1

Lines 154–157:

"hoc tamen amborum verbis estote rogati,
o multum miseri meus illusque parentes,
ut, quos certus amor, quos hora novissima iunxit,
conponi tumulo non invideatis eodem"

So, line 154: this nevertheless you-have-been-asked (rogati) in the words of both of us (Firstly, what does "estote" mean, here; the only thing can find is—a future plural active imperative of sum—you will?),

line 155: Oh wretched parents, mine and his (lit; and of him) (Secondly, multum (much, many) if it's referring to the parents why isn't it multi (adj)?),

Lines 156–7: so that you do not begrudge those to whom certain love has joined in the final hour (Thirdly, should pluperf., "iunxerat" be deployed? Fourth, why are two clauses required, creating the clumsy necessity of writing "quos" twice, to produce this concept? I kept thinking that "certus amor should be in the accusative, but if "amor" is the subject of iunxit; then, no.

The last bit: "to be arranged in the same tomb", was easy enough.

2

Rogati goes with estote: 'Be asked.' (I myself might translate as something like 'Consider yourselves asked.') The so-called 'future imperative' lends an air of solemnity to Thisbe's request.

Hoc supplies the object of rogati estote. (The active forms of rogo, like doceo, can take two accusative objects, one for the person who is asked/taught, and one for the thing that is asked/taught; in passive forms, the latter accusative is retained. In fact, it's sometimes referred to as a 'retained accusative.') This hoc is proleptic, a sort of placeholder for the ut...invideatis clause that will give the actual substance of the request later: 'Be asked this thing..., namely that...'

Multum is an adverbial accusative modifying miseri: 'greatly wretched' (literally 'wretched in respect to much')

Meus illiusque parentes has to be understood to represent meus parens illiusque parens, but the two occurrences of the singular form parens have been combined into the plural form parentes: 'O fathers, mine and his'

Ut...invideatis isn't a purpose clause, as you seem to be construing it, but, as mentioned above, gives the substance of the request. It's an indirect command/jussive noun clause.

Quos is accusative, not dative; so it's not 'to whom certain love has joined' but simply 'whom certain love has joined' (though 'certain' isn't a very good translation for certus here). Certus amor can be only nominative.

Note that hora novissima is nominative, not ablative. It's another thing that has joined Pyramus and Thisbe.

Still, consider yourself asked this thing by the words of both of us, o greatly wretched fathers, mine and his: namely, that you not begrudge that we, whom indisputable love has joined, and whom a final hour has joined, be laid to rest in the same grave.

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.