Talk:Catullus 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 Catullus 2 was a good article nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. Once these are addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.

Reviewed version: October 14, 2007
This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:
Articles for deletion This article was nominated for deletion on 10 February 2007. The result of the discussion was keep.

Contents

[edit] Sparrow

"Some also believe that the sparrow is a metaphor for Lesbia's sexual organs." No. A 'passer' is also a colloquial expression, according to Pompeius Sextus, used in mimes when referring to the male genitalia. So, leave Lesbia alone, it's the poet going solo here. The people proposing this theory are: Iohannes Iovianus Pontanus, Angelus Politianus (latin transliterations both). Another theory (don't know whose) makes Passer a name of a person, who's showing too much affection to the Girl (don't forget it'll take a while untill Lesbia gets her name). And yet another theory makes the passer a small jewel the girl eventually loses. Nevertheless, these 2 last theories don't get much credibility. Reynaert-ad 14:58, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

What is a "blue thrush"? (mentioned as a candidate for the 'passer') Vultur 21:58, 17 July 2006

[edit] Addition of "Themes and debate over unity" section

I've added this section to handle the considerable scholarly research and debate on whether all 13 lines are, in fact, one poem or two. Everything is annotated. Below that I've added a section about "Sounds" (which may be retitled to something like "Assonance").

Problems that I hope other editors can help with:

  1. I don't know Latin beyond some bare fundamentals. I may well have made mistakes in reporting what I found. Someone with more knowledge could be extremely helpful in looking over these two sections and comparing them with the sources. I especially may have made some mistakes in identifying the vowel sounds in the "Sounds" section.
  2. Although the Themes section is long, and I've tried my best to be neutral and fair (I don't actually have an opinion on any of this), sourcing is too narrow. I did my best to find sources on the Web, but didn't find many. There are many printed sources out there, however, and someone with access to them could be enormously helpful by broadening the sourcing.
  3. I invite anyone with the inclination to go over what I've written and (comparing it to what the sources say) try to improve the writing.

Noroton 20:28, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] GA review

This article is pretty good, it just needs a bit more to be a GA:

General things:

I added a few citation tags on things that needed a source, but most of the article is fine that way. The article as a whole though reads kind of choppily in some places, such as the intro and the earlier sections. I also wish the article gave us a bit of historical context. What sort of things were being written in Rome at the time? Was this sort of work popular at the time? Was he borrowing from a Greek stories, themes and styles? Was borrowing from Greek common at the time? I guess what I'm saying is that the article is really good with specifics, it just needs to give us a better general context.

Intro:

It needs to be worked a bit better. It says at least twice that the text has been corrupted, but doesn't really say when the poem was written, or where it is kept now.

Textual conjectures and changes in translation:

This section is a bit confusing if you don't know Latin. Could it be translated more? What exactly are the differences in meaning? Also, I don't really think it needs to be split into subsections. I'd like it better combined into prose.

Again, pretty good article. Very impressive. Wrad 00:37, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, Wrad! I wish that the article would deserve such a nice review, but it still seems a little discombobulated to me. I may not be able to fix everything up immediately, but I'll work on it as I can; thank you for being patient! Hopefully, others will come out of the woodwork to help out as well. :) Willow 15:59, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it is pretty dicombobulated. The best way I could review it was to say it was choppy. I figured that after someone attempted to fix the choppiness up we could go from there on the review. Looks like things are getting better. Wrad 21:19, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Willow, what can I do to help? You have done so much for me - it is time that I started returning all the favors! Awadewit | talk 07:59, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
Thank you! :) Let me first organize it a little more, find some better references, and generally hew it into shape; I'm afraid that it still needs coarse work. :( Willow 12:31, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
This article has improved a lot, but I don't think it's there yet. The lead still needs work and some sections still need references. Feel free to renominate soon, though. Wrad 19:59, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
Please add more specific information about what you think needs to be done on the lead; "work" is a little vague. ;) I'm conscious of the referencing lacunae, though, and will try to improve those over time. Willow 21:04, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
Actually, the lead seems okay now. Wrad 22:47, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of controversies and proposed solutions

To help improve this article to Good Article status, I intend to collect this poem's points of contention and their solutions with references, particularly those relating to lines 11-13 (Catullus 2b). Willow (talk) 01:42, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

  • Unclear what to do with lines 11-13, but Catullus 2 ends at line 10.

[edit] Aptness of simile

  • Simile is inappropriate.
    • Baehrens-Schulze edition, Comm., p. 80.
  • Simile is appropriate.
    • Palmer, Hermath., iii, 302.

[edit] Est

  • Est is grammatically OK.
    • Ellis (1904) Comm., p. 6.
    • Baehrens-Schulze edition, Comm., p. 80.
  • Est to es
    • Parmensis, 1473 edition
    • Phillimore, 1910 (among other changes)
  • Est to id
  • Est to foret
  • tam gratum est to gratum sit

[edit] Possem

  • possem to posse
  • possem to possum
  • possem to passer

[edit] Credo

  • credo to quaeso
  • credo to quaero

[edit] Desiderio meo nitenti

  • "when she, the radiant girl of my longing,..."
  • "when she is radiant with longing for me..."

[edit] Ut solaciolum sui doloris

  • sui to subit
  • ut to et
  • ut to ad
  • ut to te

[edit] Tum...acquiescat

[edit] Lacuna between lines 10 and 11

  • no lacuna, lines 1-13 are one unit
    • Fay, 1913
  • one-line lacuna
  • multi-line lacuna
  • radical surgery ;)
    • Phillimore, 1910 introduces lines 11-13 into the middle as a speech of Lesbia's to her bird; other changes to accommodate

[edit] Position of lines 11-13

    • Phillimore, 1910
  • belongs in different known Catullus poem:
  • fragment of an unknown Catullus poem
    • A third poem between Catullus 2 and Catullus 3; the pleasure of the apple corresponds to the pleasure of meeting Lesbia (McDanielson, 1908)