Talk:Eunuchus

Query
Is there a particular reason why we should include this non-published translation in this article? At least, it is not claimed to be published in the article's Notes. This seems to be out of keeping with Wikipedia's policy on such things (though I can't redirect to the appropriate Wikipedia guideline page, since I'm not too familiar with that sort of thing yet). rmagill 01:32, 11 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree.  It is admirable that he is making his own translations of latin litrature.  Wikipedia is not however a forum for diseminating unpublished works.  The argument that this is merely a translation could only be defended if it was a work otherwise unavailiable in English.  This play has been translated in published texts many times and one of those ought to be preferred, see Project Gutenberg under Terence for a selection.  Moreover I would question the validity of providing such a full translation in any case.  Wikipedia is an encyclopedia not an anthology.  In the case of Terence's play the prolix quoting of a prologue is doulbly dubious and Terence did not use his prologues to introduce his plays they are most usually self contained rants, amusing but they do not advance the drama.  Unless someone can come up with a convincing arguement to the contrary this section ought to be extensively reworked. Thecrystalcicero (talk) 13:09, 7 March 2008 (UTC) (talk) 13:08, 7 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Please may I beg to differ? This is not a translation, but a brief synopsis with a famous highlight, which is what one should expect from a good encyclopaedia for any major play - and most especially so if you are going to a performance in Latin! The style may not be to everyone's taste, but it will be difficult to find out-of-copyright modern synopses, so what's the problem with keeping this useful article? It would help if there were an explanation of the themes as well as, but not instead of, a synopsis. Jezza (talk) 18:41, 2 March 2011 (UTC)