# Sacerdote ordinato immerento filio tuum favorem nanciscantur  [inscription]



## radagasty

I am looking to have a chalice inscribed with the following message, as the prayer of a newly-ordained priest for the eternal salvation of his parents whose gift it is. 

SACERDOTE ORDINATO IMMERENTO FILIO TUUM FAVOREM NANCISCANTUR ET GRATIAM IN NOVISSIMO DIE DOMINE DEUS GENETRIX PIENTISSIMA EJUSQUE COMES NECNON GENITOR INDULGENTISSIMUS QUI HUNC PRÆCLARUM CALICEM INEBRIANTEM OBTULERUNT

Given how expensive chalices are and the permanence of the engraving, I thought I should consult the members of this forum to check, in the first instance, for solecisms and infelicitous turns of phrase, and, in the second, to solicit suggestions for improvements or refinements. Any and all input would be most welcome.

Thank you in advance.


----------



## jazyk

I don't see a problem in it.

If I understand it correctly: Lord, God, His most pious mother and her companion most indulgent father who put forth this splendid inebriating chalice light on this day upon your favor and your grace in a son as an undeserving ordained priest.


----------



## Scholiast

Greetings all

This in haste, without careful study: I am sure _immerento _is wrong (_immerent*i*_, surely?).


----------



## radagasty

Thank you both for your comments.



jazyk said:


> Lord, God, His most pious mother and her companion most indulgent father who put forth this splendid inebriating chalice light on this day upon your favor and your grace in a son as an undeserving ordained priest.



Hmm... this wasn't exactly what I intended, I have to say, although I can quite make out how you have construed NANCISCANTUR here. Also, I had meant COMES and GENITOR to refer to two different persons, although I can see how it can be interpreted as one. Perhaps NECNON isn't the most suitable conjunction?



Scholiast said:


> This in haste, without careful study: I am sure _immerento _is wrong (_immerent*i*_, surely?).



Yes indeed, it should be IMMERENTI. I'm not sure how IMMERENTO came out, as I was actually trying to decide between IMMERENTI and IMMERENTE, but I think the former is correct as the participle serves as a modifying adjective here, and is incidental to the ablative absolute construction.


----------



## jazyk

I think it would be easier then if you wrote in English what you meant, and then we would make changes accordingly.


----------



## radagasty

Hmm... I suppose I had a prayer along the following lines in mind:

SACERDOTE ORDINATO IMMERENTI FILIO TUUM FAVOREM NANCISCANTUR ET GRATIAM IN NOVISSIMO DIE DOMINE DEUS GENETRIX PIENTISSIMA EJUSQUE COMES NECNON GENITOR INDULGENTISSIMUS QUI HUNC PRÆCLARUM CALICEM INEBRIANTEM OBTULERUNT

*An undeserving son having been ordained a priest, O Lord God, may his most pious mother and her companion, as well as his most indulgent father, who offered this inebriating splendid chalice, meet with your favour and grace on the last day.*

I apologise if this is a little stiff and reads like a back-translation, because I composed the Latin prayer without a fixed English text in mind. This is meant more to give a literal sense of what I meant by the Latin than as an idiomatic rendering.

I am afraid, though, that my Latin composition is a little rusty, and if there are any further errors, especially in light my intended meaning, please do point them out. Likewise, any suggestions for refinement of the Latin expression would be welcome, for it is the general sentiment that I wish to convey, and not necessarily a slavish rendition of the English text.

Thanks again.


----------



## jazyk

Then maybe: SACERDOTE ORDINATO IMMERENTI FILIO TUUM FAVOREM *INEANT *ET GRATIAM IN NOVISSIMO DIE DOMINE DEUS GENETRIX PIENTISSIMA EJUSQUE COMES NECNON GENITOR INDULGENTISSIMUS QUI HUNC PRÆCLARUM CALICEM INEBRIANTEM OBTULERUNT

Inire inspired by: graphium - Dictionnaire Gaffiot français-latin - Page 723

Instead of genitor and genitrix, you could use pater and mater. Either is fine.

I think DOMINE is enough, without DEUS. Interesting read: The Vocative of Deus and Its Problems on JSTOR


----------



## Scholiast

Greetings again



jazyk said:


> Then maybe: SACERDOTE ORDINATO IMMERENTI FILIO TUUM FAVOREM *INEANT *ET GRATIAM IN NOVISSIMO DIE DOMINE DEUS GENETRIX PIENTISSIMA EJUSQUE COMES NECNON GENITOR INDULGENTISSIMUS QUI HUNC PRÆCLARUM CALICEM INEBRIANTEM OBTULERUNT



I can endorse most of this, but am uneasy about the word-order. FILIO IMMERENTI and FAVOREM TUUM (or TVVM) would be more natural for even late/ecclesiastical Latin - their placement before their nouns lends them undue emphasis.



jazyk said:


> I think DOMINE is enough, without DEUS



I disagree, especially in an inscription of this florid prolixity (which for the purpose is entirely appropriate).

Finally, you might consider inscribing majuscule U as V throughout, since the vowel u and consonant v were not distinguished in writing.


----------



## radagasty

Thank you both, jazyk and Scholiast, for your input.



jazyk said:


> Then maybe: SACERDOTE ORDINATO IMMERENTI FILIO TUUM FAVOREM *INEANT *ET GRATIAM IN NOVISSIMO DIE DOMINE DEUS GENETRIX PIENTISSIMA EJUSQUE COMES NECNON GENITOR INDULGENTISSIMUS QUI HUNC PRÆCLARUM CALICEM INEBRIANTEM OBTULERUNT
> 
> I think DOMINE is enough, without DEUS.



I am little torn between _ineo_ and _nanciscor_: the former does perhaps sound somewhat more elegant, but I like the latter for the element of gratuity, which is to say, it is not by any effort of the parents that they should meet with God's favour.

As for omitting DEUS, I tend to agree with Scholiast, that the inscription requires the weight of DOMINE DEUS for balance.



Scholiast said:


> I can endorse most of this, but am uneasy about the word-order. FILIO IMMERENTI and FAVOREM TUUM (or TVVM) would be more natural for even late/ecclesiastical Latin - their placement before their nouns lends them undue emphasis.
> 
> Finally, you might consider inscribing majuscule U as V throughout, since the vowel u and consonant v were not distinguished in writing.



I hear what you're saying, and, upon reflection, I am minded to retain IMMERENTI FILIO but reverse TUUM FAVOREM.

If I have the inscription set in a Roman script, I most likely would inscribe U as V. This is still under discussion, as I liked none of the standard typefaces offered by the engraver, who has thus suggested that I supply my own. To this end, I have created two mock-ups of the inscription, one in Roman capitals, and the other in a Blackletter script:

http://www.cantab.net/users/sebastian.hew/inscription-chalice.pdf

I wouldn't mind hearing if anyone has a preference for one over the other, on the grounds of æsthetics, fitness for purpose, or indeed anything else. Thanks again.


----------



## Scholiast

salvete de novo!

@radagasty #9: the Roman font is infinitely more suitable than the pseudo-Gothic for the purpose. Almost everywhere you go for Latin inscriptions in RC churches, you will find this, or something like it, used, not least because it is what it says on the tin, "Roman".

S


----------



## radagasty

There is also much Latin written in the Gothic script, especially during the Middle Ages. Nevertheless, I do agree, Scholiast, that the Roman capitals is much more suitable for such an inscription, so I have decided to go with that.

As for the formulation of the inscription itself, I must confess that I have not been quite happy with noun phrase HUNC PRÆCLARUM CALICEM INEBRIANTEM, and have been considering phrasing the relative clause thus, omitting the noun itself, which should be obvious since it is to be inscribed on a chalice:

... QUI HUNC TAM PRÆCLARUM QUAM INEBRIANTEM OBTULERUNT

Any thoughts?


----------



## Scholiast

@radagasty once more:

For the context, HUNC (or HVNC) would be a bit odd. More natural would be ME (lots of classical artefacts have such self-referential first-person pronouns), but this would lead to difficulties with PRÆCLARVM and INEBRIANTEM (actually, I'm not sure about the appropriateness of the latter word anyway, but let that pass for the moment). One possibility would be to make PRÆCLARVM an adverb (PRÆCLARE) qualifying the verb OBTVLERVNT, and leave INEBRIANTEM out altogether.

Σ


----------



## radagasty

Thank you, Scholiast. I very much appreciate your input.

Yes, ME would be quite natural, but I'm not convinced it would create an insurmountable difficulty with the accompanying adjectives. QUI ME TAM PRÆCLARUM QUAM INEBRIANTEM [SUM] OBTULERUNT could seem to me to work, or even QUI ME OBTULERUNT TAM PRÆCLARUM QUAM INEBRIANTEM [SUM]. (Do you agree?) Alternatively, retaining CALIX might also work, as in QUI HUNC CALICEM TAM PRÆCLARUM QUAM INEBRIANTEM OBTULERUNT.

_Calix præclarus _is a standard expression for the chalice, as found in the institution narrative of the Roman Canon, for example: "Simili modo postquam cenatum est, accipiens et hunc præclarum calicem in sanctas ac venerabiles manus suas..." As for _inebrians_, this is a reference to Psalm XXII: "Calix meus inebrians quam præclarus est." That's why I chose these two adjectives for the inscription.


----------



## Scholiast

Greetings once more, and especially radagasty

Now I see. I had not thought of a reference to the Vulgate. Neither of the English versions of the Psalm most familiar to me, Coverdale's in the _Book of Common Prayer _("and my cup shall be full") and the 1611 KJV ("my cup runneth over") have anything quite like this. But now of course it all makes sense in the context.

So back to the question: you could certainly have QVI ME CALICEM CVM INEBRIANTEM TVM PRÆCLARVM OBTVLERVNT, where _cum...tum... _means "both...and...", or "at one and the same time...". To me TAM...QVAM... ("as much...as...") here is a bit precious - don't be misled by _quam praeclarum_ in the original text: _quam_ is introducing an exclamation: "My thirst-quenching cup, _*how*_ splendid it is". And absolutely do NOT put in a verb such as SVM in that phrase, for this would produce syntactical gobbledygook.

I hope this is helpful.

Σ


----------



## radagasty

In _inebrians_, the Vulgate follows the Septuagint, which reads: τὸ ποτήριόν σου μεθύσκον ὡς κράτιστον. I'm not sure why _meus_, though, when the LXX has _σου_. St. Cyprian does cite this verse in one of his letters as 'calix tuus inebrians perquam optimus'.

Thank you for the suggestion of CUM... TUM... in place of QUAM... TAM.... I had introduced the latter as a reversal of the psalm's sentiment. Whereas the psalmist marvels at the splendour of the chalice, the Roman Canon takes its splendour for granted, calling it the _præclarus calix_, whence QUAM PRÆCLARUM TAM INEBRIANTEM, 'as inebriating as it is splendid'. (I understand _inebrians_ here as 'causing drunkenness' and not merely 'thirst-quenching', corresponding to the Greek μεθύσκος.)

As for SUM, my thinking was that it could work in a parenthetical clause; imagine, if you will, a pair of dashes: ... QUI ME—QUAM PRÆCLARUS TAM INEBRIANS SUM—OBTULERUNT, but is quite unnecessary and, I do agree, constitutes something of a syntactical roadblock in the sentence.

I have moreover been pondering your suggestion of QUI ME CALICEM..., which I suppose would be translated as 'who offered me, a chalice at once splendid and inebriating'. I had initially rejected it in favour of QUI HUNC CALICEM, but I am slowly coming around to your formulation in the first person. On the other hand, I am having it inscribed in the base of the chalice so that, when the priest elevates it following the consecration, he would be able to read the prayer, and he would of course refer to the chalice in the third person and not in the first.

At any rate, thank you again, Scholiast, for the most helpful discussion.


----------



## Scholiast

salvete et iterum

After a little more reflection, here one (and a half) more observation(s) for radagasty's attention:


radagasty said:


> On the other hand, I am having it inscribed in the base of the chalice so that, when the priest elevates it following the consecration, he would be able to read the prayer, and he would of course refer to the chalice in the third person and not in the first.


It would in fact be perfectly proper, both for the occasion(s) of the chalice's use and in terms of Latinity, to omit ME/HVNC altogether (...QVI CALICEM CVM PRÆCLARVM TVM INEBRIANTEM OBTVLERVNT). This would obviate both any perceived awkwardness about the "person" as the celebrant raises the cup at the consecration, and the oddity (by no means the only one in the Vulgate) of _meus_ in place of the LXX' σου. (Incidentally, I too had consulted the LXX, but I thought that a complication too far to raise in the context; unfortunately I do not know Hebrew).

Σ


----------



## radagasty

Scholiast said:


> It would in fact be perfectly proper, both for the occasion(s) of the chalice's use and in terms of Latinity, to omit ME/HVNC altogether (...QVI CALICEM CVM PRÆCLARVM TVM INEBRIANTEM OBTVLERVNT). This would obviate both any perceived awkwardness about the "person" as the celebrant raises the cup at the consecration, and the oddity (by no means the only one in the Vulgate) of _meus_ in place of the LXX' σου.



I am not too concerned about the oddity of _meus_ for the LXX's σου, though indeed both _hunc _and _me_ may be omitted. Nevertheless, I am minded to retain the former, especially since the phrase HUNC PRÆCLARUM CALICEM recalls the institution narrative in the Roman Canon.

I have reworked the inscription yet again to the following:

SACERDOTE ORDINATO IMMERENTI FILIO FAVOREM TVVM NANCISCANTVR ET GRATIAM IN NOVISSIMO DIE DOMINE DEVS GENETRIX PIENTISSIMA EIVSQVE COMES NECNON VITRICVS INDVLGENTISSIMVS QVI HVNC PRÆCLARVM CALICEM CVM REDVNDANTEM TVM INEBRIANTEM OBTVLERVNT

There has been a change in the circumstances of the gift, and _genitor_ has accordingly been replaced with _vitricus_, now referring to the same person as _comes_. I have also restored the phrase _hic præclarus calix_ from the Roman Canon, and introduced _redundans_ to reflect the Hebrew textual tradition alongside the _inebrians_ of the LXX. (The _Nova Vulgata_ in fact reads 'calix meus redundat' here.)

Well... I think I am happy with this formulation, and am poised to pull the trigger, so to speak. I have very much appreciated your time and expertise, Scholiast, in helping me to work through the inscription. Your suggestions have been apt, and it is moreover helpful to have someone with whom to float ideas. Any final comments before I commit? Thanks again.


----------



## Scholiast

salvete de novo, praesertim radagasty



radagasty said:


> I have also restored the phrase _hic præclarus calix_ from the Roman Canon, and introduced _redundans_ to reflect the Hebrew textual tradition alongside the _inebrians_ of the LXX. (The _Nova Vulgata_ in fact reads 'calix meus redundat' here.)


_esto_. (_redundare_ explains of course the BCP and KJV formulations I referred to earlier (#14)).

I'm not quite sure, however, about...


radagasty said:


> GENETRIX PIENTISSIMA EIVSQVE COMES NECNON VITRICVS INDVLGENTISSIMVS


...because in _genetrix eiusque comes_, _eius_ is referring to her—"his most reverent mother and her companion"—whereafter _necnon vitricus_ makes it appear that _vitricus_ is _*her*_ step-father as well as _comes_, especially as _necnon_ has more rhetorical force than simply _et_. At any rate it made me sit bolt upright. You could get round this by omitting _eivsque comes_: ...GENETRIX PIENTISSIMA ET VITRICVS INDVLGENTISSIMVS... would at least be unambiguous.

Sorry to be a pedant, but this is obviously too important and delicate to get wrong!

Σ


----------



## radagasty

Scholiast said:


> Sorry to be a pedant, but this is obviously too important and delicate to get wrong!Σ



Not at all, Scholiast, because it is indeed important to get it right.

Could not ... NECNON VITRICVS INDVLGENTISSIMVS be translated as 'his most dutiful mother and her companion, also [no less] a most indulgent step-father' without necessarily implying that it is *her* step-father? I do see, though, that it could be taken this way, and perhaps that this might even be the reading that comes most naturally to mind. At any rate, this is not an ideal formulation.

This little hitch has brought me to something of a nonplus, I must admit. If anything, I would drop _vitricus indulgentissimus_ before _ejusque comes_, but I somehow feel that a bare GENETRIX PIENTISSIMA EIVSQVE COMES does not do the latter justice, and I would like to add a qualification like _benignissumus_ or _indulgentissimus_.

Oh well... there is still time to reconsider, so I will try to come up with an alternative formulation, ideally retaining _ejusque comes_. Meanwhile, any further thoughts or suggestions would be most welcome.


----------



## Scholiast

salvete omnes, necnon radagasty!

I am sorry to have inserted inconvenient thoughts into this discussion, but as you will have picked up already, it has engaged my interests and enthusiasms. I quite see...



radagasty said:


> that a bare GENETRIX PIENTISSIMA EIVSQVE COMES does not do the latter justice



...the force of this point. Maybe this is a step too far for you, but do you think there might be mileage in a formulation such as _ET AMBORVM AMICISSIMVS_?

I too have reached what you eloquently describe as a "nonplus". How long have you still?

Σ


----------



## radagasty

Thank you for your keen interest in this discussion, and also for these further thoughts above, Scholiast. I apologise for my long silence, for I have been preöccupied with other matters these last few weeks.

On the question of ET AMBORVM AMICISSIMVS, I have no qualms with the sentiment expressed, which is most fitting. Syntactically, however, I worry that it may be unclear whom _ambo_ refers to, and perhaps something of a stretch to connect it to _filius_, given that it occurs only in an absolute construction a long way back.

Syntactical conundrum aside, I actually rather like your formulation, I must admit. I have been toying with others, such as ET PRIVIGNI AMICISSIMUS or PRIVIGNO INDULGENTISSIMUS_, _but I don't think they have quite the same ring to them.


----------



## Scholiast

radagasty said:


> ET PRIVIGNI AMICISSIMUS or PRIVIGNO INDULGENTISSIMUS_, _but I don't think they have quite the same ring to them.



Yes, they don't!

Going back a step or two (and reversing COMES and EIVS—which I now think obviates the conundrum):

SACERDOTE ORDINATO IMMERENTI FILIO FAVOREM TVVM NANCISCANTVR ET GRATIAM IN NOVISSIMO DIE DOMINE DEVS GENETRIX PIENTISSIMA COMESQVE EIVS VITRICVS INDVLGENTISSIMVS* QVI HVNC PRÆCLARVM CALICEM CVM REDVNDANTEM TVM INEBRIANTEM OBTVLERVNT

Without NECNON it makes clearer and more natural sense. My only surviving cavil is the juxtaposition of the DOMINE DEVS with GENETRIX. DOMINE DEVS could fit in comfortably after FAVOREM TVVM.

What think'st?

Σ

*Edit: nothing wrong with the Latinity of this, of course: but together with Tacitus, I think that sometimes simple adjectives(/participles) are actually more forceful: you need PIENTISSIMA for rhetorical weight (rather than simply _pia_), but why not just INDVLGENS?


----------



## Scholiast

@radagasty

salve!

In fact, why not just DILIGENS (for INDVLGENTISSIMVS)? Acquiring (as I too shortly shall) a step-mother I think this conveys the right tone, a mixture of care, dutifulness and honorable love.

Σ


----------



## Ben Jamin

Shouldn' there be 'pietissima" and not "pientissima'?


----------



## Scholiast

salvete collectores!



Ben Jamin said:


> Shouldn' there be 'pietissima" and not "pientissima'?



No. *_pietus_ / -_a_ / -_um _does not exist in any form of Latin known to me, and _a fortiori_ so does not "*pietissima".

radagasty _noster_ might think here of _plenissima_ but I suspect this would be vulnerable to misconstrual.

Σ


----------



## Ben Jamin

Scholiast said:


> salvete collectores!
> 
> 
> 
> No. *_pietus_ / -_a_ / -_um _does not exist in any form of Latin known to me, and _a fortiori_ so does not "*pietissima".
> 
> radagasty _noster_ might think here of _plenissima_ but I suspect this would be vulnerable to misconstrual.
> 
> Σ


But 'pientissima' does not exist either?


----------



## Scholiast

salue Ben Jamin

http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper...lphabetic+letter=P:entry+group=60:entry=piens

Sorry I have not yet mastered the art of convenient internet links. But _piens _exists, though admittedly an oddity. So therefore does a superlative based on the stem _pient-
_
Σ


----------



## radagasty

Scholiast said:


> Going back a step or two (and reversing COMES and EIVS—which I now think obviates the conundrum):
> 
> SACERDOTE ORDINATO IMMERENTI FILIO FAVOREM TVVM NANCISCANTVR ET GRATIAM IN NOVISSIMO DIE DOMINE DEVS GENETRIX PIENTISSIMA COMESQVE EIVS VITRICVS INDVLGENTISSIMVS* QVI HVNC PRÆCLARVM CALICEM CVM REDVNDANTEM TVM INEBRIANTEM OBTVLERVNT
> 
> What think'st?



By Jove, I think he's got it! This does indeed obviate the conundrum that puzzled me no end. The nonplus is non plus, as it were, and I am happy to proceed with the engraving on this basis.

I wholly agree with moving DOMINE DEUS after FAVOREM TUUM, which reads much more smoothly, and likewise dispensing with the superlative in INDULGENTISSIMUS. I have not quite decided whether to go with _indulgens_ or _diligens_, but neither would be out of place.

Well... thank you very much, Scholiast, for lending your expertise in this matter of my chalice inscription. I am much obliged to you for the helpful suggestions and comments throughout the process of its composition, and its evolution through successive incarnations, arriving at an inscription that unquestionably befits its purpose, in my opinion, no less in Latinity and Christianity than in sentiment.


----------



## Scholiast

@radagasty, sed omnibus quoque collectoribus Scholiasta SPD

It was a pleasure, an intriguing challenge and task. And (old-fashioned, High-Church) Scottish Episcopalian that I am, I am ecumenically delighted that the inscription will now reach a suitably appreciative recipient.

Laus Deo Semper.

Σ

Edited afterthoughts (_a.d. xiii Kal. Mart._): it made an agreeable change from drafting mottoes for tattoos! And what has a pagan god such as "Jove" to do with it?!


----------

