parentem hac in re minus proprio quam Blavii commodo consuluisse

limetrees

Civis Illustris
Can anyone help with this?
Thanks.

Ego respondi dolorem suum hac in re superfluum esse neque in Gallia nobis neque in Hollandia defore qui avide eam occasionem arriperent parentem hac in re minus proprio quam Blavii commodo consuluisse.

My version.
I told him that in this matter there was no need for him to be sorry, and that in France or Holland we did not lack people who would grab the chance to consult [my] father in a matter less to his own benefit than to Blaeu’s.

 

Pacifica

grammaticissima
Staff member
I wonder if there shouldn't be (by today's standards, that is; the rules were different and, I believe, less fixed in Grotius's day) a comma after esse and one after arriperent. If so, you should take these as three separate indirect statement clauses:

1) dolorem suum hac in re superfluum esse = "that there was no need for him to be sorry in this matter"

2) neque in Gallia nobis neque in Hollandia defore qui avide eam occasionem arriperent = "that neither in France nor in Holland would we lack people who would eagerly seize the opportunity"

3) parentem hac in re minus proprio quam Blavii commodo consuluisse = "that in this matter his father had had less regard for his own convenience than for Blaeu's"

If neque in Gallia nobis neque in Hollandia defore qui avide eam occasionem arriperent parentem hac in re minus proprio quam Blavii commodo consuluisse goes together, without understood comma, then parentem hac in re minus proprio quam Blavii commodo consuluisse is in apposition to occasionem, describing what the occasio consisted of: "the opportunity consisting of the fact that his father had in this matter had less regard..."

Since you must know the context better than I do, is there anything that would cause either of the interpretations to make more sense to you?

In any case, commodo must go with the verb consuluisse, and parentem must be its subject. Res alicuius commodo meaning "a matter to someone's benefit" would hardly be grammatical. You don't usually find a dative modifying a noun adjectivally like that (barring exceptions like frugi).
 
Last edited:

limetrees

Civis Illustris
Pacifica.
Thanks.
Yes, absolutely, the parentem hac in re minus proprio quam Blavii commodo consuluisse is another, separate ACI depending on "respondi".
He might have put in an "et" or "nempe" or something in front of "parentem, just to help out us later readers. Sheesh.

For the context, Blaue has just told the writer that he can't publish his father's book ('cos his New Atlas is costing a fortune).
 
Top