Liber de gestis meis (Vita Karoli Quarti)

[Matthaeus]

I'll begin by saying that I'm not well-versed in medieval Latin, hence all these various questions. Thanks in advance for any advice!

VITA KAROLI QUARTI

Vlastní životopis císaøe Karla IV (1316-1378), latinsky. The Life of Emperor Charles IV (1316-1378), written by himself, in latin.

www.asu.cas.cz

Reversus itaque de Francia inveni patrem meum in comitatu Luczemburgensi, occupante temporibus illis imperium Ludovico de Bavaria, qui se scripsit Ludovicus quartus, qui post mortem Heinrici septimi, avi mei, in Romanorum regem in discordia fuit electus contra Fridricum, ducem Austrie.

-The first de for the usual classical ex?
-something like Bavariensis (if such a word exists) would have been more usual?
-se scripsit I guess is "called himself"?

Et post hoc creaverat antipapam nomine Nicolaum, ordinis Minorum; qui post hoc traditus fuit ad manus pape et in penitencia mortuus fuit. Et iam reversus fuit in Germaniam, prout in cronicis Romanorum plenius apparet.

Is this equivalent to erat, still being pluperfect? This form occurs frequently later in the text as well.

Cum autem Parmam pervenissemus, aggravati eramus ex parte inimicorum ex omni parte validissime. Sed hiemis austeritas nobis profuit, que tantum invaluerat, quod nemo in campis persistere valebat.

"We were burdened on the part of the enemy on all sides?" Is it a common mediaevalism to find quod for ut in relative clauses?

Eodem tempore incepti fuerunt tractatus inter Veronenses ac inter inimicos nostros ex parte una...

Isn't this a defective verb, or am I confusing it with coepi?

Fecerunt legere missam, volentes iurare super corpore Christi illos tractatus firmos tenere.

"They ordered a mass to be read." A mediaevalism for the CL fecerunt ut missa legeretur?

 

[nomenutentis]

The first de for the usual classical ex?

Yes, "de" is used rather more extensively in ML than CL.

something like Bavariensis (if such a word exists) would have been more usual?

Yes, but nomen de loco is more standard in the Late Middle Ages.

se scripsit I guess is "called himself"?

That's how I would read this, maybe 'signed' or something like that rather than 'called', but I'm not immediately familiar with the expression so I'm happy to anyone who may be for this one.

Is this equivalent to erat, still being pluperfect? This form occurs frequently later in the text as well.

It's more likely equivalent to est. From LL fuit is being used pretty consistently as a substitute for est in the perfect passive. E.g. Donatus in the Ars Minor:

"uerbo impersonali tempore praesenti legitur, praeterito imperfecto legebatur, praeterito perfecto lectum est uel lectum fuit, praeterito plusquamperfecto lectum erat uel lectum fuerat, futuro legetur."

N.b.: This is actually already a classical construction, albeit rather rare one, but whether it's more perfect or pluperfect is a bit ambiguous. There is a good wikipedia article on this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latin_tenses#Ductus_fuī.

"We were burdened on the part of the enemy on all sides?"

Yes, though in this instance you could probably just translate 'ex parte' as 'by'. It's one of those scholasticisms that proliferates in the Late Middle Ages.

Is it a common mediaevalism to find quod for ut in relative clauses?

It's certainly not uncommon. Whether you'd expect to find it will depend a bit on where and when you're looking, but in many places quod becomes a sort of universal subordinating conjunction.

Isn't this a defective verb, or am I confusing it with coepi?

Yes, you're thinking of coepi.

A mediaevalism for the CL fecerunt ut missa legeretur?

Yes, the relevant usage from the DMLBS:

9 (w. vbl. compl. in causal sense) to have (someone) do (something), to have (something) done: a (trans., w. inf. act. or pass.); b (ellipt., w. inf. act.); c (w. dat. of pers.). d (w. ut, quod, or sim.) to bring it about, see to it (that).

 

[Pacifica]

Yes, "de" is used rather more extensively in ML than CL.

Note that de wouldn't be impossible there in classical Latin, but it indeed gained predominance in later times.

That's how I would read this, maybe 'signed' or something like that rather than 'called', but I'm not immediately familiar with the expression so I'm happy to anyone who may be for this one.

I don't see what else it could be than "signed".

"They ordered a mass to be read." A mediaevalism for the CL fecerunt ut missa legeretur?

By the way, we still have that in French ("ils firent lire la messe"). Similar constructions also existed in Old English (see for example the inscription on the Alfred Jewel: gewyrcan is an active infinitive so it's literally "Alfred ordered to make me" but it's translated passively in normal modern English). I'd expect it to be found in other languages as well.

Notice also another non-classical thing: ac inter inimicos nostros. Ac isn't used before vowels (or h) in classical Latin.

 

[nomenutentis]

I don't see what else it could be than "signed".

I was mostly uncertain whether this might have a particular technical meaning in this period, either in a legal sense of like defining his formal title or if there might be some idiomatic force in the direction of "he styled himself". But I was probably just overthinking things here.

--------------------

I should also add, the form nomen de loco is probably not actually merely synonymous with nomen lociensis here, as the former likely represents a specific title, while the latter needn't.

 

[Pacifica]

if there might be some idiomatic force in the direction of "he styled himself".

That's possible.

 

[Matthaeus]

That's great, thanks a lot!

 

[Matthaeus]

By the way, we still have that in French ("ils firent lire la messe"). Similar constructions also existed in Old English (see for example the inscription on the Alfred Jewel: gewyrcan is an active infinitive so it's literally "Alfred ordered to make me" but it's translated passively in normal modern English). I'd expect it to be found in other languages as well.

Interesting! But is it used on a regular everyday colloquial basis, or rather in a literary register?

Notice also another non-classical thing: ac inter inimicos nostros. Ac isn't used before vowels (or h) in classical Latin.

Good to know, thanks.

 

[Pacifica]

Interesting! But is it used on a regular everyday colloquial basis, or rather in a literary register?

In French, it's used in all registers, I would say. In Latin, it was used in the late literary language, and I would guess also in late colloquial speech although I have no evidence of the latter.

 

[Pacifica]

in the late literary language

Late or very late. I'm not sure when it started.

 

[Matthaeus]

Ok, early medieval at any rate.

 

[nomenutentis]

As with most of these things, it seems to be based in the Late Roman era. For example, Avian, Fabulae 24.5-6: "Illic docta manus flectentem colla leonem / Fecerat in gremio procubuisse viri."

There also seem to be some analogous, if rare, classical constructions. L&S notes:

With inf. = efficere, curare, to cause (rare): nulla res magis talis oratores videri facit, Cic. Brut. 38, 142; Pall. 6, 12: aspectus arborum macrescere facit volucres inclusas, Varr. R. R. 3, 5, 3; Sall. Fragm. ap. Sen. Ep. 114: qui nati coram me cernere letum Fecisti, Verg. A. 2, 539; Ov. H. 17, 174: mel ter infervere facito, Col. 12, 38, 5 (perh. also in Ov. H. 6, 100, instead of favet, v. Loers. ad h. l.; cf. infra, B. 4.).—

 

[Pacifica]

That's not really the same thing. Unlike the one in Matthaeus's quote, all those infinitives have an expressed subject. I was talking about the construction without a subject. I don't think that one is found anywhere in classical Latin.

 

[nomenutentis]

Ah, sorry, I missed that nuance. It still wouldn't suprise me if it's attested between the fourth to sixth century but I don't have an example of that off hand.

 

[Pacifica]

It still wouldn't suprise me if it's attested between the fourth to sixth century but I don't have an example of that off hand.

I've seen it in Gregory of Tours (late 6th century):

Hoc etiam et Victurius cum ordine paschalis solemnitates inquirere fecit.

I wouldn't be surprised to find it as far back as the 4th century either but I can't remember if I've seen it in any work from that time.

 

[Matthaeus]

"Noli credere sompniis!"
"malos autem foras [95]" mittent, id est ad gehennam perpetuam condempnabunt, ubi est "fletus et stridor dencium [96]".
Super quibus novis rex Iohannes territus sollempnes suos nuncios,
Ne ergo nobis pigricie ascribatur segnicies et ociose quietis sompnolencia impingatur
in ablacione uxoris et comitatus Tyrolis dampnificatus esset,

Any particular reason for a p between m and n? Also, c for t appears often. Does this variant spelling reflect the usual pronunciation in ML?

Accedentes patrem nostrum sibi suggesserunt dicentes: "Domine, provideatis vobis! Filius vester habet in regno multa castra et magnam sequelam ex parte vestri.

They suggested to themselves?
Your son has a large following/has many followers?

Et sic tarde venimus in castrum Pragense ad antiquam domum purgraviatus, ubi mansionem per aliquot annos feceramus, antequam palacium magnum fuerat edificatum.

Am I on the right track here?

Tunc fecit maiorem ignem et plures candelas incendit et ivit ad ciffos, qui stabant pleni vino super bancas, et potavit et reposuit unum ciffum prope unam magnam candelam ardentem

Any idea what this could be?

Et mane surgentes ciffum, prout proiectus erat, in medio camere invenimus et ea nostris familiaribus ad nos de mane venientibus ostendimus.

Equivalent to mane, I guess, "in the morning." Surely un-Classical.

 

[Pacifica]

Any particular reason for a p between m and n?

I'm not sure what the exact reason is; it's something to do with phonetics. It's very common in medieval Latin.

Also, c for t appears often.

When followed by a vowel, ti and ci were indeed pronounced the same (tsi or something similar depending on times and regions) so they were frequently confused.

They suggested to themselves?

"To him"... bad grammar. Some writers didn't have a clue about the classical difference between reflexive and non-reflexive pronouns.

Your son has a large following/has many followers?

Yes.

Am I on the right track here?

Presumably. There are many variant spellings. Purgraviatus is the name of the function held by a purgravius (as comitatus from comes, ducatus from dux, etc.).

Any idea what this could be?

A misspelling of scyphos.

Equivalent to mane, I guess, "in the morning."

Yes.

Surely un-Classical.

Yes, though de nocte is classical.

 

[kizolk]

Any particular reason for a p between m and n?

I'm not sure what the exact reason is; it's something to do with phonetics. It's very common in medieval Latin.

Phonetics, or etymology: many (most?) inherited Latin words (as opposed to Greek borrowings, e.g. amnesia) that have the sequence -mn- come from PIE -pn-, e.g. somnus < *swépnos. P and M being bilabial, and M and N being nasal, I'm not surprised this sound change would have occurred: it arguably requires less effort to pronounce [mn] than [pn], and it's close enough.

The fact that medieval Latin has seemingly reintroduced that etymological P reminds me of what happened in French. Many words were "re-latinized" some time around the Renaissance, sometimes erroneously so, e.g. savoir "to know" was re-spelled as sçavoir, because scholars wrongly thought it came from from Latin scire as opposed to sapere. But other re-spellings were based on correct etymology.

I wonder if that's a similar phenomenon. But yeah, it could also be purely phonetical; sound changes are sometimes reversed though phonetical dissimilation.

 

[Pacifica]

e.g. somnus < *swépnos.

Hmm... but pn isn't mpn. (And I'm not sure medieval writers would have been aware of PIE etymology anyway.)

 

[kizolk]

Hmm... but pn isn't mpn.

It could be a way to both make them more etymologically grounded, while maintaining the modern pronunciation. I think that happened in the French re-spellings, but no example comes to mind.

And I'm not sure medieval writers would have been aware of PIE etymology anyway.

Of course, but maybe this P could be found in some Old Latin words?

 

[Pacifica]

Of course, but maybe this P could be found in some Old Latin words?

Maybe. But, again, not sure they would have known.

That said, it is reminiscent of, though not entirely the same as, the variant spellings hiems and hiemps (both of which existed in the classical period, I think...?). (And also of English empty, from OE æmtig.)