Phaedrus (Extra): Gladius et Viator

You can read more about Phaedrus at Wikipedia, and here are all the Phaedrus poems I have posted at this blog, plus all the "extra" Phaedrus. Last week I posted a Phaedrus poem as reconstructed by Carl Zander from the medieval prose, and I thought today I would share a different reconstructed version by Petrus Burmannus, a.k.a. Pieter Burman the Elder, a Dutch classicist who published an edition of Phaedrus in 1698. There are three of these reconstruction projects (three that I know of anyway), and tomorrow I'll post something from the third project, which is by Marquand Gude (Gudius).

So, to begin, here's the poem I posted last week (see the post for more info), the reconstruction by Zander:

Malus multosque perdit et solus perit.

Gladium viator in via quem invenerat

Iacentem interrogavit, "Quis te perdidit?"

Cui contra telum, "Me unus, sed multos ego."

And here is how Burman renders the same story:

Gladium viator cum invenisset in via

Jacentem, interrogavit: Quis te perdidit?

Cui telum: Me quidem unus, multos vero ego.

Homo malus multos perdit, at solus perit.

Here is the poem written out in English prose order to help in reading:

Viator,

cum invenisset Gladium jacentem in via,

interrogavit: 

"Quis te perdidit?"

Cui Telum,

"Unus quidem (perdidit) me, 

ego vero (perdidi) multos."

Malus homo 

perdit multos, 

at perit solus.

The meter is iambic:

Gladium · via·tor c~ in·venis·set in · via

Jacent~ · inter·roga·vit: Quis · te per·didit?

Cui te·lum: Me · quid~ u·nus, mul·tos ver~ · ego.

Homo ma·lus mul·tos per·dit, at · solus · perit.

So, let's compare the two versions:

One big difference is that Zander has a promythium, while Burman has made it an epimythium, although they are essentially the same. I personally find Zander's use of -que awkward there, so I prefer Burman: Homo malus multos perdit at solus perit.

To set the scene, Zander has a pluperfect in a relative clause, while Burman has a cum clause, and again, I think I like Burman better there: Gladium viator cum invenisset in via jacentem interrogavit.

In the sword's reply, Zander has a contra to set up the reply with a sed to coordinate the sword's words, while Burman uses those syllables for a quidem...vero... in the sword's own words, and again, just personally, I prefer Burman since the quidem...vero gives the sword's reply, which is the main point of the story after all, more of a rhetorical punch: Me quidem unus, multos vero ego.

I wonder if Burman will be the winner (in my opinion, ha ha) when I am able to do another side-by-side comparison like this!

Here's the Steinhowel illustration again, this time in a digital edition at the Library of Congress; just click to browse the whole book online.