My Take on VS14
-
Horatius Flaccus, Carmina 1.11:
You – do not seek – it is not to be found! What to me, what to you, the Gods will give as an end, Leuconoë. Nor should you tamper with Babylonian numbers. How much better to endure whatever will be, whether Jupiter grants more winters or the last, (which now with opposing pumice weakens the Tyrrhenian sea). Be wise: you should filter the wine and in short time you should cut back long hope! While we speak, envious age will have fled: harvest the day which expects the least in tomorrow.
Tū – nē quaesíerīs – scī́re néfās! quem míhi, quem tíbī
fī́nem Dī déderint, Λευκονοή. Nec Babylṓniōs
temptā́ris númerōs. ut mélius (quídquid érit) pátī,
seu plū́rīs Híemēs seu tríbuit Iúppiter últimam,
(quae nunc oppósitīs dēbílitat pūmícibus máre
Tyrrhḗnum). Sápiās: vī́na líquēs et spátiō brévī
spem lóngam résecēs! dum lóquimur, fū́gerit ínvida
ǽtās: cárpe díem quam mínimum crḗdula pósterō. -
"We have been born once – twice it is not possible to be born: it is necessary to no longer exist for eternity. But you, not being master of tomorrow, you delay joy! Life is lost by this delay – and each of us, while occupied, dies."
Γεγόναμεν ἅπαξ – δὶς δὲ οὐκ ἔστι γενέσθαι: δεῖ δὲ τὸν αἰῶνα μηκέτι εἶναι. σὺ δὲ, οὐκ ὢν τῆς αὔριον κύριος, ἀναβάλλῃ τὸ χαῖρον! ὁ δὲ βίος μελλησμῷ παραπόλλυται – καὶ εἷς ἕκαστος ἡμῶν, ἀσχολούμενος, ἀποθνῄσκει.
-
ἅπαξ
I like that this is the same word used in the phrase hapax legomenon - a word that only occurs once in an existing corpus of texts. That connotation of a unique and singular existence seems appropriate.
αὔριονκύριος "Master of Tomorrow" is a great word, too!
PS... And ΓΕΓΟΝΑΜΕΝ ΑΠΑΞ is the next Epicurean T-shirt we need
-
"We have been born once – twice it is not possible to be born: it is necessary to no longer exist for eternity. But you, not being master of tomorrow, you delay joy! Life is lost by this delay – and each of us, while occupied, dies."
Γεγόναμεν ἅπαξ – δὶς δὲ οὐκ ἔστι γενέσθαι: δεῖ δὲ τὸν αἰῶνα μηκέτι εἶναι. σὺ δὲ, οὐκ ὢν τῆς αὔριον κύριος, ἀναβάλλῃ τὸ χαῖρον! ὁ δὲ βίος μελλησμῷ παραπόλλυται – καὶ εἷς ἕκαστος ἡμῶν, ἀσχολούμενος, ἀποθνῄσκει.
Hey, Bryan . I was looking over this thread and realized I had previously posted this:
It appears that Vat.gr1950 actually has the first word in the pluperfect:
'Εγεγοναμεν 'απαξ...
which makes sense, as I understand, since the pluperfect is "more complete" than complete. It seems to me that it also hammers home that unique occurence when we are born. "We had been born once." It's clumsy in English, but I can understand why it might be there.
Also, I'm not seeing any κυριος in "ὢν τῆς αὔριον κύριος". It looks to me like αυριον goes right into αναβαλλη...
So, I'm getting something closer to...
Εγεγόναμεν ἅπαξ - δὶς δὲ οὐκ ἔστι γενέσθαι - δεῖ δὲ τὸν αἰῶνα μηκέτι εἶναι - σὺ δὲ οὐκ ὢν - τῆς αὔριον ἀναβάλλῃ τὸ χαῖρον - ὁ δὲ βίος μελλησμῷ παραπόλλυται – καὶ εἷς ἕκαστος ἡμῶν ἀσχολούμενος ἀποθνῄσκει.
The traditional transcription runs (including some different punctuation/breaks in the lines)...
Γεγόναμεν ἅπαξ – δὶς δὲ οὐκ ἔστι γενέσθαι: δεῖ δὲ τὸν αἰῶνα μηκέτι εἶναι. σὺ δὲ, οὐκ ὢν τῆς αὔριον κύριος, ἀναβάλλῃ τὸ χαῖρον! ὁ δὲ βίος μελλησμῷ παραπόλλυται – καὶ εἷς ἕκαστος ἡμῶν, ἀσχολούμενος, ἀποθνῄσκει.
Without kyrios, that middle line seems to me to be something more akin to σὺ δὲ οὐκ ὢν τῆς αὔριον ἀναβάλλῃ τὸ χαῖρον "Therefore, you are not the one who delays joy until tomorrow"???
-
It looks like the γεγόναμεν is taken from Plutarch, Non Posse, 27, 1104E: Ἧι καὶ προεπισφάττουσιν οἱ ταυτὶ λέγοντες " Ἂπαξ ἄνθρωποι γεγόναμεν – δὶς δ᾽ οὐκ ἔστι γενέσθαι, δεῖ δὲ τὸν αἰῶνα μηκέτ᾽ εἶναι."
"About which also those who say these things predict in advance: 'once we humans have been born – twice it is not possible to be born, it is necessary to no longer exist for eternity.'"
Kύριος is apparently taken from Stobaeus, Florilegium 16.28 -- but I have not been able to find that section in the Florilegium yet, if by chance you are able to locate it, that would be excellent.
-
So, I found the Stobaeus citation:
On Hathi Trust: https://hdl.handle.net/2027/njp.32101…97768772423-302
But κύριος is not in the same spot as the other transcription. Curious. So if it's not in the manuscript, and Usener and Stobaeus (5th c CE) put it in different spots... What is the original source?? It *probably* should be in there, but it then continues to call into question the reliability of the Vatican manuscript itself! Having corroboration from that manuscript and other sources is best... But those instances are few and far between.
-
Thank you Don for finding the Stobaeus quote!
It *probably* should be in there, but it then continues to call into question the reliability of the Vatican manuscript itself!
Yes, I agree on both points.
-
Thank you Don for finding the Stobaeus quote!
It was literally my pleasure
