Whenever the topic shifts to Cicero's poetry I see that many bash his poetic works quite harshly, what is your opinion on that? It seems normal to me, not really the horrendous mess some people make it out to be.
Not too much of his poetry has survived, and I haven't read all of it.Whenever the topic shifts to Cicero's poetry I see that many bash his poetic works quite harshly, what is your opinion on that? It seems normal to me, not really the horrendous mess some people make it out to be.
That's what I mean, they always come up with that infamous line and say that it "has a horrible sound" or something like that, whatever it means, and no-one ever points out why. I mean obviously that verse reeks of self-importance and writing an epic poem to glorify yourself is ridiculous (while I guess commissioning it to someone else is perfectly fine for some reason), but it's clear from the rest of it that he can write fine lines. I can remember my first Latin teacher commenting on how bad of a poet he was too. If anything I think they should criticise his self-centered personality in general, not his poetic skills.Not too much of his poetry has survived, and I haven't read all of it.
The few bits and pieces I have read seemed fine to me, though, and it seemed to be cleaner than what Catullus produced.
I'm yet to hear a good explanation as to why his poetry should be a mess. Obviously, writing an epos to praise yourself is not the most laudable topic to choose for a poet, but the mere composition of lines looked pretty good to me.
I think most of the criticism he attracted, already in the Antiquity, was actually about his self-centeredness. You will remember the popular lines from Quint. 11,24:If anything I think they should criticise his self-centered personality in general, not his poetic skills.
I think it's the -natam natam.That's what I mean, they always come up with that infamous line and say that it "has a horrible sound" or something like that, whatever it means, and no-one ever points out why.
I would have thought that was intentional.I think it's the -natam natam.
That would imply that he thought someone else would be better at writing it.I think most of the criticism he attracted, already in the Antiquity, was actually about his self-centeredness. You will remember the popular lines from Quint. 11,24:
In carminibus utinam pepercisset, quae non desierunt carpere maligni:
"cedant arma togae, concedat laurea linguae"
et
"o fortunatam natam me consule Romam!"
et Iovem illum a quo in concilium deorum advocatur, et Minervam quae artes eum edocuit: quae sibi ille secutus quaedam Graecorum exempla permiserat.
I have to admit that I found that episode kind of funny, though ... I mean, despite desperately searching, you don't find a poet to write an epic about you, so you just write it yourself? That's brilliant.
It could just be that the quality of his prose (which often was self-centered as well) outshone his poetry ... I don't know. But generally speaking, I agree that his verse was decent.
I think it's the -natam natam.
It's the first and only time I've seen such fiery criticism regarding a simple repetition like that. Had someone more celebrated written the same thing, I wonder if people would be talking about how elegant it is.Well, quite.
Cedant...concedat isn't exactly brilliant either.
Why wonder? Just find a similar repetition in the writings of a more celebrated poet, and see what the commentaries have to say about it.Had someone more celebrated written the same thing, I wonder if people would be talking about how elegant it is.
Shakespeare was a plagiaristI love Shakespeare and think he was extremely good,
He plagiarized from Plautus and Terence.How do you figure that one, @LCF ?
He adapted stories from Plautus and Terence (well, at least I know The Comedy of Errors is based on Plautus's Menaechmi; I don't know about Terence but maybe), and from many other sources, too. That's not exactly plagiarism.He plagiarized from Plautus and Terence.