Textkit Logo

Disputatio pro Declaratione Virtutis Indulgentiarum

Here you can discuss all things Latin. Use this board to ask questions about grammar, discuss learning strategies, get help with a difficult passage of Latin, and more.

Disputatio pro Declaratione Virtutis Indulgentiarum

Postby jeidsath » Mon Apr 17, 2017 9:00 pm

In view of the year, Timothée has suggested that the 95 Theses might be some decent Latin practice for me. Before attempting the translation of each one, I'll post my parsing for correction. I'm using Morwood's Latin dictionary, which has a nice summary grammar, and guessing at terms not included.

Here is the 1517 Basel edition:

http://www.e-rara.ch/bau_1/content/pageview/69647

Disputatio D. Martini Luther theologi, pro declaratione virtutis indulgentiarum.


Disputatio: sing. nom. of disputātiō, ōnis (f)
D. Martini Luther: sing gen.
theologi: sing. gen of theologus, or sing abl. of theologe ?
pro: prō (prep with abl.)
declaratione: abl. from declaration/declarations/declarationis/declarationes (?)
virtutis: sing. gen. of virtūs, ūtis (f)
indulgentiarum: pl. gen of indulgentia, ae (f)

Amore et studio elucidandae veritatis haec subscripta disputabuntur Wittenbergae, Praesidente R. P. Martino Luther, Artium & S. Theologiae Magistro, eiusdemque ibidem lectore Ordinatio. Quare petit ut qui non possunt verbis praesentes nobiscum disceptare, agant id literis absentes. In nomine domini nostri Iesu Christi. Amen.


Amore: sing. abl. of amor, ōris
et: conj.
studio: sing. abl. of studium, (i)ī
elucidandae: gen/dat sing. or nom. pl. of elucidanda, which should be gerundive of something like elucido (not in Morwood), 1st conj.
veritatis: sing. gen. of vēritās, ātis (f)
haec: f. nom. sing., or neut. nom/acc pl. of hic, haec, hoc.
subscripta: f. nom./abl. sing. of subscripta, or neut. nom/acc pl. of subscriptum? Perfect participle of subscrībō, psī, ptum [3] (???). Supine?
disputabuntur: imperfect passive ind 3rd pl of disputō [1]
Wittenbergae: f. nom./abl. sing.
Praesidente:
R. P.:
Martino Luther: dat./abl.
Artium: ?
S.:
Theologiae: f. gen./dat. sing. or nom. pl. of Theologia
Magistro: dat./abl. of magister, trī (m)
eiusdemque: gen. sing. + que conj.
ibidem: adv
lectore: sing. abl. of lēctor, ōris
Ordinatio: Don't know about this form, but given as ordinario in Timothée's text from masc/neut. sing. dat./abl. from ōrdinārius, a, um

Quare: quārē adv.
petit: present act ind 3rd sing of petō, īvī, ītum [3]
ut: adv/conj
qui: adv/pro
non: adv
possunt: ind. 3rd. pl. active of irregular possum posse, potuī
verbis: pl. dat./abl. of verbum, ī (nt)
praesentes: m./f. nom./acc. pl of praesēns, ntis (adj.)
nobiscum: abl. pl. of ego + cum
disceptare: inf of disceptō [1]
agant: I would expect ind. 3rd. pl. active of ago [1-conj], but only see agō, ēgī, āctum [3-conj] in Morwood
literis: I expect dat./abl. of something like lit(t)era, lit(t)erus, lit(t)erum.
absentes: m./f. nom./acc. pl. of absēns, ntis (adj.)

In: prep with acc./abl.
nomine: abl. sing. of nōmen, inis (nt)
domini: sing. gen. / nom. pl. of dominus, ī (m)
nostri: gen. pl. of ego
Iesu Christi: sing. gen.
Amen: indeclinable
Joel Eidsath -- jeidsath@gmail.com

μὴ δ’ οὕτως ἀγαθός περ ἐὼν θεοείκελ’ Ἀχιλλεῦ
κλέπτε νόῳ, ἐπεὶ οὐ παρελεύσεαι οὐδέ με πείσεις.
User avatar
jeidsath
Administrator
 
Posts: 1988
Joined: Mon Dec 30, 2013 2:42 pm
Location: Γαλεήπολις, Οὐισκόνσιν

Re: Disputatio pro Declaratione Virtutis Indulgentiarum

Postby Timothée » Mon Apr 17, 2017 10:42 pm

Well done! Here are some notes:

D. Martini Luther: I’m not sure but I think the “D.” is short for Dominus (here obviously in genitive)
Luther: “Luther” is here indeclinable, but I think I’ve seen Lut(h)erus in later centuries
theologus: a theologian
elucidandae: the verb is post-classical ēlūcidāre, which means ‘to shine clearly, to shed light (on something), to illuminate’
haec subscripta: neuter plural (note the plural verb): ‘these [which are] written below’, ‘these clauses (below)’, ‘these sentences (below)’ (derives from subscrībere, but works here as a noun)
disputabuntur: passive future (passive imperfect would be disputabantur)
Wittenbergae: locative of Wittenberga
praesidente: from praesidēre
R. P.: abbreviation of Reverendus Pater (but in the same case as Martino)
Artium: genitive plural of ars; artes here probably short of artes liberales
S.: short of either Sanctus or Sacer
Magistro: will be ablative (together with Praesidente and Martino and R. P.)
agant: not indicative but subjunctive present
literis/litteris: it’s the noun lit(t)era (‘letter [of alphabet]’), here plurale tantum, which can mean e.g. ‘literature’ and ‘letter (= epistle)’; literis here most likely ‘by letter’, ‘by mail’
domini/Domini: goes together with the possessive pronoun nostri

You missed id after agant
Timothée
Textkit Enthusiast
 
Posts: 495
Joined: Fri Oct 09, 2015 4:34 pm

Re: Disputatio pro Declaratione Virtutis Indulgentiarum

Postby mwh » Mon Apr 17, 2017 11:32 pm

Artium & S. Theologiae Magistro.
The S. surely stands for Sacrae.
Artium Magistro = MA.

Quare petit ut qui non possunt verbis praesentes nobiscum disceptare, agant id literis absentes.
petit ut … agant id: agant has to be subjunctive.
Best not to ignore syntax even at this first stage.
mwh
Textkit Zealot
 
Posts: 2367
Joined: Fri Oct 18, 2013 2:34 am

Re: Disputatio pro Declaratione Virtutis Indulgentiarum

Postby jeidsath » Tue Apr 18, 2017 2:03 pm

Timothée wrote:D. Martini Luther: I’m not sure but I think the “D.” is short for Dominus (here obviously in genitive)


Not Doctor?

Translation attempt:

The argument of theologian D. Martin Luther, for the making clear of the worth of indulgences.

With love and zeal of the truth to be illuminated what is written below is to be debated in Wittenberg by the Superintendent Reverend Father Martin Luther, Teacher of the Arts and Sacred Theology, and of who is in that place an ordained lecturer (why abl.?). Wherefore he seeks for anyone who can't be present to debate with us, that being absent they might debate him in print. In the name of our lord, Jesus Christ. Amen.


Some parts where I had to guess:

"elucidandae veritatis"
"eiusdemque ibidem lectore Ordinatio"
The usage of "quare" and "ut" didn't seem obvious from their dictionary definitions.
"agant" -- I follow Google, which says "The subjunctive expresses an element of uncertainty, often a wish, desire, doubt or hope." The verb agant, from ago, seems transitive, with id (Luther) as a direct object. I wasn't sure what would be an exact translation though. I wouldn't think "debate him" is correct.
Joel Eidsath -- jeidsath@gmail.com

μὴ δ’ οὕτως ἀγαθός περ ἐὼν θεοείκελ’ Ἀχιλλεῦ
κλέπτε νόῳ, ἐπεὶ οὐ παρελεύσεαι οὐδέ με πείσεις.
User avatar
jeidsath
Administrator
 
Posts: 1988
Joined: Mon Dec 30, 2013 2:42 pm
Location: Γαλεήπολις, Οὐισκόνσιν

Re: Disputatio pro Declaratione Virtutis Indulgentiarum

Postby whsiv » Tue Apr 18, 2017 3:29 pm

Nice work so far!

agant is subjunctive, because it is the subordinate verb in the ut clause following petit: he seeks that... they do...

id seems to be a place-holder object with the place-holder verb agant. id agant as a chunk is taking the place of nobiscum disceptare from the previous clause. So, in the event that these people can't argue with him in person, he wants them to do it (i.e., argue with him) by sending him letters.
whsiv
Textkit Neophyte
 
Posts: 76
Joined: Fri Jan 04, 2013 11:33 pm

Re: Disputatio pro Declaratione Virtutis Indulgentiarum

Postby jeidsath » Wed Apr 19, 2017 1:11 am

If someone has a suggestion for something for me to do for the other side of the debate (perhaps a letter of Erasmus?) please let me know, and I'll start another thread in addition to this one.

i. Dominus & Magister noster Iesus Christus, dicendo poenitentiam agite & e. omnem vitam fidelium, poenitentiam esse voluit.


Dominus & Magister noster Iesus Christus -- all masc. sing.
dicendo -- dīcō, dīxī, dictum [3]. Gerundive dat./abl.
poenitentiam -- (paenitentiam) paenitentia, ae (f). acc. sing.
agite -- active, imperative, 2nd person pl.
& e. -- et cētera (guess from looking at the Nuremberg printing)
omnem -- omnis, e, adj. fem. acc. sing.
vitam -- vīta, ae (f). acc. sing.
fidelium -- fidēlis, e adj. masc./fem./nt. gen. pl.
poenitentiam -- idem
esse -- sum, esse, fuī. active infinitive
voluit -- volō, velle, voluī. 3rd person sing. act. perfect

Our Lord and Teacher Jesus Christ, by saying do penitence, etc., for the entire life of the faithful, has willed that there be penitence.

dicendo -- is this dat. or abl.? Is it really "by saying"?
omnem vitam -- accusative of extent (of time)?
Joel Eidsath -- jeidsath@gmail.com

μὴ δ’ οὕτως ἀγαθός περ ἐὼν θεοείκελ’ Ἀχιλλεῦ
κλέπτε νόῳ, ἐπεὶ οὐ παρελεύσεαι οὐδέ με πείσεις.
User avatar
jeidsath
Administrator
 
Posts: 1988
Joined: Mon Dec 30, 2013 2:42 pm
Location: Γαλεήπολις, Οὐισκόνσιν

Re: Disputatio pro Declaratione Virtutis Indulgentiarum

Postby bedwere » Wed Apr 19, 2017 1:17 am

jeidsath wrote:If someone has a suggestion for something for me to do for the other side of the debate (perhaps a letter of Erasmus?) please let me know, and I'll start another thread in addition to this one.


Exsurge, Domine. :wink:

Are you sure about the comma after fidelium? I'd translate it as:

Our Lord and Teacher Jesus Christ, by saying do penance, etc., has willed that the entire life of the faithful be a penance.
User avatar
bedwere
Global Moderator
 
Posts: 2756
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 10:23 pm
Location: Didacopoli in California

Re: Disputatio pro Declaratione Virtutis Indulgentiarum

Postby Timothée » Wed Apr 19, 2017 6:52 am

A few more notes on the exordium:

• Did you notice the ablatiuus absolutus Praesidente R. P. Martino Luther, Artium et S. Theologiae Magistro? Something like “the reverend father Martin Luther, — —, being the leader/superior”.

• Check mwh’s remark: I’d think that here magister is rather ‘master’, i.e. Master of Arts, which should even today be an academic degree. That is also why the first “D.” could not logically be “Doctor”.

• I do read it as ordinarius (not ordinatius), so lector ordinarius would be e.g. ‘ordinary teacher’. Eiusdem is genitive of īdem eadem idem ‘the same’, but to be honest I don’t quite understand what the genitive qualifies (i.e. why the genitive).

Quārē means here ‘(and) that is why’. Disceptāre does mean ‘to debate’ but here more towards the sense of the word ‘to discuss, to converse’.

Verbis and literis form a contrasting pair. Verbis literally means ‘with words’ (Latin uerbum and English word are actually IE cognates), meaning ‘with spoken words’, i.e. ‘orally’: “so that those who cannot be present to debate (or: who cannot as being present debate) with us orally could do that, being absent, by letter.”
Timothée
Textkit Enthusiast
 
Posts: 495
Joined: Fri Oct 09, 2015 4:34 pm

Re: Disputatio pro Declaratione Virtutis Indulgentiarum

Postby Timothée » Wed Apr 19, 2017 11:31 am

jeidsath wrote:If someone has a suggestion for something for me to do for the other side of the debate (perhaps a letter of Erasmus?) please let me know, and I'll start another thread in addition to this one.

Audiatur et altera pars? Why not.

Pope wants to build/renovate a church, but has no money. He (or one of his cronies) has a leading idea: let’s start to intimidate people with purgatory and hell, and people’ll do anything to avoid them. Then let’s say that you can avoid purgatory and hell by not sinning. This is impossible, but your sins’ll be forgiven if you give money to Pope.

Sorry about the sarcasm but just thinking of all these malfeasances, misuses, and misappropriations gets me beside myself. Maybe I should rewatch the Intelligence² debate Is the Catholic Church a Force for Good in the World? with Stephen Fry, Christopher Hitchens, John Onaiyekan and Ann Widdecombe.

EDIT 26.4.: I received the information that indulgencies for building a church is not correct, despite the fact that Luther says so. I mention it so that anyone who reads this won’t be misled.
Last edited by Timothée on Wed Apr 26, 2017 5:49 am, edited 1 time in total.
Timothée
Textkit Enthusiast
 
Posts: 495
Joined: Fri Oct 09, 2015 4:34 pm

Re: Disputatio pro Declaratione Virtutis Indulgentiarum

Postby Shenoute » Wed Apr 19, 2017 1:06 pm

Timothée wrote:• I do read it as ordinarius (not ordinatius), so lector ordinarius would be e.g. ‘ordinary teacher’. Eiusdem is genitive of īdem eadem idem ‘the same’, but to be honest I don’t quite understand what the genitive qualifies (i.e. why the genitive).

Could it refer to S. Theologiae, "Luther, MA of Sacred Theology and Ordinary Lector of the same"?
Shenoute
Textkit Member
 
Posts: 192
Joined: Tue Jun 04, 2013 12:23 pm

Re: Disputatio pro Declaratione Virtutis Indulgentiarum

Postby mwh » Wed Apr 19, 2017 7:01 pm

Isn’t it “Master of Arts and Sacred Theology”?
“and Lector Ordinarius of the same (i.e. Theology) in the same place (ibidem, i.e. at Wittenberg)”?

I once heard Momigliano introduced by a wellknown American ancient historian who had evidently consulted his CV and fastened on the early age at which he had already been recognized as an “extraordinary” professor—not realizing that “professore straordinario” refers to a junior temporary appointment. An ordinarius has tenure. Cf. an “ordinary” consul as distinct from a suffectus.
mwh
Textkit Zealot
 
Posts: 2367
Joined: Fri Oct 18, 2013 2:34 am

Re: Disputatio pro Declaratione Virtutis Indulgentiarum

Postby Timothée » Thu Apr 20, 2017 7:09 am

Thank you, Shenoute and mwh. Eiusdemque must refer to “theology”, I simply failed to see that (thinking only of Luther as referent, which didn’t work).

mwh opened possibilities of translating lēctor ōrdinārius. Academic titles (and their history) are something of a thing of their own. One further translation possibility might be reader, which I think is used in the UK but maybe not in the USA. In Finland we have the title docent, which is probably not known in the English-speaking world. Here lector is a teacher with qualifications and an office (not physical!) at schools before university, e.g. in the sixth form.

extraordinary: We used to have “personal extraordinary professors” designated maybe until the 1970’s, and the last of them have now retired I believe. These professorships were granted personally to distinguished scholars. I think this practice must have been adopted to us from Germany, as most things in academia (there maybe außerordentlich or something like that).
Timothée
Textkit Enthusiast
 
Posts: 495
Joined: Fri Oct 09, 2015 4:34 pm

Re: Disputatio pro Declaratione Virtutis Indulgentiarum

Postby jeidsath » Thu Apr 20, 2017 10:54 am

Re: Doctor

Luther had been made "Doctor" in 1512. The story, as explained to me, was that this was equivalent to something like a Professorship, and was done despite Luther's objections. Staupitz wanted to retire and asked Luther to take the position. Luther said no way, that the added workload would kill him, but was ordered to accept it anyway (Staupitz was his superior in the order, and replied that God also needed wise Doctors in heaven). Frederick of Saxony -- one of the founders of the new university at Wittenberg -- paid the graduation fee, as Luther's order couldn't afford it, on the promise that Luther would stay in the position for life.

See the quote here: https://luthertoday.wordpress.com/2017/ ... ay-5-1512/
Joel Eidsath -- jeidsath@gmail.com

μὴ δ’ οὕτως ἀγαθός περ ἐὼν θεοείκελ’ Ἀχιλλεῦ
κλέπτε νόῳ, ἐπεὶ οὐ παρελεύσεαι οὐδέ με πείσεις.
User avatar
jeidsath
Administrator
 
Posts: 1988
Joined: Mon Dec 30, 2013 2:42 pm
Location: Γαλεήπολις, Οὐισκόνσιν

Re: Disputatio pro Declaratione Virtutis Indulgentiarum

Postby jeidsath » Wed Apr 26, 2017 2:23 pm

Basel:

Quod verbum poenitentia de poenitentia sacramentali (.i. confessionis & satisfactionis quae sacerdotum ministerio celebratur) non potest intelligi.


Nuremberg:

Quod verbum de penitentia sacramentali (id est confessionis et satisfactionis que sacerdotum ministerio celebratur) non potest intelligi.


"Because the word penitence is not able to be understood as sacramental (that is of a confession and of a making good which is performed by a minister)."

There is a repeated word in the Basel version, which also had the comma objected to by bedwere in the last thesis. I was confused by .i. for "id est" in Basel and "pōt" for "potest" in Nuremberg, but comparing both let me figure it out.

Why "de"? I don't think it should be "the word from penitence."

sacramentali -- I have sacrāmentum, ī (nt) in my dictionary, and sacerdōtālis, e (adj). I think this is 3rd declension dat/abl, but a noun since it does not agree with anything else. It doesn't seem to be formed like an adverb.
Joel Eidsath -- jeidsath@gmail.com

μὴ δ’ οὕτως ἀγαθός περ ἐὼν θεοείκελ’ Ἀχιλλεῦ
κλέπτε νόῳ, ἐπεὶ οὐ παρελεύσεαι οὐδέ με πείσεις.
User avatar
jeidsath
Administrator
 
Posts: 1988
Joined: Mon Dec 30, 2013 2:42 pm
Location: Γαλεήπολις, Οὐισκόνσιν

Re: Disputatio pro Declaratione Virtutis Indulgentiarum

Postby Timothée » Wed Apr 26, 2017 4:38 pm

If I understand it correctly, the difference between Basle and Nuremberg is not great: “the word” vs. “the word ‘penitence’”. One mentions what the word is, the other doesn’t. The preposition de I’d construe together with the verb.

Ministerium means ‘office’. In what case is sacerdotum? As a non-native speaker I mayn’t quite understand the difference, but I would say rather “cannot be understood”.

“.i.” is quite common also in texts written in other languages than Latin; I’ve seen it in an Old Irish text (basically the same situation as with English which even today uses “i.e.”). The scribal tradition was obviously largely Latinate in Europe for centuries.

For penitentia/pœnitenta dictionaries have generally as lemma paenitentia, for intelligere generally intellegere. Again, small differences and hardly the most important part in reading this text.
Timothée
Textkit Enthusiast
 
Posts: 495
Joined: Fri Oct 09, 2015 4:34 pm

Re: Disputatio pro Declaratione Virtutis Indulgentiarum

Postby jeidsath » Wed Apr 26, 2017 9:24 pm

In what case is sacerdotum?


I don't recall if it was in my dictionary, but it appears to be the nominative subject of the passive celebratur.
Joel Eidsath -- jeidsath@gmail.com

μὴ δ’ οὕτως ἀγαθός περ ἐὼν θεοείκελ’ Ἀχιλλεῦ
κλέπτε νόῳ, ἐπεὶ οὐ παρελεύσεαι οὐδέ με πείσεις.
User avatar
jeidsath
Administrator
 
Posts: 1988
Joined: Mon Dec 30, 2013 2:42 pm
Location: Γαλεήπολις, Οὐισκόνσιν

Re: Disputatio pro Declaratione Virtutis Indulgentiarum

Postby bedwere » Wed Apr 26, 2017 10:10 pm

jeidsath wrote:I don't recall if it was in my dictionary, but it appears to be the nominative subject of the passive celebratur.

It's sacerdos, sacerdotis, 3rd declension. Hence, sacerdotum is genitive plural.
User avatar
bedwere
Global Moderator
 
Posts: 2756
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 10:23 pm
Location: Didacopoli in California

Re: Disputatio pro Declaratione Virtutis Indulgentiarum

Postby bedwere » Wed Apr 26, 2017 10:42 pm

Quod verbum poenitentia de poenitentia sacramentali (i.e. confessionis & satisfactionis quae sacerdotum ministerio celebratur) non potest intelligi.


Because the word penance cannot be understood of sacramental penance (that is of the confession and satisfaction that is celebrated through the ministry of the priests).
User avatar
bedwere
Global Moderator
 
Posts: 2756
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 10:23 pm
Location: Didacopoli in California

Re: Disputatio pro Declaratione Virtutis Indulgentiarum

Postby Timothée » Thu Apr 27, 2017 7:20 pm

jeidsath wrote:I don't recall if it was in my dictionary

This word should be even in the smallest pocket-dictionaries — maybe you just accidentally overlooked it.

bedwere wrote:Because the word penance cannot be understood of sacramental penance (that is of the confession and satisfaction that is celebrated through the ministry of the priests).

I’m sure I don’t disagree with Bedwere’s translation, but it may not be apparent from the translation that “confession and satisfaction” qualify “sacramental penance”. You could add “that is [the sacramental penance] of the confession and satisfaction” to make it clearer.

It bothers me that the meaning of this is slightly beyond me. Theological writings can be so difficult to understand. Is “sacramental penance” different from “true” penance, maybe insincere? What does “satisfaction” mean here?
Timothée
Textkit Enthusiast
 
Posts: 495
Joined: Fri Oct 09, 2015 4:34 pm

Re: Disputatio pro Declaratione Virtutis Indulgentiarum

Postby jeidsath » Thu Apr 27, 2017 7:48 pm

Timothée wrote:
jeidsath wrote:I don't recall if it was in my dictionary

This word should be even in the smallest pocket-dictionaries — maybe you just accidentally overlooked it.


Correct, it is in my dictionary. The failure is on me -- I haven't fully internalized the declensions yet.

Timothée wrote:
bedwere wrote:Because the word penance cannot be understood of sacramental penance (that is of the confession and satisfaction that is celebrated through the ministry of the priests).

I’m sure I don’t disagree with Bedwere’s translation, but it may not be apparent from the translation that “confession and satisfaction” qualify “sacramental penance”. You could add “that is [the sacramental penance] of the confession and satisfaction” to make it clearer.

It bothers me that the meaning of this is slightly beyond me. Theological writings can be so difficult to understand. Is “sacramental penance” different from “true” penance, maybe insincere? What does “satisfaction” mean here?


What Luther is saying, I think, is that Jesus' command in Mark 1:15 to "μετανοεῖτε," translated by Jerome as "paenitemini," could not be understand to line up with process of confessing one's sins to a priest and receiving absolution. (Luther means "absolution" by "satisfactionis"?) I assume that Luther will provide some arguments for this position going forward.
Joel Eidsath -- jeidsath@gmail.com

μὴ δ’ οὕτως ἀγαθός περ ἐὼν θεοείκελ’ Ἀχιλλεῦ
κλέπτε νόῳ, ἐπεὶ οὐ παρελεύσεαι οὐδέ με πείσεις.
User avatar
jeidsath
Administrator
 
Posts: 1988
Joined: Mon Dec 30, 2013 2:42 pm
Location: Γαλεήπολις, Οὐισκόνσιν

Re: Disputatio pro Declaratione Virtutis Indulgentiarum

Postby bedwere » Thu Apr 27, 2017 9:29 pm

Since today it's his feast, this is definition of penance in the catechism of St. Peter Canisius, S.J. (1521-1597), who wrote it for the Germans.

Quid est Poenitentia?

Est secunda post naufragium tabula et necessarium relapsis sacramentum, in quo remissio peccatorum et a reis petitur et a sacerdotibus tribuitur.

Quot sunt partes et actiones Poenitentiae?

Tres : 1. contritio vel dolor animi peccata sua detestantis, et ad vitam meliorem aspirantis; 2. confessio seu peccatorum suorum coram sacerdote facta explicatio; 3. satisfactio denique seu vindicta punitioque criminum de seipso sumpta, ad praestandos fructus dignos poenitentiae.
User avatar
bedwere
Global Moderator
 
Posts: 2756
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 10:23 pm
Location: Didacopoli in California


Return to Learning Latin

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google Adsense [Bot] and 126 guests