# [The Club Dumas] Can you crack this Latin code?



## nikolai (Sep 21, 2004)

Hello,

Some of you will know that the books forum hosts the ENWorld book club. The club's current selection is the *The Club Dumas* by *Arturo Perez-Reverte*, which we will start to discuss on the 15th of October.

More information is here: http://www.enworld.org/forums/showthread.php?t=99429

*The Club Dumas* is a books about books. One of these books is the _Book of the Nine Doors of the Kingdom of Shadows_, a manual for summoning the devil. There's a small extract from this book in the 3rd chapter. But it's in a latin code (which is decipherable). I want to find out what this extract says in preparation for the Book Club's discussion. I have looked, but it hasn't been deciphered anywhere on the internet that I know of. And my latin is not very good. So I need your help.

The code is "just" abbreviated latin, so, as an example in the book goes:



> *The Code*: Nem. perv.t qui n.n leg. cert.rit
> *The Latin*: Nemo pervenit qui non legitime certaverit
> *The Translation* Only he who has fought according to the rules will succeed.




So, what does this (the introduction) say?



> Nos p.tens L.f.r, juv.te Stn. Blz.b, Lvtn, Elm, atq Ast.rot. ali.q, h.die ha.ems ace.t pct fo.de.is c.m t. qui no.st; et h.ic pol.icem am.rem mul. flo.em virg.num de.us mon. hon v.lup et op. for.icab tr.d.o,.os.ta int. nos ma.et eb.iet i.li c.ra er. No.is of.ret se.el in ano sag. sig. s.b ped. cocul.ab sa Ecl.e et no.s r.gat i.sius er.t; p.ct v.v.t an v.q fe.ix in t.a hom. et ven D:
> Fa.t in inf int co.s daem.
> Satanas. Belzebub, Lcfr, Elimi, Leviathan, Astaroth
> Siq pos mag. diab. et daem. pri.cp dom.




And this (the first few lines)?



> D.mine mag.que L.fr, te D.um m. et.pr ag.sco. et pol.c.or t ser.ire a.ob.re quam.d p. vvre; et rn.io al.rum d. et js.ch.st. et a.s sn.ts tq.e s.ctas e. ec.les apstl. et rom. et om. i sc.am. et o.nia ips. s.cramen. et o.nes.atio et r.g q.ib fid. pos.nt int.rcd. p.o me; et t.bi po.lceor q. fac. qu.tqu.t m.lum pot., et atra. ad mala p. omn. Et ab.rncio chrsm. et b.ptm omn...




Thanks to anyone who can offer help on this. The discussion of the book (_The Club Dumas_, not the _Nine Doors_) starts on the 15th over in the books forum, everyone is welcome. It'd be nice if the code is cracked by then, so it can be revealed to those of us who can't read abbreviated latin in our heads.


----------



## tarchon (Sep 21, 2004)

nikolai said:
			
		

> So, what does this (the introduction) say?



It's not a conventional style of abbreviation, so it's saying "translating this is way more trouble than it's worth."  It's more like a corrupted text than an abbreviated text, with certain letters obscured pseudo-randomly.  I think I see a glaring error in the first two words anyway.  The author probably intends "nos potentes" ("We powerful ones") but writes "p.tens."  Ick.


----------



## nikolai (Sep 21, 2004)

For what it's worth the book says that it's a "style of abbreviation similar to that found in ancient latin manuscripts". And it is difficult to read, you'd have to know latin well enought to guess words. A bit like a crossword.

As for this line:



> Satanas. Belzebub, Lcfr, Elimi, Leviathan, Astaroth




I can figure out who the first three names are. Who are the second three?


----------



## LizardWizard (Sep 21, 2004)

nikolai said:
			
		

> I can figure out who the first three names are. Who are the second three?



In the Ancient Hebrew language, "Elim" means "gods". By "Elimi", the author presumably wanted to say "my gods" (or "my God", as God is referred to in plural form in the Hebrew Bible), but it's a wrong form; the correct one is "Elai" AFAIK. 
Leviathan is a titanic sea monster described in chapter 40 (or 41, the order in the Slavic Bible is somewhat different) of the Book of Job. In the Middle Ages, it was believed to be one of the devil's names. 
Astaroth is the plural form of Astarta, an ancient Semitic goddess of lust and fertility. Also once considered to be a demonic being.


----------



## tarchon (Sep 22, 2004)

nikolai said:
			
		

> For what it's worth the book says that it's a "style of abbreviation similar to that found in ancient latin manuscripts". And it is difficult to read, you'd have to know latin well enought to guess words. A bit like a crossword.




It's like a crossword where you don't know the clues and 10% of the words
are misspelled.
If you want a vague outline, the first one is a pact between the aforementioned demons and a party in the 2nd person, which somehow concerns a thumb, love, virgins' flower, fornication, the church, and living, perhaps happily.

Editum est: the "thumb" (pollicem) is fortunately more likely to be "pollicem[ur]" "we promise."


----------



## tarchon (Sep 22, 2004)

Oh, and something about "offers to us once a year [something - a sign?] under the foot [gibberish - "a small cook from his Church?"] and asks us of the same was[?!]"   
The verbs don't make much sense.

2nd one:
"Lord and Master Lucifer, thee God ??? acknowledge (possibly _te Deum meum esse agnosco_ - 'I acknowledge thee to be my god') and? ?? ? I promise to serve thee? so long as [I am able]? to live; and I renounce the god of others and jesus christ and ? ? and holy spirit? thee? saints? and apostolic church and rome and all ? ? the same holy things (sacraments) and ? and rules? certain? faith? they can kill for me; and to thee I promise that? do however much can?, and dark to? evil things for? all.  And from renounce? chistianity? and baptism all?..."

You get the idea anyway.  Satan's Latin sucks.


----------



## tarchon (Sep 22, 2004)

Oh wait - this is the book they made _the Ninth Gate_ from, wasn't it?


----------



## LizardWizard (Sep 22, 2004)

tarchon said:
			
		

> Oh wait - this is the book they made _the Ninth Gate_ from, wasn't it?



Sort of. The movie (man, I really adore Johnny Depp  ) was somewhat loosely based on the novel.


----------



## nikolai (Sep 22, 2004)

Thanks very much for the help.



			
				tarchon said:
			
		

> Oh wait - this is the book they made _the Ninth Gate_ from, wasn't it?




Yes, this is the book they made the Ninth Gate from. Though everyone who's read it says the Club Dumas is better than the film. You're all welcome to read it and join in the discussion on the 15th.

I think it's probably deliberately mangled. The author uses un-coded latin else where, and I haven't seen any complaints that it's incorrect.



			
				tarchon said:
			
		

> It's like a crossword where you don't know the clues and 10% of the words are misspelled.




It .s n.t qu.t th.t b.d! W.th Engl.h t.xt we w.ld pr.b.bly al. be abl. to d.c.ph.r wh.t it s.ys.


----------



## tarchon (Sep 22, 2004)

nikolai said:
			
		

> It .s n.t qu.t th.t b.d! W.th Engl.h t.xt we w.ld pr.b.bly al. be abl. to d.c.ph.r wh.t it s.ys.



t mu.c t.n w.e yu w.d t.in


----------



## jester47 (Sep 22, 2004)

Note: Medieval latin is a very different creature than classical latin.  I think you might be translating medieval latin.

Aaron.


----------



## tarchon (Sep 22, 2004)

jester47 said:
			
		

> Note: Medieval latin is a very different creature than classical latin.  I think you might be translating medieval latin.



Me you?  Inasmuch as the syntax can be determined, it sounds like it's using Medievalish grammar, since in one place it may be saying _po(l)l(i)ceor q(uam)_ so-and-so.  The vocabulary is distinctly Medieval.
Trust me on this - if you can't read Latin, you can't appreciate how corrupt this text is.  "for.icab tr.d.o,.os.ta int."  What the hell - so to speak - is ".os.ta" supposed to mean?  Some word that starts with one or more letters, contains "os" and may end in "ta," though the text feels free to leave off inflections at random with no notation, so really all we know is that this is some word that contains "os" and "ta" probably followed by _inter_.  Under no circumstances does any historical convention allow abbreviations that drop the first letter.  _hospitalitas_, _sororitas_,_positarum_?  There are hundreds of possibilities.
The words before it - from context probably _fornicabis_ but the next one is dicey _traducto_, _traditione_?  
It's possible that it got mangled in transcription, since portions of it make sense.  When I used to do these on genealogy groups, 90% of the time, the poster would copy a large fraction of the letters wrong, so I'd have to go back and forth for 3 or 4 posts with stuff like "Are you sure 'daptix.' isn't 'baptiz.'?"  It can work with formulaic texts, but it you don't already know what 90% of it says, it's just a lot of speculation.


----------



## nikolai (Sep 23, 2004)

Tarchon, thanks for all your assistance. You've been fantastic, I'm very grateful.



			
				tarchon said:
			
		

> It's possible that it got mangled in transcription, since portions of it make sense.




I think my transcription is accurate. I went over it as carefully as I could. There may be one or two minor slip ups, but nothing to cause the level of corruption you say is there. I've checked and all your examples are in the text.

The deliberate obscurity may be deliberate. The _Nine Doors_ is supposed to be an arcane text that only initiates who have studied that sort of stuff intensely would be able to interpret. The intention may be that you'd have to be intensely familiar with esoteric language to substitute some of what's there.



			
				tarchon said:
			
		

> What the hell - so to speak - is ".os.ta" supposed to mean?  Some word that starts with one or more letters, contains "os" and may end in "ta," though the text feels free to leave off inflections at random with no notation, so really all we know is that this is some word that contains "os" and "ta"...




I get what you're saying. I thought I'd enter some of the other examples of interpreted code (from the woodcut captions, translated in Chapter 11). How correct is the latin given, and its translation into english?

I: Nem. perv.t qui n.n leg. cert.rit
I: Nemo pervenit qui non legitime certaverit
I: Only he who has fought according to the rules will succeed.

II: Claus. pat.t
II: Clausae patent
II: They open that which is closed.

III: Verb. d.sum c.s.t arcan.
III: Verbum dimissum custodiat arcanum
III: The lost word keeps the secret.

IIII: For. n.n omn. a.que
IIII: Fortuna non omnibus aeque
IIII: Fate is not the same for all.

V: Fr.st.a
V: Frustra
V: In vain.

VI: Dit.sco m.o.
VI: Ditesco mori
VI: I am enriched by death.

VII: Dis.s p.ti.r m.
VII: Discipulus potior magistro
VII: The disciple surpasses the master.

VIII: Vic. i.t Vir.
VIII: Victa iacet Virtus
VIII: Virtue lies defeated.

VIIII: N.nc sc.o ten.br. lux
VIIII: Nuco scio tenebris lux
VIIII: Now I know that from darkness comes light.

Thanks.


----------



## tarchon (Sep 23, 2004)

nikolai said:
			
		

> II: Claus. pat.t
> II: Clausae patent
> II: They open that which is closed.
> 
> ...



Several aren't quite right.
One problem with _Claus. pat.t_ would be that it's ambiguous.  Could mean closed things are open, closed things will be open, a closed thing will be open, closed [gates] are open, let closed things be open, etc.  The translation is also wrong.  _Pateo_ is intransitive, meaning "to be open" (compare "to gape" in English).  If I say _X patet_ that means "X is open."  To say "Y opens X" requires an entirely different verb, usually _aperio_.  "They open that which is closed" would be _clausas aperiunt_ (or literally _aperiunt quae clausae [sunt]_) , assuming the "thats" are gates (portae).   A more subtle aspect is that _pateo_ is stative so it can only indicate that the closed things are open a particular time.  It can't indicate that anything is in the process of opening, for which you need its inceptive cousin _patesco_ or a passive of _aperio_.

clausae patesсunt - closed things are opening
clausae patent - closed things are open
clausas aperiunt - they are opening or they open closed things

Also, the conventional way to abbreviate it would be more like _clausae pate~_ or possibly something like _clau~ pat~_ if it were a well known formula.  Something like _Jas Smith f Joh ob aet XIX an rip_ wouldn't be unusual on a tombstone.  However, when writing out the terms of your pact with Satan with regard to the exact number of virgins involved, you probably are better off not sparing the ink... or blood anyway.


----------



## tarchon (Sep 23, 2004)

I did like the movie quite a bit.  I didn't go look for the book, partly because I don't read fiction much, but also I had a feeling that the ambiguities between the gnostic and orthodox _Weltanschauungen_ that were in the movie wouldn't be so ambiguous in the book, and that was a big part of its charm.  Lot of good discussions on it on IMDB, though many people can't really get beyond seeing it in terms of _the Omen_.


----------



## nikolai (Sep 23, 2004)

Thanks. The translations given are those made by one character in the novel. So there is wriggle room for an imperfect translation. I'm glad the latin is valid, even if it's a little ambiguous (which, in context, may be a plus rather than a minus).

I don't want to say too much now, before the discussion on the 15th. But I liked the film, if only for the noirish Polanski feel. It does go downhill though, particularly at the end. It's nice to have a film about the devil that isn't all gregorian chants and horror cliches. I think, if anything, the book's more ambiguous than the film.

Again, thanks for all your help.


----------



## tarchon (Sep 24, 2004)

I wouldn't say it was all valid - _ditesco mori_ definitely doesn't mean "I am enriched by death" and I can't really think of any way to make sense of it.  In a poetic sense, it's possible you could read it is "I am becoming rich in mulberries."


----------



## tarchon (Oct 5, 2004)

I read it on the plane - the translation in Chapter IX "You will accept..." (p. 246 in my ed.) is what the Latin paragraph "Nos p.tens L.f.r, juv.te Stn. Blz.b, Lvtn, Elm, atq Ast.rot..." is replying to.  Much of the content is parallel, "I ask for X,Y,Z...", "We will provide X,Y,Z..."  It's enough to make reasonable guesses about most of the ambiguous parts.
I thought the movie was better though.


----------

