line 79 reads: “tardet ingenuus pudor.” does anyone know why the subjunctive is used here? all the translations I have seen have translated it indicatively.
lines 134-136 read: “diceris male te a tuis/ unguentate glabris marite/ abstinere, sed abstine.” The best translation I can come up with is “perfumed married man, you are said that you illy abstain from your bald young slaves, but abstain.” I know this does not make much sense, but I cannot see how “te” works in this line.
First, we don’t even know for sure that “ingenuus pudor” is the subject of tardet. The lines from “splendidas quatiunt comas” up to your quote are marked as lacunae in the editions I have here. I think the translators are just being capricious with this line, the subjunctive seems to work fine in translation, e.g. “Though her natural modesty delay her.” But of course, we’re guessing re: the purport of the missing lines.
See Allen & Greenough or any other good Latin grammar for a survey of the uses of the subjunctive.
lines 134-136 read: “diceris male te a tuis/ unguentate glabris marite/ abstinere, sed abstine.” The best translation I can come up with is “perfumed married man, you are said that you illy abstain from your bald young slaves, but abstain.” I know this does not make much sense, but I cannot see how “te” works in this line.
Indirect discourse. Again, see a grammar. Also, “male” goes with abstinere and is (according to Ellis) best translated as equivalent to aegre (“with difficulty”). Further, “glabris tuis” refers to pueris delicatis, i.e. shaven male concubines.
I’d start translating it so (with a little poetic license) :
“O well-perfumed husband, you say that it’s difficult for you to abstain from your smooth-shaven boys; but abstain.”
I hope that helps. Btw, you might consider purchasing a critical edition such as Ellis’s, it’s been my main source of clarification when I read Catullus.
May I ask why you’re reading this particular poem ? (I like the poem, I’m just curious why you’ve selected it.)
I am reading it because I will be doing Catullus for AP latin lit. this fall and I do not like merely reading excerpts of a poet’s work, so I purchased Mynor’s complete text. I still do not understand why you translated “diceris” actively. What city do you live in in NW Ohio? I live in the same region in Grand Rapids.
My bad, it should have read “you may say”.
What city do you live in in NW Ohio? I live in the same region in Grand Rapids.
I’m in Findlay.
Hm… but diceris is either 2nd pers. sing. passive present or 2nd pers. sing. passive future, isn’t it? That is, “you are called” or “you will be called”? I’m really baffled by an impersonal indirect statement after what would normally be a personal statement. In other words, either of these seem good to me:
dicitur te…abstinere - “it’s said that you…resist”
diceris…abstinere - “you are said…to resist”
But we have a strange hybrid of the two, don’t we? — diceris te abstinere
…unless “diceris te…abstinere” means “you are said to…keep yourself away from…” Is this the idea? In other words, te is the object of abstinere, and not the subject accusative?
David
I believe in this context diceris is a second singular perfect subjunctive with a potential usage. The use of the perfect subjunctive in such situations can refer to possible events in the future. Catullus is anticipating the argument of his friend. I think this is how Cantantor chose to interpret it. My own version:
“You may say, perfumed man, that you find it hard to abstain from your well shaven boys; but you must abstain”.
How can it be perfect?
Oh it can’t. My mistake. bellum, I don’t think te can be the object of abstinere, because it’s not reflexive. Unless it is referring to another ‘you’ which I think is unlikely. Please correct me if I’m wrong.
Having thought it through, I think diceris is simply an example of the passive voice being used reflexively, just like the Greek middle tense (cf. A&G 156a), and there’s not much more to it than that. “You say [about yourself] that…”
Hi,
Thanks for pointing out this beautiful poem, which I hadn’t yet discovered. (I can’t help comparing it with Edmund Spenser’s Prothalamion – a rather more ethereal marriage hymn).
At http://rudy.negenborn.net/catullus/ there is a scanned version of the poem. They obviously opt for the 2nd person singular passive:
dīcĕrīs mălĕ te ? tŭīs
ūnguēnt?tĕ glăbrīs mărīte
?bstĭnērĕ. sĕd ?bstĭnē.
Some translations I have come across are:
Anointed groom, you will be criticized for keeping away from
your bald, effeminate slaves, but keep away from them.
(Brendan Rau 1999)
And you, spruce, perfumed groom –
They say that you can’t trust
Yourself to give your smooth-
Cheeked boys up: yet you must.
(James Michie 1969)
Scented bridegroom, it’s rumoured you’re
finding it hard to abstain from your
nice smooth boys, but abstain you must:
(Peter Green 2005)
Et toi, époux parfumé, ce n’est, dit-on, qu’à regret que
tu renonces à tes favoris imberbes : renonces-y pourtant
(Maurice Rat 2004)
I wonder, Cantator, does Ellis have a note on ‘diceris’?
I look forward to someone’s informed answer to Bellum Paxque’s question. However, following a train of thought based on admittedly meagre foundations …
My Latin-Swedish dictionary says (my translation) under the entry for dico, dixi, dictum:
“In the passive, usually personal –or, -eris, etc. (Aesculapius primus vulnus dicitur obligavisse = is said to have been the first who; dicar … princeps Aeolium carmen ad Italos deduxisse modos = I will be said to be the first to have … “ [Hmm, I recognize that! It’s friend Horace.]
… “usually personal “ (so it doesn’t have to be impersonal as BP& assumes!) … In any case, if the following is correct …
“Librum legis”. (DIRECT: “You’re reading a book”.)
Dicis TE librum legere. (INDIRECT: You say YOU are reading a book.) [In reported speech, the ‘accusative subject’ - whether pronoun or noun - MUST be set out, no?]
… why shouldn’t the following also be correct?
Diceris TE librum legere (You are said to be reading a book)
Diceris TE abstinere (You are said to abstain)
Quod erat demonstrandum … 
… or … (whatever happened to the Embarrassed Smiley?)
Oh, and Lucan, why isn’t TE refexive? It refers back to the 2nd person singular subject, doesn’t it?
Incidentally, as regards that word ‘male’, I can’t help thinking of Horace’s breathtakingly beautiful usage in Ode 1.9, last line:
… digito male pertinaci (feebly resisting finger)
Cheers,
Int
‘te’ is definitely reflexive with ‘abstinere’, a common construction with ‘abstineo’ – to keep (teneo) yourself (te) away (abs) from something.
Interaxus, this isn’t working like your examples, which are active. In the sentence “you say that you are reading a book”, the second “you” must be represented in Latin by an accusative subject (te) for the infinitive. But if you make the verb passive:
“You are said to be reading a book”
There is only one “you” involved, in either English or Latin, and so it would be quite incorrect to say “diceris TE legere librum” – the sentence only works without the ‘te’.
But in our example here:
diceris male te a tuis/ unguentate glabris marite/ abstinere, sed abstine
the ‘te’ has nothing to do with the passive ‘diceris’ – it is the reflexive direct object of ‘abstinere’:
Smelly husband (unguentate marite) you are said (diceris) to do a poor job keeping yourself away (male te abstinere) from your bald guys (a tuis glabris); but (sed) keep (abstine).
And Lucan, I’m not sure why you would think ‘te’ can’t be reflexive. In Latin, of course, the first and second person reflexive pronouns are identical with the non-reflexives; it’s only in the third person where there’s a difference (eum vs. se, etc.)
Good posts, Interaxus and mraig. My head (not bald, perhaps fortunately, and also not betrothed) can rest easy tonight.
-David
Carmina 61 and 62 are true epithalamia, and 64 describes the wedding of Peleus and Thetis. It’s tempting to think that 61 was actually intended to be sung, which brings up all kinds of questions regarding the music. Did Catullus receive any musical training ? If not the poet, who composed the music ? How was it arranged ? Who directed the musicians and the chorus ? (And the practical performer in me wants to ask how much they got paid.)
Now that I think on it, it’s possible to consider 63 as a very bizarre sort of “wedding song” describing the “marriage” of Attis and Cybele. I know, it’s a weird interpretation, but it might explain why 63 is included with the other wedding poems.
Btw, Chiarini translates the passage in question so :
Si dice, sposo azzimato,
che tu non sappia rinunciare
agli imberbi ragazzi: ma ormai devi farlo.
I wonder, Cantator, does Ellis have a note on ‘diceris’?
Nothing. He does address some of the syntax in this passage, but he says nothing regarding diceris.
Lucan, why isn’t TE reflexive? It refers back to the 2nd person singular subject, doesn’t it?
Ellis claims it is reflexive with abstinere. He quotes Terence as an example.
Incidentally, as regards that word ‘male’, I can’t help thinking of Horace’s breathtakingly beautiful usage in Ode 1.9, last line:
… digito male pertinaci (feebly resisting finger)
Another great poem from Horace. The contrast in tone between the first and last verse is extremely striking.
Hi,
Thanks mraig. Your argument certainly seems compelling - to my English brain. But “just one more thing?, as Colombo might say. Are we dealing with an Accusative & Infinitive construction or not? If so, wouldn’t the following at least be logical - granted that the ‘accusative subject’ is reflexive in these examples?
“Librum legis”. (DIRECT: “You’re reading a book”.)
Dicis TE librum legere. (INDIRECT: You say YOURSELF to-be-reading a book.)
Diceris TE librum legere (You are said YOURSELF to be reading a book)
Diceris TE abstinere (You are said YOURSELF to abstain)
Thus ‘you are said to’ would equate to ‘ it is said of you that you’.
Ma potrei sbagliarmi… (found that on an Italian Latin site …)
Cantator, thanks once again. I can’t wait to dip into carmina 62-64. (Any chance of your reading “Vides ut alta …? for us one day soon? Sorry. Just being greedy!)
Cheers,
Int
I think an analogous example may help convince you, Interaxus.
princeps omnia bene regere uidetur - “the prince seems to rule all things well”
Wouldn’t you agree that this is a personal construction? It would be quite wrong to say princeps se??? omnia bene regere uidetur. Now it is possible to say regem omnia bene regere uisum est, an impersonal construction: “it seemed the king was ruling all things well.” The same goes for dico and similar verbs of saying and thinking (basically verbs that can take an indirect statement), just as mraig pointed out.
And for further support, see this noteto Ritchie’s Fabulae Faciles (obviously not real Latin but intended to illustrate it).
Hic dicitur omnium hominum validissimus fuisse > - “He is said to have been the strongest of all men”
…
Note: > Hic dicitur fuisse> , this man is said to have been; we’d probably say it’s said that Hercules was. Latin preferred to use a personal construction.
Hi mraig and BP&,
I bow to your superior arguments! I feel the floor has been convincingly wiped with yours truly. Much appreciate your boundless patience. I herewith retract all baseless extrapolations.
Int