Talk:Catullus 1
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Books. To participate, you can edit the article attached to this page. You can discuss the Project at its talk page. | |
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article. | |
[edit] 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)
[edit] 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)
[edit] 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)
