Hello, I’m currently though with any and all basic Latin, as well as mediocre Latin texts (Eutropius etc…) Now, I thought that I might be able to translate some real texts, but I seem to be having problems! The text in question is Juvenal’s Satura. The third line just eludes me. Any ideas?
Difficile Est Saturam Non Scribere
Literally “Difficult it is a satire not to write”, or better: “It is difficult not to write a satire”.
It wasn’t the phrase that bothered me, that was the easy part, but the third sentence in his first satire. I actually understand it now all except I am not sure where to place the hic.
inpune ergo mihi recitaverit ille togatas,
hic elegos?
And I translated it as Therefore should he have recited to me with impunity Roman dramas, elegiac verses?
Again, I’m not sure what I should do with hic. If it were describing elegos, it would be hos, right? So that must make it here. Any ideas?
Oh, sorry about the confusion.
This is a sort of hic… ille… formation which means “the former… the latter…” or “this man… that man…”. You could translate it:
So would that man have recited to me Roman comedies, [and] this man [recited to me] elegiacs?
OK, like men de in Greek. But that doesn’t really explain where he gets the former man and latter man? I thought that it was only referring to Cordus
Numquamne reponam
vexatus totiens rauci theseide Cordi?
EDited to add my translation:
Shall I never reply
having been vexed many times by the Theseid of the raspy Cordus?
nevermind, I get it…
Pardon me if I err, I am hardly familiar with the writing of Juvenal. I think it may be taking on a meaning like “one man… another…”. Somebody else may have a better clue, or you can look for a translation to compare with.
*having taken a look at the original text, I think the two verbs are more likely future perfects, to match the other futures of the opening lines.
I thought about doing it that way, but it doesn’t sound right, especially the non-linguistical composition (the future reponam is referring to future action to already done action, i.e. him listening to the Theseid by Cordus).
Therefore, will one man have recited to me with impunity comedies, and an other elegiacs?
I dunno, is anyone familiar with Juvenal here?
glad to see you’re reading the great Juve.
recitauerit stands as fut. pf., which is standard when referring to the result that is still in the future of an event that has passed. you can capture this in eng. along with impune as: ‘is some man to get away scot-free having…’.
you need to understand fabulas uel sim. with togatas of course. the ille…hic… is a bit like men de, but is more additive than contrastive, and perhaps therfore more akin to its greek counterpart ode…ekeinos…
~D
so, was my guess translation more accurate than my first? I’m working more on accuracy, which is why I came here (there are no accurate translations to base my model off of!)
yeah, close to that, but you need to highlight the link between past action and future outcome: ‘is one going to get away with having…or the other…’.
~D
OK, but wouldn’t that be obvious with impune as “with impunity”?
no, cweb255.
a past action can be said in the present to have been carried out w. impunity.
~D
O, video. So, for a future reference, how am I to recognize the difference between past action/future consequence and normal future perfect?
from the context, unless the expanded syntax of the sentence makes the distinction explicit.
~D