Horace Epode 7, translated by Maura Talmadge
		Commentary: The expression of political views regarding an approaching civil war in Horace’s Epode 7 is made particularly effective by the structure of the work. Beginning with apostrophic questions directed at an absent audience, it moves to an overview of the conflicts in which Rome was involved. In its climactic moment in line 14, the speaker demands an answer to the questions he has set forth; when none is given, he makes a final pessimistic comment regarding the fate of the Roman people kill on another. As structure is an element unlikely to be lost in translation, it is tempting to try to render this poem in English. However, other difficulties soon arise. As with many of Horace’s works, Epode 7 presents its translator with the difficulty of maintaining the efficacy of the syntax in a language that allows for much less flexibility with regard to word order. Furthermore, there are various words in the latter part of the original that refer to terms used towards the beginning of the poem. Daniel H. Garrison, in his commentary, points out the correspondence between “acerba fata” (17) and “acrior vis” (13) as well as “scelus” (18) and “scelesti” (1). Many of these techniques presented difficulties in translating the poem, both to me and to the translators of the versions contained in appendices I-III. The following comments concern someone of the more difficult passages and the weaknesses of the solutions found. The three translations with which I will compare my own (David West’s, W.G. Shepherd’s, and Joseph P. Clancy’s) are all successful in maintaining the overall structure. West emphasizes its importance in particular by separating between lines 14 and 15 as well as lines 16 and 17; in doing so, he establishes three main sections within the poem. The first extends from the beginning of the poem through the end of the fourteenth line where the speaker commands his audience: “Responsum date!” The following line begins with “Tacent”; the silence of the imagined audience is followed by a conjunction that, despite joining it grammatically with the rest of the phrase, isolates it within the line. In order to indicate this break in the flow of the poem, West leaves an extra space between it and the preceding line. He does the same before line 17 which begins, in the original, with “Sic est…” and goes on to blame the Roman fratricidal tendency on the murder of Remus by Romulus. The third section, therefore, is characterized by despair with regard to the fate of the empire. The hopeless note on which the poem ends explains why such sentiments are being expressed in a form as personal as lyric and went unpublished until after the war. The other two translations have no such breaks. Shepherd draws slightly more attention to the beginning of line 15 (“Tacent”) by placing a dash before the word “Silence” (his rendition of “tacent”). In my translation, I have left a space between verses 14 and 15. My reason for doing so is that I can find no translate the passage so that the wording is as emphatic as the original Latin. This point is climactic in the poem as much due to the sound and efficiency of the language itself as to the placement, a few lines before the end. Both the command at the end of line 14, “Responsum date!”, and “Tacent,” describing the lack of a reply in line 15, are noticeable due to their placement within the lines and the words surrounding them. Lines 13 and 14 use alliteration (the “r” in “Furorne,” “rapit,” “acrior”) and assonance (“an rapit vis acrior/ an culpa”) leading up to “Responsum”. The “r” in “Responsum” is the first in line 14; its sound, which, (assuming that it is trilled) draws attention in and of itself, is emphasized due to the use of this letter in the previous line. “Date,” on the other hand, forceful both by nature of its imperative mood and due to its two stop consonants, is further accentuated by the “t’s” of “tacent.” Precise enunciation is required in order that the many stop consonants all be heard individually. The repeated vowel and consonant sounds at the break between the two lines (i.e.“date/ Tacent”) would force someone reciting this poem to pause slightly between the two words. This pause also contributes to the force of “tacent”, briefly demonstrating the silence before defining it. As no English wording found offered the same effect, the extra space between the two lines was the best option. However, unlike the original, the effect is more visual than audible. Furthermore, unlike West’s version, I did not leave another pause before the final two lines. West’s decision to do so was apparently due to the change in tone with “Sic est” (17). The problem with this rendition is that lines 15 and 16 are too isolated from the rest of the poem. The overly emphatic distinction between this section and others undermines some of the more subtle distinctions, such as that between the brief questions in the first two lines and the more extensive one following it in lines 3 through 10. Potential English renditions of “Responsum date!” are also unsatisfactory. Literal possibilities, “Give answer,” or “Give an answer,” are weaker and less natural in their sounds. The Latin original sounds appropriate within its context and highlights the change of focus from the more abstract question preceding the command to a situation in which some reply is expected. “Give” is troublesome because it is the most natural word insofar as meaning and usage but does not capture the sharpness of “date”. Shepherd opts instead for “Reply!” The single word distinguishes the command from the rest of the phrase more than Clancy’s “Give me an answer!” and West’s “Give answer now,” but the effect of the object-verb construction is lost. Horace chose the verb “do, dare” as opposed to “respondeo, respondere”; the latter is less common than the former and, as in English, would have lent a more highly-wrought sound. “Date,” on the other hand, conveys a more basic request, indicating the necessity of a straightforward answer. Both West and Clancy choose the more literal English translation but add a new element not present in the original. West tries to convey the urgency of the command, perhaps also attempting to contrast the quick reply requested with the “Silence” that follows, by adding adverb “now”. Clancy, on the other hand, adds “me,” a more commonplace construction in English that better captures the natural sound of the original. However, the more general tone of the original command gives the impression that an answer is owed to everyone, not only to the person speaking in the poem; in order to preserve this anonymity, I preferred to avoid the addition of the first person object pronoun and added, instead, the second person possessive (“Give your answer!”). Although I am partial to my rendition, I am not completely satisfied with it. Another section of the poem that presented difficulty was the clause shared between lines 3 and 4. “Parum”, the first word in line 3, is set apart from “sanguinis”, the final word of line 4; however, the importance of word order in the meaning of an English phrase necessitates that the idea of “too little blood” not be so divided. I wanted to preserve some of the emphasis on these words which the original version creates by placing them apart and in conspicuous positions within their respective lines. “Fusus” also occupies an emphasized position in the original. My solution was to place “spilled”, the most appropriate rendition of “fusus,” at the end of line 4, after “little of our Roman blood”. The addition of “our”, not found in the original, keeps “little” and “blood” apart as well as emphasizing the patriotism of “Latini sanguinis” (4). Meter and tone have been preserved to the greatest extent possible. In order to make the poem accessible to a modern audience, “Neptuno” (3) has been changed to “Neptune’s depths”. “Depths” was chosen, based on the use of the term “altum” in Latin to refer to the sea, so that most modern readers would not read over the reference to the god without realizing that it also referred to the sea (as Horace does not make the “sea” explicit in the original). “Vota Parthorum” (9) became “Persia’s prayers” as the term is more familiar than “Parthian” to a modern audience. Hopefully, these changes will make the poem more comprehensible in a modern context without weakening the references to antiquity.
	Additional Information About This Poem
		Poem in Translation
		Poem in Original Latin
		M. Talmadge's Introduction and Philosophy of Translation
Return to Final Projects
© 2003 Maura Talmadge