Talk:Virgil

From Wikiquote
Jump to: navigation, search

Hell[edit]

I'm looking in book one, and I'm not seeing that quote about hell anywhere. My latin has seen better days, but is it in there?—This unsigned comment is by 70.225.167.157 (talkcontribs) 18:15, 27 June 2006‎.

No, it's from Book VI, line 743. ~ DanielTom (talk) 16:34, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Omnia vincit Amor[edit]

Is it "Omnia vincit amor" or "w:Amor vincit omnia"?—This unsigned comment is by 88.153.179.197 (talkcontribs) 21:28, 13 March 2007.

Despite the word order of most tanslations, the original latin is "Omnia vincit Amor...", and where chapters are known chapter orders should be retained. ~ Kalki 01:24, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Unsourced[edit]

  • Naturalia non sunt turpia
    • Natural things are not shameful.
    • Variant translation: Natural things are without shame.
  • Nulla salus bello
    • There is no salvation for us in war. [1]
      • Book XI
  • Command large fields, but cultivate small ones.
    • This is probably a translation of "laudato ingentia rura, exiguum colito" (Georgics, II.412–413). ~ DanielTom (talk) 20:56, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Haerent infixi pectore vultus.[edit]

The most popular English translation of "Haerent infixi pectore vultus" (Aeneid, Book IV, l. 4) seems to be: "Her looks were deep imprinted in his heart", but that is confusing to me because the original line refers to Dido's love for Aeneas, and her heart (not the other way around). Am I missing something here? ~ DanielTom (talk) 18:34, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Dryden has "His words, his looks, imprinted in her heart"; and Theodore C. Williams "Her hero's virtues and his lordly line / keep calling to her soul; his words, his glance, / cling to her heart like lingering, barbed steel. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 17:03, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

This author's name is Vergil.[edit]

I can see making a reference to the misspelled version Virgil, but this spelling error should not be the title of the main entry. The name Publius Vergilius Maro doesn't lead to "Virgil" unless you're trying to Christianize it: wholly inappropriate considering when he lived. —This unsigned comment is by LauraH (talkcontribs) .

Vergilius is properly part of his name, but one of the standard anglicizations of that is Virgil, and that is what is currently used at Wikipedia, and in many other publications. ~ Kalki·· 14:37, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
I am in favor of changing the title to Vergil.
Vergilius wrote his name with an "e", so "Vergil" is indisputably the correct spelling. However, during the early Middle Ages the "e" was changed to an "i", possibly due to a scribe's mistake (many stories on this), and "Virgil" has since then become the standard spelling. I myself see no reason why Wikiquote should continue to perpetuate this error. ~ DanielTom (talk) 15:27, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
Spelling idiosyncrasies abound in English, and Virgil is the most common form, and not in itself an "error" though it probably developed from some. A debate occurred in relation to the Wikipedia title as well, and eventually Virgil was maintained; I have no strong feelings either way, but am generally willing to accord with the Wikipedia preferences. ~ Kalki·· 16:40, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
"Virgil" has become standard English usage as DanielTom notes, and is the most common form as Kalki notes. I think WP:COMMONNAME makes good sense in this case: the more recognizable name is more useful to our readers. ~ Ningauble (talk) 19:16, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Disputed 'about' quotation involved in edit war[edit]

This quotation was added by CensoredScribe but was rejected by DanielTom, afterwhich an edit war ensued. Let us discuss the inclusion here.

  • They tell us, that Virgil placed a fly of brass over one of the gates of the city, which, as long as it continued there, that is, for a space of eight years, had the virtue of keeping Naples clear from moschetoes and all noxious insects: that he built a set of shambles, the meat in which was at all times free from putrefaction: that he placed two images over the gates of the city, one of which was named Joyful, and the other Sad—one of resplendent beauty, and the other hideous and deformed—and that whoever entered the town under the former image would succeed in all his undertakings, and under the latter would as certainly miscarry: that he caused a brazen statue to be erected on a mountain near Naples, with a trumpet in his mouth; which, when the north wind blew, sounded so shrill as to drive to the sea the fire and smoke which issued from the neighbouring forges of Vulcan: that he built different baths at Naples, specifically prepared for the cure of every disease, which were afterward demolished by the malice of the physicians: and that he lighted a perpetual fire for the refreshment of all travellers, close to which he placed an archer of brass, with his bow bent, and this inscription, "Whoever strikes me, I will let fly my arrow:" that a foolhardy fellow notwithstanding struck the statue, when the arrow was immediately shot into the fire, and the fire was extinguished. It is added, that, Naples being infested with a vast multitude of contagious leeches, Virgil made a leech of gold, which he threw into a pit, and so delivered the city from the infection: that he surrounded his garden with a wall of air, within which the rain never fell: that he built a bridge of brass that would transport him wherever he pleased: that he made a set of statues, which were named the Salvation of Rome, which had the property that, if any one of the subject nations prepared to revolt, the statue, which bore the name of, and was adored by that nation, rung a bell, and pointed with its finger in the direction of the danger: that he made a head, which had the virtue of predicting things future: and lastly, amid a world of other wonders, that he cut a subterranean passage through Mount Pausilippo, that travellers might pass with perfect safety, the mountain having before been so infested with serpents and dragons, that no one could venture to cross it.

I myself am opposed to the quotation, primarily for being too long and secondarily for lacking value. Perhaps a trimmed section of this could be included.

Signed, IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 05:24, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

This quote passage is not quoted by anybody, anywhere, so in no way is it a notable quotation about Virgil. And for it to make any sense, we would have to give the context as well: "One of the most curious particulars, and which cannot be omitted in a history of sorcery, is the various achievements in the art of magic which have been related of the poet Virgil. I bring them in here, because they cannot be traced further back than the eleventh or twelfth century. The burial-place of this illustrious man was at Pausilippo, near Naples; the Neapolitans had for many centuries cherished a peculiar reverence for his memory [...]. The vulgar of this city, full of imagination and poetry, conceived the idea of treating him as the guardian genius of the place; and, in bodying forth this conception, they represented him in his life-time as gifted with supernatural powers, which he employed in various ways for the advantage of a city that he so dearly loved. [...]" – but again, I agree that what CensoredScribe added is too long to even be considered a "quote"; it's a book excerpt, if anything. ~ DanielTom (talk) 13:46, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

This passage is too short for inclusion to Wikisource being an encyclopedia entry; though I'm still confused why similar concern hasn't been raised for the excerpts from Clarence Darrow's trial transcripts at Evolution and Übermensch. In terms of importance to evolutionary teaching, without this series of words, the biology education of hundreds of millions of Americans would have been drastically altered, making the transcript historically quite important even if few people have publicly read from it. Also note how there are no quotes indicating the Gettysburg address is historically important; how many notable people actually quote it directly, compared to making comments about the address? SImply saying something once doesn't make it quotable, it has to be directly quoted to be a quote under the strictest definition meaning Lincolns page requires additional citations to prove notability.

In recent times, news sound bites, due to their reuse by other news outlets are by many peoples definitions more quotable than older, than many more objectively memorable texts that didn't have the benefit of a 24 hour cable news cycle and magazine interviews. For example; the transcripts from the Monica Lewinsky trial has been quoted by news casters and agencies with Wikipedia pages, making the incident more notable in the public eye than anything Godwin said in this book; which seemingly Edgar Allen Poe is the only notable person to ever mention. CensoredScribe (talk) 15:25, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

CensoredScribe, I confess I do not understand your argumentation here. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 16:16, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
My apologies; I thought it was clear what my argument was and that 2 paragraphs was short enough; unfortunately I don't understand isn't really question I can answer; what do you mean by "..." is a question I could answer. First, there are longer quotes; like on Evolution. Second the word notability gets thrown around about as often as quality. There are a lot of quotes that have not been directly quoted; the glaring example of why this is a bad idea I provided is the Gettysberg adress; we all know worth quoting, however there are no direct quotations on that page to suggest it it "notable". I'm sure you can find quotes ABOUT the address; but that is not the same as DanielTom made clear with William Godwins merely paraphrasing his sources in the Virgil entry. Cheers. CensoredScribe (talk) 18:39, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

I think this quotation may be worth including:

  • One of the most curious particulars, and which cannot be omitted in a history of sorcery, is the various achievements in the art of magic which have been related of the poet Virgil. [...] The burial-place of this illustrious man was at Pausilippo, near Naples; the Neapolitans had for many centuries cherished a peculiar reverence for his memory [...] The vulgar of this city, full of imagination and poetry, conceived the idea of treating him as the guardian genius of the place ; and, in bodying forth this conception, they represented him in his lifetime as gifted with supernatural powers, which he employed in various ways for the advantage of a city that he so dearly loved.

What say you DanielTom, CensoredScribe? Signed, IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 20:27, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

That's better, but still not worth including, in my opinion. ~ DanielTom (talk) 16:58, 10 July 2016 (UTC)