u/No_Championship5426

The text begins in \"Aesc.\" and finishes in \":\".

I was reading the text above and have found the clause "ac functiones, intrumento unicuique suas ... subministrat" difficult to understand. Searching, I came accross the phrase "Suum cuique redde", which totally makes sense in the context above. I think, in a direct order, the sentence is: "ac subministrat functiones suas unicuique instrumento".

My question is: Is it common that the possessive adjective appear after his substantive, sepparated by a comma? (It's a Renaissance text) That seens so odd to me, it was the last thing I thought the possessive refered to.

https://preview.redd.it/nfi06qyqadeh1.png?width=661&format=png&auto=webp&s=2576e80dce3ede31ed8a78ebf2ecb8e00c42dd2f

Although I don't know Greek, I can imagine the first word is Theos, but can't read the second one. I don't want to use AI either. Can someone transliterate and give me the meaning of the entire expression, please? It would be of immense help!

https://preview.redd.it/38y1k8z7ezdh1.png?width=681&format=png&auto=webp&s=fe7b9f7897138b6fd7d1c7ccdae439028445356b

I've posted here many times, here I am again.

I'm reading a Renaissance medical text, but I don't know Greek and now and then Greek words appears.

Which word is that above? Can somenone transliterate it to me and give me the meaning, please?

Thanks!

1. First edition

I was really struggling with the text above. The clause with "velit" didn't make syntatic sense to me next to "perfectissimae eius bonitatis specimen est": how the first could be syntatically bound to the second one? As far as I know, the present indicative can't form a subordinate clause; for me, the natural form in Latin in this case would be an infinitive:

velle ex aethereis sedibus spiritum illum formatorem transmittere ... perfectissimae eius bonitatis specimen est.

But then, how to make clear that the agent of the infinitive is "providentia"?

In Portuguese, it's possible to use the present subjunctive: "Que ela queira...".

Thankfully, there's an improved second edition of this book, and in it the author changed "velit" for "dignetur".

Second edition

To me, that makes much more sense! Here's my question:

Is it possible to make sentences in Latin like that of the first edition? And with the subjunctive? I've never seen it before, but "dignetur" in this position seens very natural to me.

EDIT: I just noticed "dignetur" is in the passive voice, so it's not clear to me how it links to the agent, "providentia". Is it an impersonal structure?

https://preview.redd.it/hfq7xer7d6dh1.png?width=662&format=png&auto=webp&s=678f8b1da0cf73201026088286abf9df59630686

CONTEXT: Aesculapius have just explained the origin of the human body, now Urania is commenting on it.

The text I'm struggling with is from "Bene" until "attulisti".

1. I can't understand the structure "Bene equidem et bene Aesculapi". It seens to be a fixed structure, but where's the verb to accompany it? As far as I understand, it seens to be a flattering expression, but I haven't find it anywhere without a verb and with that strange repetition "Bene... et bene...". Can someone explain it to me, please?

2. As to the second half of the period, I find also weird "placent" without a dative indicating the beneficiary. Is it common?

3. I've found a French translation of this book made by the same author, and he places "mirandum in modum" as a modifier of "placent", not "attulisti" (which was my first guess). Is there a way to know which verb the adverbs modify or it's just context and guessing? In this case, there's nothing that tells me which one is besides proximity, but since in Latin proximity frequently means nothing, I'm wondering if there's a way to know it...

Any attempt of help helps!

https://preview.redd.it/s9hs7rxwfeah1.png?width=618&format=png&auto=webp&s=18a690e41240a7dc123697e6d009f1206b5806f6

I've posted here before (and probably will still be posting for a time), can someone help me with the Greek again? I'm translating a Renaissance text, but can't transcript or understand the Greek parts that keep appearing. Can someone help with that? I'd really appreciate it.

Context: Aesculapia explaining Urania the origin of the human body.

Prisca est sententia Urania, et inter meos medicos, atque philosophos illorum patres, qui humani corporis fabricam, primámue conformationem intus et in cute diligentissimè indagaverunt, hactenus probata, et confirmata, divinae et colestis originis opificem quendam esse spiritum, planè aetherum, et astro persimilem, qui unà cum famulantibus illi maternis facultatibus, generationis humanae principia, semen utrunque genitivum, cum muliebri sanguine, in destinata ad id cellula supra omne miraculum admirabili (uterum et matricem appelant) via omnibus omnium, nisi deorum, occulis caeca, elaboret, perstantisque  modo, et fingentis, membratim  figuret, in suamque veluti tribum singula pedetentim  digerat, atque digesta, ad viventis corpusculi iustam symetriam indicibili harmonia moduletur.

Last week I posted the same text above with a question regarding the use of "sententia est" introducing "infinitive with accusative". Now I understand it, thank you! There are only two things that I'm still not certain of.

1. Is it possible that "illi" refers to a person that have not been syntatically explicited before? I mean, there's no further context to it, and the only referent I can think of is "mater", but that word doesn't appear as a substantive before, only as "maternis", so, in my translation I've considered it refering to mother ("to her"). Or does "illi" refer to another thing that I'm not seeing?
2. I've learned "suus, -a, um" is always reflexive, but I can't see how it can refer to "qui (spiritum opificem)" in the context. As I see, "qui" is the syntatic subject of "digerat", so "suam" couldnt' refer to "singula (I've translated it as 'each thing')".

EDIT: 2. I've considered "suam" as referring to "tribum"

Help, please!

Context: Aesculapius teaching Urania the origin of the human body.

Prisca est sententia Urania, et inter meos medicos, atque philosophos illorum patres, qui humani corporis fabricam, primámue conformationem intus et in cute diligentissimè indagaverunt, hactenus probata, et confirmata, divinae et colestis originis opificem quendam esse spiritum, planè aetherum, et astro persimilem, qui unà cum famulantibus illi maternis facultatibus, generationis humanae principia, semen utrunque genitivum, cum muliebri sanguine, in destinata ad id cellula supra omne miraculum admirabili (uterum et matricem appelant) via omnibus omnium, nisi deorum, occulis caeca, elaboret, perstantisque modo, et fingentis, membratim figuret, in suamque veluti tribum singula pedentim digerat, atque digesta, ad viventis corpusculi iustam symetriam indicibili harmonia moduletur.

I’m struggling with this paragraph. I'll post two doubts below (more coming...)

1."Prisca est sententia … divinae et coelestis originis opificem quendam esse spiritum"

Q.: I’d translate it as: There’s an ancient opinion that there’s a certain creator spirit of divine and celestial origin. My question is: – Is the second clause an infinitive clause that works as complement of the first one? – Why the “accusative with infinitive”? Since there's not a proper verbum discendi or sentiendi in the first clause, but a construction with esse (sententia est), I’m a bit confused, I’d prefer to use some kind of conjuction to link the two clauses, it seens more natural. I've never seen this kind of construction in Latin before.

2. "Perstantisque modo, et fingentis"

Q.: Why the genitive in perstantis and fingentis, since modo is in ablative? I'd rather say perstantique modo, et fingenti.

Any help will be greatly appreciated!!

Context: Urania trying to convice Aesculapius to teach her the secrets of the body.

Quare agè, esurienti panem scinde, et à primordiis humane generationis, totius nostri coloquii fores mihi aperi
Hoc ubi abstuleris, seria proponam: quibus pro tua dexteritate respondere non detrectabis.

I can make sense of evertything above, except for the sentence in bold. I saw that seria can be a kind of jar, the adjective serius (I dont think that's it) or the same as series (I'm more inclined to this option). But since I can't figure out Hoc ubi abstuleris in the context, I can't understand the rest. Can someone help me with that?

Context: Aesculapius talking to Urania.

In quibus [what the author said before], si quid deinceps a me peccabitur, imo certe quia sepenumero peccabitur, tam libenter mihi condonabis, quam ego tibi facile annuam, quod tu per coelestem meam genealogian tam anxie e solicite postulavisti.

Question: Can someone explain me why the future indicative is used in both clauses — the conditional and the main clause? I think in Portuguese it would be more natural to use the imperative in the main clause.

Hi! I'm still struggling with Greek words in the Renaissance text I'm reading. I'll post some that appeared recently. I'd be very grateful if someone could transcribe and provide the meaning of it to me, since I don't know Greek (yet).

https://preview.redd.it/cavjqt5dof6h1.png?width=623&format=png&auto=webp&s=f64273a9b296fe61caa6c8c0502507f5413ebe3c

https://preview.redd.it/ujejvj8kof6h1.png?width=628&format=png&auto=webp&s=d7a0488f0ee9768014a8f9b295c87955d710b3ac

https://preview.redd.it/yiz80giia16h1.png?width=316&format=png&auto=webp&s=470b0813ed140cffb890f9b980a5540c931c729f

Hi! I don't know Greek, but some Greek words appear in the Latin text I'm reading. Can someone provide me a transcription and a translation, please? The author says that it is something to do with born of the sky, but I'd like to know the precise word. Thanks!

EDIT: There's this quote too, from the Sybilline oracles (I really need to know what that means. All help is appreciated!):

https://preview.redd.it/xbdsvcr9c16h1.png?width=736&format=png&auto=webp&s=b954e9a506b87c27c0718a579bc78a52666addd9

https://preview.redd.it/geevqlv4u85h1.png?width=625&format=png&auto=webp&s=556483a6cd5307a2d3e60f30f89d931cec045c1a

Since "pro" is a preposition that requers ablative and "absentibus" is in the ablative, why "paranymphi" and "auspices" are not? Not knowing that is hurting my brain.

I appreciate any help!

https://preview.redd.it/i37wd6meju4h1.png?width=667&format=png&auto=webp&s=852f5454c3f38b71bb7744f2132ac0bccf52f16e

I'm struggling with the syntax of the passage above, mainly with "cuique apparebunt" and "illorumque rebus". Is the neuter plural the subject of "apparebunt" and the object of "proponam"?

That's how I'm seeing it in a direct order and with everything explicit. Is that right?

Itaque ut idipsum vere intelligam quidquid est (nam coelestes amant verum) deinceps proponam simpliciter et absque fuco tibi [ea] quae erunt et [ea] [quae] apparebunt cuique in meis coelis [et in] rebus sanequam divinis illorum.

https://preview.redd.it/acs1w44jdn4h1.png?width=667&format=png&auto=webp&s=b58c0c2ba2aa3025f89984a0bdac42024c8d0d23

I'm translating a text to Portuguese but got stuck with that passage.

It's a dialogue between the muse of Astronomy, Urania, and the god of Medicine, Aesculapius. In the passage above, Urania is asking Aesculapius' help to clarify something Galen says in a book.

I've looked "sanequam" everywhere; the only mention of it that I've found was a book called "Hypnerotomachia Poliphili, ubi humana omnia non nisi somnium esse ostendit, atque obiter plurima scitu sanequam digna commemorat", but even then no one would translate the word.

Can someone clarify it to me?

The text below is a transcription of a medical text from the Renaissance period (with its original punctuation and accent marks).

After saying his work is incomplete (the author calls his work harmonia), he says:

Haec sunt quae te scire volui, Lector humanissime, quae si aequè candidè acceperis, atque à me scribuntur, eandem hanc nostram harmoniam paulo elaboratioribus demonstrationibus auctam, et illustratam, brevi accipies. Quod aggredi no permiserunt importunae amicorum preces: quibus nihil molestius, et rectis consiliis, necnon lucubrationibus cum tempore maturandis exoquendis pestilentius haberi potest.

My question is: Why did he use "quod" in this case, since there's no neutral referent in the singular before (only the plural "quae")? I assume "quod" is not being used as some sort of conjunction because there's no diacritical mark (`) in it, and I noticed everytime the author doesn't put it, it's because the "quod" is beeing used as a relative pronoun. Am I missing something?

https://preview.redd.it/qvvalic1xpyg1.png?width=649&format=png&auto=webp&s=c4809f4ebdb50bb26c73b28cfb115e46836236ed

Certainly our ideia always was wanting to encourage good talents with little invitations to new discoveries, so that they don't obtain everything from us, but also something from their own industry, and add a lot to our discoveries.

My main questions are these:

1. Is inventionum novarum modifying invitatiunculis or bona ingenia?
2. What does unde mean in the context?
3. Is debeant modifying an eliptic habere?
4. Is my translation good?

"Vel ob id" in the text below (ignore the annotations) is simply because or "vel" adds something else that I'm missing? I don't know exactly why, but translating it as "because" or "even because" is sounding a bit off.

https://preview.redd.it/r3crl6iya4yg1.png?width=577&format=png&auto=webp&s=e1c3dfb00ff16d429b7403fccf1a4317b86572ec

The author is comparing the human body with the sky. In the sentence before, he used the verbs "conferre et aequiparare" to say that he's not stupid enought to think it's easy to compare the sky and the body in all their components in a exaustive way. Then he writes the sentence below. I understand its meaning, but can't understand why he used ablative (is it ablative?) in all the elments of the comparison. I imagine the verbs ommited are still "conferre et aequipare". All help is appreciated.

https://preview.redd.it/d8ulmgvovqxg1.png?width=591&format=png&auto=webp&s=2a6fb32f7258fe01de9f06c6865305333cd89409

I can't grasp the syntax in the text below (please, ignore the higlights). Where is the verb of the clause introduced by the conjunction "quia"? Is the semicolon introducing another clause? (The punctuation on these texts always confuses me). A complete translation would be appreciated.

https://preview.redd.it/kue065ernjxg1.png?width=675&format=png&auto=webp&s=b182a784f81a316c5a92d053e6d7831d4909d88b