Talk:The Poetry of Gaius Valerius Catullus/1

Catullus 1 authors and history

 * 2007-02-03T15:51:18  contribs)|  m   (corrected link)


 * 2007-01-31T03:36:01  contribs)|  (Added link to literal translation done by a student)


 * 2007-01-21T10:10:23  contribs)|  (Removed See Also area, only link was a bad link.)


 * 2006-11-19T18:50:59  contribs)|  m   (spelling)


 * 2006-10-08T16:32:28  contribs)|  m   (→External links)


 * 2006-09-29T08:43:53  contribs)|  m   (Category:Poems of Catullus)


 * 2006-08-16T06:17:09  contribs)|  m   (diction)


 * 2006-08-04T16:31:56  contribs)|  (see my talk page.)


 * 2006-08-04T15:10:39  contribs)|


 * 2006-05-20T19:16:18 User:145.94.48.243  (→External links)


 * 2006-05-20T19:15:52 User:145.94.48.243  (→External links)


 * 2006-03-16T21:54:06  contribs)|  m   (→Notes)


 * 2006-03-16T21:52:29  contribs)|  m   (→Text - see talk page)


 * 2006-03-15T23:52:59  contribs)|  (experimenting with one of several possible ways to include the scansion)


 * 2006-03-15T03:12:05  contribs)|  m   (→Notes)


 * 2006-03-15T03:09:43  contribs)|  m   (→Text - see discussion.)


 * 2006-03-15T03:05:37  contribs)|  m


 * 2006-03-14T18:34:09  contribs)|


 * 2006-03-14T18:33:17  contribs)|


 * 2006-02-22T23:44:20  contribs)|  m


 * 2006-02-22T21:55:27  contribs)|


 * 2006-02-22T20:31:55  contribs)|  (→English Translation)


 * 2006-02-22T20:30:52  contribs)|  (expand, clarify translation of some lines, add more explanatoryfootnotes)


 * 2006-02-17T13:42:01  contribs)|


 * 2006-02-13T18:42:03  contribs)|


 * 2006-02-13T00:59:59 User:71.195.206.227  (→English Translation)


 * 2006-02-13T00:32:56  contribs)|  (→English Translation)


 * 2006-02-13T00:32:10  contribs)|  (→General comments)


 * 2006-02-13T00:25:14  contribs)|  (→English Translation)


 * 2006-01-31T21:21:04 User:212.144.142.80  (→General comments)


 * 2006-01-27T19:13:44  contribs)|  (→English Translation)


 * 2006-01-19T15:48:19  contribs)|  m   (Reverted edits by 168.9.41.100 (talk) to last version by BirgitteSB)


 * 2006-01-12T19:24:15 User:168.9.41.100  (→English Translation)


 * 2006-01-05T18:22:21  contribs)|  m   (revert vandalism)


 * 2006-01-04T19:58:56 User:69.119.65.88  (→English Translation)


 * 2005-12-26T00:28:27  contribs)|  m


 * 2005-09-23T00:25:09  contribs)|  (→Meter/scansion - Wrong meter link)


 * 2005-08-24T21:36:16  contribs)|  (→Sources)


 * 2005-05-27T13:33:38 User:198.143.199.102  (→English Translation)


 * 2005-05-20T00:07:34  contribs)|  m   (→General comments)


 * 2005-05-19T21:58:22  contribs)|  m   (capitalization)


 * 2005-05-19T21:54:01  contribs)|  (Adding intro; +cat Latin Poems)


 * 2005-05-19T21:07:58  contribs)|  (→Meter/scansion)


 * 2005-05-19T21:00:29  contribs)|  (→General comments)


 * 2005-05-19T20:59:18  contribs)|  (→English Translation)


 * 2005-05-19T20:59:06  contribs)|  (→Literal English Translation)


 * 2005-05-19T20:57:17  contribs)|


 * 2005-05-11T01:35:19  contribs)|  (→Literal English Translation)


 * 2005-05-11T00:56:53 User:24.41.7.185  (→Literal English Translation)


 * 2005-05-11T00:56:41 User:24.41.7.185  (→Literal English Translation)


 * 2005-05-11T00:46:57 User:24.41.7.185

= From Wikipedia: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)

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 (and Spanish) on 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:. 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)

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&#39;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&#39;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&#39;s Duckling 21:50, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

= Nice Use of Letters = Nice use of letters, celloman2012

=Translation emendation= Re 'omne aevum': it's an elementary error to assume that the singular of 'omnis' can't mean 'all/the whole'; but cf the famous opening of Caesar's Gallic Wars, "Gallia est omnis divisa in partes tres" = 'all Gaul [i.e. the whole of Gaul] is divided into three parts'. Pace Fordyce ad loc, I see no reason to imply that Cornelius is gathering separate periods of history into one book, but rather expounding the whole of time -- the whole of history -- seen as one overwhelmingly large chunk. Mufflethrug (discuss • contribs) 23:39, 25 January 2012 (UTC)