Apostolic Creed - Late Antiquity vs Cicero

I will not pretend that the Apostolic Creed was not by the Apostles. I will however say, it is possible the translation to Latin came after an original Greek text.

DELPHINA ROSE ART : Apostles’ Creed (Credo in Deum) — Gregorian Chant
https://delphinaroseart.com/apostles-creed-latin-gregorian-chant-credo-deum/

Credo in Deum Patrem omnipotentem, Creatorem caeli et terrae, et in Iesum Christum, Filium Eius unicum, Dominum nostrum, qui conceptus est de Spiritu Sancto, natus ex Maria Virgine, passus sub Pontio Pilato, crucifixus, mortuus, et sepultus, descendit ad infernos, tertia die resurrexit a mortuis, ascendit ad caelos, sedet ad dexteram Dei Patris omnipotentis, inde venturus est iudicare vivos et mortuos. Credo in Spiritum Sanctum, sanctam Ecclesiam catholicam, sanctorum communionem, remissionem peccatorum, carnis resurrectionem, vitam aeternam. Amen.

The above is how someone in possibly Late Antiquity set the words in Latin in a way that was stylistically setting the tone for Medieval Latin.

Imagine someone with a perfect Ciceronian Latin, like Pliny the Younger, had had a bit more curiosity than speaking of "horrible" or "criminal superstition" and had come across this text.

Credunt deum esse Patrem et omnium rerum potentem, creasse caelum necnon terram. Credunt et Eum habere Filium unicum, Iesum ton Christon, quem Domini loco habent et quem credunt conceptum de Spiritu sancto, natum e Maria quae virgo remanet, passum Pontio Pilato procuratore in cruce, mortuum et sepultum, in Haden descensum ... dicunt eum tertia die post mortem resurrexisse a mortuis, postea ascensum ad caelos, ubi sedet ad dexteram Dei Patris omnipotentis dum inde veniat ad vivos et mortuos iudicandos. Credunt sanctum esse Spiritum ex quo conceptus Filius et sanctam et ecclesian quem constituunt, et se ipsos sanctos quorum communio est ipsa ecclesia, se vel eam habere potestatem ad remittenda peccata, et coram iudicio Iesu et caro omnium resurgere debere et aeternaliter vivere. Quo dicto, hebraico vocabulo dicunt "amen".

Caesar's prose would be closer to the actual text, and even closer if he had come to believe it and stated it "from the inside" ... but not identic. "Inde venturus iudicare" would at least be "ut iudicet" and probably also rather "dum inde veniat" as I put it, connecting to "sedet" : He will cease to sit up there, when He comes down here to judge the living and the dead in the valley of Josaphat./HGL

Arma virumque cano in ASCII

"In case you were wondering, this is what the first four lines of the Aeneid look like in ASCII Binary."

Credits to Anthony Gibbins.

Is Medieval Latin like Classic Latin?

Kind of, depends, who is writing when.

The least like Classic Latin is when Gregory of Tours, Fredegar of Tours and Jordanes write a Latin which is the spelling of the proto-romance spoken language.

Meanwhile, in England Venerable Bede writes a Latin which has already the status of Classic language over there, which for more than a century and a half has been learned as a second language.

And with Alcuin, this one comes to France, triggering a "language divorce" between the spoken and written languages of St Gregory of Tours:

• the written language acquires a new pronunciation from England, along with better mastery of the grammatical details, becomes what is usually called "Medieval Latin", that is, he Latin of Venerable Bede;
• the spoken language acquires new much more phonetic spellings, first sporadically at Strasburg Oaths, and privately as priests prepare their sermons, later systematically, this becomes what is now known as Provençal and French.

Either way, both Medieval Latin proper (English invention involving St. Bede and Bl. Alcuin) and a Late Ancient Latin in the Middle Ages (product of language drift in France, Spain, written by St Gregory, unknown Fredegar, half known Jordanes), will involve words with other uses than Classical ones, and with words borrowed from other languages or hybrids (gyrovagus in St Benedict's rule is a given when it comes to these).

Imagine you wanted to read Judeo-Spanish, well, one step would be to familiarise yourself with one of the Latin alphabet spellings, or learning to read Estrangelo. But is that enough?

I just looked up "blancura" in a standard Spanish dictionary. It means, predictably, whiteness. There is a less predictable sense which is not mentioned there. Perhaps because it doesn't exist in Standard Spanish. In Judeo-Spanish, "blankura" is sometimes used by women as an euphemism for "karbón". Or as a prophecy, since once it's burning, some will be red, some will be yellow, some will be white.

As long as you think "blankura" is - like "blancura" - simply "whiteness", that's incompetent in Judeo-Spanish. By the way, I'm just a beginner there.

Also, a Spanish dictionary will not tell you that "sik sik" is Judeo-Spanish for "often" (borrowed from Turkish).

Well, there is a very similar displacement between Classic and Medieval usages of Latin.

That is why in Sweden or Germany at least, Medieval Spanish is a separate study, it presumes you are already familiar with Classic Latin, but you take separate courses just for that.

Is this the case in France? Or do you have to get to a Medieval history section of a history faculty to discover it?

Hans Georg Lundahl
Cergy
St. Mary Magdalene de Pazzi
29.V.2019

By the way, I looked up "status" in Niermeyer online:

status:

1. stalle — choir-stall.

2. étal — market-stall.

3. poste d'observation et de combat — guard-post.

4. estage de château — castle ward.

5. mesure de longueur — linear measure.

6. *condition juridique des personnes — legal status of persons.

7. (ni fallor) progéniture d'un serf — progeny, offspring of a serf.

8. chevage — poll-tax.

9. validité — validity.

10. *état — state.

11. inventaire — inventory.

More than I knew of, though I knew that "state" was not a Classic sense, since in Classic times that was expressed (or roughly similar was expressed) as "civitas".

Feet and Martyrologies

Imagine you live in a village!

You have never heard of the metre system, and while you may have heard of a foot (which is a little longer than your foot at the end of your leg, if you take it from heel to toe), perhaps you have no foot measure at all, perhaps you came across two or three different ones of different length in the village (like first inhabitants came from two or three different villages, and they brought different foot measures along).

Suppose further, you had no town or city very close by, the king's capital was even further away. But you had heard of the foot (still not meaning one of the two you hopefully have at the end of your legs), and you also wanted a foot measure. Perhaps this model I'll propose is a bit unrealistic, I'll come back to why and then correct it, but first I'll propose it.

I found it in a book on the history of mathematics which I saw and loved decades ago. Twelve men (dressed in Medieval clothes on the picture) line up, each putting his right foot toes behind the heel of the one before him. Either it was a stretched string they were all lining up on, or a straight line drawn in the gravel or by chalk. The full length from the toes of the first to the heel of the last is then divided into twelve, and you have a foot.

From how I recall the illustration, they had shoes on. This would explain why the foot measure is (as said) a little longer and that distinctly so than the length of a human foot from toe to heel. Especially if at the same time you arranged a space so heel and toe did not touch, or if the shoes were the longtoed type known as Krakow shoes, which was popular in part of the Middle Ages (14th C, second half I think and definitely after the death of St Alexis Falconieri).

Now, where is this model unrealistic? In certain areas with independent peasantries, like Alps or like Basque country, it isn't. Or similarily in the remoter parts of Sweden where Helsings and Yamts were slowly pushing Lapps further North. But often, and that most parts of England or France, a village would not be so autonomous, it would have a lord who was typically but not always a knight. He could also be a squire, permanently, though being a squire was often a stage on someone's road to knighthood. But noblemen of certain ranks (like a Count or later Duke of Austria) would have permanent squires who were adults (one who went with duke Leopold V to the Third Crusade was involved in taking Richard Lionheart captive and in founding Wiener Neustadt* - according to a novel in which he is the hero, not sure if he is fictitious). But he could be a priest, a bishop, an abbot (with his monastery), a rich burgher, and even a collectivity, like a university or a hospital. Back then, kings didn't give hospitals or universities yearly portions of tax money, to be squabbled over, he gave them land with its serfs or tenants. What they would otherwise have given the king or his reeve, they gave that collectivity.

So, the village would more typically get its foot measure from the landlord or from the nearest town, so, the twelve men here imagined (in that book of history of mathematics) would be just any villagers, but men who served the landlord, or burghers in town. But even so, this method with twelve men's feet could be used. If it ever was, and if so where, is another question.

Apart from long toed shoes, one explanation why the the foot measure is longer than the human foot where it touches the ground is, if it is taken individually (this would be from Egyptian antiquity, but could obviously be reused in Middle Ages), it is taken from big toe not just to where the heel touches the ground, but around it, so as to be a cobbler's measure, to where the heel ends anatomically at the ankle. To make this square with previously outlined method (if it was ever used) one could make a definite length, like a hand's breadth, a short span, intervene between heels and toes all the way. If the cobbler's string was an older method, shaping a longer foot measure, this would have been how one avoided drastically shortening the foot.

Now, suppose several villages in Yamtland or in Alps of Austria or Switzerland or in Gipuzkoa were deciding to unify a so obtained foot measure. One way would of course be to repeat the process with one man from each of twelve villages, but another one would be to take the original twelve foot long strings from twelve villages, add their lengths and divide the total by twelve equal parts, and then again divide this twelve foot length into twelve parts.

Now, here is exactly where I think this process (whether it occurred or not) can be a parable for something which arguably happened in the Church.

You see, the martyrologies we gave (each spanning mainly martyrs' feasts at first, but also some non-martyr feasts with a fixed date, like Christmas, and adding as time went by also feasts of many non-martyr saints), they are all of them relating facts from all over the Roman Empire and at least some of them beyond. This means that each locality having a bishop and a martyrology has in this martyrology facts for which the local tradition there (including in this case very clearly local written tradition) cannot be the primary source. How did they do it?

I suppose for my own part, and I read a paper by Stephan Borgehammar about a year ago, which I recall as similar (will ask him for reference), so I am probably reproducing his thought (he is a Church Historian), each martyrdom was in proportion to possibilities reported to all over the Church as soon as possible. But supposing someone died in a persecution without all Catholics celebrating his heavenly birthday first time over a year later, suppose some of the news did not duly arrive to all places, and so martyrologies came to diverge, what then?

Well, one possibility would be, as time passed by, especially after Constantinian peace 313, bishops sent each other (especially sending to Rome or, after that in importance, other major city like Antioch and Alexandria) the local martyrologies. Let's see how this could have worked out for today's entry:

A possible proto-martyrology from Rome:

[Romae], via Flaminia, natalis sancti Valentini, Presbyteri et Martyris, qui, post multa sanitatum et doctrinae insignia, fustibus caesus et decollatus est, sub Claudio Caesare.

Item [Romae] sanctorum Martyrum Vitalis, Feliculae et Zenonis.

[Ibidem depositio sancti Cyrilli, Episcopi et Confessoris; qui, una cum sancto Methodio, similiter Episcopo et fratre suo, cujus dies natalis octavo Idus Aprilis recensetur, multas Slavicas gentes earumque Reges ad fidem Christi perduxit. Horum tamen Sanctorum festivitas Nonis Julii celebratur.] [Probably later addition since living later, when more than local martyrologies already existed.]

A possible proto-martyrology from Interamna Lirenas (near the current Pignataro Interamna):

[Interamnae] sancti Valentini, Episcopi et Martyris, qui, post diutinam caedem mancipatus custodiae, et, cum superari non posset, tandem, mediae noctis silentio ejectus de carcere, decollatus est, jussu Praefecti urbis Placidi.

[Interamnae] sanctorum Proculi, Ephebi et Apollonii Martyrum, qui, cum ad sancti Valentini corpus vigilias agerent, Leontii Consularis jussu comprehensi sunt, et gladio caesi.

A possible proto-martyrology from Alexandria, Egypt:

[Alexandriae] sanctorum Martyrum Cyrionis Presbyteri, Bassiani Lectoris, Agathonis Exorcistae, et Moysis; qui omnes, igne combusti, evolaverunt ad caelum.

[Alexandriae] sanctorum Martyrum Bassi, Antonii et Protolici, qui demersi sunt in mare.

Item [Alexandriae] sanctorum Dionysii et Ammonii decollatorum.

A possible proto-martyrology from Naples:

[Neapoli, in Campania, sancti Nostriani Episcopi, qui in catholica fide contra haereticam pravitatem tuenda exstitit insignis.] [Probably later addition since living later, when more than local martyrologies already existed.]

A possible proto-martyrology from Ravenna:

[Ravennae] sancti Eleuchadii, Episcopi et Confessoris.

A possible proto-martyrology from Bithynia:

In Bithynia sancti Auxentii Abbatis

.

A possible proto-martyrology from Sorrento:

[Apud Surrentum sancti Antonini Abbatis, qui e monasterio Cassinensi, a Longobardis devastato, in solitudinem ejusdem urbis secessit; ibique, sanctitate celebris, obdormivit in Domino. Ipsius corpus multis quotidie miraculis, et praesertim in energumenis liberandis, effulget.] [Probably later addition since living later, when more than local martyrologies already existed.]

Original part common to many martyrologies:

Et alibi aliorum plurimorum sanctorum Martyrum et Confessorum, atque sanctarum Virginum. R. Deo gratias.

Placenames were added when conflating martyrologies, perhaps, but probably in the case of good communications, could have been there from the start, even before 313, as the martyrology was not meant to be purely local. Here is how it looks now:

Romae, via Flaminia, natalis sancti Valentini, Presbyteri et Martyris, qui, post multa sanitatum et doctrinae insignia, fustibus caesus et decollatus est, sub Claudio Csesare.

Ibidem depositio sancti Cyrilli, Episcopi et Confessoris; qui, una cum sancto Methodio, similiter Episcopo et fratre suo, cujus dies natalis octavo Idus Aprilis recensetur, multas Slavicas gentes earumque Reges ad fidem Christi perduxit. Horum tamen Sanctorum festivitas Nonis Julii celebratur.

Item Romae sanctorum Martyrum Vitalis, Feliculae et Zenonis.

Interamnae sancti Valentini, Episcopi et Martyris, qui, post diutinam caedem mancipatus custodiae, et, cum superari non posset, tandem, mediae noctis silentio ejectus de carcere, decollatus est, jussu Praefecti urbis Placidi.

Alexandriae sanctorum Martyrum Cyrionis Presbyteri, Bassiani Lectoris, Agathonis Exorcistae, et Moysis; qui omnes, igne combusti, evolaverunt ad caelum.

Interamnae sanctorum Proculi, Ephebi et Apollonii Martyrum, qui, cum ad sancti Valentini corpus vigilias agerent, Leontii Consularis jussu comprehensi sunt, et gladio caesi.

Alexandriae sanctorum Martyrum Bassi, Antonii et Protolici, qui demersi sunt in mare.

Item Alexandriae sanctorum Dionysii et Ammonii decollatorum.

Neapoli, in Campania, sancti Nostriani Episcopi, qui in catholica fide contra haereticam pravitatem tuenda exstitit insignis.

Ravennae sancti Eleuchadii, Episcopi et Confessoris.

In Bithynia sancti Auxentii Abbatis.

Apud Surrentum sancti Antonini Abbatis, qui e monasterio Cassinensi, a Longobardis devastato, in solitudinem ejusdem urbis secessit; ibique, sanctitate celebris, obdormivit in Domino. Ipsius corpus multis quotidie miraculis, et praesertim in energumenis liberandis, effulget.

Et alibi aliorum plurimorum sanctorum Martyrum et Confessorum, atque sanctarum Virginum. R. Deo gratias.

A each church, probably entries would also include death dates of benefactors one needed to pray for. This was certainly the case later on (with varied, but already rich martyrologies already there) in Necrologium Lundense and its Liber Daticus, where the part relating to benefactors has been misinterpreted by Vilhelm Moberg as Medieval Church only being interested in money ... no, the money from a gift could be long since lost or used up, and the canons would still be praying for the benefactor's soul.

As you can gather from the comparison between the supposed proto-versions and the extant version, even if it may be overschematised about pre-313 "localism", the entries were copied and inserted, this partly in chronological order, partly in order of importance (Sts Cyril and buried in Rome was obviously later than some of the entries below, but since he and St Method had converted so many Slavic nations or kingdoms, this burial was placed as second most important entry of today). Once this was done, the older ones in could be discarded, serve as palimpsest or be used for packaging or sth. And this would explain why we have the entries now only in martyrologies compiled many centuries after the original entries were made.

But that does not mean nothing was written for centuries, and then martyrologies produced wholesale centuries after the facts, as some seem to imagine.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Nanterre UL
St. Valentine's Day
14.II.2019

PS, if you didn't already get it, I am much more certain of the entries (generally speaking, they are not inerrant Scripture, only infallible as to morals) in martyrologies, than I am about modern histories of the sciences, including mathematics./HGL

* Wiener Neustadt [veena(r) noyshutt] means Viennese Newtown or ... "Newton at Vienna" if you like. It's 50 km or 31 miles south of Vienna, which in German is Wien. To be neither confused nor separated from Wein [vine], which is German for wine. As to the squire ... the local legend actually says "Einer von Herzog Leopolds Dienern, der den englischen König gut kannte," (one of duke Leopold's servants, who knew the English king well). And another one actually says it was the kitchen chef of a hunting castle "Als der Küchenmeister nach einiger Zeit nachschaute, ob das Spanferkel schön braun gebraten sei, erkannte er in dem Pilger König Richard, den er während des Kreuzzuges oft gesehen hatte." (as the chief cook after a while looked if the suckling pig was fried nicely brown, he recognised in the Pilgrim King Richard, whom he had often seen during the Crusade). Servant and cook are not incompatible with squire, but "squire" could also have been added to make a hero see some action.

Why are Languages Different?

They have different words, right? English has "gloves" and German has "Hand-Schuhe".

Words that are "same word" are pronounced differently, right? "Hand-Schuhe" is composed of "Hand" = "hand", but it is pronounced "hunt" and of "Schuhe" = "shoes" ... wait, the stem is pronounced the same ...

And endings are different ... plural of "shoe" is "shoes" - add an -s, while plural of "Schuh" (same pronunciation as "shoe") is "Schuhe" as just mentioned, add an -e.

If this were all, learning a foreign language would be more straight-forward than it is ... here is one real thorough difference, namely basic grammar, sentence building, we study English and Latin, for four clauses in Genesis 11:1-2.

Genesis chapter 11: [1] And the earth was of one tongue, and of the same speech. (1) [2] And when they removed from the east, (2) they found a plain in the land of Sennaar, (3) and dwelt in it. (4)

Geneseos caput 11: [1] Erat autem terra labii unius, et sermonum eorumdem. (1) [2] Cumque proficiscerentur de oriente, (2) invenerunt campum in terra Senaar, (3) et habitaverunt in eo. (4)

And now for the clauses in English and in Latin:

1 Eng

and [conjunction comes before]
the earth [subject which comes before]
was [finite verb which comes before]
of one tongue and of the same speech [compliment]

1 Lat

erat [finite verb is in singular]
autem [conjunction can be tucked in after first word!]
terra [this noun could be nominative, and if so singular, so is probably subject of the finite singular verb]
labii unius, et sermonum eorundem [and here is a compliment which is not in nominative - though after erat it could have been]

2 Eng

And when [conjunctions come before]
they [subject which comes before]
removed [finite verb which comes before]
from the east, [compliment]

2 Lat

Cumque [conjunctions are joined]
proficiscerentur [subject in plural is understood from finite verb in plural]
de oriente, [compliment in non-nominative]

3 Eng

they [subject - neutral "they" indicates identity of subjects with previous - comes before]
found [finite verb which comes before]
a plain [compliment of accusative]
in the land of Sennaar, [while prepositional compliment could have been preposed ...]

3 Lat

invenerunt [finite verb in plural indicates subject in plural, no subject stated implies same subject as previous]
campum [compliment of accusative is an accusative]
in terra Senaar, [prepositional compliment in Latin also could have been changed as to position, but it's not a unique privilege, so could "campum" since marked by accusative]

4 Eng

and [conjunction comes before]
[subject omitted, as per identity with previous subject]
dwelt [finite verb comes before]
in it. [prepopositional compliment - neutral "it" indicates identity with previous compliment]

4 Lat

et [conjunction comes before! yeah!]
habitaverunt [finite verb includes subject, and no subject stated implies same subject as previous - as long as number and person are the same]
in eo. [prepositional compliment - masculine "is, eius, ei, eum, eo" indicates identity with "campus" which is masculine]

If you have been taught dancing, you may say "English and Latin do different dance moves" ... and that is summing it up very well.

If you have ever wondered why you were taught grammar in your own language, despite understanding it, well, in some complicated sentences being able to parse them actually helps, in any language, but mostly : it is so you shall be able to learn a foreign language, especially Latin or Greek. And this last, well, Latin and Greek are the languages a lot of the terms come from, so your grammar terms are best adapted to learning these and similar ones.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Nanterre UL
Pope St. Pius X
3.IX.2018

Did Popes Claim to Be God? No.

A just possibly correct Latin text, to the left, a false English translation to the right:



Credere autem Dominum Deum nostrum Papam-conditorem dictae decratelis, et istius, sinc non potuisse statuere, prout statuit, haereticum censeretur.

Quoted in John Treat, The Catholic Faith, or, Doctrines of the Church of Rome contrary to Scripture (1888) : 536.

His translation is:

"but to believe that our Lord God the Pope, the establisher of said decretal, and of this, could not decree as he did decree, should be accounted heretical."

A better translation (if the reference is genuine) is:

But to believe that our Lord God could not so constitute the Pope - author of said decretal and the other one - as he did constitute him, would be accounted heretical.

I am a Latinist.

I can tell you that the translator simply fucked up which accusative should be the subject one in accusative and infinitive clause and which one was only object in the clause and would have been in accusative whatever kind of clause it was.

This is one of the cases where Latin has some ambiguity, and some people are either incompetent at Latin or jumping to the reading which would damn papacy as papolatry./HGL

PS. See also:

Beati mundo corde : The truth about the anti-Catholic charge of “Lord God the Pope”
https://klaravonassisi.wordpress.com/tag/lord-god-the-pope/

I found it after publishing above. I copy the conclusions:

• i) The interpolated (possibly forged?)statement does not appear in the original, but only in copies dated many years (in the case of the Paris edition, over 350 years (1325 till 1685) after the original was written.
• ii) As glosses of their very nature deal with commentaries on canon law, they are unrelated to doctrine or doctrinal pronouncements and are not issued by the pope. Hence this inserted text could not be used (even if present in the original) as proof the pope was teaching falsehood.
• iii) The insertion of a forger of these words at a later date do not in any way affect the truth of the divine institution of the papacy, any more than insertion of words into a copy of the Bible changes the Bible’s authenticity.
• iv) The statement of one Father A. Pereira (see below) is invalid for the same reason mentioned in iii)

In other words, possibly even the quote by John Treat is a fake, possibly the Paris edition inserted sth meaning sth else, like what I translated. If it is a fake, 1685 is a year in which Protestants, Gallicans and Jansenists were already around and eager to smudge the Papal supremacy in the Church for diverse reasons (heresy in Protestants, patriotism of exaggerated and misplaced type in Gallicans, heretic opinion verging on and leading later to schism in Jansenists). So, there is nothing totally improbable in it being a fake./HGL

Si Boccace n'avait pas eu l'italien à écrire?

Répliques Assorties : Linguistique médiévale d'Italie (quora) · Φιλολoγικά/Philologica : Si Boccace n'avait pas eu l'italien à écrire?

Alors, il aurait masqué l'italien à peu près comme ceci en latin:

Texte de Boccace

Ma già vicini al fiume pervenuti, gli venner prima che ad alcun vedute sopra la riva di quello ben dodici gru, le quali tutte in un piè dimoravano, si come quando dormono soglion fare. Per che egli prestamente mostratele a Currado, disse :

- Assai bene potete, messer, vedere che iersera vi dissi il vero, che le gru non hanno se non una coscia e un piè, se voi riguardate a quelle che colà stanno.

Le même texte

"écrit comme du latin"

Magis iam vicini ad flumen perventi, illi venerunt primum quam ad aliquem unum visi supra ripam eius bene duodicem grus, quales omnes in uno pede demorabant, sicut quomodo quando dormont solunt facere. Per quod ille prestamente monstratis illis ad Curradum, dixit :

- Assatis bene poteste, mi senior, videre quod heri sero vobis dixi verum, quod grus non habunt si non unam coxam et unum pedem, si vos regardate ad quales quae ecce illo stant.

Le texte a été repéré dans cet article wikipédien:

Wikipedia : Histoire de la langue italienne
a linea Troisième couronne
https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Histoire_de_la_langue_italienne#Troisi.C3.A8me_couronne

J'ai pris certaines libertés syntaxiques, notamment de prendre "gli venner prima che ad alcun vedute sopra la riva di quello ben dodici gru" comme ayant pour sujet "ben dodici gru" et "venner vedute" comme prédicat et "gli ... prima che ad alcun" comme complet de datif ou d'objet indirecte. Et bien entendu, s'il avait eu le latin comme modèle, les articles définis auraient été supprimés ("nel latino no si dice il il"), il aurait su que "di quello" pouvait s'exprimer économiquement comme "eius" et des choses pareil, qui auraient différencié sa langue soigné un peu de l'italien.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Mairie du III
Tous les défunts fidèles
2.XI.2017

PS, si ce n'était pas obvie, ceci fut le traitement que l'italien subit pour être écrit avant St François d'Assise./HGL

Una Cum Rege Nostro N

This is from a Missal from 1806.

Belgium under the late King used to have this insertion. It was the man who abdicated for one day instead of ratifying abortion.

Now, why would England get this in a Missal, when its Kings were heretics and known to be such?

Well, that is like asking why a Sedevacantist is using a Missal with "una cum Papa Nostro N." in the text : he doesn't read the line, but he hopes to be reading it as soon as there is a Catholic and admitted Pope around to read it about.

In 1806, under George III, this line was certainly omitted. One was probably hoping that George IV would publically convert, which would have implied the right and for a priest obeying that order from Rome even duty to read the line. It is possible that George III opposing Napoleon and abolishing slavery was taken as a hope of his converting himself, and George IV married in secret a Catholic woman, whom later he repudiated.

So, the answer was perhaps as simple as : Rome was hoping for a Catholic monarch in England.

It is also possible that some were reading "together with our King Henry Edward" - the last direct Stuart claimant actually was not just a Catholic, but a Catholic priest and Cardinal of the Roman Church. He is buried in the Vatican, in St Peter's Basilica.

This is not a sign that any Catholic priest was praying "una cum rege nostro Georgio" as long as George III had not converted.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Nanterre UL
St. Cleophas
25.IX.2017

Credits:

https://archive.org/details/a550137400unknuoft

PS, Fr. Cekada says:

"But in any event, as regards the priest’s altar Missal itself, the liturgical commentators are clear: The Missal of Pius V discontinued the mention of the king or civil rulers in the Te Igitur, and the practice was allowed only by way of privilege (as in Spain and Austria), where the ruler was a Catholic."

Obviously, an English King converting and risking his throne to be Catholic would have been worthy of that privilege. We can count on the privilege having been granted beforehand to automatically be valid from the day an English monarch was again Catholic - or of Stuarts, like Henry Edward, enjoying it./HGL

There are Guys who Think Latin is an Analytic Language

I suggest they try to present Chinese as a Polysynthetic one, while they are at it, bungling language typology!

Do you know what I found? Well, first, what was I looking for? I was looking for "fishing" as in the trade practised by some of Christ's disciples on lake Genesareth. In order to contrast it with agricultura and commercium. I though piscatus could be the word, but wanted an online check to be sure.

You know what was the first hit? Or second after a totally irrelevant wiktionary hit on the Spanish and Italian word pesca, involving both the word for fishing and the word for persica, peach, which involved - unlike the relevant meaning of pesca - a reference to Latin.

Well, here is this second hit:

IDl : How to Say Fishing in Latin
https://www.indifferentlanguages.com/words/fishing/latin

And here is the explanation:

If you want to know how to say fishing in Latin, you will find the translation here. We hope this will help you to understand Latin better.

Here is the translation and the Latin word for fishing:

piscandi

Check out other translations to the Latin language:

Er, no thanks!

Piscandi is not a word, it is a word form. It is not a noun meaning fishing, it is a form of the verb "to fish", and it is the form which is the gerund in the genitive. Here is a way in which you can use it:

Ibamus ad fluvium piscandi causa / intentione.

We were walking toward the river for the sake / in the intention of fishing.

Obviously, you can also translate the latter of the two as:

We were walking toward the river in the intention to fish.

Or even more fluently ... intending to fish.

But the context where I wanted "fishing" was not this one. I said "agricultura est forsan dignior piscatu inquantum securior" commenting on Cicero's words about agriculture. And I said Cicero's preference of agriculture over fishing is doubtful, due to apostles being fishermen, but if it is in any way true, it is because of it being more secure to plow and sow than to throw your nets.

Well, in the sentence I used piscatu. This is a case form of piscatus, which is the noun for fishing, at least that would have been the noun for fishing or for fish catch if Spanish pescado is a good clue, which I hope it is, I did certainly find no better clue on the above site.

Now, if instead I had used "piscandi" I would have been wrong. Why? Piscandi means "to fish". But "to fish" is not translated piscandi in all contexts. The gerund is rivalling with the infinitive.

So here we have a full case declinsion of "to fish", singular only, since activities are no objects which can be counted:

Nominative	piscare
Genitive	piscandi (!)
Dative	piscando (rare)
Accusative a	piscare
Accusative b	[ad, in] piscandum
Ablative	piscando

Which of the forms could I have used to translate "agriculture is perhaps more dignified, since more secure, than to fish"?

I could have used either nominative, which is the infinitive and doesn't look like the gerund, and I could have used the ablative of comparison, I'll give you both:

Agricultura quam piscare forsan dignior, quia securior, est.

Agricultura piscando forsan dignior, quia securior, est.

In the first, but not the second case, I could also put quam piscare after dignior or securior:

Agricultura forsan dignior quam piscare est, quia securior.

Or:

Agricultura forsan dignior, quia securior, est quam piscare.

But using a verb form for the comparison after a noun for the concept taking the comparative is as clumsy (or voluntarily quirky) in Latin as it is in English to say "farming is ...er than to fish" or "agriculture is ...er than to fish". English can use "fishing" not just as a participle, but also as a noun, meaning the second as well as the first can be amended to "than fishing". Latin cannot use piscandi as a noun in the nominative after quam or as a noun in the ablative of comparison. For a noun, comparable to "agricultura" you need a noun, like piscatus.

You can either say "piscatu forsan dignior quia securior" or "forsan dignior quam piscatus, quia securior".

Do you know what the sad thing is? The guys behind the site IDl / InDifferent languages are doing this kind of thing, not just from English, but also from Spanish and from Russian. If they dared to mistreat Russian as much as they do Latin, they would be out of business fairly quickly with this site at least!

A few notes on above, to those not familiar with linguistic terminology. In linguistics, we distinguish two main directions of syntactic-morphological type, analytic and synthetic, with the former relying more on extra words and on word order, the latter more on endings or choice or stem vowels or such. English is more Analytic than Russian. Russian is more Synthetic than English. While Spanish descends from Latin, a documented fact, not just a reconstruction, though the details of the process can be disputed, Spanish is more Analytic and Latin more Synthetic. So, treating "piscandi" as "a word", a unit independent of context which is simply a unit, is treating Latin as an Analytic language which it is not, rather than as a Synthetic language which it is. I suggested, while they were at it, they could also try to present the extreme form of Analytic languages, the Isolating ones, like Chinese, as a Polysynthetic, the extreme form of Synthetic, and the real example of it would be Esquimeau / Greenlandic.

In Latin, the accusative is used both as a direct object and after certain prepositions. An infinitive is good for the direct object but in Latin unusable for accusative after preposition. "Volo" meaning "I want" can obviously take a direct object : volo panem, I want bread. Equally obviously, it can have an action as direct object, and that object is just as much as the subject behind est, an infinitive : volo piscare, I want to fish. To go cannot take a direct object. If I say "let's go fishing", English uses a form which started out as meaning sth like "let us go while we fish" or "let us go and be fishing at the occasion". In Latin it would be "eamus ad piscandum".

However, to express purpose, Latin has after the classical period borrowed a Greek usage, since Greek has no gerund, but uses infinitive for all cases. Hence, we can now, after Caesar, in Christian times, also say "eamus piscare".

But neither Classical, nor now, there is no going "piscandi". There is only an intent of piscandi. The site was simply wrong. Now, I will give them some feedback, and later you can check if they took notice or bungled on with a Latin they certainly are not qualified of mastering.

Or qualified to master.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Nanterre UL
Our Lady of Sorrows
15.IX.2017

PS, feedback submitted.

Mistranslating Easter Exultet

The text actually differs from old and new liturgy, the quote incriminated as Luciferianism by some Protestants is from the new liturgy.

I will give both*, then the mistranslation.** But only the phrase in context, not the whole prayer.

1962, Latin			Oramus ergo te, Domine, ut cereus iste in honorem tui nominis consecratus, ad noctis huius caliginem destruendam, indeficiens perseveret. Et in odorem suavitatis acceptus, supernis luminaribus misceatur. Flammas eius lucifer matutinus inveniat: Ille, inquam, lucifer, qui nescit occasum: Ille qui regressus ab inferis, humano generi serenus illuxit.
1962, translated			We beseech thee therefore, O Lord, that this candle, consecrated to the honor of thy name, may continue burning to dissipate the darkness this night. And being accepted as a sweet savor, may be united with the celestial lights. Let the morning star find it alight, that star which never sets. Which being returned from hell, shone with brightness on mankind.
1975, Latin			Oramus ergo te, Domine, ut cereus iste in honorem tui nominis consecratus, ad noctis huius caliginem destruendam, indeficiens perseveret. Et in odorem suavitatis acceptus, supernis luminaribus misceatur. Flammas eius lucifer matutinus inveniat: Ille, inquam, lucifer, qui nescit occasum: Christus Filius tuus, qui regressus ab inferis, humano generi serenus illuxit, et vivit et regnat in saecula saeculorum.
1975, translated			We beseech thee therefore, O Lord, that this candle, consecrated to the honor of thy name, may continue burning to dissipate the darkness this night. And being accepted as a sweet savor, may be united with the celestial lights. Let the morning star find it alight, that star which never sets: Christ Thy Son, who came back from hell, and shone with brightness on mankind, and who liveth and reigneth for ever and ever.
mistranslation			"Oh Lucifer who will never be defeated, CHRIST IS YOUR SON! who came back from hell..." ~Roman Catholic Easter Exsultet

Now, the prayer is over the Easter candle. Here is my own word for word or nearly so aid to translation.

Flammas eius lucifer matutinus inveniat:		May the morning star find its flames.
Ille, inquam, lucifer,		I am saying that morning star
qui nescit occasum:		who knows no setting
Christus Filius tuus, qui regressus ab inferis, humano generi serenus illuxit, et vivit et regnat in saecula saeculorum.		Christ Thy Son, who, returned from Sheol/Hades/Hell, shone calmly on mankind and who lives and reigns forever, world without end.

There are two Lucifer or Morning Stars in a Catholic Bible. The one which is fallen, and the one which must get lighted in our hearts. The one in Isaiah and the one in II Peter 1:19.

That is the reason why the one praying needs to be precise about which of the morning stars he is talking of, and by the precision "ille, inquam, lucifer, qui nescit occasum" he is telling everyone who knows the Bible he is NOT referring to the morning star which not only set but actually even fell. So, he is praising the one who St Peter praised in II Peter 1:19.

Et habemus firmiorem propheticum sermonem : cui benefacitis attendentes quasi lucernae lucenti in caliginoso donec dies elucescat, et lucifer oriatur in cordibus vestris :

The next verse might be very good for Protestants to ponder for more than one reason.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Bibl. Parmentier
St. Hyacinthus, OP, Confessor
17.VIII.2017

* Source for text of prayer:

Preces Latinae : Exultet
http://www.preces-latinae.org/thesaurus/Hymni/Exsultet.html

** Source for mistranslation, description to video:

Quran & Bukhari prove Rome created Islam
Grace Bride
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j7hAfVaEaLQ

On the main topic of video:

Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere : ... against Alberto Rivera's Hogwash on Origins of Islam
http://assortedretorts.blogspot.com/2014/05/against-alberto-riveras-hogwash-on.html

On a certain "quote from Al Bukhari", I consulted one who knows that work, David Woods. Not yet answered. But he might be waking up in his time zone soon and reading it my Q ...

How Not to Explain Latin / Romance shift - and My Correction

Quoting an article:*

All five of these languages** incorporate grammar, tenses and specific intricacies from Latin. Not coincidentally, each language developed in former territories of the Western Roman Empire. When that empire failed, Latin died, and the new languages were born. Part of the reason that Latin passed out of common usage is because, as a language, it's incredibly complex. Classical Latin is highly inflected, meaning that nearly every word is potentially modified based on tense, case, voice, aspect, person, number, gender and mood. With no central power promoting and standardizing usage of Classical Latin, it gradually passed away from everyday usage. Vulgar Latin, essentially a simplified version of the mother tongue, survived for a while but diverged more and more as it folded in various local languages. By the end of the sixth century, people from different sections of the former empire could no longer understand each other. Latin had died as a living language."

Would a man from Bombay understand the English from Ozark region?

Is English dead because it is no longer strictly speaking unified? Or was it dead until Television and Cinema revived its pronunciation unity?

No.

Also, Classic Chinese is not dead because a Cantonese and a Mandarin speaker from Peking pronounce it diversely.

Nor Classic Arabic, because Egypt, Iraq and Morocco have diverging pronunciation, probably more so before Al Jazeera got going.

In order for a written language to die, it does not only to have pronunciation divergences making mutual understanding impossible***

It does not only to have substandard changes from the state it enjoyed during codification of standard.

One also has to exchange the written standard.

And this does not happen by gradual change.

It happened in these steps:

• Previous to Alcuin, Latin of Roman Empire had become an "old written language" - one in which the relation between pronunciation and spelling of a word was no longer straight forward, like today English, Irish, Greek.
• Meanwhile, Latin as used by Barbarians learning it as a foreign language had more or less preserved original pronuncitation, or the one current when each people had started using Latin as a Church language (and in later cases, perhaps tended to simplify the quirks away from spelling).
• The deviations from writing in pronunciation being different in diverse parts of Romance world, and worst in Gaul (at least as far as West is concerned), some visiting priests in 8th Century could not understand totally the liturgic language of Gaul.
• This led to a decision to reform Latin pronunciation in Gaul, for coherence over the Church. Alcuin did this reform in 800.
• So, previous to 800, in Gaul, there was one pronunciation and one spelling. After him, there was still one spelling and now two pronunciations, the everyday and the liturgic ones.
• The liturgic pronunciation which was perfectly understandable to priests from the rest of Roman world, was no longer so to the people. Add a few endings no longer in use (like the genitives in -i and -orum), OK. Omit article because it wasn't used in older times, OK. But pronouncing EVERY word different from what you were doing? No, the people were no longer investing learning efforts to keep up with that.
• Thirteen years later, 813, this leads to a decree one must after Gospel reading (in the newly more Classical and liturgic pronunciation) add an explanation of it, including a translation or exposé of it in the popular language (whatever the pronunication was, locally, basically).
• Priests trying to prepare for this new performance were now free to omit disused case endings (like genitives in -i and -orum) or in certain parts aleady perhaps all case endings except presence or absence of -s altogether, in order to read the "people's version" from the pulpit too. But these new spellings were occasional, and only partly crystallised. Now, from one writing and two pronuncitations, you start getting two pronunciations and two writings. But in court probably the people's pronunciation (with some moderation, if lower classes had already lost final vowels) and the Latin spelling of it were still used conjointly. However, a prince growing up in the German speaking East would probably be learning Latin in a more ecclesiastic way, more like Alcuin.
• In Strassburg a prince growing up among German speakers and not being fluent in the Latin of the Gaulish popular pronunciation had to swear an oath before nobles using precisely that. Clerks now used the spelling for their sermon notes to help him be understood.
• And now, slowly, the old coupling died off and about two hundred years later or a few decades earlier, the one spelling went with the one pronunciation and the other with the other one, they were two separate languages. Courts liking poetry and new pronunciation making old metres less and less likely to be rhythmic had something to do with this. Oldest works apart Strassburg Oaths in newer spelling (by now much further from Latin than the Oaths) were poems, like a sequence of Saint Eulalia.
• This process happened about 200 years later for each stage in Spain and Italy.
• Roumania took another road and had Church Slavonic as liturgic language up to 1500's. This means that the divergence of Walachic pronunciation from older Latin one was not steadied by any reference to Latin texts. Hence, Roumanian or Walachic is further off from Latin than other ones, in vocabulary. Example: "amator hominum" - an attribute of God in Eastern liturgy - is in Roumanian liturgy "iubitor ominilor". The verb stem behind the verbal noun is not from Latin amare, but from Slavonic lⁱubitⁱ. These and other things are so, because back then Roumanian started all over as a written language, it had been developing purely orally for centuries.

Part of the reason that Latin passed out of common usage is because, as a language, it's incredibly complex. Classical Latin is highly inflected, meaning that nearly every word is potentially modified based on tense, case, voice, aspect, person, number, gender and mood. With no central power promoting and standardizing usage of Classical Latin, it gradually passed away from everyday usage.

There is no such thing as a gradual passing away of a language, except if it is gradually replaced by a totally different one.

Irish has during 19th C in many places, including Baile Áth Clíath / Dublin been gradually replaced by English.

But you can't say Latin was "gradually replaced by French" in northern Gaul, any more than you can say "Middle English was gradually replaced by Modern English" in England. As most standard non-Latin form of writing, Old English or Anglo-Saxon was replaced by Norman-French, after the Conquest, though some places the process took a century to complete (latest entries in Anglo-Saxon Chronicle are from 100 years after Conquest or so), and then French-Norman was replaced by English, after the plague.

But English was not replaced by English when it evolved from a "Middle English" state to a "Modern English" state.

English uniting an essentially Middle English spelling with a Modern Pronunciation would be replaced by two new languages only if:

• 1) Old pronunciation of Chaucer were revived, so that "knight" and "night" were pronounced as if Germans spelled it "Knicht, Nicht";
• 2) New pronunciation was respelled, so that what Germans would spell "Neid" was, for both words, perhaps from Welsh spelling, "naet".
• 3) Fluency in the old combination became superfluous, since less relevant than the ones in either or both new combinations.

But what Latin was like in Gaul by the time of Alcuin is, a bit, as English is now. A bit more as if English had retained its basic spelling, not from Chaucer but from King Alfred.

Or, like what Greek was when written as Katharevousa and spoken in very various shades of Dhimotiki, starting with real Katharevousa pronounced like Dhimotiki, that is with Itacism. Or like what Church Slavonic is, namely pronounced differently by Serbs and by Russians and by Ukraineans.

Hans Georg Lundahl
in Nanterre University Library
on Feast of Our Lady of Mercy
24.IX.2016

* Linking:

Seeker : Politics : Sep 18, 2016 01:00 AM ET
How Did Latin Become A Dead Language?
by Jules Suzdaltsev
http://www.seeker.com/how-did-latin-become-a-dead-language-2008876974.html

** Listing:

In historical terms, Latin didn't die so much as it changed -- into French, Spanish, Portuguese, Italian and Romanian.

One could add, Provençal, Catalan, Galician, Sardinian, Rheto-romance or Ladin - with some question marks on whether Catalan, Provençal and Ladin are three different or same language. At least there are three standards. These other three to five are indeed regional, not national languages.

*** Before schools and TV, a Scanian and someone from Norrland could probably not understand each other, unless both were fluent in a standard version, not their native tongue. Especially not if growing up as farmers.

Quando latín y castellano era el mismo idioma

1) Quand latin et français était la même langue · 2) Quando latín y castellano era el mismo idioma

Scribitur		es pronuntsiado
Servus Servorum Dei est lingua docta pro/per "el servos de los servos de Dio."		"Servos Servoro Dei" es lengua doycha por el servos de los servos de Dio.
Per quid scribitur s e r u u s et non s e r u o s?		Por kedh escribe-se s e r u u s é nõ s e r u o s?
Scribitur s e r u u s, quia antiqui dicebant serv-U-s.		Escribitor s e r u u s, ke li(?) antig(?) deseian serv-U-s.
Et papa decaedit de sola disciplina aut et de fide?		Edh el papa decide de la sola distsiplina odh é de la fedh?
Decaedit et de fide, exempli gratia condemnando eos qui negant Adam casum fuisse per peccatum proprium.		Decide é de fedh, por eishemplo condeñando ellos ki niegan Adam fu caso por pecadho propio.

On the Meaning of German Words - and a Latin one

6.107 Irving was critical of the reliance placed by the Defendants on such documents as are said by them to cast light on the allegedly genocidal use to which the camps were put. Much time was spent in evidence and argument on discussing the meaning and true significance of a number of German words to be found in the speeches of Hitler and others and in contemporaneous documents generally. There was prolonged cross-examination of Longerich by Irving as to the meaning of certain German words which he listed in a glossary prepared for the purpose of these proceedings. Those words include ausrotten, vernichten, liquidieren, evakuieren, umsiedeln and abschieben. A considerable number of documents were scrutinised in an attempt to ascertain whether the words in question were being used or understood in a genocidal sense. Irving contended that most of these words are properly to be understood in a non-genocidal sense. Longerich's agreed that most, if not all, of these words are capable of being used in a non-genocidal sense. For example ausrotten can bear such anodyne meanings as "get rid of" or "wipe out" without connoting physical extermination. But he asserted that its usual and primary meaning is "exterminate" or "kill off", especially when applied to people or to a group of people as opposed to, for example a religion. He contended that all depends on the context in which the words are used. Another example is Umsiedlung, which can mean no more than resettlement in a ghetto but more often embraces a homicidal meaning as well. Whilst Longerich was prepared to concede that some of the words in question may be used in a non-genocidal sense in the years leading up to 1941, he argued that from about that date onwards the words are invariably used in a sinister sense to connote killing on a major scale. For instance he contends that when, in a document dated 20 February 1942 the Reichsicherheitshauptamt (RHSA) use the term Evakuierung in connection with the issuing of guidelines for the implementation of the evacuation of Jews to Auschwitz, the word is being used in a genocidal sense.

The Nizkor Project
VI. Justification: Evidence of the attitude of Hitler towards the Jews and of the extent, if any, of his knowledge of and responsibility for the evolving policy of extermination
http://www.nizkor.org/hweb/people/i/irving-david/judgment-06-01.html

Are Jews "a group of people" or "a religion"?

Albigensians were mostly "ausgerotted" (if at all) by conversion to Catholicism, at least external such, the burning on the stake being decidedly rarer (see for instance the 900 plus cases tried by one inquisitor*, of which 45 or 48 were ending on stake).

Were Jews mainly "ausgerotted" by dying of gas in gas chambers? Or were they mainly "ausgerotted" by abjuring Judaism in gas chambers while being threatened with gassing?

There is a story about how Jews "sued God for breach of Covenant" and ther was a process. When all that Jewry involved in that process walked into a gas chamber, they were singing psalms of King David in Hebrew. Whom do we know this story from?

Well, if they all survived the gas chamber (for one reason or another), like Jo Wajsblat did, we know it from themselves, of course.

If on the other hand they all died, who told us?

Their guards?

Note that if "evakuieren", "umsiedeln" and "abschieben" may on THIS occasion have been used euphemistically for killing, this is very certainly not the primary meaning of the words, they all mean relocation, the last of these enforced relocation outside borders of strangers. An immigrant or refugee refused entry into a country is "abgeschoben", and so is a foreign citizen expulsed after serving prison for a crime.

For "vernichten" and "ausrotten", I will certainly say the most common meaning on a population of animals is physical killing. For human populations it is rarely used, and for a race or ethnicity it would mean physical killing. But for a religion, it could be enforced conversion (or apostasy : in Hitler's case, unlike the Simon of Montfort one, I don't think the end product needed to be orthodox Catholicism, just non-Jewishness, non-Talmudism).

As to "liquidieren" it is a current XXth C. euphemism for often individual killing - both in camps (when occurring) and by spies, both by Communists and presumably Nazis, if they used the word, and probably by other secret services than KGB as well. I can imagine a CIA or an FBI agent using the word "liquidate", and in German that would be "liquidieren".

Note that for Latin "exterminare", the cognates of which are in modern languages synonyms or translations of "ausrotten", the Medieval Latin sense (ok, Middle Ages may be defined as age between First and Second coming, but for Latin grammar, there are two "Medieval" periods, the post-Classic one and this one, between Carolingian and Humanistic Renaissances) was probably closer to "abschieben".

Hans Georg Lundahl
Nanterre UL
St Hilary of Poitiers
17-I-2016

* Forgot his name while writing this. Wait, can it have been Bernard Gui? Btw, in Ancient Israel, they would hardly have been left in peace either. Their beliefs would have made them open to stoning, unless of course repenting from them - which was also the priority with Bernard Gui and colleagues. Update: yes it was. But the death sentences carried out were only 42, not 45 or 48.

Did the Russians Know : Президент = Председатель in Latin?

Президент	= praesidentem =	Председатель
President		Chairman

George Washington and Joseph Stalin had the same title, if you translate it to Latin./HGL

Challenge to Chomsky from a Latinist

ille mi par esse deo videtur, ille, si fas est, superare divos, qui sedens adversus identidem te spectat et audit dulce ridentem

This sentence IS grammatical in Latin.

Now, how do you parse that with a tree diagram? If you feel it is too long, abbreviate:

IMPEDV,I,SFE,SD,QSAITSEA.*

Now, parse!

Hans Georg Lundahl
Bpi Georges Pompidou
St Cecily
22-XI-2014

Wikibooks : The Poetry of Gaius Valerius Catullus/51
http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/The_Poetry_of_Gaius_Valerius_Catullus/51

*I obviously mean : IMPEDV,I,SFE,SD,QSAITSEADR.

What did Cornelius a Lapide REALLY write about the work of the Fourth Day?

New blog on the kid : 1) Inanimate Balls of Fire are Not Fighting, 2) With Angelic Movers, No Need for ETs, 3) HGL's F.B. writings : Me and Sungenis Answering Same Q, 4) Φιλολoγικά/Philologica : What did Cornelius a Lapide REALLY write about the work of the Fourth Day?

I am now perusing the pages of an 1891 edition of Comentaria in scripturam sacram / Cornelii a Lapide.* Now, there is a problem with the access of the original text here. The work of Cornelius a Lapide seems to have been used as a wiki. You see, Cornelius lived 18 December 1567 – 12 March 1637, and Schelling lived 27 January 1775 – 20 August 1854. Cornelius, like myself, was not claiming to be a prophet, just erudite. However, as we go to his commentary on the work of the Fourth Day, we find:

Nostro certe tempore intelligentias motrices non cogitabat ille philosophus (Schelling), qui, quum astra appellavit animalia rationabilia, animalia beata, Deosque immortales stultitiae profecto, non vero sapientiae amicum se ostendit. In our time that philosopher (Schelling) did not think there were intelligences moving [the celestial bodies], who, when he called the stars rational animals, blessed animals and immortal Gods, in fact showed himself the friend of folly and not of wisdom.

Be it noted, that the previous lines have stated that the position of St Thomas - angels move heavenly bodies but are not their souls, and the text actually compares the angels moving stars to an auriga driving the cars, the biga, the two horse drawn cars - was always tolerated by the Church.

Be it noted that whoever in 1891 added a comment on Schelling to the text of Cornelius thought that Schelling should have preferred to consider stars driven by angels to considering them as blessed rational immortal animals which one could call Gods. And, I agree of course.

That said, the exact text of Cornelius a Lapide is not extant in the 1891 edition. Someone has been editing it as a wiki with added lines of text. I am very sure Cornelius was not writing about Schelling.

In the previous sections we have also learned that the position of Schelling was - excepting the qualification "Deos immortales" that of Philo Judaeus, Maimonides, Origen, St Jerome, and there is a discussion whether this position of Origen was or was not condemned by the Vth Council. What is certain is that it is regarded as a different position than the one of St Thomas. Which was always tolerated by the Church - i e never condemned.

If I hit a living body, its soul feels pain. If I hit a car its driver feels no pain - that is how different "animated stars" are from "stars driven by angels".** And it is only the "animated stars position" which has received censorship in the Catholic Church. By Vth Ecumenical Council perhaps, and certainly by Stephen Tempier bishop of Paris in Laetare Sunday of late 1276 (past December into start of March) or early 1277 (according to our later custom of saying it started already January 1:st).

Meanwhile, as Catholics are telling me I am taking a very unlikely option and a very unthomistic one, and naturalism must remain the philosophy of science and the astronomic method must be atheistic and anangelistic in order to remain science, one Krauss seems to be very close to embracing the position of Schelling. You know that guy who said "a star had to die, so that you could live" - meaning sulphur and iron and other necessary elements larger than hydrogen and helium wouldn't be in your body unless there had been a supernova earlier on.

And they think that it is I who am a threat to orthodoxy? Who dey kiddin?

Since the time when that writer who continued the commentary of Cornelius a Lapide as if it were a wiki said that many theologers were taking the angelic movers option as it seemed necessary for the philosophy of that time, but now the movements of all celestial objects "optime explicentur" (are explained very well) "simplicibus legis a Deo impositis" (by simple laws imposed by God), this overestimation of the intellectual superiority of gravitational explanations has been rocked by more recent discoveries. And, actually, I think that writer - quite distinct from Cornelius a Lapide, of course, though his text is found intermingled with the older Jesuit - was deeming it explained very well by two reasons: he was being sloppy in the assessment of how well or ill proven the modern explanation was, and he was feeling a social stigma if he were to defend the older doctrine. You see, in a previous session he had spoken about "rotationem terrenam" - rotation of Earth - and he was publishing his work in the Paris of the Third Republic where the Foucault Pendulum had given a false sign and wonder about Earth rotating. Parisiis means "in Paris" and 1891 in Paris is that particular context. One in which Heliocentric and astro-mere-corporal freemasons dominated the scene.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Nanterre UL
Ember Saturday
after Elevation of the Cross
20-IX-2014

PS, in Judges V, where the text of Cornelius has not been tampered with, he endorses angels moving the stars. Even in the Paris 1891 edition. I checked. See Tome III. The comments to that verse would to a modern literary sensibility evoke "fantasy novels". As I said elsewhere, these are more realistic than science fiction. None of the comments are coherent with stars being simply what modern astronomers tell you and not even angelic movers to them.

* Content list for tome I, each link making a pdf download:

Comentaria in scripturam sacram / Cornelii A. Lapide.
Tomo I Tabla de Contenido
http://cdigital.dgb.uanl.mx/la/1080014741_C/1080014741_T1/1080014741_T1.html

And here is the overall link:

Comentaria in scripturam sacram / Cornelii A. Lapide.
Parisiis: Apum Ludovicum Vives, Bibliupolam Editorem, 1891.
http://cdigital.dgb.uanl.mx/la/1080014741_C/1080014741_C.html

The Internet version is graciously provided by Universidad Autónoma de Nueva León. (Non hay dos nombres o apellidos A. Lapide, peró "a Lapide" quiere decir "de la piedra", como "de la Barca" constituye un solo apellido.)

** The text - by Cornelius a Lapide or someone later - gives this precise example as a criticism of how St Thomas deals with Platonics and their claim stars have souls. St Thomas had argued they meant no more than they had movers.

What is a Nation? part I

Summa Theologica > Supplement of the III Part
Question 41. The sacrament of Matrimony as directed to an office of nature
Article 1. Whether matrimony is of natural law?
http://www.newadvent.org/summa/5041.htm#article1

Objection 2. Further, that which is of natural law is found in all men with regard to their every state. But matrimony was not in every state of man, for as Tully says (De Inv. Rhet.), "at the beginning men were savages and then no man knew his own children, nor was he bound by any marriage tie," wherein matrimony consists. Therefore it is not natural.

...

Reply to Objection 2. The assertion of Tully may be true of some particular nation, provided we understand it as referring to the proximate beginning of that nation when it became a nation distinct from others; for that to which natural reason inclines is not realized in all things, and this statement is not universally true, since Holy Writ states that there has been matrimony from the beginning of the human race.

So, some nations were living as savages at the start of their existence. But not mankind as a whole. Herein St Thomas Aquinas is totally in agreement with Creation Ministries International. Evolutionists however agree with Tully - Marcus Tullius Cicero. Let us look at one particular word of St Thomas:

referring to the proximate beginning of that nation when it became a nation distinct from others

This notion is very broad. In 1776 the Thirteen Colonies asked (weapons in hand) to be thenceforth considered another nation than the United Kingdoms of Great Britain and Ireland. The third of the population that disagreed were often treated badly and had, for instance, to flee to Québec. Much as non-revolutionary French could be fleeing to Belgium about a decade or two later.

But the point is, St Thomas is not saying every nation and language we see today came into existence immediately after Babel. Nor is he denying that nations did come into existence in the days of Peleg. Neither for that matter is the Bible doing so. Hebrews are named after the father of Peleg and Ioctan, but not only do the Jemenites branch off as early as Ioctan, also later you get nations diversifying around Abraham and Lot and their sons. Meanwhile, same thing is happening to Pagan Nations.

Here is one older contemporary of St Thomas writing, Petrus Comestor meaning something like Peter the Eater, and he has quite a lt to say about the main Pagan nations, often incidentally to the Old Testament story:

De dispersione filiorum Noe, et Nemrod.		On the Dispersion of the Sons of Noah, and Nemrod
Redit Moyses ad principium genealogiae Noe dicens: Hae sunt generationes filiorum Noe (Gen. X), et incipit a Japhet minori, ut ultimo loco ponatur Sem, cujus successionem texere intendit. Texuntur autem ex eis septuaginta duae generationes, quindecim de Japhet, triginta de Cham, viginti septem de Sem. Hi tres disseminati sunt in tribus partibus orbis secundum Alcuinum. Sem Asiam, Cham Africam, Japheth Europam sortitus est. Vel expressius dicitur secundum Josephum: Filii Japhet tenuerunt septentrionalem regionem, a Tauro et Amano montibus Ciliciae et Syriae, usque ad fluvium Tanaim, in Europa vero, usque ad Gadira. Filii vero Cham a provincia Syria, et Amano et Libano montibus cunctas terras obtinuerunt, quaecunque ad mare sunt positae, apprehendentes etiam eas, quae usque ad Oceanum sunt, et proprias facientes appellationes. Filii vero Sem usque ad Oceanum seorsum habitant Asiam, ab Euphrate facientes initium.		Moses goes back to the beginning of the Genealogy of Noah, saying: These are the generations of the Sons of Noah (Genesis X), and starts from Japheth, the youngest, so that he can put Shem last, the succession of which he intends to braid. But out of them are braided [or woven] 72 generations, 15 of Japheth, 30 of Cham, 27 of Shem. These three have been disseminated into the three parts of the world, according to Alcuin. Shem got Asia, Cham Africa and Japheth Europe. Or it is more clearly expressed according to Josephus: the sons of Japheth held the Northern region, from mounts Taurs and Amanusin Cilicia and Syria, all the way to the River Don, but in Europe all the way to Gadira [Cadiz?]. But the sons of Cham from the province Syria, and mounts Amanus and Lebanus, got all the lands that are towards the Sea [The Mediterranean], taking also the ones that are towards the [Atlantic] Ocean, and making their own appelations. But the sons of Shem inhabit Asia seperately all the way to the [Indian] Ocean, starting out at the Euphrates.
[Note that Petrus Comestor is identifying the author of Genesis with "Moyses" - in English Moses. Scholastics were as Philosophic as the Enlightenment, but whereas Enlightenment was a Philosophy of scoffing at traditional history, Scholasticism was one of certainty about it. Note also that all of this is in the Old World and even not all of it, so that East Asiatics, Americans, Oceanics, excepting perhaps Papua to Australia are NEWER nations. I consider it possible that "Emperor Jimmu" of the Japanese was none other than Aeneas. At least the Japanese are far newer. But here we are talking of the Old World and of the division of its three parts. And of the oldest parts inhabited by man after the Flood.]
Generationi Sem insistemus, alias transeuntes, hoc tamen addentes, quod Chus dicitur filius Cham, et filius Chus Nemrod, qui coepit primus potens esse in terra, et robustus venator hominum coram Domino, id est exstinctor, et oppressor amore dominandi, et cogebat homines ignem adorare; ab hoc exiit proverbium, ad dicendum de aliquo, quod fortis sit et malus: Quasi Nemrod robustus venator coram Domino. Hoc ideo diximus, quia Methodius dicit hunc fuisse de filiis Hirom filii Sem.		We insist on the "generation" of Shem, passing by the others, but we add this, that Chush is the name of the son of Cham, and the son of Chush is called Nemrod, who first started out to be mighty on earth and a stout hunter of men before the Lord, that is an extinguisher, and an oppressor by love of domination, and he forced men to adore fire; from him stems the byword, to say of someone he is strong and evil: "like Nemrod, a stout hunter before the Lord". We have said this because of this that Methodius says he was of the sons of Hirom the son of Shem.
[Not sure which one is meant by "Hirom." The Latin Vulgate has - now, in the Clementine edition: Filii Sem: Aelam, et Assur, et Arphaxad, et Lud, et Aram. It could be either Aelam or Aram, I think. In the following Petrus Comestor is probably still referring to Methodius, with less distance, but perhaps still some scepticism:]
Quare vero primus coeperit dominari ostendit, agens de quodam filio Noe, de quo non egit Moyses, sic dicens: Centesimo anno tertiae chiliadis natus est Noe filius in similitudinem ejus, et dixit eum Jonithum . Trecentesimo anno dedit Noe donationes filio suo Jonitho, et dimisit eum in terram Ethan, et intravit eam Jonithus usque ad mare orientis, quod dicitur Elioschora, id est solis regio, hic accepit a Domino donum sapientiae, et invenit astronomiam.		But he shows why at first he started to dominate, speaking of a certain son of Noah not mentioned by Moses, saying so: in the hundredth year of the third millennium [after the Flood?] a son was born to Noah in similitude of himself, and he called him Jonithus [Jonathan?] In the threehundredth year Noah gave gifts to his son Jonithus, and sent him into the land Ethann and Jonithus entered into it all the way unto the sea of the East, which is called Helioschora, which is Region of the Sun, he received of the Lord the gift of wisdom and invented astronomy.
Ad quem veniens Nemrod, Gigas decem cubitorum, eruditus est ab eo, et accepit ab eo consilium, in quibus locis regnare coepisset. Jonithus iste futuros quosdam eventus praevidit, et maxime de ortu quatuor regnorum, et occasu eorum per successionem. Quam etiam plane prophetavit Daniel. Et praedixit discipulo suo Nemrod, quod primi regnarent de Cham, de quo Belus descendit, post de Sem Medi, et Persae, et Graeci, post, de Japheth Romani. A quo rediens Nemrod accensus amore dominandi, sollicitavit genus suum de Sem, ut imperaret aliis, quasi primogenitus, sed noluerunt; et ideo transivit ad Cham, qui acquievit, et regnavit inter eos in Babylone, et exinde dictus est de filiis Cham.		To him came Nemrod, a Ten Cubit Giant, was taught by him, and received from him Counsil in which locations he was to start reigning. This Jonithus foresaw some future events, and most of all of the beginning of the four kingdoms and the fall of them in succession. Which succession also Daniel clearly prophesied? And he foretold to his student Nemrod, that the first were to rule of Cham, of whom descends Belus, then of Shem, Medes, Persians, Greeks, then, of Japheth, Romans. From whom Nemrod came back inflamed with love of lording over others, asked for the help of his own of Shem, in order to command others, as he was firstborn, but they would not; and therefore he went over to Cham, who acquiesced, and ruled among them in Babylon, and therefore he is said to be of the sons of Cham.
Sed si vere fuit de filiis Cham, tunc nulla est quaestio quare inter eos regnaverit; hujus exemplo coepit regnare Jectam, vel Jetram, vel Uram super filios Sem, Suphene, vel Sustene super filios Japheth. Narrat autem Philo Judaeus, vel ut alii volunt Gentilis philosophus, in libro Quaestionum super Genesim, quod ex tribus filiis Noe adhuc ipso vivente sunt nati viginti quatuor millia virorum et centum, extra mulieres et parvulos, habentes tres super se duces, quos praediximus.		But if he really was of the sons of Cham, then there is no question at all why it would be among them that he ruled; following his example Jectam, or Jetram, or Uram started to rule over the Sons of Shem, Suphene or Sustene over the Sons if Japheth. But Philo Judaeus tells us, or according to others it is a Pagan Philosopher, in the Book of Questions over Genesis, that of the three sons of Noah, while he was still alive, were born 24100 men, not counting women and as yet small ones, having the three dukes or leaders which we mentioned.
De turre Babylon.		On the Tower of Babel
Post obitum vero Noe, moventes pedes suos ab Oriente, convenerunt duces in unum, in campum Sennaar, et timentes diluvium, consilio Nemrod volentis regnare, coeperunt aedificare turrim, quae pertingeret usque ad coelos, habentes lateres pro saxis, et bitumen pro caemento. Descendit autem Dominus, ut videret turrim (Gen. XI), animadvertit, ut puniret, et ait ad angelos: Venite, et confundamus linguam eorum, ut non intelligat quisque vocem proximi sui. In hac divisione nihil non fecit Deus, quia voces eaedem sunt apud omnes gentes, sed dicendi modos, et formas diversis generibus divisit.		After the Death of Noah, moving their feet from the East, the leaders convened in one place, in the field of Shinear, and fearing [another] Deluge, on the counsel of Nemrod who wanted to rule, started making a Tower, which would reach into the skies, having brick instead of stones and "slime" - asphalt - instead of mortar. But the Lord want down to see the Tower (Genesis XI), took heed to punish and told the angels: come let us confound their tongue, so that each one may not understand the speach of his neighbour. In this divison all was done by God, since the speach is the same in all nations, but the ways of saying things and the forms He divided in diverse kinds.
[Petrus Comestor seems to agree with the book called now Book of Jasher - which is of disputed genuinity even among Jews and not Canonic among Christians - that God was speaking to angels, BUT, unlike that book, he thinks, as is proper that God alone took power over the linguistic faculties of the brains so as to change grammar. He also notes that the Bible uses the words "voces" as speach as in concretely the speach in the language it is put, but when he says "speach is the same in all nations" he uses speach as meaning the faculty common to all men. And the specific language he identifies, like Chomsky, as grammatic system, more precisely as "forms and ways of saying [things]" or morphology and vocabulary - or morphology with vocabulary and syntax. Or, perhaps even, morphology and the broadest range of phraseology, from vocabulary to syntax. A note on the beginning - where had the chiefs of men been living before they came to Sumer? It is said here they came from the East, and that is in the Bible too!]
De hac turri dicit Josephus, quia latitudo erat ita fortissima, ut prope eam aspicientibus longitudo videretur in minus. Dii vero ventos immittentes everterunt turrim, et vocem propriam unicuique partiti sunt. Propterea Babyloniam contigit vocari civitatem. Babel enim Hebraei confusionem appellant. De hac turri meminit sibylla dicens: Cum omnes homines existerent unius vocis, quidam turrim aedificaverunt excelsam, tanquam per eam ascensuri in coelum.		Of this Tower Josephus says, that its breadth was so overly great, that to those looking beside it the length [tallness] was seen into the lesser [as lesser than the breadth?]. But the Gods (!) by sending in winds overthrew the tower, and dealt out to each his own speach. For this sake it happened for the "City" to be called Babylonia. For the Hebrews call confusion Babel. This Tower the Sibyl recalled saying "When all men were of one speach, some erected a high Tower, as if going to ascend into Heaven."
[Proposed emendation:]
De hac turri dicit Josephus, quia latitudo erat ita fortissima, ut prope eam aspicientibus longitudo videretur in minus. Propterea Babyloniam contigit vocari civitatem. Babel enim Hebraei confusionem appellant. De hac turri meminit sibylla dicens: Cum omnes homines existerent unius vocis, quidam turrim aedificaverunt excelsam, tanquam per eam ascensuri in coelum. Dii vero ventos immittentes everterunt turrim, et vocem propriam unicuique partiti sunt.
Of this Tower Josephus says, that its breadth was so overly great, that to those looking beside it the length [tallness] was seen into the lesser [as lesser than the breadth?]. For this sake it happened for the "City" to be called Babylonia. For the Hebrews call confusion Babel. This Tower the Sibyl recalled saying "When all men were of one speach, some erected a high Tower, as if going to ascend into Heaven. But the gods by sending in winds overthrew the tower, and dealt out to each his own speach."
[Explanation: Josephus was no polytheist. He can have spoken of Elohim as if it meant "God and the Angels" or the text here can be corrupt and need an emendation - either due to manuscript (though I suppose there were many such around while the work was used and ought to be many still) or due to bad reading of an abbreviation as if meaning two ii rather than -us, thought that doesn't explain the plural verbform, or even due to a sabotage on wikisource. If someone has the text in print could he please either correct wikisource, or send me a message in the guesbook about why this reading is correct! Of course, Josephus could also be retelling a Pagan story with the proper transition to it being lost. Or the text pieace belongs to the part about the Sibyl's words rather than the part about Josephus' and was misplaced. Thus passage emendable as: This Tower the Sibyl recalled saying "When all men were of one speach, some erected a high Tower, as if going to ascend into Heaven. But the gods by sending in winds overthrew the tower, and dealt out to each his own speach." But in absense of written on paper text, I am not judging. Babylonia for Babylon is quite acceptable if "City" (civitas) is taken as the whole State rather than "intra muros" area. Here is one passage from Josephus himself: ... The place wherein they built the tower is now called Babylon, because of the confusion of that language which they readily understood before; for the Hebrews mean by the word Babel, confusion. The Sibyl also makes mention of this tower, and of the confusion of the language, when she says thus: "When all men were of one language, some of them built a high tower, as if they would thereby ascend up to heaven, but the gods sent storms of wind and overthrew the tower, and gave every one his peculiar language; and for this reason it was that the city was called Babylon." But as to the plan of Shinar, in the country of Babylonia, Hestiaeus mentions it, when he says thus: "Such of the priests as were saved, took the sacred vessels of Jupiter Enyalius, and came to Shinar of Babylonia." Antiquites, Book I, chapter 4 http://www.biblestudytools.com/history/flavius-josephus/antiquities-jews/book-1/chapter-4.html AFTER this they were dispersed abroad, on account of their languages, and went out by colonies every where; and each colony took possession of that land which they light upon, and unto which God led them; so that the whole continent was filled with them, both the inland and the maritime countries ... Ibid. Ch. 5 http://www.biblestudytools.com/history/flavius-josephus/antiquities-jews/book-1/chapter-5.html I wonder if Hesychius in the following is not really a mistake for Hestiaeus, or whether it was Hesychius or someone quoting him who jumbled the story of Hestiaeus, as follows:]
De campo vero Sennaar in regione Babylonis meminit Esicius dicens: Qui de sacerdotibus sunt erepti: Jovis sacra sumentes, in Sennaar Babylonis venerunt, divisique sunt post haec, diversitate linguarum migrationes agentes, apprehendentes mediterranea simul, et maritima. Nec praetereundum puto quod Moyses dicit Regma, filium Chus, duos habuisse filios Saba, et Dodam.		From the field of Shinear in the region of Babylon, Hesychius [of Miletus] makes mention saying: Who of the priests were escaping: taking the holy things of Jove, came to Shinear of Babylonia, were divided after this, undertaking migrations due to diversity of languge, reaching at the same time [or both] midlands and seashores. Nor do I think one should pass by that Moses said that Regma, son of Kush, had two sons, Saba and Dodam.
Josephus dicit Saba, et Judam, quorum Judas Aegyptiacam gentem Hesperiorum inhabitans, Judaeis cognomen suum reliquit. Quod autem dicitur, de terra Sennaar egressus est Assur, intelligendum est, quia Nemrod expulit eum vi a terra illa, et turre, quae ejus erat jure haereditario. Vel intelligendum non est Assur filius Sem, qui invenit purpuram, et unguenta crinium, vel corporum a quo Chaldaea , et Assyria dicta est, sed Assur, id est regnum Assyriorum, inde egressum est, quod tempore Sarug, proavi Abrahae, factum est. Regnum quidem Babylonii habuerunt, qui de semine Nemrod fuerunt, usque ad quartam chiliadem, et ultimum cusmidem.		Josephus says Saba and "Judas", of whom "Judas" left the "Jews" his surname, inhabiting an Egyptian people of the West. As to what is said that Assur went for from the land of Shinear, it is to be understood, since Nimrod expelled him with violence from that land, and from the tower, which was his by right of inheritance. Or it is to be understood that Assur is not the Son of Shem, who invented purple and hair ointments and body ointmens of whom Chaldea is also called Assyria, but Assur, that is the reign of Assyrians, went out from there [seceeded?], which happened in the time of Sarug, the greatgrandfather of Abraham. But the reign of Babylon was held by those of the seed of Nemrod, until the fourth Millennium [of the world] and the last ?? [cusmis?].
[Here one can add that some have identified Assur here mentioned with precisely Nimrod. They have even gone so far as to identifiy Ninus with Nimrod. However, it seems they have followed the chronology of rabbis rather than of Septuagint in doing so. Rob Skiba II is one of them, I do not know the first of them, so I do not know whom else to metion than the one I read first. Actual quote from Josephus does not quite support his son Ragmus having as two sons Saba and Judas: The children of these [four] were these: Sabas, who founded the Sabeans; Evilas, who founded the Evileans, who are called Getuli; Sabathes founded the Sabathens, they are now called by the Greeks Astaborans; Sabactas settled the Sabactens; and Ragmus the Ragmeans; and he had two sons, the one of whom, Judadas, settled the Judadeans, a nation of the western Ethiopians, and left them his name; as did Sabas to the Sabeans: Someone thought that Saba who left his name to Sabeans was brother of Judadas who left his to Judadeans, but Josephus does not say that Judadas' brother left his name to anyone, he is comparing Judadas and Judadeans to his uncle Sabas and the Sabeans, as far as both being eponyms. And of course, Judadeans were Western Ethippians, not Western Egyptians.]
Primum incidens.		Incidental to the Biblical Storyline, First Item
Interim vero obtinuerunt Aegyptios et Assyrios ita: In diebus Sarug Belus Nerothides rex Babylonis, quia fuit alter Belus rex Graeciae, intravit Assyriam, sed parum obtinuit in ea. Quo mortuo filius ejus Ninus totam obtinuit Assyriam, et civitatem, in qua caput regni erat, itinere trium dierum ampliavit, et a suo nomine Ninivem dixit.		Meanwhile they obtained Egyptians and Assyrians this: In the days of Sarug, Belus the Nerothid [=?=Nemrothid, with a missed nasal stroke?] the king of Babylon, because there was another Belus, king of Greece, entered Assyria, but obtained too little therein. When he died, his son Ninus obtained all Assyria, and amplified the city in which the head of the kingdom was by the day's march of three days, and called it Ninive after his name.
[Note that it is not said that Ninus, who is not a Biblical character, founded Ninive, only that he amplified it and renamed it. Holy Writ says - if Assur is a person and perhaps identic to the son of Shem - that Assur did, Genesis 10:11. The scenario here is that Assur if so gave it another name, then Belus - probably Son of Nemroth/Nimrod - tried to conquer Assyria and failed, then his son Ninus succeeded, and celebrated the victory by dooming the earlier name and size of Ninive to oblivion, by enlarging and renaming it.]
Inde est quod quaedam historiae dicunt regnum Assyriorum coepisse ab antiquo Belo: quod verum est quantum ad initium. Alii dicunt coepisse a Nino, quod verum est etiam, quantum ad regni ampliationem. Ninus vicit Cham, qui adhuc vivebat, et regnabat in Thracia, et dicebatur Zoroastres inventor magicae artis, qui et septem liberales artes, in quatuordecim columnis scripsit, septem aeneis, et septem lateritiis, contra utrumque judicium. Ninus vero libros ejus combussit. Ab eisdem orta sunt idola sic.		This is why some histories say that the kingdom of Assyrians started with old Belus: which is true as far as the beginning is concerned. Others say it started with Ninus, which is also true, as far as the enlargement of the kingdom. Ninus defeated Cham [!] who was still alive and ruled in Thracia, and was called Zoroaster, inventor of magic arts, who also inscirbed the seven liberal arts in fourteen columns, seven of bronze and seven of tiles, against either doom (?). But Ninus burned his books. From these the same, idols were thus begun:
[Note that magic arts and seven liberal arts are distinct accomplishments of Zoroaster, alias Cham. And how awful if Ninus defeated his own ancestor!]
De morte Beli, et ortu idolorum.		On the Death os Belus and the Beginning of Idols
Mortuo Belo, Ninus in solatium doloris, imaginem patris sibi fecit, cui tantam exhibebat reverentiam, ut quibuslibet reis qui ad eam confugissent parceret. Proinde homines de regno ejus divinos honores imagini ejus coeperunt impendere; hujus exemplo plurimi claris suis mortuis imagines dedicarunt, et sicut ab idolo Beli caetera traxerunt originem, sic ab ejus nomine generale nomen idolorum traxerunt. Sicut enim dictus est Belus ab Assyriis, sic et aliae nationes secundum idiomata linguae suae dixerunt, aliae Bel, aliae Beel, aliae Baal, aliae Baalim. Imo, et nomina specificaverunt, aliae Beelphegor, aliae Beelzebub dicentes. Sed tandem seriem genealogiae Sem prosequamur.		When Belus was dead, Ninus, in consolation of the grief, made himself an image of the father, to which he showed such reverence, that he spared all criminals who took refuge to it. Accordingly people of his reign started to impend divine honours in the image; by example hereof many dedicated images to their celebrated dead ones, and as from the idol of Belus the others took their origin, so of his name they took the general name of idols. As he was called Belus by Assyrians, so also other nations according to the idiom of their tongues, named some of the Bel, some Beel, some Baal, some Baalim. Even more, they specified names, some saying Beelphegor, some saying Beelzebub. But at last let us pursue the genealogical series of Shem.
[Belus was not the real Assyrian name, but Bel was. Belos in Greek and Belus in Latin just add the -os/-us ending which is necessitated by the case grammar of these languages. And Baalim is not another language for Baal, it is plural and singular of same language - Chanaanean and Biblical Hebrew being two very close dialects of it. Beelphegor and Beelzebub were two different Baalim among the Chanaaneans.]
...
De ortu regnorum.		On the Beginning of Kingdoms
Anno undecimo Abrahae mortuus est Ninus, cujus uxor Semiramis, ut post eum regnare posset, proprio filio, quem susceperat ex Nino, nupsit, et ex eo filium genuit, qui et Babyloniam ampliavit. Anno Abrahae septuagesimo quinto facta est ei repromissio. Anno ejus octogesimo sexto natus est ei Hismael. Anno ejus centesimo natus est ei Isaac: Anno ejus centesimo trigesimo septimo mortua est Sara.		In the eleventh year of Abraham, Ninus died, the wife of which Semiramis, in order to rule after him, wedded her own son, whom she had received from Ninus, and bore of him a son, who also amplified Babylonia. In the seventyfifth year of Abraham, he received the promise. In his eightysixth year, Hismael [Ishmael] was born to him. In his hundredth year Isaac was born to him. In his hundred thirtieth year, Sarah died.
Aliud incidens.		Incidental to the Biblical Storyline, other item
Exortum est regnum Assyriorum anno vicesimo quinto Saruch, proavi Abrahae sub Belo, et cucurrit, ad annum septimum Oziae regis Judae, per annos mille et trecentos; alii quadringentos et duos: per reges triginta septem usque ad Sardanapalum, qui primus pulvinaria adinvenit. Post quem translatum est regnum ad Medos. Regnum autem Sicyoniorum ab anno vigesimo quarto Nachor, avi Abrahae, exortum est, sub Eugialo, alias Egialo, et cucurrit, usque ad annum decimum septimum Heli sacerdotis, et judicis Israel, per annos [Col.1109B] noningentos septuaginta et unum et per reges triginta et unum usque ad Zeusippum post quem judicaverunt Sicyoniam Sacerdotes Charmi. Sicyonia autem est regio, quae prius Apia, post Peloponensis dicta est.		The Kingdom of Assyrians began in the twentyfifth year of Saruch, the greatgrandfather of Abraham, under Bel, and ran on, into the seventh year of Ozias King of Judah, for one thousand and thirty years: through thirtyseven kings onto Sardanapalus, who first invented pillows. After whom the rule was transferred to the Medes. But the Kingdom of the Sicyonians [the Kingdom Sicyon] began from the twentyfourth year of Nachor, the grandfather of Abraham, under Eugialus, also known as Egialus [Aegialeus], and ran on, into the seventeenth year of the Priest Heli, Judge of Israel, for ninehundred and seventyone years up to Zeusippus [Zeuxippus] after whom priests of Charmus judged Sicyonia. But Sicyonia is the region which earlier was called/said to be Apia(n) and later Peloponesus(Pelopponesian).
[Aegialeus was by the Pagans thought to be autochthonous, i e to have sprung up from the ground in Sicyon. He was supposed to be so to speak the Adam of Sicyon. This is of course not accepted by Christians, including Petrus Comestor. Aegialeus descends from Adam as much as any other man. And from Noah as much as any other post-Flood man. Pagans were wrong about him being autochthonous. Another Pagan tradition was he was son of the rivergod (!) Inachus (or Inachus the founder of Argos) and the Seanymph (!) Melia. This does not mean he did not exist or was not the first king of Sicyon. No need whatsoever to say Pagans were wrong on that too. Even if some got him and some possibly his mother wrong. Greek wiki has 32 sovereigns of Sicyon, and Zeuxippus was only 28. The priests which afterwards - perhaps after him rather than the last Regnidas - judged Sicyonia were not "sacerdotes Charmi" but "sacerdotes Charnii" - Charnian Priests.]
Usque ad Abraham vero jam fuerant in Aegypto quindecim dynastiae. Dynastiam summam potestatem Aegyptii dicunt ; a nativitate Abrahae, dynastiam sexdecim obtinuerunt Thebaei, septemdecim Pastores, Reges sic vocati, octodecim Thebaei, vel Thiopolitani, qui et Pharaones, per Reges septemdecim. Variatae quoque sunt dynastiae de generibus quorumdam regum ad alia saepe transeuntes, usque ad Cambysem filium Cyri, sub quo primo per se imperaverunt Aegypto.		Up to the time of Abraham there had been fifteen dynasties in Egypt. The Egyptians call the highest [political] power "dynasty"; from the birth of Abraham sixteen Thebans obtained the dynasty, seventeen Shepherd Kings, eighteen Thebans or Thiopolitans, also known as Pharaos, through a sequence of seventeen kings. Also dynasties were changed from the kinsmen of certain kings often getting on to others, up to Cambyses son of Cyrus, under whom first they ruled Egypt by themselves.
[Kingship getting from kinsmen of one king to those of another - not related - is what dynasty means, each set of relatives all ruling being such a one. Petrus Comestor thinks "dynasty" is name of the title and "Pharao" only a name during one of these. Does not mean he was wrong about Egyptian dynasties predating Abraham or Shepherd Kings coming after his time.]

In order not to make this post too long, and also in order to provide what I already translated about Pagan History up to the time of Rebecca's giving birth (where next part will start), I here cut this message and pronounce it part I, with part II or perhaps even further ones, II and III or even more, upcoming, depending on how long I find the remainder./HGL