6

I have two transcription problems in a glossed Genesis from southern France. The topic is the double Creation of Man narrative. The first problem is caused by the similarity of u m n v in the script.[quunum] What is the meaning of [quunum] ?

ALCUINus . Quattuor modis operatur deus./ Primo in uerbo .ii. inmateria informi .Vn. [quunum] e/ternum creavit omnia simul .tertio. per opera .vi. diebus varias distinx creaturas .quarto. ex primordialibus / seminibus, non incognitae oriuntur naturae [fz?sz?n/v?ot/r?e] saepius / ne pereant reformantur.

God operates in four modes. First, in the Word. .ii. in unformed material .The One. [quunum] eternal/eternity has created all things simultaneously .thirdly. through works in .six. days he distinguished various creatures. .Fourthly. from primordial seeds, there arose natures not unknown [fz?sz?n/v?ot/r?e] quite often are formed again so that they do not perish. Text from Glossed Genesis

Developments. The editor who brought these texts together in the 12th century shortened this paragrah by Alcuin. (thanks Cerberus) This confirms "sed notae" in the previous question, and the reading here "qui vivit in eternum." unknown natures do not arise, but 'previously known [natures]fairly often are re-formed...

Alcuin source material. Quot modis est operatio divina? Quatuor. Primo, quod in verbi [Dei] dispensatione omnia aeterna sunt. Secundo, quod in materia informi 'qui vivit in aeternum, creavit simul.' Tertio, quod per opera dierum sex varias distinxit creaturas. Quarto, quod ex primordialibus seminibus non incognitae oriuntur naturae, sed notae saepius, ne pereant, reformantur.

In this paragraph the short quotation is from Ecclus 18:1 = Sirach (Douay-Rheims 1899 American)18:1 He that liveth for ever created all things together. (credit ref: brianpck)

  • The 'e' following the cluster of letters is the first letter of 'eternum.' – Hugh Feb 16 '17 at 21:15
  • 2
    I'll leave the answer to an expert, but my guess is "qui vivit in," cf. Eccl 18:1. Not sure about the "Vn" before it. – brianpck Feb 16 '17 at 21:27
  • 1
    The other garbled part is probably "sed notae" – brianpck Feb 16 '17 at 21:28
  • 1
    @brianpck Is correct. It's in vivit in -- I is another one of those strokes that, like M, N, U, and V, is pretty difficult to distinguish written out side-by-side. – C. M. Weimer Feb 16 '17 at 22:02
  • 2
    I think it's noble that you asked two things in two questions, you were trying not to have people "proofread" your work. But in this case, perhaps the two questions could be merged? latin.stackexchange.com/questions/2668/… P.S. I've posted a transcription with the other one. – Cerberus Feb 16 '17 at 22:09
4

It says Vn~, so vn with a general mark of abbreviation. This mark normally stands for -de if it is written above an -n at the end of a word (provided that -de fits), so it must be unde here, "whence".

I've found an 18th-century print edition of the Sententiae of Petrus Lombardus that has a similar use of unde with partly the same text, and introducing the same quotation:

Secundo, in materia informi quatuor elementorum, de nihilo creando : unde, Qui vivit in aeternum creavit omnia simul.

— Petrus Lombardus, Sententiae, Book II, Distinctio XII, final paragraph.

As per this suggestion, I'll post a link to the full transcription of the passage in this other answer.

| improve this answer | |
  • Throughout this gloss numbers are picked out by double stops: .ii. .tertio. .vi. .quarto. For this reason I have come to think .Vii. or .Vn. with a bar(m,n) must be another number. So perhaps "Vnum" as a cognomen of the the Divine, hencealso the capital V. – Hugh Feb 16 '17 at 23:01
  • 1
    @Hugh: In theory, you could read it as vii. But that wouldn't make sense in the enumeration, which goes up regularly. As to unum, when the bar stands for n/m, normally no other letter is left out. So the bar would have to be a general mark of abbreviation. But then the abbreviation un. would have to be common, which I believe it is not. And it would have to be a nominative to fit the context, unus, which is even less likely. I don't know whether Unus would be used to refer to God; probably not? Lastly, I believe unde can be used to introduce quotations in Mediaeval Latin. – Cerberus Feb 17 '17 at 2:43
  • 1
    @Hugh: Please find in my answer above a very similar text using unde in the same way. – Cerberus Feb 17 '17 at 2:56

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.