Still. Ovid is in the news.
daivid wrote: Looks to me the usual newspaper trick of titillating their readers with a bit of mild sex while feigning disapproval.
Shakespeare! Hardly clean! Especially when one adopts the OP, the innuendo jumps off the page at you....
Markos wrote:I do find a certain moral rectitude in Homer lacking in the later Greeks, but maybe that is a bit of my own Victorian-like bias--I tend to be a little repressed myself.
Markos wrote:When it is combined with literary genius, I have no problem introducing bawdiness to school kids. (They will probably find it on their own, regardless. ) Determining the (sexual) ethics of Homer, who is either the greatest writer of all time or the second greatest after Shakespeare, is difficult, because it is hard to separate the inner voice of the poet from the deplorable actions of his characters. I do find a certain moral rectitude in Homer lacking in the later Greeks, but maybe that is a bit of my own Victorian-like bias--I tend to be a little repressed myself.
mwh wrote:Did no-one mention Fordyce's Catullus, in which "a few poems which do not lend themselves to comment in English have been omitted"? Don't you just love that "lend themselves to comment in English"? And by "a few" he meant 39, a full third of the total number. This was not 19th century, not Victorian, but 1961 -- the infamous sixties. Around the time Dover was introducing classicists to the word ****.
Users browsing this forum: Ben Clark and 5 guests