Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
The Whole North Into Gaul
Say what you want about it, I repress my emotions :lol:
So my latin teacher says Ralph Mathisen would never accept this because I can't do my own translations. (Which is somewhat true, but I can interpret a translated wording of text rather easily.) So I'm probably not going to submit this. I'll still finish it for you guys to read though.
OK! I'm eagerly awaiting for your text Magister! Confusedmile:

Few notes:

1. Latin/English and English/Latin Dictionary.

2. I can understand your theacher but....he's wrong!
Example: I might easily translate all the texts needed but this doesn't mean that I would be able to write a detailed text about the matter.

3. You need also Greek, Magister, you need also the damn Ancient Greek Language!
It's a true Hell, a damn nightmare but then...... it becomes a pleasure, an incredible pleasure....when you see those signs on the paper opening their true meaning before your eyes....well, it''s...I cannot find the words, it's fantastic.
Hehehe... if reading from the primary sources was a true prerequisite, then many many articles would never have been published... :evil: :evil:
Forum rules
George C. K.
῾Ηρακλῆος γὰρ ἀνικήτου γένος ἐστέ
Quote:So my latin teacher says Ralph Mathisen would never accept this because I can't do my own translations... So I'm probably not going to submit this.

Now hold on there. Your Latin teacher might end up being correct, but that doesn't mean you shouldn't submit to the Journal of Late Antiquity. Here's why:

1) Your teacher might be wrong, and the Journal might accept it.
2) Even if they do say no, they might give you valuable feedback.
3) Even if they do say no, the editors might remember you. This could be useful for any future articles you want to submit.
5) Even if they do say no, someone else might say yes. I learned from Kurt Vonnegut that a writer should always submit to his main choice for publisher first, even if he has no hope of them accepting, and then "submit down" to others if the first choice says no. You do this to judge the market and perceived value of your work. Your first real article might only be published in student publications or something similar. But even if you are only published in something from a small university's history department, for instance, this is good experience for the world of publishing and it will look good on your resume for future submissions.
David J. Cord
So I slacked off on this for a while and decided to continue it, but go about it in a different manner.

Instead of one huge article, I'm dividing it into three and will probably submit the best one. Here is what I'm doing instead:

1. Severinus of Noricum and the defense of the Danubian Limes
2. How Aetius won The Battle of the Catalaunian Plains - my theory on the use of a feigned retreat
3. Not sure - there's a jumble of information I'd like to submit, but I think I might do my theory on adjusting dating the Notitia Dignitatum to have been edited until 435.

I'll submit the best one, and probably "publish" the other 2 here.

BTW, Thanks for the advice guys. And Diocle, my latin teacher is a she.
Let me give you some good advice, markedly different from the above, but time tested and proven.

Its so unlikely to get published you can't put it in decimal places, I'm not sure of a kind way to say this over the internet, but yes. That certainly does not mean you stop writing. I think splitting the original idea into three smaller ones is the best thing you could do. Keep working on these on the side, eventually you want to be able to split these three into smaller ones. E.g take idea number 3. I recently did something on dating some Orphic stuff. The original idea was about genealogical tropes in Orphic poetry, it got split down into comparative mythology, something on metrics, relative chronology and dating via morphological changes and put back together in a different shape. It took about a year and was defended and attacked at three conferences to improve it before it was finished.

Your major aim ought to be the languages: You need to thoroughly work over them in anticipation for working on textual and palaeographical problems since these are the pre-requisite for developing a basic toolkit. So read, read, read and in particular make sure you're using composition textbooks. I'm sure our Latin teacher would be happy to help. When I have time I'd be happy to check your output.

Also the most important thing you can do for your Latin is learn Greek. Well technically its to learn related Italic languages, but stylistically much is dependent on Greek writers until later times.

Finally, translation is different from reading and in the earlier stages used readers with built in commentaries and lexica rather than waste time with dictionaries. Find vocabulary frequency lists and then try to set yourself stylistic problems, e.g Juvenal's use of Ovidian phrases etc to train the mind to catch "problems". Latin writers, annoyingly, think blatant intertext is the way to go.
Here is my article about the account of the Life of St. Severinus by Eugippius and its insight into the status Danube Frontier.

Any and all comments and criticisms are gladly accepted.

Attached Files
.pdf   Less than 1 minute ago">StSeverinusandtheDefenseoftheDanube.pdf (Size: 196.66 KB / Downloads: 4)
I will certenly give you feedback soon.
A first note is that you tend to use wrong cases in your Latin. I know it is something that English speakers are not familiar with, but you have to correct them. Although I do not know Latin apart from the very basics, I am fairly sure (and others like Jass can of course speak with more certainty) that it should be :

1. legio (instead of leigo, this is a simple oversight surely)
2. Legio I Adiutrix (instead of Adiutricis)
3. Tribunus (instead of tribunis)

Some capitalizations are also unnecessary or wrong.

As a general remark, I think you should try to make a much clearer point. What is it you want to do in the article? Do you want to give an account of the situation as is presented in the said work and nothing more? Do you want to compare the situation presented with what modern authors have claimed for the situation to have been? Do you want to add to a certain argument? Challenge one? Propose your own? I also would personally like to see more modern sources.
Forum rules
George C. K.
῾Ηρακλῆος γὰρ ἀνικήτου γένος ἐστέ
The journal frowns upon modern sources, they recommend few and far between. They also require latin words be done with the first letter of the phrase capitalized and the rest of the phrase lowercase. Adiutricis is correct, because I'm referring to how it was listed in the Notitia. Same applies to Tribunis (although Tribunus also works in this context) and to Legio. I don't know if it was ever Leigo, that seems wrong IMO.

Thanks Macedon, I agree that I need to work on making my point clearer.
Are you sure? They (the forms you used) are genitive case, aren't they? Don't you need them in the nominative?
Forum rules
George C. K.
῾Ηρακλῆος γὰρ ἀνικήτου γένος ἐστέ
Quote:Are you sure? They are genitive case, aren't they?

That's what I thought. The form Adiutricis used in the ND surely refers to a subgroup of the Adiutrix legion - the legion name itself would still be I Adiutrix?

(Incidentally, I would still be wary of using the mention of this legion in the Theodosian Code as evidence for their continued existence as a military unit - we know from John Lydus and others that civil servants were 'enrolled' in I Adiutrix as an administrative fiction, long after the legion itself had ceased to exist.)

I'd also agree that you need some supporting sources - whatever the JLE seems to be saying, they surely don't mean that you can only refer to the original source. That leaves you with only your own unsupported opinion on a highly complex ancient text...

Are there other studies of the Vita you could draw on, or studies of the military situation in this period? Or even investigations of the potential hazards of using hagiography as a primary source? If you could provide a critical context for your argument then the point you are making would be clearer - are you disputing previous studies, or building upon them? How does what you are saying differ from what others might have said? And so on. All critical writing is a conversation, both with the subject and with those (often very many) others who have studied it previously.
I agree with a great deal of what has been said and was going to add some comments of my own when I found the following article: Charles Christopher Mierow, 'Eugippius and the Closing Years of the Province of Noricum Ripense', Classical Philology, vol. 10, no. 2 (Apr. 1915), 166-187. It may have some bearing on your article. It can be read on JSTOR and the military situation is dealt with on pp. 180-182.
Michael King Macdona

And do as adversaries do in law, -
Strive mightily, but eat and drink as friends.
(The Taming of the Shrew: Act 1, Scene 2)
Thanks for the reference, Renatus. I will enjoy reading it.
Francis Hagan

The Barcarii

Forum Jump: