Post by Bitmap on Mar 18, 2023 13:47:49 GMT
This is from 19 September 2011. I don't think I would still hold up any semantic distinction between cinaedus and pathicus nowadays, but overall, the analysis still makes sense to me. Apart from that, I still think there has never been an appropriate translation of that poem into German and English, at least not as far as I can see; but maybe others know one.
I'll change some of the white text colour (which was still visible when the background used to be blue) to blue and center the stuff that I complained couldn't be centered back then.
Catullus should not be mistaken as a perverted poet who wrote obscene verses at random (i.e. with no other purpose than being insulting). This is particularly true for XVI.
I have no good overview over the literature on Catullus, but it seems like this particular poem has not received much attention so far. I haven't seen any really good translation of it, either, yet. Most translators try to be too formal or cautious and end up writing things like "I shall have anal sex with you" or "I will sodomize you" when it should really be "I'll fvck you in the arse/ass" or maybe even "I'll fvck you in the arse/ass like little boys" if you really want to render the meaning of p(a)edicare. I like the second part of the translation on rainbeam's website where it says "I will face-fvck you" - that looks like a proper rendering.
Despite the obscenity, it should be noted that those lines are designed with a lot of meticulous stylistic consideration, so there's probably more to them than mere insults:
There is a chiasm between persons and actions:
As you can see, the chiasmi occur within the verses themselves (red vs white) as well as between the verses (inverted order of red and white)
(it would be more obvious if I could centre the text)
Unfortunately, most dictionaries I have are not really precise as to the meaning of pathicus and cinaedus. If the translation on rainbeam's website is right (and I think it is because I've also read it like that in a German translation), then pathicus is along the lines of a cocksucker and cinaedus is along the lines of a (male [underage?!]) sex slave (for males). If that's true, you also have a chiasm in the semantics:
There is even more tension between the two lines due to their antithetic composition: verse 1 contains active performance (pedicare/irrumare: arse/ass- and face-fvcking), verse 2 expresses passive indulgence (pathicus from paschein lit. 'to remain passive')
The second verse also has a certain symmetry in its syllable count:
Au-re-li pa-thic / et / ci-nae-de Fu-ri
5 - 1 - 5
a similar symmetry is known from the poem that this one refers to, even though it is much more refined there:
so-les / oc-ci-der / et / re-di-re / pos-sunt
2 - 3 - 1 - 3 - 2 (loosely also 5-1-5)
Such an accumulation of stylistic devices does not happen at random and it usually points to a passage that is of special importance.
In this poem, the obscenity is exaggerated for a reason. The core idea can be found in lines 5-6:
Nam castum esse decet pium poetam
ipsum, versiculos nihil necesse est
with the translation of rainbeams:
For it's right for the pious poet to be chaste
Himself, but it's not at all necessary for his verses to be so.
(I changed "devoted" to "pious", though, and "not" to "not at all")
Pietas and castitas are qualities of a (good) poet - however, he should be free to do away with them in his verses.
This poem draws a clear distinction between the actual poet and the content of his poetry. The exaggerated extent of obscene and abusive language is simply there to underline this distinction and to make it clearly visible for everyone - the personal insults are just a side-effect (just like in my forum posts). in a way, this may be one of the first instances where the idea of a lyrical I occurs in Roman poetry (which is usually only attributed to Tibullus, I think)
I'll change some of the white text colour (which was still visible when the background used to be blue) to blue and center the stuff that I complained couldn't be centered back then.
Bitmap said:
Catullus should not be mistaken as a perverted poet who wrote obscene verses at random (i.e. with no other purpose than being insulting). This is particularly true for XVI.
I have no good overview over the literature on Catullus, but it seems like this particular poem has not received much attention so far. I haven't seen any really good translation of it, either, yet. Most translators try to be too formal or cautious and end up writing things like "I shall have anal sex with you" or "I will sodomize you" when it should really be "I'll fvck you in the arse/ass" or maybe even "I'll fvck you in the arse/ass like little boys" if you really want to render the meaning of p(a)edicare. I like the second part of the translation on rainbeam's website where it says "I will face-fvck you" - that looks like a proper rendering.
Despite the obscenity, it should be noted that those lines are designed with a lot of meticulous stylistic consideration, so there's probably more to them than mere insults:
There is a chiasm between persons and actions:
verb (pedicabo) - person (ego) - X - person (vos) - verb (irrumabo)
X
person (Aurelius) - noun implying an action (pathicus) - X - noun implying an action (cinaedus) - person (Furius)
X
person (Aurelius) - noun implying an action (pathicus) - X - noun implying an action (cinaedus) - person (Furius)
As you can see, the chiasmi occur within the verses themselves (red vs white) as well as between the verses (inverted order of red and white)
(it would be more obvious if I could centre the text)
Unfortunately, most dictionaries I have are not really precise as to the meaning of pathicus and cinaedus. If the translation on rainbeam's website is right (and I think it is because I've also read it like that in a German translation), then pathicus is along the lines of a cocksucker and cinaedus is along the lines of a (male [underage?!]) sex slave (for males). If that's true, you also have a chiasm in the semantics:
arse-/assfvcking (pedicare) - cocksucking (irrumare)
X
cocksucking (pathicus) - arse-/assfvcking (cinaedus)
X
cocksucking (pathicus) - arse-/assfvcking (cinaedus)
There is even more tension between the two lines due to their antithetic composition: verse 1 contains active performance (pedicare/irrumare: arse/ass- and face-fvcking), verse 2 expresses passive indulgence (pathicus from paschein lit. 'to remain passive')
The second verse also has a certain symmetry in its syllable count:
Au-re-li pa-thic / et / ci-nae-de Fu-ri
5 - 1 - 5
a similar symmetry is known from the poem that this one refers to, even though it is much more refined there:
so-les / oc-ci-der / et / re-di-re / pos-sunt
2 - 3 - 1 - 3 - 2 (loosely also 5-1-5)
Such an accumulation of stylistic devices does not happen at random and it usually points to a passage that is of special importance.
In this poem, the obscenity is exaggerated for a reason. The core idea can be found in lines 5-6:
Nam castum esse decet pium poetam
ipsum, versiculos nihil necesse est
with the translation of rainbeams:
For it's right for the pious poet to be chaste
Himself, but it's not at all necessary for his verses to be so.
(I changed "devoted" to "pious", though, and "not" to "not at all")
Pietas and castitas are qualities of a (good) poet - however, he should be free to do away with them in his verses.
This poem draws a clear distinction between the actual poet and the content of his poetry. The exaggerated extent of obscene and abusive language is simply there to underline this distinction and to make it clearly visible for everyone - the personal insults are just a side-effect (just like in my forum posts). in a way, this may be one of the first instances where the idea of a lyrical I occurs in Roman poetry (which is usually only attributed to Tibullus, I think)