subiciens vs. subiiciens

[Furtail]

Hello,
I am working with texts that use different orthographic variants of "subiciens" (subijciens, subiiciens, subjiciens) and am perplexed because, although the version with the extra vowel appears in plenty of Google search results, dictionaries seem to give only the shorter version.
Question: Can anyone please explain the origin of this to me? Is one correct and the other not? Is one version indigenous to a particular author, genre, century, or geographical area? Thank you!

PS: The full phrase, from the Psalterium Romanum, is "Misericordia mea et refugium meum susceptor meus et liberator meus protector meus et in ipso speravi subiciens [subiiciens] populous sub me." Weber reports PsR: subiciens, but Lefèvre reports subijciens, in case that's useful.

 

[Scholiast]

Greetings, all.

First, classical Latin did not distinguish, orthographically, between consonantal i and the j that in modern English (and some other tongues) represents the 'y' sound in words such as iacio (mixed conjugation), whence words such as 'subject', 'inject', 'abject'.

Secondly, Latin contracts stems with 'ia-' in verbs to 'ii', or rather to 'ī', when compounded with a prepositional prefix such as 'sub-' or 'ad'.

Third, I hardly think Lefèvre can have printed subijciens: this is in any case wrong (subjiciens is manageable).

Of course the text under discussion is Vulgate, rather than classical. But I believe Jerome would have written subiciens.

Σ

 

[Furtail]

Thank you. I'll interpolate my questions here within the text.

First, classical Latin did not distinguish, orthographically, between consonantal i and the j that in modern English (and some other tongues) represents the 'y' sound in words such as iacio (mixed conjugation), whence words such as 'subject', 'inject', 'abject'.

Yep, I realize that the three (ii, ij, ji) are orthographic variants, as I mentioned in my post. What I don't understand is how the single vowel (i) belongs to that set, as well, as in Weber's book. Question: Between single i and double ii, is one correct and the other not, in this case? If so, which one? Is one version (single i or double ii )indigenous to any particular author, genre, century, or geographical area?

Secondly, Latin contracts stems with 'ia-' in verbs to 'ii', or rather to 'ī', when compounded with a prepositional prefix such as 'sub-' or 'ad'.

I'm confused as to where that happens here. The prefex "sub" is apparent but what is the original stem in this case? Can you explain what leads to that in the example of subiciens / subiiciens?

Third, I hardly think Lefèvre can have printed subijciens: this is in any case wrong (subjiciens is manageable).

And yet he did; I'm staring at it with both eyes at this very minute. The 16th-18th century Venetian printers used this combination frequently, as well. (...As i think about it, it must correspond to the convention in cursive, whereby northern Italian writers avoided the combination ii because in script it looks like the letter u.)

Of course the text under discussion is Vulgate, rather than classical. But I believe Jerome would have written subiciens.

It's actually not Vulgate--it's the Psalterium Romanum, in case that helps answer the questions above. Thank you!

 

[Scholiast]

saluete omnes

I'll take Mr Furtail's points in sequence.
(1) 'Yep, I realize that the three (ii, ij, ji) are orthographic variants, as I mentioned in my post. What I don't understand is how the single vowel (i) belongs to that set, as well, as in Weber's book. Question: Between single i and double ii, is one correct and the other not, in this case? If so, which one? Is one version (single i or double ii )indigenous to any particular author, genre, century, or geographical area?'
It is not a question of 'correctness'. Classical Latin orthography was never wholly standardised (witness the indices to the incomparably sage Hermann Dessau's Inscriptiones Latinae Selectae)—there never was a Latin Academie Française to regulate matters. ii and ji, as well as ī, will all still be found in compounded versions of the verb iacio, iacere, dating from the Renaissance onwards, the choice resting largely at the printer/publisher's discretion. But I have never come across ij in this context. To the best of my knowledge, there is no distinction with regard to geography, dialect or genre, in any literary Latin.
(2) I'm confused as to where that happens here. The prefix "sub" is apparent but what is the original stem in this case? Can you explain what leads to that in the example of subiciens / subiiciens?
You need a proper philologist, not a superannuated schoolmaster, to answer this properly, but to my certain knowledge, numerous mixed-conjugation stems (capio, capere, rapio, rapere for example) are regularly contracted in forms with a compounded prepositional prefix (corripio, arripio, suscipio, excipio).
(3) And yet he did; I'm staring at it with both eyes at this very minute. The 16th-18th century Venetian printers used this combination frequently, as well. (...As i think about it, it must correspond to the convention in cursive, whereby northern Italian writers avoided the combination ii because in script it looks like the letter u.)
Yes, in the early days of modern publication of such texts, this looks well possible. Not all Aldine typesetters were themselves philologists.
(4) It's actually not Vulgate--it's the Psalterium Romanum, in case that helps answer the questions above. Thank you!
Thank you for the correction, if that is what it is—but was not the Psalterium extracted from Jerome's Vulgate? The Book of Psalms has always been regarded as having its own independent merit as a hymnary, irrespective of the rest of the Old Testament.
Σ

 

[Furtail]

Thank you for this, this is enormously helpful. (...And the brilliant phrase "superannuated schoolmaster" put a smile on my face.)

As an interesting footnote, it turns out that although the PsR was long thought to have been Jerome's work, current thought is that it represents an earlier translation, one that Jerome used as a starting point for his own. Catherine Brown Tkacz writes, It was long thought that this correction survived in the particular version used widely in Italy, especially in Rome, and known as the Roman Psalter (Psalterium Romanum). In the 1930s, this view was contested, and since the 1960s (at least) it has been generally held that the Roman Psalter represents the Old Latin base text which Jerome corrected, not his correction of it.
Fascinating stuff, indeed!!

 

[Scholiast]

saluete de nouo!

although the PsR was long thought to have been Jerome's work, current thought is that it represents an earlier translation, one that Jerome used as a starting point for his own.

Fascinating. Yes I can understand that for decades, even centuries, before Jerome produced the Vulgate, the devotional hymnary of the Psalms could well have been used by Latin-speaking Christians. There was after all, a well-established diasporadic Jewish community in Rome already in Caesar's time, at least some of whom will have been more proficient in Latin than in Hebrew, and the rise of (gentile) Christianity in the Roman west can only have enhanced the demand for a Latin Psalter from the 1st century AD onwards. I must learn more of this.

Σ