 |
 |
Dear Luciana, I couldn't address all your questions, but I did address some. I worked with someone else on a new translation of an older Boyle translation and found some problems with his comprehension of French OR of English. My comments follow your questions in order. Hope this helps. Best, Kathryn Forwarded Message: > To: [log in to unmask] > From: kwildgen <[log in to unmask]> > Subject: Re: Leonard Boyle and A different Thomas Aquinas > Date: Wed, 28 Jun 2000 09:52:43 -0700 > ----- <pre> ----- Original Message ----- From: <[log in to unmask]> To: <[log in to unmask]> Sent: Wednesday, June 28, 2000 9:36 AM Subject: Fwd: Leonard Boyle and A different Thomas Aquinas > Forwarded Message: > > To: [log in to unmask] > > From: Vivario <[log in to unmask]> > > Subject: Leonard Boyle and "A different Thomas Aquinas" > > Date: Wed, 28 Jun 2000 10:19:40 -0700 > > ----- > <pre> > -- > **************************************** > Luciana Cuppo Csaki > Societas internationalis pro Vivario > e-mail: [log in to unmask] > <a > href="<a href="http://www.geocities.com/athens/aegean/9891/">http://www.geocities.com">ht tp://www.geocities.com/athens/aegean/9891/">http://www.geocities.com</a> /ath > ens/aegean/9891/</a> > **************************************** > Esteemed Listmembers, > This is the first of a number of exercises in textual analysis, > translation, papal history (Wendy, are you there? I thought of you while > holding in my hands a bull of Gregory IX), and whatever else you care to > add. The text in question is, as you might recall, the lecture by Father > Boyle given at the Symposium for Dominicans in Higher Education, River > Forest, Illinois, 10 April 1999, with the title "Saint Thomas Aquinas > and the Third Millennium." The lecture is available on the web at > www.op.org.DomCentral/trad. A French version titled "Saint Thomas > d'Aquin et le troisieme millenaire" (sorry, no accents in my computer) > appeared in "La vie spirituelle" number 733 (December 1999) p.624-42, > and was reprinted in "Facing History: A Different Thomas Aquinas" > (Louvain-la-Neuve 2000) p. 141-59. The volume is a collection of essays > by Leonard Boyle, all of them in English, except the Chicago address; > the editor is Jacqueline Hamesse and there is an introduction by J.-P. > Torrell, O.P. Since the author of the French version is not named, I'll > refer to the French version as "Anonimus parisinus", while "Boyle 1999" > will indicate the English original. > The paragraph chosen for today's exercise is on p. 11 of the English > printout, 141-142 in "Facing History." Some background information: the > "Naples autograph" Boyle refers to is a manuscript which contains a > commentary of Albert the Great on Pseudo-Dionysius, copied by Thomas > Aquinas. A page from that manuscript is now preserved in a reliquary at > the Cathedral of Salerno, and you can see the photo on the cover of > "Facing History". Sounds simple, but nobody realized that the page at > Salerno and the manuscript at Naples belonged together, until Boyle said > so in an essay published in 1991. Boyle did not only identify the page > at Salerno as a membrum disiectum, but, with uncommon common sense, he > proved that what had been considered by all experts the archetype, or > master copy, or model, of all extant copies of Albert's commentary on > Pseudo-Dionysius, was in fact a copy made by Thomas, then a young > student, for his own personal use: Thomas, perhaps angelic, but by far > not Angelic Doctor as yet, was simply copying his teacher's lessons > (Albert the Great was his teacher), as students have done ab > immemorabili. And now, let the exercise begin. > > English original: "Now, it is reasonably certain that the commentary of > Albert on the "De caelesti hierarchia" is from the years that he and the > young Thomas of Aquino were together in the Dominican studium at Paris > at Saint Jacques, 1245 to 1248. For the many scholars who have worked on > this period of the careers of Albert and Thomas, this Naples autograph > is the textual source, directly or indirectly the archetype, if you > wish, of all the known copies of this commentary of Albert, and the > editors of the recent Cologne edition - four or five years ago - of that > commentary of Albert have taken this for granted." > > French version: "Il est a peu pres certain que ce commentaire d'Albert > sur le 'De caelesti hierarchia' date des annees ou lui-meme et le jeune > Thomas etaient ensemble au Studium generale de Saint-Jacques a Paris, en > 1245-1248. Pour la plupart des etudiants qui ont travaille cette periode > de la vie d'Albert et de Thomas, cet autographe de Naples provenant du > fragment de Salerne est la source textuelle, l'archetype direct ou > indirect de toutes les copies de manuscrits du commentaire d'Albert, que > les editeurs de la recente edition critique de Cologne tiennent pour > authentique." > > FRANCOPHONES AU SECOURS! > > 1. "Il est a peu pres certain" = "it is reasonably certain". "A peu > pres" could be read as "almost, nearly", but this softens the meaning of > "it is reasonably certain". In Italian the expression would come across > as "siamo ragionevolmente sicuri." > > 2. "For the many scholars" = "pour la plupart des etudiants". "La > plupart" means "most", but Boyle said "the many scholars" - no > exceptions. And what about "etudiants": is it "students" in the sense of > "pupils" or in the sense of "scholars"? I would have expected "savants" > for "scholars." Am I wrong? I would have said: "For most students..." "Most" is absolutely correct; "savant" usually means "scientist," but may mean "learned" or "scholar." > > 3. "Cet autographe de Naples [provenant du fragment de Salerne]" = "this > Naples autograph". The Salerno provenance is all in the head of the > Anonimus parisinus. The expresion simply does not exist in the English > text (which is why I typed it in square brackets), for the good reason > that the fragment of Salerno was taken out of the Naples manuscript, not > vice-versa. > > 4. "L'archetype direct ou indirect de toutes les copies de manuscrits du > commentaire d'Albert, que les editeurs de la recente edition critique de > Cologne tiennent pour authentique": "que...tiennent pour authentique" is > supposed to translate "have taken this for granted." "que...tiennent pour authentique" means "which... consider authentic." "Take for granted" is out of the question. > It seems to me that the Anonimus parisinus simply did not understand the > idiom "to take for granted". In point of fact, no one ever questioned > the authenticity of the Naples autograph - all agree that it is by the > hand of St. Thomas. The question is, what's the value of that autograph? > should it be enshrined and revered as a relic, archetype, model of > perfection, or is it simply a so-so transcription with notes to oneself? > > 5. "Edition critique de Cologne" = "Cologne edition". Simple, albeit > unlikely, forgetfulness, or what is a critical edition in the eyes of > the Anonimus parisinus was not in fact such in Leonard Boyle's view? > Please advise. Cheers, Luciana > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ........ > > > </pre> > > > </pre> %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%