Dear Maria,
Could you please help me with the following (all from De Ira III):

1. “impune illi erit?” (De Ira, 3.26.2)
Is the “impune” (adv.) used as an adj. for “erit” and “iili” is dat. (for “him”).

2. nihil in uno iudicabis notabile aut foedum quod genti suae publicum est (De Ira, 3.26.3)
Could you give a literal translation?

3. diutius irascimur omnes quam laedimur. (De Ira, 3.27.1)
What does “omnes” mean in this sentence?

4. Primum quam iniquus est, apud quem hominem esse ad inpetrandam ueniam nocet! (De Ira, 3.27.2)
Could you give a literal translation?

Thank you.

Dear Robert,

1.In “…..impune illi erit?” (Seneca, De Ira, 3.26.2) the adverb “impune” is not used as an adj. for “erit”, while  “illi” is just a dative of advantage meaning “for him”/”to him”).
Note that “…..impune illi erit?” literally means:” …will [ irresponsibility/imprudence, as a subject, with reference to the previous sentence “Imprudentia par in omnibus patrocinium est” literally meaning “Imprudence is an equal justification  for all”]  be (erit) without punishment (impune) for him (illi)?”, i.e. “Will irresponsibility be without punishment for him?” just to point out that  irresponsibility is not a justification and then must always be punished.

2. Here’s the literal translation of “….nihil in uno iudicabis notabile aut foedum quod genti suae publicum est..” (De Ira, 3.26.3): “….you will judge (iudicabis) nothing (nihil) notable ( notabile, neuter singular agreeing with “nihil”)) or (aut) disgraceful (foedum, neuter singular agreeing with “nihil”) in an individual (in uno) which (quod,neuter singular  referring to “nihil”) is (est) common (publicum) for his (suae, dative) nation/people (genti, dative of the feminine noun “gens”)…”, i.e. :“ …you will not think that anything is notable or disgraceful in an individual if this characteristic is a general characteristic of his nation…”.

3. In “….diutius irascimur omnes quam laedimur”  (De Ira, 3.27.1) “omnes” means “all” and goes with the 1st person plural “nos” which is implied in “irascimur”, so that the sentence literally means:” …we all (omnes) are angry (irascimur, deponent, present indicative) longer (diutius) than (quam) we are injured (laedimur, passive, present indicative)”, i.e. “…our anger lasts longer than the hurt/offense”.

4. “Primum quam iniquus est, apud quem hominem esse ad inpetrandam ueniam nocet!” (De Ira, 3.27.2) literally means:”Firstly (primum) how (quam) unjust (iniquus) is (est) [the one] for/to whom (apud quem = alicui, dative of indirect object) to be/being a man (hominem esse, substantive clause which works as the subject of “nocet”) hurts/ prevents  (nocet) from obtaining pardon (ad impetrandam veniam, gerundive)!”, i.e. “First, how unjust is he in whose eyes being a man is fatal to obtaining pardon!”, as we read in John W. Basore, with reference to what we read in De Ira, 3.27.1-2 “Numquis satis constare sibi videatur, si mulam calcibus repetat et canem morsu ? Ista," inquis, " peccare se nesciunt." (Would any one think that he was well balanced if he repaid a mule with kicks and a dog with biting? But you say, "Those creatures do not know that they are doing wrong.")

Best regards,



All Answers

Answers by Expert:

Ask Experts




I am an expert in Latin Language and Literature and I'll be glad to answer any questions concerning this matter.


Over 25 years teaching experience.

I received my Ph.D. in Classics (summa cum laude) from Genova University (Italy).

This expert accepts donations:

©2016 All rights reserved.