4 ms·

Seneca was of a similar opinion: It would be a lengthy business to mention all the different people who have spent their lives engaged in chess-playing or exer

Seneca was of a similar opinion: It would be a lengthy business to mention all the different people who have spent their lives engaged in chess-playing or exercise with ball or the practice of roasting their bodies in the sun. They are not unoccupied when their pleasure form such a busy occupation. No one will doubt that those men are energetic triflers who devote their hours to the study of useless literature - On the Shortness of Life

TechBro8615 4y ago
That's weird, since chess didn't exist when Seneca was alive. Perhaps that's a mistranslation and he was referring to Ludus latrunculorum? [0] [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ludus_latrunculorum https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ludus_latrunculorum
- DC-3 4y ago
  Mistranslation is unfair. It's a translation that best reflects the spirit of the original. It would be distracting to the modern reader to refer to a game which would be obscure and unfamiliar, when most likely the point of the original text is to invoke a board game which would be universally known among the audience. That said, you are right: https://la.wikisource.org/wiki/De_brevitate_vitae https://la.wikisource.org/wiki/De_brevitate_vitae > XIII 1. Persequi singulos longum est, quorum aut latrunculi aut pila aut excoquendi in sole corporis cura consumpsere vitam. Non sunt otiosi, quorum voluptates multum negotii habent. Nam de illis nemo dubitabit, quin operose nihil agant, qui litterarum inutilium studiis detinentur, quae iam apud Romanos quoque magna manus est. (emphasis mine)
  - fasterik 4y ago
    >It would be distracting to the modern reader to refer to a game which would be obscure and unfamiliar I find it far more distracting to find a modern term in an ancient text that I know the author couldn't have known about. It's jarring and anachronistic. I would much rather see the original term. I can make a decision about whether to spend a minute to look it up (and learn something!) or skim over it if the meaning is clear enough.
    - poulsbohemian 4y ago
      Agreed - a nice footnote would be appropriate.
    - ycombinete 4y ago
      I have to agree. It was jarring to me to find this in my translation. I think either the original term with a footnote, or perhaps something more generic like “Boardgames”
- ormaybethizzy 4y ago
  Or maybe Senet https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Senet https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Senet
- groffee 4y ago
  Interestingly this has just come up again recently with the 'dahl' controversy.[0] [0] https://classicalwisdom.substack.com/p/should-we-update-old-texts https://classicalwisdom.substack.com/p/should-we-update-old-...
  - TechBro8615 4y ago
    Catullus 16 is certainly problematic! (It was also the only homework assignment that students begged to complete in my Latin course) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catullus_16 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catullus_16
martinjacobd 4y ago
Considering that we don't have any history of chess until more than 500 years after Seneca's death, in India no less, I think it's fair to say that this is yet another example of "ye olde translationes" editorializing and using too much dynamic equivalence. latrunculi, the word he uses in this sentence at the beginning of chapter XIII, must have referred to a different game. Plus, I doubt most people would really agree with de brevitate vitae. It's the equivalent of "grind culture" but from the first century. Amusing and interesting but probably not congruent with now most people want to spend their lives. (No shame from me if you do want to live your life that way, but it should just be known that this is far from a neutral perspective.) For a more balanced view of otium (pleasure, relaxation, opposite of negotium, business), I'd recommend the letters of Pliny the Younger.
- ezekiel68 4y ago
  I dunno. Who is to say it is "too much" dynamic equivalence? Seems to me the grand intent of the quote is preserved for the greater mass of English readers.
chucksmash 4y ago
Ha, I just re-read this page in this book this morning. The translation my book used instead of "chess-playing" was "draughts."

TechBro8615 4y ago

That's weird, since chess didn't exist when Seneca was alive. Perhaps that's a mistranslation and he was referring to Ludus latrunculorum? [0] [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ludus_latrunculorum https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ludus_latrunculorum

DC-3 4y ago
Mistranslation is unfair. It's a translation that best reflects the spirit of the original. It would be distracting to the modern reader to refer to a game which would be obscure and unfamiliar, when most likely the point of the original text is to invoke a board game which would be universally known among the audience. That said, you are right: https://la.wikisource.org/wiki/De_brevitate_vitae https://la.wikisource.org/wiki/De_brevitate_vitae > XIII 1. Persequi singulos longum est, quorum aut latrunculi aut pila aut excoquendi in sole corporis cura consumpsere vitam. Non sunt otiosi, quorum voluptates multum negotii habent. Nam de illis nemo dubitabit, quin operose nihil agant, qui litterarum inutilium studiis detinentur, quae iam apud Romanos quoque magna manus est. (emphasis mine)
- fasterik 4y ago
  >It would be distracting to the modern reader to refer to a game which would be obscure and unfamiliar I find it far more distracting to find a modern term in an ancient text that I know the author couldn't have known about. It's jarring and anachronistic. I would much rather see the original term. I can make a decision about whether to spend a minute to look it up (and learn something!) or skim over it if the meaning is clear enough.
  - poulsbohemian 4y ago
    Agreed - a nice footnote would be appropriate.
  - ycombinete 4y ago
    I have to agree. It was jarring to me to find this in my translation. I think either the original term with a footnote, or perhaps something more generic like “Boardgames”
ormaybethizzy 4y ago
Or maybe Senet https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Senet https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Senet
groffee 4y ago
Interestingly this has just come up again recently with the 'dahl' controversy.[0] [0] https://classicalwisdom.substack.com/p/should-we-update-old-texts https://classicalwisdom.substack.com/p/should-we-update-old-...
- TechBro8615 4y ago
  Catullus 16 is certainly problematic! (It was also the only homework assignment that students begged to complete in my Latin course) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catullus_16 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catullus_16

martinjacobd 4y ago

Considering that we don't have any history of chess until more than 500 years after Seneca's death, in India no less, I think it's fair to say that this is yet another example of "ye olde translationes" editorializing and using too much dynamic equivalence. latrunculi, the word he uses in this sentence at the beginning of chapter XIII, must have referred to a different game. Plus, I doubt most people would really agree with de brevitate vitae. It's the equivalent of "grind culture" but from the first century. Amusing and interesting but probably not congruent with now most people want to spend their lives. (No shame from me if you do want to live your life that way, but it should just be known that this is far from a neutral perspective.) For a more balanced view of otium (pleasure, relaxation, opposite of negotium, business), I'd recommend the letters of Pliny the Younger.

ezekiel68 4y ago
I dunno. Who is to say it is "too much" dynamic equivalence? Seems to me the grand intent of the quote is preserved for the greater mass of English readers.

chucksmash 4y ago

Ha, I just re-read this page in this book this morning. The translation my book used instead of "chess-playing" was "draughts."