> I don't think this last suggestion works - what is "Hubertus Languetus"
> doing in the nominative with no verb? Nor do I understand "The author
> of the translating was by us the same as he who was the author/agent of
> the [original] publishing [ie also Mornay]" - "by us"? Surely it means
> "for us", and Languet has to be the translator, and the subject of the
> whole, mispunctuated sentence from "Auctor" on. That is, I think Dr.
> Stillman must be right.
> Julia
>
>
>>>> [log in to unmask] 05/21/05 3:32 PM >>>
>
>> Dear Colleagues,
>>
>> I am hoping that someone can advise me about how best to translate a
> particular term from a dedicatory epistle by Philippe de Mornay in
> honor
> of
>> the recently deceased Hubert Languet. The epistle prefaces the Latin
> translation of Mornay's previously published De verite de la religion
> chretienne.
>>
>> Habes, Lector benevole, librum nostrum De veritate Religionis
> Christianae,
>> Latine iam redditum, quem anno superiore Gallice
> edideramus....Auctor
> vertendi
>> nobis, idem qui edendi fuit. Hubertus Languetus V.C. toto orbe
> Christiano,
>> in
>> primis notus!
>>
>> My question is likely to seem simple. How exactly ought we to
> understand
> the
>> "edideramus" of the first sentence in relation to the "edendi" of
> the
> second?
>> In the first instance, Mornay clearly means to say that "we" [he
> himself]
>> had
>> "published" the work in French a year earlier. In the second
> instance,
> Mornay
>> gives Languet credit for being both the author of the translation,
> and
> for
>> being: "idem qui edendi fuit" [the same one responsible for its
> publishing].
>> Can a better Latinist than me tell me whether I am right to
> translate
> the
>> second of those sentences as I have? And can that better Latinist
> tell
> me
>> whether Mornay's adoption of the first person plural form of the
> verb
> "edideramus" is simply conventional (a rhetorically conventional means
> of
>> writing within a formal dedicatory letter) or whether that "we" can
> be read
>> strategically/literally, as a means of reinforcing all the more
> strongly
> the
>> intimate bond between Languet and Mornay in
>> authoring/translating/publishing
>> the De verite?
>>
>> Thank you in advance for your help.
>>
>> Rob Stillman
>>
> In my opinion there is no evidence here for saying Languet was
> anything
> but the dedicatee. Although Renaissance punctuation is frequently
> different from ours, there is no reason to doubt it here: Languet is in
> a
> separate sentence, not in apposition with 'auctor,' 'qui' or'nobis' as
> it
> would have to be in your translation.'Auctor' can of course mean
> 'agent,'
> just the same sense as he uses it by implication for the
> publishing.Lewis
> and Short define the word as follows: "he that brings about the
> existence
> of any object, or promotes the increase or prosperity of it, whether
> he
> first originates it, or by his efforts gives greater permanence or
> continuance to it; to be differently translated according to the
> object
> including . . . cause, voucher, supporter, . . . "
> Last question, yes, 'edideramus' is simply the conventional plural for
> singular just like the way he says 'nostrum librum' instead of 'meum
> librum'.
> My quick, rough, literal translation would be: [Here} you have, kind
> reader, our book DVRC, now rendered into Latin, which last year we
> published in French. The author of the translating was by us the same
> as
> he who was the author/agent of the [original] publishing [ie also
> Mornay].
> What do the rest of you think?
>
>
If Languet helped with the translation and the publishing, which is all
that Rob is claiming,
then why is 'auctor' in the singular?
|