Hi Hugh. Here's my guess (I underline guess
Aut quid est loquacius uanitate? quae non ideo potest quod ueritas, quia, si uoluerit, etiam plus potest clamare quam ueritas. Your translation: "And what is more empty than chatter? Though it might be louder than truth, it is not more powerful."
I'm a little confused by your translation "And what is more empty than chatter?". It reads to me almost as if you are construing loquacius
backwards? I would translate "Or what is more loquacious [in its negative sense] than vanity?" (As a minor point, aut
could mean "and" and introduce an additional
argument, as you translated it. But taken more literally it means "or" and introduces an alternative
argument (vanity more narrowly as his critics' motive rather than just general loquaciousness, inability to keep silent.)
quae non ideo potest quod ueritas, quia, si uoluerit, etiam plus potest clamare quam ueritas
, the subject, is vanity, not chatter.
(2) I take ideo
as anticipating quia
. "Which [vanity] for this reason cannot [whatever], just because, if it wished, it could even out shout truth."
could certainly be intransitive, as you seem to be taking it. But since grammatically, I believe, quod
is a relative pronoun and object of veritas
), I read potest
as governing an unexpressed verb or verbal phrase, let's say, for the sake of illustration, respondere
: quae non potest
(sc. potest respondere
. "Which [vanity] for this reason cannot (sc. respond effectively) what truth (can respond effectively), just because, if it wished, it could even out shout truth." Unacceptably awkward translation, to be sure.
EDIT: I submitted this before seeing Nesrad's response, who (regarding quod
) says the same thing, but so less loquaciously!