David Money outlines his proposal here, followed by a sample of content.

You might like to get involved, or even contribute!

VATES

PROPOSAL TO CONTINUE THE JOURNAL

David Money
(longer draft: 10 February 2025)

PREVIOUS HISTORY OF VATES

“Vates: the journal of new Latin poetry”: 14 issues, 2010-18

Vates: The Journal of New Latin Poetry

Vates was founded and edited by Mark Walker. I remain very grateful for Mark’s work; since the journal lapsed in 2018, there has been a need for an English-language journal that specifically encourages new Latin verse. I would like to carry on where Mark left off, with a new issue as soon as may be convenient (issue 15: new series, number 1), and frequent further issues thereafter.

The British Library has on 5 February provisionally issued an ISSN to apply retrospectively to issues 1-14 as well as the new series: ISSN 2976-9671.

The new Vates will aim to retain the spirit of the original, while introducing those changes which a new editor may consider improvements (with apologies to those who may disagree).

CALL FOR POEMS

I would like to hear from anyone who might like to contribute previously unpublished Latin poetry to the revived Vates, whether or not they contributed to the original Vates.

Email address: dkm14mxc@gmail.com

Poetry may be in any reasonable verse form. All of the familiar classical metres are obviously welcome. Other suitable forms include medieval-style accentual verse; newly created quantitative forms (of the author’s invention, or found elsewhere – in either case, please provide a full explanation); forms borrowed from other languages such as the haiku. Free verse may be welcomed too: but the onus is on the author to explain why this is sufficiently interesting, and not merely prose chopped up into lines. But if in doubt, please ask (as long as a refusal of any particular suggestion will not offend). The intention is to be inclusive, while also of a high enough overall quality to attract readers. Original verse is perhaps most interesting, to me and (I am guessing) most other readers: but translations into Latin from other languages will also be considered.

Translation into English will be necessary: please supply one if you can. The editor may well be willing to help poets whose first language is not English with this (see NOTE below): but, where possible, we would appreciate a rough draft translation to help clarify what you are trying to say.

A very brief introduction is desirable; a note on the metre is needed (simple, if the form is familiar: e.g. ‘Metre: elegiacs’); further notes are optional, but please provide them if you think they might be helpful to readers. A glance at various issues of the original Vates will make clear the wide range of approaches that was acceptable then, and will continue to be so: some authors (including myself) often prefer quite extensive introductory comment, and others offer very little.

NOTE on the likely submission process for poets without good English:

We want to encourage all Latin poets. Lack of English need not be a barrier. We will eventually need a translation, but it will not be necessary for all initial submissions to have one. If it is a problem, please say so (in Latin if necessary), and submit only your Latin verse in the first instance.

What we will probably then do is seek some help from others, such as the ‘encouragers’ or hortatores mentioned below (in ‘call for other assistance’), to provide a rough-draft translation, perhaps using AI tools to help. (Poets are also welcome to provide a rough AI translation, if they make clear that this is what they have done, and that it has not been checked for accuracy by a human with good English.)

This should enable us to decide whether or not we are interested in publishing a poem, without forcing poets who don’t speak English to make any unwelcome extra effort. If we do want to publish, we will then work together to solve any linguistic difficulties. The final result will of course need to be fully proof-read, and we will aim to keep the standard of written English as high as the editor can manage.

An ambitious note: I am hoping that this call for poems may receive a good response from many writers, both older and well established poets and some new voices. If so, there may be delay in including some contributions; please be patient about that. I would probably like to have several large issues following soon after each other, if there is sufficient material. But there is a limit to what may be practical, without over-taxing the patience of readers.

CALL FOR OTHER CONTRIBUTIONS

The original Vates also contained occasional reviews, and quite a lot of articles on matters likely to interest readers, whether directly connected to contemporary Latin verse, or exploring the wider history of Neo-Latin poetry. I would wish to continue, and expand upon, this aspect of the journal.

In terms of reviews, the most obvious need is for some notice to be given of recent (or even not so recent) publications of new Latin verse; this might take the form of a short note, or a more extended review article.

An example of a review article: David Money, review of Stephen Coombs’ In Perendinum Aevum in Vates 10 (2014), pages 39-48.

In that article, besides some detailed discussion of Stephen’s work, I also attempted a more general discussion of some issues related to the publication of Latin poetry today; I think some of those points retain a relevance, and for that reason I still like to draw people’s attention to the article from time to time – most recently some friends in Japan. (Whether anyone cares to read it is another matter: but one can only try.)

For those who may wish to look up Stephen’s book: please note that although my review was of an earlier privately printed edition (Stockholm, 2014), there was a subsequent commercial edition: Portlaoise: Evertype, 2015.

Articles on Neo-Latin verse will be considered. Please try to be briefer and more entertaining than is normal in some academic journals. Vates is not trying to duplicate existing journals in this respect. Please keep in mind the question: ‘Why should readers of today’s verse take an interest in this?’

The question of ‘inscriptions’ (in artistic prose) has been raised; while I would not like to see discussion of them overshadow actual verse in any particular issue, they can be considered a related genre, in which Vates can potentially take some interest.

I would like to instigate a new idea for Vates, a series of very short articles on the theme:

‘What excites me about poetry in Latin.’

Contributions from anyone who has ever taken an interest in verse of any period would be welcome. Of course we would be interested to hear examples of excitement stirred by Neo-Latin or contemporary verse. But it is equally interesting to hear exactly why a specific aspect of ancient writing has attracted you. Please be specific: I don’t want to hear, ‘I like Virgil’ or ‘isn’t Fracastoro a fine poet, as well as having provided the name for a disagreeable disease?’. I do want to hear reasons for specific lines from Fracastoro or Virgil grabbing your attention, and how you would convey that excitement to others.

Another ambitious note: I am hoping this call for contributions to the ‘What excites me’ section may eventually attract a wide range of replies: not just from professors but also from current or former students of the classics – it is perhaps particularly interesting to hear about why some aspect of Latin verse remains memorable to people whose lives and careers are now entirely concerned with other things. Should the numbers become unmanageable, we may have to be very selective about what reaches Vates itself, and perhaps establish a separate blog to contain some of the rest.

CALL FOR READERS

Unless it is read, there isn’t much point in a journal.

Vates will aim to be as accessible as possible.

There is a lot of pressure on anyone’s time, and many other fun things to do – a lot of them more immediately appealing than spending time with a poetry journal in any language. A wise poet and a wise editor does know that.

CALL FOR OTHER ASSISTANCE

I would particularly like to find some supporters who might like to give a small amount of practical assistance – nothing difficult or very time-consuming – which might prove of great help to the new Vates, perhaps out of all proportion to the effort involved, and for which I would be very grateful.

Firstly, and most importantly: I am looking for people one might call ‘encouragers of poetry’, and especially of nervous or potentially doubtful poets who do not have good English. I am inclined to give these supporters an official title, perhaps Hortatores Poetarum; and to recognise them as such in the introductory material to each issue.

The role might suit people of any age, students just as much as professors; and the main purpose would be to act as an intermediary with poets from their own countries who are not initially comfortable with the idea of contributing to a journal that uses English rather than Latin as the basic language of communication. I do want such poets to participate; and I want to make things as easy as possible for them. If someone else, as an intermediary, can facilitate that – by encouraging, by helping to find someone to produce a rough-draft English translation (which the editor can polish later), by finding who else in their own circles may be interested in Vates – then things may go forward much more efficiently.

NEW EDITORSHIP

I (David Money) am proposing to edit the revived Vates myself.

My area of greater competence is Latin verse-writing itself; and I hope also making sensible judgements on verse written by other people.

My area of lesser competence is anything to do with computers, the internet, or social media. Perhaps not ideal for an online journal: and advice or assistance in those areas might be welcome. In the absence of help, I will of course do my best; I can generally read my own email and do some word processing, and have self-published some books.

I am particularly concerned that Vates (both old and new) should be recognised as a ‘proper’ journal, with high standards and as much permanence as can be managed. This is intended to reassure contributors that their verse ought not to simply disappear at a moment’s notice from the internet (as it might, on some platforms); or that, if problems of permanence do arise, it will be a priority to try to solve them. Possession of an ISSN (as we now have) should help to reassure contributors about the seriousness of the journal, and enable those who need to cite it in lists of their own publications to do so with confidence.

It may well be that we will want to have some further printed books (and e-books) separate from the journal itself: as Mark did with the Vates Anthology. But for now, I am concentrating on getting the journal going again.

It is also worth looking into the future. I hope that a revived Vates will be considered worthwhile enough to carry on for quite some time; I am hoping to stay with it myself for quite some time. But there is no such thing as ‘forever’, not least in terms of one’s own mortality: so let us also look to create something which other people may wish to take over and edit in their own style, after I choose, or am forced, to stop.

PROPOSED NEW EDITORIAL POLICY

Every editor must decide on their own preferences. In selecting mine, I make no criticism of Mark’s policies at all, which I was very happy to comply with, as a contributor.

I would like Vates to be as rigorous as is reasonably possible, in terms of accuracy of Latin syntax and metrical accuracy. Things which do not scan are not acceptable; please do not take offence if I say so.

Libel is not acceptable.

All reasonable and legal viewpoints on potentially controversial issues such as politics, religion, and sexuality are permissible; please be aware that other readers may not share your views, and avoid intolerance towards them. The world of contemporary Latin embraces a wide spectrum of opinion, from quite conservative Roman Catholicism to some very liberal and liberated views indeed. I don’t want to stop anyone saying what they really think: if new Latin verse is to matter, it should engage with topics that matter. I want all readers interested in Latin to be comfortable with looking at the journal as a whole: even if an individual item may not be to their taste. I don’t want any toxic arguments about any issues (related to Latin, or not).

In some respects my proposed policy is looser than Mark’s; I start by mentioning a couple of relatively minor details, simply because I intend to change the way Vates approaches them:

How should we spell Latin?

Mark wished Vates to follow the conventions of the Oxford Latin Dictionary, in such matters as using ‘u’ rather than ‘v’, and not capitalising words at the start of lines.

Those who want to keep that style in their contributions are welcome to do so. My personal preference is for a more traditional style, using ‘v’ and capitals. As a Neo-Latinist, it is what I see in more or less all Latin printing I look at; if it was good enough for the many and various Latin poets from the fifteenth to the nineteenth centuries, it is probably good enough for us.

Internal consistency, in any particular contributor’s work, is important. But I don’t think it matters if different contributors display different stylistic preferences. It reminds us of the diversity of Latin from different ages and places: the same language, but a huge range of pronunciations, some barely intelligible to each other, and varying cultural backgrounds. So as long as you are consistent, do what you are most comfortable with.

Should we refer to ‘long’ and ‘short’ syllables (as is traditional); or to ‘heavy’ and ‘light’ syllables (as some recent writers prefer)?

On this question, of terminology only (not of actual Latin scansion), Mark’s personal preference, imposed on Vates issues 1-14, was for ‘heavy’ and ‘light’.

My preference, which I will use myself from issue 15 onwards, is for ‘long’ and ‘short’. The reason for this is simplicity, and long usage (‘longa’ and ‘brevis’ were understood in a metrical sense by grammarians for many hundreds of years); I am a Neo-Latinist, and it is what Neo-Latin poets used and understood. I am not persuaded by the argument that it causes confusion, because ‘long by nature’ and ‘long by position’ are different things; we just have to understand the practical implication of traditional terms. There is no need to pronounce something differently because it is ‘long’ in metrical terms (only), by its position, while being a short syllable by nature (and sound).

That’s my opinion, anyway, on what is purely a matter of opinion, not of fact; and I am not interested in entering into debates about it.

Nor do I mind in the slightest if contributors prefer to use ‘heavy / light’ – though a brief note reminding readers that this is the same as what others call metrically ‘long / short’ would help anyone unfamiliar with the terminology.

English style.

I write in British English, fairly formally though with some colloquialisms. American English is fine too, though be aware that some American phrases are not understood everywhere else. NOTE FOR NON-NATIVE SPEAKERS: do not worry about any of this; any kind of English will be OK, and the editor will edit as he thinks necessary. Do not worry if you fail to understand some passing colloquial remarks from the editor or other contributors: they will not be essential. We intend that all essential English will be clearly understandable.

Forms of reference.

When it is necessary to give bibliographical references, please be sure to make them clear and complete, and internally consistent. Be aware that abbreviations which are obvious to you may not be clear to others. Beyond that, I do not care what system is used, and do not think Vates needs to impose the same system on all contributions. (If in doubt, MHRA style will be fine.)

What about allowing contributions wholly in Latin?

One suggestion I have received is that Vates might be a bilingual journal, welcoming contributions entirely in Latin (without the need for English translation).

Possibly I may come round to accepting this idea, at a later stage: for example, if there is huge enthusiasm for Vates from the Latin-speaking world, and very little participation from my fellow English-speakers. But for now I resist it, for these reasons:

It would risk a de facto division into two sections: a purely Latin part which many English speakers would find forbidding, and would not bother to read (some because they could not; others because they could, but choose not to); and the normal Vates with English introductions and translations, which Latin-speakers might scorn, though obviously they can read the Latin poems themselves.

There would be a real risk of alienating a large part of my intended audience. Many students of the classics in Britain or America do not read Latin fluently. A lot of classical scholars, for all kinds of reasons, don’t attempt fluency in reading, writing or speaking Latin. I want to include all of them in the potential audience for Vates, not shut them out of any part of it.

A NOTE ON MISTAKES

We all make them. Latin verse, having some complicated (but manageable) rules, is prone to them. Having someone read your draft can help: but not always. An editor’s job is to catch them before publication – but editors too are fallible.

If readers can alert the editor to provable errors (as opposed to matters of opinion), it may be possible to insert a subsequent correction.

Otherwise I merely ask for a reasonable level of tolerance from readers and critics. Negative criticism of those who are trying to write some interesting new poetry is not particularly constructive.

Some candour about my own past errors may help more nervous contributors. I have made plenty; some in print, many perhaps still unnoticed. This is the story of one that was noticed, and how it was fixed:

‘ambitione liber vana, sis candidus …’

intending to be a hexameter (apart from the final foot): dactyl, dactyl, spondee, spondee, dactyl. It was printed as such, by a very distinguished press (and still hangs on my wall). Have you spotted the mistake yet?

Well done if so, because I didn’t; though it is fairly obvious, and (like many of my mistakes) came from not bothering to check the quantities of a word I thought I knew well.

There are two words, ‘liber’ = book (short ‘i’) and ‘liber’ = free (long ‘i’). So if we want it to mean ‘a book with vain ambition, may you be open’ that’s fine; but if we want to say ‘may you be free from vain ambition and open’ then it isn’t. Guess which meaning I wanted. (A feeble excuse: the mark of quantity over the relevant syllable in the dictionary I used is barely legible, and I may have misread it. But if in any doubt, one should find some examples in other poetry, which would provide the answer. It obviously didn’t occur to me as a problem I needed to check.)

I won’t embarrass the person who pointed this out to me, many years later, by mentioning a name: but I am grateful. Needless to say I was a bit sorry to find that I had been stupid, and much more pleased to have a chance to correct it.

As with many errors one does spot, correcting it was not hard. Several alternatives would do, such as altering the order and wording to ‘liber ab ambitione mala …’; what I settled on (after not many minutes’ thought) was ‘ambitione carens vana …’ (‘lacking’, meaning much the same as ‘free from’).

The result can be read at: David Money, ‘Four Poems for Jeanine’, in Humanistica Lovaniensia 72 (2023), pages 487-91.

The main moral of that story is, I think: do check everything, and especially the words you think you know.

But another moral is: accept that mistakes will happen, and don’t fuss too much.

TONE

I do think Latin verse is important; I want to see more of it created, in a wide variety of forms, by as many people as possible, and to as high a level of quality as those people (and this editor) can achieve.

So Vates is, and should always be, a serious journal; but I don’t think that means abandoning our sense of fun. And if things are fun to read, then serious points can sometimes be conveyed more effectively.

Humour from contributors is welcome; but please pause to explain those remarks which may puzzle people who do not share your own cultural background.

SOCIAL MEDIA

I am not on X/Twitter or other social media at present; nor do I really want to be. If those with greater experience want to help by publicising Vates, that would be much appreciated. Likewise for Latin-language media: though Vates will continue to use English, I hope that will not be a barrier to those who prefer to use Latin.

For a little verse on the topic, see:

David Money, ‘Twitter’, one of the ‘Summer Epigrams’, in: Vates 12 (2016), pages 31-33.

MOTTO – INSPIRATION

One could do worse than Mark Walker’s own ‘Felix Iste’, in Vates 10 (2014), pages 9-10.

VATES: SAMPLE FOR NEW ‘WHAT EXCITES ME’ SECTION

I would like to instigate a new idea for Vates, a series of very short articles on the theme:

‘What excites me about poetry in Latin.’

Please spread the word about this as widely as possible; contributions (and any other enquiries about Vates) should be sent to Dr David Money, Vates editor, at: dkm14mxc@gmail.com

Below is my own first idea on this theme, as a guide. It runs to 200 words (250 with the bibliographical reference), which seems to me about right. Let us suggest a minimum of 150 words and a maximum of 350 for such contributions.

WHAT EXCITES ME

Brevity, sharpness, musicality. I noticed all three, in three words: ‘Sceptra tenes meritis’ [you hold the sceptre(s) on your merits]. They were written to a king, William III of England, who may never have read them, by a much more obscure William, Worts (or Woorts), undergraduate of St Catharine’s Hall (later College) in Cambridge, as a contribution to a book of verses commemorating a peace treaty of 1697.

In three words, this summed up a highly controversial political situation. (And one need not take sides on old quarrels, to admire the poetry.) It is the essence of what became known as the ‘Glorious Revolution’ in England: a king who did not deserve power was removed; one who could indeed control several kingdoms replaced him, though not without bloodshed. A noun (neuter accusative plural); a simple verb; and a one-word description of how and why he managed it: together, they make an attractive dactylic half-line (the first part of a hexameter, before the caesura). Well done, young William: I don’t know much more about you – you were son of a university official, earned an MA in 1702, and died sadly young in 1709 – but I salute those three words of yours.

See: David Money, ‘Political Poetry from late Stuart Cambridge: Cambridge poems on the peace of 1697’, in Gesine Manuwald and Lucy R. Nicholas, eds., An Anthology of Neo-Latin Literature in British Universities (London: Bloomsbury, 2022), pages 271-98 (passage 5, line 5: page 286, note on pages 295-96).

David Money