Catullus
Paul McKenna
paperback that sparrow is a colloquialism for penis... I can't find any
justification for that in L & S.
Obviously the whole meaning of the poem is altered if there is sexual
undertones. C was quite capable of being blatant, so why the subterfuge? Was it
to respect Lesbia's "respectability"?
Any thoughts anybody.
Paul McK
________________________________
*&*&*&*&*&*&*&*&*&*&*&*&*&*&*&*&
Crosswords in Latin
http://members.aol.com/PMcK934908/
Musca Volitans
Paul McKenna wrote in message <20010110065645...@nso-ff.aol.com>...
>In carmina ii Lesbia fondles and is fondled by a sparrow, passer. I read in a
>paperback that sparrow is a colloquialism for penis... I can't find any
>justification for that in L & S.
>Obviously the whole meaning of the poem is altered if there is sexual
>undertones. C was quite capable of being blatant, so why the subterfuge? Was it
>to respect Lesbia's "respectability"?
>Any thoughts anybody.
>Paul McK
If this is so, the sparrow's death certainly is fraught with signficance
for poor Catullus. Perhaps this is why Lesbia turned her attentions
to other cocks in her aviary. ;-)
Regards,
M.V.
Kevin O'Donnell
vocabulary tradition?
Kevin in SF
Paul McKenna wrote in message
<20010110065645...@nso-ff.aol.com>...
Paul McKenna
<mu...@mail.com> writes:
>f this is so, the sparrow's death certainly is fraught with signficance
>for poor Catullus. Perhaps this is why Lesbia turned her attentions
>to other cocks in her aviary. ;-)
>
>Regards,
>M.V.
>
Musca,
Caelius Rufus.... that robbin' red breast must be the other one
Stephen D
don't remember the author, and maybe it wasn't Princeton<G>, but at any
rate, it ought to have the penis definition for passer).
:-)
Stephen
Edwin P. Menes
1. Sparrows were not (so far as we know) kept as house pets in antiquity; they are not song-birds and not strikingly attractive. They were, however, associated in poetry and art with Venus.
2. There is an epigram of Martial, in which he makes a seductive offer to a kitchen-boy, in return for which he will give the boy 'passer Catulli'. Given the boy's social status, his likely illiteracy, and the sexual innuendo in the poem, it is much funnier if the reward is not a book. Besides, there is no evidence (other than the traditional reading of this epigram) that any Catullan poem or collection of poems was ever entitled `Passer'.
There is more than this--subsidiary information to bolster the main arguments--but this is what I remember. There may be something in J.N. Adams, Latin Sexual Vocabulary.
In the end, we are dealing not with dictionary definitions but with overtones. Passer does not *mean* penis; it *implies* penis--which makes Catullus's use of it a far more subtle matter--a joking adumbration of one of his principal motifs, most fully worked out in c.76: `bene velle' (emotional commitment) versus `amare' (physical desire) in relation to Lesbia.
If this thread is still going a week from now, I'll dig up the references.
John Sullivan
<hora...@earthlink.net>
>
> There is more than this--subsidiary information to bolster the main
> arguments--but this is what I remember. There may be something in
> J.N. Adams, Latin Sexual Vocabulary.
There is, on pp.32-3, where Adams says that he is unconvinced that
"passer" in Catulles and "passerem Catulli" in Martial were intended as
a double meaning
--
John Sullivan Remove the dots in yDdraigGoch for my real address.
-------------
Virtuoso: someone who plays pieces of music of little artistic merit
faster and louder than anyone else.
Aloisius Italicus
sparrow in Italian. (i am italian of course!)
Although the word "Uccello" (bird) can be used
as "penis" the word "Passera" (female of sparrow)
is Always used in the meaning of "Pussy" (vagina)
In fact in all american film, the word is used by all
italian dubbers, because it fits well the lips movements
of the english pronounce.
As regards The Catullian sparrow, i don't think
that in this case it has the meaning of penis.
The 2nd carmen, refers to a period he was in love
with Lesbia but probably still nothing have happened
between them.
Anyway it could be the symbol of the happy period
with Lesbia.
In the 3rd carmen, the sparrow dies.
But as Catullus was a follower of "Ellenistic trend"
we must think that he is following an ellenistic tradition.
In fact in Greece, we can find a funeral epigram dedicated
to a dolphin, cicada, cricket and to a greyhound.
On his behalf Catullo will be in this case the *exemplum*
for Ovid (amores II, 6) Martial (VII 14, 3) Statius (Silvae II, 4).
Sorry, no Penis here! ;-)
As regards Lesbia, as many of you would know,
by means of Apuleius (Apologia 10) we know
that she is Clodia II, one of the three sisters of the
famous Clodius.
When Catullus knew her, probably she was already
married (so, maybe this situation inspired him carmen 51
in the *Sapphian* style : Ille mi par esse deo videtur...)
and ten years older than he.
She was the wife of Metellus Celer.
Later she will prefer M. Celius Rufus,
and later on, Catullus again.
Her end is told by Catullus himself in carmen 58
Caeli, Lesbia nostra, Lesbia illa,
illa Lesbia, quam Catullus unam
plus quam se atque suos amavit omnes,
nunc quadriviis et angiportis
glubit magnanimos Remi nepotes
In the end...she was a s..t!
Bye!
Aloisius
Edwin P. Menes
Clodia, but not that it is Clodia II. She had two sisters who are
equally possible on this evidence. Because of *Pro Caelio* and several
references in Cicero's letters, we would *like* it to be Clodia II. We
would then seem to know so much more about her, but . . .
There is a similar problem in making every Catullan Rufus the same as
Catullus' Caelius and either of them the same as Caelius Rufus.
That passage in Apuleius, BTW, is the *only* ancient evidence that
Lesbia = Clodia, or that Cynthia = Hostia, Delia = Plania, Licymnia =
Volumnia. None of these is without problems; all have caused a good
deal of interpretative mischief.
To compound all this apparent iconoclasm, I think Adams is wrong about
*passer*.
Robert Stonehouse
>You're not likely to find passer = penis in any dictionary, especially
>one so old as L & S, which is Victorian both temporally and
>attitudinally. It's not in the OLD either, because the argument for
>that meaning occurred mostly after OLD went to print and because the
>argument is suggestive rather than probative. The references, all in
>periodicals, are unfortunately in my office, but the reasoning rests on
>two things:
>
>1. Sparrows were not (so far as we know) kept as house pets in
>antiquity; they are not song-birds and not strikingly attractive. They
>were, however, associated in poetry and art with Venus.
This argument should appy equally (more or less) to John Skelton's
poem on Philip Sparrow, which is much longer and has a lot more
circumstantial detail needing to be explained away. Has anyone tried
this?
ew...@bcs.org.uk
Paul McKenna
for hidden agenda, but if we have to then consider Carmina 13... an invitation
to an evening of cocaine?
Aloisius Italicus
of course Apuleius sais only *Clodia*
and only by further informations (Cicero...)
and investigations, we can say that she's Clodia II.
(almost all, tend to this identification)
But...
No-one has said that Catullus 2 and 3 are representing
the happy period (did you read the initial message ?;-)
I have only said that the Sparrow, _could_ be taken
as a symbol of the happy period in the whole.
So in the carmen 3, the sparrow's dead could be a
Hysteron-proteron regarding later events about
the entire Lesbia love affair.
(all this is in the neoteric style)
This interpretation, is an *Interpretatio difficilior*
respect to microcycle interpretation regarding carmina
2-8 with intervals.(anyway the two interpretations
could co-exist).
All this was planned by the ancient editor of the
Liber Catulli: was Catullus himself ? or Licinius?
No-one knows it!
One of the greatest expert about Catullus, Francesco
della Corte, is of the opinion that our *liber* is an
anthology, not the opera omnia.
Probably, (and i agree with him) the first edition of the first
*libellus of Catullus, ended at 14 .(but maybe this poems
are only a selection of this lost edition)
14A (F. della Corte critic edition 1977)
seems to be the beginning of another libellus.
Si qui forte mearum ineptiarum
lectores eritis manusque vestras
non horrebitis admovere nobis
[...]
Another thing,
*nugas* of the c.1, is a term good
for the poems of the first part of the liber.
I think that Catullus, even if he was playing
the role of *the modest poet* as traditionally
stated, even he i said, could not define *nugae*
the so called *Carmina Docta*.
So, in my opinion, the ancient editor of the *liber*
was not Catullus, because Catullus was already dead.
The edition however has a neoteric style in the order of
of poems, except for the fact that all the poems,
in the same Volumen, could not be considered a *libellus*
(the only edition conceived by neoteric poets)
A libellus in fact, was a thing that a girl could hide
in her *bra*!
Bye!
Aloisius
"Edwin P. Menes" <hora...@earthlink.net> ha scritto nel messaggio
news:3A5D2766...@earthlink.net...
Edwin P. Menes
to seeing Catullus himself as responsible for the basic arrangement of
the corpus, though there are some disruptions in the tradition. The
broad divisions are taken to be cc. 1-60, 61-64, and 65-116. The basic
work is Marilyn Skinner, `Catullus' *Passer*', about 1981. I respect
Della Corte very much, but opinion is opinion, and he is as likely (in
the absence of really hard evidence) to be wrong as my colleagues here.
The question of the identify of Lesbia is taken up by T.P.Wiseman,
*Catullus and his world: a reappraisal*. As much as one would like
Lesbia to be Clodia Metelli--and as much as I, in fact, believe this
identification--the fact is that Clodia Marci and Clodia Luculli are
equally possible. The family was pretty notorious (in Cicero's terms),
and there's no sign that Clodius Pulcher confined his attentions to only
one of his sisters--as the story goes.
Wiseman also takes up the conventional date of Catullus' death (54 B.C.)
and explodes enough of the evidence to make plausible the notion that
the writer of mime Catullus was the same as Catullus noster and survived
another ten or fifteen years. It would be a lovely irony if Wilder's
*Ides of March* turned out to be more nearly accurate history than most
handbook accounts.
Aloisius Italicus
Edwin P. Menes
...
> The opinion on this side of the Atlantic has tended for 20 years or so
> to seeing Catullus himself as responsible for the basic arrangement of
> the corpus, though there are some disruptions in the tradition.
Aloisius
I can't agree, many doubts remain, especially for the type
of edition, a *big* volumen instead of a *little* libellus.
And as regards misruptions, I think it could be a cemetery
Full of "cruces desperationis"! ;-)
Edwin
>The broad divisions are taken to be cc. 1-60, 61-64, and 65-116. The basic
> work is Marilyn Skinner, `Catullus' *Passer*', about 1981. I respect
> Della Corte very much, but opinion is opinion, and he is as likely (in
> the absence of really hard evidence) to be wrong as my colleagues here.
Aloisius
Of course the "classic" division 1-60, 61-64, and 65-116 is still true,
because is based on the typology of the poems.
But what i meant, was a possible relict of a first edition of part of the
poems of the poet that refuses the big Volumina of "Annales Volusi".
That is to say:that of course, Catullus poems were not read in
a big volumen in the neoteric circle, and for his admission, he conceived
only the *little books* as a possible edition of good poetry.
Why don't we have to believe his own words?
Edwin
> The question of the identify of Lesbia is taken up by T.P.Wiseman,
> *Catullus and his world: a reappraisal*. As much as one would like
> Lesbia to be Clodia Metelli--and as much as I, in fact, believe this
> identification--the fact is that Clodia Marci and Clodia Luculli are
> equally possible. The family was pretty notorious (in Cicero's terms),
> and there's no sign that Clodius Pulcher confined his attentions to only
> one of his sisters--as the story goes.
Aloisius
Yes, i am really aware that the identification, in the end, can not be so
sure.
Edwin
> Wiseman also takes up the conventional date of Catullus' death (54 B.C.)
> and explodes enough of the evidence to make plausible the notion that
> the writer of mime Catullus was the same as Catullus noster and survived
> another ten or fifteen years. It would be a lovely irony if Wilder's
> *Ides of March* turned out to be more nearly accurate history than most
> handbook accounts.
Aloisius
I must confess that i didn't know of this possible change of the date of the
death.
But probably this does not change much the condition of the not certain
author
of the Liber Catulli's edition, in the way it survives.
(Anyway i will update my knowledge, many thanx!)
The main fact, in my opinion, remains that all the verse, put on a papyrus,
does not give us a *libellus*.
[Think that almost surely those were *de luxe* editions (pumice expolitum)
with a clearly readable script so, more room was needed]
This is more than an opinion,
although, (i know it) is not 100% certainty.
Regards
Aloisius
Edwin P. Menes
does not bother me particularly. I say this with a smile because I
would desperately like proof one way or another for the unity of c. 68
or for the status of the last strophe of c. 51 or for any number of
similar things.
I grant that the corpus of Catullus is much too long for a *libellus*,
even if Birt is far too prescriptive in *Das Antike Buchwesen* about the
physical limits of a scroll.
But, says Propertius at a problematic point, *sat mea sat magna est si
tres sint pompa libelli*. And everyone knows that the first three books
of Horace's Odes were published simultaneously. And Ovid claims to have
reduced the Amores from five books to three. What if Catullus were
everyone's model in publishing *tres libelli* simultaneously?
Aloisius Italicus
Why simultaneously???
Catullus preference for *libelli* is for
a matter of long refined poems (labor limae)
That is to say that one can not produce in a
little while so many good verses.
The *libellus* is the result of working for *Quality*
instead for *Quantity* and not a mere problem of the
edition's layout.
(that was extremely important too!...but for other reasons)
So the libelli probably were edited one after the other
and only after a long refining work.
Otherwise we must think about Catullus as keeping all
the poems on waxed tablets or piece of *paper* and that
about the end of his life, decided to *publish* all of them.
In my opinion, only a commemorative edition, by a friend
of his, could break the *little book* editing *rule*.
If i have to propose a name, i will say Cornelius Nepos,
that was in the T. Pomponius Atticus entourage and had
already edited a *long* work (Chronica : 3 volumina) :
He was a close friend of Catullus and probably involved
in some way in editing along with Atticus. (could you ask more? ;-)
...but this is just a very *little little little* more than an opinion. ;-)
Aloisius
"Edwin P. Menes" <hora...@earthlink.net> ha scritto nel messaggio
news:3A5FACD9...@earthlink.net...