> If you were referring exclusively to the Western European Christian
> population in the 4th and 5th century, the statement is correct (with the
> exception of Germanic Christians for whom Latin would have been a foreign
> langauge (such as the Visigoths
Visigoths > Vascons > Basques, BTW ...
> and Ostrogoths, for whom Gothic was the
> native tongue). In your original statement, it was unclear exactly what
> time period you were referring to.
Sorry about that ; the background was the writing of the Abiding Book, the parallel therefore the End of the Classical period and the High Middle Ages, but you're right, I should have been more explicit.
> > But the priests would have used local pronunciation, etc.
>
> Perhaps, but not necessarily. There is clear evidence to suggest that
> many priests memorized the Latin rituals rather than understanding them,
Because some priests didn't know how to read ...
Philologically, a priest who learns text by heart is far more likely to introduce involuntary local dialecticisms than one who reads out loud.
> But in modern Biblical exegesis, in any given passage,
> there tends to be an emphasis on one or two levels as the 'correct meaning'
> of the passage. Christ's parables, for example, are normally studied only
> on the allegorical or moral (technically, tropological) level. Much modern
> Christian fundamentalism relies excessively on the literal level of the
> text.
Granted, granted, granted !
> Medieval scholarship tended to assume that in any given passage, all
> 4 levels were operational at once, so what a modern scholar might tend to
> dismiss as simply a minor detail on the literal level, a medieval scholar
> might explore as having deep anagogical or allegorical significance.
This is a mainly Cestercian specialty, and concerns a period covering the 12th - 15th centuries, and especially the 12th -13th, and also 14th.
The flip side is that they thought that they were producing definitive readings, so that the Cistercian reading of the Song of Songs was produced as the definitive exegesis of that work. :-/
> This sort of exegesis is very uncommon today, and most modern
> theologians find it rather wrong-headed and overly-complex.
It lives on in high-level lit-crit.
I'm reminded of the GLs, and modern reaction to them ... ;-)
> Historical-critical exegesis argues that a text has only a single meaning,
Not since the late 1970s it doesn't, or at least it shouldn't. That was a particular excess of 19th century and early 20th century thought, which has been subsequently debunked.
> the particularly meaning which existed in the mind of the author when he
> wrote the text
Something that cannot be discovered by any strictly formal means.
Contemporary textual analysis seeks to understand the relationships between the text, the tradition surrounding it, history, and individual reader interpretations ; etc..
Me :
> Charlemagne is the one who severed ordinary people from an understanding
> of Latin, by decreeing that henceforth only classical forms would be used.
> Because of this decree, Latin suddenly stopped being the language of ordinary folk
> everywhere, and became an incomprehensible language of officialdom and clerics.
> That's when Vulgate latin ceased to exist, although it took an extra century
> to die out in Spain. Interestingly, Charlemagne's own command of latin was dismal.
>
> This decree was of course an atrocious act of linguistic terrorism.
>
> Previously, most people, especially when helped by their priests, could just about
> understand the Vulgate Bible. Subsequently, the Vulgate Bible was declared, despite
> its pretty explicit title, to be a classical text to be read and recited as such. Pitiful.
BTW I can't help equating Charlemagne and his spiritual thugs, the Paladins, with Seshnela and Rokari fundamentalism ... ;-)
Julian Lord
--__--__--
Powered by hypermail