The Real Crime of Tyndale : Justification without Intending Subsequent Works

Takeaways : he wasn't finally burnt for translating the Bible, and leaving the harlot is not leaving Roman Catholicism. Quora question and exhchange below my answer.

Q

Did the Catholic Church burn William Tyndale at the stake? What crime did he commit?
https://www.quora.com/Did-the-Catholic-Church-burn-William-Tyndale-at-the-stake-What-crime-did-he-commit/answer/Hans-Georg-Lundahl-1

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Catholic convert, reading many Catechisms

Answered Feb 9, 2021

Theories:

• He translated the Bible to English;
• He translated “presbyteros” as “elder” instead of “priest” in the Bible;
• something else.

His Bible, with faults in translation, like those noted and alas defended by Kathleen Neuen, was not the cause of his burning, but of his exile from England;

Once he was taken before the Spanish Inquisition in Netherlands, he was in fact tried and executed for something else, namely, how he interpreted Romans 3.

His Inquisitor Jacobus Latomus had a correspondence with him, and we know from his preserved answers that Romans 3 was the key issue.

EDIT : it is Latomus’ answers to Tyndale that are preserved.

Nate Van Mack

6.V.2022

Catholic Church wanted power over the masses, Tyndale translating the Bible into English would give them all the info to see how far off the church had gone from the truth. They didn't want that so they premeditated his murder, him as well as countless others in wars etc Catholic organization is the most corrupt on the planet for centuries. They have no unity. Complete opposite of Jesus who taught to love others. That's why Rev 18:4,5 says;

And I heard another voice out of heaven say: “Get out of her, my people, if you do not want to share with her in her sins, and if you do not want to receive part of her plagues. 5 For her sins have massed together clear up to heaven, and God has called her acts of injustice to mind

God will completely annihilate all false religion very soon that have brought reproach on his holy name JEHOVAH, YHWH TETRAGRAMMETON

Hans-Georg Lundahl

6.V.2022

"Catholic Church wanted power over the masses,"

Christ's Church should want power over the masses. See Matthew 28 "teach YE all nations".

This was usually not opposed to but went hand in hand with encouraging if secondary at least extant translations to the vernacular languages.

Like in Belgium, back then [Spanish] Netherlands where Tyndale was burned, there was a Catholic Bible translation, like Delftse Bijbel of the Vulgate OT excluding the Psalms, and from John Scutkens Historiebijbel, they had also printed Gospels and Epistles.

As said, Tyndale fled from England due to translating into vernacular, which could have landed him in trouble with the English Inquisition (decided by the Parliament in 1401), but he was burned in a country where the Catholic Church did support or very recently had supported Bible translations, and where translating the Bible was not in itself a charge of heresy : in the then Spanish possession of the Netherlands.

"Tyndale translating the Bible into English"

Was an offense in England, but not in Belgium.

"would give them all the info to see how far off the church had gone from the truth."

Yeah, English peasants were generally so well educated overall, that just giving them a printed Bible was going to reveal things to them, even without comment! Not.

Also, the Bible contains proof that "the Church had gone from the Truth" : also NOT. On the contrary, according to Matthew 28, She cannot. See "all days".

As for getting out of a certain harlot, whatever the identity of the harlot is, it is NOT the Catholic Church as historically known, and leaving the harlot is NOT joining Protestantism, which in its Puritan and most Anticatholic form is simply one of the four leopard heads.

A Seven Headed Beast ...

Please note, the seven heads being seven kings means there are individual people in the appropriate part of the end times, but the kings having kingdoms, and religion and politics being intertwined (both on Christ's and on Antichrist's side), the identifications I gave would be fairly good. If I were to join you, I would apostasise and be joining a leopard beast, in one of its four heads. That I will not do.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

6.V.2022

If you or yours were to come to see the truth, I think a safer place to convert to Catholicism would be with this guy:

The Pope Speaks - Vatican in Exile

than with these guys:

Members - Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops

It seems I published this on the wrong blog, should have been Assorted Retorts. Obviously, the subject matter as such is here too, but the format goes to the other one.

Lincoln Family : Premodern Lifespans

Here is the Lincoln Family
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lincoln_family

Footnote 11 Grzyb, Frank L. (2013). Hidden History of Rhode Island and the Civil War. The History Press. p. 17. ISBN 978-1-62619-231-7.

I will impose two limitations on the material given by the wiki.

1) only premodern, that is for US, none born after the civil war
2) consistent ancestor bias, there are a different statistics if you include children who died too early to become parents (including a married couple dying early) and one cannot do that up to the president, so I am not doing it after either.

Samuel Lincoln
(1622–1690)
Martha Lyford
(1623–1693)[11]

Mordecai Lincoln
(1657–1727)
Sarah Jones
(1660–1702)[11]

Mordecai Lincoln
1686–1736)
Hannah Salter
(1692–1727)[11]

John Lincoln
(1716–1788)
Rebecca Flowers
(1720–1806)[11]

Abraham Lincoln
(1744–1786)
Bathsheba Herring
(1750–1836)[11]

Thomas Lincoln
(1778–1851)
Nancy Hanks
(1784–1818)

Abraham Lincoln
(1809–1865)
Mary Todd Lincoln
1818–1882)

Robert Todd Lincoln
(1843–1926)
Mary Eunice Harlan
(1846–1937)

42 50 56 68 70 72 73 83
01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08
34 35 42 64 70 86 86 91

Men from 42 to 83, with median 69.
Women from 34 to 91, with median 67.

34 35 42 42 50 56 64 68 70 70 72 73 83 86 86 91
01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 15 16

Both sexes 34 to 91, with median 69. Lower quartile 46, higher quartile 78./HGL

"Why a C. S. Lewis Bible?"

Well, if you want absolute orthodoxy, not the best choice - but for modern (post-1950) study Bibles, it's also far from the worst.

I just noted there exists such a thing as a C. S. Lewis Bible:

The C. S. Lewis Bible*
1st of Nov. 2021 | Bible Buying Guide
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jQQkQhDwQOw

There are three introductory essays about C. S. Lewis and this study Bible project, and the first is by his son Douglas Gresham.

The second paragraph is a very good answer. It's a good choice because C. S. Lewis while a good Bible scholar in fact was too humble to think of himself as a Bible scholar, citing only sentences 2 to 4 of it:

This is the case of the understanding of a man who never regarded himself as a theologian, but always regarded himself as as rank amateur in such matters, and yet is now, more than forty-five** years after his death, regarded as one of the leading theologians of his day. This is a man who never presented himself as any kind of psychologist*** and yet is now thought of as a man who understood human thinking and humanity better than any other writer of his time. This is a man who never imagined himself to be a biblical scholar and yet a man who read and memorised a chapter of the Bible every single day.°

Now, the first paragraph would be misleading if applied to the Haydock Bible.

It seems to me that many annotated Bibles are exercises in one man, or one committee of men, presenting their own wisdom and the results of their own biblical studies to the public at large, and while I ascribe to them the very best motives in the world, there still seems to me to be a touch of arrogance attached to such an endeavour. After all, what is being said is "I/We have studied the Bible for years and I/we have achieved such wisdom therefrom that you need to read my/our comments in order to understand the Bible as deeply and as well as I/we do, which is of vital importance for you to do."

Why is this not a valid criticism of the Haydock Bible? To be fair to Douglas Gresham, he never said (here at least) he was thinking of the Haydock Bible. But still, why does this not apply to it?

First of all, a bishop exposing the Bible is acting on God's command. If he is a bishop of the Catholic Church that is. It's a bit like why L'Histoire d'une âme is not conceited on part of St. Therèse Martin : she didn't chose to write it, she was ordered to, by her Carmelite prioress°° who represented to her the bishop of Lisieux, who represented in the see of Lisieux the authority of God the Father, like a priest represents that of God the Son, like a deacon that of God the Holy Ghost.

Similarily, when a bishop like Witham or Challoner (often cited in the Haydock comment) for instance comments on the Gospel to counter Protestant misrepresentation of it - Witham on John 4:23 for instance:

Ver. 23. Now is the time approaching, when the true adorers shall adore the Father in spirit and in truth, without being confined to any one temple or place; and chiefly in spirit, without such a multitude of sacrifices and ceremonies as even the Jews now practise. Such adorers God himself (who is a pure spirit) desires, which they shall be taught by the Messias. Wi. ...

... he is not presenting his understanding as his own, but as a gift of God, like St. Paul told St. Timothy: That the man of God may be perfect, furnished to every good work. (II Tim 3:17) Since, you see, a bishop is a "man of God" (like St. Timothy was).

Now, George Leo Haydock was not a bishop. But he cited on occasion bishops Witham (as here) or Challoner (who is also regularly cited in the Douay Rheims, which he revised) and saints who were bishops (like St. John Chrysostom) or saints who were not bishops (like St. Thomas Aquinas) or bishops who were not saints (he does on occasion cite Jansenius, a work of whom was condemned by the Pope after his death). He even applied a non-saint and non-bishop's work to the pages, since more than one passage of Genesis and Exodus is supplemented with the Ussher year (given both as Anno Mundi and as BC). However, he does also give his own comments. Here is a good one:

Concerning the transactions of these early times, parents would no doubt be careful to instruct their children, by word of mouth, before any of the Scriptures were written; and Moses might derive much information from the same source, as a very few persons formed the chain of tradition, when they lived so many hundred years. Adam would converse with Mathusalem, who knew Sem, as the latter lived in the days of Abram. Isaac, Joseph, and Amram, the father of Moses, were contemporaries: so that seven persons might keep up the memory of things which had happened 2500 years before. But to entitle these accounts to absolute authority, the inspiration of God intervenes; and thus we are convinced, that no word of sacred writers can be questioned. H.

It's the last words he added as comment on Genesis 3. From same chapter in the C. S. Lewis Bible, I saw a disaster:

We do not know how many of these creatures God made, nor how long they remained in the Paradisal state. ...

Yes, we do. Trent, Session V, makes it clear that the sin we all bear the consequences of was committed by one man, precisely as St. Paul also made clear, so we have a Bible text telling us, God created exactly two of these creatures. And we know they fell before they conceived Cain.

I am an ex of those who took C. S. Lewis as the utmost orthodoxy, I am now a Catholic. And I am very glad this allows me to be unabashedly a Fundie.

However, Haydock had, like Homer, moments of nodding:

It is not material whether the sun turn round the earth, or the contrary. H.

From the Josue 10:12 comment. Yes, it is, since the words "Move not, O sun, toward Gabaon, nor thou, O moon, toward the valley of Ajalon," are not simple narrative, where a phenomenal language could be used, but the words of a miracle worker, where he must be assumed to adress the entity that shall miraculously change normal natural behaviour.

But I am thankful I had C. S. Lewis rather than John Shelby Spong and rather than an Adventist as a teacher about orthodoxy before I turned to Catholicism for it. There are worse examples of praeparatio evangelica.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Paris
Wednesday of Holy Week
13.IV.2022

* I watch the video with French automated translation, impossible to get rid of, but suppose the title "La revue biblique de C. S. Lewis" means "The C. S. Lewis Bible" or perhaps "The C. S. Lewis Study Bible".
** 1963 + 45 < 2008 or early 2009, which would be when the first edition is from.
*** Certain people would differ : if you ditch Freud (as he did), you obviously think you are a better expert in psychology than Freud, they would say. I judge that after how they deal with me.
° He may not have used the "Apocrypha section" when doing so, but if he did, this would land him at 1184 days with lectio continua, as that is the number of chapters in a Catholic Bible. 3.24 years. He probably started over again, time after time and used different languages (King James, Vulgate, LXX with Greek NT) - as far as I know, Hebrew was not among his languages, Latin and Greek most certainly were.
°° I think Carmelites are a mendicant order and as such have no abbotts or abbesses.

Listes de Rois Pictes

Frédéric Kurzawa, les Pictes (à l'origine de l'Écosse, éditions Yoran, 2018) nous dit :

Ces listes indiquent, que le premier roi des Pictes s'appelait Cruithne mac Cinge. Il aurait eu un règne de cent ans, ce qui confirme le caractère légendaire de sa notice biographique. Quant à son père, Cinge, il est présenté comme fils de Luchtai, fils de Partholon, fils d'Agnoin, fils de Buain, fils de Mais, fils de Fathecht, fils de Japheth, fils de Noé. Cette généalogie fantaisiste qui relie Cinge à un ancêtre biblique, le patriarche légendaire Noé, confirme le peu de crédit qu'on peut accorder aussi bien à l'identité du personnage qu'à sa filiation.

...

Après le récit du roi Cruithne et de ses sept fils, la liste des rois pictes mentionne environ soixante monarcques avec la durée de leur règne.

Regardons un peu ... 60 + 2 générations = 62 + 7 = 69 générations après Japheth, c'est à dire après le Déluge - jusque'à, environ, 550 AD.

Le Déluge lui-même en 2957 avant Jésus Christ. = 3500 ans pour 69 générations. 50 - 51 ans par génération. Même avec les expectations de vie* modernes, une telle distance entre générations est faisable. Mon grand-père maternel avait un grand-père paternel né environ 100 ans avant lui-même.

Ajoutons que l'époque juste après le Déluge, les expectations de vie* n'étaient pas modernes, mais plus longues. Avec 50 ans par génération, Cruithne aurait dû être né vers 400 après le Déluge, en même temps que Phalec. Celui-ci vécut 239 ans, on peut supposer le même pour Cruithne. Donné qu'il règne 100 ans, il doit arriver à l'âge de 139 ans. En 2418 avant Jésus-Christ.

Quelle en serait l'âge carbonique? Regardons mes tables (ou un extrait) :

2422 av. J.Chr.

0,557737 pcm/100, donc daté comme 7272 av. J.Chr.

2399 av. J.Chr.

0,570291 pcm/100, donc daté comme 7049 av. J.Chr.

Ah, oui ... 7000 avant Jésus-Christ. Carboniques, bien entendu. Là quand la population de l'Écosse commence à se mettre en place. Assez réaliste, somme tout, d'un côté imprévu par les présumés poëtes de légendes, car ils n'avaient aucune connaissance de nos datations par carbone 14.

Et Kurzawa est théologien catholique ... ? Il aurait dû savoir mieux./HGL

* Espérances de vie, pardon.

English Attorney's General

Attorney General for England (and Wales) - Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attorney_General_for_England_and_Wales#13th_century

The list only gives years of service, from which the year of birth is always excluded, and since the office may be left before death, the death year could be excluded as well.

This means, the following only covers the ones that have articles of their own. From these I have copied the following, and the ones that only give death year are not part of the statistics. But the majority have both years.

13th C
William Inge (judge) (c. 1260 – May 1322)
Hugh de Lowther (died 1317)

14th C
John of Gaunt, Duke of Lancaster (6 March 1340 – 3 February 1399)

15th C
Sir William Babington (c. 1370 – 1454)
Sir William Hussey (or Huse or Husee) of Sleaford, Lincolnshire, SL (1443 – 8 September 1495)
Sir William Huddesfield (died 1499)
Sir William Hody (born before 1441, died 1524)

16th C
Sir John Ernley (or Ernle) (1464 – 22 April 1520)
Sir John Fitzjames (c. 1465/70 – c. 1542)
Ralph Swillington (died 1525)
Sir Richard Lyster (c. 1480 – 14 March 1554)
Sir Christopher Hales (died 1541)
Sir William Whorwood (c.1500 – 28 May 1545)
Sir Edward Griffin (died 1569)
Sir Gilbert Gerard (died 4 February 1593) ... Gerard was born by 1523.
Sir John Popham (1531 – 10 June 1607)
Thomas Egerton, 1st Viscount Brackley, PC (1540 – 15 March 1617)
Sir Edward Coke SL (1 February 1552 – 3 September 1634)

17th C
Sir Henry Hobart, 1st Baronet SL (1 Jan 1560 – 29 December 1625)
Francis Bacon, 1st Viscount St Albans, PC (22 January 1561 – 9 April 1626)
Sir Henry Yelverton (29 June, 1566 – 24 January, 1630)
Thomas Coventry, 1st Baron Coventry (1578 – 14 January 1640)
Sir Robert Heath (20 May 1575 – 30 August 1649)
William Noy (1577 – 9 August 1634)
Sir John Bankes (1589 – 28 December 1644)
Sir Edward Herbert (c. 1591–1658)
Thomas Gardiner (1591–1652)
Sir Oliver St John (c. 1598 – 31 December 1673)
William Steele (bap. 19 August 1610, Sandbach – 1680)
Edmund Prideaux (died 1659)
Sir Robert Reynolds (1601–1678)
Sir Geoffrey Palmer, 1st Baronet, SL (1598 – 5 May 1670)
Heneage Finch, 1st Earl of Nottingham, PC (23 December 1620 – 18 December 1682)
Francis North, 1st Baron Guilford, PC, KC(22 October 1637 – 5 September 1685)
Sir William Jones (1631 – 2 May 1682)
Sir Creswell Levinz (1627–1701)
Sir Robert Sawyer, of Highclere Castle (1633–1692)
Sir Thomas Powys (1649 – 4 April 1719)
Sir Henry Pollexfen (1632 – 15 June 1691)
Sir George Treby JP (1643–1700)
John Somers, 1st Baron Somers, PC, PRS (4 March 1651 – 26 April 1716)
Sir Edward Ward (1638–1714)
Thomas Trevor, 1st Baron Trevor, PC (8 March 1658 – 19 June 1730)

45 51 52 55 56 57 57 58 59 59 60 61 61 61 62 63 65 65
45 50 52 55 56 57 57 58 59 59 60 61 61 61 62 63 65 65
01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18

67 70 70 70 72 72 74 74 74 75 76 77 77 77 77 82 83 84
67 69 69 69 71 72 72 73 74 74 75 76 76 77 77 82 83 84
19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36

Minimum, 45, LQ 59, Med 65-67, HQ 74-75, alt 74, Max 84.* For Sir William Babington (c. 1370 – 1454). Note, none of his successors from 1500 to 1700 survived his age. Unless some whose age I could not know from the wiki.

Median 65 to 67 is somewhat higher than usual for non-military** occupations, but not by much. 65 is more usual.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Paris
St. Hugh of Grenoble
1.IV.2022

PS, it seems that Russia was having a lower life expectancy in the Soviet years and in the early post-Soviet years:

Among the most serious findings is a four year drop in life expectancy among Russian men since 1980, from 62 years to 58.

Life expectancy of Russian men falls to 58
James Ciment | BMJ. 1999 Aug 21; 319(7208): 468.
doi: 10.1136/bmj.319.7208.468a
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1116380/

However, one must keep in mind, this statistic, while all male, presumably includes new born men, while the statistics I glean from wikipedia systematically ignore and have to ignore child mortality./HGL

PPS, even so stats would be to the detriment of Russia, if life expectancy were counted from conception : it has had one of the highest abortion rates in Europe and in the world./HGL

Gratianopoli, in Gallia, sancti Hugonis Episcopi, qui multis annis in solitudine vitam exegit, et miraculorum gloria clarus migravit ad Dominum.

* 36 is divided into these quarters, meaning, each except minimum and maximum is from two place values, those of places 9 and 10, of places 18 and 19 and of places 27 and 28. When the value for both numbers is the same, only that one is given. When it's different, either you make a medium by (a+b)/2 = m, or you give both values, which I do. With "alt" I mean that in the lower alternative for nonunivocal ages, both 27 and 28 read 74, while the higher alternative gives the span 74-75.
1 - 9:10 - 18:19 - 27:28 - 36
** Royal families have military occupations.

Yes, My Method Can Close In on Logarithms

Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere : Medieval Quadrivium and Logarithms (quora) · Φιλολoγικά/Philologica : Expressing Logarithms in Points of Royal Feet · Previous Work on Logarithms · Yes, My Method Can Close In on Logarithms

My previous work has in a big extent been done on paper, here I did use paper to arrive at 10^(5/17) and 10^(7/23) as approximations, and from here on, I use an online calculator.

10^(5/17) = 1.968 419 447 29

10^(7/23) = 2.015 337 685 94

But why 10^(5/17) and 10^(7/23) in the first place? Well, they mean, 10^5 is approximately 2^17, 10^7 is approximately 2^23.

Check : 10^5 = 100 000, 2^17 = 131 072
131 072 is closer to 100 000 than its half 65 536 is.

Check : 10^7 = 10 000 000, 2^23 = 8 388 608
8 388 608 is closer to 10 000 000 than its double 16 777 216 is.

And 10^(5/17) ~ 2 is just a rewriting of 10^5 ~ 2^17.

Now, as seen above, 10^(5/17) and 10^(7/23) are on opposite directions in their deviation from two. This means, their middle ought to deviate less from two. But the denominators must be united, we multiply 17*23 and get 391, and we multiply both numerator and denominator with 17 in the case of the original denominator 23 and vice versa. If 10^(5/17) = 10^(115/391) and 10^(7/23) = 10^(119/391), we take the scale from 115/391 to 119/391:

10^(115/391) = 10^(5/17) = 1.968 419 447 29
10^(116/391) = 1.980 045 598 8
10^(117/391) = 1.991 740 418 29
10^(118/391) = 2.003 504 311 35
10^(119/391) = 10^(7/23) = 2.015 337 685 94

The two relevant ones were 10^(117/391) and 10^(118/391), we add 117+118 to get 235, and this can so neatly get doubled into 470, we have now gone to four times the original mean numerator (117.5), so we need to go to four times the original denominator, 391 * 4 = 1564, as the below denominator will be. From 470/1564, we get away one step on each side, to get a scale 469/1564 to 471/1564. Let's see where it gets us:

10^(469/1564) = 1.994 674 900 01
10^(470/1564) = 1.997 613 705 18
10^(471/1564) = 2.000 556 840 17

The relevant ones are 10^(470/1564) and 10^(471/1564), we add up the numerators and double the denominator:

10^(941/3128) = 1.999 084 731 05

We double that and then scale around it, until we get past the 2:

[10^(1881/6256) ] = unnecessary, since even next one was below 2, see next
10^(1882/6256) = 10^(941/3128) = 1.999 084 731 05
10^(1883/6256) = 1.999 820 650 15
10^(1884/6256) = 10^(471/1564) = 2.000 556 840 17

No, it couldn't stay at 10^(1883/6256), we had to go on to 10^(1884/6256) ...

(1883+1884)*2 = 7534
6256*4 = 25 024

After I set below scale, I start getting the calculations from the top, the latter two are unnecessary:

10^(7532/25 024) = 10^(1883/6256) =1.999 820 650 15
10^(7533/25 024) = 2.00000467226
[10^(7534/25 024)]
[10^(7535/25 024)]

(7532+7533)*2 = 30 130
25 024 * 4 = 100 096

10^(30 129/100 096) = 1.999 866 654 09
10^(30 130/100 096) = 1.999 912 659 09
10^(30 131/100 096) = 1.999 958 665 14
10^(30 132/100 096) = 2.000 004 672 26

By now, we are pretty close on the actual logarithm of two, either fraction, so let's see the decimal fractions worked out, and then let's see the decimals for the logarithm:

30 131/100 096 = 0.301 021 019 82
30 132/100 096 = 0.301 031 010 23

(10)log(2) = 0.301 029 995 66

So, yeah, the method can get values for logarithms, and the point in this is not my competing in any way with others who have calculated the logarithms long before me, it's proving that my definition of logarithms is a good definition. You cannot actually get any number raised to an actual irrational power, and when you raise a number to a fraction, this is algebraic reshuffling for raising both numbers to powers that are actual numbers. Logarithms don't prove that irrational powers exist, and therefore irrational numbers exist, the logarithms, they are the irrational limes for converging fractions, and fractional powers are algebraic shortcuts.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Paris
Day after Annunciation
26.III.2022

Rafistolage - l'essence de la Renaissance

C'est vrai pour les vêtements.

Les culottes et vestes avec beucoup de coupures et d'étoffe qui voyait à travers, c'est les lansquenets qui rafistolaient leurs vêtements après les batailles.* Le style a été imité de manière stylisé, mais la base, c'est ça. Certains ajoutaient encore des coupures et donc des rafistolages en outre de ce qui arrivait en bataille, et la vue d'ensemble était un peu plus bigarré que le vestiaire d'un civiliste ou quelqu'un qui pouvait se montrer en appareil distingué, mais allait dans le même sens.

Mais c'est aussi vrai pour les revivances de l'antiquité gréco-romaine.

On rafistolait, en essence, une toge antique autour un pourpoint médiévale, pour ce qui concerne la mentalité. Ce à quoi aurait correspondu un vrai retour de tunique et toge à la Cicéron, la Renaissance en était très loin. Valla était un curé catholique et il changeait le sujet "grammatica" de la scholastique en rafistolant des morceaux de connaissances antiques et païens, mais sans de revenir à une mentalité païenne.

Pas mal de trucs de la Renaissance qui semblent à première vue comme un retour au paganisme, ne le sont simplement pas, il y a de ça au Moyen âge aussi. Genre, l'amour pour Virgil ne commence pas avec Dante, il est là tout au long du Moyen âge en Occident latin. Chez Charlemagne déjà, on a des poëtes qui s'appellent entre eux d'après Virgil, Horace et les autres. On a parlé de la "Renaissance carolongienne" et en réalité, la seule chose qui changeait vers davantage d'antiquité, c'était la prononciation du latin. Avec, notons-le, l'arrivé d'Alcuin de York, parce qu'en Angleterre de 800, le latin était une langue étrangère cultivée comme telle depuis les temps de St. Augustin** de Cantorbéry, qui amenait son latin d'Italie, dont la latinité était davantage conservatrice que celle des Gaules sous le régime de la Francie.

Erasme, autre curé et secrétaire épiscopal catholique, va restituer la prononciation du latin antique, et je pense qu'il avait bien compris que les désinences en -um, -am, -em se prononçaient*** comme des voyelles nasales portugaises, mais ça ne prend pas, et même l'idée générale de dire kaïsar plutôt que (t)sêsar prend du temps bien après la Renaissance de devenir la règle dans l'enseignement du latin.

Luther, curé catholique et ensuite apostat à une hérésie qu'il rafistole, justement, lui-même, s'imaginait en train de rebâtir l'église du Nouveau Testament - en faisant assez peu de changements, et ceux-ci selon l'obtenu par Valla ou par Érasme.

Boccace compte comme "de la Renaissance" à cause de son latin, mais son célèbre Décaméron donne davantage d'histoires récentes du Moyen âge, toute la situation de base est du Moyen âge très tardive (après la grande peste) et le Filostrato dedans sera repris par Chaucer, que tout le monde s'accorde à considérer comme du Moyen âge (il a débuté comme traducteur du Roman de la Rose), et l'histoire se laisse plus facilement remanier par Chaucer que ce n'aurait été le cas pour Virgil ou Plaute. Le premier aurait approuvé le tragique, mais pas qu'on y mette une histoire d'amour, le second l'histoire d'amour, mais pas qu'on y mette du tragique. Le mélange des deux se retrouve par contre depuis la litérature arthurienne.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Paris
Samedi de Quatretemps
et mém. de St. Grégoire le grand
12.III.2022

Romae sancti Gregorii Primi, Papae, Confessoris et Ecclesiae Doctoris eximii; qui, ob res praeclare gestas atque Anglos ad Christi fidem conversos, Magnus est dictus et Anglorum Apostolus appellatus.

* Slashing is a decorative technique that involved making small cuts on the outer fabric of a garment in order to reveal the sometimes brightly colored inner garment or lining. It was performed on all varieties of clothing, both men's and women's. Contemporary chroniclers identify the source of the fashion for slashing garments to the actions of Swiss soldiers in the aftermath of the Battle of Grandson in 1476. - Le "slashing" est une technique décorative qui impliquait des petites coupures dans l'étoffe extérieu d'un vêtement pour faire ressortir le vêtement intérieur ou la doublure, parfois colorés clairs. Ce qui se faisait sur toute variété de vêtements, masculin comme féminin. Les chroniqueurs contemporains identifient le déclenchement de la mode à l'action des lansquenets suisses, après la bataille de Grandson en 1476. ** Mort en 604, donc presque 200 ans plus tôt. *** Au moins selon la compréhension qu'en ont les latinistes de nos jours.