5 posts tagged “latin”

If anybody has any editing remarks or suggestions feel free to comment.

In his poetry Virgil writes using predominantly concepts that are immediately obvious physically as opposed to abstract concepts. He does this in two ways; the first of which is the way that he describes an idea by using concrete terms, representing a physical scenario for an abstract idea. He also very often replaces an abstract with a personification, as did most Romans. The second way in which Virgil writes in concretes is fundamental to the Latin vocabulary. The literal meanings of these words confuse the modern English reader, until one imagines the physical description of the word. Only then can an abstract meaning be discovered.

Virgil will take an abstract idea, a concept that generally involves a complex interaction, and instead of outright naming it he describes it circuitously. He lays out a scene in which the emotion, ideal, principle, etcetera is implied but never explicitly stated. By laying out this concrete he makes the idea immediately, perceptually, obvious without leaving it to the reader to explicitly understand the abstract concepts involved. As in the beginning of his Ecloga I, lines seven through ten, Tityrus says, “illius aram saepe tener nostris ab ovilibus imbuet agnus. ille meas errare boves, ut cernis, et ipsum ludere quae vellem calamo permisit agresti”. He doesn't name sacrifice claiming it is unfortunate. Instead, he conjures the pitiful image of a tener agnus nostris ab ovilibus, and note that the poor little lamb isn't “sacrificed” as such; he very physically wets/dampens the altar. Virgil doesn't say that this sad scene is nonetheless necessary, he makes no moral arguments. He simply points out that it is illius aram, for that god's altar; and as every good Roman was aware, fealty to the gods is of the utmost importance. Similarly, he doesn't state that by offering such fealty Tityrus is now well-off. He doesn't use a complex term like “well-off”, which demands a prerequisite understanding of what constitutes being well and whole definition of morality. He evokes an example saying that Tityrus's chattel are able to roam and that he is free to play what he wishes. This visual scene of wellness is then attributed to illius, which reinforces the idea of a necessity to the sacrifice but does so through images instead of philosophical arguments.

Another good example of Virgil's veracity for using sensory description instead of abstract terminology is when he discusses the habits of bees in the Georgicon four, lines 198 to 199. He describes the bees mating habits, “nec corpora segens in Venerem soluvunt”. Whereas we might say bees don't “make love” with all its underlying meaning and nuances, Virgil hits straight for a most sensual description of the act of making love. Also notice that he doesn't say “love” because love is a highly involved emotion it isn't obvious enough. He refers, instead, to Venus, a shining epitome of love, which everyone can readily recognize and understand.

This demonstrates an interesting characteristic in Roman literature for using gods as the ultimate physical example of what they represent and care for. So that Mars, for example, isn't just some superhuman who delights in massacre and is in charge of ensuring its continuance. He is destruction as his very essence, and destruction is Mars. In this odd way Romans encapsulate an unwieldy idea, or group of ideas, into a single physical entity so that they can hold the whole of it in their minds at once, without necessarily using abstract terminology. The most pronounced instance of this that I recall is in the first Georgicon line 297. Virgil writes, “at rubicunda Ceres medio succiditur aestu”. First of all when he means to say that the period of summer has ended and the winter season begun he says that summer has literally been cut down, destroyed, almost at the hands of winter. As though the two seasons were in actuality fighting for dominance and winter happened to win out. Next he uses the image of the literal harvest being too long in the sun in place of the concept of the end of summer.

The next method I've identified in which Virgil makes a perceptual experience out of his poetry is by the Latin language itself. He uses verbs which by their very meaning denote a concrete, tactile, portrayal of a concept. Take the verb tendere for instance, it literally means to stretch out, to extend or reach. Yet in book five of the Aeneid line twenty-seven he uses it to convey an abstract idea, saying, “frustra cerno te tendere contra”. In this situation Virgil conveys a spiritual straining, a force of effort, by saying that the helmsman is stretching or reaching out against some obstacle, namely the sea.

Latin also evokes a perceptual understanding of certain actions by modifying a direct verb with what would be a preposition in English to denote a more abstract form of that same basic action. For example, perfacere in Virgil's text, “en, perfecta tibi bello discordia tristi” from the seventh book, line 545, of the Aeneid. The simple root of this verb is facere [to do or make] but by modifying it with per- [through] we get to do through, or to do/make in succession. In English this would means something like to accomplish. Now, it takes a special effort in English to fully understand “to accomplish”. You must recognize that it is referring to goals and that goals may not be done in one action, one can't physically do it. It takes a coordinated series of actions to accomplish. This is exactly what the Latin is laying out in very concrete terminology for the reader, it is literally saying that a goal has been done through.

Finally, Latin can use verbs to stand for more highly abstract phrases simply by convention. This is seen by the common use of adeo in Virgil. I found three examples simply by scanning a few selections in the Georgics [1.287, 3.242, and 4.197]. Adeo literally means I come, a simple concrete action easily done and immediately understood by readers. But when used at the beginning of a verbal demonstration it signifies the introduction of an argument. The speaker has physically come to a point. Even though Latin has a specific term for “thus”, Virgil [and indeed, many other Latin authors] use the more concrete “adeo” instead.

Virgil is purposefully putting his work on the most perceptual level possible, making every situation and idea a sensory experience for the reader. He does so by employing concretes to replace abstract ideas. First, by using physical scenarios to describe a highly complex concept. And, next, by replacing actual concepts with godly personification. Though such metaphorical inversions are common in poetry, Virgil exclusively creates a concrete from an abstract, not the other way around. Virgil also writes concretely by using perceptual verb constructions in his Latin. Now, to say whether Virgil creates this sensory experience out of personal inclination or from a rampant worldview among classical Romans would require a more holistic account of the Latin language.

Ok, so scratch that. I can't write an essay about Latin as a whole with only Virgil to look at. Since it's an essay my subject has been broadly chosen for me - Virgil's poetry. Now, I can narrow that to the language Virgil uses, and make my theme the perceptual nature of his language.

On what do I wish to write?
The use of Latin vocabulary by Virgil.

Also, I am going to get rid of the whole "perceptual understanding of the world". It assumes too much about the writer's motives and smacks of psychoanalysis. Although it was an intriguing thought, trying to write about it is making me slightly nauseous. I still want to point out the prevalence of perceptual wording in Virgil but I am not going to go off on an unfounded rant about what it means for his cognitive habits.

What is it that I wish to say with this subject?
Virgil writes using predominantly concrete concepts.

Since I'm no longer talking about Latin as a whole nor trying to deduce Virgil's [or a Roman's] world view from the selections, I'm going to go with both methods that I identified of employing concretes.

I've identified two ways in which Virgil displays his largely perceptual understanding of the world in his writing. The first is that he uses concretes ideas in place of abstracts. He does this by employing a concrete where an abstract is meant; as in "tenui meditaris avena" (you meditate with a slender stalk) to mean you dote upon or adore. Also, he does this by replacing an abstract idea with a physical scenario which implies the idea. For example, he writes "illius aram saepe tener nostris ab ovilibus imbuet agnus" (a tender lamb from our fold often stains the altar of that god) when he is referring to an unfortunate but necessary sacrifice. Next, there are his actual words. As I've demonstrated with perfacere, in order to indicate abstract actions such as to accomplish the Latin language takes simple concrete verbs and modifies them.

As compelling as the first argument is I am going to exclude it from my essay and focus only on the modification of verbs. This is because my only source for this essay is the poetry of Virgil. And since the first type I identified is a method of arranging words commonly used in poetry I don't think it is appropriate to use as evidence. Though, in poetry one can use abstracts to represent concretes also and Virgil exclusively represents abstracts with concretes, it would take an exhaustive account to demonstrate that claim and I don't wish to write a book on the subject.

I'm thinking of reserving this for the end. I generally pick one common argument against my case and refute it at the end of my essay. So, I can use this to address the argument that my piece only looks at poetry. I specifically choose my examples because they are common phrases throughout all of Latin rather than only constructions of Virgil.

Since it's the end of the semester I invariably have a few essays to write as finals for my classes. For my fourth level Latin course I'm supposed to write an essay about the Latin language (thank god, not in Latin). The professor didn't give us any restrictions as to the subject matter, so long as it deals in some way with Roman Latin, as we've spent the semester translating Virgil.

I'm also currently reading The Art of Nonfiction by Ayn Rand, and so thought that I could use this oppourtunity with a wide open essay to practice the principles of writing that she teaches. Even though she seems to be speaking specifically about articles, I think the same principle applies to essays, so long as a put it in a more formal format. The first step is to define your subject and theme which are, respectively, about what are you writing and in what way will you present it.

This makes sense considering my experience with writing. I've always preferred the theme aspect to the subject. It's what makes the essay interesting. There's absolutely nothing more dull than forcing yourself to write an impartial factual account, without being able to convey what the events mean. Of course the subject is important too, it comes first and is literally the stuff of the piece. Just as an onion is only an onion, but a saute makes an onion savory; subject and theme are: what is it and what are you going to do with it.

So, I start my essay with a basic exercise: write out the subject and theme of your piece. Miss Rand identifies a most excellent point in prescribing beginner's to go through this exercise, no matter how rudimentary. You don't really know something until you can convey it (whether written or oral, or better yet, taught).

On what do I wish to write?
The use of Latin vocabulary by Romans.

What is it that I wish to say with this subject?
That Romans had a perceptual understanding of the world as seen in the concrete nature of their concepts.

What I am not going to discuss in this article is epistemology and Rand's theory of concept formation. That is much too broad for my subject. Instead, I will take it as given and only mention the ideas as they are necessary to the connection between my subject and theme.

The reason I chose this subject is that vocabulary is the aspect of the Latin language that I am most comfortable with. Syntax, meter/poetry, grammar, and clause constructions are all very new to me and I don't feel at all confident in my ability to write about them. I chose the theme because it is an aspect of the language that immediately struck me while translating because I've recently become interested in concept formation and it's roles in both cognition and social dynamics.

Ok, now I need to find concretes to demonstrate my claim ...

Ok, so I know I've been posting on an unprecedented scale and this is not something I could ever maintain. But I just had to write down this sudden personal revelation because I've been pondering the meaning of perfect and what is perfection for a while and this is a very big clue for understanding. Disclaimer: I'm an amateur Latin student, not an etymologist. This is not an 'official' or historically accurate etymology, it is a connection I found between perfect and a Latin equivalent. Take it as a folk etymology, and I'll research it's validity later [I have a Latin test I'm supposed to be studying for!].

Let's start with the base [wink wink, nudge nudge]. Facio/facere is the Latin verb for "to make or "to do". You add per- [through] to get perfacio/perfacere, which means "to make/do through", or more commonly in English "to accomplish". The perfect passive participle of this verb is perfectus/perfecta/perfectum which means "having been accomplished" [in the various genders]. For example: "en, perfecta tibi bello discordia tristi;" [in no particular word order, if you know Latin] means "Behold, sad discord/dissension/strife having been accomplished/perfected in war for you".

So "perfect" in English comes from something having been accomplished [or perfected]. What that something is, I'm not entirely sure yet but I have an idea.

Update [4.28.06 11:12 pm]: I've discovered the Latin etymology book I bought sucks. It doesn't explain any of the meanings, it just lists English words that come from a certain very common Latin root. So I went to Online Etymology Dictionary and it has to say [brackets are added by me for clarity and bold for emphasis]:

... from L. [Latin] perfectus "completed," pp. [participle] of perficere "accomplish, finish, complete," from per- "completely" + facere "to perform" (see factitious). Often used in Eng. as an intensive (perfect stranger, etc.). The verb meaning "to bring to full development" is recorded from 1398 ...

So, I was correct in essence, but I still need to think about how this applies to the concept of perfection. Here's something interesting:

... Perfectionist is 1657, originally theological, "one who believes moral perfection may be attained in earthly existence;" sense of "one only satisfied with the highest standards" is from 1934.

The concept of a perfectionist originally developed in the mid 17th century. I'm thinking "may be attained in earthly existence" refers back to the idea that perfection is something accomplished (facio --> I do) as opposed to perfection being Platonic in the sense that it is an ideal that can never be realized.