Reply
Thu 2 Jul, 2015 10:37 pm
Hello. I'm working on a scholarly paper, and I came across a relevant primary source in Latin. My Latin is rusty, and Google Translate makes nonsense of the passage. Can anyone translate the following paragraph? To give some context, it's the opening paragraph in an article in the Acta Eruditorum, an eighteenth-century scholarly journal written in Latin and published in Germany; the article is a review of a book entitled the Discourse of Freethinking. Many thanks!
Autor quem Tolandum esse nuperrime accepimus, in Introductione rationem redditurus, cur ipfe spem non habeat, fore, ut apologiam pro Cogitandi Libertate scribens bene fecisse videatur,asserit, apud illos, qui negent veritates per se evidentes, defensionem pro veritatibus illis locum non invenire, eosdemque non solum destitutos esse principiis scientiae, sed etiam principia habere cum maximis absurditatibus congrua. Illisque hoc saltem remanere, ut vel propria corrupti cerebri figmenta, vel, quod magis solemne sit, impostorum aut vesanorum Enthusiastarum placita sequantur. Nam ut nemo praeter hos in rebus speculativis aliis viam monstrandam esse existimet, sic neminem, qui in iisdem rebus opus esse viae duce putet, alios quam ejuscemodi duces eligere. Sique illi opiniones, quibus olim imbuti fuerint, relinquant, mutationem illam iisdem adhuc niti principiis, ipsasque opiniones aequa absurdas esse, ac quas antea habuerint.
I'm off on a long weekend starting this morning, I'll be back Monday, so,
if that's not too late, I'll work on it then.
OK, here's my take on it.
I found some of the constructions confusing.
Bear I mind that I am not a profession Latin scholar, so if the utmost
accuracy is necessary, you should contract a pro.
Autor quem Tolandum esse nuperrime accepimus,
The author, whom we quite recently accept to be Toland,
in Introductione rationem redditurus,
about to render an account in the Introduction
cur ipfe spem non habeat, fore,
as to why he himself has no hope
ut apologiam pro Cogitandi Libertate scribens bene fecisse videatur,
that in writing an apologia for Free-Thinking he may be seen to have done
well,
asserit,
asserts,
apud illos, qui negent veritates per se evidentes, defensionem pro
veritatibus illis locum non invenire,
that he finds no place among those who deny self-evident truths for
the defense of those truths,
eosdemque non solum destitutos esse principiis scientiae,
that those same persons are not only deprived of the principles of science,
sed etiam principia habere cum maximis absurditatibus congrua.
but also hold to principles in line with the greatest absurdities.
Illisque hoc saltem remanere,
And this remains to them,
ut vel propria corrupti cerebri figmenta,
that they follow either the figments of their own corrupt brain
vel, quod magis solemne sit,
or, which may be more serious,
impostorum aut vesanorum Enthusiastarum placita sequantur.
the beliefs of impostors or insane Enthusiasts.
Nam ut nemo praeter hos in rebus speculativis aliis viam monstrandam esse existimet,
For he believes no one besides these need to be shown the way in other speculative matters,
sic neminem, qui in iisdem rebus opus esse viae duce putet,
alios quam ejuscemodi duces eligere.
Thus he thinks no one who in these same things needs a guide along the
way choses leaders other than those of that kind,
Sique illi opiniones, quibus olim imbuti fuerint
And if those beliefs, which in the past have been tainted,
relinquant, mutationem illam iisdem adhuc niti principiis
remain, that change still relies on the same principles.
ipsasque opiniones aequa absurdas esse, ac quas antea habuerint.
and that these opinions are equally as absurd as the ones they previously held.
Stumble It!
Tweet This
Bookmark on Delicious
Share on Facebook
Share on MySpace