Jump to content

Talk:Martial: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
RedRabbit1983 (talk | contribs)
Krastain (talk | contribs)
No edit summary
Line 24: Line 24:


I didn't edit this right away because I was a little unsure, but if my memory serves me, this isn't entirely true. I thought that the taditions of same-sex relations and "apprenticeship" were attributed to the Greeks, and that the Romans actually frowned upon it. Then again, I wasn't so sure, so someone who knows should make the final call as to whether that line should be altered a little.[[User:TheTomato|TheTomato]] 02:03, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
I didn't edit this right away because I was a little unsure, but if my memory serves me, this isn't entirely true. I thought that the taditions of same-sex relations and "apprenticeship" were attributed to the Greeks, and that the Romans actually frowned upon it. Then again, I wasn't so sure, so someone who knows should make the final call as to whether that line should be altered a little.[[User:TheTomato|TheTomato]] 02:03, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
:Romans didn't actually frown upon homosexuality, allthough it was indeed more normal with the Greeks (and a few centuries earlier?). [[User:Krastain|Krastain]] 10:20, 6 August 2007 (UTC)


:You can't generalize anything, least of all the Romans' view of erotic experience. For pederastic epigrams, look at I31, I88, III65, IV7, IV42, V48, VI34, VII15, VII50, VIII46, VIII55, etc, etc. [[User:Haiduc|Haiduc]] 03:52, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
:You can't generalize anything, least of all the Romans' view of erotic experience. For pederastic epigrams, look at I31, I88, III65, IV7, IV42, V48, VI34, VII15, VII50, VIII46, VIII55, etc, etc. [[User:Haiduc|Haiduc]] 03:52, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Revision as of 10:20, 6 August 2007

Template:1911 talk

WikiProject iconBiography B‑class
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.
BThis article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

"One of his epigrams was about a one-eyed woman." -- And??

Here we go: http://www.tylatin.org/keys/Key25.html

-- 'Quintus loves Thais.’ 'Which Thais?' 'One-eyed Thais.' Thais doesn't have one eye, he [doesn't have] two. (Martial, III, 8) (ii) You refuse no-one, Thais, but if you are not ashamed of that, you should at least be ashamed of this, Thais, [viz] to refuse nothing. -- I think I can take the line out of the article.

What about some structure ~~?

This badly needs some cleanup and restructuring. Since I like Martial, I'd do it, but I don't really know his history, etc. that well. Maybe I'll give it a try anyway. --GenkiNeko 13:51, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I agree. The stuff about Martial's "faults" (particularly "grossness") is totally POV and should go. I've made a start at re-working the article into clearer English, and moved his work, the most important thing about him, up to the top, but there's a lot of forest to hack through. --Nicknack009 17:59, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

There needs to be introductory information (structure as mentioned above).

His sexual outlook is consistent with that of his place and time, thus same-sex love is a recurrent topic. Many of his epigrams are of a pederastic nature, which coupled with his often misogynistic tone has given more than one reader the impression that he looked with favor upon relations with boys.

I didn't edit this right away because I was a little unsure, but if my memory serves me, this isn't entirely true. I thought that the taditions of same-sex relations and "apprenticeship" were attributed to the Greeks, and that the Romans actually frowned upon it. Then again, I wasn't so sure, so someone who knows should make the final call as to whether that line should be altered a little.TheTomato 02:03, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Romans didn't actually frown upon homosexuality, allthough it was indeed more normal with the Greeks (and a few centuries earlier?). Krastain 10:20, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You can't generalize anything, least of all the Romans' view of erotic experience. For pederastic epigrams, look at I31, I88, III65, IV7, IV42, V48, VI34, VII15, VII50, VIII46, VIII55, etc, etc. Haiduc 03:52, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Catullus

In this article, Martial is credited as the creator of the modern epigram and is also called the first insult comic, because of the witty attacks common in his works. Despite this, I, and many classicists with whom I study, would argue that both of those distinctions belong to Catullus (who lived at the time of Cicero), as he also wrote epigrams, similar in style, length, and content, and as he wrote many poems which lampooned his friends, acquaintences, and personal enemies in any number of witty and/or crude ways. Thoughts?

Yeah, I agree. To be fair, Martial sucks, and isn't very funny. "You have the face of someone swimming underwater." What the fuck? Catullus, on the other hand, is hella witty. Original insult comic my ass.

You obviously haven't read enough Martial if you don't think he is funny, or else you have been too fixated on finding "hella witty". RedRabbit1983 15:38, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

General

This page is really quite out of date...no reference to the fact it's satire and the idea of persona, no reference to Martial's HUGE debt to Greek Skoptic Epigram (cf. J. P. Sullivan (1991) Martial: The Unexpected Classic, G. Nisbet (2003) Greek Epigram in the Roman Empire: Martial's Forgotten Rivals, also important is the work of D. Fowler), and really given the huge amount of scholarship, quite basic.

130.209.6.40 10:09, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Brittanica 1911

Can we tone down the language of the original Brittanica article? The 1911 version of Brittanica is often dreary to read. RedRabbit1983 15:36, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]