Tag Archives: Maurice de la Porte

A Sense of Purpose

This week, the third in several scribblings about my research: how studying Thevet and his world fulfills a need to find purpose in life.—Click here to support the Wednesday Blog: https://www.patreon.com/sthosdkane


This week, the third in several scribblings about my research: how studying Thevet and his world fulfills a need to find purpose in life.


Throughout my graduate education the need for new work to compliment, correct, or add to old work has remained a constant theme. It’s critical to our profession, otherwise why devote our time and talent to studying the past if we’re merely rehashing something already said in the generations of our profession’s own history? I passed through the first five of years of my graduate education without that purpose or that drive, and I think it’s what kept me behind some of my colleagues in achievement. Yet when I found something to make my own, a historical topic upon which to pitch my tent and make myself known, I took that chance. Still, I wasn’t entirely sure what value studying Thevet actually brought to the profession. He is an important figure of middling influence in the development of Renaissance natural history, one whose contributions have often been reduced to laughable exemplars of a time before the scientific study of zoology developed. A secondary approach I take to Thevet is to view his work in light of the great contributions to natural history of the great minds of the Enlightenment, active two centuries after the cosmographer, who are often the next great mile marker in the long road that is the history of natural history.

Of these Enlightenment naturalists, the Comte de Buffon (1701–1788) acknowledged the better parts of what Thevet wrote and adopted those as mile markers in his own natural histories. I think Thevet often appears in the eighteenth century because the center of European thought had shifted by that time from Italy, the radiant heart of Renaissance humanism, to France and so the likes of Buffon and Humboldt would’ve been familiar with Thevet as he was one of the more prominent French naturalists whose books were available. Thevet’s notoriety in his own century lay predominately in the transalpine republic of letters, most famously with his Zurich-based admirer Conrad Gessner (1516–1565) who was personally responsible for elevating Thevet’s natural history beyond the original editions to a broader consciousness by including Thevet’s animals in his own Icones animalium and Icones avium omnium of 1560 and his German Thierbuch of 1562. While Thevet’s Singularitez was translated into Italian by the Venetian Giuseppe Horologgi in an edition published by the eminent Venetian printer Gabriele Giolito de’ Ferrari (1508–1578) with the title Historia dell’India America detta altramente Francia Antartica, that volume didn’t carry over the woodcuts which Thevet included in the first edition published in Paris by Maurice de la Porte in 1557 that were copied for Christophe Plantin’s 1558 edition published in Antwerp. This says to me that these pictures didn’t fit the purpose of Giolito’s edition; they especially didn’t fit the sorts of books he anticipated selling Thevet’s alongside. As such, without the pictures Thevet’s work doesn’t seem to have carried as much weight in Italy and is instead better remembered in its original French.

When I was first searching for copies of the Singularitez in August 2019, I initially downloaded a copy of the 1878 Paul Gaffarel edition of the book, which while of great utility especially in its footnotes, isn’t as important as any of the original 1557 or 1558 editions published in Paris and Antwerp to my research. These are the core sources for my work; in particular I used a copy of the 1558 Plantin edition published in Antwerp as my main source for my translation. I can make the case that the Plantin edition is more important in the context of Thevet’s natural history, as it’s the same edition that Gessner acquired and used as the basis for his inclusion of the sloth and toucan in his 1560 pair of Icones books, however in all truth I ended up working with that edition because it was the first one that I found from the sixteenth century. Unlike the two Paris editions (1557 & 1558), Plantin’s edition was not intended for a domestic French audience. The most recent effort of mine toward the publication of my translation was to translate the different royal and imperial privileges and letters to patrons of each translator in order to fully place my own translation within the varied contexts in which each of these contemporary editions existed. It’s interesting to see Thomas Hacket’s 1568 English translation be dedicated to Sir Henry Sidney, who was a major player in the Elizabethan conquest of Ireland and in the early English colonial enterprise. In contrast, Horologgi’s translation begins with a letter to his patron, Paolo Giordano I Orsini (1541–1585), the Duke of Bracciano and like Sidney a noted military man. Thevet himself dedicated his book to Jean de Bertrand, Cardinal of Sens (r. 1557–1560), and in doing dedicated it to the French national cause within which one can best understand the whole French expedition in Brazil.Thevet sought a sense of purpose in his life built upon the travel books he loved to read. He made himself a character in those books, a cosmographer who could be trusted to tell the truth of the faraway because he had seen it with his own eyes. The logic of this always made good sense to me, after all the authority of the historian lies in our expertise and familiarity with our sources. In my case, I’ve found a sense of purpose in my life built upon the travel books I loved to read, and I’ve built my career on my expertise in Thevet’s works. We need to have a sense of purpose in what we do to find life rewarding. I’ve done jobs that’ve been for the money and sure they’ve kept the lights on, but they haven’t been nearly as fulfilling as my research and teaching, which I love doing. The people I’ve met in academia are among my favorite anywhere, fellow experts with whom I can discuss historical topics with a sense of mutual respect and admiration. That’s what I want in my life more than anything else, that community that comes from our profession and a sense of purpose in what we do.


On Translation

This week, how I take nuance and particularity into account in my efforts as a translator.—Click here to support the Wednesday Blog: https://www.patreon.com/sthosdkane


This week, how I take nuance and particularity into account in my efforts as a translator.


When I chose to study André Thevet (1516–1590) and the three-toed sloth in August 2019 I did so because I already knew French and the need to learn a new language was less pressing than if I’d chosen to study another source in the history of natural history. I chose Thevet because it was practical, and I chose the sloth because the thought of being a sloth historian made me laugh. From the first day working on Thevet, I found that my understanding of his books was heightened when I took the time to type out my own translations of his text. Thevet wrote in Middle French that is native to the middle decades of the sixteenth century. I arrived at this project very familiar with Early Modern English, the contemporary form of this language to Thevet’s time, as my history master’s thesis delt with sources in that chronological variety of English from Thevet’s generation and the one just before. I’ve never had much trouble understanding the most prolific author of Early Modern English literature, Shakespeare, but I think I’ve had a tolerance for varieties in speech that’s allowed for me to try to think beyond my own millennial Midwestern metropolitan American English and be willing to understand the likes of Shakespeare from a young age.

So, when I began translating passages from Thevet’s Singularitez de la France Antarctique for my own professional use in my dissertation, I decided that as long as I was translating that book I might as well translate it with the intention of sharing Thevet’s words beyond the scholarly analysis and critique which lie at the heart of my work as a historian. This first draft is built around the 1558 French edition published by Christophe Plantin (c. 1520–1589) in Antwerp and contains footnotes drawn from the 1878 French edition by Paul Gaffarel published in Paris, two Brazilian Portuguese translations by Sergio Amado (1978) and Estêvão Pinto (1944, using the 2018 reprint), and the partial 1986 English translation by Arthur Stabler and Roger Schlesinger which contains only Thevet’s North American chapters.

I finished the first draft of this translation in Summer 2023 and am now looking ahead toward the second draft which is the next stage of the project, and I hope the last one before I feel confident in formally writing to the publishing editors whose press sales agents I’ve spoken with about this project at conferences over the last two years. The second draft will consist of two main stages. First, I will cross-reference my translation and the 1558 Antwerp edition on which it is primarily based with the 1557 first and 1558 second editions published in Paris by Maurice de la Porte, two Venetian editions translated into Italian by Giuseppe Horologgi and published by Gabriel Giolito de’ Ferrari (c. 1508–1578) in 1561 and 1584, and the 1568 full English translation by Thomas Hacket published in London by Henry Bynneman. Second, I will seek to make my translation more understandable for a 21st century English-speaking reader while endeavoring to preserve Thevet’s particular mannerisms and voice, a writing style with which I’ve become quite familiar in the last 6 years to the point that I can now confirm at least two French translated manuscripts in the Bibliothèque nationale’s collections in Paris are verifiably written by Thevet. He had a way of writing that’s unmistakable.

These two competing axes create a binary star system around which my translation revolves. On the one hand, I want to be true to the original text, to preserve the author’s voice and something of their spirit which remains in those words. On the other hand, I need to make my efforts readable for my own contemporaries. Thevet and his contemporaries are notorious for long run-on sentences that would make Hemingway shake his head in earnest frustration. Where do I break up a long sentence while preserving its overall integrity? Furthermore, at what point should I decided to remove the bracketed notations of page breaks in the original text? There the 1558 Antwerp edition is most fully evident as its pagination has several quirks that make it stand out from the 1557 & 1558 Paris editions. At this point, Plantin published books with folio numbers rather than page numbers, so the first two pages were in fact folios 1 recto (1r) and 1 verso (1v). These names refer to the custom that scribes traditionally started writing on the back side of the vellum (recto in Latin) and then flipped the skin over once ready to continue writing on the verso, or opposite side. In several instances the folio numbers actually decrease in the book, notably in Thevet’s chapter on the sloth, which makes the footnotes on that core element of my research particularly confusing if you’re paying close enough attention. So, in summation the inclusion of the page breaks with the folio numbers keeps my translation grounded in Plantin’s edition, however that may break up the text in an uncomfortable way for some readers.

Ultimately, I am not the author of this book, merely a herald relaying it on for our time. My voice is there in the handful of introductory chapters I’ve written to go along with this book. These chapters describe Thevet as a reader of travel literature and place his accounts of the Americas beyond what he himself saw in Brazil in the context of their French and Spanish sources. I see my efforts in this as a means of introducing the reader to Thevet, a man who today exists on the furthest margins of the popular imagination of the First Age of Exploration in the English-speaking world. Thevet remains present in academic circles, there were at least four papers presented at this weekend’s annual meeting of the Renaissance Society of America in Boston which discussed Thevet, mine included. I hope this book will be useful to fellow academics and perhaps will entice curious readers to learn more about this man who I’ve spent the last 6 years of my life getting to know.I find myself drawn as much to the effort of a translator as I do to the work of a historian these days. We live in such a fractious time when reasoned debate and earnest discourse is riddled with dangers and seemingly improbable to undertake. I feel as though I’m constantly translating my thoughts and character for others to understand me. It’s why I enjoyed my time in Boston because that city has a large enough Irish American population that when I’d tell my name to a cashier to put on a carry-out order they’d actually spell it in the proper Irish manner; this never happens in Kansas City. That said, I felt that I had to translate my expectations and personal limits to be able to live even for just a few days in a city as expensive as Boston where I was often paying double what I’d normally pay at home in restaurants. In translating I recognize that each of us think in slightly different ways and see the world in which we all live in just as unfamiliar terms to one another. Difference enhances our common humanity and elevates our manner to something greater than ourselves.