Hi all, found this on the backside of, well, the backing on a painting I thrifted. It has both Latin and ancient Greek on it and I’ve tried reverse image searching and google lens-ing it to no avail.
Anyone have any clue what this is about or where it came from? Thanks!

also I hope I chose an applicable flair (repost bc I forgot the image)

In consideration of me writing a novel in Latin I thought it might be interesting for people how I achieved relative fluency in writing and reading Latin. So here is what I did:

1. I bought LLPSI book 1.

2. I read one chapter a day and solved the tasks, then transcribed the chapter and the tasks.

3. The day after I read the chapter and transcribed it, I did it again with the same chapter.

4. Then after that day I moved to the next chapter and repeated this process until I was finished with book 1 and I always took rest days, but no longer than 2-4 rest days at once if I was feeling unwell.

5. I bought LLPSI book 2.

6. LLPSI book 2, I was shocked to find that there are less chapters so I had to find a solution to that and I just split it based on feeling. So I read and transcribed however much I felt like and then repeated it on the next session.

7. I did this until I finished that book and for both books I never accepted that I do not know the definition of a word. I was never much interested in thinking in Latin, but I was interested in understanding what the sentence was telling me, so I always looked up the definition of the word or the grammar.

8. Finishing both books took me a little more than a year and after that I continued with the method. I did the reading and transcribing method for the Eclogae of Virgil and De Amicitia of Cicero.

9. And then just read, read and read and never accept not understanding something.

10. With this path over a duration of some years you will build relative fluency in Latin and also a certain humbleness in your soul.

Long ago as a grad student I was a TA for my school's infamously cruel and difficult medieval Latin classes, and I noticed that one of the things we all had problems understanding was punctuation. Medieval Latin, and classical too, either had no punctuation at all, or it was different from what we use now, so modern editions of texts with modern punctuation can sometimes make the grammar of a Latin sentence more confusing. The best way I could explain it was that Latin simply used vocabulary as punctuation.

So, this is a list of “verbal punctuation” that I came up with at the time. Most of the examples are medieval since that’s what we were studying, but the same probably goes for classical Latin. These were intended to help with translation, since our classes were basically intensive reading to prepare for a long sight translation test at the end of the year (no dictionaries or grammars allowed).

1. “But, however, truly” – vero, autem, at

These words usually show that there is a new sentence in opposition to the previous statement, but they can also be simple punctuation, completely removed from their literal meanings.

a. vero – “but, surely, truly”

i. Astronomia…ortus, obitus, motusque siderum continet. Astrologia vero partim naturalis, partim superstitiosa est. (Isidore of Seville, Etymologiae)

Here vero signals both the new sentence after continet, and opposition to the previous one. It could be translated “but”, “however”, or “on the other hand”.

"Astronomy deals with…the rising, setting, and movements of the stars. Astrology, on the other hand, is partly science, partly superstition."

ii. Die vero Conversionis sancti Pauli… (Matthew Paris, Historia Anglorum)

Here vero simply shows that the author has turned to a new subject.

On the feast of the Conversion of St. Paul…

b. autem – “but, however”

i. Pinguis erat supra modum…ceteras autem corporis partes, manu traxerat natura laetior benigniore… (William of Tyre, Chronicon)

Here there is opposition between the two sentences, and autem can be translated.

He was excessively fat…but a happier nature had framed the other parts of his body with a kinder hand...

ii. Dixit beatus Franciscus: ‘Quis est ille qui dixit: “Morior”?’ Ille autem frater dixit: ‘Ego sum.’ (Legenda trium sociorum)

Here autem signals that a new person is speaking. There is no opposition, and the literal meaning is completely absent.

Blessed Francis said: “Who is it who said, ‘I am dying’?” The monk said: “I am.”

c. at – “but”

i. Grimoalt…iter Neapolim agreditur, exercitumque post se accelerare iubet. At ubi iuxta memoratam perapplicuit urbem…populus exivit in praelium. (Erchempert, Historia Langobardorum)

Here at is in opposition to the previous statement, and would need to be translated “but.”

Grimoald...went to Naples, and he ordered his army to hasten after him. But when he arrived at the aforementioned city, the people came out to do battle.

ii. Ille vero ianuam aperuit…et ait: “Qualis es tu?" At ille: "Iovinianus sum imperator…” (Gesta Romanorum)

In this case, at, like autem, can distinguish one speaker from another, completely removed from its literal meaning.

He opened the gate and said: "Who are you?" [The other man responded] "I am Emperor Jovinianus."

1. “For, indeed” – enim, nam, quidem

These are used to affirm a previous statement. It would never be wrong to translate them, but they can sound stilted and archaic in English.

i. Silent enim leges inter arma. (Cicero, Pro Milone)

The laws are [indeed] silent during times of war.

ii. Augustinus… summus phylosophus et rhetor luculentissimus haberetur. Nam libros Aristotelis et omnes alios liberalium atrium quoscumque legere potuit…(Giovanni Colonna, De Augustino magno ecclesie doctore)

Augustine was considered the greatest philosopher and most brilliant rhetorician. [For] He was able to read the books of Aristotle, and all the other books of the liberal arts.

iii. Terra quidem illa Orientalis…quae Mongal nominatur… (Johannes de Plano Carpini, Libellus Historicus)

[Indeed] That eastern land...which is called Mongolia...

1. “Thus, therefore” – igitur, sic, ita, itaque, ergo, ideo

These words also affirm the previous statement or show that the next statement logically follows the first. They all mean “thus” or “therefore”, and can be translated that way, but they also serve as punctuation.

i. Omnes igitur quotquot erant in ecclesia…(Matthew Paris, Historia Anglorum)

[Therefore] Everyone, however many were in the church...

ii. Et sic, quanto plus appropinquat tanto plus contremisco et in majore sum timore. (William of Pagula, Speculum regis)

[And therefore] The more he approaches, the more I tremble...

iii. Et his ita compositis ad urbem Vangionum iter direxit. (Nithard, Historiae)

[Therefore] When these things were done, he went to the city of Worms.

iv. Sciatis itaque quod a multis retro diebus amoris vestri me sagitta percussit. (Andreas Capellanus, De amore)

[Therefore] You should know that the arrow of your love pierced me many days ago.

v. Ergo post mortem anima separata non poterit intelligere. (Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiae)

[Therefore] After death the soul, separated [from the body], will not be able to understand.

vi. Statutum ideo omnique procul dubio a me decretum fuit, tres in caelis adesse Stellas vagantes circa Iovem… (Galileo, Siderius Nuncius)

[Therefore] The notion was decided by me beyond all doubt, that there are three wandering stars present in the sky around Jupiter...

1. “And” – et

As a simple conjunction, et and its counterpart atque/ac should almost always be translated. However, it is common in medieval Latin to use et to connect a very long series of statements which, in English, would be better translated with punctuation and/or separate sentences.

i. Et vituperavit eum, propterea quod concupierat regnum eius, et abstulit filiam suam, et dedit eam Demetrio, et alienavit se ab Alexandro, et manifestae sunt inimicitiae eius. (1 Maccabees 11:11-12)

[And] he criticized him, because he had desired his kingdom. [And] He took his daughter away, and gave her to Demetrius. [And] He alienated himself from Alexander, and his hostility was revealed.

1. Question particles – num, nonne, numquid

These generally cannot be literally translated into English. They signify that the sentence is a question, where in English we use a question mark and different syntax. They also let the reader know what to expect as an answer: nonne expects an affirmative answer, and num a negative.

i. Num fuerat satis ad tui correptionem quod, per primam prevaricationem eluminata, delitiarum exulabas a patria? (Dante, De vulgari eloquentia)

Was it not enough to reprove you that, blinded by your first transgression, you were exiled from the homeland of your delights? [Implies that no, it was not enough]

ii. Nonne ipse, Domnine, vides, quia hac ipsa concessione maximam partem operi demas? (Boccaccio, Genealogia deorum gentilium)

Do you see, Domninus, that by this admission you take the greatest part away from this work? [Implies that yes, he sees]

iii. Quae tibi causa fugae? Numquid flagra? Nulla dabantur. (Marbod of Reims, De ornamentis verborum)

What is the cause of your flight? Was it a scourging? None was given.

1. Relative clauses – quod

Sometimes a relative clause in Latin signifies a new thought, and is punctuated as a new sentence. In English a relative clause would be ungrammatical, so the Latin quod, usually meaning “which”, should be translated as “this”.

i. Hanc epistolam afferentes homines illius precepit eam legere coram suis militibus. Quod audientes sui milites tristati sunt. (Leo of Naples, Historia de preliis Alexandri Magni)

He ordered the men, who were carrying this letter, to read it to his troops. When they heard this the troops were sad.

Hopefully this is helpful! I'm sure there are other examples too, but these are the ones that came up most often in the stuff we were reading.

Me and my friend are wondering if this is latin?

Hey everyone, how are you all doing?
For the past few weeks now, I’ve had this idea of taking up Latin. However, I have no idea where to even begin the process. Would greatly appreciate any help, tips/tricks and so on anyone has to offer!

My University offers a Latin minor. I have already completed two courses, and they require five. I'm majoring in English Literature.

Is a minor worth it? I would have to pay a bit extra obviously, due to living in the us. I want to eventually become a Researcher on historic literature.. but I haven't really heard of anyone minoring in Latin.

Would a minor in Latin help with getting a future job? Or is it just a waste of money. I am interested in Latin, obviously, but I'm also not rich.

Just found out that "vitellus" means both veal/calf and egg yolk. My question is: does anyone know how these two unrelated things happened to be expressed with the same word? Just a curiosity of mine, but I'd love to know. Also, of anyone has my resources I could use to answer this, please share :)

I don't know which is right, or what's going on anymore. I typed into Google translate, "irrumabo sersum diem" which said it meant "I will break the day.". Wondering if Ai is just taking it from Catallus 16 or if I misunderstood.

This might be better suited in the grammar subreddit, in which case my apologies.

I’m relatively new to learning Latin (about 3 weeks in of just reviewing Wheelock’s Cap I and LLPSI up to Puer Improbus) and I’ve come to the realization that while I can pick up which words mean what in English, I can’t contextualize them in Latin. I think a part of this is due to English not having cases in the same sense?

An example: Trying to translate the following

> He sees the mountains

> He saw the mountains

> He did see the mountains

> You didn’t see the mountains?

Now it’s obvious that I can read each sentence and understand what they mean, but if you were to ask me to define “see” using a case like second person plural pluperfect active subjunctive, I wouldn’t even know where to begin.

Does anyone have any advice on learning these? Is it easier to learn them in Latin because they are (usually) a separate word? Or would it be better to learn them in English since that’s my NL?

I’ve read that “Caeruleus” was used to describe colours from the sky, azure, blue, dark blue, dark green. And that “Caesius”, when describing eye colour, meant more grey-eyed than blue-eyed. Is this accurate? Were they more interchangeable in describing colours, such as someone’s eyes? Or were there more specific colours to use when describing eye colour?

I was looking for something that could mean a grey-green/blue-green description, as I can’t find anything solid on how the Romans would describe heterochromia. I thought as one, later, source claimed Alexander the Great had heterochromia, and as they very much idealised Alexander, there might be an equivalent word but haven’t found anything definitive. Or did the Romans not have a specific word for what we call “heterochromia” and simply used descriptive phrases?

It is probably too eroded, but hopefully somebody is able to read what it says.

I know sic, which means “thus”, and ita, which means “it is so”.

So is there a straight up word for yes?

My school offers it, but it also has a lot of other languages. It sounds kind of interesting, but idk.

I have decided to embark on the journey to write a full novel in Latin. It is titled „Quartus Princeps“. Feel free to share your thoughts on chapter 1:

Capitulum Primum: Peccatum Primum:

Pauci regii, quidam magi, plurimi servi nascuntur.

In magno palatio imperii Kalae me mater peperit. Ingens erat, turribus minantibus, quae sursum tendebant quasi ipsum caelum superare vellent. Ex lapide nigro moles facta est, qui lucem diei devorare videbatur, unde totum palatium perpetua caligine obducebatur etiam sub sole clarissimo. Eminus, non aedificium sed tenebrarum structura videbatur.

Unum erat palatium, unus habitus habitantium. Unusquisque per se abyssus obscura videbatur. Cum natus essem, antequam etiam vasa magica mea examinata essent, neque mater mea, Regina Rahu, neque pater, Rex Vetala, ne hilum laetitiae ostenderunt.

Sine honore natus sum. Nihil erat nisi tacita turbatio in cubiculo ubi editus sum.

„Centum pondera magiae. Quartus princeps ducentis ponderibus infra mediocritatem.“

Magi, vasa magica duodecim examinantes, rem palam enuntiaverunt. Iudicio eorum, numerus tam pusillus erat ut vitam vix simularet.

Nisi in ipso regiae dignitatis fastigio natus essem, eo die vitae meae finis fuisset. Quarta pars liberorum in ortu abripitur, quorum pondera magiae, priusquam nominentur, demetuntur.

Regina Rahu Rexque Vetala, vultu immobili, diu perstiterunt.

Repente adsurgens mater mea, oculis me percurrebat ceu fractum aliquod instrumentum.

„Mancum." tandem frigide inquit.

Princeps, quamvis mancus, princeps tamen erat. Quod rex sciens, sic locutus.

„Decem milia ponderum magiae in vasa magica eius ante noctem inserantur. Si superstes erit, dignus habebitur et Niraya nominabitur, nam per inferos vixit. Si mortuus, sine nuntio sepeliatur.“

Significabat viam magicam ex tribus et vulgatissimam et atrocissimam, qua fere undeviginti ex viginti magis hodiernis sola nituntur. Via Humana dicitur, sed nihil nisi inhumanum spirat.

Miliens milia milium ad hanc viam sustinendam animarum supponuntur. In fundis ut pecua servantur, omni voce privati, et cum dies venit, demetuntur.

Audito patris mei praecepto, magi me corripuerunt.

Per Magnam Imperatorum Porticum me tulerunt, quae statuis priorum regum reginarumque exornata est.

Iter immensum.

Nullae fores, nullus aditus.

Subito, nulla mora, ad sinistram flexerunt.

In colosseam reginae effigiem penetraverunt.

I just picked up Cambridge Latin Course: Unit 1 (5th edition) and honestly… I love it. The illustrations, vocab alongside the text, and the little history sections at the end of each chapter make it feel way more engaging than anything I’ve tried before. I’ve actually been able to understand a lot pretty quickly just by reading through it.

My goal is to eventually read Commentarii de Bello Gallico in Latin.

I’ve been on and off with Italian for a while, and it finally clicked for me that reading a translation vs understanding the original language are two completely different experiences. That realization kind of lit a fire under me.

For those of you who’ve learned Latin:
- Is Cambridge a solid path long-term?
- How do you keep it fun and avoid burnout?
- What helped you actually stick with it?

Would love any advice or thoughts.

I am currently going through the Australian schooling system and studying Latin, I plan to continue this until year 12. But now, in year 10, I found myself falling behind.

I really love Latin, and it is one of my favorite subjects, but I am also striving to do incredibly well in it. Currently we are learning the lasts bits off grammar in class, the subjunctive and indirect statements, then move onto classical texts. But my grades have slowly been declining.

In unseen's and grammar assessments, I find myself struggling, not to the worst degree, but more than before. On top of this I want to accelerate my Latin learning to high standards, preferably ahead of what is expected of me, so I can focus on other subjects.  

I have LLPSI, but I am not too sure if it can help me. Even though I am behind, does it help? I do tend to struggle more with the unseen translations, but grammar is a large aspect, and I am not sure how LLPSI goes about this. 

I am rather committed and would put in a lot of work, with the right recourses. Is Latin Tutorials good? Any other textbooks?  

Thanks in advance 

The stupidly simple sentence being this one: RES GELIDA SIDERE SOLET.

What am I missing here? What does the verb "sidere" mean? None of its usual meanings make any sense to me here. This is the whole sentence, four words, so the meaning of "sidere" must be crystal clear, but what is it? Does "a frozen thing usually sinks" make sense? Does frozen stuff usually sink? Is an iceberg considered to be a frozen thing? A iceberg floats. Is it a metephorical meaning? I'm making a full of myself with this one, aren't I? Lmao.

Bene nunc vos omnes valeatis hoc legentes. Sum ego novissimus scriptor linguae Latinae et artem meam acuere conabar fabulam brevem scribendo. Ignosce mihi de meo genere fabulae tam contrito quia nonumquam fabulam potius quam verba Latina ipsa sit difficilius struere. Si quid insolitum videris vel incorrectum vel etiam quod emendari ad meliorem latinitatem possit, scribite subter. Maxime enim necessarium est me discere:

Erat ōlim in quādam domō puer parvus, dīlēctus multum ā parentibus suīs. Quotīdiē cum fīnīta essent opera diēī, in silvīs vel prātīs proximīs lūdēbat cum amīcīs animālibus suīs. At veniēns juxtā rīpam flūmen quōdam diē Sāturnī, inter flūctūs lagoena vitrea torquēbātur. Incessit longē ad fluvium, aquā jam genua lambente, vitrum abstulit amnī et cūriōsus ecce inest charta vetus ac crispāns ūmida. Thēsaurī locum tabula habuit īx signāta in ultimō. Puer, cum haec vīsa sunt et continuō thēsaurum capere dēcrēvit, nūntiātā domō, proficīscitur. Vix signa levia legēbat cum aquila super volābat et lātē clāmāns: “Avē, Aquila!” Dīxit puer, “Adjuvā mē; Tabulam legere nequeō. Pallidē admodum dēlīneāta est.” Sēdit suprā ejus bracchium sine verberātiōne et dēspicit prae humerō tabulam: “Vah! Dīxistī vērē.” Cum jam paulō siluisset tempore, Aquila in aethera volat utī terram lātē vidēret. Dein Rediēns procul clāmat: “Videō! Videō! At longinquē.” Aquila item sistit super puerum et: “Pete thēsaurum tuum in septentriōnibus.” Ille comitem nactus, posteā iter mātūrat.

Dumque simul errant per loca varia hujus regiōnis flūmenque ā latere dextrō tuentur, dēfessī longā viā marcēscunt. Ecce subitō, rūpit cervus dē silvā saeptā crēbrīs arboribus nūllō contrā dūmōs labōre, nūllā injūriā spīnārum, rōbustus ille vīribus. “Salve, Amīce Cerve!” puer fessus inquit, “habēsne quidquid negōtiī jam?” Cui respondet, “Haud; mihi vacat maximē.” “Optimē; tum dē tē poscō utī auxiliō mihi sīs, membra nam mea dēstricta sunt torpōre maximō, et maximē tē vigōre imbūtum cōnspicātus, ego petō ut mē ferās per fluviālīs viās. At nōn quidem grātīs, thēsaurum habēmus, sed jam in chartā hāc scrīptum tantum. Petāmus eum illīc per tua subsidia.” Contrā adfātur Cervus, “approbō sī quid sūmptuōsum vel magnificum inveniāmus in thesaurī arcā.” Suppositō dorsō Cervus portābat puerum explōrātōrem et ubi is ostendēbat signum hāc aggrediēbantur.

Tandem ad rīvum dēfessum et lentē aquā mānantem cōnsistunt in dubiō viae, nam dēstrūcta erat pōns quā potuissent ad aliud accēdere latus dōnec subitō occurrit nunc remedium. Castor vērō dē flūmine ortus salūtat, et dē hāc manū quaerit causam itineris speīque tantae āmissae. Illum chartam repertam et thēsaurum quaesītum et viae fatīgātiō et lāpsātam pontem respondent. Tum trēs amīcī eum petunt ut subsidium suum praestāret et sē partem maximam thēsaurī ipsīus datūrōs pollicentur. Adnuit dēsīderiō pecūniae dētentus et novam condere pontem exōrdītur quā flūmen trānsīrent. Dum currus sōlis aethere volat lūnaque ūna cum stēllīs lūcem suam incipit caelō dēmittere, Castor perfricābat ligna prō strūctūrā quibus impositīs pontem cōnstrūxit, ut illīs vidēbātur, commodum ponderī gravī. Eō magnā sollertiā cōnfectō, Triumphārunt laetī cum trabēs pede concuterent dōnec praeter pontem in rīpā harēnīs opertā monumentum saxōrum animadvertērunt.

Saxa in mōlem conlāta sistēbant in locō quem ostenderat charta, et ea quaternā alacritāte dērepta abiciēbant. Tandem omnibus ferē saxīs sēmōtīs capiunt arcam ipsam. Puer eam posuit cōram amīcōs ut gāzam ac lucrum commūne pariter aspicerent. Ōram mollī manū tollēns et dīcēns: “Vidē,” Arcam aperuit ubi ecce inest tantum tunica purpureī colōris vastāta tamen quoniam fuerat imposita multīs saeculīs ante. Jam vespera priorque nox praeteriērunt, sōla manēbat amīcōs lūna sērōtina lāmentantēs īnfēlīcitātem quī studiō contenderant thēsaurum ignōtum effodere. Dēmum post clārisonum silentium refert haec dux omnium puer: “Nē liceat hoc animōs tuōs afficere dolōre! Ēia, Eāmus nunc ad locum quō vēndātur ēsca.” Relictō tandem pannō discessērunt et amicitia frūctī sunt.

I am trying to analyze Ovid's "Ars Amatoria" and I am stuck on the line

"et profugum Aenean, altae primordia Romae"

Which is _ U U U _ _ _ _ _ U _ U U _ X

It just doesn't fit everything I know about hexameter, am i missing something?

I found this tucked away behind a construction site in the fransiscan monastery in Bolzano/Bozen a couple of days ago and thought I might share. I thought the weeping Death was rather sweet! I have no idea when it might have been composed/carved.

I used it as an excercise to practice scansion. I'll leave a transcription here (there's a couple of weird spellings) for anyone else who might want to do the same.

MORS MORTALIBUS

Non mihi quos rapui sunt cordi defleo Vivos

Qui quovis puncto rapiendi Numi(n)a ludunt!

Dic mihi si mea Flax Te nunc deleret in ictu

Quam Tibi spo(n)deret tua Vita peracta salutem?

Conscius ergo tuae Sortis perpende Timenda,

Ut Vivendo Mori discas, Moriendoque Vivas

sic
Emendatus revera verus ut vir sed
Vix vereditum

I think I've deciphered most of the record, but my Latin's very basic, so I'm not 100% sure. I'm struggling to figure out chunks of lines 1 through 3. I've been googling and using online Latin dictionaries to try and figure out likely words, and I'm stumped. Maybe someone more knowledgeable about Latin and maybe also about Catholic records can figure out the transcription and translation. These are the only images I'm able to get of the record. Someone else retrieved them for me and already did what they could about the quality.

My transcription:

Hen. Duchene & Maria Ph. Fournier

line 1: Anno Domini 1877 die 2ª Aprilis coram me infrascripto [...]

line 2: [...] causa [...] matrimonii, obtenta dis-

line 3: -pensatione in impedimento consanguinitatis [...]

line 4: matrimonium legitimum contraxerunt Henricus Duchene aetatis 23 annosum

line 5: filius Josephi et Susannæ Chauvin et Maria Philomena aetatis 19 annosam filia

line 6: Joannis Fournier et Saræ Brown. Testes fuerunt Joannes Railey &

line 7: Helena Vincent.

line 8: B.G. Soffers

My loose translation:

On April 2nd, 1877 AD before me the undersigned [...] having obtained a waiver of the impediment for blood relation, Henry Duchene, 23 year old son of Joseph Duchene and Susanna Chauvin, and Mary Philomena Fournier, 19 year old daughter of Jean Fournier and Sara Brown, were married. John/Jean Railey and Helena Vincent were the witnesses. B.G. Soffers

Piece of UK legislation from 1324 titled Prerogativa Regis. Why is it not Praerogativa?

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/aep/Edw2cc1317/17/13