Latin is not my bag, admittedly. In fact, it’s very sad-- I audited 2 terms until my brain was full and I couldn’t take it any more. Sigh. Apparently some people are made for Latin, though. Perhaps YOU are one of them!
I’m trying to hack my way through some passages-- anyone want to correct this monster I’ve created? First is the Latin text (it’s 15th c, so there are some strange things going on, I’m sure-- don’t worry about the Saracens and Surians) and then my attempt at a translation, which I’ve done as literally as I could but with 15th-c punctuation I haven’t the foggiest where things split up. It is the intro to a pilgrimage account, addressing his reader who may not be able to go on pilgrimage themselves. Syntactically my English version is not making a lot of sense to me-- can it be saved?
Quia vidi quosdam affectos devocione ea saltem aliqualiter ymaginari, que propter locorum distanciam non possunt corporaliter intueri, cupiens quantam est possibile, talium satisfacere desideriis terram sanctam, quam pluries pedibus perlustravi et, quantum potui, consideravi et notavi, diligenter et studiose descripsi, hoc lectorem scire volens, nichil in hac descripcione posui nisi quod presencialiter in loco existens vidi vel stans in montibus aliquibus vel aliis locis oportunis, ubi accessum habere non potui, a Surianis et a Sarracenis et aliis terre habitatoribus diligentissiime interrogans, que quesiveram annotavi.
Because I have observed these devout emotions [?], imagine there at least for a while, that which they can not bodily observe because of distance, as enthusiasticly as possible, from such sufficient desiring for the Holy Land, having surveyed it on foot, and as much as I have been able, I have considered and observed, I have diligently and studiously described, wishing to know this reader [?], I have placed nothing in this description except what I have seen present in an existing place, actually standing in the mountains in whichever opportune locale, to where I was not able to have access, of the Surians and Saracens and other lands [I think here he means that he has stood on a mountain to see places he was not allowed to travel into?], most diligently questioning inhabitants, I have annotated whatever I had allowed.
I think the gist of it is, “Even though a lot of people who have never been to the Holy Land have made up all sorts of stuff about it, I promise the reader that I’ve only written down what I’ve seen (and have written down comments about everywhere I went), or, in the cases of the lands of the Surians, the Saracens or other places I wasn’t able to go to, I’ve only written down what the inhabitants of those places told me.”
In other words, he’s not making stuff up, but is writng objectively, but I’ll leave it to somebody better in Latin to give you a better translation.
I’m not a medieval Latinist, but I’ll take a stab at it. One thing I think may be throwing you is your passive infinitives in -ari and -eri.
Quia vidi quosdam affectos devocione ea saltem aliqualiter ymaginari, que propter locorum distanciam non possunt corporaliter intueri, cupiens quantam est possibile, talium satisfacere desideriis terram sanctam, quam pluries pedibus perlustravi et, quantum potui, consideravi et notavi, diligenter et studiose descripsi, hoc lectorem scire volens, nichil in hac descripcione posui nisi quod presencialiter in loco existens vidi vel stans in montibus aliquibus vel aliis locis oportunis, ubi accessum habere non potui, a Surianis et a Sarracenis et aliis terre habitatoribus diligentissiime interrogans, que quesiveram annotavi.
Because I have observed them [?] affected by this zeal at least in some way [?] to be imagined, which can not be bodily observed because of the distance of the places, wishing as much as possible to satisfy the desires of such for [?] the Holy Land; which I have traversed on foot many times and, as much as I have been able, I have considered and observed, I have diligently and studiously described, wishing the reader to know this: I have placed nothing in this description except what I have seen being in person in [the] place; or, standing in some mountains or in other favorable places, where I was not able to have access, most diligently questioning the Surians and Saracens and other inhabitants of the region, I have recorded what I had sought.
Thank heaven for the Words Latin online dictionary. All remaining errors are the sole responsibility of the present translator.
Here is a [very rough] translation:
‘Since I saw certain people affected by devotion, [report] things at least somewhat imagined, whichon account of the distance of the places they are not able to see bodily, [I am] desiring as much as possible, so much to satisfy [their] desires [to see] the holy land, which many times I have entirely traversed on foot, and as much as I was able, regarded carefully and took note of, [and] I described [it] carefully and diligently, wishing this reader to know, [there is] nothing I put down except that which I saw, currently existing in [that] place or standing in certain mountains or in other suitable places, where I was not able to have access, [but] most carefully asking the Syrians and the Sarracens and other inhabitants of the land, I wrote down [those things, answers] which I sought.’
The important thing is to sort out which clauses refer to which antecedents, and which antecedents (or ‘helping verbs’, etc) are being left out. Stuff not in the original text is in brackets . The writer of this text is not by any means following classical Latin usage (but you knew that). IF you have any particular grammar questions, I’d be happy to answer, as far as I am able. Any other Latinists who wish to pick nits with my translation please do.
The really hard bit is in that first clause: ea saltem aliqualiter ymaginari… there isn’t really a verb in the sentence to which ‘ymaginari’ (a lovely concoction) can be the complement of, so I supplied ‘report’. But what he meant exactly by ‘saltem aliqualiter’ is hard to say. I think the ‘ea’ is the object of the non-existent verb (i.e. ‘report’) and it is definitely the antecedent of ‘qu[a]e’ in the next clause.
Oops, sorry, I forgot to explain something else. ‘quosdam affectos devocione’ is masculine and must refer to individuals - ‘some people affected by devotion/zeal’; ea is (most likely) neuter plural ‘[these] things’ and probably accusative case (as there is no verb which it could be the nominative of. ‘devocione ea’ could be ablative, except that is a very odd usage (though could be a calque from the first language; demonstratives almost always precede the noun in Latin) and leaves the next clause without an antecedent.
I took Latin for three semesters in college, and as much as I loved the intellectual challenge of it, I still can’t believe that real people actually spoke it.
You guys rock-- this is enough for me to go ahead with and muck it out into something like English. In a way I feel sympathy with these Medieval guys, as it was only a second language or worse for them, too. Thanks for the thumbs-up on the passive stuff.
Regarding that early clause, I think in the start he’s explaining that he’s providing a service to those people who are zealous but can’t make the trip and have to make everything up (for their Stations of the Cross devotions or whatever)-- he’s giving them something tangible to work with. Sound right?
Poor Latin is one of the bugaboos of my current life. Sigh.
Thanks, again.
I think that’s the general sense, yes. He’s helping them out by giving them a concrete description so that the don’t have to make things up when ‘affected by devotion’.
Yeah, I think Daphne mostly nailed it. One nitpick, though, Daphne: “hoc lectorem scire volens” can’t be “wishing this reader to know”, because “hoc” is neuter whereas “lectorem” is masculine. If he wanted “this” to agree with “reader” in the masculine accusative, he would have had to write “hunc lectorem”. So I still like “wishing the reader to know this”.
capybara, medieval Latin, or any Latin, sure can be a brainbuster! The best advice I ever got about translating it was this: Let the grammar dominate the meaning, rather than vice versa.
That is, no matter how tempting it is just to translate what you think the author’s driving at from the basic sense of the words, be strict about translating the case endings properly and respecting the grammatical agreements. In the long run, the grammar will actually guide you to the true meaning faster than you’ll be able to impose your guessed-at meaning on the grammar. You’re right that the post-classical authors don’t always know the rules so well themselves, though!
Whoops! You’re totally right. I knew I couldn’t get through a paragraph without any silly errors :). That’s one I often confuse because hoc can be masculine ablative or neuter ablative or accusative (at least in prose where the quantities are unknown). Thanks for catching that.
