medieval-religion: Scholarly discussions of medieval religion and culture
The commonsense way out of your quandry would be to consider that the
asterisk in this context has become a conventional sign signifying "died."
In another context, it signifies a marginal note bearing the same sign. If
the reader choses to read some nonconventional significance into it, he/she
should not be offended by his/her singularity. To avoid misunderstanding,
the conventions used should be specified in a "List of Abbreviations."
Otherwise, one might expect a similar objection to the plus sign (+) and
a movement to prohibit its use, at least in public schools in the USA, where
separation of church and state is an obsession for some.
But to respond to your call for medieval examples, I would cite the use
of a cross (+) as the "signum" of those lacking a seal in the subscription
of documents, first in Roman Law, and commonly also in the Middle Ages.
Today in the USA a variant cross (X) is used.
St. Benedict followed the Roman usage in his Rule (ch. 58), specifying
that the illiterate should sign his profession with a "signum." At St. Gall
in the 9-10th centuries, every entry in the book of professions is preceded
by a cross (+), as can be seen in the facsimile edition by Paul M. Krieg,
*Das Professbuch der Abtei St. Gallen* (1931). Some of the signatories were
literate and proceeded to write out their names, while others were not and
only made their mark. Evidently the + mark had become the general
substitute for a seal. It was thus a conventional sign.
With best wishes,
Richard Kay
----- Original Message -----
From: "[log in to unmask]" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Wednesday, May 05, 2010 3:49 PM
Subject: [M-R] TAN: star and cross as shorthand symbols for "born" and
"dead"
medieval-religion: Scholarly discussions of medieval religion and culture
Dear list members
This is only very remotely related to the purpose of this list, but maybe
you
can help me to get a better understanding and more background knowledge
about
the following issue:
The German Wikipedia is currently discussing the question whether they
should
maintain or change their use of an asterisc (*) and a cross or "dagger" (†)
as a
standard for abbreviating the terms "born" and "died" at the beginning of
each
biographical articles, as for instance in:
- Ambrosius von Mailand (* 339 in Trier; † 4. April 397 in Mailand)
- Jehuda ha-Levi (* um 1075 in Tudela; † 1141)
- Mohammed (* ca. 570 in Mekka; † 8. Juni 632 in Medina)
In Germany, the use of these symbols is quite common on gravestones and in
obituary notices, at least during the last hundred or so years, and in this
context it is sometimes interpreted as symbolising the Star of Bethlehem (or
Mary) and the Cross of Christ as the beginning and end of human life in
Christ.
They are also part of the so called "genealogical symbols", together with a
symbol of water for "baptised", the two rings or lemniscate for "married"
and a
small square symbolizing a grave for "buried", and a few more specific
symbols
of this kind.
And, needless to tell you, as asteriscus (origianlly a cussed cross with
four
dots in its ankles) and obel(isc)us (originally a horizonal line or
arrowlike
sign) they are of course originally part of the set of ancient grammatical
notae
criticae that were later used also as reference signs for referencing
marginal
notes or footnotes, or as paragraph signs, or as a sort of interpunctuation
for
marking a prosodical pause.
Now the questions that I have are the following:
1) Do you happen to know more about the "sepulcral" use of this pair of
symbols,
namely about its age, and/or about its presence in non-German countries?
2) Leaving aside the asterisc and focussing on the cross, do you recall the
cross in its connection with the name of a deceased person or even with the
date
of this person's death in medieval or earlier inscriptions, or in
manuscripts? I
am generally aware of the Chi-Rho-monogramm and of Crosses in sepulcral
contexts, and also roughly familiar with small crosses marking the beginning
and
sometimes also other intersections of an epitaph or other inscription, maybe
with mostly ornamental function, or maybe for indicating -- as in liturgical
books -- where the reader is supposed to sign himself with a cross and thus
highlighting the character of the text as a prayer (especially if closed
with
"Amen"). Yet I don't think I have seen a medieval epitaph or other text
where a
cross is used as a shorthand for "deceased". The closest that I can remember
are
small crosses on late medieval paintings, where a cross is placed above the
head
of a person for marking this person as deceased (e.g. on paintings where the
donator is depicted together with deceased members of his family). But I am
not
familiar with premodern parish registers, monastic registers, memorial
lists, or
other texts where persons might be rated as "dead" by using a a cross.
3) Are you familiar, in your own countries and in prints of your own
languages,
with the secular use of asterisc and cross as a typographic shorthand for
"born"
and "died" in genealogy and lexicography or other writings? I have found, on
my
own shelves, a few rare examples in French and Italian books, and a few more
examples in English books, yet the English examples are only English
language
publications by German publishers or in one case an English translation of
an
Italian book.
4) Would you say that this "secular" typographic use especially of the cross
(or
"dagger" or obelisc) is appropriate also for marking the death of
non-Christians, and especially of Jews or Moslems? Or would you rather avoid
it
in order to avoid religious offence? This is the question currently debated
by
German Wikipedians, and I have found only very few explicit statements in
published sources criticizing this conventional use (more precisely, I have
found two short statements in jewish publications declaring it as
inappropriate,
one of them by a Christian author explaining why he is avoiding the cross
symbol
in a memorial list of Jewish victims of the holocaust)
As regards my own position in the current Wikipedia debate, I am one of
those
objecting to the current usage of these symbols and demanding them to be
replaced by more neutral abbreviations. There is even a poll going on -- the
third one since 2005 --, and the current state is 202:64 votes against
replacing
these symbols. Personally, I think that it actually is an issue, but I am
not
sure how this German habit (at least I take it to be mostly German) of
"daggering" dead Jews and Moslems is received by the rest of the world.
If you want to respond, please feel free to send your answer off the list!
Any
feedback will be appreciated!
Otfried Lieberknecht
D-40477 Duesseldorf
Klever Strasse 37
Tel. +49 (0) 172 407 6073
mailto:[log in to unmask]
**********************************************************************
To join the list, send the message: join 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: leave 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/lists/medieval-religion.html
**********************************************************************
To join the list, send the message: join 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: leave 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/lists/medieval-religion.html
|
