# Poveri vergognosi



## arceri

Buongiorno a tutti

Devo tradurre in Inglese (AE) un testo medioevale che parla della "Grande Peste" del 1560 in Italia.
Per i ricoveri degli appestati, in ospedali oppure in Lazzaretti, i nullatenenti venivano divisi in due categorie: 
- nei Lazzaretti i "mendicanti", che erano persone dedite alla questua senza voglia di lavorare (Will Not people?)
- negli ospedali i "poveri vergognosi", persone senza colpa per la loro    condizione di miseria.
Riguardo ai secondi, non so se usare il termine "Disgraceful people", oppure "Ashamed people", o "Have not people"
Qualcuno mi può aiutare? Grazie anticipate


----------



## Paulfromitaly

Credo che il problema principale qui sia capire cosa significhi veramente "vergognoso" in un testo così datato.


----------



## tranquilspaces

Ciao Arceri,

What do you think about -

Mendicanti: good-for-nothings
Poveri Vergognosi: poor wretches

Shannon


----------



## brian

tranquilspaces said:


> Mendicanti: good-for-nothings



I think this has too much subjectivity attached to it, whereas _mendicanti_ does not. I'd stick with simply with the more objective _beggars_, but with the understanding that in this context it's a technical/historical term, like _mendicanti_, which refers to people unwilling to work, and not to all beggars.



tranquilspaces said:


> Poveri Vergognosi: poor wretches



I would suggest: _the helpless._



			
				arceri said:
			
		

> - nei Lazzaretti i "mendicanti", che erano persone dedite alla questua senza voglia di lavorare (Will Not people?)
> - negli ospedali i "poveri vergognosi", persone senza colpa per la loro    condizione di miseria.
> Riguardo ai secondi, non so se usare il termine "Disgraceful people", oppure "Ashamed people", o "Have not people"



_Disgraceful people_ e _ashamed people_ non mi piacciono, ma *the will-nots* e *the have-nots* (senza _people_) potrebbero andare, solo che _a have-not_ letteralmente sarebbe un nullatenente, quindi non saprei come chiamare _i nullatenenti_ in generale, se _the have-nots_ già si usa per i poveri vergognosi.


----------



## arceri

Paulfromitaly said:


> Credo che il problema principale qui sia capire cosa significhi veramente "vergognoso" in un testo così datato.




Ciao Paul, nel Medioevo, la parola "vergognoso" non aveva sempre il significato negativo di oggi.
All'epoca le persone che si ritrovavano in povertà per cause non dipendenti dalla loro volontà, e che erano costrette a ricorrere alla carità pubblica, venivano definite spesso "vergognose" perchè si vergognavano a chiedere aiuto.La parola non aveva alcuna accezione negativa, ma anzi serviva a distinguerle da chi chiedeva, "senza vwergogna", la carità per vivere senza lavorare.
Spero di essere stato più chiaro


----------



## Paulfromitaly

arceri said:


> Ciao Paul, nel Medioevo, la parola "vergognoso" non aveva sempre il significato negativo di oggi.
> All'epoca le persone che si ritrovavano in povertà per cause non dipendenti dalla loro volontà, e che erano costrette a ricorrere alla carità pubblica, venivano definite spesso "vergognose" perchè si vergognavano a chiedere aiuto.La parola non aveva alcuna accezione negativa, ma anzi serviva a distinguerle da chi chiedeva, "senza vwergogna", la carità per vivere senza lavorare.
> Spero di essere stato più chiaro


Sono perfettamente d'accordo con te.
Il problema è che quando cerchi "vergognoso" su un dizionario italiano-inglese ci trovi solo il significato moderno del termine e di conseguenza la traduzione proposta da un madrelingua che è dovuto ricorrere al dizionario potrebbe essere fuorviante.


----------



## brian

Hm... forse *shameless beggars* (_i mendicanti_) e *shameful beggars* (_i poveri vergognosi_), così _i nullatenenti_ sarebbero semplicemente *beggars*, che potrebbe avere un'accezione negativa o non, a seconda del contesto.


----------



## arceri

tranquilspaces said:


> Ciao Arceri,
> 
> What do you think about -
> 
> Mendicanti: good-for-nothings
> Poveri Vergognosi: poor wretches
> 
> Shannon



Grazie per la risposta, ma "Wretches" credo significhi anche " indegna" o "spregevole". Forse non sono stato chiaro, guarda se vuoi la mia nota a Paulfromitaly.
Comunque grazie, perchè devo rivolgermi proprio a degli Americani


----------



## tranquilspaces

Hi Arceri,

Actually "wretch" is an English word just like vergognoso, which has a different connotation in a modern context than it does in a historical context. That's actually the precise reason why I chose it.  

The older usage of wretch/wretched refers simply to people who are miserable due to their poverty. For example, many of the songs in the English version of "Les Miserables" have references to "poor wretches" or the "wretched poor." As you probably know, this is a story written with great empathy for the poor and disadvantaged.

See here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Les_Mis%C3%A9rables

You may want to Google "poor wretch" or "a poor wretch like me" for some examples of how it is used in older texts. I honestly think this is exactly what you are looking for.

My only issue with "helpless poor" is that it does not have a flavor of an older text. Perhaps "hapless poor" would introduce some of that feeling? But I still prefer wretch/wretched because I think it is a better linguistic parallel to vergognosi.

xo,
Shannon


----------



## arceri

Scusate il ritardo.

Thanks Briani and Tranquilspaces.
Following your advice, I think that the better solution could be to add at the definitions a little explanation as:
- Shameless beggars (Who lives abusing of others generosity)
- Poor wretches (Who isn't resposible or culpable for is poor condition/ misery)
What do you think about?


----------



## Paulfromitaly

arceri said:


> Scusate il ritardo.
> 
> Thanks Briani and Tranquilspaces.
> Following your advice, I think that the better solution could be to add at the definitions a little explanation as:
> - Shameless beggars (Who lives abusing of others generosity)
> - Poor wretches (Who isn't resposible or culpable for is poor condition/ misery)
> What do you think about?


Come spieghi tu stesso sopra, vergognosi non può essere tradotto con shameless in questo contesto.


----------



## Teerex51

How about _the abjectly poor_?


----------



## tsoapm

Hi,

The whole discussion reminds me of the English Poor Laws (1349 to 20th C). Perhaps some related terms might be helpful. According to wikipedia:



> The *impotent poor* could not look after themselves or go to  work. They included the ill, the infirm, the elderly, and children with  no-one to properly care for them. It was generally held that they should  be looked after.
> The *able-bodied poor* normally referred to those who were unable to find work – either due to cyclical or long term unemployment in the area, or a lack of skills. Attempts to assist these people,  and move them out of this category, varied over the centuries, but  usually consisted of relief either in the form of work or money.
> The *idle poor* were of able body but were unwilling to work. They were not considered deserving of poor relief.
> *Vagrants*  or beggars, sometimes termed "sturdy rogues", were those who could work  but had refused to. Such people were seen in the 16th and 17th  centuries as potential criminals, apt to do mischief when hired for the  purpose. They were normally seen as people needing punishment, and as  such were often whipped in the market place as an example to others, or  sometimes sent to houses of correction.




Also, “deserving” and “undeserving” poor.

Mark


----------



## tranquilspaces

Paulfromitaly said:


> Come spieghi tu stesso sopra, vergognosi non può essere tradotto con shameless in questo contesto.



Paul, I don't think he's using it to translate vergognosi here. He's using it translate mendicanti.



Teerex51 said:


> How about _the abjectly poor_?



A good possibility for poveri vergognosi, I'd say.

TSoaPM - I love "sturdy rogues" for mendicanti!


----------



## Paulfromitaly

tranquilspaces said:


> Paul, I don't think he's using it to translate vergognosi here. He's using it translate mendicanti.


My point is that "poveri vergognosi" (vergognisi being an adjective) can't be translated as "shameless beggars" seeing as the term vergognosi, as arceri himself explained, doesn't mean shameless in this context.


----------



## Gianfry

Le mie preferite:
mendicanti = vagrants
poveri vergognosi = poor wretches ("the wretched" non può andare?)


----------



## tranquilspaces

Gianfry said:


> Le mie preferite:
> mendicanti = vagrants
> poveri vergognosi = poor wretches ("the wretched" non può andare?)



The only problem with vagrants is that we use this quite often in modern AE to mean "loiterers" - and it's a pretty mild term. To me it sounds like they are dirty and annoying, but not necessarily asking anyone for money.

PS: Yes, "the wretched" is fine too.


----------



## Gianfry

tranquilspaces said:


> The only problem with vagrants is that we use this quite often in modern AE to mean "loiterers" - and it's a pretty mild term. To me it sounds like they are dirty and annoying, but not necessarily asking anyone for money.
> 
> PS: Yes, "the wretched" is fine too.


I see...
Then, for the sake of conciseness, I would go for:

the beggars
the wretched

To me, "good-for-nothing" doesn't seem to convey the meaning of people who beg regularly ("dediti alla questua").


----------



## brian

Paulfromitaly said:


> My point is that "poveri vergognosi" (vergognisi being an adjective) can't be translated as "shameless beggars" seeing as the term vergognosi, as arceri himself explained, doesn't mean shameless in this context.



If you look at my post #*7*, you'll see I translated _poveri vergognosi_ as _shameful beggars_, not _shameless_. Arceri must have misread or miswritten.

I still like _shameful_ vs. _shameless beggars_.


----------



## tranquilspaces

brian said:


> If you look at my post #*7*, you'll see I translated _poveri vergognosi_ as _shameful beggars_, not _shameless_. Arceri must have misread or miswritten.
> 
> I still like _shameful_ vs. _shameless beggars_.



No, this distinction is actually not accurate. Shameless implies that they are doing something wrong but don't seem to notice or care, and shameful means they are worthy of contempt and they know it, which does not match his definition of poveri vergognosi.

See here:

http://www.antimoon.com/forum/t12927.htm

Edit: Sorry, I originally misread your post but corrected mine now.


----------



## Paulfromitaly

brian said:


> If you look at my post #*7*, you'll see I translated _poveri vergognosi_ as _shameful beggars_, not _shameless_. Arceri must have misread or miswritten.
> 
> I still like _shameful_ vs. _shameless beggars_.


You're right, I didn't read yours and arceri's posts carefully enough.
There's still one thing that is somehow bothering me, however:
According to arceri's explanation (which I agree with)



> Vergognosi: persone che si ritrovavano in povertà per cause non dipendenti dalla  loro volontà, e che erano costrette a ricorrere alla carità pubblica,  venivano definite spesso "vergognose" *perchè si vergognavano a chiedere  aiuto*


Poveri vergognosi = poveri che si vergognavano di chiedere l'elemosina.
Those poor people were so ashamed of their being wretch that they didn't even dare to beg.
That's not being shameful either.


----------



## brian

tranquilspaces said:
			
		

> *Shameless* implies that they are doing something wrong but don't seem to  notice or care.



Once again...

_shame*less* beggars_ would be _i mendicanti_
_shame*ful* beggars_ would be _i poveri vergognosi_

Your description of _shameless_ is exactly what the _mendicanti_ are: they're doing something wrong (not working, yet still asking for money) but don't seem to care.



			
				tranquilspaces said:
			
		

> *shameful* means they are worthy of contempt and they know it, which does not match his definition of poveri vergognosi



I believe it does. The _poveri vergognosi_ are _shameful_ because they are _ashamed_ of having to ask for money, even though they have no choice; they feel worthy of contempt (whether they are or not), and that is why _si vergognano_.

Edit:



			
				Paulfromitaly said:
			
		

> arceri said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vergognosi: persone che si ritrovavano in povertà per cause non  dipendenti dalla  loro volontà, e che erano costrette a ricorrere alla  carità pubblica,  venivano definite spesso "vergognose" *perchè si vergognavano a chiedere  aiuto*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Those poor people were ashamed of their being wretch and therefore didn't even dare to beg.
> That's not being shameful either.
Click to expand...


Maybe I misunderstood _si vergognavano a chiedere aiuto_. I understood that to mean that they DID beg (they had to), but they were ashamed of doing so / of having to do so.

If they didn't beg at all, then that's another thing.


----------



## Paulfromitaly

brian said:


> Maybe I misunderstood _si vergognavano a chiedere aiuto_. I understood that to mean that they DID beg (they had to), but they were ashamed of doing so / of having to do so.
> 
> If they didn't beg at all, then that's another thing.



I believe they didn't even dare to beg.
That's why arceri in his first post called them "ashamed (of begging) people".


----------



## brian

In English, if someone is _ashamed of begging_, then he DOES beg, but he is ashamed of doing so.

The only way to imply that he does NOT beg is to say he is _*too* ashamed to beg_.


----------



## Paulfromitaly

brian said:


> In English, if someone is _ashamed of begging_, then he DOES beg, but he is ashamed of doing so.
> 
> The only way to imply that he does NOT beg is to say he is _*too* ashamed to beg_.


I guess we'll have to wait for arceri to tell us if he meant "too ashamed" or just "ashamed" then.


----------



## tranquilspaces

brian said:


> The _poveri vergognosi_ are _shameful_ because they are _ashamed_ of having to ask for money, even though they have no choice; they feel worthy of contempt (whether they are or not), and that is why _si vergognano_.



To my ear the word "shameful" is not really focused on the emotional experience of feeling shame. It is used almost exclusively as a moral judgement of other people's behavior, implying that the other person's actions are inherently reprehensible. To focus on a person's emotional experience of shame, we used the word ASHAMED, not shameful.

See here:

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&...l&sa=X&ei=PyYSTaSmC5SosAO7uezNAg&ved=0CBcQkAE


----------



## brian

I should have been clearer: my usage of _shameful_ here is rather obsolete -- one that was used in Shakespeare as well as in Bible translations, for example. According to the OED, _shameful_ could mean:



			
				OED said:
			
		

> *†2.  Permeated with a feeling or appearance of shame, full of shame, ashamed. Obs.*



The modern word _shameful_ is applied not to people, but to actions or things:



			
				OED said:
			
		

> *3.  That brings to shame; that causes or ought to cause shame; disgraceful, scandalous, degrading.*



So, while _shameful beggars_ (as opposed to, say, _shameful behavior_) certainly sounds dated, my thinking was that _poveri vergognosi_ is also dated, and since they are very similar in meaning here, they fit quite well together.

Moreover, _shameless_ can still be applied to people (and not just actions/behaviors), so I thought it quite nice to have the contrast of *shameless beggars* (_mendicanti_) versus *shameful beggars* (_poveri vergognosi_).

Of course, going back to Paul's comment, if the _poveri vergognosi_ do NOT actually beg, then _shameful beggars_ cannot work. But in that case, I might suggest *the shamefully poor* or something similar.


----------



## arceri

Paulfromitaly said:


> I guess we'll have to wait for arceri to tell us if he meant "too ashamed" or just "ashamed" then.



Accidenti, non pensavo di creare un simile dibattito ( Del quale però vi ringrazio di cuore.
Scrivo in Italiano per farmi capire meglio.
I " Poveri vergognosi " nel Medioevo Italiano, erano quelle persone che, per motivi indipendenti dalla loro volontà, vivevano la loro condizione di povertà in modo dignitoso, senza ricorrere alla carità pubblica e sopratutto senza mendicare. Per questo motivo, specie in occasione di epidemie così frequenti all'epoca, essi venivano ricoverati negli ospedali pubblici o religiosi perché
 ritenuti meritevoli di essere curati gratuitamente, a differenza dei mendicanti che venivano portati nei Lazzaretti solo per non diventare forma di contagio, ma che non ricevevano cure se non quelle prestate da qualche Ente religioso. In pratica, i Poveri vergognosi erano, se ho capito bene, "Too ashamed to beg.
Per favore, AIUTOOOOO


----------



## Paulfromitaly

According to this



> Originally Posted by *OED*
> *†2.  Permeated with a feeling or appearance of shame, full of shame, ashamed. Obs.*


shameful may be the correct translation for vergognosi then.



arceri said:


> In pratica, i Poveri vergognosi erano, se ho capito bene, "Too ashamed to beg.



Questo è come l'ho interpretato anche io.


----------



## tranquilspaces

arceri said:


> Accidenti, non pensavo di creare un simile dibattito ( Del quale però vi ringrazio di cuore.
> Scrivo in Italiano per farmi capire meglio.
> I " Poveri vergognosi " nel Medioevo Italiano, erano quelle persone che, per motivi indipendenti dalla loro volontà, vivevano la loro condizione di povertà in modo dignitoso, senza ricorrere alla carità pubblica e sopratutto senza mendicare. Per questo motivo, specie in occasione di epidemie così frequenti all'epoca, essi venivano ricoverati negli ospedali pubblici o religiosi perché
> ritenuti meritevoli di essere curati gratuitamente, a differenza dei mendicanti che venivano portati nei Lazzaretti solo per non diventare forma di contagio, ma che non ricevevano cure se non quelle prestate da qualche Ente religioso. In pratica, i Poveri vergognosi erano, se ho capito bene, "Too ashamed to beg.
> Per favore, AIUTOOOOO



If begging was perceived as something to be ashamed of in this era, then I personally think anyone who was doing it could be described as shameful. 

Thus, while this completely contradicts Brian's suggestion earlier, the terms that make the most sense to me personally are these:

mendicanti - shameful beggars
poveri vergognosi - the wretched poor

The problem with shameLESS beggars is that it implies they were almost brazen about their actions, even defiant! I sincerely doubt this was the case. Purely on a practical level, someone who is begging for money is compelled to act with some measure of humility or no one is going to give them anything...

PS: Paul, shameful does not work as a translation for vergognosi if these people were not actually begging.


----------



## tsoapm

arceri said:


> - nei Lazzaretti i "mendicanti", che erano persone dedite alla questua senza voglia di lavorare (Will Not people?)
> - negli ospedali i "poveri vergognosi", persone senza colpa per la loro    condizione di miseria.





tranquilspaces said:


> mendicanti - shameful beggars
> poveri vergognosi - the wretched poor



Hi all,

I second "*the wretched poor*" for "poveri vergognosi". All translations involving shame sound a bit forced to me, but "wretched" is still very emotive, evoking "miseria" and a lack of culpability. On the other hand:



arceri said:


> I " Poveri vergognosi " nel Medioevo Italiano, erano quelle persone che, per motivi indipendenti dalla loro volontà, vivevano la loro condizione di  povertà in modo dignitoso, senza ricorrere alla carità pubblica e sopratutto senza mendicare. Per questo motivo, specie in occasione di epidemie così frequenti all'epoca, essi venivano ricoverati negli ospedali pubblici o religiosi perché ritenuti meritevoli di essere curati gratuitamente



This description seems very apt for "*the deserving poor*", which is a rather more sober translation.

I wouldn't choose "shameful beggars" however - there's no shame in the original text. Most literally it would be simply "beggars", but that could be voluntary or otherwise, as Brian said back in #4. I looked through my shorter OED and found "*sturdy beggar*(s)", which seems like a good choice to me. It suggests both that they are able-bodied, yet persistent in begging. I think the fact that it's not an invented term lends it some weight as well.

Mark

@tranquilspaces - I guess you'll probably like "valiant beggar" even more then. Another OED find, and equivalent to "sturdy beggar"


----------



## tranquilspaces

Sturdy beggar is my favorite for mendicanti. Actually I think it is completely perfect.


----------



## brian

I would have no idea what _sturdy beggar_ meant if I read it. But I'm clearly being outvoted here, so I'll stop.


----------



## arceri

Alleluia!!!
Grazie Wondermint per il tuo messaggio che credo abbia risolto alla grande il problema.
Il libro che mi hai consigliato:
Venice. a documentary history 1450-1630 (Vedi su Google:shameface poor) da quella che ritengo la migliore soluzione:
"Poveri vergognosi"= Shameface poor.
Oggi stesso spedirò la traduzione ad un amico Americano che deve discutere la tesi su: Storia delle Grandi Epidemie nel Medioevo.

Un grande grazie a tutti per il prezioso aiuto. Buon Natale e Buon Anno alla grande famiglia WR


----------



## Gianfry

arceri said:


> Alleluia!!!
> Grazie Wondermint per il tuo messaggio che credo abbia risolto alla grande il problema.
> Il libro che mi hai consigliato:
> Venice. a documentary history 1450-1630 (Vedi su Google:shameface poor) da quella che ritengo la migliore soluzione:
> "Poveri vergognosi"= Shameface poor.
> Oggi stesso spedirò la traduzione ad un amico Americano che deve discutere la tesi su: Storia delle Grandi Epidemie nel Medioevo.
> 
> Un grande grazie a tutti per il prezioso aiuto. Buon Natale e Buon Anno alla grande famiglia WR


 E mendicanti come lo traduci?


----------



## tsoapm

arceri said:


> Venice. a documentary history 1450-1630 (Vedi su Google:shameface poor) da quella che ritengo la migliore soluzione:
> "Poveri vergognosi"= Shameface poor.



Quando io cerco così su Google mi dà “shameface*d* poor” in automatico, che mi suona molto meglio.


----------



## Blackman

TSoaPM said:


> Hi all,
> 
> I second "*the wretched poor*" for "poveri vergognosi". All translations involving shame sound a bit forced to me, but "wretched" is still very emotive, evoking "miseria" and a lack of culpability.


 
So do I, for the very same reason. Note that _poveri_ _vergognosi _would sound weird to any contemporary Italian speaker. Nowadays _vergognosi_ is used in an improper way to mean _che si vergognano,_ kind of slang version for _timido._

_Esagerato, come sei vergognoso...._


----------



## tranquilspaces

Arceri, I don't think this is the right translation. The term "shamefaced poor" refers to wealthy people or nobles who had fallen on hard times. Their shame was related to the fact that they were used to enjoying high status and no longer did. See here:

http://www.jiffynotes.com/a_study_guides/book_notes/rens_03/rens_03_00380.html


----------



## arceri

tranquilspaces said:


> Arceri, I don't think this is the right translation. The term "shamefaced poor" refers to wealthy people or nobles who had fallen on hard times. Their shame was related to the fact that they were used to enjoying high status and no longer did. See here:
> 
> http://www.jiffynotes.com/a_study_guides/book_notes/rens_03/rens_03_00380.html



And so, I'm still at the start
Tranquilspaces, you are right. I didn't read carefully the paragraph.
At this point I choose your suggestions:
Mendicanti = Shameful beggars
Poveri vergognosi = Wretched poor...
and..MY GOD BE WITH ME!

Di nuovo grazie a tutti. Come ho detto si tratta della tesi di uno studente Americano. Apeena avuto il risultato ve lo farò sapere


----------



## tranquilspaces

My final vote for mendicanti was actually "sturdy beggar" not "shameful beggar."

The original lacks an explicitly harsh judgment, as TSoaPM mentioned, so I truly think this is more accurate. See here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sturdy_beggar


----------



## wonderment

tranquilspaces said:


> Arceri, I don't think this is the right translation. The term "shamefaced poor" refers to wealthy people or nobles who had fallen on hard times. Their shame was related to the fact that they were used to enjoying high status and no longer did. Their shame is also related to the fact that they were now poor and needed charity. See here: http://www.jiffynotes.com/a_study_guides/book_notes/rens_03/rens_03_00380.html





arceri said:


> And so, I'm still at the start
> Tranquilspaces, you are right. I didn't read carefully the paragraph.
> At this point I choose your suggestions:
> Mendicanti = Shameful beggars
> Poveri vergognosi = Wretched poor...
> and..MY GOD BE WITH ME!
> 
> Di nuovo grazie a tutti. Come ho detto si tratta della tesi di uno studente Americano. Apeena avuto il risultato ve lo farò sapere


Let's try another book : "Vergonosi, or shamefaced..."

_shameless_: "characterized by or showing lack of shame"
_shamefaced_: "feeling or expressing shame"

--------
Edit ADD: clarification

In the link I posted (in the first paragraph on the first page and the paragraph right before), the author discusses the nature of "poverty" and draws the distinction between the _mendicanti_ (destitute poor) and the _vergonosi_ (shamefaced poor). He also refers to the provision of different wards in hospitals for these differently "poor". 

The other option, if arceri's distinction is among the destitute poor, those who felt shame and those who knew no shame, then my suggestion would be:

_mendicanti_: the shameless destitute poor/beggars
_poveri povergonosi vergonosi_: the shamefaced destitute poor


----------



## tranquilspaces

Hm... the information in this article seems to contradict the original definitions of _mendicanti_ and _poveri vergognosi_ provided by Arceri. 

Arceri, were you defining the Italian terms based on a particular text you were translating, or just based on your general understanding of the words?


----------

