Comments on: 2.14 Catonis Disticha

By: Paul F. Gehl

Paul F. Gehl — Sat, 09 May 2009 12:44:24 +0000

This comment is misplaced, it refers to paragraph 6, note 95 in the next section, where I will reply.

By: Paul F. Gehl

Paul F. Gehl — Sat, 09 May 2009 02:51:28 +0000

Thanks, Dan, here as elsewhere for your elegant re-translation. I see how the Catones can be read of the two admirable individuals. As Hannah Zdansky noted in her remark at 2.02 above, medieval and humanist authors knew both figures and had a good sense of the reputation of the clan. But as you will have noticed throughout my writing, I am fascinated by the way these personal names are transferred to the books themselves. Do you think Bebel might have intended a double meaning, so that these “Catones” are books, constructed in parallel to “the book called Cato” as well as contrasted with the two human Catos? Perhaps he would have used “a quibus” instead of “in quibus” if he meant it to be read the way I translated it?

By: Dan Sheerin

Dan Sheerin — Sat, 09 May 2009 00:30:40 +0000

utriusque virtutis] We need more context to figure out to what utriusque virtutis, “of each virtue/of both virtues,” refers.

By: Dan Sheerin

Dan Sheerin — Sat, 09 May 2009 00:30:14 +0000

“I make exception as well for the little book which is entitled Cato. Valla says that its author is the most latinate among the minor authors and that no one in a thousand years has written a more elegant poem. … And yet perhaps this little book is called Cato from seriousness of behavior and integrity of life, features for which the Catos were very greatly renowned.”
I believe the Catones refers not to books, but to the the Elder and Younger Cato; cp. Juvenal 2.40: “tertius a caelo cecidit Cato ….”

By: Dan Sheerin

Dan Sheerin — Sat, 09 May 2009 00:29:23 +0000

anthology] The Disticha Catonis is not an anthology, i.e., a selection of fine passages from a longer work or works, but a self-contained work.