Frater autem confitetur se a philosopho interrogari noluisse, quia parum Graece sciret.

Because autem is a postpositive word in Latin: it normally comes after the first word or phrase of its clause, not before it.

So:

• Frater autem = the brother, however / but the brother
• not usually autem frater

This is very common with words like autem, enim, and igitur.

Confitetur is the 3rd person singular present indicative of confitēri, meaning to confess, admit, or acknowledge.

A very important point: confitēri is a deponent verb. That means:

• it has passive forms
• but an active meaning

So although confitetur looks passive, it means:

• he confesses
• he admits

not he is confessed.

Se is the reflexive pronoun, and here it refers back to the subject of confitetur, namely frater.

So:

• Frater confitetur se... = The brother admits that he...

Latin uses se in indirect statement when the subject of the subordinate idea is the same as the subject of the main verb.

If Latin used eum instead, that would mean:

• the brother admits that he / that another man...

with the reference depending on context, but se clearly points back to frater.

Because after verbs like say, think, know, hear, admit, and confess, Latin very often uses an indirect statement construction:

• accusative subject + infinitive

Here:

• se = the subject of the indirect statement, in the accusative
• noluisse = the infinitive

So:

• confitetur se noluisse = he admits that he did not want

This is one of the most important Latin constructions.

In indirect statement, Latin uses an infinitive instead of a finite verb.

Noluisse is the perfect active infinitive of nolle (to not want, to be unwilling).

In indirect statement, the tense of the infinitive is relative to the main verb:

• present infinitive = same time as the main verb
• perfect infinitive = earlier than the main verb
• future infinitive = later than the main verb

So:

• confitetur se noluisse literally means he admits himself to have been unwilling
• more natural English: he admits that he did not want or he admits that he had not wanted

The perfect infinitive does not always need a pluperfect translation in English; idiomatic English often uses simple past.

This is a common Latin pattern:

• nolo + infinitive = I do not want to ...

Here the infinitive after noluisse is interrogari:

• se ... interrogari noluisse = that he did not want to be questioned

So the structure is:

• se = subject of the indirect statement
• noluisse = not to have wanted
• interrogari = complementary infinitive, depending on noluisse

Because the meaning is to be questioned, not to question.

• interrogare = to question
• interrogari = to be questioned

So:

• se interrogari noluisse = that he did not want to be questioned

If Latin had interrogare, it would mean:

• that he did not want to question someone

which is different.

Because interrogari is passive, and the person doing the action can be expressed with:

• a/ab + ablative

So:

• a philosopho = by a philosopher

This is the normal way to express a personal agent with a passive verb.

Compare:

• interrogat philosophus fratrem = the philosopher questions the brother
• frater a philosopho interrogatur = the brother is questioned by the philosopher

Here the same idea appears inside the infinitive phrase:

• se a philosopho interrogari noluisse

Philosopho is ablative singular.

It is ablative because it follows a, which here means by with a passive construction:

• a philosopho = by a philosopher

So this is the ablative of agent.

Quia means because.

It introduces the reason for the brother's unwillingness:

• quia parum Graece sciret = because he knew too little Greek

So the whole sentence says that the brother admits he did not want to be questioned by a philosopher, and then gives the reason.

This is one of the most interesting features of the sentence.

Sciret is the imperfect subjunctive of scire. A learner may expect sciebat, but the subjunctive appears because the reason clause is being presented within the framework of reported thought/speech.

The main clause already puts us into the brother's admitted statement:

• confitetur se ... noluisse

Then quia parum Graece sciret gives the reason as part of that reported content.

So the subjunctive can show that this is the brother's own reason, not necessarily the narrator's independent assertion.

A simple way to think of it is:

• sciebat would sound more like the narrator's direct factual statement
• sciret fits the reported, subordinate point of view

Also, the imperfect is used because it is simultaneous with the past idea of noluisse in the indirect statement.

Because parum is an adverb meaning too little, not enough, and Graece is also an adverb, meaning in Greek or in the Greek language.

So:

• Graece scire = to know Greek
• parum Graece scire = to know too little Greek

This is a very idiomatic Latin way to express knowledge of a language.

Compare:

• Latine loquitur = he speaks Latin
• Graece scribit = he writes in Greek

So Graece is not an adjective here; it is an adverb of language.

Graece is an adverb, not a noun or adjective.

It means:

• in Greek
• Greekly in a very literal sense, though that is not natural English

Latin often uses adverbs like this for languages:

• Latine = in Latin
• Graece = in Greek
• Gallice = in Gaulish / in French depending context

So parum Graece sciret means literally something like:

• he knew too little in Greek
• more natural English: he knew too little Greek

Latin word order is much freer than English because Latin shows grammatical relationships largely through endings rather than position.

A rough structural breakdown is:

• Frater autem = topic / subject
• confitetur = main verb
• se a philosopho interrogari noluisse = indirect statement
• quia parum Graece sciret = reason clause

More literally:

• The brother, however, admits himself by a philosopher to-be-questioned not-to-have-wanted, because he knew too little Greek.

That sounds strange in English, but in Latin it is normal. Latin often places important ideas near the end, especially infinitives and subordinate verbs.

You can do it as a learning exercise, but it will sound unnatural in English.

Very literal:

• The brother, however, admits himself not to have wanted to be questioned by a philosopher.

Better English:

• The brother, however, admits that he did not want to be questioned by a philosopher.

That is a good example of a general principle: understand the Latin structure accurately, but translate into natural English.

Latin has no article, so philosopho could mean:

• by a philosopher
• by the philosopher

The correct choice depends on context.

If no specific philosopher has been mentioned, English will often use a philosopher. If a particular one is already known, the philosopher may be better.

So the Latin itself does not force one answer.

No. Parum means too little, not enough, or insufficiently.

So:

• parum Graece sciret = he knew too little Greek

If Latin wanted to say he did not know Greek at all, it would use something stronger, such as:

• Graece omnino non sciret
• or another equivalent expression depending on style

So parum suggests some knowledge, but not enough.