Help with Latin translation?

Factual Questions
1

I’ve been working on a little project recording the physical appearances of notable medieval persons, based on contemporary or near-contemporary accounts, when possible. For this project, I’ve been translating some passages in Latin, a language I am not at all proficient at. So with this in mind I request a spot of help with the following passage regarding Simon de Montfort, the Parlimentarian.

Eret miles strenuus, in corpore procerus et facie formosus. That’s what the chronicle of Lanercost has to say about Simon de Montfort. I have translated this as “[He was a] vigorous soldier, in body tall and beautifully formed in appearance.” However, I have not been able to find a translation for “eret”. Any comments, notes, suggestions?

2

Sorry guys. The above post belongs to me.

3

Typographical error for “erat”, third-person singular imperfect of “to be”?

Thus “[He] was a vigorous soldier…” etc.?

4

Good translation. And I agree with Kimstu, eret is a spelling error for erat.

5

I concur with Kimstu and Walloon.

6

Concur.

‘He was a tough soldier, tall and handsome too.’

7

“Eret” certainly COULD be a typo for “erat” which means, simply, “he was.” But often, when Latin verbs end in “eret,” we’re expressing something conditional, or something that OUGHT to be.

“Eret” may mean the soldier “should be” all those things.

8

-eret is also the 3rd person singular imperfect subjunctive ending for an e-stem verb. See here

9

But “eret” in this case is not an ending for a verb, it is the verb. There is no conjugation for the Latin verb, esse (“to be”) which looks like “eret.” You can see the entire table of comjugations here.

I concur with those who say that it’s probably a typo for erat. “He was…” It makes perfect sense in context and requires the most economical explanation.

10

Very true. However, we don’t know the origin of the text. If it were taken from a column or similar then the words would have been run together and the OP might have split them incorrectly.

11

My first thought is absolutely that it’s a variant/typo of erat.

I’ve just checked a morphological analysis, and there’s no other possibility that it came up with.

12

It apparently should be erat, if imperfect indicative (“He was…”) or esset if imperfect subjunctive (“He should be…” or other contrary-to-fact meaning).

However, I am wondering: Imperfect subjunctive endings are found in -r- and -ss- forms, both being accurate. Might it be possible for a “caballus”-type Latin, one influenced by the vulgar usage, to have adopted a quasi-regular “erem/eres/eret” imperfect subjunctive form for esse alongside the “proper” essem forms? Similar developments did occur with reference to Latin irregulars as the language evolved through the first millennium A.D.

13

Sorry to cause so much debate, I was able to double-check the Lanercost chronicle, and it’s definitely Erat. I must’ve copied it down wrong, or mistaken my handwritten “a” for an “e”. Woe is me. Thanks for the help!