|
|
Post by Pacmanite on Jun 22, 2011 5:18:04 GMT -5
Hey, I was wondering where I ought to post this. It is certainly strange, but not exactly "true". (As in, there weren't really any Dog-Headed People, but the letter itself is real.) Well, I dug around and found a bizarre piece of Latin from the 9th Century AD in which this guy Ratramnus tries to work out whether the Cynocephali ("Dog-Headed People", literally, people with dog heads on humannish bodies) should be considered human or not. It's called the Letter of the Dog-Headed People. And in the end, Ratramnus decides they're human enough after all (which is pretty mind-blowing when you're used to thinking of how people in the past were all racist and everything). Admittedly on the face of it, this seems like a totally pointless subject to talk about now that we know the Cynocephali didn't actually exist. Except that some of the things he says seem to resonate a little with that Trope: What Measure Is A Non-Human? And it kind of makes me think about the anthropomorphic bipedal dogs in fiction. Anyway, I couldn't find a full English translation of it, and was itching to read how Ratramnus figured the Dog-Headed people counted as people. But I do know a bit of Latin, don't I? So why don't I go and translate it myself. It'll be fun. Heh heh heh. Problem: I'm trained in Classical Latin, the language of Caesar and Ovid and Cicero, written in the Golden Age of Rome, 1st centuries AD and BC. This Latin is from deep in the 9th century AD, so translating this is like reading a language 800 years into the future. xDDD My dictionary is only built to cope with Latin from the Classical period, and I don't know modern Italian, but I'm told Medieval Latin mimics some of the syntax of Italian... Well, I know there are a number of people here who also know Latin. And I know there are some enthusiastic Medievalists around too. If anyone is both, and knows Medieval Latin, I really welcome your corrections if it seems I've translated something screwy. That said, I'll try to make my translation a nice fluent English, so it won't be too much of a pain to read along. Well, here goes. =D I hope you like it. |
|
|
|
Post by M is for Morphine on Jun 22, 2011 7:32:10 GMT -5
I don't think it's a useless thing to talk about! I think it's very interesting. Maybe it's because the dog has been one of mankind's oldest and closest friends- a social animal like us but still capable of wildness and violence like us- but they are certainly the creature most often used in art an philosophy to discuss the base nature of man.
The first thing that comes to mind when I hear dog-like people is Diogenes and his cynics (kynikos, dog-like, is the root of the word cynic). He modeled his life and philosophy after the behavior of dogs, which he saw as more honest.
I'm also reminded of Mikhail Bulgakov's short novel 'Heart of a Dog' (which coincidentally was made into a movie in Italy. Looks like Italians are keenly interested in this subject!).
Man, you should definitely read Baudolino by Umberto Eco if you haven't already. I bet you'd get a kick out of it. There are lots of sections talk about the many strange sub-humans that were rumored to exist by medieval travelers. I'm pretty sure there's a segment about the cynocephali.
Now I really do have to bump up Steppenwolf on my to read list. I bet it would be applicable here as well.
Can't wait to see some of that translation! It's totally impressive that you can do a translation like this. Latin scares me.
|
|
|
|
Post by Pacmanite on Jun 22, 2011 8:46:33 GMT -5
 I'm glad to know you're interested! I didn't know that "cynic" came from a root that meant dog-like, that's really neat. And I haven't read those things you pointed out there, so next time I find myself in a library I'll sure keep an eye out for them. ^_^ Eehee, Latin is a bit intimidating. But it's like a puzzle. A long, wordy puzzle. --------------------------- minexconsulting.com/publications/miscellaneous/ratramniepistoladecynocephalis.pdfOoh, and here I've uploaded a copy of the Letter so you can chart my progress. Or point out that I misread something on it. I originally got this from a google books version of a volume of Latin discourse originally published back in the 19th century, and some of the letters are a bit squished and smudged and hard to read. Which, perversely, makes this translation feel even more exciting. I think this version's actually got a lot of typos in it, too, but then again, maybe I'm just thinking all Classical Latin-y and not getting that some of the words are meant to look like this. xDD ------------------- And now for some translation! (As an aside: Whoa, this guy uses "quod" a lot. To the point that I'm finding it useful just to ignore the word and get on with the rest of it. xD Not that it means much anyway. "That...".) I'm putting the Latin in italics, and working a sentence or two at a time. The spoilers contain my notes about the translation. RATRAMNI
EPISTOLA DE CYNOCEPHALIS
Ad Rimbertum presbyterum scripta.
RATRAMNUS’S
LETTER OF THE DOG-HEADED PEOPLE
Written to Rimbert, an elder. Divinae gratiae muneribus honorato, plurimumque in Christo diligendo RIMBERTO venerabili presbytero, RATRAMNUS sempiternam in Domino Jesu Christo salutem.
“To the one esteemed with the gifts of divine grace, and writing in Christ to RIMBERT the honoured elder, RATRAMNUS greets him in the Lord Jesus Christ everlasting. A formal greeting at the start of the letter. All those datives and ablatives  I couldn’t work out where “plurimumque” (roughly means “a lot”) fits in grammatically, because it’s this random accusative in the middle somewhere, so I kinda left it out. It might be the object of “writing”. Quod nostrae petitionis memores effecti, scripsistis nobis illa quae de Cenocephalorum a natura potuistis cognoscere, non modice me laetificastis. Quod vero ad ea quae postulastis minime rescripserim, noveritis negligentiae torpor nequaquam hoc contigisse, verum quia delatoris praesentia non affecerat, suspensum fuisse.
“After you were informed of our request, you wrote to us about those things you were able to learn concerning the nature of the Cynocephali, and you pleased me more than a little. Indeed, I’m going to revise very little of what you claimed about them; you will know that by no means did I come to this [sentiment] out of the torpor of carelessness, but that I was in fact uncertain of what was not attested by the presence of an informer. I wasn’t sure how to translate “affecerat”; all attempts to render the active sense in English came out clunky, so I made it passive. My dictionary says it can mean “affect, endow, afflict with”, but I think the phrase is meant to mean that he’s a little uneasy about accepting information supplied from people who weren’t present in actual contact with the Cynocephali. Nunc autem veniente fratre Sarwardo ad nos et ad vos remeante, data occasione, solliciti fuimus, breviter intimare quae nobis videbantur super inquisition vestra.
“But now Brother Sarward is coming to us and will return to you, and given this opportunity we were anxious to briefly disclose what we thought concerning your investigation. My guess is that “Brother Sarward” carried the letter from Ratramnus to Rimbert. “Intimare” isn’t in my Latin dictionary, and in Italian it means something different from what’s implied here, so I went with my gut and translated it as if it had the sense of “intimate/disclose” in English. Quaeritis enim quid de Cenocephalis credere debeatis, videlicet utrum de Adae sint stripe progeniti, an bestiarum habent animas: quae quaestio compendiose ita potest determinari.
“For you are asking what you ought to think of the Cynocephali; namely, whether they were descended from Adam’s stock, or if they have the souls of beasts: this question can be briefly settled as follows. The main point of contention. Are the Cynocephali human (i.e. descended from Adam), or animal? I’m a little worried about how to translate “determinari”, but I think “settled” sort of works for now. Si hominum generi deputandi sunt, nulli dubium debet videri quod primi hominis de propagine descenderint. Neque enim fas est humanam credi aliunde deduci originem quam primi de parentis substantia.
“If we were to consider the kinds of people there are, it should seem obvious that they had been descended from the offspring of the first humans. And of course it is impossible to suppose that a person came from some other origin than through the means of their earliest ancestors. Wasn’t sure whether “generi” should be translated as “kinds” or “races”; it can mean that and a lot of other things but it’s not particularly clear which meaning is better in context (I don’t think he’s bringing up racism here though). And I felt that the “quod” seems demonstrative rather than interrogative here. Quod si bestiali generi connumerantur, nomine tantum hominibus, non natura communicant. Inter haec sciendum vero si contenti fuerimus opinione nostrorum, videlicet ecclesiasticorum doctorum, inter bestias potius quam inter homines deputandi sunt, siquidem et forma capitis et latratus canum, non hominibus sed bestiis similes ostendit.
“If we ponder about the species of beasts, named as such by humans, by their nature they don’t communicate. Meanwhile with this knowledge, if we were indeed satisfied with our supposition, which is clearly held by the learned church-ministers, then they [the Cynocephali] should be considered closer to beasts than humans; if in fact they have a canine head shape and bark like dogs, it shows they are not like humans, but are similar to beasts. I translated “connumerantur” as “ponder, consider”, but I couldn’t find it in my dictionary. The “sciendum” gerund(ive?) gave me a lot of trouble; I’m not very used to working out this construction. “Ecclesiasticorum doctorum” I assumed would be the thinky types who also staffed the church, I called them “learned church-ministers” to avoid being too specific (and also I’m not Catholic and am unfamiliar with the terms used for various positions, so if I find “ecclesiasticus doctus” has a standard English translation, I’d change it to that). Hominum denique est rotundum vertice caelum aspicere, canum vero oblongo capite rostroque deducto terram intueri. Et homines loquuntur, canes vere latrant.
“Next, a human head is round and placed on top so he can behold the heavens, whereas the dog’s head is oblong and drawn out in a snout so he looks to the ground. And humans talk, but dogs, in fact, bark. I guess having a dog’s head is no small difference, then. xD |
|
|
|
Post by Breakingchains on Jun 22, 2011 9:08:40 GMT -5
Okay, this is an impossibly cool project and I'm grinning like an idiot right now. xD;
I know nothing about Latin or how to translate it, but I'll definitely be keeping an eye on this thread. This is brilliant stuff. (Incidentally, where did you find this letter, anyhow? =p)
|
|
|
|
Post by M is for Morphine on Jun 22, 2011 9:13:45 GMT -5
Wow, you work fast! I find your translation to be very comfortably readable. I also enjoy your notes.
Is Ecclesiasticorum related to the modern ecclesiastic? If so, I think that term might just be 'the teachings of the church' rather than a specific position. Then again, I'm postulating an awful lot on the basis of very little. XD Lol, I don't know. Ignore me.
|
|
|
|
Post by Pacmanite on Jun 22, 2011 9:21:46 GMT -5
Okay, this is an impossibly cool project and I'm grinning like an idiot right now. xD; I know nothing about Latin or how to translate it, but I'll definitely be keeping an eye on this thread. This is brilliant stuff. (Incidentally, where did you find this letter, anyhow? =p) Rambly story: I was meant to be writing an essay for uni, and one of journal articles I was reading had some annoyingly complex vocabulary I had to look up in order to understand it. One of those words was "cynocephalic", as in "cynocephalic baboon". Yeah, I don't know why they had to be so descriptive either. This wasn't a zoology paper. Anyway, I googled it and found the Wikipedia page, and because I was trying to avoid doing work, I read the whole page and found a mention of this letter debating whether they're people or not. Then, again procrastinating, I tried in vain to search for an English translation of the letter... failing that, after much more searching and timewasting, I found a free online version (provided by Google Books) of a big compendium of medieval church letters. It was archived somewhere in the middle of that huge file and the page numbers were too worn out to use as reliable reference, but I found it. Eh, it was worth it. xD I had to force myself to get back to the essay and not waste any more time trying to translate the letter, but now all my essays are finished I can get stuck into this thing. ;D Wow, you work fast! I find your translation to be very comfortably readable. I also enjoy your notes. Is Ecclesiasticorum related to the modern ecclesiastic? If so, I think that term might just be 'the teachings of the church' rather than a specific position. Then again, I'm postulating an awful lot on the basis of very little. XD Lol, I don't know. Ignore me. Nah, I've already written a rough and dodgy translation of about a quarter of the letter, it was just a matter of putting the first bit of it together, rechecking my work and making it flow in English. And I'm pleased that you're enjoying this =D And yes, "ecclesiasticorum" is related to the word "ecclesiastic". The nearest word I could find in my dictionary is a noun, meaning "church". But the form suggests that this word is an adjective, so that would make it mean "churchy" or "of the church, pertaining to the church" or something like that. It's a little tricky because "doctorum" is also an adjective (I think. It's like that in Classical Latin, might be different for Med), and there is no noun supplied. So in this case, I strung the adjectives together and got the sense from the context that it probably describes some people. "Learned-churchy ones" would be my most literal translation.  But I appreciate the help anyway. Latin is funnn... |
|
|
|
Post by Pacmanite on Jun 23, 2011 9:21:44 GMT -5
Here's some more of the translation, and the case is looking better for the Cynocephali's personhood. My rough draft is now over a third of the way through the letter, but some of the sentences further on have me scratching my head. I'm not a huge fan of the gerundive construction.  --------------------------------------
Verum quo litterae a vestra charitate nobis directae, dum naturam illorum diligentius significarunt, nonnulla docuerint quae humanae rationi potius quam bestiali sensibilitati convenire videntur:
“Truly, from those letters you kindly sent us, while they studiously reported the nature of these [Cynocephali], they indicate several things which seem to agree that they have the reasoning mind of a human, rather than the sensibilities of a beast:
I’m not happy with the tense of “docuerint” (translated “indicate”)... it seems to be future perfect, but why would a letter not be “showing” these things in the present? Maybe it kind of makes sense in the Latin, where the tense likes to jump around a bit, but in English it seems more properly said in the present.
Scilicet quod societatis quaedam jura custodiant, quod villarum cohabitatio testificatur; quod agri culturam exercent, quod et frugum messione colligitur; quod verenda non bestiarum more detegant, sed humana velent verecundia, quae res pudoris est indicium; quod in usu tegminis, non solum pelles, verum etiam et vestes eos habere scripsistis: haec enim omnia rationalem quadammodo testificari videntur eis inesse animam.
“Evidently they uphold the laws of their society; they are said to live together in houses; they practice agriculture, and harvest crops; they show that they respect customs which are not beastly by clothing themselves with human-like modesty, and this is evidence for their sense of shame; they don’t just use hides for garments, but you even wrote that they have cloth. Now, in a way, all these things seem to testify that a rational mind is present within them.
Ratramnus is an attentive man. For him, even just wearing clothes seems to imply quite a lot. Lucky for me the Latin was easy in this section here. Nam cum dicatur civitas esse coetus hominum eodem sub jure pariter degentium, istique simul cohabitare per villarum contubernia dicantur, civitatis distinctio talibus convenire non abs re creditur.
“For since a civil society may be described as the unification of degenerate people equally under the same law, and since these [Cynocephali] are said to live together with each other in communal houses, I believe the distinguishing factor of civility fits in helpfully with such [creatures]. “civitas” is a hard word to translate because in Latin it’s such a political/ideological sort of term. Most often it’s translated as “citizenship” or “community”; I’ve settled on “civil society” and “civility” for now. “Degenerate” looks a little out of place, but it makes sense in the context of Christian theology: all humans have inherited Adam’s sin, and everyone is far from perfect; that is why the law is necessary, because mankind has degenerated and fallen.
For the last clause I changed the voice from passive to active (and flipped the double-negative “not unhelpfully” into a positive) but I’m still not 100% sure I got the meaning right. I hope “talibus” is supposed to describe the same plural subject (the Cynocephali) as “isti” did before. Siquidem et collectione sua multitudinem faciunt, et pariter habitare nonnisi sub alicujus jure conditionis poterant. Ubi vero jus aliquod servatur, consensu quoque animorum una continetur. Neque jus aliquod potest esse, quod consensus communis non decreverit. Verum talem praeter moralitatis disciplinam nec constitui, nec custodiri aliquando potuit.
“And if in fact they form a crowd when they gather together, they can only live together under some kind of lawful agreement. Indeed, where some type of law is preserved, it is also held together with the unanimous agreement of wills. And any sort of law cannot exist where it isn’t decreed by collective consent. Certainly, [laws] can neither be set in place nor ever preserved without some kind of moral instruction. I don’t know why the second “et” is in there – it breaks the flow of the cause-and-effect statement, so I ignored it. “jure conditionis” literally means “law of condition”, like some kind of social contract; I think I did all right saying “lawful agreement”. But then, “consensu” also means agreement and I have repetition! Pah, it’s too appropriate a word to change now.
|
|
|
|
Post by Pacmanite on Jun 26, 2011 8:51:24 GMT -5
I did a little drawing of Ratramnus cause he's cool like that. He's probably way older than he looks and would probably be wearing something more accurate to his time period, but then I don't have a clue what a frankish monk of the ninth century would really wear, except maybe generic brown robes.  I imagine that if he ever met a Cynocephalus, they'd get along pretty well.  And here's more translation! I have now finished page 1 of 2, but page 2 is longer and has a number of spotty smudges over some of the latin words, and on one edge the letters are all crammed together. But it'll be enjoyable to translate anyway. <3 ----------------------------------------- Jam vero agros colere, terram proscindere, sementem rurali fenori concredere, artis peritiam demonstrat. Quae res nisi ratione praeditis haudquaquam favere cognoscitur.
“Truly, now, [your letter] shows that they cultivate fields, plough the earth, and sow seeds in the countryside to gain profit, and that they are skilled in craft. These traits would be completely unknown if [the Cynocephali] were not endowed with a reasoning mind to support them. I’m not completely sure what the implied subject of “demonstrat” (he/she/it shows) would be; at one point I thought maybe the verb should have been a plural and the subject would be the Cynocephali, i.e. “they show that they cultivate...” but then I thought I should probably stick with the text I’ve got. In which case, the “it” would most likely be the letter that Rimbert sent containing all the info about the Cynocephali. I had to squirm around a bit with a negative phrase. “Haudquaquam... cognoscitur” strictly means “be not at all known”, and I rendered it as “completely unknown”. Etenim rationis est causam requirere singularum actionum, ubi causa: quae res pingues efficiat terras, quae causa sementis ubertatem producat; quarum sine scientia agricultura nunquam digne poterit exerceri.
“And as a matter of fact, it is reasonable to look for the purpose of a single action, where there is a purpose: What is it that makes the soil fertile? Why did it yield an abundance of seed? Without the agricultural knowledge of these things, could never be cultivated. Farming is not an unconscious process, and Ratramnus therefore believes that creatures who farm must have some idea of what they’re doing, and even some kind of urge to inquire what brings success. I took the longer phrase “quae causa... producat” (lit. “with what cause did it yield...?”) and smoothed it into a simpler phrase “why did it yield...?”. Again there’s confusion about the implied subject of a verb, “exerceri”, but at least it’s kind of obvious what he means even if the subject could be “field” or “soil” or whatever. Porro tegumenta nosse conficere, vel pelle, vel lana linoque, studium est rationalis animae.
“Moreover, they have the diligence of a rational mind to know how to make clothing from either hide or wool and linen. One last sentence before I finish up tonight. The phrase “vel pelle, vel lana linoque” uses a combination of “and” and “or” which comes out looking a bit weird in English; literally “either hide, or wool and linen”. I could translate it as “hide, wool or linen” but then I’d lose the sort of contrast between the materials of hide on one hand and wool and linen on the other. I left my translation fairly literal, but I wonder if there’s a nicer way to phrase it...
|
|
|
|
Post by M is for Morphine on Jun 26, 2011 9:08:48 GMT -5
XD That picture is awesome! I was not expecting there to be art. What a cool surprise.
|
|
|
|
Post by Kathleen on Jun 26, 2011 11:23:02 GMT -5
Wow, this is kind of awesome. xD It's especially interesting that he concluded they were people; as Teow said before, I can see it, what with the close relationship dogs've had with humans for so long. Lovely picture, by the way! <3
What Latin skills I have are pretty rusty, and I studied Classical as well, so. No help there, but your translation seems very good, and I'm amusing myself seeing what of the Latin I can understand. Also your translation-notes are really interesting. I definitely need to hang around here. xD
|
|
|
|
Post by Pacmanite on Jun 28, 2011 9:53:24 GMT -5
I'm very glad you both liked my painting! <3 And I really appreciate that you're commenting, too. It's really nice to know that you're reading this and having fun. Especially if it makes you remember a bit of Latin. =D I've got a bit more of the translation to post. I would have done more but as I went through the editing, I realised that I completely skipped over one of the sentences in the draft, so I just ended there. Making the first rough translation of an unfamiliar sentence is the hardest part, IMHO. --------------- I begin by repeating just the last sentence I translated earlier, if only because I just realised the sense flows directly from that one into the next. Porro tegumenta nosse conficere, vel pelle, vel lana linoque, studium est rationalis animae. Nisi enim artificio quodam haec parari non possunt, et artis scientia nonnisi rationali conceditur animae.
“Moreover, they have the diligence of a rational mind to know how to make clothing from either hide or wool and linen. For they could not have obtained these things without some kind of workmanship, and the knowledge of craft is only bestowed on a rational mind. I flipped the passive construct “haec parari non possunt” (=“these things could not have been obtained”) into an active voice for a better English style. “Ars” (related to the word “art”) is another one of those Latin words that have a million meanings listed in the dictionary... it generally means the skill of doing or making something, and is not necessarily an aesthetic term (eg. the “art of medicine” or the “art of war”). Since he’s basically been talking about tailoring, I rendered the word as “craft”, but you get the sense that ‘only rational people know the skills of making stuff’. At pudenda velari, honestatis est signum, quod non quaeritur nisi ab animo inter turpe et honestum habente distinctionis judicum.
“But to clothe themselves in shame is a sign of honour – which is not sought for unless they can judge in their mind a difference between disgrace and decency. Veerrry unsure about the phrase from “nisi” to the end. It seems like “habente” (“having”) is the verb working in this clause, and “inter turpe et honestum” definitely means “between disgrace and decency”. But “judicum” seems like a genitive plural form of “iudex” – literally, a “judge”, like the one who convicts you in court. If that’s a possessive genitive object of “habente” (how often does that happen?), then my literal translation would go: “from the mind, having judges of a distinction between disgrace and decency”. An odd way to say it. I guessed he was using “judges” figuratively and translated it as “judgement”, sort of. Erubescere namque nemo potest de turpitudine, nisi cui contigit quaedam honestatis cognitio. Haec autem omnia rationalis animae esse propria, nemo nisi ratione carens negabit.
“And surely no one can blush about immodesty unless they happen to have some concept of decency. Now, nobody – except someone who lacks reason – would deny that these things are all characteristic of a rational mind. I love that word “erubescere”. xD It does mean to blush, and also to feel ashamed at something. But I like that it so vividly suggests flushing red in colour. The phrase “nisi... cognitio” was a little tricky. My most literal translation went like, “unless a certain idea of honour happens to them”. I chuckled a little at “nemo nisi ratione carens” = “no one, except for one who lacks reason”. I wish I could recreate the word order of the Latin better, because there’s a better effect when the subject “no one” is postponed to nearly the end of the sentence and he’s going all like, “these are all typical of a rational mind – only someone who’s devoid of reason themselves would think otherwise.” Inter honestum turpeque discernere, artisque scientia pollere, jura pacis concordiaeque condere, nec sine judicio rationis nec praeter acumen ingenii, fieri possunt.
“They [the Cynocephali] distinguish between probity and disgrace, and they are capable in their knowledge of craft, they establish laws of peace and concord, and they can’t be without a discernment of reason nor devoid of shrewd ingenuity. A recap of what proves that the Cynocephali are reasoning beings. Literally, “artisque scientia pollere” means “be powerful with knowledge of craft”, and “capable in their knowledge of craft” is a bit more natural in English. “acumen” and “ingenii” have an overlapping sense, which annoys me to no end because I keep trying to translate them redundantly like “ingenious genius-ness”. I took “praeter” to mean “besides, without”, so “praeter acumen ingenii” = “[lit.] without the shrewdness of ingenuity”. -------------------------- Just a heads up, in the coming sections Ratramnus talks about a Saint who was a Cynocephalus, quotes stuff from a famous medieval Latin text, and... dare I mention it? Lists other crazy monsters, including... "hermaphroditae"... I don't know how I'm going to smooth that one over... this is a bit of a sensitive spot to be in... (but from what I gather from my dodgy rough draft, I don't think he's insulting them or the "androgynae" any more than he's insulting the Cynocephali). |
|
|
|
Post by M is for Morphine on Jun 28, 2011 10:16:22 GMT -5
Yess, I can't wait. I love crazy medieval monsters. Someone goes traveling, tells their friends they saw people with no heads and faces on their torso, and everyone goes "Oh, ok. Yeah, I think I've heard of them".
|
|
|
|
Post by Pacmanite on Jul 1, 2011 10:11:32 GMT -5
Yess, I can't wait. I love crazy medieval monsters. Someone goes traveling, tells their friends they saw people with no heads and faces on their torso, and everyone goes "Oh, ok. Yeah, I think I've heard of them". xD I know, right? They're so bizarre and outlandish but I think that's what gives them such appeal. ------------------------ Qua de re cum talia dicitis apud Cenocephalos videri, rationalem eis inesse mentem reipsa testificamini. Homo vero a bestiis ratione tantummodo discernitur, homines potius quam bestiae deputandi videntur.
“On this subject, when you say that there seem to be other things among the Cynocephali, you give evidence that a rational mind really is present in them. Truly, man is distinguished from the beasts only by his rationality. People seem to be better at reasoning than animals. Ratramnus’s definition of a “person” is not dependent on anything else besides sentience. Now I couldn’t find “reipsa” in my dictionary, but an online dictionary helped me translate it as “really, in reality”. Huic intelligentiae non parum suffragari videtur libellus de martyrio sancti Christophori editus. Quemadmodum autem in eo legitur, hoc de genere hominum fuisse cognoscitur, cujus vita atque martyrium claris admodum virtutibus commendatur. Nam et batpismi sacramentum divinitus illum consecutum fuisse, nubis ministerio eum perfundente, sicut libellus ipse testatur, creditur.
“The published account of the martyr Saint Christopher seems to adequately support this understanding. Now as it was read there, he is thought to have come from this race of people, and he fully committed both his life and martyrdom to radiant virtues. For it is believed that he was divinely influenced to be baptised, with the help of a cloud pouring all over him, as evidenced by his account. In some Eastern Christian traditions, St. Christopher is pictured with a dog’s head and is held to be a Cynocephalus, and his distinguishing feature was being monstrously strong, so far as I can tell from a cursory Google search. Here are a couple of the nicer pictures of him: I think this is the first time Ratramnus used the phrase “gens hominum” (= “type of people”) to refer to the Cynocephali, applying the same word “homo” which he had earlier used to describe the descendants of Adam. I translated “libellus...editus” as “published account”, but the phrase is pretty non-specific anyway (and “biography” could be a good word too). Once again I flipped around the negative “non parum” (=lit. “not weakly”) to become “adequately”. I made the passive sense of “life and martyrdom were fully committed to radiant virtues” into an active phrase instead. And I like that word, “claris” (translated “radiant”)... it implies both goodness and shininess at the same time. The phrase meaning “be baptised” here is quite complicated, at least when translated literally: “he had followed into the sacrament of baptism”. It was a little tricky to work out how to properly rephrase that because the verb “to baptise” in English is an action which the baptiser does, whereas this Latin phrase suggests more of an active role for the participant of the baptism. (Or maybe it's just a standard phrase and I'm reading too much into it.) Fama quoque vulgante, plura feruntur quae hujusmodi hominum genus rationis compos insinuare videntur. Isidorus quoque cum de portentorum ex humano genere defluxorum varietate loqueretur in libris Etymologiarum, inter reliqua sic ait:
“Additionally, many things are being reported with spreading fame, things which seem to suggest that this race of people is in command of rational thought. Isidore also said this in his notes when he was talking about the varieties of monsters which originated from the human race, in the Book of Etymologies: “compos” is an adjective that means “in possession of, in control of”, and I thought it was more idiomatic in English to say that someone is “in command of rational thought”. I’m quite unsure about how to translate “inter reliqua”; literally it means “between/among the remainders”, but what are the remainders? I think, simply because the phrase is so close to the end of the sentence where Ratramnus is citing what Isidore said in the Books of Etymologies, that “inter reliqua” would describe the location or thereabouts of where Ratramnus lifted his quote from. For now, I translated it as if it said “in his remaining notes” i.e. “in his notes”. « Sicut autem in singulis gentibus quaedam sunt monstra hominum, ita in universo genere humano quaedam monstra sunt gentium, ut Gigantes, Cenocephali, Cyclopes, et caetera. » Hoc dicens manifeste signavit quod Cenocephalos ex primi hominis propagine originem duxisse fuerit opinatus.
« And just as there are monstrous individuals within the clans of people, so there are monstrous clans within the greater human race: the Giants, the Cynocephali, the Cyclopes, etcetera. » In saying this, he clearly showed that he believed the Cynocephali had originated from the offspring of the first man. I found this quotation was taken from Isidore, Etymologies, book XI, 3.12. You can get a free Latin text of it here, and it looks like there’s a free ebook of an English Translation here but I haven’t tested it out. Just in case you’re interested in getting the context for this quote. The literal meaning of “ex primi hominis propagine originem duxisse” would be something like “derived an origin from the offspring of the first man”, but I smoothed it into “originated from the offspring of the first man”. ------------ There are still more monsters to come in this letter, as you'll see soon enough. And, I'm over halfway through the translation now! =D |
|
|
|
Post by Stephanie (swordlilly) on Jul 10, 2011 21:57:18 GMT -5
Wow, Pacmanite, I am seriously impressed!! You have some real passion for this project. Passion is a beautiful thing to see. =D I don't know any Latin - although I might pick it up in grad school, we'll see - so I can't help you with the translation. But I have to say, I'm really enjoying reading your work so far. You are a very methodical and conscientious translator. Edit: And oh, you might want to check out Franz Kafka's short story "Investigations of a Dog." It's about this dog who conducts an inquiry into his culture, and it's really fun and interesting to read. I couldn't find a free version of it online, but you might be able to access it from a library. |
|
|
|
Post by Pacmanite on Jul 11, 2011 2:06:43 GMT -5
Thanks, Yoyote! I am really enjoying this letter, of course, and it's not just the bizarre subject matter that makes it interesting but I'm also finding the little philosophical arguments that Ratramnus employs very engaging. Somehow, I find that the scale of this project is just right... I don't often get to translate an entire work, because most of the works I study are some longish masterpieces of classical literature, but this letter is quite doable. A bit of a challenge, but manageable. And there's such a feeling of discovery when I start to pick out the strands of Ratramnus's logic. <3 And that Kafka story about the dog's investigation sounds really interesting, I'll have to check if any of the libraries I go to have it in stock. ;D There are some long sentences in this next part: ------------------------------------------ Nam sicut in singulis gentibus quaedam contra legem naturae videntur procreari, ut bicipites, trimani, pumiliones, hermaphroditae, sive androgynae, vel alia perplura, quae tamen contra naturae legem non fiunt, sed propria quodammodo dispositione proveniunt, siquidem lex naturae Divinitatis est dispositio.
“For just as in the separate clans, certain tribes seem to be born against the law of nature, for example the Two-Headed, the Trimani, the Dwarfs, the Hermaphrodites (or Androgynes), and many more besides – however, these monsters don’t arise against the law of nature, but they come about in a certain way with their own peculiar disposition, since the natural law is an arrangement of God; The word “quaedam” (=a certain one, i.e. a certain tribe) is singular, but because he lists multiple examples of monster races I translated it as “certain tribes” for better English grammar. Ratramnus qualified the statement “contra legem naturae...procreari” (=born against natural law) with “videntur” thrust in the middle (=they seem to be), and then he argued against that line of thought almost immediately. I was surprised at how familiar Ratramnus’s argument sounds when he says that actually these monsters aren’t unnatural, just different, and they were born that way through no fault of their own, and that in fact God ordained for them to be like this.
And I have no idea what the Trimani are supposed to be like. I couldn’t find them on monster lists and it’s hard to Google the name because it’s a common surname. If I were to take a wild guess, though, I’d say that “tri-mani” sounds a bit like “Three-Handed”. Sic quoque universi generis humani ordini naturali videntur monstruosam inferre procreationem illa, quae superius commemorata sunt, hominum, prodigiosa portenta, vel alia plura, quae longum est commemorare, ut Pigmaei, Anticaudae, quorum aliis cubitalis dicitur inesse statura corporis, aliis plantarum conversio post crura, et in plantis octoni digiti: Hippodes, qui humanam formam pedibus miscent equinis; Macrobii, humanam staturam pene duplo superantes; gensque feminarum in India quinto anno concipiens, et octavum vitae annum non excedens, et alia complura fatuque incredibilia.
“In the same way also, these marvellous monsters seem to introduce a monstrous branch to the natural lineage of the entire human race, monsters which were mentioned above and many more besides, and which take a long time to list: the Pygmies and the Back-To-Front, the former of which are said to stand at only a cubit in height, and it is said that the latter’s feet are turned around behind their legs, and that they have eight toes on each foot; the Horse-Hoofed, who are a mix of a human body with the feet of a horse; the Macrobi, standing nearly twice as tall as a regular human; and the tribe of women in India who conceive at the age of five and don’t live longer than eight years; and many other extraordinary [creatures] are told about. Yeah. This whole paragraph is a single sentence. @_@
I assume that "illa" (=these things) in the first clause refers to "prodigiosa portenta" (=marvellous monsters).
I translated the first clause very loosely, because it’s so hard to work out what the literal translation could mean: “in the say way also, these things seem to bring in a monstrous begetting to the natural order of the entire human race”. I saw that “ordo”, while it can mean order, can also mean “ranks”, as in the ranks of troops arrayed on the battlefield. From that I got the feeling that the human race could be collectively arrayed in order like a family tree, and the new “begetting” would be like new branches added to that tree.
I don't know where "hominum" (=of people), jammed inside the second clause, is meant to fit in with the sentence, so I had to leave it out. I think it might be something to do with the verb "mention", but I need to look up whether "hominum" could be the subject or the object of that verb or some weird configuration.
I like to translate the names when they are an obvious amalgamation of separate Latin or Greek words, so the Anticaudae (literally “reversed-back”) are the “Back-To-Front”, and the Hippodes are the “Horse-Hoofed”. This is mostly because it's more fun, and also because those Latin words aren't even the "standard" name for the monsters - the Anticaudae are more often called the Antipodes (and have some other names as well), while "Hippodes" seems to be either a contraction or simply a misspelling of "Hippopodes". Et quamvis ferantur ista ex humano genere duxisse originem non tamen mox neque temere homines ratione praeditos esse firmandum.
“But although these monsters reportedly originated from the human race, they are hardly ever said to be people who are equipped with a rationality that is to their strength. More literally, “ferantur” means “these things are reported to...” but “reportedly” made my sentence flow nicer. “non mox” means something like “not soon” or “not readily”, but I felt that its sense was already apparent in the phrase “neque temere” which is translated as “hardly ever”, and trying to say it twice as “not readily and hardly ever” comes out a bit weird in English. Gerunds are my bane, and “firmandum” (=lit. “for the purpose of strengthening”) gave me a bit of a struggle, and I’m hesitant to try to find a smoother way to say it because I might totally erase what the word was supposed to mean. But I think the gist of what Ratramnus is getting at is that in most cases, the monsters aren’t described as having brains as their strong point. ---------------------------------------------- This point marks that my "smooth" translation is now two-thirds of the way through! Woot! And I guess it won't be too long before my rough translation starts to reach the end of the letter. |
|
I'm glad to know you're interested! I didn't know that "cynic" came from a root that meant dog-like, that's really neat. And I haven't read those things you pointed out there, so next time I find myself in a library I'll sure keep an eye out for them. ^_^
I couldn’t work out where “plurimumque” (roughly means “a lot”) fits in grammatically, because it’s this random accusative in the middle somewhere, so I kinda left it out. It might be the object of “writing”. 
