Talk:CIL 4.5296

Feedback from New Page Review process

I left the following feedback for the creator/future reviewers while reviewing this article: An interesting article..

Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:38, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

English translation

I have reverted much of the recent edit to the translation of the poem, and because the explanation was too unwieldy to fit within an edit summary, I wanted to go through my changes here.

"Oh, how I wish I could havehold your little arms wrapped around my neck"

I don't mind this too much, but I don't see it as an improvement. I'm not sure that "hold" makes much sense here. If you want to (with Courtney) construe the meaning as "I wish I could hold my arms around your neck" then it works as a verb, or (like Milnor) read "grasp with my neck your little arms as they entwine it" then the meaning is convoluted by apparent. But "hold your arms around my neck"? "Have" is a perfectly acceptable translation of "tenere" here, I think. (And I don't see where in the Latin the "how" as an intensifier comes from).

"Now go then, little doll, trust your happiness to the winds, my darling.

Why "then" rather than "now"? "Now" is surely the natural translation of "nunc". As for "little doll" vs. "my darling", "my darling" is a much more natural diminutive in English, and "pupa" can mean "girl" as well as "doll". If you want to keep the double meaning, Courtney says "poppet", which is at least a natural English diminutive.

"Believe me, the nature of men (i.e. males) is fickle."

This clarification is surely not necessary. Yes, "men" in English can mean "humans", but in context I believe that the correct reading is more natural (and if any uncertainty remains, the third paragraph of the section on Interpretation makes all clear).

"Often when I would lay awake, lost, in the middle of the night,"

Again, why this change in meaning?

"oppresses" -> "holds to the ground": why? surely oppresses makes more sense here? "You think on these things with me" -> "Thinking to myself": I know why this change, but is it a more accepted reading?

Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 18:52, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

@Caeciliusinhorto:: I'm gatekeeping this reply from those who're incapable of reading and replying in Latin for the same reason I'd be gatekeeping a discussion between me and another Russian speaker on the correctness of a translation from Russian from someone who's incapable of reading or replying in Russian. It'd be a teacher-student interaction instead of a proper discussion. If you find yourself in the position of the student in this instance, perhaps you will concede that my interpretation is correct if only because I find myself in the position of the teacher. Otherwise, I'll be happy to receive your reply in Latin and thus exclude another language as a source of possible misunderstanding and not to have to argue about the meaning of English words in addition to Latin ones.

Prīmō, dīcam tōtam rēm tam perperam Anglicē fuisse redditam, ut sī cui hocc nōn manufestum esse, Latīnē eum manufestē nescīre. Ut eōs quī Latīnē nesciant ā disputātiōne arceam, omnia Latīnē scrībō.

• "Oh, how I wish I could" etc: manū comprimere ac retinēre est praecipua ac prīmōrdia significātiō verbī q.e. tenēre (vidē OLD), itaque nōn mihimet necesse est explicāre, cūr hanc significātiōnem mālim, sed cui displicet. Quippe, cum in istā quam tū suādēs, sīc - "passīvō mōre habēre", "bracchia adesse" - verbum tenēre nōn invenītur, sed semper āctīvō, quasi "retinēre, nōn relinquere". "hold your arms around my neck" nōn intelligis quod male lēgistī: scrīpsī "[I could hold [your little arms wrapped around my neck]]". Nempe tua bracchiola, quae collō meō complexa sunt, manibus tenēre cupiō. Adhibē Gūgulum ut imāginēs amantum amplexantium inveniās, sī rem nōn sānē mente fingis - puellae praesertim bracchia juvenum sīc tenēre solent jūxtā umerōs. "how" = uti; uti licet = "how it's allowed", utinam liceat "how I wish it were allowed". Haec addidī quod animī mōtum satius exprimeret: quid quod nōn modo velim "I wish" Latīnē positumst!
• "Go now" dīcimus illīs quī nōndum abiērunt, praesertim sī eōs abīre nōlīmus, sed tamen cohortāmur: "Go now, go, before you see me cry". Quasi ipsī auctōrēs sīmus, nē homō quis abeat sē nostrum animum suō abitū cruciāre sentiat. Contrā, istucc ī nunc dictum amantī, quī nunciam auctōrem relīquit, atque hōc modo auctor sē nōn cūrāre simulat: sī nōlīs mēcum manēre ac beāta esse, abeās licet, nōn tē retineō. Hōc locō Anglicē nōn nisi "Go then, do what you will, I won't hold you" dīcimus, cum "Go now, do what you will" ad eum quī jam abiit dīcī nōn potest.
• "My darling" exprimit vērum amōrem, ut "dēliciae meae". Pūpula contrā exprimit pulchritūdem cum levitāte animī conjūnctam, quasi "you pretty little thing". Necnōn ipsum "doll" prō blandīmentō ūsurpārī potest, sī Victiōnāriō fidēs adhibenda. "Poppet" - sīcubi perinde puellās allocuntur, ego prōrsus īgnōrō.
• "Man-male": Est profectō dēlicandum. Nōn agimus dē "lēctiōnē rēctā", quippe cum lēctiō nōn disputātur. Quid istīc dīcās nōn intelligō - magis nātūrālem? Nihil fēcī nisi annotātiōnem adjēcī. Quid ad nātūram?? Nihil est ūsitātius quam "men" prō hominibus in sermōne Anglicō etiam recentissumō reperīre, atque in versiōnibus litterārum Latīnārum vel maxumē. Sī quid Latīnē ūnō tantum pactō legī potest, Anglicē vērō ambigitur minusque ambiguē vertī nōn potest, id certē annotātiōnem requīrit. Sincērō animō haec negārī nōn possunt, itaque parum sincērō mihi loquī vidēris.
• "Often when I lay awake...thinking to myself": I) verbō temporālī carēret; II) dē tempore praesentī dīcitur. Nōs vērō "saepe cum vigilārem" habēmus, ubi tempus praeteritum imperfectum mediam rem recolligit et lēctōrī ante oculōs pōnit, quae quidem rēs saepenumerō accidit. Hōc locō vel maxumē "Often I would lie..." Anglicē dīcimus.
• "Fortune oppresses": Fortūna premit nōbīs narrat nōn quod Fortūna facere solet, sed quod nunc ipsum ("modo", "subito", "postquam praecipitōs prōjēcit") faciat. Dīcās forsitan "Is oppressing", sed haec vōx Anglica nūllum sensum reālem habet, cum nostrum carmen per figūrās quidem, sed dē factīs propriē reālibus loquitur, itaque cuique verbō duplicem significātiōnem tribuit et graphicē rem dēpingit. Fortūna hominem manibus tollit (per figūram: dītat, omnibus bonīs ōrnat), manibusque prōjicit (per figūram: dēserit, abjicit), nunc ille miser per āera dē sublīmīs at terram cadit et postrēmō Fortūnae sevērā manū premitur nē surgere possit (per figūram: malā sorte vexārī pergit). "She raised him high, then threw him down and is now... oppressing him?". Nōn quadrat; sī vērō causam doctam quaeris, ideō dīxerim, quia "tollere/raise", "prōjicere/hurl" et "premere" verba telica aut, ut ita dīcam, pūnctuālia sunt, "oppress" vērō ātelicum: "She pressed him to the ground in an instant" valet, dum "Fortune oppressed him in an instant" minumē valet. Postrēmō, "oppress someone" nōn est locūtiō figūrāta nec poēsī propria, neque ea duplicem significātiōnem habet, ergō hōc locō nōn convenit.
• "You think on these things with me" -> "Thinking to myself": Audācius etiam quam anteā dīxerim: ut illud istīc legās, oportet Latīnē nōn intelligās et carmen cūnctum mente comprehendere prōrsus nequeās - aliōquīn rēs lūce clārius. Etiamsī Latīnē nōn intelligās, sed tantum praecepta grammatica, modo animadvertās oportet tempora verbōrum in locūtiōne "cum vigilārem, tū mēcum meditās" nēquāquam constāre! Quod ista lēctiō omnīnō extet, hocc dēnique bellē dēclārat lūgubrem statum doctrīnae in acadēmiā classicā. Homō quī Latīnē sciat, istīus ineptae lēctiōnis numquam auctor esset, neque ego necesse esse dūcō dē eā disputāre.
• Hocc etiam: rogo ut ēmendātiōnes aliēnās cum proxumum abrogāris, sīve in pāginā disputātiōnis sīs allocūtus, eum inde certiōrem faciās. Brutal Russian (talk) 19:54, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:CIL 4.5296/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Eritha (talk · contribs) 08:56, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Hello, I plan to review this GAN but may not be able to get to it until later in the month Eritha (talk) 08:56, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

No worries - I will look forward to seeing your comments when you are ready :) Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 17:35, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Great, thanks for your patience, I'm aiming to do the review at my project editing session on the 23rd Eritha (talk) 08:01, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   well-written, clearly laid out. One suggestion: in note a, provide translation of the CLE since this is not linked.

   Glossed this as "Latin Verse Inscriptions" Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 18:50, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):

   References are missing for the statement in the lede that this "may be the only known love poem from one woman to another from the Latin world" (it being a love poem between women is supported, but not it being the only known Latin one), and for the transcription and translation of the poem; otherwise the page is well-referenced to reliable academic sources (one minor correction from spot-checking citations: ref. 31: p.346 not 345). Earwig check: only similarities are with site quoting the poem or this page.

   Added a mention in the body with a cite for the "only known love poem between women" claim. Added a cite for the text of the poem. The translation is my own – its accuracy can be checked by comparison to e.g. Kristina Milnor's (pp.197-198) or Luca Graverini's (2012, p.1). My feeling is that this doesn't require a citation to prove that the translation is accurate, for the same reason that e.g. one can translate an article from another language's wiki into English without needing to provide a source to prove that it means what one says it means. Thanks for spotting the error in the Copley page citation – I have the correct page in my notes, so I think this was simply a typo when writing the article! Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 18:50, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   Good level of detail of subject and interpretations

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   Article covers a range of different interpretations of the subject

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): . b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   The first 2 images are appropriately licensed, I am not sure about the third: whether the licence is valid will depend on Italian law relating to photographs of archaeological artefacts/sites taken by members of the public. However this image is not crucial to the article.

   Italy does have restrictions on the reproduction of cultural heritage assets (see Commons:COM:Italy for some details), but that's a non-copyright restriction (Commons guideline) and so I believe the use is permitted on Wikipedia (and at GA) – Mysteries of Isis is an example of a Featured Article with an image of a Pompeiian fresco in the lead. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 18:50, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

1. Overall: only a few small points to address before GA-ready! Thanks for your work on this good page @Caeciliusinhorto:

1. Pass/Fail:

@Eritha: thanks for your helpful comments! I have replied inline and hopefully fixed all of the issues you identified Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 18:50, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

great - approved! Eritha (talk) 19:16, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

removed from article proper

Graverini argues that the construction of the poem is not a so-called cento, but is an incomplete poem of its own based on various sources, on an intertextuality, and is not a uniform and delimited set of extracts, only thus he believes it occurred in the tenth verse, since it argues an intrusive hand and alien to the author of the poem. This would be so to him since it evidences that the theme of the poem is not necessarily lesbian, and that, as he has ascertained that a single 'lyrical subject' is discernible, in theme with the great intertextuality of the text, the first 2 lines of the text will indicate other contexts typical of the Roman tradition. Graverini then indicates a possible situation for the poem would be that of a family meeting between parents or close friendship; since in the Aeneid I. 256, a kiss (on the mouth) between relatives is not described as sexual, and since according to more sources it is of a social nature and as a token of affection; but he argues later for a possibility of a non-binary middle ground on affections and not a properly erotic one. (Graverini 2017, pp.119-126)

Some of this might be worth including in the article proper, but it's such broken English that it's of no use in this state, and it needs to be better integrated in the existing text of the article. When I have time I will see what can be done with it, unless someone else has access to Graverini 2017 and wants the challenge. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 20:09, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

Article title should be CIL IV 5296

I thought it was customary in the Corpus Inscriptionum Latinarum to use Roman numerals -- i.e. CIL IV 5296 and not CIL 4.5296. The numeral IV being the "Vol. IV: Inscriptiones parietariae Pompeianae, Herculanenses Stabianae" (1st edition, 1871). Should we not therefore move this to "CIL IV 5296"? Aszx5000 (talk) 21:25, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

There doesn't seem to be a particularly strongly adopted standard: Copley, Goold, and Graverini all use roman numerals; Milnor, Natoli et al., and Williams use arabic. I'm not sure the evidence that roman numerals are standard is compelling enough to be worth moving. If we had other articles on CIL inscriptions with roman numerals in their titles it might be worth standardising them all on one system, but we don't seem to. Feel free to move the article if you really feel strongly about it, but I wouldn't bother – it's fine where it is. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 17:28, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

Thanks Caeciliusinhorto. I was doing some work on Sator Square and kept coming across the roman numeral standard. Given what you say, it is not the only one, and therefore there is not need to rename this article. Thanks for replying. Aszx5000 (talk) 18:13, 9 June 2023 (UTC)