Thanks for thinking of me, you held an acutal papal bull (by the horns?) I'm
getting hot flashes as I type...
I'll definatly check it out, thanks for the info!
For anyone interested in the death of popes
I just got Agostino Paravincini-Baglioni's The Pope's Body in English, and
it is AMAZING. The burial detail and fun tidbits about papal funerals from
early times to modern is incredibly interesting. It's out of the University
of Chicago Press.
From: [log in to unmask]
[mailto:[log in to unmask]]On Behalf Of Vivario
Sent: Wednesday, June 28, 2000 1:20 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Leonard Boyle and "A different Thomas Aquinas"
Luciana Cuppo Csaki
Societas internationalis pro Vivario
e-mail: [log in to unmask]
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
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?
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
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."
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