Dear John,
Your observations regarding the temporal coincidence of the Questione della
lingua and the introduction of "vulgata (editio, translatio)" as a standard
title for Jerome's (or rather for the received) Latin translation of the
Bible are quite interesting and suggestive, but I am not sure that I
understand very well how you connect both developments. Please forgive if
my comments are too trivial:
a) As to the temporal chronology and development, I would first like to
know a bit more about the use of the title in (late) medieval manuscript
tradition, because the few examples that I have adduced so far were taken
from 16c prints; but I could imagine that one important factor in the
upcoming of the title as a standard title was the new medium of print (and
of 'divulgating' the complete Bible in print). Btw, I put the stress on
*standard* and not on *upcoming*, because in addition to, and partly in
correction of, my earlier comments I have to add that also Jerome himself
uses the syntagm "editio vulgata": in his prologue to the Book Esther and
in his editorial additions to this book where he marks those passages not
found in the Hebrew (see Est 10ss.), "editio vulgata" refers to the
received Greek translation as opposed to the 'rediscovered' Hebrew ("de
archivis Hebraeorum elevans verbum de verbo pressius transtuli").
b) The humanists certainly had come to be aware of the differences between
classical (and their own) Latin and the Latin of the Vulgate, and this, in
addition to philological considerations, was one of the reasons for
revising the text and creating new Latin translations (e.g., Erasmus). But
as regards the possible nexus with this new awareness, I see no
(meta-)linguistic implications or connotations in the title 'Vulgate'. The
meaning of the word "vulgare" as established in the Latin of the Vulgate
itself was "to divulgate, to make known to the people" or "to everybody"
(Gn 45,16: "auditumque est et celebri sermone vulgatum in aula regis", Ios
6,27: "fuit ergo Dominus cum Iosue et nomen eius in omni terra vulgatum
est"). Although Isidore calls one of the Greek translations "vulgaris
interpretatio" (Etym. VI, iv, 3), the meanings of "vulgaris" and "vulgat-"
nevertheless were not the same. In the 16th century, "editio vulgaris"
means "vernacular translation" (as in the title of Froschoner's bilingual
print of Erasmus' revised Latin together with a German translation, _Novum
Testamentum omne Latina versione: oppositum aeditioni vulgari sive
germanicae, in usus studiosorum vulgatum_, Zurich 1535). As far as I know,
in the case of the title 'Vulgate' a development of meanings from "vulgata"
(known to the people, to everybody) to "vulgaris" (rude language) did not
take place. But then there is not really much I know about the history of
this title :-)
Yours,
Otfried
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Otfried Lieberknecht, Schoeneberger Str. 11, D-12163 Berlin
phone & fax: ++49 30 8516675, E-mail: [log in to unmask]
Homepage for Dante Studies:
http://members.aol.com/lieberk/welcome.html
Listowner of Italian-Studies:
http://www.mailbase.ac.uk/lists/italian-studies/
Listowner of Medieval-Religion:
http://www.mailbase.ac.uk/lists/medieval-religion/
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|