Talk:Catullus 16/Archive 1

Is this real or a hoax?

Is this real or a hoax? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.146.12.242 (talk • contribs) 02:39, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

It's real. --81.232.18.211 (talk) 22:10, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, they really did have sex and cuss words in the old days. 75.48.5.211 (talk) 04:06, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Rough translation

I did the literal translation very quickly, so anyone should feel free to fix it up. I just didn't want to use a copyrighted version so I did one myself in about fifteen minutes. Billy Blythe 18:22, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Gangsta version

Contrary to popular belief, Sacha Baron-Cohen did not write the gangsta version. Billy Blythe 18:22, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

What are you even talking about? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.48.5.211 (talk) 04:08, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Regarding sources

For those of you who haven't been to graduate school, I assure you that everything contained in the first two paragraphs is common knowledge that does not need to be cited. Billy Blythe 05:31, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

While not many things found in graduate school are considered common knowledge, I think I've found some suitable references for most of the intro paragraphs. The only problem I'm having is finding something for the Loeb Classical Edition: it's not online, and since the article refers to it specifically, I think we should cite it specifically. Since you mentioned it especially, i assume you have the book; might you look up the page # for that? Thanks, Sophy's Duckling 08:43, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Never mind. Found something on the library's website that said that lines had remained untranslated b/c of obsecenity. Sophy's Duckling 08:54, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Identity of Furius and Aurelius

A Furius and an Aurelius are also mentioned in Catullus 11 as companions of Lesbia. Does anyone know whether there is enough scholarship to suggest they are the same? Sophy's Duckling 09:02, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm not aware of any, but that doesn't mean that it doesn't exist. I suspect whatever would be found would be highly speculative. Billy Blythe 13:35, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Found something. Gilbert Lawall (http://www-unix.oit.umass.edu/~glawall/) and Bruce Arnold (http://home.mtholyoke.edu/acad/misc/profile/barnold.shtml) assert that they are the same (pg 78, Love and Betrayal: A Catullus Reader). I think given that it's written by two experts in such a well-known, well-reviewed book that serves as a basic summary of Catullus scholarship, most people do consider them to be the same. Will add a sentence to the article.Sophy's Duckling 08:30, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Translation

I went through and compared the translation Billy Blythe made in the article with translations online (which are protected by copyright) and with dictionaries. The translation we have now is literal and therefore is not an analysis, and it is substantiated by all other references, which are cited accordingly. Therefore, I do not think the translation in its present form is original research or in copyright violation and so I removed the tag. Sophy's Duckling 09:23, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

I am the one who added the tag. WIth the additional scolarship now added (thanks), I have no objection to the tag's removal. If Billy Blythe doesn't mind, I would highly recommend adding the translation to Wikisource as well, since it is effectively already GFDL'ed. --KGF0 ( T | C ) 07:17, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! I added it there, I think it was one of the first things I did with BillyBlythe's version of the article. Sophy's Duckling 01:04, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

While I strongly disagree with the changes in the translation I made, I really applaud the Duckling's efforts on this entry. Really good work. I am an expert level translator, and have been considered as such by numerous professors and academics. I have both the technical skill and the creative fire to create a good translation of a poem, and I can make a literal translation sound decent. What's missing from the traslation that's out there now is the actual punchy impact of the poem. Also, we don't use proleptive adjectives in English, which is what "hardened dicks" is. Catullus is literally telling these guys that he's going to fuck them up the ass and force them to suck his dick. It should be that raw. It reads as that raw to me in Latin, so why shouldn't it read just as raw in English? Isn't Wiki not supposed to be censored? It seems to be okay to show a picture of a smegma covered glans penis, but getting truly literal with Catullus is wrong? I hope that's not the position of anyone editing this article. My most recent translation, which is in the history, is better than what's out there now, both in technical and literary aspects. I'm going to wait, and then in a while I'm going to change the translation to a better one that is equally raw to a British and and American audience. "Bugger" means nothing in America, and using it is lame censorship. That's like translating "podex" as "fundament" when it really means "asshole." Billy Blythe 23:15, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Oh, I'm sorry. I'll change back it to "fuck you up the ass" &c. I changed the last line to meet the first because it's the same Latin and since you started out with bugger, I thought that was your preferred. Sophy's Duckling 00:28, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

About "bottom-man Aurelius and cocksucker Furius". I think bottom-man describes Furius better b/c the cinaede or whatever literally means catamite, posh talk for "the one who takes it up the ass". The only thing the dictionary is turning up for "pathice" is "lustful." I assume it means in an especially negative manner, like "kinky" or "lecherous", but I haven't been able to turn up anything that implies submission...Not sure how much the dictionary is censoring, though. Sophy's Duckling 01:04, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

The dictionary should not be censoring at all. I just changed "fuck you like a boy" to "fuck you in the ass". There have been some minor changes to the words 'pedicabo' and irrumabo' that don't reflect their actual meaning. It seems like it is an attempt for a modern idiom; however, in taking modern idiom - e.g. throat-fuck - some of the meaning is lost. The neologism is self-explanatory, but it is not common. This is clearly presented latin; it does not need to be clouded by strange diction. The verb irrumare denotes forced oral sex, and the verb pedicare means to fuck in the ass. There is not much room for syntactical interpretation or modern idiom and slang here. This would be universally understood in Roman audiences, and although vulgar translation is perfectly appropriate, colloquial language and slang really isn't. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.190.253.87 (talk) 02:23, 20 December 2006 (UTC).

Suggestions

Firstly, I agree with Billy Blythe: Wikipedia is not censored nor is it bowdlerized. Second, I moved the references out of the header (where they do messy things to edit summaries and links) and into the table, since they are presumably for the English Translation and not for the source text anyway. Third, I think it would be nice if we could beef up the text around the translation, since this is, after all, an encyclopedia rather than a source-text repository, which is what Wikisource is for. Fourth, I'm glad to see it was made available there as well—I'll have a look at it later, but I did want to note (since I was working on this a while ago) that the translation alone should be in the "en" English namespace, and the original should live in Latin "la", with the usual interwiki links between language versions. I have logins in both places if anyone wants a hand with that, though it might take a while since I'm going out of town. Finally, thanks for keeping me aprised via my User_talk; much faster and easier than perusing my watchlist. --KGF0 ( T | C ) 18:17, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

irrumabo et pedicabo: my two cents'

Translating obscenities is a fool's game, I think, but (or so?) here I go: the future active verbs notwithstanding, isn't the (American) English idiom better rendered, "Fuck you and suck my dick"? Just a thought. Ifnkovhg (talk) 11:53, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi Ifnkovhg and thanks for your suggestion!

I know what you mean about feeling foolish; I find myself mortified, blushing and laughing every time I look at this poem! However, based on my reading of the available technical literature, pedicabo has the specific meaning of male-on-X anal sex, which isn't necessarily conveyed by a simple "fuck you". That's why I chose the more explicit "fuck you up your ass and down your throat". There's a nifty chiasmus in the first two lines, did you notice? Of course, the "up" and "down" aren't in the original Latin, but I thought they were the best English idiom and made a neatly matching pair for the chiasmus. More generally, it'd be good if the translation were something that an angry man today might actually say, so that students will feel the force of the poem. For example, I'm a little uneasy that "fudge-packed Furius" is not modern usage, but it was an alliteration that I couldn't pass up. ;) What do you think? I'm not really attached to any one version; perhaps we can find a better translation together? Willow (talk) 18:41, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

The point of using those words was to shock the readers (and thereby show that Catullus is not sissy), so I think we should use the shocking language as it adds more to the poem than "bugger." With the softer language, the translation misses the point of the poem. --174.21.68.89 (talk) 05:12, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Multiple translations?

I feel that there's a place for both types of translations of Catullus: a literal, line-by-line version which is exact but may be convoluted and poorly comprehensible to English speakers, and a looser translation that is immediately understandable and conveys the spirit of the poem, even if it doesn't remain faithful word-by-word and line-by-line. I'm not attached to my own translation, but I feel that the present literal translation doesn't really capture the poem and readers would benefit from something more direct and vivid. But that might just be me; what do other people think? Willow (talk) 05:54, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

The line-by-line is quite clear--so much so, in fact, that I'm stymied that anybody would argue otherwise. (And I mean clear in tone, as well as content). Of course this revision is now back at only one translation, but I want get my voice in in case this ever comes up again, jeez. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Afn33282 (talk • contribs) 06:22, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Wikilinks

I have removed the wikilink within the translation that connects the words "thousand kisses" with Catullus 5. Several recent commentators have suggested that the the milia multa basiorum of line 12 does not in fact refer to Catullus 5. Kenneth Quinn writes, "The explicit cross-reference in line 12 is probably to Poem 48. But doubtless C. had no less in mind poems such as 15, 21, 24, 25, 97 or 99. It is not likely that there is a reference to Poems 5 and 7 (though many take this for granted)." (Catullus:the poems, Macmillan, 1973. p. 143.). I would suggest that editors avoid wikilinks of this sort within source texts. Such links violate the integrity of the poem and constitute original research. Of course, source texts belong at Wikisource and not in the encyclopedia. Aramgar (talk) 14:29, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Your suggestion is sensible and I thank you for the explicit reference backing up your position. I'll be happy to avoid such cross-references myself, and I think you'll find that I haven't done so in any of Catullus' other poems (to the best of my memory). Here I was trying to accommodate readers who might not be so familiar with Catullus' works as Prof. Quinn, and who might appreciate a link to at least one other poem that illustrates what Catullus is talking about. We might consider including instead a link here to Catullus 48, with a citation to Prof. Quinn and an explanatory footnote.

Your other point — that all source texts of Catullus' poems belong only at Wikisource and never on Wikipedia — is beyond the scope of this Talk page, whose sole purpose is to discuss the coverage of this poem. The appropriate place to discuss this broader question is, of course, at the Catullus WikiProject, perhaps at the dedicated page Wikipedia:WikiProject Catullus/Source_texts. Willow (talk) 15:30, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Arguing over wikilinks seems silly, given we've decided to delete the translations per WP:OR. But delete the original Latin? Which policy calls for that?--Yolgnu (talk) 12:50, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Emphasis and notability

There is a problem of emphasis in this article. The contemporary discussion of this poem, beyond that of tittering schoolboys, surrounds not so much the explicit language but the warning Catullus is giving to those who might make assumptions about the poet from his poetry. Contemporary readers ought to avoid making Catullus' poems, particularly those concerning Lesbia, into biography. That said, I'm not sure this poem is really notable enough for its own article. Aramgar (talk) 14:36, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

As luck would have it, there is another dedicated subpage at the Catullus WikiProject for just such questions. :) I'll personally be gone for the next three weeks, having lots to do for my sister's wedding, but I'll be glad to participate when I return.

I'm not sure where we've made a Lesbia poem into a biography, either of Catullus or ourselves, but I'll be sure to keep your words in mind.

To establish notability, it suffices to show that it has been the subject of academic studies and controversy, as discussed on that dedicated subpage. The number of references is perhaps somewhat scanty (14 at present, with five books listed in the Bibliography), but I feel sure that we could find more with a devoted search at the library. Conversely, I feel that the case has not yet been made for deleting the article. We could consider merging it into a meta-article with other invective poems, or with other poems involving Aurelius and Furius, but the present consensus seems to be against making a meta-article Invective poetry of Catullus. Willow (talk) 15:41, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

PS. I should add that I agree that the present article is rather poor, and barely deserves its "Start" classification. However, once notability has been established, the proper course is to improve the article, not to delete it altogether. Are we agreed on that principle? Willow (talk) 15:48, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Translations

It's kind of ridiculous to say that we shouldn't have a translation of this. Yes, it's probably the filthiest bit of classical poetry out there, but does anyone seriously think that a general audience can understand it from the Latin alone? Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 19:24, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Actually, we shouldn't have either the Latin or the translation, per WP:NOTREPOSITORY. Both more properly belong on Vicifons or Wikisource, respectively, and links to these have been provided. Kafka Liz (talk) 18:31, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

The link you give does not substantiate your claim - it says that a page containin g ONLY the poem would be inappropriate for Wikipedia. In cases like this, having the poem to hand is necessary to understanding the discussion of the poem. If the poem was longer, we might make do with extracts, but it's only a few lines. The contrary is like saying we shouldn't include any images of a Public domain painting in an article discussing the details of the brush technique. I'm restoring the text. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 19:01, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Shoemaker's Holiday is absolutely right on this. You cannot examine a text without the text. DuncanHill (talk) 19:24, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, since this is so short I don't think there is any problem with including the whole thing. Tim Vickers (talk) 00:00, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, I'm not one to fly in the face of changed consensus, so if you all think it should remain in, then so be it. I still believe that the policy WP:NOTREPOSITORY and associated guideline Wikipedia:Do not include copies of primary sources, especially the cited case of the hymn Christ the Lord Is Risen Today, is relevant here. I also believe that mongrel translations such as the two included constitute original research; any included translation ought to be from a cited scholarly source. Concerning "examin[ing] a text without the text," I would like to point out that Wikipedia is not a textbook, specifically that the article's purpose is "to present facts, not to teach subject matter." The focussed close reading and lexical analysis presented here -- derived in large part from a pre-Victorian privately printed "Manual of Classical Erotology" -- may perhaps not be in line with current scholarly thinking. In any case, I do feel certain you'd be hard pressed to find a similarly-styled article in any other encyclopedia, but it is not my article. This poem is certainly interesting - especially to high school students - because of its invective, but not especially more notable than most of Catullus' other surviving poems. Why do the poems of Propertius and Horace not receive similar treatment? Or, if we are setting up straw men (à la Shoemaker's Holiday's example of public domain paintings and brush technique), why are the lyrics of every folk song or Mother Goose rhyme not included in the relevant articles? To reiterate, I'm not one to oppose consensus, but I think relevant policy might deserve another look. Cheers, Kafka Liz (talk) 01:57, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

There are no PD translations of this poem. That's kind of the point of some of the discussion. And I do think that i text is discussed in detail, it should be quoted , at an appropriaste length to the discussion. What we don't want is a five-verse quote with a paragraph of discussion, or no textual analysis at all. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 02:01, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

we include the text of short poems when they're PD, because it clarifies the analysis. To insist on their being only in wikisource is, frankly, process wonkery. They should be where they're immediately useful, because in benefits the readers. One thing in Kafkas's analysis is correct: we should make sure we have found and used any current criticism of the poem. Fortunately, we may be the first encyclopedia in a position to do material of this sort correctly. There is one other point: the translation is described on the page as a "rough translation"--that does not necessarily imply that it's attempting to be literal--it can equally mean it's only approximate. Since it is an attempt at a close transltion, we should say so. DGG (talk) 06:42, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

(outdent)Part of my reluctance to include an unsourced translation, in addition to the points I've raised previously (especially past consensus and original research), is that it encourages everyone with a smattering of Latin to try his or her hand at "improving" it. While I do appreciate that this freedom lies at the core of our project, the result is an ever more muddled hodge-podge of a translation, and one that reduces the entirety of poem's notability to its "dirty" words. The article in general needs a serious overhaul, one that incorporates current scholarship and that discusses more than just translation of profanities. Some discussion of the invective genre ought to be included, as well as an examination of the poem's relation to Catullus' other verses: it is commonly believed to be a response to earlier works, such as Poems 5 and 7, or, as commentator Kenneth Quinn suggests, 48. Quinn's 1970 edition of Catullus (Catullus: the Poems, Bristol Classical Press) would be a useful place to start, and his The Catullan Revolution (same press) is also useful. I am confident that a simple JSTOR search would turn up a wealth of relevant articles. Of course, there are those who believe, as I do, that Catullus' poetry is best treated on Wikipedia as thematic bodies (the Lesbia poems, the invective poems, etc.) rather than in the current piecemeal fashion, but that's another discussion for another day.

In the meantime, can we agree that current consensus calls for one maladroit, amateur translation, rather than two? Kafka Liz (talk) 16:24, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

I think that the consus is against the view that we should not have the text of this poem here, and indeed, there have been no takers for your call to eliminate the freer translation. Moreover, the length of time suggests that we also do not need to worry that we'll have scores of "improvements"; if we were going to, we surely would have seen those hordes of "improvers" by now. I agree completely with your view that some discussion of current scholarship, the invective genre, and so forth, would be a good thing, though I lament I don't have the time right now to work on it. I'm disappointed that you, with your clear interest in the subject, haven't done so either, but perhaps you also haven't had time. Regardless, the unfortunate lack of those elements does not somehow imply that we should eliminate what we do have. Tb (talk) 06:06, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi Tb - I'm not trying to fly in the face of consensus here, but the fact is that the article contain(s/ed) two "translations", where only one is needed. I raised this point earlier on the talk page, and no one seemed to object (ie, silence), so I removed one.

Regarding subject interest... yes, I've been involved elsewhere. Work, conferences, family emergencies, other commitments on-wiki and off... sorry to disappoint. I do have ample references and sources - which I'd be happy to forward - if you would like to spend some time improving the article. Cheers, Kafka Liz (talk) 13:19, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't wish to strike anything I've written here, but in case the above statement sounds hostile... that wasn't my intent. I do think the article needs substantial improvement beyond explication of the acts it describes. Kafka Liz (talk) 14:14, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

I didn't think it was necessary to object at the time, and I didn't think you were planning a deletion. You asked "can we agree", and nobody agreed, and there had been previous discussion when the 2d translation was added, in which several people spent effort improving it. Moreover, the 2d translation was added with a perfectly reasonable explanation, which you never answer afaict, and which explained quite clearly, why the line-by-line translation isn't sufficient in this case. I regret that I was slow in objecting, but my slowness was only because I interpreted your comment as a request for others to agree with your proposed deletion before you would undertake it, and I assumed incorrectly that you were content to let the matter rest if you were the only one pushing for deletion. We can count me, the original author, and the improvers, as all in favor of the 2d translation's presence too, I think, and nobody but yourself desiring its removal. Tb (talk) 15:47, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Extraneous garbage is extraneous garbage is extraneous garbage. Kafka Liz (talk) 17:50, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Of that, I think there is no disagreement. The question whether it is extraneous garbage. I'm assuming that your objection is not based on the language or tone of the poem, and seeking to find some other basis for it. The explanation that the literal line-by-line translation helped to make sense of the structure of the Latin, but not the tone of the poem, carries merit with me, and seems correct. Tb (talk) 19:40, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Just passing by

I wanted to let you guys know that I think this article is great. The "basic feel" translation and line-by-line were really helpful, thank you. :) 173.66.207.185 (talk) 18:29, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

When was this written?

He lived 84BC - 54BC. If no certain date exists, shouldn't there at least be an indication of when this was written? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ldfifty (talk • contribs) 08:43, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

My thoughts exactly. Lots of time spent working on the titillation and none on really basic, core facts.-- 128.240.229.7 (talk) 10:02, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Modern English adaptation

OK, I'll bite. What's the point of this "modern English" translation, when the line-by-line given is a perfectly adequate and understandable rendering? Furthermore, it's original research; no source is given, it is inaccurate, and I suspect it's been written solely to show what swear words one can get away with on Wikipedia under the guise of classical scholarship. 213.121.253.66 (talk) 14:07, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

There is certainly a current of obscene glee (well earned, though), but I don't think much would need to be removed. Rather, the article should be expanded to deal better with the poem's other issues. There's very little here to indicate why the poem is artistic, for instance, and although Winter's article "Catullus Purified" was cited, you couldn't tell — the editors were so entranced by the obscenity they missed the whole point of the poem, which is the relation of the poet to his work (as Winter says). That said, I applaud the energy and enthusiasm. I did some restructuring, and gave a nod to the main "theme," as they used to say in old-fashioned literary studies. Cynwolfe (talk) 17:10, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

bravo

This is one of the best sentences I've ever read in Wikipedia:

"Latin is an exact language for obscene acts."

Good and extremely precise translation, too, even in the difficult bits. Except that pathicus is not "cocksucker" (which would be fellator, obviously not the right word here). And the first and last lines should retain the mirroring. Many thanks.

Also: at least one edition of the Loeb lapsed into Italian to translate the obscene poems including 16 (I saw it with my own eyes a long time ago), which would be worth noting if it could be located. Cynwolfe (talk) 15:57, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

It was such a ridiculous sentence that it had to be eliminated. What is "obscene?" And why would latin, of all languages, lack specific words for anything. As the sentence was stupid it was re-fashioned into a form far less embarrassing. 75.48.5.211 (talk) 04:11, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

"Latin has specific words for lubricious acts, such as pedicabo and irrumabo, which appear in the first and last lines of the poem." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.48.5.211 (talk) 04:12, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Catamite

Catamite is a little too obscure and technical. I would suggest bottom or bottom-boy or even fuckee or something that a more modern usage.Wjhonson (talk) 19:13, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

There's a link to explain the term. Cynwolfe (talk) 14:20, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Modern Reception section

Just for the record, I restored this section without reading it. Then I saw why it could reasonably be considered of dubious notability. I have no position on this, despite the appearance given by what was really a careless edit on my part (all I saw was that an anonymous IP with no history had come along and removed a section). Wareh (talk) 03:28, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

'pathicus' doesn't mean 'cocksucker'

Pathicus doesn't mean "cocksucker." Here's the entry from the Oxford Latin Dictionary (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1982, 1985 reprinting), p. 1308:

pathicus ~a ~um, a. superl. ~issimus (Gk.) Submitting to sexual intercourse: a (of catamites). b (of prostitutes). c (transf., of obscene books)

Catullus 16.2 is cited as an example of a. A specific sex act should not be specified; in fact, Catullus threatens to perform both anal and oral sex on both. Although I would like "pussy" in a literary translation, I'm not sure it's the best word for our literal translation, but it'll do, and "cocksucker" (Latin fellator) won't. Craig Williams, Roman Homosexuality (Oxford University Press, 1999, 2010), p. 189, asserts that pathicus means a man who submitted to anal penetration; I'm not entirely convinced that the meaning was that restricted, though that's probably the primary sense in which it was understood, but at any rate it doesn't mean "cocksucker." Catullus uses the word elsewhere in his poetry where "cocksucker" is again not indicated. See also Amy Richlin's already classic essay, "Not before Homosexuality: The Materiality of the cinaedus and the Roman Law against Love between Men," Journal of the History of Sexuality 3.4 (1993), p. 531, where the pathicus is among those Latin terms describing who submitted to penetration in general (with the implication that they enjoyed it). The pathicus is a receptacle, not an actor, as would be indicated by an agent noun such as fellator. Cynwolfe (talk) 14:50, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Alright, then perhaps it's necessary to remove the (sourced) statement: "A male who suckles a penis is denoted as a fellator or, equivalently, a pathicus (line 2).[23] " and other statements linked to it which seem to be in contradiction to your assertion that "pathicus" doesn't mean cocksucker. It seems counterintuitive to not use it in the translation but keep a sentence that states it means "cocksucker" when apparently it doesn't. --ಠ_ಠ node.ue ಠ_ಠ (talk) 20:30, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Um, this isn't "my" assertion. It's what the Oxford Latin Dictionary says. It's what classicists who specialize in Roman sexuality say. Fellator does mean someone who performs fellatio. In Latin sexual vocabulary, it's in the same "word group" as pathicus because these are two of the words used of a man who plays the sexual role of the "receptacle". There is plenty of scholarship on this poem if you want to improve the article. There's some imprecision in that section, as you note, and it's rather OR-ish, but not disastrously so. It gets at the sexual ideas pretty well. It's all the other stuff in the poem—aspects of Roman society, aesthetics, the invective tradition, and so on— that the article is weak on. Cynwolfe (talk) 06:15, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

And please note that Forberg (footnote 23) is dated to the 1820s, when discourse on sexuality was not only constrained by decorum, but usually hostile to homosexuality. Cynwolfe (talk) 15:31, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't really care who's making the assertion, as I'm not challenging it; what I care about is that the article is currently contradictory: according to you (and apparently several sources...), "pathicus" doesn't mean someone who sucks on a penis, but according to the article, it does (a source is cited, but I don't have that book in front of me so I'm not sure that's what the source actually says). If "pathicus" doesn't mean that, we shouldn't just remove that translation from part of the article be leave in place the sentence that states that pathicus and fellator are synonyms if they are not. --ಠ_ಠ node.ue ಠ_ಠ (talk) 06:48, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

I think it's mainly a matter of wording: in terms of ancient Roman sexuality (though that article is still under development and may not explain it fully yet), pathicus as a sex role belongs to the "receiving" group, and I think that's what the article is trying to say. Not that pathicus and fellator are synonyms, but that to the Roman mind they are similar roles as "receptacles" of phallic sex. I'm not interested in rewriting the article at the moment, because if I did I'd want to use better sources and discuss more than the naughty language, which is not how the poem was primarily influential in antiquity. Also, although other articles are rife with pop culture trivia lists, this poem has a doozy that isn't recorded and is actually insightful; it was referenced at length throughout a John Oliver skit on The Daily Show. I'd love to get that one in verifiable shape. So please feel free to fix the problem. Cynwolfe (talk) 16:54, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

"Catullus 16" or "Carmen 16" ?

I'm confused ! --195.137.93.171 (talk) 18:29, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

The plural title Carmina used for Catullus's book just means "poems." It doesn't really have a title, nor do the individual poems (the first line of a poem was often used as its title in antiquity). When only one work by an ancient author is extant (as is the case with Catullus), it will sometimes be cited just with his name: Catullus 63, Lucretius 5.129, Propertius 3.4.2. Either is OK, but Catullus 16 would not be italicized as a title, though it would be Carmen 16. Cynwolfe (talk) 00:36, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Clearly the wrong Aurelius

Aurelius refers to Marcus Aurelius Cotta Maximus Messalinus, a first-century consul, or senator, during the Julio-Claudian dynasty.[13][14][15]

This seems extremely unlikely to say the least, given that Catullus died in something like 54BC and the referenced Marcus Aurelius wasn't born until 30 or 40 years later -- and even his father was still a boy when Catullus died. Is it perhaps more likely that the consul's grandfather is the intended recipient or, given he appears to have been fairly respectable, an entirely different Aurelius...? The cited references accessible from the internet are useless in this context.

In my edition of Catullus (Peter Green, "The Poems of Catullus", Uni. of California Press, 2005) he states that "Aurelius... cannot be identified with any certainty... A. M. Aurelius Cotta, a Pompeian, was praetor in 54 and later served in Sardinia and Africa. He could have been Catullus' Aurelius, but this remains pure speculation." 86.138.168.181 (talk) 14:15, 23 April 2017 (UTC)