> From: Steven Fanning [SMTP:[log in to unmask]]
>
> In researching my article on 'Lombard Arianism Reconsidered' (Speculum,
> 56,
> 1981, pp. 241-58), I looked at the usage of gentilis in Paul the Deacon,
> and then Orosius, the Theodosian Code, Isidore of Seville, Gregory of
> Tours, and Bede, and found that it in these sources it always meant pagan
> (or heathen for the squeamish). (The relevant footnote is no. 8.) In
> essence, gentilis would seem to mean 'the other'.
>
I think when one is translating a document, one should try to convey
the meaning of the author as closely as possible. If the connotation is
pejorative, then a pejorative equivalent is an appropriate way to translate
the original. If the meaning seems to be more objective, then a phrase such
as "the other" may better convey the intention of the author.
On the other hand, if one is writing or leading a discussion about a
group of non-Christian beliefs or mythology, then I think being as specific
as possible--e.g., Scandinavian mythology, Anglo-Saxon evidence, Irish
myths, Gaulish archaeological remains, Greek epics--accurately describes the
material and impresses the audience with the fact that all these traditions
had their own approaches and ideas. Sometimes the medium is indeed part of
the message.
Francine Nicholson
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|