Talk:Catullus 1

source text

From what edition is the text taken? There are huge textual issues over the "qualumcumque; quod, o patrona virgo"- check the critical apparatus in the editions. It might be mentioned as a source. Reynaert-ad 15:06, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Translation Argument

71.195.206.227 recently reverted a large number of my edits on this page; these edits are incorrect. Unfortunately this user is using an IP, not a username, so it is difficult to contact them. Hopefully, they will look here.

I have highlighted points that 71.195.206.227 appears to disagree with me over, and I will explain my decisions.

To whom do I give this new charming little book
Just now smoothed with dry pumice?
To you, Cornelius: For you were used to thinking
My trifles to amount to something,
For you alone dared to unravel
the entire history of the Italians in three scrolls,
learned, (by Jupiter!), and filled with labor.
Therefore have for yourself this something,
This little book, and whatever it is worth; and let it, oh patron maiden,
remain for more than one lasting age.

• The first point of contention appears to be "unravel." 71.195.206.227 prefers the phrase "set forth," yet this loses the theme of literature and unraveling that Catullus established. Throughout the poem, he uses phrases that have a secondary meaning related to literature and scrolls. In his exaltation of Cornelius he praises him for both liking Catullus's literature, and for Cornelius's great works. In short, literature is an essential theme of the poem. Using a phrase like "set forth" loses much of the beauty of the poetry here.

• Next, 71.195.206.227 prefers "you alone of the Italians" to "the entire history of the Italians." However, in doing so 71.195.206.227 uses "entire history of the world;" the word "world" is not present in the Latin text, and 71.195.206.227 has no basis for this translation. Furthermore, there are other accounts of a man named Cornelius writing three major volumes on the history of Italy; while we don't have access to them any more we are quite certain they exist. Most likely, Catullus is referencing this person who wrote about Italy.

• 71.195.206.227 prefers "volumes" to "scrolls." The justification for "unraveling" is the same as the justification for "scrolls," but also Catullus uses word picture to establish a sort of unraveling of the line. Grammatically, the line proceeds in a spiral, from the center outwards, in an unraveling motion that implies a scroll. This sort of poetic technique is characteristic of Roman poetry, and is not to be discounted.

• 71.195.206.227 prefers "laboriously wrought" over "filled with labor." There are three major problems with this. First, the verb "wrought" does not exist in the Latin text anywhere. Second, "laboriosis" has an ending that means literally "Labor-filled," rather than just "labor," which would be "laboris." Third, "laboriosis" is a noun, not an adverb as 71.195.206.227 makes it.

• 71.195.206.227 would prefer "such as it is" to "something," yet the Latin word "quidquid" specifically means "something" in English. There through the poem of Catullus's self-abasement; he calls his poems "trifles" earlier, and his reference to his poems as "quidquids" makes them seem small and not very valuable. 71.195.206.227's translation loses this meaning.

• Finally, 71.195.206.227 eliminates the word "lasting," but this is completely baseless and ignores the word "perenne" in the original Latin text.

Hopefully, 71.195.206.227 will show up to respond to these arguments.--WoodenTaco 18:41, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

More Translation

• I am removing the word "yourself" from the English translation. "Tu" is just "You." The "tibi" that might account for the "you yourself" is actually taken care of with "To you, Cornelius".
• I am changing "therefore" to "wherefore." Quare has a *slightly* different meaning from igitur and ergo, best conveyed with the use of the w. Sophy's Duckling 03:09, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

The tibi has nothing to do with the "you yourself"; it's not even in the same clause. The reason I translated namque tu solebas as "for you yourself were accustomed" is because namque means "for" or "for indeed" and solebas means "you were accustomed", so your translation completely ignores the tu in the original Latin. In Latin, nominative pronouns (like ego, "I", and tu, "you") are typically a part of the verb, making it grammatically unnecessary to use them. As a result, almost all use of ego and tu is purely for emphasis (the only other alternative I can see here are metrical concerns). So, while tu solebas might literally mean exactly the same thing as solebas ("you were accustomed"), a more faithful rendition of the Latin would make the "you" more emphatic with something like "for you were accustomed" or "for you yourself were accustomed", similar to the intensifying pronoun ipse.

Oh, right. I'll revert it. And it's important, anyway, because it singles him out to show his good taste: just as cornelius alone of the Italians dared to explain all history on three scrolls, he alone of all the Italians thought Catullus's nonsense was valuable. Sophy's Duckling 21:50, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

As for quare: In modern English, "wherefore" is an archaic-sounding and rather obscure word; I'm pretty sure that most users won't understand the nuanced distinction between it and "therefore", and some, sadly, may not even glean the basic information of its meaning. The dictionaries I have prefer "therefore", "whereby" (significantly less obscure than "wherefore", in my experience), and "for which reason" for quare. -Silence 04:23, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

How about I change it to "For which reason"? It avoids blurring the distinction between quare and ergo/igitur and it isn't obscure.Sophy's Duckling 21:50, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Images in Catullus poems

I have removed the illustration from the article. The image, the author portrait from the Roman Vergil, is inappropriate for an article on a poem of Catullus, and the caption (A poem about a book of poems, given to a friend) is totally misleading. I have noticed that the Catullus template and most of the associated articles have inappropriate images. I have also noticed that several editors have mentioned that these images are both superfluous and unencyclopedic, yet the images remain. Perhaps it is time to revisit the topic. Aramgar (talk) 21:23, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

The picture in question is not "an image about books of poetry," but an author portrait of a different author. It is misleading to describe it otherwise. If the article includes pictures, a similar author portrait of Catullus would be preferable. I have found some already, although they are not as old as the Vergilius Romanus. I'm working now on obtaining one we can actually use. Kafka Liz (talk) 17:40, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I plead guilty to adding that image, as part of a micro-campaign to spruce up the articles for Catullus' poems. The caption (A poem about a book of poems, given to a friend) is not a misleading description about Catullus i, is it? The image link was not meant to be followed, or interpreted as a scholarly truth ("wow, my teacher never told me that Catullus and Virgil were the same person!") It, and the other images, were largely meant as, well, eye-candy to make the reading more pleasant. Two cups of flour have the same nutritional content as a stack of pancakes with maple syrup, but I'd much rather digest the latter than the former. I think we do Catullus' vivid poems a disservice if we don't give them a few graces to charm the reader. I believe, as I think you both do, that we should give all the scholarly conclusions and conjectures, no matter how dry; I'm suggesting only that we leaven that. Furthermore, if an image casts a different or more modern light on a poem, then I feel so much the better, e.g., the various "bird and girl" images on Catullus 2 and the pictures of people kissing in Catullus 5.

All that said, I'm not married to these particular images. I didn't do a thorough search to find them: I just snatched a few random images from the Commons, images that "beguiled my fancy in smiling". No one else on Wikipedia seemed interested in Catullus, so there was no one to help out or Talk to, which usually stops me from doing something stupid. :P Some images are admittedly cutesy, like those on Catullus 7 and 8 (both now gone), and perhaps deserved to be stricken. Somewhat surprisingly, the images that people reverted or complained about most often were not the silly ones, but rather the lesbian images, e.g., Catullus 5 and Catullus 109 (now gone). Perhaps I was foolish to imagine that those images could survive for long at Wikipedia. :( Willow (talk) 19:28, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

PS. You'll find more discussion of images at Talk:Catullus 5, where a Wikipedian argued successfully to put a Greek depiction of a man kissing a boy as the lead image. That's a little further apart than Virgil and Catullus. At least Virgil plagiarized a line or two from Catullus, if I recall correctly? ;)

PPS. As an aside, some images may become superfluous if we combine several poems into larger articles, e.g., Minor Lesbia poems of Catullus. Willow (talk) 19:33, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay in getting back to you, but I felt you deserved better than a "drive by" response. It's an excellent image, and I perfectly understand the reasoning behind its addition. And I do think that images enliven articles considerably and generally prefer that they be included. The caption is entirely appropriate to the poem and certainly not misleading. The problem for me with the Virgil image is that I recognise it well, and so it looks like a mistake. This type of author portrait is extremely common in manuscripts of this and later periods, particularly in the Gospels, and for me, inclusion of this image is as jarring as would be one of the four Evangelists. Readers familiar with this manuscript, Virgil's poems, or manuscripts in general may well think the same, and I think the casual reader will come away with the impression that the image is, in fact, from a manuscript of Catullus. My remarks are certainly not intended as a criticism of your choice of image: as I said before, your reasoning here is laudable and sound. As I wrote earlier, I am working on getting a free version of a similar image that shows Catullus (see here for example and scroll down to Burney 133) or one at the Bodleian that I found through ArtStor. Burney 133 in particular would be ideal, since it shows Catullus actually giving the book to someone and was intended as an illustration specifically for this poem.

As for the images at the other poems, I'm not yet prepared to comment beyond saying that I would prefer to see images more directly inspired by Catullus and his work. Let's revive the project page as you suggested, so we can have a single center for discussion. :) Kafka Liz (talk) 13:00, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, Liz, for your very nice and lucid letter! :) I very much understand about how the Virgil image might come across as a mistake, especially to an expert, and the illumination you found as a substitute is much better! The only difficulty I foresee is that of copyright? As I understand it, all works produced before 1923 are in the public domain, especially such two-dimensional art. But I'm obviously not an expert, and I've noticed that museums and others seem to stamp photographs of their works with their copyright (e.g., Burney 133) as though they expected to have some legal rights and recourse to prevent their reproduction. That's why, for instance, the lead image on Catullus 2, Image:Greek_Girl_with_dove.jpg, is so fuzzy; it was the best free image I could find. Willow (talk) 11:43, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

PS. I'm rather busy today in the real world, and in doing a favour for my friend Scartol, but I'll try to spruce up the Wiki-Project tomorrow and invite everyone to put our heads together over there. Or you can, if you like! :) Willow (talk) 11:43, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

December 19 Changes to the Catullus 1 wikibooks page

I've just deleted the comment on the "italorum" in line 5. The comment said that "italorum" can be taken with "omne aevum." The "literal translation" and the English negenborn.net both take this reading as well. I find it very hard to swallow. Foremost is the fact that it is in the same line as "unus." I think the pull of the word order "unus italorum" is unavoidable. "Italorum/omne aevum" is difficult not merely because of the line break, but also because "omne aevum" is certainly a unit. From the workings of the poem, it seems to me that this is a hard reading. If this reading were supported by meaning as WoodenTaco suggests, it could be a possibility. But I think he certainly means "you who alone of the Italians dared to unfurl every age" rather than "you who alone dared to unfurl every age of the Italians." The crucial distinction here is: was Nepos unique in being a Roman writing in such a way or was Nepos unique in writing about Italy? We can quickly rule out the latter; Atticus, a friend of Nepos', wrote a Liber Annalis of Roman history. Furthermore it is hardly daring ("ausus es") to be a Roman writing on Rome. On the other hand, Nepos' Chronica, the "tricartite" work to which Catullus is referring, was unique in that it was the first Roman attempt at a comprehensive history; Nepos apparently had a Greek model (Apollodorus' Χρονικά), but it is always a major event when a Roman adapts a Greek tradition to Roman means (cf. Horace: "princeps Aeolium carmen ad Italos deduxisse modos"). Further reasons for the reading "unus Italorum" are given in compelling article by W. Marshall Johnstone, Jr. found here: [1]. So, for these reasons I've deleted the comment on "italorum," for I think the reading in the given translation is right. If someone wants to put it back, I think a discussion of both readings on the page itself would be necessary. 03:56, 20 December 2008 (UTC)Nathan —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.23.87.207 (talk)

my humble transliteration

I offer my simple and admittedly crude transliteration. Perhaps an expert can elaborate. Personally, I feel the minimalist adn rather literal approach I have used (rather than interpret) the poem is satisfactorily true enough to the original meaning. Hope you enjoy. I am not a Latin nerd so please feel free to waffle on about grammatical minutiae- I will learn something.Starstylers (talk) 20:59, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Catullus 1. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20051023171523/http://la.wikibooks.org/wiki/Carmina to http://la.wikibooks.org/wiki/Carmina

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:13, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Notability

I love Catullus so I hate to be the one to do this, but I'm not sure this poem deserves its own article. If it does, then links to outside sources establishing its importance and influence are necessary. Finsternish (talk) 21:18, 2 August 2018 (UTC)