First, some background : I am researching the possible historical existence of King Arthur. One name associated with this is Riothamus, and an ancient writer named Sidonius Apollinaris wrote a letter to him. In it, he hints that Riothamus might have some power or authority over the "Britannis" (in the original Latin). In O.M. Dalton's 1915 translation, Dalton translates this as "Bretons", which are British settlers of Armorica, or modern-day Brittany.
However, in searching the web, I have found many scholarly papers dealing with excerpts from Latin writers who translate "Britannis" as "Britons", or natives of Great Britain. I also found a Latin-to-English dictionary from the 1800's which also says it means Britons. I have found virtually no sites that translate it as Bretons. (Just to be clear, none of these sites are automated translators.)
The importance of this distinction is critical - Riothamus has always been thought to perhaps be a leader in Armorica, but if Britannis means Britons, then he is instead possibly a leader in Great Britain.
So, two lesser questions are : what are the thought processes involved in translating Britannis as Britons or Bretons? Why would Dalton in 1915 translate it as Bretons, when today it seems unanimously translated as Britons? But my main question is : which do you believe it should be translated as, and why?
In case context matters, here is the excerpt :
"Gerulus epistularum humilis obscurus despicabilisque etiam usque ad damnum innocentis ignaviae mancipia sua Britannis clam sollicitantibus abducta deplorat."
However, in searching the web, I have found many scholarly papers dealing with excerpts from Latin writers who translate "Britannis" as "Britons", or natives of Great Britain. I also found a Latin-to-English dictionary from the 1800's which also says it means Britons. I have found virtually no sites that translate it as Bretons. (Just to be clear, none of these sites are automated translators.)
The importance of this distinction is critical - Riothamus has always been thought to perhaps be a leader in Armorica, but if Britannis means Britons, then he is instead possibly a leader in Great Britain.
So, two lesser questions are : what are the thought processes involved in translating Britannis as Britons or Bretons? Why would Dalton in 1915 translate it as Bretons, when today it seems unanimously translated as Britons? But my main question is : which do you believe it should be translated as, and why?
In case context matters, here is the excerpt :
"Gerulus epistularum humilis obscurus despicabilisque etiam usque ad damnum innocentis ignaviae mancipia sua Britannis clam sollicitantibus abducta deplorat."