Mern Þonke

Whilst walking through the UCLA bookstore I chanced to come upon a copy of Harrius Potter et Philosophi Lapis. A glance at the price on the inside cover revealed that it was an American edition, so I was surprised to see the word “philosophi” from the original British title rather than some Latin equivalent to the “sorcerer’s” of the American edition. After all the hullabaloo about the original title being changed in the American edition because an American audience supposedly could not cope with such an intellectually challenging word as “philosophy”, I found it strangely intriguing that the American Latin-reading audience (all three of them, perhaps) presumably could. I am reminded of earlier periods in history (into the eighteenth century) when Latin was the language in which higher and more arcane concepts were expressed, whereas the vernacular was considered more “workaday” and unfit for literature of the higher sort.

Of course the analogy breaks down easily, since a children's book would hardly have been considered higher literature. On the other hand, what would the translator have chosen if he had wanted to render "sorcerer's" in Latin? Magus can imply a wise man, whereas veneficus is a poisoner, and by extension a worker of magic (so found in Cicero, Ovid, and Horace). The latter--even if it did not have the negative connotations--would hardly make a catchy title since it was not borrowed into English and would be unrecognisable today. However, would not magi nicely capture both the pursuer of knowledge and wisdom in "philosopher" and the worker of magic in "sorcerer"?