INOPIBUS PRESS: MISSOULA, MT
FIRST EDITION
© 2009, E. H. Campbell ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
Saturday, September 12, 2009
CICERO’S IN CATILINAM I- II & III 1-10 (A New Translation)
http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2009/09/12/18621675.php
INOPIBUS PRESS: MISSOULA, MT
FIRST EDITION
© 2009, E. H. Campbell ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
INOPIBUS PRESS: MISSOULA, MT
FIRST EDITION
© 2009, E. H. Campbell ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
Friday, August 28, 2009
Tacitus' Germanorum Liber 1.1 - 10.6 (A New Translation)
Saturday, July 11, 2009
Discontents at Rome: 63 B.C. (Revised June 17, 2009)
http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2008/11/30/18553217.php?show_comments=1#18607058
They being subservient would be revolutionaries so as to be equals;
and they being equals, so as to be mighty.
The Politics 5.1302a29-30
I. PRŎOEMIUM
PREFACE TO THE FIFTH EDITION
Discontents at Rome: 63 B.C. was begun for reasons now irrelevant in the Autumn 2005. The publication of the Fourth Edition, then, indicates that the work has entered its fourth year. In order to relieve myself of the tedium of constantly alternating back and forth between the Times New Roman font and Palatino Linotype font, I resolved to reformat the whole document in Palatino Linotype because it seems to work better with Greek lettering. This added a number of pages to the document as a whole.
This version of the manuscript Discontents at Rome: 63 B.C. is based on Sallust's Bellum Catilinae. The reader may wish to read that before reading Discontents at Rome: 63 B.C. as essential background. Nevertheless the whole text of the Bellum Catilinae is included within Discontents. In between Sallust's narrative the four speeches of Cicero, In Catilinam I-IV, appear at what would have been their appropriate time in the chronology and interrupt Sallust's narrative but I have only completed the translation of the first two of Cicero's speeches so there is a long portion of un-translated Latin in the middle of the document.
The general thrust of the argument presented in Discontents is a refutation of Judith Kalb's thesis that Lucius Sergius Catiline was 'a Roman Bolshevik,' but the fact that Catiline was compared to Jesus Christ by Blok, and through Blok, Kalb is not without issue. But whereas Kalb, as a professor of the Russian language, neither understands any of Sallust's writing, nor any Latin, and moreover, as a philosophical enemy of the former Soviet Union, she has not represented either the Bolshevik tradition, nor that of L. Sergius Catiline, truthfully. Thus Judith Kalb, in my opinion, has made a gross distortion of history which amounts to historical revisionism. In short, Kalb is an academic who wrote and published about things she did not completely understand which, again in my opinion, amounts to academic misconduct since nothing in the life of Lenin could justly be compared to the acts of a villain like L. Sergius Catiline. Discontents at Rome: 63 B.C. not only resituates both Catiline and Lenin back to their proper places in history by separating them, but also puts Kalb into her proper historical place and me into mine as well. In the end, however, what Discontents at Rome: 63 B.C. truly demonstrates is that those within the institutions can only think and act the way people in those institutions can think and act and that those outside them can do but the same.
It has been my intention neither to lead the reader to believe that the translations of the great Hellenists and Latinists of Oxford and Harvard are wholly inadequate nor that they are beyond reproach; nor have I intended to lead the reader to believe one rendering of these works into English is altogether much better than all others and, on account of that, be relied upon alone. Ezra Pound said somewhere that every generation requires a new translation. But here is more to it than this: it is necessary for the student to become acquainted with both the best of the old and the best of the new, and, consequently, I believe one should familiarize oneself with as many of these translators, textual critics, and commentators as they have time for, not just with my work alone. Many of the standard translations are quite good. The work done by the English grammarians, authenticating texts, translating the Greek and Latin library, codifying Greek and Latin grammar, and certifying the Latin and Greek dictionaries and lexicon, in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries ca.1885-1925, is indubitably of singular importance to the history of Western thought. And we must but ask: how is it that what once was of such great importance to countless scholars, the best and the brightest, who were employed for well neigh forty years standardizing this library has all but vanished from American higher education? The enormous amount of dedication, energy, and resources demands its recompense. They receive that here.
On the other hand, I must confess that J. C. Rolf's translation of the Bellum Catilinae has not suited my purposes. Indeed, in his translation of the Bellum Catilinae, he took, in my opinion, far too many liberties with respect to the exactness of grammar and syntax; though the gist of what it says in Latin truly is there, and indubitably I could not have achieved what I have achieved without his work ahead of me, indeed I often relied on it for the gist of Sallust; but it did not have the precision I have required. And on account of the fact that I seldom agreed with his translation, and therefore would not render Sallust's epigrams among my own words in the manner he chose; I concluded that a complete translation of the Bellum Catilinae by my own hand was necessary. But if the whole of the Bellum Catilinae, then why not the whole of Cicero's Orationes in Catilinam I-IV, since both texts are true and primary things, the very things to be taken in hand. I therefore have felt the need to include a complete Latin text, translation, and commentary of that document as well.
The parts of Sallust's narrative about the founding of the city and the decline of its morals, have been substantively and creatively employed before the center piece, the Narrative, Narratio, 'ο 'εξηγητικός, which itself begins with the First Conspiracy and relates the entire Bellum Catilinae thence from to the defeat of Catilinae at Pistora, the ad baculum argumentum, in January of B.C. 62. Therefore I resolved to include Sallust's preface to Bellum Catilinae earlier on in the Overview, Praetexto, 'ο λόγος and, moreover, to repeat a number of quotations from both the Overview, the Narrative later on in the Argument, Argumentum, 'ο συλλογισμὸς and the Conclusion, Discerno, ή κριτικός. Aware of the repetitive nature of this practice, after delivering the Narrative I supply in brief citations from both the Bellum Catilinae and In Catilinam in English, which I have done, where I believe necessary, only to punctuate important philosophical points pertaining to the truth or fallacy of certain arguments lain down by the opposition. Thus a few of the things you have read before the Argument and the Conclusion one read before. One shall have, nevertheless, read the whole Bellum Catilinae and the four orations of Cicero against Catiline, in both English and Latin, by the time one has completed the whole work.
I intend to render a translation of the four speeches Cicero and to place these speeches in between Sallust's narrative, at the proper time when they should have occurred, thus creating a sort of narrative intextus, or πεπλεγμενοι: an interweaving of texts including remarks by a number of Latin and Greek authors, like Plutarch and Cassius Dio, to name a few. There remains, however, a great many Greek and Latin translations ahead of me, and I sincerely hope to have the time to get around to rendering those texts as well; but there are, one must recall, many renderings of the Greek and Latin library which are fine unto themselves; and those ought to be known to every student of the Classics. Finally, it is critical that every student memorize the Greek alphabet which will give them the ability, at the very least, to find Greek words in the Lexicon.
EDWARD H. CAMPBELL
MISSOULA, MONTANA
JUNE 17, 2009
§Discontents at Rome: 63 B.C. (Revised June 17, 2009)
Saturday Jul 11th, 2009 12:43 PM 
DISCONTENTS AT ROME: 63 B.C.
CLASS STRUGGLE AND SOCIAL PRAXIS IN REPUBLICAN ROME
WITH A NEW TRANSLATION, TEXT, AND COMMENTARY OF SALLUST'S BELLUM CATILINAE AND CICERO'S ORATIONES IN CATILINAM I-II (REVISED JUNE 11, 2009)
BY E. H. CAMPBELL
INOPIBUS PRESS: MISSOULA, MT
FIFTH EDITION
© E. H. Campbell 2006, 2009
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
To Dr. Paul R. Dixon
Έλάττους τε γὰρ 'όντες [30] 'όπως 'ίσοι 'ω̃σι στασιάζουσι,
καὶ 'ίσοι 'όντες 'όπως μείζους.
CLASS STRUGGLE AND SOCIAL PRAXIS IN REPUBLICAN ROME
WITH A NEW TRANSLATION, TEXT, AND COMMENTARY OF SALLUST'S BELLUM CATILINAE AND CICERO'S ORATIONES IN CATILINAM I-II (REVISED JUNE 11, 2009)
BY E. H. CAMPBELL
INOPIBUS PRESS: MISSOULA, MT
FIFTH EDITION
© E. H. Campbell 2006, 2009
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
To Dr. Paul R. Dixon
Έλάττους τε γὰρ 'όντες [30] 'όπως 'ίσοι 'ω̃σι στασιάζουσι,
καὶ 'ίσοι 'όντες 'όπως μείζους.
They being subservient would be revolutionaries so as to be equals;
and they being equals, so as to be mighty.
The Politics 5.1302a29-30
I. PRŎOEMIUM
PREFACE TO THE FIFTH EDITION
Discontents at Rome: 63 B.C. was begun for reasons now irrelevant in the Autumn 2005. The publication of the Fourth Edition, then, indicates that the work has entered its fourth year. In order to relieve myself of the tedium of constantly alternating back and forth between the Times New Roman font and Palatino Linotype font, I resolved to reformat the whole document in Palatino Linotype because it seems to work better with Greek lettering. This added a number of pages to the document as a whole.
This version of the manuscript Discontents at Rome: 63 B.C. is based on Sallust's Bellum Catilinae. The reader may wish to read that before reading Discontents at Rome: 63 B.C. as essential background. Nevertheless the whole text of the Bellum Catilinae is included within Discontents. In between Sallust's narrative the four speeches of Cicero, In Catilinam I-IV, appear at what would have been their appropriate time in the chronology and interrupt Sallust's narrative but I have only completed the translation of the first two of Cicero's speeches so there is a long portion of un-translated Latin in the middle of the document.
The general thrust of the argument presented in Discontents is a refutation of Judith Kalb's thesis that Lucius Sergius Catiline was 'a Roman Bolshevik,' but the fact that Catiline was compared to Jesus Christ by Blok, and through Blok, Kalb is not without issue. But whereas Kalb, as a professor of the Russian language, neither understands any of Sallust's writing, nor any Latin, and moreover, as a philosophical enemy of the former Soviet Union, she has not represented either the Bolshevik tradition, nor that of L. Sergius Catiline, truthfully. Thus Judith Kalb, in my opinion, has made a gross distortion of history which amounts to historical revisionism. In short, Kalb is an academic who wrote and published about things she did not completely understand which, again in my opinion, amounts to academic misconduct since nothing in the life of Lenin could justly be compared to the acts of a villain like L. Sergius Catiline. Discontents at Rome: 63 B.C. not only resituates both Catiline and Lenin back to their proper places in history by separating them, but also puts Kalb into her proper historical place and me into mine as well. In the end, however, what Discontents at Rome: 63 B.C. truly demonstrates is that those within the institutions can only think and act the way people in those institutions can think and act and that those outside them can do but the same.
It has been my intention neither to lead the reader to believe that the translations of the great Hellenists and Latinists of Oxford and Harvard are wholly inadequate nor that they are beyond reproach; nor have I intended to lead the reader to believe one rendering of these works into English is altogether much better than all others and, on account of that, be relied upon alone. Ezra Pound said somewhere that every generation requires a new translation. But here is more to it than this: it is necessary for the student to become acquainted with both the best of the old and the best of the new, and, consequently, I believe one should familiarize oneself with as many of these translators, textual critics, and commentators as they have time for, not just with my work alone. Many of the standard translations are quite good. The work done by the English grammarians, authenticating texts, translating the Greek and Latin library, codifying Greek and Latin grammar, and certifying the Latin and Greek dictionaries and lexicon, in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries ca.1885-1925, is indubitably of singular importance to the history of Western thought. And we must but ask: how is it that what once was of such great importance to countless scholars, the best and the brightest, who were employed for well neigh forty years standardizing this library has all but vanished from American higher education? The enormous amount of dedication, energy, and resources demands its recompense. They receive that here.
On the other hand, I must confess that J. C. Rolf's translation of the Bellum Catilinae has not suited my purposes. Indeed, in his translation of the Bellum Catilinae, he took, in my opinion, far too many liberties with respect to the exactness of grammar and syntax; though the gist of what it says in Latin truly is there, and indubitably I could not have achieved what I have achieved without his work ahead of me, indeed I often relied on it for the gist of Sallust; but it did not have the precision I have required. And on account of the fact that I seldom agreed with his translation, and therefore would not render Sallust's epigrams among my own words in the manner he chose; I concluded that a complete translation of the Bellum Catilinae by my own hand was necessary. But if the whole of the Bellum Catilinae, then why not the whole of Cicero's Orationes in Catilinam I-IV, since both texts are true and primary things, the very things to be taken in hand. I therefore have felt the need to include a complete Latin text, translation, and commentary of that document as well.
The parts of Sallust's narrative about the founding of the city and the decline of its morals, have been substantively and creatively employed before the center piece, the Narrative, Narratio, 'ο 'εξηγητικός, which itself begins with the First Conspiracy and relates the entire Bellum Catilinae thence from to the defeat of Catilinae at Pistora, the ad baculum argumentum, in January of B.C. 62. Therefore I resolved to include Sallust's preface to Bellum Catilinae earlier on in the Overview, Praetexto, 'ο λόγος and, moreover, to repeat a number of quotations from both the Overview, the Narrative later on in the Argument, Argumentum, 'ο συλλογισμὸς and the Conclusion, Discerno, ή κριτικός. Aware of the repetitive nature of this practice, after delivering the Narrative I supply in brief citations from both the Bellum Catilinae and In Catilinam in English, which I have done, where I believe necessary, only to punctuate important philosophical points pertaining to the truth or fallacy of certain arguments lain down by the opposition. Thus a few of the things you have read before the Argument and the Conclusion one read before. One shall have, nevertheless, read the whole Bellum Catilinae and the four orations of Cicero against Catiline, in both English and Latin, by the time one has completed the whole work.
I intend to render a translation of the four speeches Cicero and to place these speeches in between Sallust's narrative, at the proper time when they should have occurred, thus creating a sort of narrative intextus, or πεπλεγμενοι: an interweaving of texts including remarks by a number of Latin and Greek authors, like Plutarch and Cassius Dio, to name a few. There remains, however, a great many Greek and Latin translations ahead of me, and I sincerely hope to have the time to get around to rendering those texts as well; but there are, one must recall, many renderings of the Greek and Latin library which are fine unto themselves; and those ought to be known to every student of the Classics. Finally, it is critical that every student memorize the Greek alphabet which will give them the ability, at the very least, to find Greek words in the Lexicon.
EDWARD H. CAMPBELL
MISSOULA, MONTANA
JUNE 17, 2009
Wednesday, June 3, 2009
Genesis: The Seven Days of Creation (A new translation from Jerome's Latin Bible)
http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2009/06/03/18600237.php
Edward Campbell
Missoula, MT
June 3, 2009
Genesis:
The Seven Days of Creation
A New Translation from Jerome's Latin Bible
With text and commentary
By E. H. Campbell
© E. H. Campbell 2009
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
To G. W. F. Hegel
Ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ Λόγος, καὶ ὁ Λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν Θεόν, καὶ Θεὸς ἦν ὁ Λόγος.
In the beginning was Reason, and on account of God Reason was, and God was Reason. (John 1.1)
Foreword
At the risk of being branded an apostate, excommunicated, and later decapitated, I must at first advance the Principle of Generosity and ask the reader to receive this document with an open mind and presume that the document, and the intentions of its author, are both true and of philosophical value. Understand that it is advanced in the spirit of G. W. F. Hegel's assertion that Man is the artificer of his own Gods.
"The self that is thought of is not the actual self…For what is thought of, ceases to be something [merely] thought of, something alien to the self's knowledge, only when the self has produced it, and therefore beholds the determination of the object as its own, consequently beholds itself in its object." (Phenomenology of Spirit 684)
Now of course to presume that Man is the artificer of his own Gods, therefore of his own Religion, is not to say that the Gods do not exist, but is in fact to assert that the Gods very much do exist and have existed. This I ask you to contemplate deeply, but, at the risk of sounding trite, I wish you, the reader, to understand the relation between God and Man as the relationship between being and Pure Being, or rather the relationship between Being and beings.
What I seek the reader to understand here, from the part of Genesis relating to the Creation in 'seven days' is not the days but to understand each day as a dialectical trope of the human mind effectively from animal consciousness to rational thought; the days being a metaphor for each conscious trope.
It is not my purpose here to provide academically suitable justifications for a theory about the origins of the Bible, but to state simply what I think they are. Nor is it my purpose to justify either past or present arguments for the existence of God, but to introduce my own theory regardless of what any theologian or religious authority may think of it.
The Bible was written in Greek, Josephus having been the principal author of it. It is not a four thousand year old Torah, though it may have philosophical principals within it which have been borrowed from four thousand year old sources; for the Bible is principally this: borrowed material. It was written in Hellenistic Greek during the second century B.C. This non-extant Greek text is commonly understood under the rubric of J, E, P, D and R, each initial representing a hypothetical author. The Greek texts J, E, P, D, and R were translated into Latin and the Greek text was destroyed.
The Latin Bible is called the Latin Vulgate Bible. The Vulgate Bible was published in the second century A.D. and it is the oldest extant copy of the Bible, it is not a text of the Bible but rather a surrogate text or a sub-text. It is not the real Bible, but it is the oldest Bible that we have.
The Vulgate Bible was thereafter translated back into Greek. That sub-text, now twice removed from the compilations of J, E, P, D, and R, is called the Septuagint, the oldest extant copy being approximately 1000 A.D. The Septuagint was there after translated into and artificial language based on Greek called Hebrew. Thus the so-called Torah, aside from the problems associated with the multiple authorship and redactions of J, E, P, D, and R, is a translation of a translation of a translation.
The oldest extant evidence of the Hebrew language comes from the second century B.C., and for all the archeological digging in the Holy Land no one has unearthed any evidence of a Hebrew civilization earlier than that, not one shekel has ever been found, only Greek coins, drachma. Indeed Herodotus himself testifies that there was no Jewish civilization in Palestine when he visited the land himself. Thus any attempt to translate the Bible from an 'original Hebrew' is a garbled translation at best since the oldest extant copy of the Bible is indeed in Latin, it would be pointless to attempt find an original version.
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
To G. W. F. Hegel
Ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ Λόγος, καὶ ὁ Λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν Θεόν, καὶ Θεὸς ἦν ὁ Λόγος.
In the beginning was Reason, and on account of God Reason was, and God was Reason. (John 1.1)
Foreword
At the risk of being branded an apostate, excommunicated, and later decapitated, I must at first advance the Principle of Generosity and ask the reader to receive this document with an open mind and presume that the document, and the intentions of its author, are both true and of philosophical value. Understand that it is advanced in the spirit of G. W. F. Hegel's assertion that Man is the artificer of his own Gods.
"The self that is thought of is not the actual self…For what is thought of, ceases to be something [merely] thought of, something alien to the self's knowledge, only when the self has produced it, and therefore beholds the determination of the object as its own, consequently beholds itself in its object." (Phenomenology of Spirit 684)
Now of course to presume that Man is the artificer of his own Gods, therefore of his own Religion, is not to say that the Gods do not exist, but is in fact to assert that the Gods very much do exist and have existed. This I ask you to contemplate deeply, but, at the risk of sounding trite, I wish you, the reader, to understand the relation between God and Man as the relationship between being and Pure Being, or rather the relationship between Being and beings.
What I seek the reader to understand here, from the part of Genesis relating to the Creation in 'seven days' is not the days but to understand each day as a dialectical trope of the human mind effectively from animal consciousness to rational thought; the days being a metaphor for each conscious trope.
It is not my purpose here to provide academically suitable justifications for a theory about the origins of the Bible, but to state simply what I think they are. Nor is it my purpose to justify either past or present arguments for the existence of God, but to introduce my own theory regardless of what any theologian or religious authority may think of it.
The Bible was written in Greek, Josephus having been the principal author of it. It is not a four thousand year old Torah, though it may have philosophical principals within it which have been borrowed from four thousand year old sources; for the Bible is principally this: borrowed material. It was written in Hellenistic Greek during the second century B.C. This non-extant Greek text is commonly understood under the rubric of J, E, P, D and R, each initial representing a hypothetical author. The Greek texts J, E, P, D, and R were translated into Latin and the Greek text was destroyed.
The Latin Bible is called the Latin Vulgate Bible. The Vulgate Bible was published in the second century A.D. and it is the oldest extant copy of the Bible, it is not a text of the Bible but rather a surrogate text or a sub-text. It is not the real Bible, but it is the oldest Bible that we have.
The Vulgate Bible was thereafter translated back into Greek. That sub-text, now twice removed from the compilations of J, E, P, D, and R, is called the Septuagint, the oldest extant copy being approximately 1000 A.D. The Septuagint was there after translated into and artificial language based on Greek called Hebrew. Thus the so-called Torah, aside from the problems associated with the multiple authorship and redactions of J, E, P, D, and R, is a translation of a translation of a translation.
The oldest extant evidence of the Hebrew language comes from the second century B.C., and for all the archeological digging in the Holy Land no one has unearthed any evidence of a Hebrew civilization earlier than that, not one shekel has ever been found, only Greek coins, drachma. Indeed Herodotus himself testifies that there was no Jewish civilization in Palestine when he visited the land himself. Thus any attempt to translate the Bible from an 'original Hebrew' is a garbled translation at best since the oldest extant copy of the Bible is indeed in Latin, it would be pointless to attempt find an original version.
Edward Campbell
Missoula, MT
June 3, 2009
Wednesday, December 17, 2008
The Spartacus Rebellion: a new translation from Appian's Civil Wars
The Spartacus Rebellion
From Appian's Civil Wars
A new translation with text, and commentary
Notebook 9: The Spartacus Rebellion
Wednesday Dec 17th, 2008 12:56 PM
And here's the proof....
Sallust's Bellum Catilinae: A New Translation
Sallust's Bellum Catilinae:
A New English Translation
with text, translation, and commentary
by E.H. Campbell
© E. H. Campbell 2007
All Rights Reserved
Foreword
Although this translation of Sallust's Bellum Catilinae is as yet an unfinish work, and there as yet remains not only some errata but also some difficult passages, I have determined to externalize this piece now in accordance with the demands of Time, Fortune, and Necessity. I hope the reader will keep in mind that this is a first draft and that since the Commentary to the text of the Bellum Catilinae is incomplete at this time, the Notebooks shall serve in leiu of a complete commentary. It is also my intention to render a complete translation and commentary to Cicero's In Catilinam I-IV and that the two of these works be included into Discontents at Rome : 63 B.C. Which I hope someday to complete. But because of a serious lack of resources and time, the reader for the time being will be compelled to accept this work as is.
It has been my intention neither to lead the reader to believe that the translations of the great Hellenists and Latinists of Oxford and Harvard are wholly inadequate nor that they beyond reproach; nor have I intended to lead the reader to believe that one rendering of these works into English is altogether much better than all others and, on account of that, to be relied upon alone. Ezra Pound said somewhere that every generation requires a new translation. But there is more to it than this: it is necessary for the student to become acquainted with the translations both of the old and of the new, and, consequently, I believe that one should familiarize oneself with as many of these translators, textual critics, and commentators as they have time for, not just with one work alone. Many of the standard translations are quite good, some hoever as not quite so good as the others.
The work done by the English grammarians, authenticating texts, translating the Greek and Latin library, codifying Greek and Latin grammar, and certifying the Latin and Greek dictionaries and lexicon, in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries c.1885-1925, should not however be underestimated and are indubitably of singular importance to the history of Western thought. But we must at this time in history now ask: How is it that these works, particularly the Bellum Catilinae, which were once of such grand importance that countless scholars, the best and the brightest of western civilization, who were employed for well neigh forty years standardizing this library, have all but vanished from American higher education? The loss of this enormous amount of dedication, this wisdom of inestimable value, the energy and resources of those scholars now demands a rational account and its recompense. I offer this translation with the sincere hope that it may ignite an academic movement for the serious study of the Latin authors, especially the Latin historians, and primarily this work by Sallust.
I must confess, however, that J. C. Rolf's translation of the Bellum Catilinae has not suited my purposes. Indeed, in his translation of the Bellum Catilinae, he took, in my opinion, far too many liberties with respect to the exactness of grammar and syntax; though the gist of what it says in Latin truly is there, and indubitably I could not have achieved what I have achieved with out his work being ahead of me, indeed I often relied on it for the gist of Sallust; but it did not have the precision that I have required. And on account of the fact that I seldom agreed with his translation, and therefore would not render Sallust's epigrams among my own words in the manner that he chose; I concluded that a complete translation of the Bellum Catilinae by my own hand was necessary.
Edward H. Campbell,
Olympia Washington,
May 13, 2008.
Although this translation of Sallust's Bellum Catilinae is as yet an unfinish work, and there as yet remains not only some errata but also some difficult passages, I have determined to externalize this piece now in accordance with the demands of Time, Fortune, and Necessity. I hope the reader will keep in mind that this is a first draft and that since the Commentary to the text of the Bellum Catilinae is incomplete at this time, the Notebooks shall serve in leiu of a complete commentary. It is also my intention to render a complete translation and commentary to Cicero's In Catilinam I-IV and that the two of these works be included into Discontents at Rome : 63 B.C. Which I hope someday to complete. But because of a serious lack of resources and time, the reader for the time being will be compelled to accept this work as is.
It has been my intention neither to lead the reader to believe that the translations of the great Hellenists and Latinists of Oxford and Harvard are wholly inadequate nor that they beyond reproach; nor have I intended to lead the reader to believe that one rendering of these works into English is altogether much better than all others and, on account of that, to be relied upon alone. Ezra Pound said somewhere that every generation requires a new translation. But there is more to it than this: it is necessary for the student to become acquainted with the translations both of the old and of the new, and, consequently, I believe that one should familiarize oneself with as many of these translators, textual critics, and commentators as they have time for, not just with one work alone. Many of the standard translations are quite good, some hoever as not quite so good as the others.
The work done by the English grammarians, authenticating texts, translating the Greek and Latin library, codifying Greek and Latin grammar, and certifying the Latin and Greek dictionaries and lexicon, in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries c.1885-1925, should not however be underestimated and are indubitably of singular importance to the history of Western thought. But we must at this time in history now ask: How is it that these works, particularly the Bellum Catilinae, which were once of such grand importance that countless scholars, the best and the brightest of western civilization, who were employed for well neigh forty years standardizing this library, have all but vanished from American higher education? The loss of this enormous amount of dedication, this wisdom of inestimable value, the energy and resources of those scholars now demands a rational account and its recompense. I offer this translation with the sincere hope that it may ignite an academic movement for the serious study of the Latin authors, especially the Latin historians, and primarily this work by Sallust.
I must confess, however, that J. C. Rolf's translation of the Bellum Catilinae has not suited my purposes. Indeed, in his translation of the Bellum Catilinae, he took, in my opinion, far too many liberties with respect to the exactness of grammar and syntax; though the gist of what it says in Latin truly is there, and indubitably I could not have achieved what I have achieved with out his work being ahead of me, indeed I often relied on it for the gist of Sallust; but it did not have the precision that I have required. And on account of the fact that I seldom agreed with his translation, and therefore would not render Sallust's epigrams among my own words in the manner that he chose; I concluded that a complete translation of the Bellum Catilinae by my own hand was necessary.
Edward H. Campbell,
Olympia Washington,
May 13, 2008.
Sunday, November 30, 2008
Discontents at Rome: 63 B.C. (Fourth Edition, Nov. 21, 2008)
http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2008/11/30/18553217.php
Discontents at Rome: 63 B.C. (Fourth Edition, Nov. 21, 2008)
Discontents at Rome: 63 B.C.
Class Struggle and Social Praxis
in Republican Rome
with a new translation, text, and commentary
of Sallust's Bellum Catilinae and Cicero's Orationes In Catilinam I-II
(revised Nov. 21, 2008)
By E. H. Campbell
FOURTH EDITION
156,266 words at 696 pages.
© E. H. Campbell 2006, 2009
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
Preface to the Fourth Edition
Discontents at Rome: 63 B.C. was begun for reasons now irrelevant in the Autumn 2005. The publication of the Fourth Edition, then, indicates that the work has entered its fourth year. In order to relieve myself of the tedium of constantly alternating back and forth between the Times New Roman font and Palatino Linotype font, I resolved to reformat the who document in Palatino Linotype because it seems to work better with Greek lettering. This added a number of pages to the document as a whole.
This version of the manuscript Discontents at Rome: 63 B.C. is based on Sallust's Bellum Catilinae.
The reader may wish to read that before reading Discontents at Rome: 63 B.C. as essential background. Nevertheless whole text of the Bellum Catilinae is included within Discontents. In between Sallust's narrative the four speeches of Cicero, In Catilinam I-IV, appear at what would have been their appropriate time in the chronology and interrupt Sallust's narrative but I have only completed the translation of the first two of Cicero's speeches so there is a long portion of un-translated Latin in the middle of the document.
The general thrust of the argument presented in Discontents is a refutation of Judith Kalb's thesis that Lucius Sergius Catiline was 'a Roman Bolshevik,' but the fact that Catiline was compared to Jesus Christ by Blok, and through Blok Kalb, is not without issue. But whereas Kalb, as a professor of the Russian language, neither understands any of Sallust's writing, or any Latin and, moreover, as a philosophical enemy of the former Soviet Union, she has not represented either the Bolshevik tradition, or that of L. Sergius Catiline, truthfully.
Thus Judith Kalb, in my opinion, has made a gross distortion of history which amounts to historical revisionism. In short, Kalb is an academic who wrote and published about things that she did not completely understand which, again in my opinion, amounts to academic misconduct since nothing in the life of Lenin could justly be compared to the acts of a villain like L. Sergius Catiline. Discontents at Rome: 63 B.C. not only resituates both Catiline and Lenin back to their proper places in history by separating them, but also puts Kalb into her proper historical place and me into mine as well. In the end, however, what Discontents at Rome: 63 B.C. truly demonstrates is that those within the institutions can only think and act the way people in those institutions can think and act and that those outside them can do but the same.
It has been my intention neither to lead the reader to believe that the translations of the great Hellenists and Latinists of Oxford and Harvard are wholly inadequate nor that they beyond reproach; nor have I intended to lead the reader to believe that one rendering of these works in to English is altogether much better than all others and, on account of that, be relied upon alone. Ezra Pound said somewhere that every generation requires a new translation. But here is more to it than this: it is necessary for the student to become acquainted with both the best of the old and the best of the new, and, consequently, I believe that one should familiarize oneself with as many of these translators, textual critics, and commentators as they have time for, not just with my work alone. Many of the standard translation are quite good. The work done by the English grammarians, authenticating texts, translating the Greek and Latin library, codifying Greek and Latin grammar, and certifying the Latin and Greek dictionaries and lexicon, in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries ca.1885-1925, is indubitably of singular importance to the history of Western thought. And we must but ask: how is it that what once was of such great importance that countless scholars, the best and the brightest, were employed for well neigh forty years standardizing this library has all but vanished from American higher education? The enormous amount of dedication, energy, and resources demands its recompense. They receive that here.
On the other hand, I must confess that J. C. Rolf's translation of the Bellum Catilinae has not suited my purposes. Indeed, in his translation of the Bellum Catilinae, he took, in my opinion, far too many liberties with respect to the exactness of grammar and syntax; though the gist of what it says in Latin truly is there, and indubitably I could not have achieved what I have achieved with out his work ahead of me, indeed I often relied on it for the gist of Sallust; but it did not have the precision that I have required. And on account of the fact that I seldom agreed with his translation, and therefore would not render Sallust's epigrams among my own words in the manner that he chose; I concluded that a complete translation of the Bellum Catilinae by my own hand was necessary. But if the whole of the Bellum Catilinae, then why not the whole of Cicero's Orationes in Catilinam I-IV, since both texts are first and primary things, the very things to be taken in hand. I therefore have felt the need to include a complete Latin text, translation, and commentary of that document as well.
The parts of Sallust's narrative about the founding of the city and the decline of its morals, have been substantively and creatively employed before the center piece, the Narrative, Narratio, 'ο 'εξηγητικός, which itself begins with the First Conspiracy and relates the entire Bellum Catilinae thence from to the defeat of Catilinae at Pistora, the ad baculum argumentum, in January of B.C. 62. Therefore I resolved to include Sallust's preface to Bellum Catilinae earlier on in the Overview, Praetexto, 'ο λόγος and, moreover, to repeat a number of things from both the Overview, the Narrative later on in the Argument, Argumentum, 'ο συλλογισμὸς and the Conclusion, Discerno, ή κριτικός. Aware of the repetitive nature of this practice, after delivering the Narrative I supply in brief citations from both the Bellum Catilinae and In Catilinam in English, which I have done, where I believe necessary, only to punctuate important philosophical points pertaining to the truth or fallacy of certain arguments lain down by the opposition. Thus a few of the things you have read before the Argument and the Conclusion one read before. One shall have, nevertheless, read the whole Bellum Catilinae and the four orations of Cicero against Catiline, in both English and Latin, by the time one has completed the whole work.
I intend to render a translation of the four speeches Cicero and to place these speeches in between Sallust's narrative, at the proper time when they should have occurred, thus creating a sort of narrative intextus, or πεπλεγμενοι: an interweaving of texts including remarks by a number of Latin and Greek authors, like Plutarch and Cassius Dio, to name a few. There remains, however, a great many Greek and Latin translations ahead of me, and I sincerely hope to have the time to get around to rendering those texts as well; but there are, one must recall, many renderings of the Greek and Latin library which are fine unto themselves; and those ought to be known to every student of the Classics. Finally, it is critical that every student memorize the Greek alphabet which will give them the ability, at the very least, to find Greek words in the Lexicon.
EDWARD H. CAMPBELL
MISSOULA, MONTANA
NOVEMBER 21, 2008
© E. H. Campbell 2006, 2009
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
Preface to the Fourth Edition
Discontents at Rome: 63 B.C. was begun for reasons now irrelevant in the Autumn 2005. The publication of the Fourth Edition, then, indicates that the work has entered its fourth year. In order to relieve myself of the tedium of constantly alternating back and forth between the Times New Roman font and Palatino Linotype font, I resolved to reformat the who document in Palatino Linotype because it seems to work better with Greek lettering. This added a number of pages to the document as a whole.
This version of the manuscript Discontents at Rome: 63 B.C. is based on Sallust's Bellum Catilinae.
The reader may wish to read that before reading Discontents at Rome: 63 B.C. as essential background. Nevertheless whole text of the Bellum Catilinae is included within Discontents. In between Sallust's narrative the four speeches of Cicero, In Catilinam I-IV, appear at what would have been their appropriate time in the chronology and interrupt Sallust's narrative but I have only completed the translation of the first two of Cicero's speeches so there is a long portion of un-translated Latin in the middle of the document.
The general thrust of the argument presented in Discontents is a refutation of Judith Kalb's thesis that Lucius Sergius Catiline was 'a Roman Bolshevik,' but the fact that Catiline was compared to Jesus Christ by Blok, and through Blok Kalb, is not without issue. But whereas Kalb, as a professor of the Russian language, neither understands any of Sallust's writing, or any Latin and, moreover, as a philosophical enemy of the former Soviet Union, she has not represented either the Bolshevik tradition, or that of L. Sergius Catiline, truthfully.
Thus Judith Kalb, in my opinion, has made a gross distortion of history which amounts to historical revisionism. In short, Kalb is an academic who wrote and published about things that she did not completely understand which, again in my opinion, amounts to academic misconduct since nothing in the life of Lenin could justly be compared to the acts of a villain like L. Sergius Catiline. Discontents at Rome: 63 B.C. not only resituates both Catiline and Lenin back to their proper places in history by separating them, but also puts Kalb into her proper historical place and me into mine as well. In the end, however, what Discontents at Rome: 63 B.C. truly demonstrates is that those within the institutions can only think and act the way people in those institutions can think and act and that those outside them can do but the same.
It has been my intention neither to lead the reader to believe that the translations of the great Hellenists and Latinists of Oxford and Harvard are wholly inadequate nor that they beyond reproach; nor have I intended to lead the reader to believe that one rendering of these works in to English is altogether much better than all others and, on account of that, be relied upon alone. Ezra Pound said somewhere that every generation requires a new translation. But here is more to it than this: it is necessary for the student to become acquainted with both the best of the old and the best of the new, and, consequently, I believe that one should familiarize oneself with as many of these translators, textual critics, and commentators as they have time for, not just with my work alone. Many of the standard translation are quite good. The work done by the English grammarians, authenticating texts, translating the Greek and Latin library, codifying Greek and Latin grammar, and certifying the Latin and Greek dictionaries and lexicon, in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries ca.1885-1925, is indubitably of singular importance to the history of Western thought. And we must but ask: how is it that what once was of such great importance that countless scholars, the best and the brightest, were employed for well neigh forty years standardizing this library has all but vanished from American higher education? The enormous amount of dedication, energy, and resources demands its recompense. They receive that here.
On the other hand, I must confess that J. C. Rolf's translation of the Bellum Catilinae has not suited my purposes. Indeed, in his translation of the Bellum Catilinae, he took, in my opinion, far too many liberties with respect to the exactness of grammar and syntax; though the gist of what it says in Latin truly is there, and indubitably I could not have achieved what I have achieved with out his work ahead of me, indeed I often relied on it for the gist of Sallust; but it did not have the precision that I have required. And on account of the fact that I seldom agreed with his translation, and therefore would not render Sallust's epigrams among my own words in the manner that he chose; I concluded that a complete translation of the Bellum Catilinae by my own hand was necessary. But if the whole of the Bellum Catilinae, then why not the whole of Cicero's Orationes in Catilinam I-IV, since both texts are first and primary things, the very things to be taken in hand. I therefore have felt the need to include a complete Latin text, translation, and commentary of that document as well.
The parts of Sallust's narrative about the founding of the city and the decline of its morals, have been substantively and creatively employed before the center piece, the Narrative, Narratio, 'ο 'εξηγητικός, which itself begins with the First Conspiracy and relates the entire Bellum Catilinae thence from to the defeat of Catilinae at Pistora, the ad baculum argumentum, in January of B.C. 62. Therefore I resolved to include Sallust's preface to Bellum Catilinae earlier on in the Overview, Praetexto, 'ο λόγος and, moreover, to repeat a number of things from both the Overview, the Narrative later on in the Argument, Argumentum, 'ο συλλογισμὸς and the Conclusion, Discerno, ή κριτικός. Aware of the repetitive nature of this practice, after delivering the Narrative I supply in brief citations from both the Bellum Catilinae and In Catilinam in English, which I have done, where I believe necessary, only to punctuate important philosophical points pertaining to the truth or fallacy of certain arguments lain down by the opposition. Thus a few of the things you have read before the Argument and the Conclusion one read before. One shall have, nevertheless, read the whole Bellum Catilinae and the four orations of Cicero against Catiline, in both English and Latin, by the time one has completed the whole work.
I intend to render a translation of the four speeches Cicero and to place these speeches in between Sallust's narrative, at the proper time when they should have occurred, thus creating a sort of narrative intextus, or πεπλεγμενοι: an interweaving of texts including remarks by a number of Latin and Greek authors, like Plutarch and Cassius Dio, to name a few. There remains, however, a great many Greek and Latin translations ahead of me, and I sincerely hope to have the time to get around to rendering those texts as well; but there are, one must recall, many renderings of the Greek and Latin library which are fine unto themselves; and those ought to be known to every student of the Classics. Finally, it is critical that every student memorize the Greek alphabet which will give them the ability, at the very least, to find Greek words in the Lexicon.
EDWARD H. CAMPBELL
MISSOULA, MONTANA
NOVEMBER 21, 2008
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
