NOTES:

    The work here is a modified version of G.G. Ramsey's translation from 1918.
    About another project I wrote; "Let me begin by saying that the modernizations or translations made to the .. above are the work of a rank amateur - so a strong caveat is in force."  The same will apply here, and please do not take this as false modesty - my modesty is quite sincere.  Some might ask why an amateur should take it upon himself to perform such as a task;  I would ask why is it that the experts haven't.  Why indeed, which brings me to the raison d'etre.
    There are a number of classical works that--as they say in the vernacular--are politically incorrect. They are at odds with the secular dogma of the Orwelian aristocracy, that is too say, of " ... teachers, journalists, and professional politicians" and  "As compared with their opposite numbers in past ages, they were ... more conscious of what they were doing and more intent on crushing opposition.  This last difference was cardinal.  By comparison with that existing today, all the tyrannies of  the past were half-hearted and inefficient." ("1984")
    The time we are living in is comparable to Juvenal's time, the prevailing beliefs and dominant groups at that time can find a counterpart in are own time.  It is not the habit of the ruling class to offer up criticism of themselves,¹ so it is not surprising that they would omit this most offensive work.  Their omissions are my opportunities to do what I would not be otherwise be doing.  I do not relish the work that much, looking up Latin one word at a time is a tedious business, but as they say, someone had to do it, and I waited long enough for a more qualified volunteer to step forward.
    That fact I may be rank does not mean that what I have offered is completely unworthy of expert consideration, mainly I did want Latin students to take any alteration of mine uncritically.  I did not undertake this work for the purpose of studying Latin or Roman literature but for the value of Juvenal's social criticism - as criticism is my aim.  
     My method, my amateur method, was to compare Mr. Ramsey's work to other translations and modern American English.  Where translations were in essential agreement I tended to leave things alone, where language was obsolete I moderized it, and where it was English I Americanized it. Not always though, as I like the lofty tone and eloquent style of the English.  The effect is a bit uneven with the mixing of the old and the new and the English and the American. To this I have altered words where a poetic license was used in the translation (and this was originally poetry) ² and given them a more coldly rational and (hopefully) more accurate translation. In some cases I probably would have been better off leaving things alone, as Mr. Ramsay points out he was not always looking for a literal translation; perhaps in the future I could scour every word so as to smooth things out.
    Minor translation issues I generally left alone or changed without explanation; larger ones are marked with a ^T with an explanation at the bottom of the page.

¹ I will note after the fact of writing this Peter Green's comment from his fine introduction: "After [Juvenal's] death ... the Satires drop out of sight absolutely for about a century.  Since both the vices and the literary fashion which Juvenal castigated became increasingly popular court with the Imperial Court .. this neglect is understandable." (p. 9)

²  "Perhaps Juvenal greatest poetical achievement is his ability to marry sound, sense and rhythm into one organic whole." ibid, p. 52. While some have translated into verse the structure of the Latin language causes much of this to be lost.


The following works were consulted in the preparation of this online version:

 Satires: translations by Niall Rudd, Peter Green, Miller, Revised Ramsay translation (1940).

Juvenal Satires Book I, Cambridge Greek and Latin Classics, Edited by Susanna Morton Braund, Cambridge University Press, 1996.

(Latin dictionary) [software]
Version 1.97
www.erols.com/whitaker/words.htm
William Whitaker, Box 3036, McLean VA, 23103, USA - whitaker@erol.com


 From the online Perseus Project:

A Dictionary of Greek and Roman Antiquities (1890) (eds. William Smith, LLD, William Wayte, G. E. Marindin)  

A Dictionary of Greek and Roman Biography and Mythology (ed. William Smith)

Harry Thurston Peck, Harpers Dictionary of Classical Antiquities (1898)

Charlton T. Lewis, Charles Short, A Latin Dictionary

This text is based on the following book(s):
A Latin Dictionary. Founded on Andrews' edition of Freund's Latin dictionary. revised, enlarged, and in great part rewritten by. Charlton T. Lewis, Ph.D. and. Charles Short, LL.D. Oxford. Clarendon Press. 1879.


EXPLANATION:

    First, let me say that I do not mean you cannot make a copy for personal use; what I mean to prohibit is multiple copying for distribution and/or commercial use (and I don't mean to imply that this is worthy as commercial use.).
Even small scale copying such as would meet the needs of a classroom I might find objectionable because of the way it is likely to be used. 
    I seek no material reward but " Man does not live by bread alone"; there is in economics a "psychic satisfaction" or immaterial reward.  I have a social purpose in putting this work online; if your use of these satires is consistent with my purpose then you may copy them for use in a classroom; if they are not consistent with my purpose then I give no such permission. Stealing or misapprobriating something immaterial is still stealing even if the law in this country does not provide an adequate remedy for such behavior.  If you are inclined to use this material anyway I will point out that this work has commercial value even if I have not chosen to utilize it.  
    I regret this unpleasantness but events have compelled me to respond in this fashion. I think it is incumbent upon me to explain a little:  I began with Juvenal's Satire VI; the first person (or institution) I sent it to placed it under the category "Oppression of Women"; needless to say this was contrary to my purpose, and to give you an idea of the "oppression" involved I will quote a little from that satire:

"Crucify that slave!" says the wife. "But
what crime worthy of death has he committed?" asks
the husband; "where are the witnesses? who in-
formed against him?  Give him a hearing at least; no
delay can be too long when a man's life is at stake!"
"What, you numskull? you call a slave a man, do
you?  He has done no wrong, you say?  Be it so;
this is my will and my command: let my will be
the voucher for the deed."  Thus does she lord it
over her husband."

    How any sane person could interpret this as oppression against women can only be explained by the secular fanaticism that goes under the name of "political correctness" and of which feminism is the largest element.  In addition, the link to my site at the top of the page was replaced by the institution's name and then my link was relegated to the bottom.  When I wrote "repostings must include this link" I meant exactly that. You may not deactivate the link, you may not change the type size, and you certainly may not move it from top to bottom.  Pricing for advertizing space is partly determined by the location of the ad, it is pretty obvious that the alterations mentioned above would subtract from the value of the link, and if in addition a contrary link superceded my own the net effect of the work as presented may then be a net loss.
    A secondary effect of this replacement of my link was that yet another member of academia copied a large part of the text and then put down as the source the institution that superceded my link with their own - I was not even mentioned.
    Another professor took the work and reworked it with footnotes and made no mention that he had copied from me until months later.  I wonder whether one of his students didn't call into question his morals. Indeed, all of these members of academia are in prime positions to impart "values" to our young people. These same people who are so jealous of their own "intellectual property" seem to have little regard for the rights of others, or perhaps little regard for those who do not subscribe to their dogma.
    


COMMENTARY:

      Juvenal has been called a "moralist," perhaps so, but his level of morality was certainly lower than what was later achieved in European civilization.  A person who can so graphically and repeatedly describe homosexual behavior is a far cry from someone who can only speak of "That which we may not mention."
     The Satires offer little in the way of abstract reasoning and instead we find colorful sketches of the older Roman values and what they have been replaced with; instead of gravity we have sarcasm - entertainment.  Juvenal's tone and style are inconsistent with the preaching of morality, hence, his claim to moral fame comes off as rather shallow.  Morality, as it evolved, became more abstract and impersonal; Juvenal's older morality is focused on the personal level - and Juvenal could be very personal.
     There is debate on how much Juvenal meant to specify definite individuals, but he clearly specifies and characterizes different classes of people. What he in effect does is point out violations in the specialization of function among the classes; Romans don't behave like Romans, foreigners don't behave like foreigners, the upper class does not behave like the upper class, the lower class does not behave like the lower class,  men don't behave like men, and women don't behave like women. Because Juvenal does not engage in abstract speculation he does not theorize what the best kind of society would be like and so he is left to draw from observation and personal experience. Being Roman he predictable adopts Roman values as the ideal.. He apparently can find no value in the foreign influences of his day and views them in a completely negative way. Still, as Rome was recognized as the greatest civilization of its time than to be more like Rome could be viewed as improvement. Furthermore, Juvenal is not arbitrarily zenophobic as some portray him but reserves his severest criticism for Greece, Egypt, and other Eastern lands which he sees as corrupt and effeminate while the ruder, more virile Germans, remindful perhaps of the earlier Romans, are spared such criticism; the same faults he sees in these countries are the same faults he criticizes in Rome. So there is a consistency to his arguments, but these arguments amount to a call to return to earlier times without a proper consideration of whether this is possible to achieve. Effeminacy and corruption have been associated with population growth and success: the values that made Rome great eventually caused her downfall by reason of their success. History has shown how a rough, warlike people, having conquered and looted their neighbors, finds that ..

"We are now suffering the calamities of long
peace.  Luxury, more deadly than any foe, has laid
her hand upon us, and avenges a conquered world. 
Since the day when Roman poverty perished, no
deed of crime or lust has been missing from us; ..

Filthy lucre first brought in amongst us detestable foreign ways;
effeminate wealth enervated the age with indecent soft living."             Satire VI


Mr. Green informs us:

"Juvenal .. had mopped up .. most of the popular intellectual attitudes of the day.  These included a briskly flippant cynicism towards the myths and ritual of traditional roman religion, and a creed of moral self-help which by implication left little scope for divine interference. ... Even when lauding his rude forefathers to the skies, he cannot help sneering wittily at their shaggy, acorn-belching primitivism; ... in the old days , he tells us .. no one dared to scoff at divivine power.  It does not occur to
him that he never loses an opportunity to scoff at it himself." ¹  

It is a difficult thing to be part of something and yet be unaffected by it at the same time; we are all creatures of our time and respective societies. Had Juvenal sought rural refuge before mixing in Roman society he would not have been sufficiently versed in Roman ways to offer his classic satirical critique.  Since he did become part of Roman society and thus adopting much of its views he then sets himself up for the charge of hypocrisy.  In our day this is a common criticism from the Left; if you aren't part of something then you don't know what you are talking about, and if you are part of and participate in something then you have no room to criticize. This would have the affect of avoiding censure altogether; so it is better to hear from those like Juvenal and filter the criticism accordingly then to hear none at all.

As with the issue of foreign immigrants so it is to with the problem with women that Juvenal fails to give a satisfactory answer.  He endlessly complains about the effeminancy in men and yet he offers this solution for the problem with women:

"think how much better it is to take some boy-bedfellow, who would
never wrangle with you all night, never ask presents of you when in bed,
and never complain about an inadequate performance or order you to pant! "   Satire VI

By substituting a boy for a woman, feminine behavior is taught to the boy and thus the solution breeds more effeminancy.  It may indeed be true that by increasing affection among men ancient Greece and Rome reduced the reliance on women towards their advantage, but Juvenal fails to offer a cohesive philosophy to explain how things were to work. Perhaps this is too much to ask of a satirist - art and philosophy do not mix well.  Let us then accept Juvenal for what he is, a flawed but entertaining social commentator.


¹ ibid. p.38-9.