id est ante vīgintī diēs - Famlia Romana XXXIII Lines 49–50

[wilhelmjohnson]

Hodiē dēmum mihi allāta est epistula tua quae a. d. VII kal. Māi. scrīpta est, id est ante vīgintī diēs. Today at last your letter, which was written April 25, was delivered to me, that is before twenty days.

I'm having trouble with the last clause, id est ante vīgintī diēs. My literal rendering doesn't seem to fit. He's complaining about the slow speed of the tabellarius, so shouldn't it be something like, "That's a whole twenty days!"

[Victor]

[I'm having trouble with the last clause, id est ante vīgintī diēs. My literal rendering doesn't seem to fit. He's complaining about the slow speed of the tabellarius, so shouldn't it be something like, "That's a whole twenty days!"

The Latin just says "That's twenty days ago". Commentary on how excessive this length of time may appear to the speaker is not really present in this bit of the Latin.

[Qimmik]

Isn't he saying that the letter he just received demum -- "finally" -- was written -- scripta est -- twenty days ago -- ante viginti dies?

Ante viginti dies does mean "twenty days ago." He's not happy about the time it took.

[Victor]

Isn't he saying that the letter he just received demum -- "finally" -- was written -- scripta est -- twenty days ago -- ante viginti dies?

That's certainly the way I took it. The subjective evaluation inherent in demum shows us he's not happy about the time it took. However, the resumption of this evaluation in the "a whole" of wilhelmjohnson's translation is not strictly present in the somewhat sparer Latin, which merely states "that's twenty days ago". There's nothing wrong with wilhelmjohnson's use of "a whole"; it merely reasserts, where the Latin does not, the subjective commentary initiated with "finally" (i.e. demum).