Martial Epigram Translation needed

[Medusa Gladiatrix]

Unfortnately I cannot find translations of Martial's epigrams, at least not the complete ones, on the internet (not even on my favorite Lacus Curtius), therefore I hope that someone of you could translate the following for me:

Ebria nos madidis rumpit tibicina buccis:
Saepe duas pariter, saepe monaulon habet.
(Martial, Epigram Book 14, LXIII)

Thanks a lot in advance.

[Lyceum]

The inebriated flautist blows us(take as "me") with her moist mouth, sometimes two together, often just (the) one

Oh my...wow. Hahaha I love this guy. Saepe can take on a sense of indefinite time, sometimes, or mean frequent, often. I've tried to keep what I see as a typical Martial manner, playfulness mixed with a kind of despondency. But you can you have a broad scope to play with depending how lascivious you feel. Also plural for single (and vice versa) is a typical poetic thing so he could be taking nos literally as in "we two" in order to establish a parallel which is VERY dirty or he could mean it figuratively for "me" and be playfully dirty...

But..ha wow, I can see why translation of this stuff was frowned upon in Victorian times.

[D B Campbell]

Unfortnately I cannot find translations of Martial's epigrams, at least not the complete ones, on the internet ...

The 1920 Loeb volume is available from the internet archive: https://archive.org/details/martialepigrams02martiala

There's a very diplomatic translation of this one on p. 463.

[Flavivs Aetivs]

But..ha wow, I can see why translation of this stuff was frowned upon in Victorian times.

I'll say :dizzy:

[Epictetus]

There's a very diplomatic translation of this one on p. 463.

"Diplomatic" is a good way to put it!

The drunken flautist bursts our ears with her bibulous cheeks; often she uses two pipes at once, often only one.

Today it is strange to think of the reasoning behind those translations. Accuracy was not the most important thing for them.

[Sean Manning]

But..ha wow, I can see why translation of this stuff was frowned upon in Victorian times.

This Language Log post is relevant. Several commentators had to explain to the people who don't read old Penguins and Loebs that bowdlerized translations, incomplete translations, or multilingual ones (eg. Latin to English or Italian depending on the sexual and scatological content) remained common into the third quarter of the 20th century.

[D B Campbell]

I've tried to keep what I see as a typical Martial manner, playfulness mixed with a kind of despondency. But you can you have a broad scope to play with depending how lascivious you feel.

I'm sure you're right that there's a naughty double entendre going on here! But can you support rumpo having connotations of "blowing", rather than the usual bursting or forcing?

Today it is strange to think of the reasoning behind those translations. Accuracy was not the most important thing for them.

The New York Times had a piece on this a while back. I suppose earlier translators couldn't believe that "The Classics" could be so obscene! :whistle:

[Lyceum]

I've tried to keep what I see as a typical Martial manner, playfulness mixed with a kind of despondency. But you can you have a broad scope to play with depending how lascivious you feel.

I'm sure you're right that there's a naughty double entendre going on here! But can you support rumpo having connotations of "blowing", rather than the usual bursting or forcing?

I think you mean me with that quote and erm...yeah I can I just feel :oops: since I meant blow...not in the proper sense as an expulsion of air but..you know...well...the other connotation, based on a similar semantic relationship from whence it comes in English too. As in...imagine stuffing and rupturing.

It's a very common Roman sexual thing, derumpo even more so, I think if I start listing usage I'll get in trouble though. Maybe I'm just shy because an epigram of mine got me into quite a bit of trouble.

Today it is strange to think of the reasoning behind those translations. Accuracy was not the most important thing for them.

The New York Times had a piece on this a while back. I suppose earlier translators couldn't believe that "The Classics" could be so obscene! :whistle:[/quote]

It's actually very interesting, I believe the Loeb website has an example online using Aristophanes and the verb /bino/ which is amusing. I've a few ancient Greek - Greek translations which try to strip out the homosexual references. The most popular student edition of Catullus, Fordyce, cuts out some of his more crazy ones on the basis that they "do not render themselves suitable" hahaha. I don't even find Catullus that bad tbh, Juvenal was the one who caused my sides to actually hurt. And Aristophanes.

Personally I find translation theory interesting, though a tangential part of lexiocography and philology. I mean people would be surprised at how many even good translations aren't very good simply because the nuances are missed or the translator has mucked up with his choice of text. It happens, its why simply having some Latin and Greek does not give you anything like "the original". Actually sexual vocabulary is a perfect example. Thank god for specialist dictionaries.