De excidio et conquestu Britanniae

[Symposion]

I have difficulties translating this Latin sentence into English. Gildas writes in his work De excidio et conquestu Britanniae at 31:1: "propria tua amota coniuge eiusdemque honesta morte, impudentis filiae quodam ineluctabili”. See Michael Winterbottom, Gildas, The Ruin of Britain and Other Works, Chichester 1978, page 101.

Is quodam wrong in this sentence? Should the pronoun not be quadam instead? I am unfamiliar with the case and word ineluctabili. What is that? A bonus is of course if you are able to translate to text into English. Thank you.

 

[Aurifex]

quodam agrees with the word pondere, which follows the word ineluctabili in the text, but which you haven't included in your quote. It's all too easy to get into difficulties translating Latin when you focus on only a section of a passage rather than the entirety of it.

 

[Symposion]

So if I want to quote this do I have to quote all of this or only the part that deals with the daughter? I think that I have done that above. Now I am even more uncertain. If the pronoun quodam relates to the noun pondere then is there not a "certain" relating the the word daughter? Winterbottom has translated it to "of a shameless daughter". I can't find the word "ineluctabili" or what case it is in my dictionaries. I think Gildas has very advanced and difficult latin.

The entire sentence is "quid quasi culminis malorum omnium stupro, propria tua amota coniuge eiusdemque honesta morte, impudentis filiae quodam ineluctabili pondere miseram animam oneras?".

 

[Imber Ranae]

It's difficult for me to parse, but here's a tentative translation: "Why, as if it were the utmost disgrace of all evils, when your own wife has been lost, and the same by an honorable death, do you weigh down your poor soul with some such intractable burden as that of a shameless daughter?"

 

[Aurifex]

This is a somewhat involved sentence; other members could analyse and explain it more succinctly than I can. My understanding of the passage is based on the tentative supposition that culminis is in apposition to impudentis filiae, though strictly speaking the culmen malorum omnium is not the shameless daughter herself but the fact of ravishing her. I am certainly open to alternative interpretations.

"Why, the culmination as it were of all (your) crimes, your own wife having been got out of the way and her death honourable, (why) by the ravishment of a shameless daughter do you weigh down your wretched soul with a certain ineluctable burden?"

 

[Symposion]

Michael Winterbottom has translated this Latin sentence as "Why, to crown your crimes, do you weigh down your wretched soul with a burden you cannot shrug off, the rape of a shameless daughter after the removal and honourable death of your own wife?". That way you Aurifex and professor Michael Winterbottom agree. That is great! I have myself tried to translate and understand this sentence. I don't see how you and Winterbottom find out from this sentence that a daughter got raped. How is that implied in the Latin text? I think that Wikipedia has wrong information that the king had "at least one daughter" and that "Gildas also attacks his daughter, calling her "shameless"". See here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vortiporius

 

[Aurifex]

I don't see how you and Winterbottom find out from this sentence that a daughter got raped. How is that implied in the Latin text?

stupro impudentis filiae means the violation/rape/ravishment of a shameless or wanton daughter, the genitives being objective ones.
The daughter is no doubt described as shameless because in the medieval male psyche all women were potential temptresses and an evil influence on men, even when the "woman" was the daughter of a man who was sexually abusing her, which is likely to be what was going on here. Don't forget that the fall of man was seen as Eve's doing.

 

[Symposion]

I have been thinking that shameless means in this case without shame. In my native tounge Swedish "oskuld" means without shame. I was therefore and in a church perspective thinking that without shame or shameless means someone that is a virgin or has not had sex before. Especially outside of marriage. Therefore I see that the king raped a virgin women.

I also think that we can not say that the man raping her was her father.

 

[malleolus]

I don't see how you and Winterbottom find out from this sentence that a daughter got raped.

rape stuprum,- i n.
quid, quasi culminis malorum omnium, stupro, propria tua amota coniuge eiusdemque honesta morte, impudentis filiae, quodam ineluctabili pondere miseram animam oneras?
Why, almost as a climax of all evils, do you burden your miserable soul, after your own wife had been removed and after her (eiusdem) honorable death , with the somewhat inevitable burden (quodam ineluctabili pondere) , (with) the rape (stuprum,- i n. rape) of a (your) shameless daughter ?

Maybe this will shed some light on the rape

"What he does know is that the stuprum was consensual. Gildas uses the word not because he saw Vortipor's act as actual incestuous rape, but because it was an illegal sexual relationship; his words make clear that the impudens filia was seen as a more than willing partner."

source: http://www.facesofarthur.org.uk/fabio/book1.4.htm

 

[Symposion]

Thank you malleolus for the insight. I am still wondering if it is possible to say if she was a virgin or not? Secondly I am still uncertain of what the word and case is of the latin word ineluctabili? I only know of the word ineluctabilis.

 

[malleolus]

It agrees with pondere and is an ablative. Will get back to you about the virgin bit.

 

[Aurifex]

I am still wondering if it is possible to say if she was a virgin or not?

Give up wondering if it's possible; it's not, nor could it ever conceivably be possible.

 

[Symposion]

The reason why I am wondering about this is that I am doing an academic research on this and wanted to ask your opinions.

During my present research I have seen how difficult it is to do academic research about the Middle Ages with just basic knowledge of Latin. I hope I can ask for interpretention and translation help for my work? I have nobody else that I could ask.

Gildas writes in chapter 32 ”Quid praeter innumerabiles casus propria uxore pulsa furciferam germanam eius”. Could you help me understand what is going on here? Then a bit later he writes ”tota animi veneratione vel potius hebetudine [nympharum] contra interdictum apostoli denegantis posse adulteros regni caelestis esse municipes”. Where does the word "adulteros" correlate?

For the entire text see here: http://www.dmgh.de/de/fs1/object/display/bsb00000825_00052.html?sortIndex=010:010:0013:010:00:00

 

[Pacifica]

Adulteros is the subject of the accustive/infinitive clause posse adulteros regni caelestis esse municipes, which depends on apostoli denegantis (... of the apostle denying that adulterians could be be citizens of the heavenly kingdom).

The first sentence is harder for me.

EDIT: Normal, I've had a look at the entire text and saw that the sentence you gave is not complete, it is part of a quite long interrogative sentence. I'll see if I can do something but it's likely to take some time (and I swear nothing).

All I can say is this:

quid praeter innumerabiles casus propria uxore pulsa furciferam germanam eius...........suspicis?

Quid means "why?"
Propria uxore pulsa is an ablative absolute, it means something along the line "after having expelled your own wife (literaly: own wife having been expeeled)"
I don't know what furciferam germanam is supposed to mean here, but it's direct object of suspicis.
Eius determines furciferam germanam and represents the wife (so it's "her furciferam germanam, whatever it means...)

Looking closer at the passage: the furciferam germanam must be a woman.

Why, in addition to innumerable casus (don't know how to interpret it here),- quid, praeter innumerabiles casus
having expelled your own wife - propria uxore pulsa
do you look - suspicis
with all the veneration of your heart - tota animi veneratione
or rather with the foolishness of nymphs - vel potius hebetudine nympharum
at her "furciferam germanam"
who is promissing god the eternal chastity of widowhood, - perpetuam deo viduitatis castimoniam promittentem
as the poet said, - ut poeta ait
as well as the great tenderness of the heavenly dwellers, - summam ceu teneritudinem caelicolarum
in spite of the prohibition of the apostle who denies that adulterians could be citizens of the heavenly kingdom? - contra interdictum apostoli denegantis posse adulteros regni caelestis esse municipes

Wait for someone better than me to help you...

 

[Deleted member 13757]

furciferam
Some instrument of very cruel punishment perhaps?

No! furciferam germanam I think it's "fork-iron (Strong?) relationship (intimate)" in other words copulation, sex.

No! furciferam germanam I think it's "fork-iron (Strong?) relationship (intimate)" in other words copulation, sex.

This is driving me nuts now. What an expression! Lol

 

[Pacifica]

Actually, my dic gives furcifer as "one who is punished with the fork, scoundrel, villain, gallows-bird". But I don't understand because it doesn't seem to fit whith the further description made of this woman who is "promissing god eternal chastity"!

 

[Kosmokrator]

germana/ae is soror; in spanish they say hermano or something like that for brother

furcifer is a rather common offense see Plautus (rather the one who punish than the one being punished, in italian we still say boiaccia, same meaning)

the Apostolus mentioned here is St. Paul (and every time you read "the Apostle" is him) i think here Gildas refers to the 1st letter to Corinthians

 

[Symposion]

I have basically three questions based on the text:

1. Is the word "adulteros" refering here to King Cuneglas, to the sister or to adulterers in general. I ask this because "adulteros" is in masculine plural accusative.

2. Did the King divorce or not his wife?

3. Did he marry or did he just have a sexual relationship with his (former?) wife's sister (germana)?

Someone has changed the subject of this discussion to "Gildae sapientis de excidio et conquestu Britanniae ac Flebili Castigatione". Why is that title chosen? The work is usually named "De excidio et conquestu Britanniae". Could this possibly be changed and the entire discussion be moved under the already existing discussion THREAD: de-excidio-et-conquestu-britanniae ?

 

[Iohannes Aurum]

It has been merged.

 

[Pacifica]

I have basically three questions based on the text:

1. Is the word "adulteros" refering here to King Cuneglas, to the sister or to adulterers in general. I ask this because "adulteros" is in masculine plural accusative.

2. Did the King divorce or not his wife?

3. Did he marry or did he just have a sexual relationship with his (former?) wife's sister (germana)?

Someone has changed the subject of this discussion to "Gildae sapientis de excidio et conquestu Britanniae ac Flebili Castigatione". Why is that title chosen? The work is usually named "De excidio et conquestu Britanniae". Could this possibly be changed and the entire discussion be moved under the already existing discussion THREAD: de-excidio-et-conquestu-britanniae ?

1)Adulteros refers to adulterians in general.

2)He's the one who divorced I think, as his wife was "expelled" (propria uxore pulsa).

3) I don't know, I would need to read more of the text to say. Thus far, it is only question of "looking at her", so wanting her (and she is promissing chastity to god). EDIT: Well, unless it is an understatement.