# Talk:Bucentaur

Hi, help would be much appreciated in translating the following Italian and Latin terms in the article "Bucentaur" into English:


### Italian
"La Nuova regia su l'acque nel Bucintoro nuovamente cretto all'annua solenne funzione del giorno dell'Ascensione di Nostro Signore" (book title).
Are You sure about the word "cretto", wich in Italian does not exist? Perhaps "creato" or "eretto" could have a sense.82.89.204.1 (talk) 13:48, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
According to the British Library online catalogue, that's how the word is spelt. The book is an 18th-century work – could cretto be an old-fashioned Italian word no longer used today? If not, what would the English translation of the book title be if the word was creato or eretto? — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 18:30, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
Jacklee's hunch was right: eretto is correct: these things happen with on-line scanning.Wetman (talk) 21:21, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
It wasn't my hunch but that of the anonymous editor at 82.89.204.1. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 16:07, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
The translation could be: "The new palace on waters in newly built Bucintoro in the annual sollemn celebration of our Lord's Ascension day". At first I didn't properly understand the meaning of "regia", then, following the above link, I read the description and I think this could be an acceptable explanation: "Regia", as modern "reggia", a king's palace, refers to the ornate place where Doge and dignitaries of the Repubblica Serenissima were seated while the celebration took place. 
--Broletto (talk) 21:43, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your input. I've translated the book title as "The New Palace upon the Waters of the Newly Built Bucentaur at the Annual Solemn Function of the Day of the Ascension of Our Lord". I believe the "New Palace upon the Waters" doesn't refer to a building, but is a fancy description of the Bucentaur itself. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 23:05, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
I agree.--Broletto (talk) 08:46, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
"Habiti d'hvomeni et donne venetiane: con la processione della serma. Signoria et altri particolari cioè trionfi feste cerimonie pvbliche della nobilissima città di Venetia".
"sovraprovveditore".
Hi, Wetman. Thanks for providing translations for some of the Italian and Latin texts. I'm sorry I didn't spot your postings until now. In the book title ""Habiti d'hvomeni et donne venetiane: con la processione della serma. Signoria et altri particolari cioè trionfi feste cerimonie pvbliche della nobilissima città di Venetia", I was wondering if "serma. Signoria" was a term, with the full stop after "serma" indicating that it is an abbreviation of another word rather than the end of the sentence. Any idea what that might be? Also, do you know how "Forma in Frezaria al sol" and "sovraprovveditore" might be translated into English? — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 16:07, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
The following exchange, transcribed from my Talk page, will be of general interest here:
Hi, thanks for providing translations for some of the Italian and Latin texts. I'm sorry I didn't spot your postings until now. In the book title ""Habiti d'hvomeni et donne venetiane: con la processione della serma. Signoria et altri particolari cioè trionfi feste cerimonie pvbliche della nobilissima città di Venetia", I was wondering if "serma. Signoria" was a term, with the full stop after "serma" indicating that it is an abbreviation of another word rather than the end of the sentence. Any idea what that might be? Also, do you know how "Forma in Frezaria al sol" and "sovraprovveditore" might be translated into English? Do respond on the article's talk page. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 16:09, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes. More correctly transcribed it would have been serma, meaning Serenissima Signoria. Frezzaria Sol would mean "Fresh Air Lane" if you were to translate it; that's the narrow street where the volume was printed in Venice.  The Wikipedia article Provveditore will explain the title at length: a sovraprovveditor oversees the performances of provveditori. --Wetman (talk) 20:52, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
That's great – your explanation clears up a few mysteries in the article. Thanks very much! — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 21:06, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
I expanded with [ ] i.e. "Forma Frezarai [al segno del] Sol", or Forma, in Frezaria at the Sign of the Sun'. Entering it paralyses the the {cite ref} template: wouldn's a {ref} html do perfectly well? --Wetman (talk) 21:11, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

No, that won't work because the phrase "Forma in Frezaria al sol" in the {{cite book}} template is already inside footnote 9, and you can't nest a footnote inside another footnote. Also, I think it's better to add the interpolated words to the English translation since they were absent from the original Italian text. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 00:39, 7 April 2008 (UTC)


### Latin
"cum uno artificioso et solemni Bucentauro, super quo venit usque ad S. Clementem, quo jam pervenerat principalior et solemnior Bucentaurus cum consiliariis, &c".
"quod Bucentaurus Dominions ducis Fiat for Dominium et teneatur in Arsenatu".
"Antonii Coradini sculptoris Inventum".
Thanks very much. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 04:18, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

The Latin is "with one Bucentaur, solemn and artificial [presumably "skillfully constructed"], upon which he came to San Clemente, where a more important and more solemn Bucentaur had already arrived with his advisors..." The third one says "a discovery of the sculptor Antonio Coradini". The second apparently should be "quod Bucentaurus Domini ducis fiat per Dominium et teneatur in Arsenatu" (this bit of the article seems to have been taken from here and run through a translator). I suppose it means "...that a Bucentaur should be made for the Lord Doge for his rule, and it should be held in the Arsenal." I'm not good enough with Italian to attempt a translation of the book title. Adam Bishop (talk) 12:47, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
Hi, Adam. Thanks very much for this; I've updated the article accordingly. Would a better translation of the third Latin phrase be "invented by the sculptor Antonio Corradini"? Corradini was the sculptor of parts of the bucentaur, so the word "discovery" seems inapt. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 18:41, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, that's probably what it means. Adam Bishop (talk) 00:33, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
I'd a' said "a well-wrought and stately Bucintoro", stately like a state coach. --Wetman (talk) 21:21, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
There are two more Latin book titles that require translation. Hope you can help:
"De origin, situ et magistratibus urbis Venetae".
"Concerning the origin, site and magistrates of the city of Venice"
"Habiti d'hvomeni et donne venetiane: con la processione della serma. Signoria et altri particolari cioè trionfi feste cerimonie pvbliche della nobilissima città di Venetia".
"Dress of Venetian men and ladies: with the procession of the serma [the solemn marriage of Venice and the sea, I think]. The Signory and other particulars, that is, triumphal entries, feasts, [and] public ceremonies, of the most noble city of Venice"--Wetman (talk) 21:21, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
— Cheers, JackLee –talk– 04:30, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
The second one is Italian (about men and women's clothing during public ceremonies?). The Latin one is "on the origin, site, and officials of the city of Venice". Adam Bishop (talk) 09:06, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
Oops, didn't realize one of them was in Italian. Thanks for providing the English translation of the Latin title. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 15:20, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Please help to translate the following German text by Goethe that appears in the article:

Um mit einem Worte den Begriff des Bucentaur auszusprechen, nenne ich ihn eine Prachtgaleere. Der ältere, von dem wir noch Abbildungen haben, rechtfertigt diese Benennung noch mehr als der gegenwärtige, der uns durch seinen Glanz über seinen Ursprung verblendet.
Abfahrt der Bucentaure. Vedute von Francesco Guardi.

Ich komme immer auf mein Altes zurück. Wenn dem Künstler ein echter Gegenstand gegeben ist, so kann er etwas Echtes leisten. Hier war ihm aufgetragen, eine Galeere zu bilden, die wert wäre, die Häupter der Republik am feierlichsten Tage zum Sakrament ihrer hergebrachten Meerherrschaft zu tragen, und diese Aufgabe ist fürtrefflich ausgeführt. Das Schiff ist ganz Zierat, also darf man nicht sagen: mit Zierat überladen, ganz vergoldetes Schnitzwerk, sonst zu keinem Gebrauch, eine wahre Monstranz, um dem Volke seine Häupter recht herrlich zu zeigen. Wissen wir doch: das Volk, wie es gern seine Hüte schmückt, will auch seine Obern prächtig und geputzt sehen. Dieses Prunkschiff ist ein rechtes Inventarienstück, woran man sehen kann, was die Venezianer waren und sich zu sein dünkten.
With the help of an online translator and a dictionary I've come up with the following, but I suspect it's not entirely accurate and I'm unsure of the meanings of some words:

[In order to express the concept of the Bucentaur with one word, I call it a Prachtgaleere [magnificent galley]. The older one, which we still have illustrations of, justifies this designation even more than the present one, as we are dazzled by the gloss of its origin. ...
I always return to my old theme. If a genuine object is given to the artist, then he can achieve something genuine. Here was laid on him the responsibility of constructing a galley worthy of carrying the heads of the Republic on the most solemn day to conscrate their traditional dominion over the sea, and this task he carried out excellently. The ship is itself an ornament; therefore one may not say that it is overloaded with ornaments, and that its gilded carvings are useless. It is a true monstrance, in order to show the people that their leaders are indeed wonderful. Nevertheless, we know this: the people, who are fond of decorating their hats, also want to see those with authority over them in splendour and dressed up. This magnificent ship is quite an item of inventory, from which one can see what the Venetians are and desire to be.]
— Cheers, JackLee –talk– 03:33, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I would translate a bit differently beginning from the third sentence: [The ship is itself an ornament; therefore one may not say that it is overloaded with ornaments, it is only gilded carvings, otherwise useless. It is a true monstrance, in order to show the people their leaders magnificent indeed. We all know this: the people, who are fond of decorating their hats, also want to see those with authority over them in splendour and dressed up. This pompous ship is quite an item of inventory, from which one can see what the Venetians were and believe themselves to be.]
Does this sound good to a native english speaker? 129.132.28.20 (talk) 18:37, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

See my change for the last sentence, which flows better and is a better match to Goethe's original German, I think. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 18:54, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
I updated my (I was the IP) last proposed translation accordingly. I'd still prefer a native english speaker to check if this makes sense like this:
[The ship is itself an ornament; therefore one may not say that it is overloaded with ornaments, it is only gilded carvings, otherwise useless. It is a true monstrance, in order to show the people their leaders magnificent indeed. We all know this: the people, who are fond of decorating their hats, also want to see those with authority over them in splendour and dressed up. This pompous ship is quite an item of inventory and shows what the Venetians were and believe themselves to be.]
Noleti (talk) 19:46, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
Hi. Thanks very much for your input. Here are my comments:

"... it is overloaded with ornaments, it is only gilded carvings, otherwise useless" is an odd construction to a native English speaker. Something along the lines of "... it is overloaded with ornaments, it is only made up of or covered with gilded carvings and is otherwise useless" would be better.
"Pompous" is generally used for people and not inanimate objects. It means "arrogant". "Grand", "magnificent", "splendid" or "wonderful" would be better English adjectives to use.
"...shows what the Venetians were and believe themselves to be" – there's a change of tense here. Would it be accurate to translate this as "...shows what the Venetians were and believed themselves to be"? In any case, why is Goethe speaking in the past tense? At the relevant time, the bucentaur was still in existence and he saw it with his own eyes. Can the sentence be phrased in the present tense?
— Cheers, JackLee –talk– 00:45, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

The first sentence is unusual in current german as well, being that long. The "made up of"/"covered with" part means in german that the ship is essential a gilded carving itself. I don't know how to express this better then the way I did ("..., it is only gilded carvings ...")
I didn't know about the people restriction on pompous, the original "Prunk" is used a bit derogatory by Goehte in my opinion, therefore your alternatives except arrogant are too positive, and arrogant does not quite fit in my opinion. Again, I do not have a better word for this.
You are completely right about the tense, missed that point. Maybe he is talking in the past because "it was what they believed themselves to be" when they constructed the ship?
— nice work otherwise! Noleti (talk) 10:31, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I think the shift in tense is intentional - Goethe is contrasting the glorious past of Venice with the much less impressive present. They used to be great, they still imagine (or delude) themselves as being great. One problem is that the German itself is a bit archaic. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 10:42, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks! OK, what about this then:
"... it is overloaded with ornaments, and only a mass of gilded carvings that are otherwise useless".
Since prunk is intended to be slightly derogatory, what about using the expression "grandiose ship"? Grandiose has a slightly derogatory meaning. Or stick to "pompous ship". English is fairly flexible. While "pompous" is generally used of people, there's no reason why it cannot be used for inanimate objects where appropriate.
If the change in tense is intentional, let's change the sentence in question to "...shows what the Venetians were and imagine themselves to be now". That might be clearer to an English reader.
— Cheers, JackLee –talk– 10:25, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
May I suggest "...shows what the Venetians were and still imagine themselves to be"? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:25, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
That sounds fine! — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 20:49, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
This more than 200 years old German has its difficulties for nowadays native speakers – but sorry, I think there is no change of tense in "was die Venezianer waren und sich zu sein dünkten", because "dünkten" is the past tense of "dünken". So it should be translated as "shows what the Venetians were and imagined themselves to be" or "shows what the Venetians were and deemed themselves to be" or something like that. As Noleti, I assume that Goethe says that the ship he saw expresses what kind of people her builders were. I'm now bold and change the article accordingly. --Cyfal (talk) 00:16, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm aware of this. However, as far as I can tell, in this case the past tense is (often) used for the present: Mich dünkt -> "I think" (or, to reflect the connotation, "I imagine"). I agree that this is not a trivial case, and the the more literal translation is fine with me as well. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 11:57, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

I just compared the article to the german version which states that the ship was not burned, but scavenged by Napoleon's soldiers and later restored to serve in the defense of Venice until 1828. It also states that the soldiers probably overestimated the value of the thin layer of gold. This version makes much more sense to me than "French soldiers used 400 mules to carry away its gold" - 2 grams of leaf gold cover a square meter of surface. Of course this would undermine the alleged reimbursement claim. 129.132.28.20 (talk) 18:52, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

The statement in the English article is referenced to a newspaper article. Yes, newspapers frequently get their facts wrong, but is the information in the German article referenced to a better source? If so, we can cite that. I note, though, that the Fondazione Bucintoro's website does not seem to say anything about the ship being restored and used till 1828. An Italian speaker will need to confirm this. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 00:48, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
I believe there is similar content in the italian wikipedia (Hydra was the name of the ship after the renovation). On the other hand, quick googling yielded this:
* http://books.google.de/books?id=Cfwx756PcMcC&pg=PA256&lpg=PA256&dq=Bucentaur+destruction&source=web&ots=hzthddoz15&sig=2JeZ5WsLEDvEy4F4ae0sD08tt9M&hl=de
* http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/1911_Encyclop%C3%A6dia_Britannica/Bucentaur
It would be interesting to know how the remains in the Museum look like. If the ship was really burnt then restoration to the Hydra is unlikely I would assume. Noleti (talk) 10:45, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for that. At the moment, the claims in the Italian and German Wikipedia don't appear to be adequately referenced, so I'd suggest we stick to the referenced material until some other reliable evidence turns up. Editors active at the Italian and German Wikipedia may want to update the articles there accordingly. Note, also, that the image of an etching on German Wikipedia is not of the bucentaur but of the Teatro del Mondo (Theatre of the World), a floating theatre – I've put a message on this on the talk page of that article. The image should therefore be removed or replaced. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 10:19, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
Maybe someone speaking italian can translate the following bit from the website of the Fondazione Bucintoro: "I pochissimi frammenti decorativi che si salvarono dalle fiamme sono conservati al Museo Correr di Venezia. Fu risparmiato solo lo scafo, seppur privo del secondo ponte: prendendo il nome di Prama Hydra fu messo a guardia dell’imboccatura del porto del Lido come batteria costiera, armata da cannoni. Poi lo scafo tornò in Arsenale, dove era nato secoli prima. Lì rimase fino al 1824, anno della demolizione definitiva". Sounds to me like the hull or some remains were restored and used as costal cannon platform under the name Prama Hydro until 1824. Noleti (talk) 18:02, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
I ran the above Italian passage through an online translator, and it came up with this:
The least decorative fragments that were saved from flames are conserved to the Museum To run of Venice. The hull, seppur lacking was only saved in according to bridge: taking the name of Prama Hydra it was put to guard of the mouth of the port of the Lido like coastal accumulator, armed from guns. Then the hull returned in Arsenal, where it was been born centuries before. Them it remained until 1824, year of the definitive demolition.
I've therefore extracted what I can from the horrendous translation and inserted it in the article. I also found an English source which states that the hull of the bucentaur was used as a prison ship until 1824. Unfortunately, this is not an ideal citation as it's from a blog, and the information is not referenced, so please see if a better citation can be found for the information. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 19:39, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi, it would be great if someone could help provide English translations of the following Latin phrases which appear in the article:

Navilium Duecentorum Hominum – name of a ship.
Desponsamus te, mare, in signum veri perpetuique domini ("We wed thee, sea ...") – said during a ceremony.
Thanks! — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 07:28, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

The text says that de' Barbari's woodcut depicts the bucentaur with Lady Justice on the "fore quarterdeck" (do galleys even have quarter decks?). This doesn't seem possible, because it's abundantly clear from the picture that the only decoration hinted at is in the bows. Is there any reason not to correct this?
Peter Isotalo 12:00, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

The information is sourced to an English translation of an Italian text. I don't speak or read Italian; perhaps someone who is able to can look up the original Italian source? — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 13:01, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
I'm hoping that too. It might be a bit hard, though, since there's no specification of where in the book the claim comes from. But we're still looking at the same picture, and there's clearly no discernible sculpture on the quarterdeck. Perhaps it's better to rephrase the article so that the claim is dependent on the text rather than the depiction.
Peter Isotalo 14:59, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
Well, our version of de' Barbari's map is pretty small. Perhaps the sculpture is more visible on larger versions? — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 18:33, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
If it is, one would expect it to be specified much more clearly. This particular reference (a Venetian jewelery maker) doesn't strike me being above a little bit of critical scrutiny. It looks to me like a non-expert tertiary source.
Our version of the image is at a pretty low resolution, but it doesn't seem possible that anything could be hiding in that solid mass of the aft superstructure. It all pretty much looks like vertical and horizontal lines to me. Neither does it fit the description of the other Lady Justice-sculptures placed in the bows, or the fact that galleys don't have their most conspicuous ornamentations on deck (where it can't really be seen by spectators). Most importantly, though, the picture we have obviously shows something looking like a large sculpture in the bow.
Peter Isotalo 12:28, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
Yes, admittedly the only online English translation of the original Italian source is not a particularly good one. Why don't you go ahead and make the proposed change? — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 16:28, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

First image on this article does not relate to the stolen painting, which is as shown here:  
I have therefore removed the respective note from the image. I discovered this whilst creating a new article for Guardi's work. The confusion I believe was generated by the wrong title--Smintheus Fellin (talk) 16:16, 12 January 2012 (UTC)


### Note
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 11 external links on Bucentaur. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120217015259/http://www.sevenonline.it/sensa/english/bucintorogb.htm to http://www.sevenonline.it/sensa/english/bucintorogb.htm
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080619192330/http://www.webjewels.it/Bucentaurs.html to http://www.webjewels.it/Bucentaurs.html
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080619200456/http://www.fondazionebucintoro.org/storia_bucintoro02.html to http://www.fondazionebucintoro.org/storia_bucintoro02.html
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080620041622/http://www.fondazionebucintoro.org/storia_bucintoro.html to http://www.fondazionebucintoro.org/storia_bucintoro.html
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080619200501/http://www.fondazionebucintoro.org/storia_bucintoro03.html to http://www.fondazionebucintoro.org/storia_bucintoro03.html
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080619192330/http://www.webjewels.it/Bucentaurs.html to http://www.webjewels.it/Bucentaurs.html
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080619200507/http://www.fondazionebucintoro.org/storia_bucintoro04.html to http://www.fondazionebucintoro.org/storia_bucintoro04.html
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080517225304/http://www.fondazionebucintoro.org/storia_bucintoro05.html to http://www.fondazionebucintoro.org/storia_bucintoro05.html
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110726062104/http://www.fondazionebucintoro.org/images/Luchini.pdf to http://www.fondazionebucintoro.org/images/Luchini.pdf
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120217015259/http://www.sevenonline.it/sensa/english/bucintorogb.htm to http://www.sevenonline.it/sensa/english/bucintorogb.htm
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080619192330/http://www.webjewels.it/Bucentaurs.html to http://www.webjewels.it/Bucentaurs.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:27, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Bucentaur. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090509084620/http://www.fondazionebucintoro.org/ to http://www.fondazionebucintoro.org/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:58, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that File:Canaletto - Bucentaur's return to the pier by the Palazzo Ducale - Google Art Project.jpg will be appearing as picture of the day on February 25, 2020. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2020-02-25. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page so Wikipedia doesn't look bad. :) Thanks! Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:14, 17 February 2020 (UTC)