Evertype: Alicia in Terra Mirabili

Latin Learning Latin
1

Evertype would like to announce the publication of a new edition of Clive Harcourt Carruthers’ 1964 translation of Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland into the Latin language, Alicia in Terrā Mīrābilī. The book uses John Tenniel’s classic illustrations. A page with links to Amazon.com and Amazon.co.uk is available at http://www.evertype.com/books/alice-la.html . Bookstores can order copies at a discount from the publisher.

From the Introduction (English follows below):

Ludovīcus Carroll est nōmen fictīcium scrīptōris Carolī Lutwitgī Dodgsōnī, professōris mathēmaticae in Aede Christī Oxoniae. Fābulae initium fēcit diē 4ᵒ̄ mēnsis Jūliī annō 1862ᵒ̄ dum in Tamesī fluviō animī causā rēmigat ūnā cum reverendō virō Robinson Duckworth, cumque Aliciā Liddell (decem annōs nātā), fīliā Decānī Aedis Christī, ejusque duābus sorōribus, Lōrīnā (tredecim annōs nātā) et Ēditā (octō annōs nātā). Dodgsōnus (id quod satis appāret ex poēmate in prīmō librō) ā puellīs rogātus ut aliquid narrāret, quamquam prīmō invītus, fābulae tamen līneā­menta cōn­fingere coepit. Per fābulam perfectam, annō 1865ᵒ̄ tandem ēditam, saepe ad hōs quīnque subobscūrē allūdit.

Hōc in librō offertur lēctōrī nova ēditiō fābulae Alicia in Terrā Mīrābilī in Latīnum annō 1964ō ā Clive Harcourt Carruthers conversae. Differt ā prīmā ēditiōne duābus praecipuīs rēbus: cum quod discrīmen nunc servātur inter i litteram vōcālem et j litteram vim cōnsonantis habentem, tum quod omnēs vōcālēs longae sunt līneolīs superscrīptīs ōrnātae.

Omnium vōcālium longitūdinēs dīligenter exquīsītae sunt, etiam in syllabīs positiōne longīs. In pauciōribus syllabīs, quārum vōcālium longitūdinēs aut nunc incertae sunt, aut manifestē etiam antīquīs temporibus vacillābant, vōcālēs sine līneolīs scrīptae sunt.

Glōssārium Latīnō-Anglicum in ultimō librō magnopere auctum est. Praeter ferē vīgintī Neolatīna vocābula locūtiōnēsque, ut in prīmā ēditiōne, hoc novum glōssārium etiam complectitur plūs ducenta vocābula antīqua tīrōnibus inūsitātiōria. Spērāmus fore ut glōssāriō auctō multō plūrēs lēctōrēs sine aliōrum lexicōrum ūsū ex hōc librō magnam capiant voluptātem.

Lewis Carroll is a pen-name: Charles Lutwidge Dodgson was the author’s real name and he was lecturer in Mathematics in Christ Church, Oxford. Dodgson began the story on 4 July 1862, when he took a journey in a rowing boat on the river Thames in Oxford together with the Reverend Robinson Duckworth, with Alice Liddell (ten years of age) the daughter of the Dean of Christ Church, and with her two sisters, Lorina (thirteen years of age), and Edith (eight years of age). As is clear from the poem at the beginning of the book, the three girls asked Dodgson for a story and reluctantly at first he began to tell the first version of the story to them. There are many half-hidden references made to the five of them throughout the text of the book itself, which was published finally in 1865.

In this book we present a new edition of Clive Harcourt Carruthers’ 1964 translation of Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland into Latin. It differs from Carruthers’ original text chiefly in two ways: a regular distinction between the vowel i and the consonant j has been made, and long vowels are marked with macrons consistently throughout.

All vowels have been carefully investigated, including the vowels in syllables long by position. In a few isolated cases where the classical vowel lengths are in dispute, or where usage evidently vacillated, the vowels have been left unmarked.

The Latin-English glossary at the end has been greatly enlarged. Instead of treating only a few Neo-Latin words and phrases peculiar to this book, the extended glossary now also covers over two hundred less common classical words. It is our hope that this will enable a much larger group of our readers to enjoy Carruthers’ translation without having to resort to external dictionaries.

Michael Everson
Evertype, alice-in-wonderland-books.com

2

You leave them short by default. No problem. But you added macrons to the fonts; you could have added a vowel set with macrons and breves combined. That’s what’s used for such instances, if you want to represent the vowel-length choices you’ve researched.

Breves tu absens causam istas vocales scribas. Licet. Macrona autem signa ad scripturas addidisti; collectionem cum et macronibus et brevibus signis addidisses. Sic his casibus scribitur, si verè electiones magnitudinis vocalium investigatas ostendas.

3

Well, yes, but for instance one of these words was Alicia, which could be Alīcia or Alĭcia. Since it’s a novel, it would hardly be congenial to have Alī̆cia throughout. :confused:

Other words were ū̆sque, jū̆xtā and nā̆rrō.

4

As I said, no problem! But “unmarked” means short.

Licet, ut dixi. Brevis autem est vocalis sine signo.

5

Ludovīcus Carroll est nōmen fictīcium scrīptōris Carolī Lutwitgī Dodgsōnī.

Nota: Ludovicus non Lutwitgus est nomen latinum pro Lutwidge quo auctor ipse utitur, de quo cum Caroli nomine oritur “Lewis Caroll” pseudonymum, sicut anglicè “Charles” viâ latini nominis Caroli in “Caroll” vertitur.

Note: “Ludovicus” non “Lutwitgus” is the Latin for Lutwidge that Lewis Caroll himself used to create his pseudonym, by translating it back as “Lewis”, just as Charles becomes “Caroll” vis “Carolus”.

6

I would agree with you, except that we have the spelling Lutwitgus in Dodgson’s own hand.

7

Interesting. Where is that?
Id mihi curae. Ubi est fons?

8

In some very old material. We’ll publish this scintillating stuff in the Latin Through the Looking-Glass.

9

In some very old published material or some very old unpublished material? (I find it odd that he would call himself “Carolus Lutwitgus Dodgsonus” in Latin unless in a joke.)
Estne in paginis antiquis editis vel ineditis? (Quod is se latinè Carolus Lutwitgus Dodgsonus vocet mirum mihi est, nisi jocatur.)

10

It’s been published before, but not in places most people have seen, and not recently. So we will publish it again in Looking-Glass.

11

So what I was asking was in what published source does he give his name so in Latin.
Iterum rogo quo in fonte edito illum sic se latinè vocare?

12

It was reprinted in an issue of St Nicholas in 1927. In the meantime, while you’re waiting for our edition of Aliciae per Speculum Transitus, you can look forward to the many appendices to Alicia in Terra Mirabili which contain other rarely-seen gems in and about Latin.

13

Thanks, Evertype. (I’m not waiting, by the way. I liked the look of the fonts in Alicia, though.)
Gratias tibi, Evertype. (Non maneo, obiter. Facies autem scripturarum in Aliciae libro placuerunt.

14

Well, certainly, and I have no problems with readers simply regarding all unmarked vowels as short; it’s what I would do myself. As for why we did not use a combination of macron and breve, there is the visual aspect already mentioned. Also, in my opinion, it is better in dubious cases to be restrictive with macrons (or any markings), if for no other reason simply because it is an easy task to mark the vowels with macrons on your own, to your liking or according to future research (though preferably using a pencil!). In order to amend an erroneous printed macron on the other hand you have to superimpose a breve, which is much more messy.

15

Salve Alati

Given that Dodgson himself used “Dodgsonus” in your source, using neolatin naming conventions (at first I doubted it, but then I thought about scientific naming conventions), it would be “Dodgsŏnus” and not “Dodgsōnus”. Had he used “Dodgsonius”, it would be “Dodgsōnius”. And “Alĭcia” (as you have, indeed), not “Alīcia” for an antepenultimate “i” vowel in a neolatin proper name (especially for an English girl), but people do what they please.

Are you not then committed to Robinsonus Duckworthus, Alicia Liddella and Clivius de Harcourt Carrodus? Better to use just “Dodgson” in Latin if you use “Robinson” and “Liddell” and “Harcourt Carruthers” at the same time, I reckon.

Pone esse Dodgsonum se ipsum sic vocasse secundum istum fontem et conventum nomenclaturae neolatinum (primò dubitavi, tunc menclaturae scientificae memoravi), “Dodgsŏnus” non “Dodgsōnus” sonatur. Si is “Dodgsonius” scripsisset, “Dodgsōnius” sonuisset. Porrò “Alĭcia” (quod verò habes), non “Alīcia” neolatinè cum “i” vocale antepaenultimâ, nisi fallor (praesertìm cum puellâ anglicâ), at faciunt homines utcumque animo libitum fuerit.

Nonnè ideò coactus es ut Robinsoni Duckworthi Aliciaeque Liddellae et Clivi de Harcourt Carrodi nominibus utaris? Melius est latinè “Dodgson” scribi cum “Robinson” et “Liddell” et “Harcourt Carruthers” nominibus propriis anglicis, puto.

16

This issue bothered me a great deal, and it pains me if I indeed was mistaken. To decide on what to do, I tried to investigate how modern Latin names were treated in quantitative poetry, and the evidence I gathered that way seemed to point to “Dodgsōnus”. For example, the English poet was “Miltōnus” in literally all verses I could find with his name in them, and, by analogy, I then settled on “Dodgsōnus”. That accentuation pattern would also, in my ears, work better with names such as “Eversōnus”. Or do you mean that it ought be “Evérsonus”?

If you have a knowledge of such detailed rules, I would love to gain access to them. Is there any book in particular you can recommend where I can learn more about this?

Are you not then committed to Robinsonus Duckworthus, Alicia Liddella and Clivius de Harcourt Carrodus? Better to use just “Dodgson” in Latin if you use “Robinson” and “Liddell” and “Harcourt Carruthers” at the same time, I reckon.

It is a bit inconsistent, I reckon that. But the method I used, such as it was, was to primarily use attested Latinizations made by the persons themselves, and lacking that, Latinize the proper name, and leave the surnames untouched. That explains “Clive Harcourt Carruthers”, as that is how the translator evidently wrote his own name in Latin (right below “Ludovici Carroll”…). “Robinson”, however, is somewhat of an oversight from my side.

17

Who said he did? Neither of us said it. Since you are evidently too impatient to wait for our edition of Aliciae per Speculum Transitus, I will inform you that in the sources we have “ad Carolum Luduigum Dodsonum” (1845, where Luduigum is emended for an apparent Ludrigum) and “ad Carolum Lutwitgum Dodgsonum” (1846). Thus we have given a genitive Carolī Lutwitgī Dodgsōnī.

using neolatin naming conventions (at first I doubted it, but then I thought about scientific naming conventions), it would be “Dodgsŏnus” and not “Dodgsōnus”.

What is your rationale for this?

Had he used “Dodgsonius”, it would be “Dodgsōnius”.

This is a very specific rule you are suggesting: that the penultimate vowel is unstressed and short before -us but stressed and long before -ius, thus [ˈdɔdsɔnʊs] but [dɔdˈsoːniʊs]. Is there evidence for such a distribution? Is there evidence that the penultimate vowel cannot be stressed and long before -us? I assume that if the vowel were long even without the glide the stress would likewise shift to [dɔdˈsoːnʊs].

And “Alĭcia” (as you have, indeed), not “Alīcia” for an antepenultimate “i” vowel in a neolatin proper name (especially for an English girl), but people do what they please.

Sometimes in these matters of reconstruction you go medieval and say that Middle English Alȳs borrowed from Latin Alīcia would have yielded [ˈælɑɪs], but since it’s [ˈælɪs], it’d’ve been Alys with a short vowel, borrowed thus with a short vowel from Latin Alĭcia.

Are you not then committed to Robinsonus Duckworthus, Alicia Liddella and Clivius de Harcourt Carrodus?

Certainly not the last, as the translator did not Latinize his name in his own publications.

Better to use just “Dodgson” in Latin if you use “Robinson” and “Liddell” and “Harcourt Carruthers” at the same time, I reckon.

Ahem. Well, Andriane, you can make what editorial choices you wish when you bring out a novel in Latin. Alatius and I will just have to beg you to overlook the shortcomings of our own choices as you enjoy the rest of the novel after the first paragraph of the Praefātiō.…

18

I can tell you that Lithuanians call me Eversonas [ɛvɛrˈsoːnas]. (Latvians call me Eversons [ˈɛvɛrˌsɔns].) Thus I prefer Eversōnus [ɛvɛrˈsoːnʊs].

19

That’s just silly invention.
Animi inconstantiam!

You did say above “in Dodgson’s own hand”. Are you saying you have Lutwitgus from Dodgson’s own hand but not the names Carolus and Dodgsonus?
Dixisti quidem suprà “manu Dodgsoni”. Dicisne manu ipsius auctoris Lutwitgi nomen, non autem Caroli Dodgsonive?

When you say, then,
Dein, cum dicis hoc,

are you now saying that these are not in Dodgson’s own hand (albeit a child’s hand)?
Sic in dicendo, negasne has res ab ipso auctore (puero quidem) scribi?

I imagine Alatius is groaning at your italics. Ignoring the misdirected sarcasm and ludicrous vanity inherent in that, I can of course criticize another’s editorial decisions. That’s what you leave yourself open to in publishing and I take that risk willingly in my own publications and editorial decisions or in submitting my work to the editorial decisions of others. And I can say that without bending my typography.

Alatius, ut imaginor, scripturas inclinatas deplorabit. Sarcasmum sine causâ vanitatemque absurdam quos ostendis negligo. Certùm licet me electiones cuiuscumque redactoris compellare. Qui editionem divulget, tale periculum sumat. Ego equidem in operum meorum divulgando faciendove optiones commentariis moderandis vel in commentariis cedendis redactoribus libenter sumo. Sic etiam dico sine scripturam detorqueri.

20

I don’t follow. A choice has to be made as to whether the vowel in a source language is short or long. One way of working it out would be to see what would happened had the source word been borrowed into Middle English; if its vowel were long, it would have done one thing in Modern English, if it were short, it would have done another. This is principled invention, not “silly” invention. Of course it is invention. So is Carroll’s novel itself.

[quote=“Evertype”]

Who said he did? Neither of us said it.
[/quote]

You did say above “in Dodgson’s own hand”. Are you saying you have Lutwitgus from Dodgson’s own hand but not the names Carolus and Dodgsonus?

No, I am not. We have the names only in the accusative. :slight_smile:

When you say, then,

[quote=“Evertype”]
"…in the sources we have > ad Carolum Luduigum Dodsonum> " (1845, where > Luduigum > is emended for an apparent > Ludrigum> ) and "> ad Carolum Lutwitgum Dodgsonum> " (1846),
[/quote]

are you now saying that these are not in Dodgson’s own hand (albeit a child’s hand)?

No, I am not. These are in Dodgson’s own (young) hand, just as I said they were.

So Charles Dodgson called himself (if I may reconstruct) Carolus Luduigus Dodsonus and Carolus Lutwitgus Dodgsonus. Not Dodgsonius, as you suggested, and not Ludovicus, as you suggested. It is Lewis Carroll is who is Ludovicus.

[quote=“Evertype”]
Ahem. Well, Andriane, you can make what editorial choices > you > wish when > you > bring out a novel in Latin.
[/quote]

I imagine Alatius is groaning at your italics.

Och, no more than either of us are scratching our heads wondering why you have to be so snarky about it. I don’t mind criticism. Gods know I’ve seen my share of it. In fact I enjoy the discussion about latinization of names. Yet your tone seems needlessly aggressive; it inspired me to italics.

Cheerily,
Michael