The Classics Society Mk II Watch

Aesc
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#701
Report 7 years ago
#701
(Original post by placenta medicae talpae)
Tbh, if you really want to capture what Catullus was saying, I'd stick with something like that.
That line has been described as, "One of the filthiest expressions ever written in Latin — or in any other language, for that matter."
Wikipedia has an alternative translation, the wonderfully smooth and romantic, "I will sodomize you and face-**** you."

Here is a list of Catullus poems with notional titles so you can scroll through and pick those which appeal to your feral side.
And underneath is a translation of the lot of them - should keep you occupied ferra bit
A quick search for the word 'whore' flags up poems 6, 10, 99 and 110, for example.


EDIT: Oh, and you're actually not doing your EPQ a week before the deadline!
You're part of a rare breed.
But it will definitely pay off.
Those in my sixth form fell into two camps: the early ones and the late ones - and the divide between the marks was pretty astonishing.
(I know this because my gakaerafjasodipfjpao of a school published everyone's mark on their stupid website, without even letting us know that that they'd put them there - or even what our own scores actually were!).
Our school has got us summer access to UCL library (which expires in September) so I either have to do the research now or pay for the books, and I've already had one classics splurge this summer (which a shorter one foreseeable!) I feel like I'm behind because I should have started going to the library at the end of July and I'll only be able to do one day next week and then hopefully the week after... It's really irritating, because I have said splurge to get through by personal statement deadlines and had hoped to try a bit more Greek and Latin, but instead I've got an EPQ which is a lot less fun than I thought!

Edit: I'm not putting an awful lot of thought inti the essay or the grade yet, I just want to have looked at a decent historical text that I can have opinions about if i get interviews. The other historical sources I'm looking at for fun finish a lot earlier (because they're contemporary - Herodotus, Plutarch, Suetonius, Caesar... Nothing really post-Flavian) and I don't know as much as I might about the history yet
0
reply
Aesc
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#702
Report 7 years ago
#702
(Original post by Xristina)
Out of curiosity, why Cambridge? Most people tend to go for oxford
Because I haven't got the languages at A-level, and I like the way the Cambridge course has a prelim and then (as far as I can tell) sticks you in with the normal people and teaches you the same course. Plus our head of sixth pushes people towards Cambridge anyway (bad track record with admissions tests at Oxford, although I think the language aptitude test for classics is very similar at both); Cambridge is closer, which my parents like (I don't really :p:); and when I went to Oxford for the classics open day I didn't really like the city (because I got lost, mostly). Primarily it's the course structure, the other factors just mean I'm more certain about my choice I do recognise that Oxford is better overall, but I think Cambridge is better for me.
0
reply
Aemiliana
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#703
Report 7 years ago
#703
I've always been told by lecturers to avoid trying to draw similarities between the Roman and British Empires because it's terribly old fashioned. In addition to Gibbon, try finding more recent journal articles etc (ask if you need help with this, as uni students have access to loads of articles )
0
reply
*Corinna*
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#704
Report 7 years ago
#704
(Original post by Aesc)
Because I haven't got the languages at A-level, and I like the way the Cambridge course has a prelim and then (as far as I can tell) sticks you in with the normal people and teaches you the same course. Plus our head of sixth pushes people towards Cambridge anyway (bad track record with admissions tests at Oxford, although I think the language aptitude test for classics is very similar at both); Cambridge is closer, which my parents like (I don't really :p:); and when I went to Oxford for the classics open day I didn't really like the city (because I got lost, mostly). Primarily it's the course structure, the other factors just mean I'm more certain about my choice I do recognise that Oxford is better overall, but I think Cambridge is better for me.
Doesn't oxford have courses for people who don't know the languages?
Fair enough! Good luck with your applications. If Cambridge funds my PhD I might see you there
What college do you want?
0
reply
The Lyceum
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#705
Report 7 years ago
#705
(Original post by Aemiliana)
I've always been told by lecturers to avoid trying to draw similarities between the Roman and British Empires because it's terribly old fashioned. In addition to Gibbon, try finding more recent journal articles etc (ask if you need help with this, as uni students have access to loads of articles )
That's because there really aren't that many similarities when you put away the tinted victorian school boy glasses and look at the evidence in context and critically. Plus, let's be honest, most Classicists are useless *******s.
0
reply
Aesc
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#706
Report 7 years ago
#706
(Original post by Aemiliana)
I've always been told by lecturers to avoid trying to draw similarities between the Roman and British Empires because it's terribly old fashioned. In addition to Gibbon, try finding more recent journal articles etc (ask if you need help with this, as uni students have access to loads of articles )
I'm not even seeing many similarities, it's irritating. My question (adjusted by my teacher, I think it's better than it was apart from the Gibbon focus :p:) is something like "when Gibbon wrote x how far was he holding up a mirror to his own society" so I don't have to go far from Gibbon in terms of the Roman history because it's more about what he thought. I like that I can argue about the massive differences, but I'm worried that it'll be a bit ridiculous if it isn't accepted as historical truth that he was making such a comparison!

And thanks for the poems, I'll stagger my reading of them so I have something to look forward to when it all gets a bit too much for me
0
reply
Aesc
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#707
Report 7 years ago
#707
(Original post by Xristina)
Doesn't oxford have courses for people who don't know the languages?
Fair enough! Good luck with your applications. If Cambridge funds my PhD I might see you there
What college do you want?
I'm actually not too keen on a completely different course, I like that Cambridge basically get you to A-level Latin in a year (in a small group, it's like ten places or something) and then you join the incoming three-year students (sure, they'll be a year younger, but I see it as like a gap-year to learn Latin but with all the benefits of a first year student at Cambridge!)
I'm torn between Churchill and King's. I thought I wanted King's, and they have a big Classics presence, but at the Churchill open day I could really see myself there. I've been reliably informed that Churchill are big on really high UMS, so I'll let my results decide for me which I apply to; and I think classicists get an interview at a second college anyway, so it's slightly less risky going for an oversubscribed one (I know, ignore the stats, but this is the justification I have to give to my teachers!)
Good luck with the funding then? When do you find out?
0
reply
*Corinna*
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#708
Report 7 years ago
#708
(Original post by Aesc)
I'm actually not too keen on a completely different course, I like that Cambridge basically get you to A-level Latin in a year (in a small group, it's like ten places or something) and then you join the incoming three-year students (sure, they'll be a year younger, but I see it as like a gap-year to learn Latin but with all the benefits of a first year student at Cambridge!)
I'm torn between Churchill and King's. I thought I wanted King's, and they have a big Classics presence, but at the Churchill open day I could really see myself there. I've been reliably informed that Churchill are big on really high UMS, so I'll let my results decide for me which I apply to; and I think classicists get an interview at a second college anyway, so it's slightly less risky going for an oversubscribed one (I know, ignore the stats, but this is the justification I have to give to my teachers!)
Good luck with the funding then? When do you find out?


I ll be doing my masters this year at Oxford. I will apply for a phd around January and by the end of march the scholarships will be announced. I can't fund three years on my own so I basically will go wherever I get funding. Hopefully Oxford will give me funding again so I ll be able to stay there. If not, cambridge would also be amazing but I also love UCL so I'm not that picky. Haha.
0
reply
faber niger
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#709
Report 7 years ago
#709
(Original post by The Lyceum)
That's because there really aren't that many similarities when you put away the tinted victorian school boy glasses and look at the evidence in context and critically. Plus, let's be honest, most Classicists are useless *******s.
Harsh words.

I don't think that the comparison is entirely redundant, since the British Empire was, of course, modelled in many ways on the Roman (hence the Victorian specs), ideologically as well as administratively. I mean, civil servants in India had to pass exams in Latin and Greek right up until the partition. (Although French civil servants still have to answer questions on literature, which Sarko tried to get rid of to some uproar.) One similarity at least was that the British supported local aristos and had a very sparse administrative structure which was just overlaid on top of the existing social structure -- and if anything went untoward, then obviously the military would come to restore order, a bit like how the Roman legions were used to quell disorder within the Empire. Of course, it's more interesting to see the ways in which the Brits distorted, adapted and idealised the classical models etc. though. But it was a very different situation, not least because Europe had become a balkanised group of strong nationalistic, competing states that relied on foreign resources to fuel their growth. But then I'm not much of a historian, so... :dontknow:
0
reply
riotgrrl
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#710
Report 7 years ago
#710
(Original post by Aesc)
I'm actually not too keen on a completely different course, I like that Cambridge basically get you to A-level Latin in a year (in a small group, it's like ten places or something) and then you join the incoming three-year students (sure, they'll be a year younger, but I see it as like a gap-year to learn Latin but with all the benefits of a first year student at Cambridge!)
I'm torn between Churchill and King's. I thought I wanted King's, and they have a big Classics presence, but at the Churchill open day I could really see myself there. I've been reliably informed that Churchill are big on really high UMS, so I'll let my results decide for me which I apply to; and I think classicists get an interview at a second college anyway, so it's slightly less risky going for an oversubscribed one (I know, ignore the stats, but this is the justification I have to give to my teachers!)
Good luck with the funding then? When do you find out?
As far as I'm aware, the Oxford course is only different for people without the language at a level as far as mods and after that you all pick from the same options. It's all a four year course though, so the post a-level people are there from the beginning.
0
reply
Aemiliana
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#711
Report 7 years ago
#711
(Original post by The Lyceum)
That's because there really aren't that many similarities when you put away the tinted victorian school boy glasses and look at the evidence in context and critically. Plus, let's be honest, most Classicists are useless *******s.
Exactly.

(Original post by Aesc)
I'm not even seeing many similarities, it's irritating. My question (adjusted by my teacher, I think it's better than it was apart from the Gibbon focus :p:) is something like "when Gibbon wrote x how far was he holding up a mirror to his own society" so I don't have to go far from Gibbon in terms of the Roman history because it's more about what he thought. I like that I can argue about the massive differences, but I'm worried that it'll be a bit ridiculous if it isn't accepted as historical truth that he was making such a comparison!

And thanks for the poems, I'll stagger my reading of them so I have something to look forward to when it all gets a bit too much for me
That sounds like an easier title TBH, just remember to get sources to back you up on it - secondary and primary

Haha, enjoy! I'm not sure where I stand with Catullus - studying him in depth took some of the fun away (but also added some, as I had to learn all the dirty interpretations ). Mind you, that module was one of the highest exam scores I've had since I started uni...
0
reply
The Lyceum
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#712
Report 7 years ago
#712
(Original post by jismith1989)
Harsh words.

I don't think that the comparison is entirely redundant, since the British Empire was, of course, modelled in many ways on the Roman (hence the Victorian specs), ideologically as well as administratively. I mean, civil servants in India had to pass exams in Latin and Greek right up until the partition. (Although French civil servants still have to answer questions on literature, which Sarko tried to get rid of to some uproar.) One similarity at least was that the British supported local aristos and had a very sparse administrative structure which was just overlaid on top of the existing social structure -- and if anything went untoward, then obviously the military would come to restore order, a bit like how the Roman legions were used to quell disorder within the Empire. Of course, it's more interesting to see the ways in which the Brits distorted, adapted and idealised the classical models etc. though. But it was a very different situation, not least because Europe had become a balkanised group of strong nationalistic, competing states that relied on foreign resources to fuel their growth. But then I'm not much of a historian, so... :dontknow:
Historian or not you always come out with some erudite and mark hitting. They might seem harsh by and large its true, I've seen so much stuff in respected scholarly publications and even done some myself that in another discipline I would never get away with...

It's not just the very large problem of arguing with ideology, it's the way Classicists are trained now a days too, for example you can take a degree only by doing literature, which is NOT how Classics should function and the reason the subject is guilty of such idiocies. Then you get things like people ignoring evidence: take Alexander the Great, not only is he idealised by fat useless *******s sitting in their chairs with dreams of military grandeur but how many Classicists are aware of the vaaaaaast amounts of Mesopotamian evidence? Exactly...

What do you mean by the last sentence btw?
0
reply
faber niger
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#713
Report 7 years ago
#713
(Original post by The Lyceum)
Historian or not you always come out with some erudite and mark hitting. They might seem harsh by and large its true, I've seen so much stuff in respected scholarly publications and even done some myself that in another discipline I would never get away with...

It's not just the very large problem of arguing with ideology, it's the way Classicists are trained now a days too, for example you can take a degree only by doing literature, which is NOT how Classics should function and the reason the subject is guilty of such idiocies. Then you get things like people ignoring evidence: take Alexander the Great, not only is he idealised by fat useless *******s sitting in their chairs with dreams of military grandeur but how many Classicists are aware of the vaaaaaast amounts of Mesopotamian evidence? Exactly...

What do you mean by the last sentence btw?
I assume you don't mean the sentence where I say I'm not much of a historian, so in the one before it I was just saying that there was much more imperial competition in, say, the 18th or 19th centuries because Britain, France, Germany, Austro-Hungary, the Netherlands, Russia, Belgium, the Scandinavian nations, Spain, Portugal, the Ottomans etc. were all scrambling/fighting each other for the same/similar land, control and resources, and, as we all know, competition drives up efficiency. Obviously Rome had competitors/enemies too, but not quite to the same degree.

Haha, from your previous comments I think I can guess who one of those "fat useless *******s" you refer to might be. :ninja:
0
reply
Aemiliana
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#714
Report 7 years ago
#714
Classicists, I am woefully ignorant of the literature side to ancient history (which does nothing but hinder my studies!), so can anyone recommend a list of Greek and Roman literature to read? I'll have to start to with the free versions, but in September I'll be back at uni and so able to access decent translations.
0
reply
big-bang-theory
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#715
Report Thread starter 7 years ago
#715
(Original post by Aemiliana)
Classicists, I am woefully ignorant of the literature side to ancient history (which does nothing but hinder my studies!), so can anyone recommend a list of Greek and Roman literature to read? I'll have to start to with the free versions, but in September I'll be back at uni and so able to access decent translations.
The whole of extant Greek tragedy only takes a day or two of reading to knock off in English if you read the whole day, start there. If not a play a night and you'll be done in a couple weeks. You can do Aristophanes in a day or two as well.

Then there's obvious Homer, Virgil, Ovid.

Read a few of Plautus' plays if you want to get into the feel of Roman comedy and Greek New comedy, the haunted house is probably my favorite. That should certaily get you going.
0
reply
faber niger
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#716
Report 7 years ago
#716
(Original post by big-bang-theory)
The whole of extant Greek tragedy only takes a day or two of reading to knock off in English if you read the whole day, start there.
You must be a bloody fast reader, since there are over 30 extant plays. :eek3:
0
reply
big-bang-theory
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#717
Report Thread starter 7 years ago
#717
(Original post by jismith1989)
You must be a bloody fast reader, since there are over 30 extant plays. :eek3:
Maybe I was being a little over-optimistic but it definitely shouldn't take more than a week. 19 plays by Euripides (counting Rhesus), 7 by Aesychlus (counting Prometheus Bound) and 7 by Sophocles. Each takes maybe an hour and a half to read if you're a slow reader. When I go on reading binges and have the day off work I'll do 14 hours reading in a day, if I'm at work that'll go down to maybe 7. If I'm not on a reading binge and were doing Greek plays I'd still do one a night or so.
0
reply
faber niger
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#718
Report 7 years ago
#718
(Original post by big-bang-theory)
Maybe I was being a little over-optimistic but it definitely shouldn't take more than a week. 19 plays by Euripides (counting Rhesus), 7 by Aesychlus (counting Prometheus Bound) and 7 by Sophocles. Each takes maybe an hour and a half to read if you're a slow reader. When I go on reading binges and have the day off work I'll do 14 hours reading in a day, if I'm at work that'll go down to maybe 7. If I'm not on a reading binge and were doing Greek plays I'd still do one a night or so.
Well, I'm impressed with that anyway, my attention span definitely couldn't take it (probably been frazzled by the internet :rolleyes:). But yeah, it's feasible over a week or so.
0
reply
The Lyceum
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#719
Report 7 years ago
#719
(Original post by Aemiliana)
Classicists, I am woefully ignorant of the literature side to ancient history (which does nothing but hinder my studies!), so can anyone recommend a list of Greek and Roman literature to read? I'll have to start to with the free versions, but in September I'll be back at uni and so able to access decent translations.
Depends on era and what you want. In general you really should get yourself up on the literature which had a massive impact at the time.

It's alright people shouting out names like "Homer! Virgil! Cicero!" with their school boy eagerness, and indeed these are authors which we all should get acquainted with at some point but simply streaming out names like this betrays an ignorance of the literature in question, its influences and its place in society.

It's all very well shouting out Homer for example but Apollonios had a far, far, greater impact on Virgil than he if you really want to look at the Roman side of things. In fact you can not do any meaningful work on Roman Literature without knowledge of the Alexandrians. Full stop.

Everyone knows Plato and (some) Aristotle but who can profess acquaintance with Empedokles or Labanios? Just because we've blown Plato and Aristotle up into these huge looming messiahs doesn't mean it was necessarily that way in antiquity and if you want to understand the way Ancient philosophy progressed and functioned well then you had better get stuck in there.

So it entirely depends on what era. The short of it is read anything you can get your hands on. The long version is 1) Contextualise. 2) Avoid a schoolboy/Wikipedia approach.

There are texts far more representative of the literary scene at the time and interested for a Historian than the most common names. How many people have read Statius for example? Considered the poet par excellence by the Romans of later periods yet ignored nowadays largely due to the opinions of our predecessors who for some reason felt able to dictate what was "tasteful and poetic" better than the Ancients did themselves.
0
reply
big-bang-theory
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#720
Report Thread starter 7 years ago
#720
(Original post by The Lyceum)
Depends on era and what you want. In general you really should get yourself up on the literature which had a massive impact at the time.

It's alright people shouting out names like "Homer! Virgil! Cicero!" with their school boy eagerness, and indeed these are authors which we all should get acquainted with at some point but simply streaming out names like this betrays an ignorance of the literature in question, its influences and its place in society.

It's all very well shouting out Homer for example but Apollonios had a far, far, greater impact on Virgil than he if you really want to look at the Roman side of things. In fact you can not do any meaningful work on Roman Literature without knowledge of the Alexandrians. Full stop.

Everyone knows Plato and (some) Aristotle but who can profess acquaintance with Empedokles or Labanios? Just because we've blown Plato and Aristotle up into these huge looming messiahs doesn't mean it was necessarily that way in antiquity and if you want to understand the way Ancient philosophy progressed and functioned well then you had better get stuck in there.

So it entirely depends on what era. The short of it is read anything you can get your hands on. The long version is 1) Contextualise. 2) Avoid a schoolboy/Wikipedia approach.

There are texts far more representative of the literary scene at the time and interested for a Historian than the most common names. How many people have read Statius for example? Considered the poet par excellence by the Romans of later periods yet ignored nowadays largely due to the opinions of our predecessors who for some reason felt able to dictate what was "tasteful and poetic" better than the Ancients did themselves.
If you're first starting out your study of ancient literature surely it's better to start from the well-studied milestones and work your way around them. Sure Apollonius (whom I must confess I haven't read, my knowledge of latin literature is somewhat limited) probably did have a great impact on Virgil, Philo of Alexandria had a huge impact (or at least clearly articulates) a lot of what first century Juadaism was about, and if you want a full understanding of the subject then you can't not read his works, but I wouldn't deign to recommend him as a starting point when you're first trying to get in touch with the issues at hand. I'd send you straight to Josephus.

This is not necessarily because one had a bigger contemporary impact, Philo was as much an important figure in the decades before the war as Joesphus was when it started. It is purely because resources about Josephus are far more readily available and aimed at audiences that don't already assume a knowledge surrounding the issues.
0
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

University open days

  • University of East Anglia
    All Departments Open 13:00-17:00. Find out more about our diverse range of subject areas and career progression in the Arts & Humanities, Social Sciences, Medicine & Health Sciences, and the Sciences. Postgraduate
    Wed, 30 Jan '19
  • Aston University
    Postgraduate Open Day Postgraduate
    Wed, 30 Jan '19
  • Solent University
    Careers in maritime Undergraduate
    Sat, 2 Feb '19

Brexit: Given the chance now, would you vote leave or remain?

Remain (1381)
79.5%
Leave (356)
20.5%

Watched Threads

View All