The following article originally appeared in Fontes, the internal Classics and Ancient History magazine of Winchester College.
Many medieval historians are not properly trained in Latin, and rely on published translations to read primary sources. However, many modern translations are dangerously bad.[1] In this article, a poor translation by Dr Stephen Penn of some of John Wycliffe’s works in Latin[2] is examined, as an example of the shortcomings of many translations. Some of his mistakes are minor; some are inexcusable; all were present in a book, published in 2019, and described in a review as ‘quite readable and reliable’.[3]
The majority of translation errors[4] arise through the mistranslation of individual words. simpliciter (‘without qualification’) is rendered in no fewer than eight incorrect ways, including ‘implicitly’, as well as sometimes being omitted. nam and enim (‘for’) are likewise omitted and mistranslated, often as ‘now’ or ‘indeed’, but in one instance as ‘therefore’. The confusion of hictericus (‘jaundiced’) with hystericus (‘hysterical’) and the mistranslation of ignoramus (‘we are ignorant of’) as ‘we ignore’ are understandable. However, even the smallest of errors should have been removed during any well-established publishing process.
Some key phrases are poorly translated, obfuscating meaning. multi sunt vocati, pauci vero electi (‘many are called, but few are chosen’) – Wycliffe quoting Matthew 22:14 – is translated as ‘many of the elect are called poor’. As well as the obvious mistaking of pauci (‘few’) for pauper (‘poor’) and the confusion of syntax, the translation does not even make sense in context. The infamously bad-at-Latin Google Translate understands this famous phrase correctly, but neither Penn nor the publishers did.
A few mistakes arise from the differences between Classical and Medieval Latin. ‘credo ecclesiam catholicam’ dicit utrumque simbolum (‘both creeds say “I believe in the catholic Church”’) is translated as ‘the words “I believe in the Catholic church” represent a symbol everywhere’. The confusion between utrumque (‘either’/‘both’) and ubique (‘everywhere’) could be excused if the English made sense. The translation of simbolum (‘creed’, in Ecclesiastical Latin) as ‘symbol’ highlights a lack of training specifically in Medieval Latin.
Such mistranslations are pernicious to historical studies. Evaluating sources is often hard enough: poor translations make it even harder for researchers to understand a topic well. It is difficult to forget the false information contained within a mistranslation, particularly if it appears plausible. Moreover, having lots of poor translations makes it hard to learn the language well in the first place. Poor translations affect the work of early-modern and late-antiquity historians, as well as medievalists: Penn’s is by no means unique in its poor quality. Overall, it is important for good translations – by, and reviewed by, competent linguists – to become prevalent, so that not only historical study can prosper, but also so that all future translations have a solid foundation, a corpus of good translations, on which to build. Training historians (and classicists) in Medieval Latin is essential for the study of the Middle Ages to prosper.
[1] Mark Thakkar, ‘Duces caecorum: On Two Recent Translations of Wyclif’, Vivarium, 58 (October 2020), pp. 357–383.
[2] John Wycliffe and Stephen Penn, John Wyclif: selected Latin works in translation (2019).
[3] Sean Otto, ‘John Wyclif: Selected Latin Works in Translation by Stephen Penn (review)’, Toronto Journal of Theology, 36 (2020), pp. 103–104.
[4] Not including typos, such as ‘the body of Chris’.
Comments