mountainman

Text: Epitome de Caesaribus (41:16)
(Describing Constantine tripartite rule)

Author: Sextus Aurelius Victor?
TRANL: Thomas M. Banchich (2000)
Second Translator: used by [Raymond Van Dam, reviewing] H.A. Drake,
Constantine and the Bishops. The Politics of Intolerance (or via: amazon.co.uk).
Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2000.
ISBN 0-8018-6218-3, is slightly different
especially in the last two lines ....

Here is the Latin:
http://www.thelatinlibrary.com/victor.caes.html

Can anyone comment on the translational difference
and/or suggest an alternative, especially the 2nd half.

Thanks



Pete Brown

Roger Pearse

There are two texts here; the De caesaribus of Aurelius Victor and an Epitome of that text.

The latter is in question here, chapter 41, v. 16, about Constantine.

* Latin text

* English translation

16 Irrisor potius quam blandus. Unde proverbio vulgari Trachala, decem annis praestantissimus, duodecim sequentibus latro, decem novissimis pupillus ob profusiones immodicas nominatus.

16. He was a mocker rather than a flatterer. From this he was called after Trachala in the folktale, for ten years a most excellent man, for the following second ten a brigand, for the last, on account of his unrestrained prodigality, a ward irresponsible for his own actions.

As opposed to

"For [the first] ten years [of his reign]
he was truly extraordinary.
For the next twelve years he was a bandit.
For the last ten years he was a little boy,
because of his unrestrained generosity."

This material is not present in the full text of Aurelius Victor (there seems to be no PD translation of this work).

The second version has translated only the portion "decem annis praestantissimus," (for ten years most excellent) "duodecim sequentibus latro" (for the twelve following a robber), "decem novissimis" (for the ten most recent) "pupillus" (a pupil) "ob" (on account of) "profusiones immodicas" (extravagances beyond measure) "nominatus" (he was called).

All the best,

S.C.Carlson

There are at least two different editions of the Latin text, and you quoted the wrong one. The version corresponding to what the translators has this instead:

The main difference between the two translations in the last two lines (besides word order) relates to rendering pupillus, which literally means "ward" or "orphan," but is used in some metaphorical sense here.

Stephen

Roger Pearse

Good thinking (our posts must have crossed). Is the sense of pupillus here "puppet", perhaps -- i.e. he was under the control of others?

I checked the OLD and Souter, and no special meaning other than those you give is listed.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

S.C.Carlson

The idea, I think, is that Constantine was so extravagant in his generosity that he resembled a financially irresponsible minor in need of guardianship over his finances, much like the beneficiary of a spendthrift trust today.

Stephen

Roger Pearse

You're right -- "pupillus nominatus", "ob ...".

All the best,

Roger Pearse

mountainman

Thanks for resolving this problem: that we have two texts, one
purportedly by Aurelius Victor (previously ascribed to others)
and one by the anonymous Epitomator.

Would you be willing to outline the mechanical steps required
to research the history of the publications and manuscripts
in respect of each of these two texts, such that you have
routinely provided at your website for many other ancient
texts?


Yes, well that was my initial impression, even though it was
obscured by not understanding there are (at least) two texts.

As a matter of interest, do you personally use a database to
list each of these "texts of antiquity", or for the present, is the
sum of your website resources contained in the index pages
that you have assembled, and evolved, as your research
continues, and texts become available, etc.


Thankyou very much for this -- I am in your debt.

At the moment I am on the road, but will later research the
first version (ie: author = Victor?) rather than the anonymous
Epitomator (above) for the use of the Latin for those last two lines.

Best wishes,



Pete

mountainman

Thanks for these, and other notes Steve.

Do you agree that I need to check whether both Victor
and the Epitomator (of Victor?) agree in these two lines
in the latin, or whether the latin varies? I imagine this is
my next step, as an apprentice historian?

As a general question, how are colloquial metaphors usually
approached by translators, say from latin to english, or indeed
from the greek to english? If you have a metaphor, such as
for example in the above, does not the translation become
far more complex, over and above the narration of people,
places, dates, times, and everyday nouns and verbs.

Translation seems to require some form of experience of
the experiences being described by the text, in the time
of the author of the text, and in the environment of those
times and places. Much of this is (academically) lost.

Anyway, this may be a generalisational tangentiation,
without intrinsic merit. But thanks again for your input.

Best wishes,



Pete

Ben C Smith

Whose apprentice? (By which I mean, who would claim you? )

All the best.

Ben.

mountainman

Perhaps noone on this planet Ben.
Ha ha. I do admire the sense of humour
from time to time, and its exercise,
thanks Ben !!!!!!

I appear indebted to everyone today! And
just grateful to be in the land of the living.

Be well all.




Pete