gladly appreciate the help!

Aliquando autem eadem intellegi iuxta licteram (medieval spelling for litteram) nequeunt, quia, superficiatenus accepta, nequaquam legentibus instructionem, sed errorem gignunt.

The sentence is readily understandable, and I will offer my translation here, with a guess of what superficiatenus might mean (maybe it is genetive? Not sure as to the case ending either, because -us does not agree with -a):

"Sometimes, however, the same things cannot be understood literally [i.e. according to the sensus literalis], because, after accepting a superficial reading, they render instruction to readers by no means, but [instead they proffer] error."

Note: My edition of Pietro's Comentum says this comes from "Greg. Moral. Introductory Epistle 3"

Thanks!

 

[rothbard]

Sounds like it's actually "superficie tenus".

 

[NubusLatinae1770]

Do you mean to say that Pietro erroneously wrote the above bolded word instead of "superficie tenus" or that superficiatenus is a word much like hactenus, and would mean something along the lines of "as far as the surface"? I think you are probably correct, especially if it is the latter. Whichever, my text does have superficiatenus, and it would make sense that it is -us if it is adverbial!

How would this section, superficiatenus accepta, be translated then? Lit: having accepted so far as the surface, i.e. having accepted the reading literally?

Thanks!

 

[rothbard]

Yes, I think it probably means "superficially" (cf. "verbo tenus" meaning "literally" or "in theory"). What edition are you reading? Is it an actual book, or a text on the internet? Errors in digitized texts are quite common. It could also be an error in transcription, or an "e" looking like an "a".

 

[Laurentius]

How is that readily understandable if a lot of these words are transcribed wrongly? For example it is intellegi, not intellexi.

 

[rothbard]

How is that readily understandable if a lot of these words are transcribed wrongly? For example it is intellegi, not intellexi.

Intellexi is correct in classical Latin. Intellegi is the older form (see here).

 

[Laurentius]

Intellexi is correct in classical Latin. Intellegi is the older form (see here).

It is an infinite passive.

 

[NubusLatinae1770]

My apologies, the text does read intellegi not intellexi. Which other words do you see transcribed incorrectly? Keep in mind this is a text from the 14th century, and one would expect variant spellings and oddities of grammar.

 

[NubusLatinae1770]

It is indeed a book, from an academic press with a lengthy introduction on textual transmission, manuscript variant readings, and a robust criticus apparatus. This is the text I am referring to. It is quite intriguing from the perspective of anyone entirely interested in Dante and his Comedy. The text states superficiatenus.

 

[Laurentius]

My apologies, the text does read intellegi not intellexi. Which other words do you see transcribed incorrectly? Keep in mind this is a text from the 14th century, and one would expect variant spellings and oddities of grammar.

This is the text I have found.

 

[NubusLatinae1770]

This is the text I have found.

Thanks for sharing this. It's interesting to think of how many spelling errors and oddities crept their way into medieval manuscripts to the point that learned authors such as Pietro Alighieri would copy them unknowingly (or knowingly perhaps, who knows).

 

[Laurentius]

Thanks for sharing this. It's interesting to think of how many spelling errors and oddities crept their way into medieval manuscripts to the point that learned authors such as Pietro Alighieri would copy them unknowingly (or knowingly perhaps, who knows).

I don't think we can judge in this case, alas you are the only one with the manuscript. Btw, another difference I see is that eadem seems to be missing.

 

[rothbard]

It is an infinite passive.

Sorry, you are right, of course.

 

[NubusLatinae1770]

There is another instance I have noticed of Pietro adding a word to a source quote he is citing, in this case from Isidore's Etymologiae:

"...alieniloquium, ut cum lictera (again an odd spelling of littera/ae, though my edition goes at length to showcase medieval Latin variants common to northern Italy in the 14th century) unum sonat et aliud intelligi debet."

My Oxford version of Isidore omits the words "lictera/littera/ae." It does look sometimes like Pietro added a word here or there for clarity's sake, either that or the manuscript editions he had available (or rather the digest of authorities) had already snuck in the extra words into the quotations.

 

[Avunculus H]

Another possibility is that he was quoting from memory, having read the text long before; memory can play tricks on you.