Textkit Logo

Plaut. Truculentus 57-63

Here's where you can discuss all things Latin. Use this board to ask questions about grammar, discuss learning strategies, get translation help and more!

Moderator: thesaurus

Plaut. Truculentus 57-63

Postby vir litterarum » Sat Aug 01, 2009 6:51 pm

atque haec celamus nos clam magna industria,
quom rem fidemque nosque nosmet perdimus,
ne qui parentes neu cognati sentiant;
quos quom celamus si faximus conscios,
qui nostrae aetati tempestiuo temperent,
unde anteparta demus postpartoribus,
faxim lenonum nec scortorum plus siet
et minu' damnosorum hominum quam nunc sunt siet.

Text is that of W.M. Lindsay

I am confused as to the general purport of the last 5 lines, but my current translation reads:
"And we conceal these things secretly with great industry,
When we ourselves destroy our wealth and ourselves,
so that neither our parents nor relatives may in some way perceive it;
If we should have made which ones, when we conceal these things, accomplices,
who may temper our age at the right time,
whence there may be in the end property for our heirs,
I would have made it so that there would be more of pimps and not whores and that there would be less of abominable men than there now are.

Can anyone explicate to me where I have gone wrong in my translation? Unfortunately I have not been able to locate a serviceable commentary on this play.
vir litterarum
Textkit Zealot
 
Posts: 721
Joined: Sat Sep 24, 2005 4:04 am
Location: Oberlin, Ohio

Re: Plaut. Truculentus 57-63

Postby adrianus » Sun Aug 02, 2009 1:44 am

Salve vir litterarum
and we ourselves take great pains to secretly conceal these things
when we lose our property, our credit [not faith, in the context] and our very selves [/our perspectives, perhaps],
lest any parent or relative should realize;
if, instead of concealing things, we had confided in those
who would curb our generation in a timely fashion [/before it's too late]
whereby we may pass on what we inherited to our heirs,
I would have brought it about that there were no more pimps or prostitutes
and fewer men who were spendthrifts than there are nowadays.
Last edited by adrianus on Sun Aug 02, 2009 11:06 pm, edited 2 times in total.
I'm writing in Latin hoping for correction, and not because I'm confident in how I express myself. Latinè scribo ut ab omnibus corrigar, non quod confidenter me exprimam.
adrianus
Textkit Zealot
 
Posts: 3270
Joined: Sun Sep 10, 2006 9:45 pm

Re: Plaut. Truculentus 57-63

Postby vir litterarum » Sun Aug 02, 2009 6:01 am

Your translation makes better sense than mine, but I've never seen "quom" used in the sense of "instead of" before. My other problem concerns your translation " no more pimps or prostitutes." I agree that the negative "nec" should go with both, but how can you understand it before "lenonum"? Shouldn't the construction be "nec lenonum nec scortorum"?
vir litterarum
Textkit Zealot
 
Posts: 721
Joined: Sat Sep 24, 2005 4:04 am
Location: Oberlin, Ohio

Re: Plaut. Truculentus 57-63

Postby adrianus » Sun Aug 02, 2009 10:49 am

Salve vir litterarum

"Quom" anglicè "whereas" seu "while" seu "although" sensum inter alios habet. "Whereas/although we hide if we made aware" nonnè anglicè melius est "rather than/instead of"?

I imagined that because "nec" is so strong as "nor", the first "nec" could be understood in street Latin because obviously necessary, "[nec] lenonum nec scortorum". [Even in older spoken English putting the verb at the end (it won't be said at the start) I could imagine "apples nor pears I like" instead of longer-winded "neither apples nor pears I like".] Maybe that's wrong. Justification after the fact.
Tam vehemens atque conceptum "nec" ut adverbium, primum in sententiâ vulgò omisisse credi ut compressiùs loquaris. Fortassè erro. Argumentum ex post facto.
I'm writing in Latin hoping for correction, and not because I'm confident in how I express myself. Latinè scribo ut ab omnibus corrigar, non quod confidenter me exprimam.
adrianus
Textkit Zealot
 
Posts: 3270
Joined: Sun Sep 10, 2006 9:45 pm

Re: Plaut. Truculentus 57-63

Postby adrianus » Sun Aug 02, 2009 11:46 am

There a gap in the MSS there, it seems. Who knows what Plautus actually wrote for the actor there!
Hîc est lacuna in chirographis, ut videtur. Verè, quis scit quid ibi scaenico scripserit Plautus!

http://www.thelatinlibrary.com/plautus/truculentus.shtml wrote:faxim lenonum et scortorum ~ plus est 62a
et minus damnosorum hominum quam nunc sunt siet.



I don't see the passage // locum non inveni in W. M. Lindsay, An Introduction to Latin Textual Emendation Based on the Text of Plautus (1896) http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0071%3Achapter%3Dintroduction%3Aparagraph%3D2

Post scriptum

In a footnote, Lindsay himself says that he inserted "nec" and "siet" into line 62 to fill the gap, using whichever of the main MSS sources provided information. (The book, T. Macci Plauti Comoediae, Volume 2, is unpaginated.)
In adnotatione libri T. Macci Plauti Comoediae nomine (1904), tomus secundus, Lindsay redactor se ipsum et "nec" et "siet" verba in illam lineam sexagesimam secundam inseruisse dicit, secundum archetypum codicum Palatinae recensionis (P), ubi Ambrosianus palimpsestus (A) deest, vel A, ubi P deest, ut quae lacuna impleatur. (Hic liber sine paginarum numeratione est.)
I'm writing in Latin hoping for correction, and not because I'm confident in how I express myself. Latinè scribo ut ab omnibus corrigar, non quod confidenter me exprimam.
adrianus
Textkit Zealot
 
Posts: 3270
Joined: Sun Sep 10, 2006 9:45 pm

Re: Plaut. Truculentus 57-63

Postby vir litterarum » Mon Aug 03, 2009 4:09 am

thanks for the links.

this version, faxim lenonum et scortorum ~ plus est, doesn't make any sense to me.

this one, faxim lenonum et scortorum <hic multo minus> 63a, seems the most sensible, but I'm not much of a textual critic, so I don't know how probable it is.

Your explanation of the "nec" construction makes sense. This is the first time I've read any Plautus, so I'm not very familiar yet with his style.
vir litterarum
Textkit Zealot
 
Posts: 721
Joined: Sat Sep 24, 2005 4:04 am
Location: Oberlin, Ohio

Re: Plaut. Truculentus 57-63

Postby adrianus » Mon Aug 03, 2009 11:51 am

Salve vir litterarum
"faxim lenonum et scortorum ~ plus est"

The tilde indicates a missing bit (Frederich Leo, from whose original edition this onine version comes, himself uses a cross). In a footnote, Leo points out Camerarius's alternative "posthac minus". (Leo, Plauti Comoediae, 1896, Vol. 2, p.464 http://www.archive.org/details/comoedia ... 00plaugoog).

Frederici Leonis in editione, talis signum,—hâc in versione interretiale titulus, apud Leonem crux,—lacunam indicat. Quod Camerarius pro "~ plus est" substituit redactor in adnotatione monstrat: "posthac minus". (Plauti Comoediae, Tomus secundus, pagina quadringentae sexaginta quattuor).
I'm writing in Latin hoping for correction, and not because I'm confident in how I express myself. Latinè scribo ut ab omnibus corrigar, non quod confidenter me exprimam.
adrianus
Textkit Zealot
 
Posts: 3270
Joined: Sun Sep 10, 2006 9:45 pm

Re: Plaut. Truculentus 57-63

Postby adrianus » Mon Aug 03, 2009 4:29 pm

Scholl (Divinationes in Plauti Truculentum, 1876, p.61, http://www.archive.org/details/4737841) points out that, for "plus est", most prefer the alternatives "posthac minus" and "multo minus", and he says it is not faxim but faxim' for faximus, which seems very likely.

Dicit Scholl plerosque "posthac minus" et "multo minus" pro "plus est" praeferre, et dicit faxim', id est 'faximus", quod benè credibile est.
I'm writing in Latin hoping for correction, and not because I'm confident in how I express myself. Latinè scribo ut ab omnibus corrigar, non quod confidenter me exprimam.
adrianus
Textkit Zealot
 
Posts: 3270
Joined: Sun Sep 10, 2006 9:45 pm

Re: Plaut. Truculentus 57-63

Postby vir litterarum » Tue Aug 04, 2009 8:11 pm

yeah,I don't see how, even with a gap in the text, plus could work at all. I thought the shift from first person plural to singular was odd; that emendation seems necessary. It's just difficult to disagree with Lindsay in light of his authority on the subject.
vir litterarum
Textkit Zealot
 
Posts: 721
Joined: Sat Sep 24, 2005 4:04 am
Location: Oberlin, Ohio

Re: Plaut. Truculentus 57-63

Postby adrianus » Tue Aug 04, 2009 10:14 pm

vir litterarum wrote:It's just difficult to disagree with Lindsay in light of his authority on the subject.

You mean with Leo, who writes "~ plus est"? Visne dicere Fredericum Leonem repugnare, qui "~ plus est" scribit?
I'm writing in Latin hoping for correction, and not because I'm confident in how I express myself. Latinè scribo ut ab omnibus corrigar, non quod confidenter me exprimam.
adrianus
Textkit Zealot
 
Posts: 3270
Joined: Sun Sep 10, 2006 9:45 pm

Re: Plaut. Truculentus 57-63

Postby vir litterarum » Wed Aug 05, 2009 3:50 am

Well, Lindsay posits "faxim lenonum nec scortorum plus siet," which does make sense and is less invasive than the other emendations; however, the other readings do seem to me to make better sense, and "faxim`" is not much of a stretch.
vir litterarum
Textkit Zealot
 
Posts: 721
Joined: Sat Sep 24, 2005 4:04 am
Location: Oberlin, Ohio

Re: Plaut. Truculentus 57-63

Postby adrianus » Wed Aug 05, 2009 9:27 am

The repetition of "siet" at the end of consecutive lines seems to me wholly unlikely, also, don't you think?
Meâ sententiâ, non licet etiam eodem verbo, scilicet "siet", versus continuatos terminare. Nonnè id sentis?
I'm writing in Latin hoping for correction, and not because I'm confident in how I express myself. Latinè scribo ut ab omnibus corrigar, non quod confidenter me exprimam.
adrianus
Textkit Zealot
 
Posts: 3270
Joined: Sun Sep 10, 2006 9:45 pm

Re: Plaut. Truculentus 57-63

Postby vir litterarum » Thu Aug 06, 2009 7:42 am

You're right; I didn't even consider the repetition.
vir litterarum
Textkit Zealot
 
Posts: 721
Joined: Sat Sep 24, 2005 4:04 am
Location: Oberlin, Ohio


Return to Learning Latin

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot], Yahoo [Bot] and 27 guests