Babylon illa magna cecidit...

[Pacifica]

Hello, I'm having a few doubts concerning the translation of a rather big and somewhat confused (at least as it seems to me) gloss concerning the verse Rev. 14:8 Et alius angelus secutus est dicens: Cecidit, cecidit Babylon illa magna: quae a vino irae fornicationis suae potavit omnes gentes. But let me point out that the text of the verse in the book which the gloss comes from doesn't have the word irae.

I'll post both an image of the gloss and my transcription of it:

Ille angelus hortabatur deum qui omnia fecit timeri laudari, quia in brevi suos liberat; hic alius angelus hortatur ne conformes se faciant bestie, et draconi. Nam babilon illa magna cecidit, id est omnes mali et confusi, viso (which I emend to visis) iis prostratis anima et corpore, babilon dico que potat, id est inquinationes (which I emend to inquinat omnes) gentes, (I've decided to include an id est here) gentiliter viventes, vino, id est delectatione fornicationis sue, fornicationis dico, ire dei, per quam deus efficitur iratus. Vel vino fornicationis viciis et precipue ydolatria, que est potus dulcis, peccantibus, quibus alios inquinant, et ne recto tramite gradiantur inhebriat (which I emend to inebriant), unde debetur eis ira dei.

Here's my current translation:

The previous angel was exhorting them to fear and praise God who made all things, because he will deliver his people in a short time; this other angel exhorts them not to make themselves similar to the beast and to the dragon, because that great Babylon is fallen, i.e. all the wicked and all those who were confounded when seeing them destroyed in soul and body, I mean Babylon which makes to drink, i.e. pollutes, all the nations, i.e. those who live heathenly, of the wine, i.e. with the delight, of her fornication; by fornication I mean God's wrath, because God is made angry by it. Or the wine of her fornication, i.e. vices, and especially idolatry, which is a sweet drink for those who sin; vices with which they pollute others and make them drunk so that they cannot walk in the straight path, whence God's wrath is owed to them.

I am not sure what the ablative absolute is referring to in omnes mali et confusi, viso (which I emend to visis) iis prostratis anima et corpore, babilon dico que potat... whether it's as I have it now or rather "all the wicked and all those proven guilty; seing these destroyed in soul and body, I mean Babylon which makes to drink..."

I also would like to see what you think of the emendations; whether they seem right to you or if I'm missing something.

 

[Deleted member 13757]

I mean Babylon which makes to drink

Babylon has a problem with alcoholism.

babilon dico que potat,

"That Babylon, I say, the city of drunks."

Babylon fell because of vine, because of the vices and by vine it pollutes everyone, so better to follow the ablatives in english as well inquinat omnes gentes vinō...

.... vinō fornicationis viciis et precipue idolatriā, que est potus dulcis peccantibus, (ex) quibus alios inquinat, et ne recto tramite gradiantur, inhebriat, unde debetur eis ira dei.

... and especially by/with idolatry, a sweet drink for sinners which pollutes ... and intaxicates them/some of them.

 

[Pacifica]

I mean Babylon which makes to drink

Babylon has a problem with alcoholism.

No, potat is used here with a non-classical meaning "make someone drink", as in the verse it's commenting on: quae a vino... potavit omnes gentes; which of the wine... made all nations to drink (Douay-Rheims translation).

.... vinō fornicationis viciis et precipue idolatriā, que est potus dulcis peccantibus, (ex) quibus alios inquinat, et ne recto tramite gradiantur, inhebriat, unde debetur eis ira dei.

... and especially by/with idolatry, a sweet drink for sinners which pollutes ... and intaxicates them/some of them.

Well I first thought to render the ablatives: "Or of the wine of her fornication, i.e. of vices, and especially of idolatry, which is a sweet drink for those who sin..." but I thought that maybe it looked a little weird and that the meaning would be conveyed even without "of" or "with" anyway, because the purpose is principally to explain what is meant by "wine" in the verse, but maybe it's better if I render it literally after all.

 

[Deleted member 13757]

I see. It's used in the sense of infects, makes them drunk with. Russians have the same word with the same origin поить, to make someone drunk, to make someone drink.

 

[Rocit]

I see. It's used in the sense of infects, makes them drunk with. Russians have the same word with the same origin поить, to make someone drunk, to make someone drink.

true, we do))

 

[Laurentius]

Perhaps that irae could be dirae, don't know.

 

[Aurifex]

Aside from a conviction that they make for more meaningful Latin, on what basis have you made the emendations and the interpolation (of "id est")? What I mean is, what authority (e.g. evidence from other MSS.) do you have for making the changes? Possibly you do have one and you've just not mentioned it.

The meaning of the gloss is clearly abstruse at best. It may be better to remain in doubt about what you see before you than to make arbitrary changes and remain in doubt about those too.

 

[Pacifica]

This gloss, except the last sentence (in which the other mss have "inebriant") is unique to this ms.

It does seem to be repeating the words of the verse (albeit in a different order), inserting explanations between each part; so omnes gentes should be there, and "inquinat" makes sense, and it seems even more likely to me by the fact that the same verb is used later, and inquinationes gentes makes no sense at all but is visually close enough to be a mistranscription. Above "omnes gentes" in the verse there is also an interlinear gloss "gentiliter viventes". It seems better to me with "id est" because otherwise the pattern found throughout all the gloss is somewhat broken, and also, even though I guess it's possible that they mean "omnes gentes gentiliter viventes", it looks a little pleonastic to me and I thought "gentiliter viventes" was perhaps rather meant to explain what "gentes" meant symbolically, but maybe I'm wrong. The simple dot sometimes happens to be found with the idea of "id est" or "est/sunt" implied, probably when the scribe wants to spare his effort, even if it's maybe more surprising here because he didn't spare it at other places of the same gloss.

As to "viso", well it just didn't make sense to me... Unless it means "by the sight, those having been destroyed..." but it looks far-fetched.

 

[Abbatiſſæ Scriptor]

In the firſt line I would be inclined to read 'dm (cum vinculo)' as 'dominum' rather than 'deum'.

 

[Aurifex]

As to "viso", well it just didn't make sense to me... Unless it means "by the sight, those having been destroyed..." but it looks far-fetched.

I'm not saying anything about whether it would really suit our passage, but "viso" could theoretically be an impersonal ablative absolute, viz. " it having appeared (this way), these persons being prostrate in body and soul".

 

[Theopyrus]

Hi there!

This is my first post so I hope not to make a fool of myself.

First of all, I consider that the id est explains a particular word rather than the sense, that’s why it matches accordingly: babilon<omnes mali et confusi; potat<iniquinat; [om]nes gentes<gentiliter viventes; vinō<delectatione. This supports the purpose of the gloss, since Babilon, potat, omnes gentes, vino, all appear in the glossed text; therefore, they need to be explained. It also supports most of your amendments as you need the omnes gentes from original text and iniquinat must gloss potat; however, it might affect a little bit the translation since the id est part must agree with the referent that is attached to.

As for the viso, I have troubles finding some meaning. Could it be a mistake for visu? Or could it be considered a noun or even (although it sounds a long shot) agreeing with a previous one, perhaps draconi viso (confused upon the sight of the dragon or something similar)? Since Babylon is considered an entity (to name it somehow) that corrupts, it’s logical to assume that, besides the mali (whom I assume are mali by nature), some others were confused because of that corrupt entity.

The iis postratis must understand malis et confusis but I would render like this:

Nam babilon illa magna cecidit, id est, omnes mali et confusi [ceciderunt] viso, iis prostratis anima et corpore [...].
That great Babylon is fallen, i.e. all the wicked and all those who were confused by the sight of it (?) [are fallen] when they were destroyed in soul and body.

Lastly, haven’t you considered to also add Vel vino fornicationis [id est] viciis...?

 

[Pacifica]

Perhaps that irae could be dirae, don't know.

No.

In the firſt line I would be inclined to read 'dm (cum vinculo)' as 'dominum' rather than 'deum'.

I think there would be an "n" in the middle if it were dominum.

This is my first post so I hope not to make a fool of myself.

Not at all, and welcome to the forum.

First of all, I consider that the id est explains a particular word rather than the sense

It still explains the sense of a particular word/group of words.

As for the viso, I have troubles finding some meaning. Could it be a mistake for visu? Or could it be considered a noun or even (although it sounds a long shot) agreeing with a previous one, perhaps draconi viso (confused upon the sight of the dragon or something similar)? Since Babylon is considered an entity (to name it somehow) that corrupts, it’s logical to assume that, besides the mali (whom I assume are mali by nature), some others were confused because of that corrupt entity.

I don't think it can refer to draconi, but well I'm still not sure about that bit.

Lastly, haven’t you considered to also add Vel vino fornicationis [id est] viciis...?

Yes, it's obviously implied there too. So obviously that I actually put "i.e." in my translation without even thinking of mentioning it.

 

[Theopyrus]

Not at all, and welcome to the forum.

Gratias ago, pacis Puella!

I don't think it can refer to draconi, but well I'm still not sure about that bit.

The only possible thing that comes to my mind is a neutral viso [eo] that refers to the things before: “confused by the sight of that”. Draconi is too far to agree with, but I cannot figure other options. Perhaps emend for visā?

Yes, it's obviously implied there too. So obviously that I actually put "i.e." in my translation without even thinking of mentioning it.

I agree with you, but since you are adding a previous i.e. in the text and you are translating another, it might be justified to add the i.e. in the text and not just in the translation.

 

[Pacifica]

The only possible thing that comes to my mind is a neutral viso [eo] that refers to the things before: “confused by the sight of that”.

That seems to be one of the only two things that would be at least in theory possible if we were to take viso as it is. (The other one being viso as a noun, "by the sight", though a participle is maybe a bit more likely.)

Draconi is too far to agree with

Indeed it's in another sentence, but I thought that perhaps you meant that it referred to it (as an antecedent) rather than agreeing with it as an adjective. But, as I said, I find it unlikely too.

Perhaps emend for visā?

What would it refer to? As in (Babylone) visa? If we are to make an emendation, I still think visis is the most likely.

I agree with you, but since you are adding a previous i.e. in the text and you are translating another, it might be justified to add the i.e. in the text and not just in the translation.

The transcription isn't to be published or anything (only the translation is), so it doesn't matter that much ultimately, but perhaps I should have done it for clarity here on the forum - in any case it just completely escaped my mind, as if I hadn't even noticed it wasn't actually written in the Latin.

 

[Theopyrus]

That seems to be one of the only two things that would be at least in theory possible if we were to take viso as it is. (The other one being viso as a noun, "by the sight".)

But if we take viso as a noun, as someone reading the gloss, I would ask: by the sight of what? If we read as viso [eo], then “by the sight of that [that we talked before]” suits better in my opinion.

What would it refer to? As in (Babylone) visa? If we are to make an emendation, I still think visis is the most likely.

Those were my thoughts, Babylone visa. I am not quite convinced by the visis in the Latin. (In your translation it makes sense).

The transcription isn't to be published or anything (only the translation is), so it doesn't matter that much, except perhaps for clarity here on the forum, I don't know - in any case it just completely escaped my mind.

I see. I thought that both of them were meant to be published, that is why I insisted in the i.e.

 

[Pacifica]

But if we take viso as a noun, as someone reading the gloss, I would ask: by the sight of what? If we read as viso [eo], then “by the sight of that [that we talked before]” suits better in my opinion.

Well you could imply eius rei or eo as an adjective just like you imply eo as a pronoun with the participle, or just "the sight" and imply that it's the sight of the thing just mentioned. But I think the participle is more likely anyway.

Now you know what, in me grows the impression that the scribe or even perhaps the author of the gloss himself just got confused in the middle of two constructions; between "this (i.e. the fact that they're destroyed) being seen" and "those being seen destroyed".

I suppose visa is possible in theory, but I'm not convinced as it doesn't look quite natural either.

The problem also remains that I'm still not sure what part this phrase refers to, the preceding or the following one.

 

[Theopyrus]

Well you could imply

eius rei or eo as an adjective just like you imply eo as a pronoun with the participle, or just "the sight" and imply that it's the sight of the thing just mentioned. But I think the participle is more likely anyway.

Viso as a noun seems strange (although attested in the texts), and it is far more common visus, us. I think it needs to work as a participle.

Now you know what, in me grows the impression that the scribe or even perhaps the author of the gloss himself just got confused in the middle of two constructions; between "this (i.e. the fact that they're destroyed) being seen" and "those being seen destroyed".

Indeed. A more careful writer would have launched there another sentence or another construction, but it appears that he just crumbled ideas together and solved with ablatives; even the iis prostratis could be expressed more clearly with a ubi or quia or something else. I guess that it is a scriptoris lapsus.