Talk:Ubi sunt

This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Latin Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Latin, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Latin on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale. Literature Low‑importance Literature portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Literature, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Literature on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Persian literature (inactive) This article is within the scope of WikiProject Persian literature, a project which is currently considered to be inactive. Poetry Low‑importance Poetry portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Poetry, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of poetry on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Importance rating

This article has over 3000 views per month. To call it of "Low importance" therefore is rather strange. It is perhaps more relevant to Medieval literature than to Latin, however. Kanjuzi (talk) 07:46, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

The Lord of the Rings

In the Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers, Professor Tolkien uses the Ubi Sunt form to create a poem recited by Aragorn that begins, "Where is the horse and the rider?" Of course, this is a contemporary work, not a classical one, but perhaps it could be mentioned briefly at the end of the article? I would type something myself but it would be preferable if someone with non-amateur experience in Tolkien and Anglo Saxon literature did it, since they would find something I might miss.

201.238.95.208 13:21, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I do not see how the fantasy works of Tolkien have anything to do with this. Just because he was an admirer of Old English poetry does not mean a Lord of the Rings reference has any part here. It is frivolous Tolkien hype. If we allow this kind of stuff to go on everywhere, any piece of bardic or skaldic poetry, any mytheme in Germanic or Celtic mythology, will suddenly need a little Lord of the Rings footnote for Tolkien's version. It has to stop somewhere. I am deleting it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GlennBecksiPod (talk • contribs) 23:17, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

No need to have an attitude. I think it is important to note contemporary examples as not everyone is familiar with the Old and Middle English literary tradition. Tolkien, however, was. His non-fictional bibliography rivals his own mythology in length and depth. The example from LOTR is a perfect example of Ubi sunt and the only reason it is not present on the page is because of wiki-Nazis like yourself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.180.226.33 (talk) 20:26, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

If the Lord of the Rings was a serious work of literature I could see some argument in favor of citing it as an example. However, it is not. Let those unfamiliar with Old and Middle English learn of Hamlet and not Aragorn. GlennBecksiPod (talk) 20:43, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

^ That would be a valid point if Hamlet happened to be written in Old or Middle English; however, it is not. Hamlet is written in an early form of Modern English. If you wanted to post a scathing retort to my point, you might have chosen Beowulf (as a popular example of Old English)or even Chaucer's Canterbury Tales (as an example of Middle English). I think you just have an aversion to popular literature, having no basis in said literature's merit or lack thereof. You should grow as a person. It is the only way we learn. Also, the original point still stands. How do we teach tropes and figures to new students of literature? By offering them examples of course. Just because one example comes from a popular source, not to even mention the fact that the author of said popular source was a brilliant scholar of Old and Middle English, does not detract from its merit as a valid example. Get off your high horse. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.187.94.133 (talk) 15:15, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

I didn't claim Hamlet was written in Old or Middle English. I was aiming at putting a central text of the Western canon over your favorite children's story. You may claim it does not "detract from its merit as a valid example"-- But this argument could be used for an example found in Batman or Lil Wayne. Your argument is basically culled from the same milieu of relativism and resentment that seeks to pervert the canon in favor of giving people an English degree or high school diploma. Not for the aesthetic power or literariness of a work. Fair enough. But the appearance of a Tolkien reference next to great works is obviously ridiculous, and will make our civilization in the West a little more of a mockery. GlennBecksiPod (talk) 20:21, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Hi, I'm a college student taking a British Literature class. I'm not a wiki-editor, but of course I'm a frequenter of the website. I was reading an introduction to The Wanderer in my anthology and it mentioned the use of ubi sunt in the latter half of the poem. As I read some examples of the technique, I was reminded of the above lines from The Lord of the Rings. I did a quick google search and ended up at this page, so I thought I'd just speak my two cents from the perspective, I suppose, of the "average wiki user." Though GlennBecksiPod has a decent argument for the integrity of "literary canon," I think it is prudent to remember just what a manufactured thing the "literary canon" is. Tolkien was in fact quite the scholar, and the version of Sir Gawain the Green Knight in my Longman Anthology that we'll be reading for class on Wednesday is his translation. Further, it's pretty flimsy reasoning to say that the inclusion of Tolkien would "pervert the canon" when one considers that the lyrics of popular folk tunes by Paul Simon and Pete Seeger are also being used as examples of ubi sunt in this article. So, for what it's worth, I'd like to see the Tolkien bit included. 69.23.143.238 (talk) 23:35, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Depends what you mean by "manufactured"-- Viz. before I'll take serious an argument against the Canon... I trust your belief in your views, at a first glance... But I didn't argue the Western Canon sprouted out of the ground like a piece of moss, either. I have a deeply historical angle at the core of my arguments... Also, I'd like to get rid of the Simon and Seeger nonsense, too!

My good fellow, please don't let academia ruin literature for you. There is an ideological bloc therein, consisting largely of a savoir-faire multiculturalism bolstered by a whimsical relativism. Choose wisely. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GlennBecksiPod (talk • contribs) 05:33, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

I would, contrary to at least one commenter above, certainly see The Lord of the Rings as serious literature. It is true that it is a part of the fantasy genre, has a great appeal to "young adults", and does not follow the aspirations more commonly found in serious literature (e.g. exploration of psychology/philosophy/the human situation/... or Joyce-like experiments). However, it is not merely masterfully written, but also has genuine and successful literary aspects, e.g. with regard to "mythological writing" or breaking new ground in terms of how to write a heroic story. We are not talking Harry Potter, mere entertainment, but a truly accomplished and genre changing work by someone who understood more about literature and language than, say, Elfriede Jelinek.

A far better argument against inclusion: Adding examples is not an end in it self; it is a means to a greater goal. Correspondingly, the best examples should be chosen and an attempt at a full listing avoided at all cost. As negative examples, consider the many articles with dozens of "popular culture references" of the "X was mentioned in episode 53 of Family Guy" type. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.226.24.11 (talk) 10:35, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Baruch 3:16-19

"LIBER BARUCH - Nova Vulgata, Vetus Testamentum". Retrieved 2008-11-07. Ubi sunt principes gentium et qui dominantur bestiis, quae sunt super terram, qui in avibus caeli ludunt, qui argentum thesaurizant et aurum, in quo confidunt homines, neque est finis acquisitionis eorum; qui argentum fabricant et solliciti sunt, nec est inquisitio operum illorum? Exterminati sunt et ad inferos descenderunt, et alii loco eorum surrexerunt.

Tone

"A general feeling of ubi sunt radiates from the text of Beowulf" -- this section doesn't sound very encyclopedic, but I don't know how it should be improved. Temerarius (talk) 18:16, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

Inludunt

"17 qui in avibus caeli inludunt" might be grammatically questionable/redundant. The text sourced right above the quote has it as "qui in avibus caeli ludunt," but others disagree. Not sure which version is authoritative. Temerarius (talk) 17:12, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

To Autumn - John Keats

Does the following from "To Autumn" represent a conscious rejection of the motif?

Where are the songs of spring? Ay, Where are they? Think not of them, thou hast thy music too

212.222.184.123 (talk) 15:49, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

Good point. Kanjuzi (talk) 11:25, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

Examples seem to stray from the subject

The first few examples seem to indeed derive from the Baruch passage, but as the article goes on it seems to include examples that may parallel the motif but aren’t necessarily derived from it, especially the Chinese example.

Maybe the article should be retitled to something to encompass this larger motif? Or the examples that aren’t derived from the Baruch passage should be removed, and perhaps put into their own article about the larger motif? Bagabondo (talk) 18:45, 25 February 2024 (UTC)