# speciale Deo dilecti



## Erszebet

Hi, I am translating this phrase:
Caeterum speciale eisudem Deo dilecti Patris Oddonis Coenobium, quod Cluniacum dicitur, (...) litteris traditum scimus. 

I would translate: Moreover (Caeterum), we know from the writings (litteris traditum scimus) that that monastery (eisudem Coenobium) of the Father Oddon (Patris Oddonis ) was especially loved by God (speciale Deo dilecti). 

I am not really sure about the speciale Deo dilecti. It seems to me the declinations do not fit, but it makes sense to me that way. 

It is a part of Exordium Magnum, medieval text about moanstic history. The sentence is much longer. 

Thanks.


----------



## bearded

Hi
I think ''eisudem'' is a typo for _eiusdem _(genitive of 'idem'), meaning ''of the same'' and referring to 'Patris'
... _eiusdem Deo dilecti Patris Oddonis =  of the same Father Oddon, loved by God 

'Eiusdem' _presumably refers to 'the same' person (Oddon) mentioned in a previous sentence.

My interpretation would be: ''Moreover we know from the writings the special monastery of the same father Oddon, loved by God, which is called Cluniacum'' (near Cluny in France).
''Speciale'' is not an adverb here in my opinion (it would be 'specialiter'), but rather a neuter adjective.
Maybe knowing the words in brackets after 'dicitur' would also be of help.

I hope that experts will confirm.


----------



## Scholiast

saluete omnes

First, bearded _noster_ is surely right about _eiusdem_, and about _speciale_ being an adjective. I also share his view (communicated to me by PM) that the writer was not in first-class command of the Latin he is writing—we should expect *a*_ Deo dilecti_ for 'beloved of God', and although it seems to me clear enough that _literis traditum scimus_ is intended to mean 'we know from the writings/records/archives', it 'feels' awkward and clumsy.
Moreover _speciale_ is troublesome. It is indeed an adjective (neut. acc. sing., agreeing with _Coenobium_), rather than an adverb, but it is a rather unusual word in classical Latin (it claims only about 3 column-cm in _OLD_), and I have a suspicion that for the writer of this text it has its own 'special' meaning, which without knowing more of the surrounding historical circumstances it is hard to divine.
But there's nothing wrong with the declension(s): _Deo_ is ablative ('*by* God'), and _dilecti_ is gen. masc. sing. agreeing with _Oddonis_.
My only quarrel with bearded here is that _scimus_ is not usually appropriate for knowledge by acquaintance, which would be (_cog_)_novimus_. English does not distinguish the two separate senses of 'to know', but Romance does (Fr. _savoir_ vs. _connaître_, It. _sapere_ vs. _conoscere_), and so does German (_wissen_, _kennen_).
So I am confident that 'We know from the records that the particular monastery of the same father Oddo, beloved of God, which is called Coenobium...' is more or less right, but it is infuriating that Erszebet has cut the text after _dicitur_.
Please therefore, for future reference, give us the text _tout entière_ rather than 'doctored', and if you can, supply a bit more about the historical context.

Σ


----------



## Sobakus

Here's the default non-paywalled Medieval Latin corpus with this passage. DMLBS works particularly well as a Medieval Latin dictionary. _eisdem_ is a typo/corrigendum. _traditum scimus_ doesn't pertain to the beginning of the period, but to a full clause mentioned further down the line (we know the fact that.../how..., not the monastery): _quam consummata fuerint, quamque perfecti et Deo digni in eis claruerint viri, litteris traditum scimus._ When properly cited, I wouldn't find fault with the writer's Latin.


----------



## Scholiast

saluete amici!

Sobakus (# 4) to the rescue! For which 🙏 . The complete text seems to be:

Caeterum speciale eiusdem Deo dilecti Patris Oddonis Coenobium, quod Cluniacum dicitur, quodque usque hodie maximum et nobilissimum refulget, maximum mutitudine fratrum, nobilissimum possessionibus, divitiis et gloria. Sed et monasterium de quo Pater Odo cum fratribus suis Cluniacum secessit, quam consummata fuerint, quamque perfecti et Deo digni in eis claruerint viri litteris traditum scimus. Unde et nobis duo iucunda valde miracula excerpta huic nostro opusculo inserere placet, quatenus prudens lector ex his duobus caetera perpendere valeat.

I understand this to mean:

Furthermore, [there is] the unique _Coenobium_ of the same Father Oddo, beloved of God, called _Cluniacum_, and which even to this day is resplendent for its very great size and fame—very large in the number of its Brothers, and especially noteworthy for its command of abundant treasures and reputation; but [there is] also the monastery from which together with his Brothers Father Odo made his withdrawal to Cluniacum: we know from the written records how eminent these [both] were, and how splendid and worthy of God were the men who distinguished themselves in them. For this reason, it is our pleasure to include these [following] most agreeable and choice marvels in this little work of ours, in as much as a discerning reader may assess other [such establishments] by the standards of these two.

No attempt here at literary elegance, and other contributors may have improvements to suggest.

Σ


----------



## Sobakus

Happy to be of assistance! Our esteemed Scholiast's interpretation seems on point to me, if only for the fact that the two marvels the writer is referring to aren't the monasteries, but two actual (Christian) miraculous occurrences that follow in the same text (forward navigation is marked with '>>>' in the hierarchy at the very top of the page). Also, I don't think the sentence break before the _sed_ is justified in this edition - it's all one continuous sentence with the subjects _coenobium_ and _monasterium _coordinated with _sed et = necnōn,_ as seen by the verb_ consummata fuerint_ referring to both the coordinated members.


----------



## bearded

Well, I must say that the OP quotation of the Latin text in #1 was very incomplete indeed!
Many thanks, Scholiast and Sobakus.


----------



## Erszebet

Thanks a lot to everyone! 
And I apologize for the too-short citation and for the long time I haven´t been here. 
I still have doubts whether the  "in eis" does really refer to "both monasteries" and not for example the brothers in one monastery, "amongst whom". But as both Scholiast  Sobakus think so, I bet on your solution.  Thanks also for the link to Exordium online, I searched for that a long time.


----------



## Sobakus

Erszebet said:


> Thanks a lot to everyone!





> I still have doubts whether the  "in eis" does really refer to "both monasteries" and not for example the brothers in one monastery, "amongst whom".


In view of _consummata fuerint <monasteria>,_ _in eis_ must refer back to the same antecedent. "among them" would be phrased as _inter eos_.


----------



## Scholiast

Greetings once more.

Erszebet's doubts about _in eis_ made me go back to the text again, for I too was mildly uncomfortable about it. But like Sobakus (in his most recent post here), I can see no other construal than that _eis_ refers to the monasteries (plural) in question.

Σ


----------



## Erszebet

OK. Thanks a lot!


----------



## exgerman

I suspect that specialis is Konrad's version of speciosus = beautiful.


----------



## Sobakus

exgerman said:


> I suspect that specialis is Konrad's version of speciosus = beautiful.


But it has no such meaning, and the confusion would be quite unthinkable for anyone but a complete beginner; while the sentence works fine with its normal and primary meaning "particular, specific", being a fancier way of saying "that"; though "special, outstanding" does work better considering the following description.


----------

