Translation of Latin memorial tablet 1687

[Bookbox]

You haven’t had any help with lines 9 and 10. I don’t know about triumvir and quinquevir. I assume he was a member of bodies with 3 and 5 members, but I don’t know about such things in Charles II’s administration.

He was head of the Bedfordshire Militia, Commander of the Ordnance, a Treasury baron, Chancellor of the Exchequer etc., as set out in the History of Parliament link that I have already posted in reply #3. The Latin used here is just designed to reflect Roman administrative terminology, in keeping with the classical style of the whole inscription.

[clontarf]

Having read the History of Parliament biography I would say that not only has the epitaph writer gilded the lily, he has also attempted to rewrite history.  Sir John indeed had many roles (line 15), not all of them successful, but in order to match any of his appointments to the allusive and flowery language of the memorial I need to know more precisely what the memorial says - ie. data before interpretation.

Line 8:

This seems to be two thoughts: Pater Maritus Filus Optimus - "father, husband, best son" referring back to Sir John, and Charles the second doing the appointing referred to in lines 9 and 10. Is this valid, or is the writer praising the King?

Lines 9 and 10:

My crude translation: "(Charles the Second) appointed Sir John to a three man body dealing with armaments and a more secretive Council and after this was successful appointed him not long after to be chairman (governor) of a five man body."  The most obvious correspondence to Sir John's actual career would be his seat on an ordnance commission formed after the death of Sir William Compton in 1663.  The Parliament biography says the ordnance commission was so successful, the King nominated Sir John to the Treasury board ("Quinquevir Aeravi praetor"?).  Could "Secretioribus" be an attempt to latinize "secretary" and the line is saying Sir John was secretary of the three man armaments council, or are there two entities involved?

Line 25:

Does "Aetatis Suae LXIV" mean aged 64 or in his 64th year?

[Bookbox]

line 8: the meaning is ‘father, husband, and best son to Charles II’.

line 9: armamentaritis is incorrect, should be armamentariis = ‘for military equipment’. A seat on the Ordnance Commission sounds feasible.

line 10: aeravi is incorrect, should be aerarii = ‘of the Treasury’.

So ... ‘Father, husband and best son to Charles II. [He was appointed] one of three men of the Ordnance Commission and, through [his] good handling of some rather secret matters, not long afterwards [he was appointed] one of the five Lords Commissioners of the Treasury.’

line 25: aetatis suae LXIV can mean either ‘aged 64’ or ‘in his 64th year’.

[jnomad]

I think “optimus” goes with all three nouns: best father, husband and son. And I don’t think he’s being said to be son to Charles II. “Carolo secundo” goes with the next bit. (We have to supply punctuation.) So: “Best father, husband, son, for Charles II triumvir of ordnance …” — i.e. member of the Ordnance Commission (which had three members).

[Bookbox]

That's a fair enough view, jnomad.

[clontarf]

Thank you both.  That deals with the most specific reference to Sir John's career.

Final request before I close the topic:  Have I got the genealogical information on the inscription correct?  Does the inscription say Sir John was son of William Duncombe of Battlesden and Elizabeth (who was daughter of Sir John Pointz) and he was only married to Elizabeth May and had 7 children with her, only William surviving.  Does the inscription say William of Battlesden or John is the armiger?  Obviously if William was then John will be as well, but what does the Latin actually say (more punctuation would have helped)?

I know mother Elizabeth's surname was actually Morris and Sir John Pointz was Sir John Morris before adopting his father-in-law's surname, but that is a topic for another time and place.

[jnomad]

Yes to your first question. And “armigeri” describes John’s father, not John (both in genitive case, whereas John is nominative) — though as you say John will have inherited the status.

[clontarf]

Thank you jnomad (and Bookbox and Wayne N) for your insights.

[jnomad]

You’re welcome.