Transcriptions and translations are encoded in XML conforming to TEI (P5) guidelines. The original-language text is contained within <lem> tags and translations within <rdg> tags.
Texts are translated into modern American English with maximum fidelity to the original text, except where it would impair comprehension or good style. Archaisms are preserved where they do not conflict with the aesthetic of the original text. Scribal errors and creative translation choices are marked and discussed in the critical notes.
Published by Global Medieval Sourcebook.
The Global Medieval Sourcebook is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
The Gulf of Sirte, infamous for its hazardous sandbanks, is located on the northern coast of Libya.
This is perhaps a reference to Jonah 1.17.
There are two Scyllas mentioned in the poem – the aquatic monster Scylla (Hom. Od. 12.111-150) and Scylla, princess of Megara (Ov. Met. 8.6-151). In this case, the term ‘feritatis’ (‘[of] beastliness’) evokes the former rather than the latter.
‘Puts to shame’ is an idiomatic translation of ‘prestat’ and its dative object; more literally, ‘The savagery of Woman exceeds that of the preying tiger and the swift-footed lion’.
As is expected with medieval manuscripts, the ‘ae’ digraph is confused with the letter ‘e’ throughout. I have preserved the [mis]spellings of the manuscript. In this case ‘ae’ is used correctly, but often it is not (cf. line 78).
In the original Latin, this sentence is constructed using two asyndetic verses: ‘Her husband, the serpent, life, mankind, and the All-Powerful / she betrayed, welcomed, spurned, injured, and lost.’
The original Latin is constructed in the same way as the note suggested on line 40.
This refers to 2 Samuel 11:5-27. David places Uriah at the front lines of a dangerous battle so as to eliminate him, as he was enamoured with Uriah’s wife, Bathsheba.
This refers to 1 Kings 21:2-15. Jezebel has Naboth killed so that her husband, King Ahab, can have Naboth’s vineyard.
The original Latin is constructed in the same way as the note suggested on line 40.
The aggresive whore refers to Salome
The original Latin literally means ‘at which I tremble’.
This refers to Pasiphaë.
Eriphyle, Amphiaraus’ wife, persuaded him to join a fatal raid. See Ps.-Apollodorus Bibliotheca 3.8.2.
Cf., among others, Euripides’ Hippolytus.
Ov. Met. 9.
BnF Ms. Lat. 16699, f. 176v reads: ‘Inque loco patris concepit semine matris.’ However this is illogical and likely the result of scribal error. My reading is supported by the critical edition, Van Acker, L. (ed.) (1972). Petri Pictoris Carmina. Nec Non Petri de Sancto Audemaro Librum de Coloribus Faciendis. CCCM 25. Turnhout (Brepols): 103-116, which is mainly derived from BnF Ms. Lat. 13768.
Ibid., 10.300ff. Cinyras’ daughter was named Myrrha.
See n. 3 – this is Scylla, princess of Megara.
The abrupt shift to second-person from the original third-person omniscient viewpoint is noteworthy; in so doing, Petrus Pictor does not only address Minos, Scylla’s love interest, but also involves the reader. He therefore rounds off his long invective against women, which has been building up in an increasingly emotional crescendo, by breaking the fourth wall. Moreover, lines 90 to 94 are especially noteworthy as they include a sliding scale of tenses – the ablative absolute (reciso, ‘having cut off’) gives way to the perfect indicative (pretulit...credit, ‘preferred...believed’), and then to a perfect participle (detestatus, ‘detesting’), which in turn yields to a present participle (metuens, ‘fearing’), culminating finally in the present indicative (fugis, ‘you avoid’). This gradual rise from the past into the present parallels the aforementioned shift in perspective, and underscores Petrus Pictor’s message about the constant danger which women pose. He suggests that his warnings should not be dismissed as historical and biblical examples from the distant past, but as mere ‘precursors’ (line 29, portenta) to female wickedness in the reader’s present life.
While present-tense verbs are used throughout the following narrative, I have translated it using past-tense verbs for two key reasons. Firstly, the historic present is commonly used for narratives involving a series of events, which applies to this case. Secondly, by translating the story of the wicked woman in the past tense, I distinguish it from the frame narrative which takes place in the author’s present time.
Instead of ‘indeed they do’, the Latin (line 112) simply repeats the previous phrase with an inverted word order, which cannot be expressed in English: ‘All these wholly adorn you, adorn you.’
‘Perdita tempora’, literally ‘lost temples’ (i.e. sides of forehead), is a metonymic construction, here used to mean ‘wretched face’.
‘Incestus...aestus’ would typically be translated as ‘impure heat’, but due to the specific context in which this phrase is uttered – an accusation of incest – I have chosen the adjective ‘incestuous’.
It is tempting to translate ‘pietatem’ as ‘your piety’, but ‘pietas’ really means ‘misericordia’ (‘mercy’) in this case.
This is more literally expressed as ‘her broken modesty’, or ‘her damaged modesty’.
See n. 4.
‘Nec modo mater’ literally means ‘and not only a mother’ or even ‘no mere mother’, but these translations do not convey Pictor’s negative tone.
In Classical Latin, ‘draco’ denotes a large snake; in Medieval Latin it may well mean ‘dragon’. However, as Petrus Pictor has utilised snake metaphors throughout to describe women – which corresponds to Biblical imagery – I would rather err on the safe side and translate ‘draco’ as ‘serpent’.
Petrus Pictor utilises the present tense throughout; nevertheless, I have employed the future tense to preserve the emphasis on cause-and-effect in this passage, the cause being the punishment (stick, scolding) and the effect being murder (by poisoning).
This sentence might seem incongruous with the following one, which describes other sources of poison; therefore it is best to take achonita, ‘monkshood’, as an umbrella term for all poisons.
BnF Ms. Lat. 16699, f. 177v reads: ‘Pars quoque vincta pari’, but this is illogical and should read ‘par’, which is the preferred reading of Van Acker (1972).
‘Fingere’, here translated as ‘perform’, has a dual meaning which is also applicable to these verses on the trickery which accompanies seduction: it can also mean ‘to invent’.
The scribe glosses ‘amator’, ‘lover’, for ‘Iupiter’.
In Greek mythology, the Chimera is a fire-breathing hybrid creature. ‘Monstrifera’ is more literally translated as ‘monster-bringing’ but the Chimera, which symbolises Woman, does not usher in other beasts: it is monstrous in itself.
This verse strongly echoes Verg. Aen. 2.49: ‘Timeo Danaos et dona ferentes’ (‘I fear the Greeks, even bearing gifts’).
‘Laqueus’ can also mean ‘trap’ more generally.
This is the literal meaning of ‘calamo fesso’, but Pictor of course does not refer to the inanimate pen, but to himself: ‘I am exhausted’.
The Gulf of Sirte, infamous for its hazardous sandbanks, is located on the northern coast of Libya.
This is perhaps a reference to Jonah 1.17.
There are two Scyllas mentioned in the poem – the aquatic monster Scylla (Hom. Od. 12.111-150) and Scylla, princess of Megara (Ov. Met. 8.6-151). In this case, the term ‘feritatis’ (‘[of] beastliness’) evokes the former rather than the latter.
‘Puts to shame’ is an idiomatic translation of ‘prestat’ and its dative object; more literally, ‘The savagery of Woman exceeds that of the preying tiger and the swift-footed lion’.
As is expected with medieval manuscripts, the ‘ae’ digraph is confused with the letter ‘e’ throughout. I have preserved the [mis]spellings of the manuscript. In this case ‘ae’ is used correctly, but often it is not (cf. line 78).
In the original Latin, this sentence is constructed using two asyndetic verses: ‘Her husband, the serpent, life, mankind, and the All-Powerful / she betrayed, welcomed, spurned, injured, and lost.’
The original Latin is constructed in the same way as the note suggested on line 40.
This refers to 2 Samuel 11:5-27. David places Uriah at the front lines of a dangerous battle so as to eliminate him, as he was enamoured with Uriah’s wife, Bathsheba.
This refers to 1 Kings 21:2-15. Jezebel has Naboth killed so that her husband, King Ahab, can have Naboth’s vineyard.
The original Latin is constructed in the same way as the note suggested on line 40.
The aggresive whore refers to Salome
The original Latin literally means ‘at which I tremble’.
This refers to Pasiphaë.
Eriphyle, Amphiaraus’ wife, persuaded him to join a fatal raid. See Ps.-Apollodorus Bibliotheca 3.8.2.
Cf., among others, Euripides’ Hippolytus.
Ov. Met. 9.
BnF Ms. Lat. 16699, f. 176v reads: ‘Inque loco patris concepit semine matris.’ However this is illogical and likely the result of scribal error. My reading is supported by the critical edition, Van Acker, L. (ed.) (1972). Petri Pictoris Carmina. Nec Non Petri de Sancto Audemaro Librum de Coloribus Faciendis. CCCM 25. Turnhout (Brepols): 103-116, which is mainly derived from BnF Ms. Lat. 13768.
Ibid., 10.300ff. Cinyras’ daughter was named Myrrha.
See n. 3 – this is Scylla, princess of Megara.
The abrupt shift to second-person from the original third-person omniscient viewpoint is noteworthy; in so doing, Petrus Pictor does not only address Minos, Scylla’s love interest, but also involves the reader. He therefore rounds off his long invective against women, which has been building up in an increasingly emotional crescendo, by breaking the fourth wall. Moreover, lines 90 to 94 are especially noteworthy as they include a sliding scale of tenses – the ablative absolute (reciso, ‘having cut off’) gives way to the perfect indicative (pretulit...credit, ‘preferred...believed’), and then to a perfect participle (detestatus, ‘detesting’), which in turn yields to a present participle (metuens, ‘fearing’), culminating finally in the present indicative (fugis, ‘you avoid’). This gradual rise from the past into the present parallels the aforementioned shift in perspective, and underscores Petrus Pictor’s message about the constant danger which women pose. He suggests that his warnings should not be dismissed as historical and biblical examples from the distant past, but as mere ‘precursors’ (line 29, portenta) to female wickedness in the reader’s present life.
While present-tense verbs are used throughout the following narrative, I have translated it using past-tense verbs for two key reasons. Firstly, the historic present is commonly used for narratives involving a series of events, which applies to this case. Secondly, by translating the story of the wicked woman in the past tense, I distinguish it from the frame narrative which takes place in the author’s present time.
Instead of ‘indeed they do’, the Latin (line 112) simply repeats the previous phrase with an inverted word order, which cannot be expressed in English: ‘All these wholly adorn you, adorn you.’
‘Perdita tempora’, literally ‘lost temples’ (i.e. sides of forehead), is a metonymic construction, here used to mean ‘wretched face’.
‘Incestus...aestus’ would typically be translated as ‘impure heat’, but due to the specific context in which this phrase is uttered – an accusation of incest – I have chosen the adjective ‘incestuous’.
It is tempting to translate ‘pietatem’ as ‘your piety’, but ‘pietas’ really means ‘misericordia’ (‘mercy’) in this case.
This is more literally expressed as ‘her broken modesty’, or ‘her damaged modesty’.
See n. 4.
‘Nec modo mater’ literally means ‘and not only a mother’ or even ‘no mere mother’, but these translations do not convey Pictor’s negative tone.
In Classical Latin, ‘draco’ denotes a large snake; in Medieval Latin it may well mean ‘dragon’. However, as Petrus Pictor has utilised snake metaphors throughout to describe women – which corresponds to Biblical imagery – I would rather err on the safe side and translate ‘draco’ as ‘serpent’.
Petrus Pictor utilises the present tense throughout; nevertheless, I have employed the future tense to preserve the emphasis on cause-and-effect in this passage, the cause being the punishment (stick, scolding) and the effect being murder (by poisoning).
This sentence might seem incongruous with the following one, which describes other sources of poison; therefore it is best to take achonita, ‘monkshood’, as an umbrella term for all poisons.
BnF Ms. Lat. 16699, f. 177v reads: ‘Pars quoque vincta pari’, but this is illogical and should read ‘par’, which is the preferred reading of Van Acker (1972).
‘Fingere’, here translated as ‘perform’, has a dual meaning which is also applicable to these verses on the trickery which accompanies seduction: it can also mean ‘to invent’.
The scribe glosses ‘amator’, ‘lover’, for ‘Iupiter’.
In Greek mythology, the Chimera is a fire-breathing hybrid creature. ‘Monstrifera’ is more literally translated as ‘monster-bringing’ but the Chimera, which symbolises Woman, does not usher in other beasts: it is monstrous in itself.
This verse strongly echoes Verg. Aen. 2.49: ‘Timeo Danaos et dona ferentes’ (‘I fear the Greeks, even bearing gifts’).
‘Laqueus’ can also mean ‘trap’ more generally.
This is the literal meaning of ‘calamo fesso’, but Pictor of course does not refer to the inanimate pen, but to himself: ‘I am exhausted’.
The Gulf of Sirte, infamous for its hazardous sandbanks, is located on the northern coast of Libya.
This is perhaps a reference to Jonah 1.17.
There are two Scyllas mentioned in the poem – the aquatic monster Scylla (Hom. Od. 12.111-150) and Scylla, princess of Megara (Ov. Met. 8.6-151). In this case, the term ‘feritatis’ (‘[of] beastliness’) evokes the former rather than the latter.
‘Puts to shame’ is an idiomatic translation of ‘prestat’ and its dative object; more literally, ‘The savagery of Woman exceeds that of the preying tiger and the swift-footed lion’.
As is expected with medieval manuscripts, the ‘ae’ digraph is confused with the letter ‘e’ throughout. I have preserved the [mis]spellings of the manuscript. In this case ‘ae’ is used correctly, but often it is not (cf. line 78).
In the original Latin, this sentence is constructed using two asyndetic verses: ‘Her husband, the serpent, life, mankind, and the All-Powerful / she betrayed, welcomed, spurned, injured, and lost.’
The original Latin is constructed in the same way as the note suggested on line 40.
This refers to 2 Samuel 11:5-27. David places Uriah at the front lines of a dangerous battle so as to eliminate him, as he was enamoured with Uriah’s wife, Bathsheba.
This refers to 1 Kings 21:2-15. Jezebel has Naboth killed so that her husband, King Ahab, can have Naboth’s vineyard.
The original Latin is constructed in the same way as the note suggested on line 40.
The aggresive whore refers to Salome
The original Latin literally means ‘at which I tremble’.
This refers to Pasiphaë.
Eriphyle, Amphiaraus’ wife, persuaded him to join a fatal raid. See Ps.-Apollodorus Bibliotheca 3.8.2.
Cf., among others, Euripides’ Hippolytus.
Ov. Met. 9.
BnF Ms. Lat. 16699, f. 176v reads: ‘Inque loco patris concepit semine matris.’ However this is illogical and likely the result of scribal error. My reading is supported by the critical edition, Van Acker, L. (ed.) (1972). Petri Pictoris Carmina. Nec Non Petri de Sancto Audemaro Librum de Coloribus Faciendis. CCCM 25. Turnhout (Brepols): 103-116, which is mainly derived from BnF Ms. Lat. 13768.
Ibid., 10.300ff. Cinyras’ daughter was named Myrrha.
See n. 3 – this is Scylla, princess of Megara.
The abrupt shift to second-person from the original third-person omniscient viewpoint is noteworthy; in so doing, Petrus Pictor does not only address Minos, Scylla’s love interest, but also involves the reader. He therefore rounds off his long invective against women, which has been building up in an increasingly emotional crescendo, by breaking the fourth wall. Moreover, lines 90 to 94 are especially noteworthy as they include a sliding scale of tenses – the ablative absolute (reciso, ‘having cut off’) gives way to the perfect indicative (pretulit...credit, ‘preferred...believed’), and then to a perfect participle (detestatus, ‘detesting’), which in turn yields to a present participle (metuens, ‘fearing’), culminating finally in the present indicative (fugis, ‘you avoid’). This gradual rise from the past into the present parallels the aforementioned shift in perspective, and underscores Petrus Pictor’s message about the constant danger which women pose. He suggests that his warnings should not be dismissed as historical and biblical examples from the distant past, but as mere ‘precursors’ (line 29, portenta) to female wickedness in the reader’s present life.
While present-tense verbs are used throughout the following narrative, I have translated it using past-tense verbs for two key reasons. Firstly, the historic present is commonly used for narratives involving a series of events, which applies to this case. Secondly, by translating the story of the wicked woman in the past tense, I distinguish it from the frame narrative which takes place in the author’s present time.
Instead of ‘indeed they do’, the Latin (line 112) simply repeats the previous phrase with an inverted word order, which cannot be expressed in English: ‘All these wholly adorn you, adorn you.’
‘Perdita tempora’, literally ‘lost temples’ (i.e. sides of forehead), is a metonymic construction, here used to mean ‘wretched face’.
‘Incestus...aestus’ would typically be translated as ‘impure heat’, but due to the specific context in which this phrase is uttered – an accusation of incest – I have chosen the adjective ‘incestuous’.
It is tempting to translate ‘pietatem’ as ‘your piety’, but ‘pietas’ really means ‘misericordia’ (‘mercy’) in this case.
This is more literally expressed as ‘her broken modesty’, or ‘her damaged modesty’.
See n. 4.
‘Nec modo mater’ literally means ‘and not only a mother’ or even ‘no mere mother’, but these translations do not convey Pictor’s negative tone.
In Classical Latin, ‘draco’ denotes a large snake; in Medieval Latin it may well mean ‘dragon’. However, as Petrus Pictor has utilised snake metaphors throughout to describe women – which corresponds to Biblical imagery – I would rather err on the safe side and translate ‘draco’ as ‘serpent’.
Petrus Pictor utilises the present tense throughout; nevertheless, I have employed the future tense to preserve the emphasis on cause-and-effect in this passage, the cause being the punishment (stick, scolding) and the effect being murder (by poisoning).
This sentence might seem incongruous with the following one, which describes other sources of poison; therefore it is best to take achonita, ‘monkshood’, as an umbrella term for all poisons.
BnF Ms. Lat. 16699, f. 177v reads: ‘Pars quoque vincta pari’, but this is illogical and should read ‘par’, which is the preferred reading of Van Acker (1972).
‘Fingere’, here translated as ‘perform’, has a dual meaning which is also applicable to these verses on the trickery which accompanies seduction: it can also mean ‘to invent’.
The scribe glosses ‘amator’, ‘lover’, for ‘Iupiter’.
In Greek mythology, the Chimera is a fire-breathing hybrid creature. ‘Monstrifera’ is more literally translated as ‘monster-bringing’ but the Chimera, which symbolises Woman, does not usher in other beasts: it is monstrous in itself.
This verse strongly echoes Verg. Aen. 2.49: ‘Timeo Danaos et dona ferentes’ (‘I fear the Greeks, even bearing gifts’).
‘Laqueus’ can also mean ‘trap’ more generally.
This is the literal meaning of ‘calamo fesso’, but Pictor of course does not refer to the inanimate pen, but to himself: ‘I am exhausted’.