Ut, inquit, tua patria civitatum pulcerrima huc adducatur, ut intelligat se a me diligi, eoque ...

[Imber Ranae]

I don't understand. Why would ut tua patria huc adducatur... eo ad fores venio, lit. "so that your country be brought to... for that/because of that I come to the door" be possible and not with eoque, "so that your country... and for that/because of that I come to the door"? The only difference I see is "and".

Maybe you mean it's just not idiomatic?

Because the purpose clause would be subordinate to the clause with eo, just in reversed order. With eoque it can't be subordinate, only coordinate; but in that case what triggers the ut purpose clause at all? Surely not accidit.

Also, like I said, I've never seen, nor does L&S seem to show, any instances in the literature where eoque follows a purpose clause. But perhaps I just haven't looked hard enough...

 

[Pacifica]

Ok, I see what you mean now.

I think the ut huc adducatur ut intelligat se a me diligi, eoque ad fores amasiorum meorum venio in itself would make more sense if the ut clause was a purpose clause, "in order that your country be brought to understand that she's loved by me, and it's the reason why I come to my beloved's door", but indeed it doesn't really seem to answer the question quid tibi accidit.

On the other hand, "What happened to you?" "(It happens to me) that your country is being brought to understand that she's loved by me, and that's why I come to my beloved's door" doesn't seem to me to make enormous sense either.

My conclusion: it's just weird.

 

[Imber Ranae]

My conclusion: it's just weird.

We seem to be on the same page. The Greek is so straightforward that I wonder how it got so garbled in translation, though? Maybe there were other versions of the story floating about? Except it's correctly attributed to Philostratus in the source where I found the Latin translation.

ἔφη ‘τί παθὼν πολέμου ἄρχεις;’ τοῦ δὲ εἰπόντος ‘ἡ πατρὶς ἡ σὴ καλλίστη πόλεων οὖσα ὑπηγάγετό με ἐρᾶν αὐτῆς καὶ διὰ τοῦτο ἐπὶ θύρας τῶν ἐμαυτοῦ παιδικῶν ἥκω’​

​

'quid,' inquit, 'passus bellum gerere incipis?' 'patria tua,' ille inquit, 'cum pulcherrima civitatum [/urbium] esset, me induxit ut se amarem, eoque ad foras amasiorum meorum veni.'​

 

[Pacifica]

The big problem for the sense is in the verb intelligat. Ut huc adducatur ut a me diligatur, though not faithful to the original, would still make some sense...

 

[limetrees]

I think we are all more or less on the same hymn sheet at this stage.

But to defend the Latin trans, the Greek is so simple even I (two short years of classes - can now read New Testament and simplified classical) can follow it, so a mistranslation is unlikely. But isn't it a better version in the Latin, even given its linguistic imperfections - (which maybe just go to demonstrate Philip's perturbed state of mind)?
Greek: Leo "Why make war?" Philip "Your country led me to love her, so I showed up at its door". Leo "But lovers don't need swords".

Latin: Leo "Why make war?" Philip "So that she understand how much I love her I showed up at her door". Leo "But lovers don't use swords (to win the heart of a fair maiden)."

I prefer the Latin .


BTW, PP
"Ut huc adducatur ut a me diligatur" - this would be more difficult sense-wise (for me, at least)
That she be brought (to this) that she be loved by me ???
Can't see the problem with "intelligat": I want you to know how much I love you, so I besiege you: classic stalker mentality!

 

[Pacifica]

BTW, PP
"Ut huc adducatur ut a me diligatur" - this would be more difficult sense-wise (for me, at least)
That she be brought (to this) that she be loved by me ???
Can't see the problem with "intelligat": I want you to know how much I love you, so I besiege you: classic stalker mentality!

To quid tibi accidit/what happened to you, it would make more sense to answer "(it happens) that she is brought to be loved by me, and that's the reason why I come", than to answer with a purpose clause, "in order that she be brought to understand that she's loved by me, and that's the reason why I come".

As Imber Ranae said, it could make sense without -que/and: "in order that she be brought... that's why I come" or in a more English order "the reason why I come is for her to be brought to understand...", even if it doesn't 100% answers the question quid tibi accidit, one doesn't always answer strictly, and it still gives a reason. But to be asked "what happened?" and answer with a purpose clause "in order that", and only then add "and this is the reason" is just too weird.