Catullus 86 -- una

[aegor]

I am wondering about how others take una in the last line of 86:

Lesbia formosa est, quae cum pulcerrima tota est,

tum omnibus una omnis surripuit veneres.​

​

Fordyce and Thomson have nothing to say about it. Most translations take it as the adverb ūnā, but the elision leaves an ambiguity grammatically, if I err not: is ūna not possible, with it modifying Lesbia as possessing unique status and standing in stark contrast to omnibus...omnis?

Am I missing something?

 

[Araneus]

I've understood una to mean "she (Lesbia) alone"

"Lesbia is fair, who not only is most beautiful,
but alone snatches all the charms from all the others"

That's a bit clumsy, I know, but an attempt to render my understanding of it literally.

For issues with Catullus, you might also consult this website: http://rudy.negenborn.net/catullus/?l=e
It has all the poems, with scansions and translations in a lot of different languages submitted by users.

Many linguistic issues and ambiguities are also discussed there. I did not consult this before answering you now, though, so you can check it out for yourself if you have not done so already.

 

[Araneus]

...And one more thing. As the elision leaves us uncertain whether it is ūna or ūnā, we should not necessarily assume that there is a single correct answer to it. I think that is important to keep in mind when working with poetry. I feel that Catullus often suspends the strictness of Latin grammar to a slight degree.

Try reading it aloud, or listen to a recording. Here is one:

And consider how you would understand it. After all, una signifies one. Either literally, or more figuratively, in the sense of "together".

Hope this is more helpful than confusing

 

[Aurifex]

Most translations take it as the adverb ūnā

Can you show us some examples of translations that do?

 

[aegor]

Can you show us some examples of translations that do?

One Perseus translation seems to drop una altogether; the other takes it adverbially. The same is true for various translations on Catullus websites; a Google search will yield them, including the website mentioned in an above post, which drops it.

 

[Aurifex]

One Perseus translation seems to drop una altogether; the other takes it adverbially. The same is true for various translations on Catullus websites; a Google search will yield them, including the website mentioned in an above post, which drops it.

I'm not seeing what you're seeing, I'm afraid. The translations of Peter Green, of Kenneth Quinn, Warre Cornish, and Whigham, which are the first I came across, do not take una adverbially. Where are the "most translations" you speak of?

It would be easier if you just cited them rather than make me go looking for what has already proved too elusive for me to find.

 

[Araneus]

You may not agree with this view, but here I'm rather concerned how you understand it. If decent translators disagree, what else is there to do? Is it really possible to come to anything but a subjective conclusion anyway?

 

[Aurifex]

If decent translators disagree, what else is there to do?

They don't disagree, though; that's my point. I don't think una is being taken adverbially by the overwhelming majority, if not all, of them. I include, quite reasonably, translators who don't explicitly translate una as "one/alone" or similar. Smithers' translation, in which he uses the words "everybody together", is the only translation I've seen that suggests una is being taken adverbially, and even there it could be argued that it isn't.

I've asked aegor to provide evidence to support his assertion that most translations take una as the adverb; I've not yet seen that evidence.

 

[aegor]

I'm not seeing what you're seeing, I'm afraid. The translations of Peter Green, of Kenneth Quinn, Warre Cornish, and Whigham, which are the first I came across, do not take una adverbially. Where are the "most translations" you speak of?

It would be easier if you just cited them rather than make me go looking for what has already proved too elusive for me to find.

Most of the ones I encountered, none of which were in print. I forgot to mention that in my last post. I hope that clears up the confusion. It is certainly possible, even likely, that my sample was unrepresentative. I was simply wondering whether a particular grammatical sense was possible in context, not whether the translations had erred. The only relevance of the translations in my original questions was that the ones to which I had access did not corroborate what I thought was a grammatically possible reading.

Smithers' translation, in which he uses the words "everybody together", is the only translation I've seen that suggests una is being taken adverbially, and even there it could be argued that it isn't.

What would that argument be?

 

[Aurifex]

Most of the ones I encountered, none of which were in print. I forgot to mention that in my last post. I hope that clears up the confusion.

Partly, but I still can't find the multitude of translations you suggest are taking una as the adverb.

What would that argument be?

That "together" is merely an intensive accompaniment to "everybody".

On balance I think the reason why Smithers has used "together" is that he is a poor translator, as well as a drug addict and pornographer, who has misunderstood the Latin.

In their note on this passage Fordyce and others cross-reference two other passages from Catullus where a form of unus translateable as "one/alone" is closely contrasted with a form of omnes. That is surely what's going on here, in a poem where numerical/quantitative contrast is never far away: "multis...singula...totum...nulla...nulla...tota...omnibus una omnis."

 

[aegor]

Partly, but I still can't find the multitude of translations you suggest are taking una as the adverb.

That "together" is merely an intensive accompaniment to "everybody".

On balance I think the reason why Smithers has used "together" is that he is a poor translator, as well as a drug addict and pornographer, who has misunderstood the Latin.

It seems highly coincidental that he would choose a translation that drops una and is simultaneously indistinguishable from one in which una is adverbial.

As I stated previously, my original post was misleading. I never meant that there was a multitude of such translations; the ellipses involved a restriction of the translations in question to those that I was able to access for free on the internet, most of which are necessarily out of copyright.

In their note on this passage Fordyce and others cross-reference two other passages from Catullus where a form of unus translateable as "one/alone" is closely contrasted with a form of omnes. That is surely what's going on here, in a poem where numerical/quantitative contrast is never far away: "multis...singula...totum...nulla...nulla...tota...omnibus una omnis."

Of course, but that does not address how unus, or a form thereof, is being used. Fordyce compares 1.5-6, in which unus is used as "only" or "alone," but his other point of comparison is 5.3, in which it is used purely numerically rather than with a sense of qualitative uniqueness.

Anyway, thank you very much for your help.

 

[Aurifex]

It seems highly coincidental that he would choose a translation that drops una and is simultaneously indistinguishable from one in which una is adverbial.

Which is why I stated that on balance I felt it was merely a mistranslation.

As I stated previously, my original post was misleading. I never meant that there was a multitude of such translations; the ellipses involved a restriction of the translations in question to those that I was able to access for free on the internet, most of which are necessarily out of copyright.

The translations of the writers I named in post 6 were all found free on the Internet. It looks as if it's not the fact that the translations were out of copyright (i.e. dated) that was your problem, but your placing too great reliance on certain more recent translations of questionable provenance.

Of course, but that does not address how unus, or a form thereof, is being used. Fordyce compares 1.5-6, in which unus is used as "only" or "alone," but his other point of comparison is 5.3, in which it is used purely numerically rather than with a sense of qualitative uniqueness.

You're perfectly entitled to continue to believe that there is still some doubt whether Catullus intended una or unā, but in the world of Catullan scholarship I suspect you'll be entirely alone in that belief.

 

[aegor]

The translations of the writers I named in post 6 were all found free on the Internet. It looks as if it's not the fact that the translations were out of copyright (i.e. dated) that was your problem, but your placing too great reliance on certain more recent translations of questionable provenance.

There was no reliance on any translations. As I said, the translations were completely immaterial to my question, which was a grammatical one. I was simply looking for grammatical corroboration within them, and the few that I found -- the provenance of which may indeed be questionable -- did not corroborate my reading. Simply mentioning a few of the translations that did would have been a much more effective response than whatever this was. I appreciate your attempt at help, but your responses have been needlessly argumentative and off-putting, ceasing to provide help for some reason that escapes me altogether.

You're perfectly entitled to continue to believe that there is still some doubt whether Catullus intended una or unā, but in the world of Catullan scholarship I suspect you'll be entirely alone in that belief.

You clearly have no understanding of what I believe, since it seems obvious to me the more proper reading is ūna.


Thank you again for your help.

 

[Araneus]

it seems obvious to me the more proper reading is ūna.

Just go with that. Reading Catullus is about personal, subjective appreciation, not minute analyses of grammatical issues to which there is ultimately no perfectly satisfying answer to be found.

 

[Aurifex]

grammatical issues to which there is ultimately no perfectly satisfying answer to be found.

You're saying there's no perfectly satisfying answer in this case? Surely not?

Simply mentioning a few of the translations that did would have been a much more effective response than whatever this was.

I did, in post 6, with far greater specificity than the way you yourself referred me to translations with your superciliously vague "a Google search will yield them".

I appreciate your attempt at help, but your responses have been needlessly argumentative and off-putting, ceasing to provide help for some reason that escapes me altogether
Thank you again for your help.

It's unclear whether that means I've helped you or I haven't. Either way, you can expect more of the same "off-putting" answers if you carry on in a similarly equivocal and evasive way in future.

 

[aegor]

I did, in post 6, with far greater specificity than the way you yourself referred me to translations with your superciliously vague "a Google search will yield them".

Which would have been sufficient, but the point was pursued subseuqently to no end. I still do not understand why you allowed your preoccupation with one word in my original post to derail both your your responses and this entire thread, even after I addressed it with sufficient closure in post 9 and stated clearly, several times, that it was completely immaterial to my actual question.

It's unclear whether that means I've helped you or I haven't. Either way, you can expect more of the same "off-putting" answers if you carry on in a similarly equivocal and evasive way in future.

It is perfectly clear, since I stated that you ceased to be helpful.


Anyway, I apologize if to you my posts were evasive or equivocal.