Thank you so much Lucap. I am delighted with your writing this in both latin and italian. This is extremely helpful to me in translating my records. I now have some baptismal records and hope that you might do the same thing for one of them. Can you write out the Bottino record from this link. This is very helpful to me. Thank you so much.
Eodem anno die decimaterta julii Adm(odum) R(everendo) D(omino) Mattheus Casethbroch(!!!) baptizavit infantem predie natam ex Jacobo filio Jo(ann)is Laurentii Bottino, et Maria filia Petri Obert coniugibus, cui nomen imposuit Maria Josepha. Patrini Bernardus q(uon)dam Pauli Data, et Maria Josepha filia praed(ict)i Laurentii Bottino.
Lo stesso anno il giorno tredici di luglio il molto reverendo Don Matteo Casethbroch(!! - not an italian surname) battezzÃ² un'infante nata il giorno precedente da Giacomo figlio di Giovanni di Lorenzo Bottino e da Maria figlia di Pietro Obert coniugi, a cui impose il nome di Maria Giuseppa. Padrini Bernardo del fu Paolo Data e Maria Giuseppa figlia del detto Lorenzo Bottino.
Lucap already offered a wonderfully accurate transcription and translation.
I'd only add a couple of annotation:
1) In the first act, the word after "Curia" is "Taurinis": the parish church belong to the archdioceses of Turin.
2) In the second act, the baptizer has a double surname (they are common in this part of the country), i.e.: Caset Brach.
I'd finally add that all the surnames mentioned (Bottino, Milano, Obert, Girot, Fenoglio, Caset Brach, Data) are absolutely typical (and still very common at the present day) of the village of Forno Canavese, here in the north-western corner of Piemonte.
Grazie per le precisazioni, Maurizio. Effettivamente non sono piemontese ed alcuni cognomi non mi sono affatto familiari e rischio di non "prenderli" (avrai notato i punti esclamativi).
Per il taurinis. Ero convinto che, come spesso accade, si trattasse di atti del sud Italia e non mi era affatto venuto in mente che si potesse trattare di nord-ovest.
Spero che il resto ti convinca.
Thank you so very much for your valuable translation of my record. This will be very helpful to me in identifying my Italian ancestors.
Thank you for your comments about Forno Canavese. It sounds like you are very familiar with that town. I am encouraged to know that there are still lots of Bottinos living there. Maybe some day I will be able to identify some living relatives there.
I have one question about this baptismal notice. http://img694.imageshack.us/i/img2161z.jpg/, which you have already translated above. Is it saying that Jacobo is the son of Jo(ann)is Laurentii Bottino, OR as the italian translation suggests I think, that Giacomo, is the son of Giovanni, the SON of Lorenzo Bottino. It is actually the Italian translation that is confusing to us. I am saying that the latin translation is simply Jacobo is the son of Jo(ann)is Laurentii Bottino. OR does the "is" mean something else. Thanks
Joannis and Laurentii are both in the genitive form, so they should indicate TWO different names and TWO different persons (Giovanni, Giacomo's father, and Lorenzo, the grandfather). But in the case that the father had two names himself, the form is the same... so the doubt remains!!!
Thank you Lucap. It would appear from your Italian translation, that your initial impression was that Joannis and Laurentii were in fact two different persons, grandfather and great grandfather. Do you think that the correct form would be to list the father, his father, and great grandfather , but only the wife's father in the record.
I so agreed with Lucap's first translation, that I didn't noticed this uncertainty.
For what is worth, my opinion is the grandfather had two first-names: mentioning both of them appears to me less uncommon than adding one generation in the paternity line. In my (limited) experience with acts of this kind in this area, I can't remember any of them indicating great-grandparents of a baptized newborn, at least for people of low (i.e. "normal") social condition. It doesn't happen, for example, in the two other registrations we can see in the picture you posted.
Moreover, and exactly because that wasn't the usual procedure, in case the priest deliberately decided to mention the greatgrandfather too, chances are he himself (the priest, I mean) would have chose a most clear way to do that, for example by writing between the names Giovanni and Lorenzo the words "filii" or "q(uon)dam".
These are only my two cents, obviously... In Genealogy, as in life, you can never say never. So, as Lucap correctly stated, the doubt remains... at least until you'll go further and find Giacomo's baptism or marriage act.
Thank you very much for your contribution. I also noticed that in the other baptismal entries, there is no indication of the great grandfather. I think that is a good indicator that this is just the grandfather. You are also right, when I find him again, either as another father, or a marriage, it may get resolved.
I will just note it for now.
Thank you for your help.