5

Consider this sentence from Seneca's De Brevitate Vitae: "inde Aristotelis cum rerum natura exigentis minime conveniens sapienti viro lis". The sentence introduces a quotation attributed to Aristotle, but that's not pertinent to my question. I think: exigentis depends on Aristotelis (both genitive); the sense of exigere here is to deliberate or consider; and "cum rerum natura" says something about what Aristotle was considering, but I can't make sense of "cum." Translating it temporally would fit the context, but I though cum can be temporal only as part of a clause with a finite verb -- can "cum" be temporal with a participle like exigentis? Translating cum prepositionally "with the nature of things" sounds awkward in English; we would say "about" or "concerning," I suppose. But maybe this is a situation in which the meaning of the Latin preposition when used with exigere just does not align exactly with its usual English equivalent. We might say: "I was struggling with that concept" and maybe the sense of cum is similar here. Any help greatly appreciated.

2
  • 1
    See L & S exigo II B 7: "To treat, consult, deliberate respecting something, = considerare, deliberare (class. but not in Cic.)" -- examples include cum eo, cum aliqo, secum -- would that make sense? (I suppose yes, if Socrates was in an argument with the nature of things.) Aug 31 at 20:01
  • Thanks so much for the response; that's further than I got; but I think Kingshorsey has hit the nail on the head.
    – Augustinus
    Aug 31 at 22:13
5

Oxford Latin Dictionary, exigo, 10, e:

(intr., w. cum) to expostulate (with a person)

I suspect that may not have been helpful, so let's consult Merriam-Webster on "expostulate":

to reason earnestly with a person for purposes of dissuasion or remonstrance

This usage seems related to exigere as discussing with someone, but it has acquired a more negative connotation, including disapproval and/or reproach.

Seneca's criticism of Aristotle is that he was complaining about how the world works (rerum natura), something a good Stoic philosopher would never do.

1
  • 1
    Thanks so much for this response. It solves the grammatical mystery, and you've helped me appreciate a nuance of Seneca's philosophical position that had escaped me. My first time posting a question -- the bar has been set high!
    – Augustinus
    Aug 31 at 22:15

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.