> is an ancient text where I can't even readily parse what language it is in.
It is Hortus Malabaricus, it is in latin and its not really ancient, it was published in late 17-th century.
It is Hortus Malabaricus, it is in latin and its not really ancient, it was published in late 17-th century.
The text is definitely Latin, but some things about it look odd to me. (I'm looking at page 107, right after the linked drawing.) Do you know what the circumflexes and graves signify?
The E in maximè is long, but so are unmarked Es in habEtur, rubEscente, and diffundEnsque. And the Us in verùm and cùm are short.
The circumflexes appear to be much rarer, but I see "sub eâ". That could be a helpful way to set off the ablative case from the nominative, but later down on the page I see "Folia cùm bina", unmarked.
My Latin is quite rusty, its been a long time since i studied it. But from what i remember there were several flavors, which had slightly different grammar, orthography and vocabulary.
Wikipedia confirms this - there is at least classical Latin, church Latin, New Latin (16-19c), Contemporary Latin (19c onward). Hortus Malabaricus is written in New Latin.
Looks like you're right.