Talk:Moral letters to Lucilius/Letter 108

Letter 108, Section 22

Letter 108, Section 22 has an incomplete idea in the last sentence because of a grammatical word error. It’s easy to see, but I don’t have the original source material at hand so am leaving it at the level of discussion and not presuming that the word error is easy to correct. JFKenn (talk) 03:00, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

i have no idea what this 'grammatical word error' is supposed to be. Do you want to explain? Pasicles (talk) 06:50, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

We need then to bring the last sentence up here for discussion. Analyze it. And make use of this thread. Am now familiar with these letters, having studied all the known letters. So it’s fitting for me to discuss it here. JFKenn (talk) 21:59, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure there is anything to discuss. I have just looked at my copy of Gummere's translation (Loeb Classical Library, vol. 3), and what is transcribed here is identical to what is printed there. And the policy of Wikisource is that we don't correct or improve transcribed texts. And I can't find any error anyway, other than the English perhaps being a little old-fashioned. Pasicles (talk) 22:40, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for that reply. Can you put the translation from the actual Loeb book here? It’s only one sentence am trying to analyze. That would be appreciated (as mentioned above, I don’t have that source) then I’ll do some more research and post the results here. The aim is clarity. Am looking for Letter 108, Section 22 — last sentence. 96.232.190.74 22:47, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

Sure I'll type it direct from the book:

So at the request of my father, who did not fear prosecution, but who detested philosophy, I returned to my previous habits; and it was no very hard matter to induce me to dine more comfortably.

Pasicles (talk) 23:42, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

Received reply. Thanks! 96.232.190.74 00:22, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

Update: I consulted a more recent translation, not that that settles any matter, for which there is no real difference here either of opinion or of idea in the interpretation of Letter 108 of the epistles. More generally, I don’t disagree with your description and analysis of the language used during that period the book was developed. Nevertheless, I went ahead and referenced my own source (book in hand).

Though current and in a more accessible language, I’ll quote the sentence verbatim from the location in my book here:

So at the request of my father (who did not fear opprobrium but had a hatred of philosophy), I returned to my former habits; he had no trouble, really, in persuading me to dine in better style.

On review, the semicolon is helpful. JFKenn (talk) 20:55, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

Oh yes that looks like the Graver & Long translation, the best one there is. Well, if you want to discuss the meaning of a passage from Seneca, you should try the Stoicism forum on Reddit:

https://www.reddit.com/r/Stoicism

The people there love to discuss Stoic writings at length. Wikisource Talk pages aren't really worthwhile for this, since very few people notice these pages, and officially these Talk pages are just meant for raising issues with the transcription. Pasicles (talk) 22:03, 17 October 2024 (UTC)