i'm glad you asked! the clause in question is from book iv line 11, quem sese ore ferens. most of the sources I can find treat this as describing aeneas's physical beauty (e.g., pharr glosses it "how noble in appearance") but the tiered reader I'm using equates it with quam bene loquitur, i.e., "how well he speaks"
the literal sense of the phrase is something like, "how he carries himself by his os"ā with the difficulty that os can refer either to the mouth specifically (and, therefore, metonymically, speech) or to one's mien or countenance. so there's a genuine ambiguity in how to interpret the line
or at least, that was my crude understanding; but since every other source I could find took this to be talking about aeneas's physical beauty, I started to get worried about the scholarly authority of the (relatively minor) text I was using, and asked claude how marginal the "speech" interpretation was, who pointed me to pease's stunningly thorough commentary on the poem
(seriously, click through that linkāthere's a full page or more of commentary for each single line in the aeneid)
and pease has this to say about quem sese ore ferens:
the Scholia Danielis are in doubt whether this refers to speech or appearance, yet if we have the same idea as in 3, 490: sic oculos, sic ille manus, sic ora ferebat (cf. Sil. 8, 72 (of Aeneas): noto sese ore ferebat) it seems likely that the appearance is intended; cf. also 1, 503: talem se laeta ferebat.
the scholia danielis of course (obviously!) refers to the ~11th century expansion (see servius's wikipedia page for some context on the manuscript tradition here) of the roman grammarian servius's commentary on the aeneid, which says: (Ā§ 4.11 at the link)
QUEM SESE ORE FERENS cum eum ob virtutem laudet, addendo tamen os nec pulchritudinem denegaverit. 'ore' autem 'ferens' utrum oratione, an vultu, dubium est.
QUEM SESE ORE FERENS while she praises his character, by adding "os" she does not deny his beauty. whether, though, 'ore ferens' refers to his speech or his countenance is unclear.
so: while the modern consensus (n.b.: I say "consensus" but it's not like I've checked that many independent sources) seems to prefer the "by his countenance" reading, there has been doubt over which reading is licensed for at least the last 1000 years
honestly, just the fact that both readings are possible suggests to me that the ambiguity itself is intended. we're talking about about one of the most highly acclaimed classical poets, after all. but I haven't really seen anybody taking this tack
ā in fact the word that I'm translating as the verb carries is a participle, carrying. however, the combination of the participle with the exclamatory quem ("who") is difficult to render in englishāwith a selection of the previous line, it's something like "what guest has come among us, carrying himself in what way!"āand I have the impression that even in the original latin this is pretty contorted syntax
origamiaround
tangentwithtanner
janainaart
theartofmadeline
2087
baratheonpilled
blakekathryn
