Talk:Alea iacta est

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Greek 2 Requested move 3 Literal Translation? 4 Erasmus

[edit] Greek

I read somewhere that Caesar likely said the famous phrase in Greek (O kubos erriphthê), but I have no cite for that. Anyone? -- pne (talk) 20:19, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

...he couldn't have possibly he and his whole armies spoke latin, which was the common language in Italy.11:12, 29 September 2006 (GCC)

Couldn't possibly? Cesar spoke excellent greek and he may have quoted a greek play when saying the phrase. --Edelvang 08:58, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

The phrase is part of a speech to his soldiers. The quotation from Suetonius is:

‘’[XXXII] Cunctanti ostentum tale factum est. quidam eximia magnitudine et forma in proximo sedens repente apparuit harundine canens; ad quem audiendum cum praeter pastores plurimi etiam ex stationibus milites concurrissent interque eos et aeneatores, rapta ab uno tuba prosiliuit ad flumen et ingenti spiritu classicum exorsus pertendit ad alteram ripam. tunc Caesar: “eatur”, inquit, “quo deorum ostenta et inimicorum iniquitas uocat. Iacta alea est”, inquit.’’

While Cesar did not only speak greek but he also read greek, actually also Menander's plays to which he refers (though in Menander's play the phrase is different) there is no reason why he would speak greek to his soldiers. Crossing the Rubicon was an infringement of Roman Law and many soldiers would have been reluctant to cross it for fear of the consequences. The whole speech was addressed to the soldiers urging them to understand that this was a divine sign which they should follow.

Agreed, he spoke perfect greek. Still he could not possibly have addressed his soldiers in greek.

Afil 02:47, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Requested move

This page was recently moved from Alea iacta est, and although the current title is the correct quote, I think it should be moved back, because it is far more commonly seen as Alea jacta est or Alea iacta est in current usage:

Google:

alea jacta est: 297,000
alea iacta est: 210,000
iacta alea est: 15,700
jacta alea est: 938

I'm plumping for "iacta" rather than "jacta" because it is more accurate latin; because that's what the page was called before; and because it appears on google almost as often as "jacta". It is also worth noting that it appears as alea iacta/jacta est on all the other language wikis except da, where it is yet another permutation - "jacta est alea". FiggyBee 05:47, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

I moved it originally only because "Iacta alea est" is how Suetonius ordered it. Now, I'm not sure if there are variations in the manuscripts, other accounts, or whatever that have another order, but if there are not ancient variations, I'm not sure why another order is more common today. Of course, it doesn't really change the sense of the sentence to reorder it (though there is a change in emphasis), and the page should probably be called whatever is in most common usage (including the j) with redirects for the variations (cf. WP:NC(CN)). --Flex (talk|contribs) 14:02, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

If you are citing the Latin Library, it has no critical notes. The Perseus text, which appears to be the 1908 Teubner, has the same order in Section 32, a disagreement on punctuation. I agree that we should use the more common and explain that many editions of Suetonius (or Suetonius himself) vary. Septentrionalis 23:31, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

It appears the page has been moved, so I'm removing the request tag. FiggyBee 15:20, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Many editions vary, it is true. However, I have not found one in which the phrase is presented otherwise than Iacta alea est. An encyclopedia should be correct. It is not a question of public oppinion. If the phrase is Iacta alea est the article should have this title. Redirecting from Alea jacta est should be sufficient to satisfy the public oppinion.

If I am wrong and there are other ancient authors (or other editions of Suetonius) who present the phrase otherwise, this should be explained in the article. Otherwise the article does not help in any way as it leaves people who read it more confused than before.

Afil 02:47, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

"If the phrase is Iacta alea est" is exactly the issue. Both word orders work fine in latin and mean the same thing (with a slightly stronger emphasis on cast in the original - "Cast the die is"), and for whatever reason alea iacta est is how the phrase is more commonly used today. What [phrase] would the average user of the Wikipedia put into the search engine? FiggyBee 07:45, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

I provided the quotation from Suetonius which indicates that the Phrase is Iact alea est (see part 1 of this discussion page. If there is some other version and oppinion, let whoever knows about it show the quotation. For the time being, as far as this discussion is concerned there is a single quotation presented, the one above from Suetonius and all the rest is just hear say,

Afil 05:20, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

But 99% of users searching for this phrase will not have found it in Suetonius, and, for whatever reason, the googlefight shows that AIE is the much more common usage than IAE. FiggyBee 13:18, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Literal Translation?

The english translation contains two ambiguous words: 'die' could be one of two dice or a metal stamp. 'cast' could mean thrown or formed out of molten metal. I'm assuming the original latin doesn't have that ambiguity, but I unfortunately don't know latin to choose which.--Spyforthemoon 16:00, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

The first is right in both cases; the translation is traditional and should be left alone, even if explained. Septentrionalis 18:46, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Also, just to make it quite clear, there is no ambiguity in the latin. alea can only mean a die as in dice, and iacio (which comes down to us in english as eject) can only mean cast as in "throw". "The die (which you strike coins with) has been cast (out of metal)" in latin would be something like moneta fusa est. FiggyBee 05:14, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Erasmus

I heard that Erasmus thought the phrase had been corrupted, and that it really was Jacta alea esto, i.e., a third person singular future perfect imperative. It's an interesting point that I would like to include. Does anyone have a cite? Rwflammang 13:45, 28 March 2007 (UTC)