(tr?) indocilis privata loqui
adr_mc...@my-deja.com
translation of the phrase, "indocilis privata loqui". It's the motto of
the Magic Circle. I know that it comes from Lucan's Bellum Civile, book
5, line 539. Looking at an English version of this text doesn't really
help, since the phrase appears to have been elided in the translation
to something quite different.
The Magic Circle themselves claim it means, "Not apt to disclose
secrets." (Or more colloquially "mum's the word", "keep your trap
shut", etc.)
So then, what is the literal meaning and what would a decent
translation into English look like (in the context of a group of
magicians)?
Thanks for any ideas.
Alasdair McIntyre
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
frank
Interesting ! I can see how it is presumably intended to mean
`unaccustomed/unwilling` (indocilis) `to speak/reveal`
(loqui)`secrets`(privata). `Indocilis` usually seems as far as I can see to
mean something more like `unteachable`(hence `indocile`, opposite of
`docile`) rather than `taught not`....[ to do something]. I don`t know the
Lucan passage in question, and what shade meaning in fact `indocilis` has
there. I suspect that used poetically it should here be taken in our sense
of being `slow/reluctant` to do something. My dictionary gives a Horace
quote which comes out best in English like that. (`Unteachable`=`slow` is
obviously not just a modern equivalence !) Hence, ultimately, `Slow to
reveal secrets` - or even `Trained not to...... `Not apt` seems a bit
old-fashioned, but one can see how the translation has arisen.
As you`re probably aware, the three words are half a line of hexameter
verse. (- `` / - - / - ` , `/ - ......)
Can`t find a Latin Lucan, and the Internet Classics Archive has no
indication of line numbers, bless them. How does your translation run ?
Others may wish to comment on `indocilis`, but hope this helps.
cheers
frank
<adr_mc...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:8b58gg$9bo$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> ........could anyone possibly provide me with a
adr_mc...@my-deja.com
context for 'indocilis privata loqui'.
There is a raging storm, and Caesar, not wanting to lose any
time for the battle, wishes to cross the sea. He finds a small
boat on the shore, knocks on the door of the sailor's cottage
and says:
532 ... "Expecta uotis maiora modestis
533 spesque tuas laxa, iuuenis: si iussa secutus
534 me uehis Hesperiam, non ultra cuncta carinae
535 debebis manibusque inopem duxisse senectam.
536 Ne cessa praebere deo tua fata uolenti
537 angustos opibus subitis inplere penates."
538 Sic fatur, quamquam plebeio tectus amictu,
539 indocilis privata loqui.
In Sir Edward Ridley's "The Pharsalia of Lucan" (Longmans, Green, and
Co., London, 1896) this is translated (note the different lineation):
[see http://sunsite.berkeley.edu/OMACL/Pharsalia/book5.html]
610 "Enlarge thine hopes and look for better things.
611 Do but my bidding, and on yonder shore
612 Place me, and thou shalt cease from one poor boat
613 To earn thy living; and in years to come
614 Look for a rich old age: and trust thy fates
615 To those high gods whose wont it is to bless
616 The poor with sudden plenty." [1]So he spake
617 E'en at such time in accents of command,
618 For how could Caesar else?
[1] The Loeb Classics edition of Lucan's Bellum Civile has:
538 Thus he spoke, for though the garb he wore was humble,
539 he knew not how to speak the language of a private man.
In article <8b5erl$lg$1...@gxsn.com>,
frank
<adr_mc...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
> 538 Sic fatur, quamquam plebeio tectus amictu,
> 539 indocilis privata loqui.
`A`
> .....So he spake
> 617 E'en at such time in accents of command,
> 618 For how could Caesar else?
`B`
> 538 Thus he spoke, for though the garb he wore was humble,
> 539 he knew not how to speak the language of a private man.
Thanks for the prompt follow-up, and for such painstaking research on the
original passage !
Goodness, two radically different translations, and neither looks very much
like the Latin at first sight. On mature consideration, though, both version
`A` and version `B` are saying the same thing, that Caesar though looking
like an ordinary private citizen, can`t actually speak like one. (`How could
C else ?` is a sort of paraphrase of this idea, and `the language of a
private man` is closer.) Both regard - probably absolutely rightly -
`privata` as meaning `belonging to a private citizen`; ie, `to speak private
things` = `to speak like an ordinary chap`, (as opposed to speaking like a
public official / the Emperor) - which in view of the peremptory nature of
his instructions to the sailor, seems a reasonable comment !
From a Magic Circle point of view, it therefore involves taking the phrase
out of its context, and (intentionally, presumably) re-translating `privata`
as `secret` - which though it looks perfectly reasonable, is certainly not
quite what Lucan intended, and which, looking again at the dictionary, is
probably rather stretching the meaning of `privata` ! The motto, IMHO,
might be better changed to `indocilis secreta loqui`. Still scans as half a
line of verse, contains a nice classical allusion, but expresses better what
is intended.
What does anyone else think ?
cheers
frank
Robert Stonehouse
...
>From a Magic Circle point of view, it therefore involves taking the phrase
>out of its context, and (intentionally, presumably) re-translating `privata`
>as `secret` - which though it looks perfectly reasonable, is certainly not
>quite what Lucan intended, and which, looking again at the dictionary, is
>probably rather stretching the meaning of `privata` ! The motto, IMHO,
>might be better changed to `indocilis secreta loqui`. Still scans as half a
>line of verse, contains a nice classical allusion, but expresses better what
>is intended.
>
>What does anyone else think ?
Absolutely right: 'incapable of being taught to speak like a private
person'.
If we want to avoid twisting the Latin, though, I think we'll have
to make more than one change. 'Incapable of being taught' isn't
really what they mean, and is 'loqui' really right for revealing
secrets, as in 'So you won't talk!'? Most mottos seem to be worse
than this - perhaps for the Magic Circle a bit of obliquity is in
order.
ew...@bcs.org.uk
adr_mc...@my-deja.com
> Absolutely right: 'incapable of being taught to speak like a private
> person'.
>
> If we want to avoid twisting the Latin, though, I think we'll have
> to make more than one change. 'Incapable of being taught' isn't
> really what they mean, and is 'loqui' really right for revealing
> secrets, as in 'So you won't talk!'? Most mottos seem to be worse
> than this - perhaps for the Magic Circle a bit of obliquity is in
> order.
> ew...@bcs.org.uk
Am I not right in thinking that the 'duc' in ducare and the 'doc' in
'indocilis' are one and the same etymologically (e-decare = to draw
out). It has been suggested to me that we could therefore interpret
'indocilis' as 'not to be drawn into'. Giving us 'not be drawn into
uttering that which is private', or more colloquially 'we can't be
persuaded to tell our secrets'. Is this straining things somewhat?
My feeling is that it is.
Apart from the fact that 'not knowing' is the more straightforward
translation of 'indocilis', it seems to me that 'privata' applies
to the person with whom the loquation is being conducted, not to
some property (his secrets) of the loquator himself. Perhaps both
are possible outside the context of the quote, my grammar isn't
good enough for me to know.
Going back to Lucan again, and adding in a bit of context, the
underlying implication is:
He (Caesar/the magician) is from another world (imperial/magical).
[indocilis] He cannot (is ignorant of how to)
[loqui] talk
[privata] to others on their level (the private man/the uninitiated)
under any circumstances (even in times of war/under duress).
In other words a true Member of the Magic Circle can never speak as
anything other than a magician (and therefore *by implication* would
never reveal a secret).
Any thoughts?
frank
<adr_mc...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:8b7lnp$2bd$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> Am I not right in thinking that the 'duc' in ducare and the 'doc' in
> 'indocilis' are one and the same etymologically (e-decare = to draw
> out).
Pass !
> It has been suggested to me that we could therefore interpret
> 'indocilis' as 'not to be drawn into'. Giving us 'not be drawn into
> uttering that which is private', or more colloquially 'we can't be
> persuaded to tell our secrets'. Is this straining things somewhat?
> My feeling is that it is.
Probably !
> Apart from the fact that 'not knowing' is the more straightforward
> translation of 'indocilis',
I think `not knowing *how to do something*` is the important bit: it`s to do
with disposition.
> it seems to me that 'privata' applies
> to the person with whom the loquation is being conducted, not to
> some property (his secrets) of the loquator himself.
I think the point is that `privata` is not to do with secrets at all, but
with the role/persona of the individual *who is speaking*. Caesar speaking
as Emperor is `public`: dressed as an ordinary bloke chatting to a sailor
might be expected to `speak differently`, ie as an ordinary/(`private`)
bloke. This he can`t do.
> Going back to Lucan again, and adding in a bit of context, the
> underlying implication is:
>
> He (Caesar/the magician) is from another world (imperial/magical).
> [indocilis] He cannot (is ignorant of how to)
> [loqui] talk
> [privata] to others on their level (the private man/the uninitiated)
> under any circumstances (even in times of war/under duress).
>
> In other words a true Member of the Magic Circle can never speak as
> anything other than a magician (and therefore *by implication* would
> never reveal a secret).
>
> Any thoughts?
As you say yourself, I feel this is stretching it a bit, though I `hear what
you say`. The operative bit would be `by implication`, if that is what you
wish to imply; I don`t think it`s really all there in the Latin !
cheers
frank
adr_mc...@my-deja.com
"frank" <poj...@globalnet.co.uk> wrote:
> I think the point is that `privata` is not to do with secrets at all,
> but with the role/persona of the individual *who is speaking*. Caesar
> speaking as Emperor is `public`: dressed as an ordinary bloke
> chatting to a sailor might be expected to `speak differently`, ie as
> an ordinary/(`private`) bloke. This he can`t do.
Very well put, this is just what I was trying (and failing) to get at.
I contend that in the context of a magician, the phrase means that if
the topic of magic comes up in a (private) conversation with a mate in
the pub, he cannot throw off his public persona and start blabbing.
Admittedly, there is no reference to secrets in the motto, but then
what is it that distinguishes the magician from the 'private' bloke?
The magician knows how the trick is done. Once a 'private' person
has this knowledge too, it's no longer magic, and ipso facto the
conjuror is no magician any more.
frank
<adr_mc...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:8b81h7$am3$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> Admittedly, there is no reference to secrets in the motto, but then
> what is it that distinguishes the magician from the 'private' bloke?
> The magician knows how the trick is done. Once a 'private' person
> has this knowledge too, it's no longer magic, and ipso facto the
> conjuror is no magician any more.
Fair enough, in that case !
And thanks for starting a provocative thread :-)
cheers
Frank
Musca Volitans
adr_mc...@my-deja.com wrote in message <8b7lnp$2bd$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>...
>
>> Absolutely right: 'incapable of being taught to speak like a private
>> person'.
>>
>> If we want to avoid twisting the Latin, though, I think we'll have
>> to make more than one change. 'Incapable of being taught' isn't
>> really what they mean, and is 'loqui' really right for revealing
>> secrets, as in 'So you won't talk!'? Most mottos seem to be worse
>> than this - perhaps for the Magic Circle a bit of obliquity is in
>> order.
>> ew...@bcs.org.uk
>
>'indocilis' are one and the same etymologically (e-decare = to draw
>'indocilis' as 'not to be drawn into'. Giving us 'not be drawn into
>uttering that which is private', or more colloquially 'we can't be
>persuaded to tell our secrets'. Is this straining things somewhat?
>My feeling is that it is.
>
Perhaps e-decare is a typo for e-ducere or e-ducare?
I am not sure that this etymology cannot be ruled out. But cf:
docilis < docêre, rel. to decêre. Lat decus, dignus, Gk. dokein.
[e-]ducare, (short u) related to (?) [e-]dûcere (long u) < OLat doucere.
dûcere is related to OEng togian/teon (and OHG ziohan, Mod German
ziehen) Mod Eng to tug/to tow.
I would guess that educare/edûcere are more closely related,
(hence my question mark above), though educare
(to raise/rear/bring up) certainly seems akin to docêre (to teach)
semantically, if not morphologically. I do not find 'ducare' as
a primary verb, and my surmise is that 'educare' it is a later corruption
(or regularisation) from 'educere' where both the vowel quantity and
the conjugation have been 'simplified'. Cf. ductare and ductitare,
where the vowel is 'long by position' and the shift of conjugations is
a regular occurrence for intensives/iteratives formed on the
past participle of the primary.
Does this point to different dialects in Old Latin? BTW, is there
a technical term for etymological twins such as docêre/decêre
or tow/tug? (I do not say docêre/dûcere).
Seems we need a decent docent to give us a tow. (ugh, ;-))
Regards,
Musca Volitans
frank
"frank" <poj...@globalnet.co.uk> wrote in message
> `Eduxisse decet docto; sine duce docemus ?`
....and the first syllable of `duce` is short, come to think of it; ah
well..... back to the drawing board :-)
cheers and apologies
frank
adr_mc...@my-deja.com
Oops. A typo indeed.
> Seems we need a decent docent to give us a tow. (ugh, ;-))
With this, we have reached a reductio ad absurdum, I fear.
frank
"Musca Volitans" <mu...@mail.com> wrote in message
news:OHNB4.9322$9M1.6...@bgtnsc06-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
>
> Seems we need a decent docent to give us a tow. (ugh, ;-))
>
> Musca Volitans
>
Indeed, O Musca,
`Eduxisse decet docto; sine duce docemus ?`
`Fitting `tis for a master to have instructed us; for [how] can we learn
without a leader ?` (Though you`ve done pretty well by the looks of the post
above !)
(`educare` would have been better, but the second syllable is short :-)
In other words, I admit to having no idea about the relationships of an
awful lot of very similar stems !
Herr Axel ?
cheers
frank
Musca Volitans
adr_mc...@my-deja.com wrote in message <8b8dgq$k9s$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>...
>In article <OHNB4.9322$9M1.6...@bgtnsc06-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
>"Musca Volitans" <mu...@mail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Perhaps e-decare is a typo for e-ducere or e-ducare?
>>
>
>Oops. A typo indeed.
>
>
>
You are certainly right. This stuff does addle the brain you know. ;-)
I don't know whether it is the font I have on my computer, or
whether I really am addled, but 'addle' didn't look right to me,
so I checked the spelling, (it is correct), but also learned that
'addle' is akin to Middle Low German, 'adele', meaning
liquid manure. How disgusting. There are some things
one would rather not know.
Regards,
M.V.
Ken Miner
"Musca Volitans" <mu...@mail.com> wrote in message
news:OHNB4.9322$9M1.6...@bgtnsc06-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
> BTW, is there
> a technical term for etymological twins such as docêre/decêre
> or tow/tug?
If I grasp all this correctly, yes; in linguistics we call them doublets:
"One of two words (in the same language) representing the same ultimate word
but differentiated in form, as _cloak_ and _clock_, etc." Shorter OED.
Other examples include _warden_ and _guardian_, _manure_ and _manoeuvre_,
etc. in modern English.
C*O*N*A*N
The Grammarian.
Robert Stonehouse
>> Absolutely right: 'incapable of being taught to speak like a private
>> person'.
>>
>> If we want to avoid twisting the Latin, though, I think we'll have
>> to make more than one change. 'Incapable of being taught' isn't
>> really what they mean, and is 'loqui' really right for revealing
>> secrets, as in 'So you won't talk!'? Most mottos seem to be worse
>> than this - perhaps for the Magic Circle a bit of obliquity is in
>> order.
>> ew...@bcs.org.uk
>
>Am I not right in thinking that the 'duc' in ducare and the 'doc' in
>'indocilis' are one and the same etymologically (e-decare = to draw
>out).
for a long way back.
>It has been suggested to me that we could therefore interpret
>'indocilis' as 'not to be drawn into'. Giving us 'not be drawn into
>uttering that which is private', or more colloquially 'we can't be
>persuaded to tell our secrets'. Is this straining things somewhat?
>My feeling is that it is.
>
>Apart from the fact that 'not knowing' is the more straightforward
>translation of 'indocilis', it seems to me that 'privata' applies
>to the person with whom the loquation is being conducted, not to
>some property (his secrets) of the loquator himself. Perhaps both
>are possible outside the context of the quote, my grammar isn't
>good enough for me to know.
>
>Going back to Lucan again, and adding in a bit of context, the
>underlying implication is:
>
> He (Caesar/the magician) is from another world (imperial/magical).
> [indocilis] He cannot (is ignorant of how to)
> [loqui] talk
> [privata] to others on their level (the private man/the uninitiated)
> under any circumstances (even in times of war/under duress).
>
>In other words a true Member of the Magic Circle can never speak as
>anything other than a magician (and therefore *by implication* would
>never reveal a secret).
>
>Any thoughts?
>
>
>Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
>Before you buy.