Talk:In necessariis unitas, in dubiis libertas, in omnibus caritas

Two different translations??

Why are there two different translations of the same phrase within the same paragraph?--Josiah 20:31, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Josiah, if you look closely, you will note that the second iteration is in fact a note that the phrase appeared during the Protestant Reformation in slightly adjusted phrasing. Both the Latin and the English words are slightly changed. :-) Good question, though -- had to check twice myself. Jwrosenzweig 20:55, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Ah, I didn't notice that the latin was different for the second phrase. Thanks.--Josiah 17:40, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Translation

in necessariis unitas, in dubiis libertas, in omnibus caritas means "in certain things unity; in doubtful things liberty; in all things charity".

OK, isn't the meaning really closer too "In times of need[1] unity, in uncertain situations freedom, and in all things caritas"? --Iustinus 17:53, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Why would you attribute temporaneity to the first two and not to the third (which would make it "in all times" or "in all situations")? "Things", which can indeed be taken in the sense of "situations" (but not necessarily so), is the most literal translation of all three, and it just seems inconsistent to translate the same form in succession (the ablative plural with "in" of adjectives functioning as nouns) three different ways. I don't see any reason to translate the phrase so specifically when the phrase itself isn't especially specific (it could have said "in temporibus necessitatis" if it wanted to mean specifically "in times of need", or "in rebus incertis" if it wanted to mean specifically "in uncertain situations") since there's no word for "time" or "situation". Also, you seem to be mixing up "need" in the sense of "necessity" with "need" in the sense of "want" or "lack"—the Latin word for the latter is egestas or inopia. And why on earth would we leave caritas untranslated?! We can link to it, sure, but to not translate it is riidiculously unhelpful; much better to translate it as "compassion" or "love" or similar. As for libertas, liberty and freedom are equally good (though I prefer the former because it preserves the original line's simplicity and rhyme scheme, which is probably also why "charity" was left alone, as its etymological sister). -Silence 18:50, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Well, keep in mind that I did not intend that actual translation to end up on the page. That's why I put it on the talk page here, and said "closer too" (um, sic). This is especially because I am not familiar with the expression, and there's often a history and a context behind pithy Latin quotes that are lost out of context, and I was hoping someone could help me with that. Of course, now that I've read more carefully (especially at the link provided at the bottom of the page) I realize I was a bit hasty! The translation given here makes perfect sense in the original context. So I apologize for the poor alternative I suggested. Rest assured that I had good reasons for all the singula which you criticize, but it seems pointless to go over them if my initial assumptions were wrong anyway!

That said, I'm still not that pleased with the translation. I think necessaria refers to points which are prerequisites of the faith, so "necessary" seems better than "certain"... though I am not dogmatic (so to speak ;) ) on this point. I never intended to leave caritas untranslated in the actual text of the article, honestly I just wanted to get people discussing what the mot juste would be. Now, "charity" is a traditional translation of caritas, but it seems to me that in modern English it really doesn't cut it. "Lovingkindness" is another standard, but it sounds kind of awkward here. "Love" doesn't work too well either. In fact, the most common word for this that I hear among English speaking Christian theologians is agape. But you can easily shoot that word down on the same basis that you shot down caritas: it's not an English word afterall. Actually I think "compassion," which you suggested, is probably the best.

Of course translation issues can be avoided simply by expanding the article to explain the phrase more explicitly. --Iustinus 04:04, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Oh, I'm certain you had good reasons, and I can see why you derived the meanings you did, and some of your suggestions (the caritas issue needs to be addressed) were very good. And thank you for clarifying that you didn't intend that translation to be the final one on the main page! And yes, I agree that "charity" should be replaced with a more literal translation; our job in translating phrases is to be accurate, not to adhere to "tradition". I also agree with your last line. -Silence 08:53, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm glad, because by jumping on this too fast I kinda did not make a good impression ;)

As for "tradition", I don't agree with you 100%. In this case it would be misleading to say "charity" because it has come to have a very specific meaning in English. But see, for instance, my arguments at talk:cogito ergo sum#"original French statement". Mel Etitis argues that "I am thinking therefor I exist" gets more to Descartes point, and he's probably right. But the traditional translation is "I think therefor I am", and there's not really anything we can do about it. If a phrase is famous in English too, we're kind of obligated to provide the traditional translation (though not necessarily that alone), unless it is totally misleading.

I mean surely we're not going to say Fiat Lux! means "Let light come into existence!" or something like that. --Iustinus 17:35, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Additionally, I think it may be helpful to translate the phrase using the jussive subjunctive voice (although I recognize it is not initially subjunctive) to create a more accurate translation in English. “In essentials, let there be unity. In non-essentials, let there be liberty. In all things, let there be charity.” — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.81.234.87 (talk) 03:04, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

TYPOGRAPHIC ERROR

Is anybody able to check the original texts? The article cites Archbishop de Dominis with the correct spelling Latin caritatem and Peter Meiderlin with the incorrect spelling charitatem. The latter seems to commonly used, although only English and French have a letter H in words derived from caritas. A plausible hypothesis is that charitatem is a typographical error by an English printer. Could this have been in the original de Dominis text published in London? Can we be sure that it was used in the Meiderlin text? Or might the source be the published work of Richard Baxter? DavidCrosbie (talk) 13:53, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

WP:UE?

Seems counterintuitive to think that the original Latin is the only form if this is notable. Has this been tested according to Google Scholar/Books to establish that English is not "commonly used"? In ictu oculi (talk) 04:29, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Richard Baxter

Not sure how to put these as refs, but the original quote by Richard Baxter is

• in here
• transcribed here

Simon Grant (talk) 13:22, 20 April 2017 (UTC)