 |
 |
medieval-religion: Scholarly discussions of medieval religion and culture From: "MAUREEN Tilley [Staff/Faculty [FCLC]]" <[log in to unmask]> > Taking off from a recent post, I have a question for the cognoscenti of the list. Here is the post with my concern highlighted: >>[me] *"Guibert of Nogent assures us that Erlebald "had been in the priesthood*, where he had distinguished himself, and was especially close to me in friendship because of his abundant knowledge of scripture." >> [156.619E] >>*Fuit autem homo iste cum sacerdotio*, quo fulgebat, et in Scripturae scientia copiosus, et mihi valde amicitia affinis.... > I am aware that in early Christianity men might move from one order to another, anachronistically 'down' the hierarchical order, but I do not know when the hierarchical order began to solidify as a one-way staircase. Does the bolded quotation from ca. 1100 above mean that (1) a man who had been a priest could at this late date become a deacon or does it mean that (2) he was later not deacon but (mistakenly written) dean (*diaconus, decanus*) Maureen, i know not from lower-level hierarchies (is that oxymoronic?), but the answer to (2) definitely seems to be that it is a translator's mistake. both the PL ed. (after d'Achery's) and the recent critical CC edition of Guibert's Relics text by Huygens (kindly supplied by Herwig) agree with the reading "decanus" here, NOT "diaconus". i may have more on this on the original string later, but your (2) is definitely answerable in the Affirmative. From: John Shinners <[log in to unmask]> > I can’t see how a priest can be downgraded to a deacon (the 2nd highest holy order) since priesthood, the last of the holy orders, was/is believed to confer an “indelible character” on its bearer that could only be removed by degradation. But wouldn’t degradation mean a return to lay status, a process conferred only for very serious offenses? being Clueless about this hierarchy business, i cited the PL Latin only to buttress the English translation of the passage --which, of course, had the exact opposite effect, as often happens with my posts here. this guy Erleboldus was *not* a "deacon" --he was (rather briefly) *the* Dean at Cambrai. i hope to communicate more on this later today. >I think the new Penguin translator has been mislead by the old one that's an interesting idea, and takes (at least some of) the blame off the present translators --except that there is no "old" publication of the translation of Guibert's treatise On Relics made (if i remember rightly) in the '50s as someone's dissertation at CU (please check the last few pages of the Introduction to see if i'm right, John). but, the translator might well have looked at the '50s dissertation and been led into the ditch by that. say, come to think about it, weren't a lot of Catholic University dissertations from that era published (at least in very small print runs)? have to check WorldCat or the Library of Congress and see if it's listed anywhere. >in translating Erembald’s title “decanus” (which is what Migne gives) as “deacon.” Were he a deacon, one would expect “diaconus.” yes. PL & Huygen's new ed. (which the recent translation used as its source) both say "decanus." >Unless 12th-century French is less strict about diaconus/decanus than 13th-century and onwards British sources that I know, no. (i assume) >or Guibert or his editors have had a “lapsus pennae,” Erembald is not a deacon of Cambrai but some kind of dean. *the* Dean (who was *not* the head of the chapter at Cambrai), according to the list in the GC. > I searched through the new translation where he appears a few other times, always as “deacon.” I’m wagering this is a mistranslation, though I could be wrong. you'll not find a single sucker in the beautiful hills of Southern Indianer who will put any money down on any other proposition, John, so you'll not be getting rich on that particular wager. as i said previously (on the original string), i came across another mistake in this translation (in the _Monodies_, in the same volume) --which was of a somewhat different sort, more a misunderstanding of what a certain term meant and implied than a "mistranslation" like the "decanus" = "deacon" one (which is, after all, perhaps nothing more than a sinners = shinners sort of error). otherwise, in the few instances where i have checked (and considering my definite lack of, shall we say, charitably, "facility" with Latin), the translation looks pretty good to me --but i'd certainly welcome differing opinions on that from more qualified folks on this list. c ********************************************************************** To join the list, send the message: subscribe medieval-religion YOUR NAME to: [log in to unmask] To send a message to the list, address it to: [log in to unmask] To leave the list, send the message: unsubscribe medieval-religion to: [log in to unmask] In order to report problems or to contact the list's owners, write to: [log in to unmask] For further information, visit our web site: http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/medieval-religion