I think "Use for poems written in Latin since 1300" is fine. The generalist definitions we've encountered support a scope like this.
---
in an email dated 2/28/2008 Bruce Tabb wrote:
I've been reading about Neo-Latin too. It's an interesting topic. Most
of what I've read complements the Helander quote you provide here,
though there is some flexibility with the dates. The farther north in
Europe you go the more recent the start date for Neo-Latin. The
Neo-Latin Centre in Ireland begins with literature from the mid 13th
century. But this makes sense, reflecting the spread of renaissance
thought, I suppose.
What I remember from the BSC meeting is Bob's comment about the LCSH
"Latin Poetry (medieval and modern)", and his objection that we are not
using the LCSH form. While the LCSH form does not follow the NISO
standard, the editorial team, when considering a proposal for a new
term, is supposed, whenever possible, to use the same form from other
lists, LCSH being one of them.
There is no term for Latin poems. Could we consider changing the
proposal to Latin poems with a SN: Use for poems written in Latin.
Individual libraries could then add the appropriate $z and/or $y.
In other words, a book of Latin poems printed in Germany in 1550 would
have a string something like
Latin poems $z Germany $y 16th century or just Latin poems $y 16th
century
If the only thing that separates Neo-Latin poetry from other Latin
poetry is a time period, why not let the $y take care of this?
---
In an email dated 2/29/2008 Bruce Tabb and Nina Schneider wrote:
Just as I was beginning to write back, the Latinist called. What timing!
What I do not like about the proposed scope note (Use for poems written
Latin since 1300) is that it misses, at least to me, the more important
aspect of Neo-Latin in that it was an attempt to go back and recreate
classical Latin instead of using Medieval Latin. This is what Whiteman
states, this is how the OED defines the Neo-Latin, and this is also what
this Latinist told me in our phone conversation. The current proposed
scope note only notes the time period, so that to me the more
appropriate form of the descriptor would be Latin poems with at $y for
the time period.
As I suggested in a previous email, this would be more on target:
Use for poems written since 1300 in Latin that emulates classical rather
than medieval Latin.
Bruce
Schneider, Nina wrote:
> Bruce:
>
> Although I like your suggestion about keeping it simple, we need to
> respect the need for the term as proposed. I'm sure (although it might
> take a while to confirm) that there is precedent for granularity. If
> nothing else, we have warrant.
>
> The reason, I imagine, that Houghton can't use the LCSH term is because
> Neo-Latin literature (whether it's poetry or not) begins during the
> Renaissance, so the LCSH term with its qualifier is inappropriate. The
> other argument for this is in an email, which I think I forwarded to
> everyone, from Bruce Whiteman. He said:
>
> "Personally I think of neo-latin as post-medieval, ie Renaissance and
> later, after writers rediscovered Cicero and others and tried to write a
> Latin closer to classical ideals than to the dog latin of the Middle
> Ages. One primarily thinks of it in poems, though a Harvard University
> Press series, the I Tatti Remaissance Library (I just bought one of
> these) applied it also to prose texts like science, textual criticism
> etc."
>
> In other words, the problem with LCSH is the date range of the
> qualifier. If it was only "Latin Poetry" we wouldn't be having this
> conversation, I don't think. Or, at the very least, Latin poetry would
> be a BT for Neo-Latin poetry. But let's not go there.
>
> N
>
---
In an email dated 2/29/2008 Ryan Hildebrand wrote:
If Neo-Latin poems do recreate Classical Latin rather than use Medieval
Latin, then I agree with Bruce on the expanded SN (sorry I missed this
when Bruce suggested it earlier). I think "Neo-Latin poems" is the only
term which will express this characteristic in a meaningful way. Latin
poems $ y can't indicate the type of Latin used in a work, only when it
was written/published.
Bruce, are you okay with "Neo-Latin poems" with your proposed expanded SN?
John, is the expanded scope note one which will fit with your current
usage? Or does this complicate things for you?
----
In an email dated 2/29/2008 John Overholt wrote:
I don't have a problem with it, Ryan. In fact, I thought (based on my
limited understanding of the nuances involved) that was the thrust of
the scope note I originally proposed, which referred to "works by
Humanist authors". They were the ones rediscovering and emulating the
classics.
---
In an email dated 3/4/2008 Deborah J. Leslie wrote:
Latin poems written in the Middle Ages wouldn't be emulating Medieval
Latin. Can we let the "since 1300" be the indication that we're talking
about classical Latin poetry written in the Middle Ages? Thus: "Use for
poems written since 1300 in Latin that emulate classical Latin." Or
maybe: "Use for poems written since 1300 in classical Latin."
---
In an email Kate Moriarty wrote:
This one sounds good. Would it be "emulates," since it refers to the
Latin, as opposed to "emulate?"
---
In an email dated 3/4/2008 Deborah J. Leslie responded to this thread:
DJL: I don't think so. "Emulate" and "in Latin" both modify "poems."
Randy Brandt: I think Kate is right. It is the language that is emulating classical Latin, not the poems. If it was poems emulating "classical Latin poems," that would be different.
DJL: Oh I see: you’re bracketing “Latin that emulates classical Latin” instead of: “poems written since 1300 in Latin.” It would be nice if the SN could be reworded to remove that ambiguity, but nothing is coming to mind.
---
In an email dated 3/4/2008 Bruce Tabb wrote:
Dear all
Neo-Latin and poems written in it are a Renaissance phenomenon,
according to what I've read and what scholars have told me. (Yes, many
scholars object to "Renaissance" as a term and as an time period. But
most agree that it was a time of nostalgia for the classical period.)
The 1300 refers to the earliest date for Renaissance thought. That's
the problem with dates: it's like saying that it was the Middle Ages one
day and the Renaissance the next.
Regardless of time period, the literature and the scholars compare the
type of Latin in these poems to medieval Latin, and I think the scope
note should reflect this. Perhaps "emulates" is not the best choose of
words, though that's the word the OED uses.
---
Comments (4)
Nina Schneider said
at 8:38 pm on May 19, 2008
And that's where we stand, as of 5/19/2008:
"Use for poems written since 1300 in Latin that emulates classical Latin."
N.B. John's original SN reads: "Use for poems written in Latin by humanist authors, from 1300 AD onward."
Bruce Tabb said
at 1:42 pm on May 20, 2008
I asked the Latinist here what the difference is between classical and Medieval Latin. Did the authors get sloppy with the endings, or what? Mary answered that this is not the case, that authors writing Latin during the classical period were writing in their native language, while authors writing in Neo-Latin were not. Anyone who speaks or writes a non-native language knows this: what a non-native speaker says or writes may be grammatically correct, but it's just necessarily how a native would express it. Mary also told me that poetry was not a genre for Medieval authors. I know that there is a difference in pronunciation between classical and Medieval Latin, and I thought maybe there were differences in grammatical structure as well. In my proposed scope note "Use for poems written since 1300 in Latin that emulates classical Latin" I was trying to get at some grammatical differences between Medieval and classical Latin. Now I don't think there are any. So, I prefer the proposed scope note "Use for poems written in Latin by humanist authors, from 1300 AD onward" over mine. My only question is, are Neo-Latin poems only written by humanists?
Nina Schneider said
at 5:04 pm on May 20, 2008
I'm assuming the phrase "humanist authors" was included to get at the fact that this is poetry is written in Latin during and after the Renaissance in a style of Latin that mimics/attempts to equal [i.e. emulates] classical Latin and was used for both spiritual and secular topics. So, although it's modern [ie. after 1300], it's also classical. OED states:
A. adj.
a. Of or relating to the Romance languages as a group, or to any one of them; formerly spec. used to designate the vernacular language of medieval France, as opposed to Latin (now rare).
b. Of or relating to Latin as used since the late 14th cent. by authors seeking (esp. during the Renaissance) to emulate classical rather than medieval models.
AND, Webster's 3rd states that Neo-Latin is new Latin.
-- Hey, now I'm sort of wondering... if Neo-Latin is defined in a dictionary, do we need to worry about the definition of Neo-Latin? Can't we just concentrate on the idea of Neo-Latin poetry? The SN would be something like: Use for poems written in neo-Latin.
Nina Schneider said
at 2:57 pm on Jun 27, 2008
6.27: SN: Use for poems written in Latin since ca. 1300.
BT: Poems
Hierarchy: Literary forms
You don't have permission to comment on this page.