I think I have this right (but I'm a Latin virgin)

[jonjon358]

I hope people don't hate this type of post...lol. I don't know Latin at all formally, but I pieced this together for the title page of my portfolio, which is supposed to look and read very old-timey renaissance alchemical:

Emblemata nova sapientiae aeternae, hoc est, opusculus tam utilis, quam speciosus, in quo tota philosophia mystica artis figuris hieroglyphicus depingitur, vulgo necdum cognita, authore cuius nomen est (my name).

which according to my pathetic comprehension of Latin is supposed to mean something like:

New emblems of the eternal wisdom, which is, a little work as useful as splendid, wherein all the mystic philosophy of art is depicted in hieroglyphic figures, never hitherto known to the public, by an author whose name is (me).

I've done some studying and I think I'm pretty close here. Then again maybe you're all laughing at my idiocy right now...lol. Anyways, let me know what I screwed up. Remember it's supposed to sound all archaic..but I guess Latin always sounds archaic ;P

 

[SaepePecca]

Emblemata nova sapientiae aeternae, hoc est, opusculus tam utilis, quam speciosus, in quo tota philosophia mystica artis figuris hieroglyphicus depingitur, vulgo necdum cognita, authore cuius nomen est (my name).

which according to my pathetic comprehension of Latin is supposed to mean something like:

New emblems of the eternal wisdom, which is, a little work as useful as splendid, wherein all the mystic philosophy of art is depicted in hieroglyphic figures, never hitherto known to the public, by an author whose name is (me).

Upon casual inspection, I like it. It sounds very much like the kind of preamble some historical authors loved.

 

[Iynx]

Emblemata nova sapientiae aeternae, hoc est, opusculus tam utilis, quam speciosus, in quo tota philosophia mystica artis figuris hieroglyphicus depingitur, vulgo necdum cognita, authore cuius nomen est (my name).

Neat idea!

I think you've got a lot of it exactly right, to the point that it would probably be taken for a real book if one encountered it in a catalog.

The short snappy title followed by the long descriptive subtitle is characteristic. But I would expect the two to be separated by sive (or less often seu) rather than by hoc est.

Early printed title-pages often have the author's name first, and in the largest type, in the genitive, and accompanied by what seem to us ludicrously inflated references to the author's good qualities, appointments, and so on:

DOCTISSIMI VIRI ET MAHEMATICARUM DISCIPLINARUM EXIMIJ PROFESSORIS JOANNIS DE REGIOMANTE...

HIERONYMI CARDANI PRAESTANTISSIMI MATHEMATICI PHILOSOPHI AC MEDICI...

The printers of those title-pages often broke the lines, and changed the font-sizes, in ways that seem very odd to us today. I think they decided those things mostly on the basis of appearace-- symmetry and balance-- and only secondarily on the meaning of the words.

Later on it did becone customary to put the author's name further down, as you have done, after the word Auctore /Autore /Authore. But your cuius nomen est strikes me as unnecessary and unidiomatic-- usually the name was just put in the ablative:

MECHANICA sive MOTUS SCIENTIA ANALYTICE exposita AUCTORE LEONHARDO EULER...

One final point: if you mean "by means of hierogyphic figures" you probably want hieroglyphicus to accord with figura, in the ablative plural: figuris hieroglyphicis?

On the other hand, leaving a typo or two might actually add to the verisimilitude. But you might want to save that argument to explain the mistakes we didn't catch!

Hope you find this helpful.

 

[jonjon358]

Thanks for your replies, this is exactly the kind of advice/feedback I was hoping to get on here. I took all your suggestions into consideration and revised it to this (hopefully this works on here):

I decided to keep the "hoc est" because my main reference here is 17th century alchemical material viz. Michael Maier, and you see that usage a lot: "Viatorium, hoc est De montibus planetarum septem seu Metallorum..." As long as it's not actually grammatically incorrect in my hackneyed title, I like it better than "sive." But you're right about "hieroglyphicis," that's what I was trying to say...lol. As for the "Authore cuius nomen est," I had taken that verbatim from another old manuscript, but in that case the name that followed was supposed to be a "Hermetick" riddle or anagram of some sort - maybe that accounts for the redundant grammar, but anyway I changed it.

And about the name itself...lol. It's "John Erickson." "Johh," no problem, but I'm utterly in the dark as to the rule for "Erickson." I wound up with "Iohannes Ericssonus," which I'm afraid might sound like I'm being chased by Wile E. Coyote. Anybody? I mean, to an amateur like me, it really does look like all you do it stick a "-us" on the end.

Thanx again!

(P.S. - "E.V." is "era vulgaris" - not exactly idiomatic, but I like it.)

 

[Iynx]

This is fantastic! When this project of yours is done, I hope you will stick around and be a continuing part of this forum. We need guys like you!

I do think the Johannes should be in the ablative, that is Johanne. I'm looking at a reproduction of the title page of John Napier's Rabdologiae (1617) in which he describes his famous mathematical "bones"; he is called Authore & Inventore Ioanne Nepero, Barone Merchistonii, &c. Scoto. Not only his first name, but also his last name, title, and nationality, are here put into the ablative.

Names (like Erickson) that are harder to Latinize were more likely to be treated as indeclinable. In a 1799 work I see that Karl Friedrich Gauss is called Auctore Carolo Friderico Gauss-- the first two names were Latinized and put in the ablative, but the Gauss was left alone.

In my opinion you could, in the same way, just leave the Erickson as Erickson. But if you Latinize it, it is my view that it should here be ablative: Ericsono for Ericsonus, or Ericsone if you treat it as of the IIIrd Declension. Erici Filius (literally Erick's son) would in the ablative be Erici Filio, but I don't think you want that.

Good luck with it, in any case.

 

[jonjon358]

Very interesting...thanx AGAIN for all the input. And I'd love to stick around - but it will prob be a while before I have anything to contribute. I can usually guess my way through a translation, but I'll spare the board my guesswork...lol.

I take it names ending in "-son" were never actually Latinized as "(blank)-Filius." Actually though I think "Erici Filius" sounds kind of cool...lol. But I'm not really Eric's son, so yeah. I think I do want to Latinize it somehow though, so I'll prob go with "Ericssono."

What if I add "huius philosophiae studiosissimum" after my name? By which I intend to mean something like "a vigorous student of this philosophy." I'm trying to think of other titles to laud upon myself, but most of my family's duchies have lapsed. :roll: What would be the translation of "Bachelor of Fine Arts"?

 

[Iynx]

Bachelor of Arts is Baccalarius Artium. Baccalarius can be spelt almost any way you like, and even a IIIrd-Declension form is attested, but the spelling I have given is, I think, the most usual. Baccalaureus, though fairly common, and attested as far back as the the fourteenth century, is now pretty generally held to be bad Latin ("false etymology" sniiffs Niermeyer).

I think I have seen "Bachelor of Fine Arts" as Baccalarius Artium Elegantum, but I think you should avoid that as anachronistic--- the idea of "fine arts" as an academic discipline is really quite a recent one. We are talking about the Arts, the Artes Liberales, the Trivium and the Quadrivium.

"Bachelor of (Fine) Arts" in the ablative would be Baccalario Artium (Elegantum).

This is no place for false modesty. How about: Auctore: Iohanne Ericsono, Philosopho Eminentissino et Doctissimo, Baccalario Artium in Universitate (Whatever)ensis, ac in his Rebus Occultis, Mysticis, et Sanctissimis Initiato atque Magistri Peritissimo.

(I made up initiatus for "Initiate", but I think it will pass muster).

 

[jonjon358]

That ROCKS. OK I'll bite:

"John Erickson, Most Eminent Philosopher and Doctor, Bachelor of Arts at (the Kansas City Art Institute), and in this Recondite, Mystic, and Most Holy Symbolic Art a Professor of the Highest Authority."

Something like that. I'm sure I mismatched some adjectives and nouns, but I think that's the gist, and it's perfect in its nigh-Masonic pomposity...lol. I couldn't have better churned it out in English myself.

So now I have to ask how to translate "Kansas City Art Institute." (Hopefully this is at least fun for you. If you ever need advice on graphic design or illustration, hit me up...lol.) Since Kansas City was never conquered by the Romans, I assume it's Latinized more or less arbitrarily like my name, if at all.

Also one thing - is it "Eminentissino" or "Eminentissimo"? I have to ask, but I'm guessing that's a typo?

Again, many thanks. You have helped me out quite a bit.

 

[Iynx]

Close enough, though doctissimo is not a title here; it just means "most learned". And eminentissino was indeed a typo, it should be eminentissimo, as you say

I think "Institute" would be Institutum (institutio carrying a somewhat different sense) and that "Art Institute" might be Institutum Artium.

But I confess I have no idea about "Kansas City". We could make something up, I suppose. Urbs Kansae?

The phrase might then be Baccalario Artium in Instituto Artium Urbis Kansae.

But I would feel more comfortable if some erudite Midwesterner could give us a more definite answer on the Latin for "Kansas City".

 

[jonjon358]

OK, check this out:

I've tried to post this a few times but I guess the site has been down recently.

Anyway, thanks again for all your help in nailing this down. I'll post another image of the text as it appears on the actual portfolio cover once I have it finished.