Viris Illustribus: What is King Philip saying?

Latin Learning Latin
1

I am having a little trouble working out what King Philip is saying here:

Accensus indignatione
rex
exclamavit:
Quid
victo imperares gravius,
Tite Quincti?

Et cum
quidam
ex circumstantibus
oculis aeger
adiecisset:
Aut bello vincendum,
aut melioribus parendum esse.

http://www.slu.edu/colleges/AS/languages/classical/latin/tchmat/readers/lhomond/lho3b.htm#flam (about half way down)

Here is my translation:

Angered by the insult,
the King exclaimed:
“To whom should you order a more serious victory
O Titus Quinctus?”

And with a certain man
sick in the eyes from those
standing nearby
he added:
“Either to win in war,
or prepare for better things.”

Who should either prepare for better things or win in war? The man with the bad eyes? The King himself? or Titus Quintus? Or maybe my translation is just way way off…

2

Aroused by indignation/anger
the king
exclaimed:
“Why
when beaten would you have been giving orders more vehemently,
Titus Quinctius [> Non Quinctus sed Quinctius> ]?”
And since/when
a certain man from those standing around
bad in his eyes [/with bad eyes]
[had] added
that either the war must be won [by you, that is // > id est a te> ]
or your betters must be obeyed,
“Apparet id quidem, inquit Philippus, etiam caeco” > // “Even to a blind man” said Philip, “it [/that] is quite clear”.

3

Epistula duplex haec. Me paenitet. // Double post. Sorry.

4

Corrigendum

Mihi ignoscas, primâ fabulae parte perlectâ sententiam meam emendo. Nunc sic credo:
Please forgive me, I read through the first part of the story and see I’ve got to change this: “Why when beaten would you have been giving orders more vehemently, Titus Quinctius?” to:

“What more painful thing could you demand of [/order “to”] one defeated, Titus Quinctius? [exclaims Philip]”

Context is critical, I suppose. And my first translation was wrong since it was “victo” as a dative and not “victus” in apposition and you rarely would have an ablative absolute “victo” referring to a person or thing in the main part of the sentence.

Magni momenti est contextus, ut suppono. Me malè transtulisse nunc credo, quod “victo” dativo casu non “victus” in appositione scribitur; rarò etiam ablativum absolutum ut “victo” spectat personam remve principale sententiae parte contentam.

5

Is meliores with the meaning “[one’s] betters” a Latin idiom?

I would have understood that part to mean “one ought either to win in war, or serve under better men [i.e. generals]”, which makes a bit more sense to me. In a military context pareo frequently means “to serve [under]”, i.e. be obedient to the commands of one’s superior officer.

Pareo/impero “serve in/lead an army” are frequently contrasted, as in Livy’s famous description of Hannibal: Nunquam ingenium idem ad res diversissimas, parendum atque imparandum, habilius fuit. Also in Cicero’s correspondence with a Papirius Paetus: Sed iocabimur alias coram, ut spero, brevi tempore: nunc ades ad imperandum vel ad parendum potius, sic enim antiqui loquebantur.


ETA: I see now in L&S that meliores can indeed mean “[one’s] betters”, so perhaps your (Adrianus’) translation is correct. I haven’t really looked at the context to be sure.

6

When you win, you can command; when you lose, you must obey the commands of those who got the better of you.
Victor imperat; victus victori parere debet.