# hc svnt dracones [sic]



## OpR8R

Salvete!

(Wow, lots of rules. I'll try my best to comply)

To be clear, I am not a Latinist. Please do not assume that I know anything about the language in any of it's forms. Any assertions I may make regarding the Latin language are merely what I have been told. Please do not hesitate to correct any mistakes I may make. 

*CONTEXT*: There is no surrounding text. This is a cartological geographic identifier. There are other labels - as on any map - but no parent textual body. The words are penned (inscribed rather) in a rather inelegant Carolingian-esque majuscule serif or Roman script.

*BACKGROUND*: The original (and apparently only) historical instance of the phrase appears on the Lenox Globe (c. 1503-1507) The words "HC SVNT DRACONES" [_sic_] appear off the east coast of China (incorrectly labeled "India" on the globe) near the equatorial line, misplaced though it may be. The origins of the globe are assumed to be French as it was found in a curio shop in Paris in 1855. 

*TRANSLATION*: Apparently _"Here be Dragons,"_ though in his article "The Lenox Globe" in the September, 1879 edition of _Magazine of American History_ (vol. 3, no. 9, pp. 529-540) B.F. da Costa asserts that the label is in fact meant to denote the location of the Kingdom of the Dagroians - a cannabalistic nation - as described by Marco Polo. It is noteworthy that in his translation of the da Costa article for the _Bulletin de la société normande de géographie _("Le Globe Lenox," October-December 1879, pp. 216-228) Gabriel Gravier points out that Marco Polo's description of the Dagroian Kingdom puts it in Java Minor or Sumatra, some distance from the location denoted on the globe itself.

Contrary to popular belief, the phrase "_Here be Dragons_" was not used by medieval cartographers to indicate uncharted or dangerous waters, though _illustrations_ depicting dragons - and other fantastic monsters - were often used for this purpose.

(OK, I think I've got my regulatory bases covered.) 

I have three questions reagrding this text, but as the rules allow for only one at a time consider this to be 1 of 3 in a series of questions, all with identical thread titles - hc svnt dracones [_sic_] - appended with the appropriate area of interest, e.g. "hc svnt dracones [_sic_] - Diacritics." 

*DIACRITICS*: I have been told that there are no diacritical marks used in the Latin language. I have, however, seen inscriptions/engravings in Rome that clearly depict the use of what appear to my eye to be acute and grave accents, macrons, etc. 

So, with an eye toward aesthetics and not necessarily _required _notations, what, if any, diacritical (or other) markings might one include, however superflous, in the aforementioned text and still be faithful to the language. For instance it has been suggested to me that I could, for example, get away with an acute accent or even a macron over vowels that are classically long.

My reason for asking is that I have been commissioned to engrave a copper placard (the Lenox Globe is engraved copper as well) by a group to be hung over an office door and my benefactors a very keen on it being visually striking. I call this the Cool Factor (Thank "Lord of the Rings," "Gladiator," et al.) Left to my own devices I would leave well enough alone but like I said, it isn't for me. 

So, are there any embelishments to the text that I might include without totally butchering things?


*PRONUNCIATION*: I have been told that there really exists only two practical choices as an English speaking person attempting to verbalize Latin: Reformed Latin or Italian pronunciation. Is this correct? If so, would someone mind giving me the correct pronunciation for both? 


*SPELLING*: I have been told that the omission of the letter "i" in "HC" (for _HIC_) is a simple misspelling - common enough in Renaissance Europe - but I have also been told that these omissions were simple abbreviations and seen in many manuscripts. Of the latter I have further been told that a "squiggle" (What I assume to be a tilde maybe? If it's not please enlighten me) will often appear over the vowel preceding an unwritten consonant. Is this true? And if so, would the same apply to a consonant preceding an unwritten vowel as in "hc" for "hic?" 

Lastly, do I understand correctly that the convention of the Latin letter "V" in lieu of a "U" is pretty much S.O.P. when the word is written in a majuscule? (All writing on the Lenox Globe is majuscule)

Please feel free to comment on anything I may not have mentioned.


Thank you for your time!

Gregg Hull


----------



## Agró

For the translation I'd say "Here are dragons", whatever those dragons may be (that demands historical knowledge, which I lack of). 



> any of it's forms


Allow me to correct _it's_ (its)

As for the rest I can't help you, sorry.


----------



## Agró

I don't think there is a big problem with pronunciation in this case. The closest way of pronouncing Latin would be as in Italian, and it doesn't differ much from the eclesiastical way:
/ik sunt drakones/ (no aspiration for /h/;stress on /o/)


----------



## relativamente

Salve!
In ancient inscriptions I don't think they used diacritics, but i am just guessing.In medieval and later paintings I have noticed sometimes some diacritics mostly as abbreviations on nasal sounds, and this is the origin of some portuguese diacritics.


----------



## GreenWhiteBlue

What may look like diacritical marks in inscriptions may actually be ways of indicating standard contractions.  For example, in this mosaic from the basilica of St. Paul-outside-the-walls
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped..._Basilica_of_Saint_Paul_Outside_the_Walls.jpg
the squiggle over the "SCS" is one standard indicator of a contraction, in this case of the word "Sanctus", or Saint.


----------



## Kevin Beach

*HIC SUNT [SVNT] DRACONES* does indeed mean "Here are dragons". Whether that conflicts with the reality of medieval or renaissance map making is a conudnrum that you may have to resolve by other means. If the letters are there, that's what they mean.

In classical Latin, there was no letter *U*. The letter *V* was used as both a vowel and a consonant, just as the letter *Y* is in English today. However, as a consonant it was probably pronounced somewhat like the modern English *W*, which brings it closer in sound to the vowel version. Imagine the sound *OU* in the modern French word *OUI* ("yes").

There were no diacriticals in classical Latin (up to about AD 100) and probably up to at least the fall of Rome in the 5th century, but public inscriptions were often abbreviated and missing letters were sometimes indicated by a mark that might look like a diacritical. However, in later periods, there could well have been accents or other marks borrowed from the Romance language prevelant in the place where the Latin was being used.

It is important to remember that medieval Latin was more then a thousand years removed from classical Latin and was partly a revivalist form of the tongue. Although it was the language of academe and learning all over western Europe, different practices arose in different places. What was common in Rome may have been rare in Paris and unheard of in Heidelberg or Oxford. There were not the standards of linguistic consistancy that we have come to expect in the past two hundred years.


----------



## OpR8R

Thank you all so much! I certainly appreciate your time and consideration.

Any further thoughts?


----------



## Outsider

One genuine diacritic used in classical Latin was the apex.

However, in modern renderings of classical Latin this is normally omitted. Other signs you might see, in academic works and dictionaries, are macrons and breves, but these are modern additions.

Medieval Latin used many kinds of abbreviation signs, such as the tilde.


----------



## Cagey

If you follow Outsider's suggestion and use _apices_, they would go:
_hc sunt dracónés._ 

_If for hc you use híc, it takes one as well._ ​   (The modern macrons go would go in the same places, but I think apices look rather nice, myself. )


----------

