First Catilinarian Oration
- Thread starter leonhartu
- Start date
Also:
- "Burst out" doesn't agree with "everything", which is singular in English.
- It would be better to add "of yours" after "that mind".
- Just "believe me" would be fine.
- "Also" is unnecessary.
- "Butchery/murder and fires" would be better, without articles (the).
- "Each of your choices are clearer" is ungrammatical because "each" is singular, so it should be "each of your choices is clearer". However, "all your plans/intentions are clearer" is a better translation.
- Recognoscere here means "review/survey".
- "which it is already permitted you to..." can be rephrased to "and you may now review/survey them with me", which would flow a bit better.
- Omnia is implied as the subject of the first verb as well.
- "Burst out" doesn't agree with "everything", which is singular in English.
You've got the gist of it, but:
- It would be better to add "of yours" after "that mind".
- Just "believe me" would be fine.
- "Also" is unnecessary.
- "Butchery/murder and fires" would be better, without articles (the).
- "You are hold": you mean "you are held". Though teneris undique = maybe "you are caught on all sides".
- "Each of your choices are clearer" is ungrammatical because "each" is singular, so it should be "each of your choices is clearer". However, "all your plans/intentions are clearer" is a better translation.
- Recognoscere here means "review/survey".
- "which it is already permitted you to..." can be rephrased to "and you may now review/survey them with me", which would flow a bit better.
If all things are elucidated, if all things burst out?
Change already that mind of yours, believe me, forget butchery and fires.
"
You are caught on all sides, all your intentions are clearer than the light to us; and you may now review them with me.
By the way in "Each of your choices are clearer..." can't "are" agree with "choices" instead of "each"?
That's better.
Well, maybe it can happen by some sort of attraction, I don't know, but strictly, that isn't what's grammatically correct.
Well, I felt it was necessary since it was written only one time, but I guess it wasn't so.
Meministine me ante diem XII Kalendas Novembris dicere in senatu fore in armis certo die, qui dies futurus esset ante diem VI Kal. Novembris, C. Manlium, audaciae satellitem atque administrum tuae? Num me fefellit, Catilina, non modo res tanta, tam atrox tamque incredibilis, verum, id quod multo magis est admirandum, dies? Dixi ego idem in senatu caedem te optumatium contulisse in ante diem V Kalendas Novembris, tum cum multi principes civitatis Roma non tam sui conservandi quam tuorum consiliorum reprimendorum causa profugerunt. Num infitiari potes te illo ipso die meis praesidiis, mea diligentia circumclusum commovere te contra rem publicam non potuisse, cum tu discessu ceterorum nostra tamen, qui remansissemus, caede te contentum esse dicebas?
Do you remember I saying in the senate in 21 October that Gaius Manlius, follower and assistent of your audacity, that was about to be in a certain day with weapons, which day would it be 27 October? It (the day) didn't fool me, Catilina, not only a thing of such size, so atrocious and so incredible, but also, what wise men must admire by a great deal? I was the one who said in the senate (that) your butchery of good men was assigned to 28 October, at a time when many leaders of the city ran away from Rome not so much for the sake of conserving themselves as for the sake of preventing your plans. You can't deny (that) in that very day by my guards, by my diligence having you surrounded you weren't able to move against the state, when in order to the departure of the rest, we who had stayed behind, you would say yourself content to be by (means of) our assassination.
Your translation isn't a coherent sentence, so it can't be completely right. If you remove the bolded "that" and "it", it will already cohere a bit better, but there are a few other things:
- Do you remember I saying... : this is ungrammatical. We say "do you remember me saying", not "I".
- in 21 October: better "on".
- was about to be in a certain day with weapons: better "would be in arms on a certain day"
I'll wait and see if you've got any questions concerning this sentence before I move on to the next.
Meministine me ante diem XII Kalendas Novembris dicere in senatu fore in armis certo die, qui dies futurus esset ante diem VI Kal. Novembris, C. Manlium, audaciae satellitem atque administrum tuae? Num me fefellit, Catilina, non modo res tanta, tam atrox tamque incredibilis, verum, id quod multo magis est admirandum, dies? Dixi ego idem in senatu caedem te optumatium contulisse in ante diem V Kalendas Novembris, tum cum multi principes civitatis Roma non tam sui conservandi quam tuorum consiliorum reprimendorum causa profugerunt. Num infitiari potes te illo ipso die meis praesidiis, mea diligentia circumclusum commovere te contra rem publicam non potuisse, cum tu discessu ceterorum nostra tamen, qui remansissemus, caede te contentum esse dicebas?
Do you remember me saying in the senate on 21 October that Gaius Manlius, follower and assistent of your audacity, would be in arms on a certain day, which day would had been 27 October? It didn't fool me, Catiline, not only such thing, so atrocious and so incredible, but also, it that must be surprising for many men, (that) day? I also said on the senate that you had the slaughtery of the nobles assigned for 28 October, when at that time many important citizens not so much as for the sake of conserving themselves as for preventing your intentions ran away from Rome. Can you deny that in the same day, you surrounded by my guards (and) by my diligence you couldn't move against the state, after the departure of the remaining (and) yet with ours, who stayed behind, you have said to be satisfied by means of slaughtery?
That's better, but "would had been" doesn't make sense. "Would be" is what you want.
Here you seem a bit lost.
Literally it is: "Did, Catiline, not only such a great thing, so atrocious and so incredible, fool me, but also... the day?"
But it would be better to rephrase it as something like "Was I wrong, Catiline, not only concerning such a great thing etc."
id quod multo magis est admirandum: multo doesn't mean "for many men"; that would be multis. Multo is an ablative of degree of difference going with magis: multo magis = "much more".
I guess "it that" for id quod isn't literally wrong, but it doesn't sound like normal English. Ignore id in translation and translate the whole as just "which".
Do you remember me saying in the senate on 21 October that Gaius Manlius, follower and assistent of your audacity, would be in arms on a certain day, which day would be 27 October?
"Was I wrong, Catiline, not only concerning such a great thing, so atrocious and so incredible, but also, the day which must be much more surprising?"
"Assistant", not "assistent". I missed that before. Otherwise, OK.
It would be better to put a comma before "which must be..." because as it stands it looks a bit as if they day were surprising. Actually perhaps it would be even better to place that clause more like it was in the Latin and add parentheses.
I might also add another "concerning" before "the day".
"Must be" is rather unnecessary; I would say "is". Admirandum = that must be wondered at, worthy to be wondered at = simply "surprising".
"...but even (which is much more surprising) concerning the day?"
Here I've got the feeling that you understood the Latin, at least for the most part, but didn't know how to put it in English.
- "In the senate" rather than "on".
- I would put "assigned" directly after "had".
- "when at that time": tum = at that time; cum = when. The Latin has tum cum. Why did you translate it the other way around?
- "not so much as for the sake... as for...": the first "as" should be removed. It might also be good that set that part off with commas, or else change the word order (and still use one comma): "ran away from Rome, not so much for the sake..."
"I also said in the senate that you had the slaughtery of the nobles assigned for 28 October, at that time when many important citizens ran away from Rome, not so much for the sake of conserving themselves as for preventing your plans."
I think "when at that time..." feels more natural than "at that time when..."
I also still think that "had assigned" is better than "had .... assigned" as a translation of contulisse.
- If you removed the first "you" and added a comma after "diligence", it would make that part acceptable, but I'm thinking it might perhaps be nice to try to render the emphasis of the original (which is on meis praesidiis, mea diligentia) in some way, with some rephrasing. Perhaps something like "that my guards and my diligence, with which you were surrounded, prevented you from moving/made you unable to move against the sate".
- You haven't translated cum (= "when").
- "Of the others" or "of the rest" rather than "of the remaining".
- "Have said" is the wrong tense to use. "Said" or "were saying" would work.
- We say "to be satisfied with" rather than "to be satisfied by means of" (the latter makes sense but doesn't sound as natural).
- The second "and" in parentheses has nothing to do there.
- Then, that last part needs to be entirely re-ordered. A couple of hints: te contentum esse dicebas = literally "you said yourself to be satisfied" = "you said that you were satisfied". Nostra goes with caede.
- I think "on the same day" is better than "in the same day". Sounds so to me, at any rate.
- If you removed the first "you" and added a comma after "diligence", it would make that part acceptable, but I'm thinking it might perhaps be nice to try to render the emphasis of the original (which is on meis praesidiis, mea diligentia) in some way, with some rephrasing. Perhaps something like "that my guards and my diligence, with which you were surrounded, prevented you from moving/made you unable to move against the sate".
- You haven't translated cum (= "when").
- "Of the others" or "of the rest" rather than "of the remaining".
- "Have said" is the wrong tense to use. "Said" or "were saying" would work.
- We say "to be satisfied with" rather than "to be satisfied by means of" (the latter makes sense but doesn't sound as natural).
- The second "and" in parentheses has nothing to do there.
- Then, that last part needs to be entirely re-ordered. A couple of hints: te contentum esse dicebas = literally "you said yourself to be satisfied" = "you said that you were satisfied". Nostra goes with caede.
Num infitiari potes te illo ipso die meis praesidiis, mea diligentia circumclusum commovere te contra rem publicam non potuisse, cum tu discessu ceterorum nostra tamen, qui remansissemus, caede te contentum esse dicebas?
Can you deny that on the same day, with my guards and my diligence surrounding you, you couldn't attempt against the state, when after the departure of the others, you said that you were satisfied with the slaughter of us, (we) who stayed behind?
Quid? cum te Praeneste Kalendis ipsis Novembribus occupaturum nocturno impetu esse confideres, sensistine illam coloniam meo iussu meis praesidiis, custodiis, vigiliis esse munitam? Nihil agis, nihil moliris, nihil cogitas, quod non ego non modo audiam, sed etiam videam planeque sentiam. IV. Recognosce tandem mecum noctem illam superiorem; iam intelleges multo me vigilare acrius ad salutem quam te ad perniciem rei publicae. Dico te priore nocte venisse inter falcarios--non agam obscure--in M. Laecae domum; convenisse eodem complures eiusdem amentiae scelerisque socios. Num negare audes? quid taces? Convincam, si negas. Video enim esse hic in senatu quosdam, qui tecum una fuerunt.
What? When you, with a nocturne attempt, were confident to be about to occupy Praeneste on November 1, did you feel that colony, by my order, be fortified with my guards, with my watchers, with my vigils? You do nothing, you plan nothing, you think nothing, that not only do I not hear of, but also see and perceive with clear sense. Finally, recognize with me that night before last; You will already understand that I watch much more for the safety of the Republic than you for the ruin. I say that you have came last night between scythe-makers- I will not say (this) obscurely- to Marcus Laeca house; The many associated of the same madness and crime have went the to same place. Don't you dare deny it? Why are you silent? Prove it, if you deny it. I see in fact certain people to be here on the senate, which went together with you.