Scan barcode
tallulahjt's review
5.0
I wasn't sure if I would enjoy this because scrapping together the bits and pieces of Catullus' short life to create a well-rounded, rich biographical narrative is an ambitious goal, but it has been expertly done. It is so clear Daisy Dunn loves Catullus deeply, and as a fell0w Catullus-lover that makes me so happy.
harriet64's review
4.0
I loved this book. It inspired so much thought in so many ways and areas and I can honestly say I had never thought this much about one person until this book!
spacestationtrustfund's review
2.0
We don't actually know enough about Catullus's life to justify an entire 300-page biography, and I think Daisy Dunn truly realises the ramifications of this around a third of the way in, at which point the digressions into Catullus's contemporaries and speculations about the meaning behind his poetry become more frequent. The title is fun and flashy (although I'd argue that Catullus is far from the most erotic poet Rome boasted—that dubious honour goes to Martial, in my opinion*), but that energy is worn thin by the 200th page at the latest. If you've never studied Catullus, his contemporaries, the background scenery of his life, or Roman socio-political history in general, this book would almost certainly provide an excellent overview into all of the above, and in an accessible, fun manner as well. If you've studied Catullus etc. previously, however—pace Dunn—there's really nothing new to be found in this book that hasn't been covered elsewhere, and the amount of conjecture functionally excludes the book from being cited as a respectable source.
What interests me perhaps most about this book is that Dunn herself translated many of Catullus's poems from Latin to English. Certain liberties were taken. For example, she mentions lines 7-9 from poem V:
From poem LI:
From poem L:
These mistranslations might seem inconsequential. Personally I find them rather jarring: an academic work (such as a biography), in my opinion, should be held to a higher standard than a personal translation.
*Catullus was first, but Martial's filthiness remains unparalleled.
**False etymological relation to Caesar, at least to the best of our knowledge—the etymology of caesura is from L. caedere ("to cut") while the etymology of Caesar is unknown.
What interests me perhaps most about this book is that Dunn herself translated many of Catullus's poems from Latin to English. Certain liberties were taken. For example, she mentions lines 7-9 from poem V:
Give me a thousand kisses, then a hundredbut the equivalent lines in the original Latin read:
Then another thousand, then a second hundred.
Then—don't stop—another thousand, then a hundred...
da mi basia mille, deinde centum,Dunn has entirely changed the flow of the poem by inserting a caesura** where there was none in the original. Why? I really couldn't say.
dein mille altera, dein secunda centum,
deinde usque altera mille, deinde centum.
From poem LI:
...my tongue freezes, a gentle flame flows downThe original (lifted almost exactly from Sappho's fr.31):
Under my limbs and my ears ring with their own sound.
Both my eyes are blinded by night.
lingua sed torpet, tenuis sub artusI'll allow "freeze" for torpere (stiffen, numb, thicken). The word tenuis (thin, fine, slender, weak, delicate, subtle) does not mean "gentle." The chiasmus of lumen (light)/nocte (by night) is lost when lumina is translated as its poetic meaning (eyes) rather than its literal (lights).
flamma demanat, sonitu suopte
tintinant aures, gemina teguntur
lumina nocte.
From poem L:
Yesterday, Licinius, on a lazy day,The original:
We messed around for ages in my writing tablets
Risqué as agreed,
Scribbling short verses, you then me,
Playing now with this metre and now with that,
Swapping them between us over laughter and wine.
hesterno, Licini, die otiosiDunn's translation is a bit off. Although the first two lines are fine, "risqué as agreed" (ut convenerat esse delicatos) is her invention; no such phrasing exists in the Latin, which says something closer to "so we agreed to be hedonistic" or "as it had been agreed to be self-indulgent." The verb scribere (to write) translated as "scribbling" is misleading; Dunn applies the diminutive to the verb rather than the appropriate word, which is versiculus (little verses; mere lines).
multum lusimus in meis tabellis,
ut convenerat esse delicatos:
scribens versiculos uterque nostrum
ludebat numero modo hoc modo illoc,
reddens mutua per iocum atque vinum.
These mistranslations might seem inconsequential. Personally I find them rather jarring: an academic work (such as a biography), in my opinion, should be held to a higher standard than a personal translation.
*Catullus was first, but Martial's filthiness remains unparalleled.
**False etymological relation to Caesar, at least to the best of our knowledge—the etymology of caesura is from L. caedere ("to cut") while the etymology of Caesar is unknown.
durrenmatt's review
3.0
3.5
It was nice to learn about Catullus, but clearly too little is known about him to fill a book. The author therefore fills in the blanks by taking liberties but also by making lots of digressions - into Catullus' contemporaries, the political situation as we are nearing the end of the Republic but also the arts and mythology. The problem with these digressions is that either you are familiar with them already, in which case they are superfluous or you are not, in which case they are much too brief and sketchy to really understand.
I liked the Pliny book better.
It was nice to learn about Catullus, but clearly too little is known about him to fill a book. The author therefore fills in the blanks by taking liberties but also by making lots of digressions - into Catullus' contemporaries, the political situation as we are nearing the end of the Republic but also the arts and mythology. The problem with these digressions is that either you are familiar with them already, in which case they are superfluous or you are not, in which case they are much too brief and sketchy to really understand.
I liked the Pliny book better.
taile's review
2.0
I mean. it was kind of valid but it was so frustrating how the author just told us stuff without any explanation!! And if you’ve already read some Catullus. Like. You can tell she’s using the poems to form a biography. but like please how did u get this anecdote because I don’t recognise the poem and there is no endnote!!!
It’s a good intro though. I learnt about poem 64 which I had never actually read in full so I guess there’s that. also, origins of manuscripts and some idea of the chronology. not as valid as I hoped though I guess
It’s a good intro though. I learnt about poem 64 which I had never actually read in full so I guess there’s that. also, origins of manuscripts and some idea of the chronology. not as valid as I hoped though I guess
More...