Isidore de regibus

The second thing first. There is no manuscript authority for the exact reference to the Aeneid, about which Kim asked. So that is an editorial insertion (which, as I said in class, is common).

The reading in line 10 Nam fastum regium ... still defeats me. As it stands, it appears to be the accusative singular of the fourth declension noun fastus with the adjective regius -a -um. I'm not sure why I didn't puzzle over it earlier. But I still do not see any easy way to explain the accusative. It could conceivably be an adverbial use of the accusative, but, aside from the typical adverbial use of the neuter accusative singular of adjectives, that usually exists only in a few established phrases and I can't find a classical or late antique parallel. It also seems very improbable that the reader is supposed to understand fert from ferrent in the previous sentence. It would then also have to mean "put up with" (which is fine), but the switch to superbia ... erat would be intolerably abrupt. It would also be odd to have to jump over fecerunt to find the verb one needs to understand.

I find myself wondering if a neuter noun fastum comes into existence in late antiquity: I haven't been able to find evidence of that yet, but I don't have some of the larger medieval Latin dictionaries at home.

I will have to find a good modern edition of Isidore with an apparatus criticus (the notes at the bottom of the page that indicate variant manuscript readings and scholarly conjectures; you can see a few poor images of them here) to see what sort of manuscript authority fastum regium has. I have found one edition online that reads fastum regium (what should be a good edition from the publisher Brepols), but the electronic version doesn't have an apparatus. Godfrey (in Medieval Mosaic) doesn't say what edition he uses.

However, the text of Isidore's Etymologies in the Patrologia Latina offers fastus regius! That makes eminent sense as a nominative in apposition to benevolentia consulentis: "For regal pride was not the benevolence of one consulting, but was the arrogance of a master." Interestingly, Augustine says something very similar (City of God Book 5, chapter 12): cum et reges utique a regendo dicti melius videantur, ut regnum a regibus, reges autem, ut dictum est, a regendo; sed fastus regius non disciplina putata est regentis, vel benevolentia consulentis, sed superbia dominantis. This makes me think even more that it is the correct reading for this passage in Isidore.

I hope to have a more definite answer for you on Wednesday.