Talk:Classical Latin/Archive 1

Archive 1

Marcus Aurelius

A very opinionated section of this article gives Marcus Aurelius's "philosophic prose" as an example of good Silver Age Latin. Weren't his Meditations written in Greek? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.121.209.128 (talk) 03:37, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Golden Age, Silver Age

What do "Golden Age" and "Silver Age" mean here? "Silver Age" in the article links to a page on comic books! Please check your links, people.

While the terms Golden Age and Silver Age persists (mostly in older publications and high schools), the accepted terms in the field are now Augustan and Post-Augustan. I propose that this page be reworked to reflect this fact. If there are no serious objections, I will do this after March 7, 2007. --Nefasdicere 19:26, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

No, sorry, it may seem that way from where you are but a check of the Internet will give you some indication that your judgement is a little hasty. Maybe you are seeing things from the English literature point of view. Ciceronian is the paradigm of golden and it sure is not Augustan.Dave (talk) 10:59, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. "In my neck of the woods some new terms have become fashionable, therefore an encyclopedia article ought to reflect that" is a stunningly narrow-minded view.

Botanical Latin

Anybody care to tackle the subject of "Botanical Latin", either here or in an article of its own? MrDarwin 15:23, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

We have an article about binomial nomenclature that generally discusses the "Latin names" or "scientific names" of living organisms; there isn't a great deal of info about Latin names or coinages there, and there isn't much there about grammar or syntax; however, there is some discussion of the coinage rules as they apply in English at classical compound. More recent usages of Latin generally are discussed at New Latin. Not sure what further information you seek. Smerdis of Tlön 15:35, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Deleted merge request

Someone's been leaving merge links around and not arguing for the mergers. That's a bit annoying, people. UnDeadGoat 20:35, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Maybe so. Never get annoyed on Wikipedia. I don't see any reason for a merger with anything, especially now that the box on the Latin language is in place at the bottom.Dave (talk) 11:02, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Old or Classical?

Poor old Terence seems to have fallen into a gap between the articles on Old Latin and Classical Latin. So which is he? --Sir Myles na Gopaleen (the da) 09:46, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Hah. Philology is not modern science. The article now answers your doubt. There is no answer.Dave (talk) 11:03, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Interword separation

Was there interword separation in this era? -- Beland 18:55, 6 February 2007 Joel, je suis M’Bank On PV journée. Heureusement iPhone Ringer Michael merci je suis un Watch ma Crurchy Hi Mad Mick can colle Michelle Corinne Justin non il est juste. Shake 20 Shake tu vois ma CarPlay vie t’es ma Caravan 2 Shake Francis t’as une mère tu vois après Makaveli, Wench 9 Dellie Wench qu’est-ce que tu sais me parler tu es un café chez Paige Paige Fuck TV est ici Fuck mais on a faim sur les photos de voiture tu avant tu te ferai voir Vadi à Shake (UTC)

Merger

I suggest merging Golden Age of Latin literature and Silver Age of Latin literature with this article, since: 1) They are both rather short 2) They are already largely duplicated in this article anyway. RandomCritic 13:36, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Merged. RandomCritic 16:06, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

When the article was done more fully (by me) it turns out there might have been space logically for the two merged articles. However I understand we like to keep a tidy battlefield momentarily. Those two ages contain a good many more authors whose work did not survive. If anyone ever wants to expand the list to include them and go into more detail about the history of the concept and the style then I suggest we break them out again. Otherwise they seem bearable to me, at the limit of length.Dave (talk) 11:09, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Rename?

This article is about literature, not the language. I think it should be renamed "Classical Latin literature". "Classical Latin" should be a redirect to Latin language. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by FilipeS (talk • contribs) 20:29, 16 April 2007 (UTC).

I suport the suggestion. I was redirected here when I actually looked for a detail of pronunciation in Classical Latin Hartmut Haberland (talk) 09:32, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

These problems can also be addressed with a hat note at the top of the page, so I'll add one for now. --Quae legit (talk) 21:12, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Hold on there

Wait a minute now people. Golden Latin and Silver Latin are quite venerable. They appeared in Wheelock when I had first-year Latin (that was many years ago) and still appear. They need to be in here somewhere. They are in fact linguistic terms, referencing periods of Latin. Someone needs to dig out the origin of those terms. As to what or how many articles should appear, that is for us to work out. The Golden Age and Silver Age looks right to me. For those who are wondering about Plautus and Terence (any Latinists would not be wondering) they are early Latin. There are also early inscriptions, called archaic Latin. At the other end silver Latin goes into Late Latin and you non-Latinists ought at least to know that as it appears in all the dictionaries. There are also traces of a hypothetical called vernacular Latin, as the ordinary people did not speak classical Latin. Then later you get into mediaeval Latin and scholastic Latin. So you see, you can't just blow the subject off and still claim to be encyclopedic in this area.Dave 11:19, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Confusion

Classical latin was never a spoken language. It was a literary language. I don't know where the idea came from that everybody would have talked a perfect language, as in the books. It's like saying that that every people on earth speak the language that is written in a grammar or in a book. Completely ludicrous. The every day language and "real" language was "vulgar" latin for common language. Even Virgil and Cicero spoke vulgar latin because it means "spoken language". Like American & British speak vulgar english. Just because people see "vulgar" they think it was spoken by uneducated persons. We should all know that "vulgaris, usualis, rusticus, plebeius" in latin meant "spoken by the people" whether high class people or the farmerVincentG 00:31, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

That's news to me. Where did you hear it? FilipeS 14:32, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Read serious books well sources and they will say the same thing.132.203.109.70 15:14, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Serious books such as...? FilipeS 17:25, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

In fact, I didn't read well, but this article says that indeed Classical Latin was a literary language and not a written one. But I will try another source.VincentG 21:53, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Well I hope the current version settles this 2-year-old issue. The word vulgaris is not quite "spoken." It is 80% spoken and 20% vulgar. This is a situation not unlike today's so I really do not understand the issue. If you go to a coming-out ball or a high-level press conference you are not going to hear the English spoken in the streets and if you go to Wesleyen or Vassar you are not going to hear that English either in fact if you do not use good English you will be demonstrating an inability to use good English and will be mightily embarrased and in the circles I moved in briefly looked down upon as an inappropriate person to be associating with people of class and money. On the other hand if you learn the lingo and put on the ritz ("putting on the ritz") you can work just about any deception to your own advantage. I should say sermo not lingo. Classical Latin was in fact the spoken language of the good families of Rome and many equestrian families rose into it by speaking it. You could be a freedman (the second-to-lowest) but if you could talk to your betters in their register you could rise into their ranks (almost). Ditto if you were an educated slave. Now, the good old aristocracy of Romans were driven out of Rome and slaughtered as refugees on the road by foreigners who were sick of them and Rome stood vacant and ruined while the Gothic king rode around looking at the sights. At last when the Goths decided Rome should be populated after all some were allowed back but Rome and its language clearly had fallen. The Goths ran things around there. No need to get snooty. Then and only then might we speak of Latin as a literary language, a language learned and written but not spoken. Ciao. Almost done with this article.Dave (talk) 16:01, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Extant Novels

The article currently lists the Satyricon as one of two extant latin novels, but I'm fairly certain that only a small part of it has survived. I think a note should be added about this. Hokiejp (talk) 18:24, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Check under Satyricon where the details go.Dave (talk) 11:13, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

question

Classical Latin is the product of the reconstruction of early Latin in the prototype of Attic Greek.

I'm having difficulties understanding this particular sentence. What exactly does it mean, was the Latin grammar changed so as to be more similar to greek or something. I think this could be exampned and better explained. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.212.188.61 (talk) 00:29, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

I think it is a misleading formulation and not really plausible. Such a great effort to reconstruct and reform a language into Attic Greek direction must have made imprints into the history of mankind. I believe the intro is misinformed and written by one who had a weak grasp of the topic. Classical Latin was probably a real language spoken in the later Republican times, before the major conquests and mass import of slaves. It was still spoken in the Empire times by the middle and upper class, while the slaves, any ordinary soldier spoke Vulgar Latin, and also the slave owners when speaking to them. Classical Latin was partially influenced by inscriptions in older Latin from inscriptions, f.ex. Quintilian speaks about older pronunciation. Classical Latin was the administrative language of the Roman Empire, and as such formalized and regulated, but it was not a constructed language. ... said: Rursus (mb_ork³) 17:15, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Must criticise myself for "misinformed" and "written by one"...[etc]! I take that back. It was written by a best-wishing editor who didn't quite grasp the topic. Pardon for being rude! ... said: Rursus (mb_ork³) 18:10, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Someone must put the article out there and it cannot always be the most qualified person to do so. Other people then alter it to improve it. In behavioral psychology this is termed "shaping." While we aren't a bunch of canines nevetheless as applied to trial and error the concept more or less fits. So, the competancy/incompetancy aspects should be minimized. No one can know everything and we can't sit around waiting for the most qualified to do it. Therefore I say thanks to the original editor and to you also for the correct attitude. There are some very rude incidents on Wikipedia and we do need to get over that. Can't a man be wrong with honor? In Academia, which is the model, people are ready to destroy each other over the pittance of their paltry fellowships and salaries. None of that is relevant here; it is all volunteer. Speaking of volunteering I'm going to be editing this article too as part of the Latin series. See you around.Dave (talk) 14:35, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Removed part of intro

What is now called "Classical Latin" was, in fact, a highly stylized and polished written literary language selectively constructed from early Latin, of which far fewer works remain. Classical Latin is the product of the reconstruction of early Latin in the prototype of Attic Greek. Classical Latin differs from the earliest Latin literature, such as that of Cato the Elder, Plautus, and to some extent Lucretius, in a number of ways. It diverged from Old Latin in that the early -om and (nominative singular) -os endings of the 2nd declension shifted into -um and -us ones, and some semantic shifts also occurred in the lexicon (e.g., forte meant not only "surprisingly" but also "hard").

This can't be fixed, really - there are no refs on it because it is wrong and further represents editorial personal opinion. Was it highly stylized? I don't think so. Is good English highly stylized? The term does not have any meaning or application in this context. Poetry of course is always stylized, that's the definition of poetry. The prose is spontaneous enough. Oratory uses the devices of oratory - is that stylization? The whole thing follows grammatical rules, more or less. Is that stylization? I say no. If you look at Corinthian pottery you see borders of floral motifs, etc. That is stylization. Polished? OK it tended to be polished, but not always. Was it a literary language? What do you mean by that? People spoke it, you know, as well as wrote in it. No one speaks it now but the literature survives. Is that a literary language? What do you mean selectively constructed? By whom and from what and on what basis? Don't blame it on Old Latin. The latter was continuous with and evolved into classical Latin, no one went around picking out phrases from Old Latin, and saying, aha, we need this for our new classical Latin. The prototype of Attic Greek? What? You make it sound as though a committee sat down to devise a new language and patterned it after Attic Greek. There was no such committee and no such pattern and no such new language. What you probabaly meant to say is contributors to classical Latin writings were influenced by Greek education and writings but that is not at all what you did say. And anyway just what prototype would Attic Greek be? What on earth do you mean there? This is clearly original thinking, but don't take it as a compliment. You throw out a couple of names, you mention a couple of differences. Don't bother. Let's get the intro straight.Dave (talk) 00:03, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Judgementalism on silver latin

The removed unreferenced paragraph below doesn't cut it as encyclopedic - sorry. First, who cares whether you think anything is fair? Second, there was no issue that I know of - maybe you got into a classroom discussion in basketweaving 4. What contemporary historians would those be, or did you make them up? And for the rest of it, if anyone said anything like that you didn't make it comprehensible. What does that mean? I learned my English on my mother's knee and studied it in New England's schools and I cannot begin to make this passage out. Sorry to be so emphatic but these are serious articles and I don't think you are treating them as such. They will be as we treat them. Spend a little more time on your very next article. I wager you will start to grow. For the post-Augustan, anything at all after Augustus, even what you did yesterday, is post-Augustan; I mean, the term has no standard definition but its meaning depends on context.Dave (talk) 13:59, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Literature from the Silver Age has traditionally, perhaps unfairly, been considered inferior to that of the Golden Age, although contemporary historians have voiced legitimate criticisms concerning perhaps a too great a reliance on trying to emulate the Golden Age and a 'messy' style of teaching rhetoric as possible causes for this alleged decline in quality. Silver Age Latinity is sometimes called "Post-Augustan".

Golden age prose

Well the write-up below is very interesting and I would say you write interestingly. We can't use it, however. There is not a single reference on it and the whole thing is opinion. You are very opinionated. Although some of it is basic facts it is also full of little questionables slipped in there like pickles in a hamburger. Not only that but much of it is irrelevant; we shouldn't be telling them 35 of Livy's books have been preserved; that level of detail goes in Livy (as a matter of fact I wrote it in there.) We can't give this level of detail if we are going to enumerate authors; there are dozens of them and we haven't even started. That's what Teuffel and Cruttwell did. Their books are hundreds of pages long. So, we can't take that approach. Hmn. That material about Vetruvius looks as though we were asked to find places - any places - to put links to Vetruvius. In this article we don't care at all about the machines of Vetruvius, although we might be interested in his style if we had room. Here are the removed passages:Dave (talk) 03:24, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

In prose, Golden Age Latin is exemplified by Julius Caesar, whose Commentaries on the Gallic War display a laconic, precise, military style; and by Marcus Tullius Cicero, a practicing lawyer and politician, whose judicial arguments and political speeches, most notably the Catiline Orations, were considered for centuries to be the best models for Latin prose. Cicero also wrote many letters which have survived, and a few philosophical tracts in which he gives his version of Stoicism.

Historiography was an important genre of classical Latin prose; it includes Sallust, who wrote of the Conspiracy of Catiline and the War Against Jugurtha, his only works that have been preserved complete. Another historian, Livy, wrote the Ab Urbe Condita, a history of Rome "from the Founding of the City." Though originally composed of 142 books, only 35 books of this history have been preserved.

The foremost technical work which survives is the De Architectura of Vitruvius, a compilation of building construction methods, design and layout of all public and domestic buildings as well as descriptions of the machines which aided construction. He also gives a detailed description of many other machines, such as the ballista used in war, surveying instruments, water mills and dewatering devices such as the reverse overshot water-wheel.

Poetry write-up

I removed this write-up on the poetry in favor of a new Augustan section because it is unreferenced and like the previous removed is not badly written but contains generalizations that are wrong or questionable. The editor takes a hand at imitating the passionate write-ups of the handbooks in Latin Literature and I say, bravo to you. Go on with it, but not here. Here it represents original research. You've drawn your own conclusions and to a classicist they strike the eye. Erotic? Playful? Abusive? Not encyclopedic conclusions. I didn't even hear any of that when I took the course. Your opinion alone, obviously, which if you published in a personal essay would be fine. Then we could say, "so-and-so thinks Catullus was erotic and abusive" and some Wikipedia editor could reference your opinion. Who says Lucretius was the earliest poet of the Golden Age? Would not such a statement be the domain of Teuffel, who never makes such arbitrary statements? As for the heavy hand of the Greek meter, that sounds more like what Teuffel and Cruttwell said of early Latin. Why heavy? You sound as though you think the heavy hand of the Greeks weighed like an Alp upon the mind of the Romans. In fact the Roman households eagerly tried to buy any literate Greek slave for the educational benefit of their knowledge. Why would the Greek influence be heavy? Why not light and tripping; why not have it dance through Roman literature? What is this about Christian hymnody? I'm going into this detail so you can see what the problem with it is. Encyclopedias are informational but this passage tells us nothing at all but your opinions which you put in words I suppose you think are very fine. Keep trying, no pain no gain. Nothing ventured, nothing gained, etc. Great successes are often preceded by great failures, etc. Look at Wikipedia.Dave (talk) 11:24, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

The earliest poet of the Golden Age is considered to be Lucretius, who wrote a long philosophical poem expounding Epicureanism, On the Nature of Things.

Catullus wrote at a slightly later date. He pioneered the naturalization of Greek lyric verse forms in Latin. The poetry of Catullus was personal, sometimes erotic, sometimes playful, and frequently abusive. He wrote exclusively in Greek metres. The heavy hand of Greek prosody would continue to have a pronounced influence on the style and syntax of Latin poetry until the rise of Christianity necessitated a different sort of hymnody.

The Hellenizing tendencies of Golden Age Latin reached their apex in Virgil, whose Aeneid was an epic poem after the manner of Homer. Similar tendencies are noted in Horace, whose odes and satires were after the manner of the Greek anthology, and who used almost all of the fixed forms of Greek prosody in Latin. Ovid likewise wrote long and learned poems on mythological subjects, as well as such semi-satirical pieces as the Art of Love (Ars Amatoria). Tibullus and Propertius also wrote poems that were modelled after Greek antecedents.

Future possible spin-offs

This article is getting longer - I suggest a possible way to go - new articles, "List of Latin Golden Age authors", "List of Latin Silver Age authors". These lists would include everyone known to have been literary in those times, not only the ones who left something behind, but the ones whose works are not extant at all. I suppose it depends on your interest.Dave (talk) 01:00, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Previous write-up on stylistic shifts

I removed the text below as unsupported. It passed the Internet test (5 consecutive words) of not being plagiarism and yet it failed the Internet test as being content anyone of note has generated. No one else seems to think this way. What srikes my attention is that it is neither in accordance with Teuffel, who initiated the concept of Silver Age of Latin out of previous ideas and concepts, nor does it fit anyone else's view that I know of (I don't, however, know everything). It does use the patois of English literature students, which is not in use among Latinists. All those apparently passionate epithets are actually stock phrases in English literary reviews, without which you just aren't "in" with the literary crowd. Too bad their crowd is not our crowd; this is Latin, not English. Factually it is much oversimple (in addition to not using standard concepts) but more than that its fundamental tenets are all debatable. Radical experimentation? Off with their heads. The charge is treason (not following the good old Roman customs), the verdict is guilty, and the emperor gives you 24 hours to take care of this lttle matter yourself before the Praetorian guards show up with very sharp swords. In summary, we are not warranted by references from original research, the information is questionable, and there is too much Sturm und Drang to be encyclopedic in this day and age. You missed the charge of plagiarism. On with the show. I'll be replacing this with something more conservatiive, simple and low-key.Dave (talk) 10:43, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Silver Age Latin itself may be subdivided further into two periods: a period of radical experimentation in the latter half of the first century AD, and a renewed Neoclassicism in the second century AD.

Plaster bust of Nero, Pushkin Museum, Moscow.

Under the reigns of Nero and Domitian, poets like Seneca the Younger, Lucan and Statius pioneered a unique style that has alternately delighted, disgusted and puzzled later critics. Stylistically, Neronian and Flavian literature shows the ascendance of rhetorical training in late Roman education. The style of these authors is unfailingly declamatory — at times eloquent, at times bombastic. Exotic vocabulary and sharply-polished aphorisms glimmer everywhere, though at times to the detriment of thematic coherence.

Thematically, late 1st century literature is marked by an interest in terrible violence, witchcraft, and extreme passions. Under the influence of Stoicism, the gods recede in importance, while the physiology of emotions looms large. Passions like anger, pride and envy are painted in almost anatomical terms of inflammation, swelling, upsurges of blood or bile. For Statius, even the inspiration of the Muses is described as a calor ("fever").

While their extremity in both theme and diction has earned these poets the disapproval of Neoclassicists both ancient and modern, they were favorites during the European Renaissance, and underwent a revival of interest among the English Modernist poets.

By the end of the 1st century, a reaction against this form of poetry had set in, and Tacitus, Quintilian and Juvenal all testify to the resurgence of a more restrained, classicizing style under Trajan and the Antonine emperors.

Problems with intro

Claiming to describe something "in simplest terms" and then following it up with a statement using both long words and technical vocabulary is a bit odd. And can the statement beginning "Any unabridged Latin dictionary ..." ever be verified? Imiradu (talk) 09:28, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Classical Latin was spoken and written by the educated, and its use was not confined to the social elite. If one was fortunate enough to get such an education, that's the kind of Latin one used, regardless of one's class membership. Many slaves (hardly a privileged social class) were better educated than their masters, and doubtless wrote pretty good Latin. The intro should be changed to more closely represent reality, not some contrived neo-socialist viewpoint that falls far short of describing the actual conditions of the time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Speslibertatis (talk • contribs) 05:35, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

I completely agree with this. It implies that the ancient elite used some equivalent of the term "Classical Latin," when they only referred to Latinitas, meaning the degree to which one produced correct and stylistically fluent Latin. In fact the term "Classical Latin" has been used historically by modern scholars. Cynwolfe (talk) 12:39, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

IESVS NAZARENVS REX IVDAEORVM was written on the Placard on the Cross

Perhaps history's greatest example of Classical Latin was written on Friday April 7, 30 AD by Pontius Pilate on the placard placed above the Cross: IESVS NAZARENVS REX IVDAEORVM translated into Jesus the Nazarean the King of the Judeans. 2601:589:4700:2390:C530:8663:9D18:9179 (talk) 20:21, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• Publius Vergilius Maro1.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 13:36, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

"IESVS NAZARENVS REX IVDAEORVM" is possibly the most famous example of Classical Latin

"IESVS NAZARENVS REX IVDAEORVM" was the titulus written on the placard above Jesus' head on the Cross and is possibly the most famous example of Classical Latin. 73.85.205.79 (talk) 17:54, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

It's not "possibly the most famous example of Classical Latin" - it is. 99.169.79.198 (talk) 16:42, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

What is the topic of this article?

Teuffel so dominates this article that it seems to be an article about him, rather than about the subject. He may have been the god of latin literary criticism for all I know, but I don't expect an article on a language to lean this heavily on one man's views.