ridiculum acri
fortius et melius magnas plerumque secat res.
illi, scripta quibus comoedia prisca viris est,
hoc stabant, hoc sunt imitandi;
Translation:
A joke commonly cuts down the overblown [magnas . .res] more powerfully, and better, than bitter invective. Those men [illi] by whom [quibus viris] the old comedy was written stood [stabant] by this [hoc]; they ought to be imitated on this [hoc].
acri: ablative singular, complement of comparative adverbs, here used substantively, bitter invective.
hoc . . . hoc: antecedent is the idea that a joke is often better than invective
stabant . . . sunt imitandi: subject is illi
Good calls all. ridiculum acri both neuter adjectives used substantivally, and effectively juxtaposed.
You’ll have noticed how viris is drawn into the relative clause: not illi viri quibus (as it would be in prose) but illi quibus viris. We similarly had quae villula a little while back.
Thank you mwh for the review, and for classifying the quibus viris construction. I wondered why it wasn’t illi viri quibus, but the translation I gave was the only one I could devise.
Does the following grammar note apply to your observation?
Occasionally the antecedent is attracted into the case of the relative. . . .
(A & G, at section 306a, Note)
Not altogether, for here illi is not attracted into the case of the relative. But viri is, so that may be as close as A&G comes to describing what we have here. Only in poetry (I expect).