Latin—> English Translation

 
Joseph McMillan
 
Avatar
 
 
Joseph McMillan
Total Posts:  7658
Joined  08-06-2004
 
 
 
19 October 2012 20:37
 

Can anyone give me a translation of Sperati et virite fortes?  It’s the motto of the Bland family of Virginia.

 
Benjamin Thornton
 
Avatar
 
 
Benjamin Thornton
Total Posts:  449
Joined  04-09-2009
 
 
 
19 October 2012 21:41
 

"Hope and live boldly."

I think.  Is it possible it’s been mistranscribed sometime over the years and should be "vivite"?

 
Dcgb7f
 
Avatar
 
 
Dcgb7f
Total Posts:  516
Joined  07-07-2007
 
 
 
20 October 2012 01:18
 

If it’s Latin it’s certainly been mistranscribed at some point or another. "Hope and Live Boldly" is rendered as "Sperate et vivite fortes".

 
Joseph McMillan
 
Avatar
 
 
Joseph McMillan
Total Posts:  7658
Joined  08-06-2004
 
 
 
20 October 2012 09:27
 

Thanks to both.  I cut and pasted from my source, but will correct in my version, unless I find evidence that the Blands themselves used the incorrect version.

 
Joseph McMillan
 
Avatar
 
 
Joseph McMillan
Total Posts:  7658
Joined  08-06-2004
 
 
 
30 October 2012 15:59
 

I’ve got another one, more extended:

Sciatis quod quum pro eo quod dilectus, &c. fidelis noster Edmundus Deincourt, advertebat & conjecturabat, quod Cognomen suum et ejus Arma post Mortem suam in Persona Isabella filia Edmundi Deincourt haeredis ejus apparentis, a Memoria delerentur, ac corditer affectavit quod Cognomen & Arma sua post Mortem ejus in Memoria in posterum haberentur…

 

Can anyone help?

 
harold cannon
 
Avatar
 
 
harold cannon
Total Posts:  240
Joined  30-03-2011
 
 
 
30 October 2012 16:18
 

Google translate says this…....

Know ye, that for the reason that when the beloved, & c. Our faithful Deincourt Edmund, & diverting clause that his surname and his weapon, after his death in the person of his daughter Isabel Edmunds Deincourt heir apparent, would be wiped out from the memory, and that deeply affected the surname and arms after her death in the memory in the future .. .

 
Joseph McMillan
 
Avatar
 
 
Joseph McMillan
Total Posts:  7658
Joined  08-06-2004
 
 
 
30 October 2012 19:56
 

Thanks, but while Google Translate may know Latin, it apparently doesn’t know English.

 
Nick B II
 
Avatar
 
 
Nick B II
Total Posts:  203
Joined  26-11-2007
 
 
 
31 October 2012 00:47
 

harold cannon;96400 wrote:

Google translate says this…....

Know ye, that for the reason that when the beloved, & c. Our faithful Deincourt Edmund, & diverting clause that his surname and his weapon, after his death in the person of his daughter Isabel Edmunds Deincourt heir apparent, would be wiped out from the memory, and that deeply affected the surname and arms after her death in the memory in the future .. .


Sounds like the start of a name and arms clause. "Weapon" is clearly a mis-translation of Arma.

 

The thing about Latin to English translation is that Latin does not actually have sentences. It’s got clauses that modify the hell out of each-other, but simple ideas separated by periods just do not exist. A quick rule of thumb is that the outer bits go together, then the next inner-most, etc. but that doesn’t always work.

 

In this case that makes sense. Edmund Deincort’s deeply affected that his arms and name would be "wiped from memory" when he passes, therefore he diverts the Deincort name and Arms to his daughter as heir apparent. The first bit ("Know ye") is it’s own sentence.

 

For a precise translation you’d have to go to someone whose Latin doesn;t have six years of rust on it.

 

Nick

 
Joseph McMillan
 
Avatar
 
 
Joseph McMillan
Total Posts:  7658
Joined  08-06-2004
 
 
 
31 October 2012 08:32
 

Thanks, Nick.  That’s more or less what I thought.  It’s for possible publication, so hopefully someone more sure of his Latin will chime in—although this seems pretty impressive to someone who registers the vocabulary more or less but has no idea of the declensions.

 
Dcgb7f
 
Avatar
 
 
Dcgb7f
Total Posts:  516
Joined  07-07-2007
 
 
 
31 October 2012 16:22
 

Quote:

Sciatis quod quum pro eo quod dilectus, &c. fidelis noster Edmundus Deincourt, advertebat & conjecturabat, quod Cognomen suum et ejus Arma post Mortem suam in Persona Isabella filia Edmundi Deincourt haeredis ejus apparentis, a Memoria delerentur, ac corditer affectavit quod Cognomen & Arma sua post Mortem ejus in Memoria in posterum haberentur…

Know ye that when/because our faithful, beloved, etc. Edmund Deincourt noticed & thought that after his death his surname and his arms would die [lit. "be blotted out from memory"] / with [lit. "in the person of"] Elizabeth daughter of Edmund Deincourt his heir apparent /, and heartily strove that his surname and arms be remembered [lit. be had in memory] in the future ...

I’ve tried to make the translation more natural sounding in English. Some of the phraseology of the Latin sounds a bit awkward in English though not incorrect. As you can tell from the English translation, the Latin is missing a verb. Given, as Nick points out, that Latin construction is very fond of sandwiching clauses between subject and verb. I imagine the verb is probably somewhere near the end of the sentence… wherever the writer did actually get around to placing a period. Without the verb, I can’t tell whether to translate the initial conjunctions as "when" or "because", likewise, it’s uncertain how the phrase regarding Eliz. fits in (I’ve set it off with forward slashes).

 

Given that I have no verb to work with, based strictly on the ordering of the phrases, my hunch is that the interpretation above by Nick (that the name and arms were transferred to Eliz.) is incorrect, which is why I’ve translated and placed the phrase as modifying the verb die (or "blotted"). My reasons for this are that, if it were the case that this sentence was describing the transfer to Eliz., I would have expected this her mention after the phrase about him heartily striving to ensure his name would be remembered. This would be the more natural progression. As it stands, by placing it in between the object of the verb and the verb itself (lit. "his surname and arms after his death ... be blotted out from memory), the phrase about Eliz. is sandwich fully by this subordinate clause thus separating it from the main sentence. Additionally, were Eliz. receiving the transfer, I would expect the Latin prep. "in" to take the accusative case ("in personam"). In the accusative, "in" prepositional clauses indicate motion towards the object of the prep.

 

Prescinding from grammatical analysis, Edw. is right to fear his surname will disappear with Eliz. since upon marriage she would replace it with her husband’s. This is not the case with the arms though. Edw. seems to be mistaken, at least, in regard to his arms disappearing.

 
Joseph McMillan
 
Avatar
 
 
Joseph McMillan
Total Posts:  7658
Joined  08-06-2004
 
 
 
31 October 2012 18:06
 

Thanks for this.  Here’s the full quotation; I thought I was capturing the part I was concerned with, but obviously not.

Salutem : Sciatis quod quum pro eo quod dilectus, &c. fidelis noster Edmundus Deincourt, advertebat & conjecturabat, quod Cognomen suum et ejus Arma post Mortem suam in Persona Isabella filia Edmundi Deincourt haeredis ejus apparentis, a Memoria delerentur, ac corditer affectavit quod Cognomen & Arma sua post Mortem ejus in Memoria in posterum haberentur ; ad Requisitionem praedicti Edmundi & ob grata & laudabilia

Servitia quae bonse Memoriae Domino Edwardo quondam Regi Angliae Patri Nostro & Nobis impendit, per Literas nostras Patentes concessionus &

Licentiam dedimus pro Nobis & Heredibus nostris eidem Edmundo, quod ipse de omnibus Maneriis, &c. quae de Nobis tenet in Capite feoffare possit

quemcuiq ; velit, &c.

 

Hope that makes everything relatively clear.

 
Dcgb7f
 
Avatar
 
 
Dcgb7f
Total Posts:  516
Joined  07-07-2007
 
 
 
31 October 2012 21:46
 

Joseph McMillan;96416 wrote:

Salutem : Sciatis quod quum pro eo quod dilectus, &c. fidelis noster Edmundus Deincourt, advertebat & conjecturabat, quod Cognomen suum et ejus Arma post Mortem suam in Persona Isabella filia Edmundi Deincourt haeredis ejus apparentis, a Memoria delerentur, ac corditer affectavit quod Cognomen & Arma sua post Mortem ejus in Memoria in posterum haberentur ;

ad Requisitionem praedicti Edmundi & ob grata & laudabilia Servitia quae bonse [sic: bonae] Memoriae Domino Edwardo quondam Regi Angliae Patri Nostro & Nobis impendit, per Literas nostras Patentes concessionus & Licentiam dedimus pro Nobis & Heredibus nostris eidem Edmundo, quod ipse de omnibus Maneriis, &c. quae de Nobis tenet in Capite feoffare possit quemcuiq ; velit, &c.


Ah, that does help immensely. I didn’t realize it was a legal document… though I suspected it was. That first paragraph is a whereas-clause, which would explain why it is grammatically incomplete. Actually, in English it’s better rendered as two.

 

Fiefs, manors, tenants-in-chief… medieval property deeds… that’s a change of pace. From the context I date it to between 1307 (ascension of Edw. II, son of Edw. I) and 1399 (death of Rich. II, son of Edw. III). I was right that the Eliz. clause was entirely part of the subordinate clause, and not part of the main clause, which is found much later on. Edmund indeed feared that his surname and arms would cease with his daughter. Apparently, women could not inherit arms at this point in time. Though, I’m curious what did happen to the arms. Were they things that could be enfeoffed away?

 

Here’s the translation:


Quote:

Greetings: Know ye that, whereas our faithful, beloved, etc. Edmund Deincourt noticed and conjectured that after his death his surname and his arms would die [lit. "be blotted out from memory"] with [lit. "in the person of"] Elizabeth, daughter of Edmund Deincourt, his heir apparent, and [that whereas] he heartily desired that his surname and arms be remembered [lit. be had in memory] in the future;

at the request of the said Edmund, and on account of the gracious and laudable services which he rendered [lit. "expended"] to the Lord Edward of happy memory king of England [lit. "formerly king of England"], our father, and to Us, We by our letters patent confirmed for ourselves and our heirs permission and license to the same Edmund that he could enfeoff whomever he wish with all the manors, etc., which he holds in chief from Us.


The "etc." are the only ambiguities. The first one is most likely just a list of other favorable attributes of Edmund. The second is shorthand for "all manors, lands, buildings, incomes, services, and possessions," a common phrase in land deeds of the time. The final etc. is unclear. It may mark omissions for synonyms for "he wish" (velit) or it might be something else. In either case, it doesn’t seem to affect the sense of the text, so I’ve omitted it from the English translation.

 
Joseph McMillan
 
Avatar
 
 
Joseph McMillan
Total Posts:  7658
Joined  08-06-2004
 
 
 
02 November 2012 14:56
 

Thanks, Daniel.

This passage is quoted in Fox-Davies’s Treatise on the Law of Names and Changes of Name, as have allegedly been the introductory clauses of the royal license to permit transmission of arms through a female line, in 10th Edward II, or 1316-17.  F-D says the license is actually permitting alienation of the Edmund Deincourt’s lands, not his name and arms, but that the opening lines imply that Deincourt was intending to pass his name and arms to his daughter, although not necessarily asking the king’s permission.

 

The reason I asked is that I’m writing an article on the four Maryland private acts that authorized changes of names and arms and am trying to put them in some historic context.

 
Joseph McMillan
 
Avatar
 
 
Joseph McMillan
Total Posts:  7658
Joined  08-06-2004
 
 
 
02 November 2012 14:57
 

Thanks, Daniel.

This passage is quoted in Fox-Davies’s Treatise on the Law of Names and Changes of Name, as having allegedly been the introductory clauses of the royal license to permit transmission of arms through a female line, in 10th Edward II, or 1316-17. F-D says the license is actually permitting alienation of the Edmund Deincourt’s lands, not his name and arms, but that the opening lines imply that Deincourt was intending to pass his name and arms to his daughter, although not necessarily asking the king’s permission.

 

The reason I asked is that I’m writing an article on the four Maryland private acts that authorized changes of names and arms and am trying to put them in some historic context.

 
Michael F. McCartney
 
Avatar
 
 
Michael F. McCartney
Total Posts:  3535
Joined  24-05-2004
 
 
 
02 November 2012 15:26
 

Joe wrote, "...I’m writing an article on the four Maryland private acts that authorized changes of names and arms and am trying to put them in some historic context."

Looking forward to this!—I can recall discussions of these MD acts as far back as the hey-day of rec.heraldry but of course somewhat fragmentary, not all wrapped up into one coherent article.

 

I don’t recall seeing/hearing about this happening in any state other than MD, but can’t help wondering if it might have…

 
Dcgb7f
 
Avatar
 
 
Dcgb7f
Total Posts:  516
Joined  07-07-2007
 
 
 
02 November 2012 16:16
 

Joseph McMillan;96432 wrote:

Thanks, Daniel.

This passage is quoted in Fox-Davies’s Treatise on the Law of Names and Changes of Name, as having allegedly been the introductory clauses of the royal license to permit transmission of arms through a female line, in 10th Edward II, or 1316-17. F-D says the license is actually permitting alienation of the Edmund Deincourt’s lands, not his name and arms, but that the opening lines imply that Deincourt was intending to pass his name and arms to his daughter, although not necessarily asking the king’s permission.

 

The reason I asked is that I’m writing an article on the four Maryland private acts that authorized changes of names and arms and am trying to put them in some historic context.

Interesting… I, of course, defer to F-D expertise, but without more evidence it seems a bit of a stretch. Did he reproduce the full document?