Forum

Poetry
 
Forum index / Life in general Post reply | Create new thread
Author
Posted on 2008-08-08 12:49:21
laaran
Let's take a famous poem.
Two small pieces.

(Lucretius, V, around 715)
Again, she [the moon] may revolve upon herself,
Like to a ball's sphere- if perchance that be-
One half of her dyed o'er with glowing light,
And by the revolution of that sphere
She may beget for us her varying shapes,
Until she turns that fiery part of her
Full to the sight and open eyes of men;
Thence by slow stages round and back she whirls,
Withdrawing thus the luminiferous part
Of her sphered mass and ball, as, verily,
The Babylonian doctrine of Chaldees


(Lucretius, V, around 760)
And still, if moon herself refulgent be
With her own sheen, why could she not at times
In some one quarter of the mighty world
Grow weak and weary, whilst she passeth through
Regions unfriendly to the beams her own?


Yes, the second part sounds really stupid.
And every body thinks : ah well done, in two pages, he destroys the respect for the theory of chaldeans.

Where is the dream, where is the poetry ?
Author
Posted on 2008-08-14 09:18:38
laaran
Hum.
We can make it correct too in fact.
I really don't understand the latin text.
But "refulgent" may have the meaning "flash back".
A description of "refulgent"
Flash back the light of the sun ?
Is the moon producing or reflecting some light ?
Is there a contradiction between "refulgent" and "her own sheen" ?

How do the native english/american speakers understand the second part ?

This is in the latin text :
et tamen ipsa suo si fulget luna nitore,
cur nequeat certa mundi languescere parte,
dum loca luminibus propriis inimica per exit


In this text, there is "fulget" and not "refulget".
Why does the english/american text use "refulget" ? Is a small word meaning "re ?".

I write here, because I don't believe in Gods, so I can't ask a question to a God, only to normal humans.
 
Moderators: Antoine, Assaf, Oleg, daniel_o
 
 
Betatest: Forum search engine
 
Forum jump