Disputatio:Guido Fawkes

Guyne? Quin Gaius Fawkes? Est latinius quam Guy. Duo nummi mei. Sinister Petrus 06:10, 10 Maii 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Non, 'Guy' Latinius est 'Guido'. Ita ipse nomen scripsit. —Myces Tiberinus 22:26, 10 Maii 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hem. Non scio Guidem (sic) nomen latine esse. Putabam Gaium esse. Amba nomina melior quam Guy. Sinister Petrus 01:25, 11 Maii 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Non, est Guido, -onis; v. [1] et seqq. Vero, nomen haud Romanum est, sed satis Latinum. —Myces Tiberinus 10:57, 11 Maii 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nunc video. Sinister Petrus 15:47, 11 Maii 2006 (UTC)[reply]

lapidiporta

Habemusne fontem huius nominis?--Ioshus ^(disp) 01:52, 29 Maii 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good question, Ioshe ... According to en:wiki, he was born in "Stonegate, York". Stonegate is a common street name, encountered in several Yorkshire cities, meaning "paved street". "Lapidiporta" shows the dangers of trying to translate what one doesn't understand; the actual Latin equivalent for "stonegate" (if we wanted an equivalent) is "via calcata". Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 19:11, 4 Iulii 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anglice Fawkes, Latine Fauxus

John Milton—a better Latinist than most, and surely a better one than Guido Fawkes—rendered the surname as Fauxus, as you see in his epigram In Proditionem Bombardica ('On the Gunpowder Plot'), which I quote in full:

Cum simul in regem nuper satrapasque Britannos

Ausus es infandum, perfide Fauxe, nefas,

Fallor? an et mitis voluisti ex parte videri,

Et pensare mala cum pietate scelus?

Scilicet hos alti missurus ad atria caeli,

Sulphureo curru flammivolisque rotis;

Qualiter ille, feris caput inviolabile Parcis,

Liquit Iordanios turbine raptus agros.

Ille est Elias; vide Librum Quartum Regum, 2:7. IacobusAmor 03:47, 29 Maii 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In the french page, we can read "Guy Fawkes, ou Guido Falxius". -- Thoma D. 15:21, 4 Iulii 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that could be a valid name. I wish we knew what source they used! "Guido Falxius" gets only 8 Google hits, and I suspect they may all derive from fr:wiki. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 15:27, 4 Iulii 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I found the source they used: [2]: this is a page from the Dictionnaire universel d'histoire et de géographie (Bouillet et Chassang). -- Thoma D. 15:51, 4 Iulii 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Magnifique! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 15:53, 4 Iulii 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, but that's 1878, and it gives no attestations. ¶ The vocative of Falxius would have ruined Milton's meter, so he had to use Fauxus if he wanted to place it in the pentameter; but then again, he was clever enough, had he wanted to use Falxius, to have contrived the verses so as to make its vocative legal, perhaps as the final spondee of a hexameter. Ergo, he wanted or had to use Fauxus. ¶ Maybe the French wiki's Falxius is a back-formation invented by French-speakers aware that (French) au often reflects an earlier al. Has anyone looked for an attestation from when Fawkes was still alive? Shouldn't there have been contemporary Latin accounts of the legal proceedings? Milton was writing a few decades later, and unless & until a more genuine contrary Latin attestation from before his time is proffered, we should surely prefer the nearly contemporarily attested Fauxus. IacobusAmor 15:57, 4 Iulii 2007 (UTC)[reply]

According to the picture above he himself signed "Guido Fawkes", so our page should stay where it is. But we could add this illustration, and also mention and credit the two later Latin forms. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 16:15, 4 Iulii 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: "he himself signed "Guido Fawkes"—yeah, but did he sign here in English? or in Latin? What does the deleted text say? (One assumes it's relevant to the signature.) Is it in English? or in Latin? IacobusAmor 16:26, 4 Iulii 2007 (UTC)[reply]

According to the captions, it isn't deleted text, it's a copy of his signature after torture. (No, I can't read it either.) As to what language he was using: as you know, in a multilingual society it's sometimes easier to ask these questions than to answer them. Guido is Latin rather than English; that's all I know. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 16:35, 4 Iulii 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I've checked the document, and it's entirely in English, so we may conclude that the nearly illegible Guido Fawkes was the man's genuine English name, but it necessarily has little value in telling us what his Latin name was. We have Falxius attested back to 1878, and Fauxus back to about 1626: now who'll take us back to 1605? IacobusAmor 16:40, 4 Iulii 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Of course in French, we change au with al (eg. FAUX -> FALCIFIER) but we can't tell what is more sure between the french version where we change the letters et the Milton's version in an epigram with all the problems of hexameters. I've read some Virgile's text where Dido or Aenea weren't in the correct form just because of the hexameter. -- Thoma D. 16:58, 4 Iulii 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Elision sometimes complicates prosody, but Milton probably wouldn't have tried to pass off

Ausus es | infan | dum, || perfide | Falxi, ne | fas

as a pentameter: the i of Falxi would have to be long where the rules demand a short. IacobusAmor 18:52, 4 Iulii 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the relative dates of these attested names are not the main point (I think). We certainly want the Latin name he used himself, if we can identify it. If we can't get that, we want a commonly used Latin name, if such a thing has ever existed. If we can't get that either, we may have to fall back on our general rule, which brings us back to Guido Fawkes. Anyway, for the present, I have put into the article the evidence as we have it so far. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 19:36, 4 Iulii 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fons recensionis mense Aprili 2020 factae

Meyers Großes Konversations-Lexikon, vol 6. Lipsiae 1906, p. 364 (hic in interreti)