Disputatio:Ioannes Miltonus

message: :Copied from Disputatio usoris:Sapiens23
Reverti emendationes tuas -- da veniam! -- quia regula nostra de nominibus librorum etc. est nomina in linguis originalibus praeferre (vide Vicipaedia:Translatio nominum propriorum). Sed, si habes fontem pro titulis Latinis eorum carminum, optime! Possumus accipere cum indicationibus fontium. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 20:04, 19 Ianuarii 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for your message. Just to be clear, our rule is to use the original title for books etc. unless there is a published source somewhere that gives them a Latin name (e.g. an existing Latin translation of the book). Actually I don't know whether Paradise Lost and Paradise Regained have ever been translated into Latin -- not impossible I guess. If they have, we should use their Latin titles; if not, we should use their English titles. Similarly with other books and literary texts.

text: You may well find cases where this rule has not been followed: still, it is the rule! Happy editing Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 21:30, 19 Ianuarii 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: :The 'commendatory verses' to the 2nd edition of 'Paradise Lost' read: Qui legis Amissam Paradisum, grandia magni | carmina Miltoni, quid nisi cuncta legis? So we have Paradisus Amissa. Since Milton was quite the Latinist (he wrote a lot of Neo-Latin and the occasional Greek and Italian verse), I would be surprised if you couldn't find a Latin attestation for Paradise Regained (Paradisus Recuperata?) somewhere too. --Ceylon 22:05, 19 Ianuarii 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: ::Thanks, Ceylon. It turns out, on Googling, that book 1 of Paradise Lost was translated into Latin under that title. Splendid. But I can't (yet) find an attested Latin title for the sequel. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 16:23, 20 Ianuarii 2008 (UTC)

text: :Here it is: Paradisus Amissus and Paradisus Recuperatus http://books.google.com/books?id=0EY6AAAAMAAJ&pg=PA1560&lpg=PA1560&dq=paradisus+miltoni&source=web&ots=iwceA9LSFr&sig=ozSyTCMP1lsZByQHhER1CNlg4JA. No idea why the author of the commendatory verses treated paradisus as a feminine.--Ceylon 18:53, 20 Ianuarii 2008 (UTC)
Very good! But, yes, that feminine is a puzzle. It isn't just the commendatory verses. The earliest translation seems to have used the feminine form, and then later maybe to have been re-issued with a cancel title page correcting it to masculine. (I don't see a mention of this in your reference above, but if you google Paradisus Amissa and Paradisus Amissus you find the former is commoner.) Elsewhere I can't find that the word was ever feminine in Greek or Latin. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 21:26, 20 Ianuarii 2008 (UTC)

text: It may be related to Du Cange's second definition: "2. PARADISUS, fem. gen. Hortus cultus et amœnus, quæ nativa est hujusce vocis notio. Baldricus apud Mabill. tom. 5. Annal. pag. 146 : 'Admirabar Paradisum opimam, quæ me inter mala sua granata diu nutrierat... præsertim quoniam horto illi ferme sex lustris custos et hortulanus extiteram.'" Still strange, but it seems the Milton translator wasn't the only one. Lesgles (disputatio) 18:18, 3 Novembris 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Poesis epica]]

message: Randomly: http://teamscarlet.files.wordpress.com/2011/10/milton1.png --Iustinus 16:18, 16 Octobris 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Imago 

message: Herders Conversations-Lexikon. Friburgi Brisgoviae 1856, tomus 4, p. 189-190 ( in interreti hic)
thread_title: Fons recensionis mense Iunio 2020