Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Alberta's Child
homo indomitus

Does that really mean savage or indomitable man, or are those terms equivalent or interchangeable? They certainly don't seem so to me.

132 posted on 05/12/2004 6:29:34 PM PDT by AlbionGirl ("E meglio lavorare con qui non ti paga, e no ha parlare con qui non ti capisce!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 125 | View Replies ]


To: AlbionGirl
I've seen some minor complaints about the poor Latin translations in the movie, but the dialogue in question was sub-titled and I seem to clearly remember it as "a savage."

The context of the dialogue is very important. Wallace is speaking with the English princess (who is actually French, but married to the son of King Edward) who was sent out to negotiate terms for peace with Wallace's Scottish rebels. Wallace is supposed to be little more than a wild, ignorant barbarian, but when the princess' aide says to her (in Latin) that "he is a lying savage," Wallace utters his classic reply (in Latin, as well) to both of them. From this point forward it is clear to them that this is no ordinary barbarian.

133 posted on 05/12/2004 6:41:38 PM PDT by Alberta's Child ("Ego numquam pronunciare mendacium . . . sed ego sum homo indomitus" -- William Wallace (Mel Gibson))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 132 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson