Oaths, Wishes, and Curses

Classical Latin marks emotional stance with conventional formulas as well as ordinary grammar. An oath may invoke a god with per plus the accusative or use a fossilized exclamation such as mēhercule. A wish normally uses the optative subjunctive, often introduced by utinam. A blessing or curse uses the same mood to present a desired future—benevolent in dī tē servent, hostile in dī tē perdant.

These expressions are strongly shaped by genre and social setting. Comedy preserves conversational exclamations and insults; prayer and public formulas are (formal/solemn); poetry heightens or rearranges them (literary). They should not all be treated as interchangeable ways to say modern English “I swear,” “hopefully,” or a profanity. The Optative Subjunctive gives the full tense system behind the fixed phrases introduced here.

The main frames

The idiom lies in the full frame. English “by” does not license any Latin ablative: invocatory per governs the accusative. English “I wish” does not require a Latin verb meaning “wish”: the particle and subjunctive can carry the whole force.

Oaths with per and self-imprecation

Per plus an accusative deity or sacred object invokes a witness or guarantor. The rest of the oath may be explicit or understood.

The person swearing can also invite harm if the claim is false. Ita mē dī ament literally wishes that the gods love the speaker “so,” with the truth of the statement supplying the implied condition. A negative or destructive version makes the self-imprecation explicit.

This is culturally specific religious language, not a colorless equivalent of every modern “honestly.” In (formal) legal or religious contexts, actual oath wording depends on institution and occasion; in comedy, compressed formulas can sound brisk, emotional, or humorous.

Lexicalized exclamations in comedy and conversation

Several divine invocations became fixed particles:

• mēhercule or shortened hercle — “by Hercules!”; strongly associated with male speakers in Roman comedy;
• ecastor — “by Castor!”; strongly associated with female speakers in comedy;
• edepol — “by Pollux!”; widely conversational and used by both sexes, though distribution varies by author and character.

These are historical literary-social tendencies, not grammatical gender agreement. They are (informal/comic) and can sound theatrically Roman in modern composition.

Do not decline these particles or supply per. Mēhercule is already a lexicalized expression; ✗ per mēhercule mixes two separate oath frames.

Future or open wishes

A present subjunctive, with or without utinam, normally expresses a wish that remains possible or looks toward the future.

English often needs “may,” “let,” or “I hope,” but Latin needs no separate finite verb of wishing. The independent subjunctive presents the desired event as imagined rather than asserted. Utinam marks the optative force unmistakably and often adds emotional intensity.

A bare first- or third-person subjunctive can overlap with exhortation: “let us...” or “let him....” Context determines whether the speaker desires an event or urges someone to bring it about. Catullus’s opening is an exhortation with emotional force, reproduced in source spelling:

It is not an oath and does not use utinam. Grouping every emotional subjunctive under one English label would erase a real functional contrast.

Unfulfilled wishes: imperfect and pluperfect

The imperfect subjunctive presents a wish contrary to the present situation. The pluperfect presents regret about a past event that did not happen. This tense contrast is one of the most dependable parts of the system.

The English word “wish” does not determine the Latin tense. Locate the desired situation in time and ask whether it is still open, unreal now, or irretrievable in the past.

Blessings and curses are mirror images

A blessing and a curse can share the same bare optative structure. Vocabulary and social intent reverse the force.

Comedy also uses dismissive formulas such as abī in malam rem, literally “go into a bad business/fate.” It is (informal/abusive), not obscene, and is better understood as a conventional rejection than translated piece by piece.

More archaic curse forms, such as dī tē perduint, use an old optative formation and survive with (archaic/solemn or comic) coloring. Learners should recognize them in texts but use ordinary perdant for productive Classical composition.

A production diagnostic

1. Is the speaker invoking a witness? Use per
   • accusative or a lexicalized oath particle.
2. Is the speaker staking personal safety on a claim? Use an asseverative or self-imprecatory frame such as ita mē dī ament or dī mē perdant, sī...
3. Is the desired event still open or future? Use present subjunctive, optionally with utinam.
4. Is the wish impossible or unfulfilled now? Use imperfect subjunctive.
5. Is it regret about an unreal past? Use pluperfect subjunctive.
6. Is the expression socially aggressive, comic, solemn, or literary? Preserve that label instead of presenting it as neutral conversation.

Common Mistakes

Using the ablative after invocatory per

Using the present for an impossible present wish

Using the imperfect for past regret

Building an oath from English synonyms

Treating comic particles as neutral formal prose

Key Takeaways

Transparent oaths use per plus the accusative; mēhercule, ecastor, and edepol are fixed (conversational/comic) particles. Wishes use the optative subjunctive: present for an open future, imperfect for an unfulfilled present, and pluperfect for past regret. Blessings and curses share the same grammar but differ in vocabulary, intent, and register. Preserve those conventional frames instead of translating modern English emotional expressions word for word.