Archetypo and Ectypo

MichaelJYoo

Member
Would someone be willing to check the accuracy of my translation here. Especially what the difference is between "Archetypo et Ectypo" and "Archetypa et Ectypa." Text is:

Ac primo quidem non stabo in vestibulo, qui Theologorum quorundam mos est, ut vocis etymon inquiram. Nimis hoc exile ac vernile est, planeque alterius Scholae. Philologi & Grammatici istam pulpam sibi habeant. Et quorsum foret istud? In tota Scriptura vox ista Theologiae non est, & ea fortasse multis ineptis & male sanis cogitationibus ansam dedit. Nec dicam operose de Theologiae, quas vocant, speciebus, in quas Theologiam analogice dividere quidam solent, videlicet de Archetypo et Ectypo, sive ut barbare quidam loquuntur, Archetypa et Ectypa.

My translation is:

And first, I will not stand at the entrance as is the practice of some theologians in order that I may examine the etymon (etymology) of the word. This is overly strict and servile and clearly belongs to another School. Philologists and Grammarians may keep that pulp for themselves. But why should this be? The word is not in the entire Scripture and it has perhaps given occasion for many inept and unsound thoughts. I will not speak elaborately about what certain men call the "kinds" of theology, namely, about the Archetype and Ectype, into which they often divide theology analogically, or as certain men barbarously call them, Archetypal theology and Ectypal theology.
 

Pacifica

grammaticissima
Staff member
I'm not sure about that as a translation for exile. I would have said "petty" or something like that.
Especially what the difference is between "Archetypo et Ectypo" and "Archetypa et Ectypa."
I think the difference is just that archetypa and ectypa are bad Latin according to the author.
 

Pacifica

grammaticissima
Staff member
Your word choice doesn't make a lot of sense in the context.
 

Michael Zwingli

Active Member
Your word choice doesn't make a lot of sense in the context.
Yup...reading the passage carefully, I notice that you're right. I think that the author's choice of wording doesn't translate well into English. From the context, it seems clear that he doesn't mean to say "meager and servile" or "petty and slavish" in any literal sense. I think that only a very loose, functionally equivalent translation will do here, such as: Nimis hoc exile ac vernile est... "This is/would be a complete waste of time..." why? Because "the word is not (even) in the entire Scripture, etc".
 

Pacifica

grammaticissima
Staff member
"Petty and servile" makes some sense to me, the point being that analyzing etymologies is basically concerning oneself with inconsequential technical details, a job fit for slaves, as opposed to more lofty considerations of the kind that the author is going to write about.
 

Michael Zwingli

Active Member
"Petty and servile" makes some sense to me, the point being that analyzing etymologies is basically concerning oneself with inconsequential technical details, a job fit for slaves, as opposed to more lofty considerations of the kind that the author is going to write about.
Yes, I suppose that is one way to read the passage.
 
Top