Wendy Lane
Latin 3398
December 13, 2010
The First Satire of Horace Translated into English Prose
The Satires of Horace were his collection of works he wrote following the model of Lucilius, who was known as the father of satire and "lived from 180 to 103 B.C.
(Fairclough XV)." This writing style consists of a "didactic poems, couched in a more or less dramatic form, and carried on in an easy conversational tone, without for the most part any definite purpose (Martin 59)." Throughout the first satire of Horace, this tone is quiet evident since it was addressed to Maecenas, it is a conversational piece between the author and its addressee. This makes the work rather intimate. The work itself branches off throughout "into such collateral topics as suggest themselves by the way, with all the ease and buoyancy of agreeable talk, and getting back or not, as it may happen, into the main line of idea with which they set out (Martin 59)." In the first satire of Horace (and his others), this is no exception. The author moves forward throughout the poem with ease, jumping from one idea to another, and eventually circles back to create the topic as a whole. In his first satire, Horace discusses the desire for wealth and that "everybody is trying to outstrip his neighbor in the race for wealth. People are never satisfied
(Fairclough 3)." The satires were written in dactylic hexameter. Since the Satires of
Horace were called the sermones in Latin, it is fitting that the translation of the piece gives the sense of a conversation between the author and the person to which it is addressed.

Thus, I have prepared a translation the first satire of Horace, close to the original
Latin in order to keep the same idea and flow, into a work that could be considered a
"intimate conversation" such as a letter between Horace and Maecenas. This work is a type of literary prose, composed from a literal translation of the original Latin and begins with the addressee, Maecenas, like a modern letter would say "Dear John." I feel that too much diversion from the original Latin takes away from the original intent of the author, which would thus diminish the desired result from the reader. Horace "wrote for his friends, not for the public (Lonsdale 6)." In fact, the satires "are not altogether unlike letters, and his epistles are not quite unlike satires (Lonsdale 106)." Thus the reason for keeping close to the literal translation. There have been several other translations throughout history of the same satire into English prose, which tend to diverge and paraphrase certain parts of the original text in order to fit their general attitude towards some of the more obscene diction employed by Horace in later satires, such as the Loeb editions. Thus, the first satire of Horace's first book of satires, as translated by myself, shall be compared to the translations given by James Lonsdale and Samuel Lee and by the translation given by H. Rushton Fairclough.
For the first lines, I have broken up the work into a block from the original Latin lines one through fourteen, divided into paragraphs at lines four, six, and nine. The break at line four divides the two speakers, the narrator and an unknown speaker, likewise on the break at line nine. Both Fairclough and Lonsdale and Lee divided their first paragraph at line twenty-two. I began my translation dedicated to Maecenas in the style of a modern letter, giving the invocation to Maecenas as the addressee. However, the other translators of this piece began with "Qui fit," ("How comes it to pass (Lonsdale 107)" and "How is it

(Fairclough 5).") as Horace has written. However, since the addressee is rendered by
Horace in the post-positive position, I felt that it would better suit the intended purpose of the translation to be the first word in the text and to start off with the addressee.
Throughout the translation of the first few paragraphs, the translators Lonsdale and Lee also kept a rather literal translation of the original Latin, as did I, while the Fairclough translation created a rather idiomatic translation. For example, the first line of my translation reads:
"Maecenas, how is that no man lives happy with his group which Reason gave to him or Chance threw in the way, but praises those people who follow different paths?"
While Lonsdale and Lee's first few lines reads:
"How comes it to pass, Maecenas, that no one lives contented with the lot which either choice has given him, or chance thrown in his way, while he admires the fortune of those who follow a different profession (Lonsdale 107)?"
Lastly, the Fairclough translation reads:
"How comes it, Maecenas, that no man living is content with the lot which either his choice has given him or chance has thrown in his way, but each has praise for those who follow other paths (Fairclough 5)?"
In comparing all three translations, besides the leading word, the other translators render the word " ratio " as choice in comparison to " fors ," while I kept the translation of

word " ratio " as Reason, as Horace has addressed the personification of Reason in his other Satires. Lonsdale and Lee changed " laudet " to read "admires" instead of "praises."
In line 41, there is more diversion between the three translations. For example, the translation prepared by myself yields more straightforward questions:
"How does timorously burying lots of silver and gold in the earth secretly help you? 'If you break them in pieces, reduces them to a penny.' But unless it is done, what beauty does the pile have?"
In the Lonsdale and Lee translation this reads:
"What pleasure is there so stealthily deep in a hole of the earth timorously to hide an immense weight of gold and silver? 'Ah,' says the miser, 'because if I lessen it, it will at last be reduced to a worthless penny.' 'But unless,' I reply, 'you do so lessen it, what is the charm of this heap piled so high?' (Lonsdale 108)."
Finally, the Fairclough translation reads:
"What good to you is a vast weight of silver and gold, if in terror you stealthily bury it in a hole in the ground? 'But if one splits it up, it would dwindle to a paltry penny.' Yet if that is not done, what beauty has the piled-up heap (Fairclough 8-
9)?"
In this example, besides the differences in diction, there are different ways in which the
Latin text is rendered. The original Latin reads:
" Quid iuvat immensum te argenti pondus et auri

furtim defossa timidum deponere terra?
'quod si comminuas, vilem redigatur ad assem.' at ni id fit, quid habet pulchri constructus acervus ?"
Thus, the first line is a question marked by "quid" with the understand subject
"it." Rewritten the text would read " quid te iuvat deponere terra timidum immensum argenti pondus et auri furtim defossa ." Literally "What help to you is it to put down into the earth timidly a vast weight of silver and gold burying secretively." Therefore, the translations vary, yet all hold the same ideas that the gold and silver pieces of money are buried by their fearful owners in the ground in secret as to hide it from thieves. However, in the Lonsdale and Lee translation, the use of "pleasure" varies greatly from my own translation and the Fairclough translation in the word " iuvat ."
Next in the differences between the three translations, there is a major difference around lines 92-100 in the translation of the story of the miser Ummidius who was killed by the freewoman with an axe. The translation I have prepared for this segment reads:
"When you retire, once you have made what you desire, unless you do something like Ummidius. It's not a long story. He was so rich that he measured his money. He was so miserly that he dressed himself no better than a slave. Up until his final hour he lived in fear of starvation. However, it was a freedwoman who divided him down the middle with an axe; bravest of the
Tyndarians."
The Lonsdale and Lee translation reads:

"lest your end be that of a certain Ummidius - it is a short story - so rich was he, that he measured, not counted his money; so mean was he, that he dressed no better than a slave, to his last hour he lived in perpetual dread of actual starvation: not so came his end, for his freed-woman cleft him through with an axe; she was as brave as any Clytemnestra (Lonsdale 109)."
The Fairclough translation reads:
"lest you fare like a certain Ummidius - 'tis a short story - so rich that he measured his money, so miserly that he dressed no better than a slave; up to his last hour he feared he would die of starvation. Yet a freed-woman cleft him in twain with an axe, bravest of the Tyndarid breed (Fairclough 13)."
The biggest difference between the translations is the ownership of the freedwoman. Lonsdale and Lee presume that Ummidius was the previous owner of the
Tyndarian slave woman and set her free, as evident in their use of "his freed-woman" in their translation, while Fairclough just employs the article "a freed-woman" and does not show ownership to anybody. The Latin for this text reads " at hunc liberta securi divisit medium, fortissima Tyndaridarum ." There is no indication in the Latin text that this freewoman once belonged to Ummidius, and in fact, refers to Clytemnestra, who was a
"daughter of Tyndareus [who] slew her husband Agamemnon with an axe. Possibly the freedwoman's name was Tyndaris (Fairclough 12)." Clytemnestra "was the daughter of
Tyndareos, kind of Sparta, and Leda... [and] according to one version of the Clytemnestra story, Agamemnon was not her first husband. She was originally married to Tantalus
(Littleton 312)." Thus, Clytemnestra was married first to a Tantalus, who was mentioned

earlier in the Horace satire in line 68. Then she was married to Agamemnon, who she
"stabbed (or axed)... to death (Littleton 313)." Therefore it is possible that this
Clytemnestra was born a freewoman and was never a slave, and according to the works of Aeschylus, this seems apparent. Therefore, there could be no ownership of the
Tyndarian woman.
Next, when Horace mentions the analogy of the chariot race in comparison to the race for wealth among men, there is some disagreement between the three different translations. In the translation I have prepared, it reads:
"In this race, there will always be someone richer in the way. It is just like when the hoof seizes the chariots from the starting gate, the charioteer rushes to pass the ones ahead and scorns the ones which he just passed who go among the last."
The Lonsdale and Lee translation reads:
"it is as when chariots start from the barrier, the running horses bear them swiftly on, then hard on the steeds that beat his own presses the charioteer, making small account of him whom he has passed, and who slowly goes amongst the hindmost
(Lonsdale 110)."
Finally, the Fairclough translation is thus:
"Tis as when chariots are let loose from the barriers and swept onwards behind t he hoofed steeds: hard on the horses that outstrip his own presses the charioteer, caring naught for that other whom he has passed and left in the rear (Fairclough
13)."

The Latin text for this reads:
"ut, cum carceribus missos rapit ungula currus instat equis auriga suos vincentibus, illum praeteritum temnens extremos inter euntem ."
In the Latin text, the line starts with a cum clause with the subject of the cum clause being
" ungula ," the main verb " rapit ." Rewritten, the cum clause would read: " cum ungula currus rapit carceribus missos, auriga equis instat suos vincentibus.
" Literally, this means "when the hoof seizes the chariots sent from the starting gate, the charioteer presses on the horses that are conquering his own." Lonsdale and Lee and Fairclough use the word "currus" as the subject of the clause, since it can be either accusative or nominative. However, literally, the word "ungula" is in either the nominative or ablative case. Since the "gu" in " ungula " is short, it is assumed that the "la" is also short to fit the meter of the line. Therefore, the word " ungula " would not be in the ablative case, making it nominative in the sentence. Thus my reason for translating it literally as the subject of the cum clause in comparison to the other translators.
Finally, in the last lines of Horace's satire addressed to Maecenas, he writes in
Latin: " ne me Crispini scinia lippi compilasse putes, verbum non amplius addam ." In this case, Horace begins with indirect discourse and ends with the main part of the sentence.
Literally translated it states: "or you will think that I compiled the writings of bleary-eyed
Crispinus, I will not add more words." The differences between the three translators of this sentence finish the work by saying this:

My own translation:
"I will not add a word more or you will think that I compiled the scrolls of blearyeyed Crispinus."
Lonsdale and Lee's translation:
"You will think that I have been pilfering the desks of blear-eyed Crispinus; so I will not add a word more (Lonsdale 110)."
Fairclough translation:
"Not a word more will I add, or you will think I have rifled the rolls of blear-eyed
Crispinus (Fairclough 15)."
In the final words here Horace mentions that he will no longer say more about this subject for fear of rambling on about virtue of men. Since Crispinus was "one who babbled about virtue (Fairclough 15)," Horace does not want to seem as if he is stealing any of the work already wrote by this man. A fitting end for the theme of the work, since
Horace talks about how people should be virtuous in not being greedy and wanting more even if they have enough to survive.
In conclusion, there are some differences between the three translations. The
Lonsdale and Lee translation was meant to be a work that was translated literally, however there were some problems that were not attended to throughout the work. The
Fairclough translation was more idiomatic and added some other information that made the whole work flow smoothly. The satires, written in dactylic hexameter are indeed conversational pieces and the ones from Horace's first book were dedicated to his friend

Maecenas. Therefore, that is why I have produced a translation such as this, one that does not stray too far from Horace's own words, yet mimics a modern letter to be sent from one friend to another.

Works Cited
Fairclough, H. Rushton. Satires, Epistles and Ars Poetica . Cambridge, MA:
Harvard UP, 1978. Print.
Littleton, C. Scott. Gods, Goddesses, and Mythology . New York: Marshall Cavendish,
2005. Print.
Lonsdale, James and Samuel Lee. The Works of Horace Rendered into English Prose, with Introductions, Running Analysis, Notes and an Index.
London: Macmillan and, 1874. Print.
Martin, Theodore. Horace . BiblioBazaar LLC. 2007. Print.