Re: Historical impications of Romanian ecclesiastical terminology

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, george knysh <gknysh@...> wrote:

> George (Stana) wrote:
> The Proto-Romanian
> speaking population (to be stressed here: having a
> very low social status, kind of marginalized
> population
> in the entire area *for centuries*) kept though a
> series
> of fundamental Christian terminology of Latin
> extraction.
> Even the word "basilica" ( > "biserica"), which is
> unique
> in the Romance-speaking world, where the other Greek
> term has prevailed, Latinised ecclesia > Ital. chiesa,
> Sp. iglesia. This "biserica" might be interpreted as a
> further sign of Protoromanians existing outside the
> official "paths" of clergy activity in the Eastern
> Roman
> empire, a clergy that anyway soon ceased to speak
> Latin and, instead, spoke Greek.
>
> *****GK: Can you give me more insight into this very
> peculiar aspect of Romanian ecclesiastical
> terminology? Am I to understand that "biserica" (from
> "basilica") is the standard Romanian word for
> "church"? If so, and if there is a way to date the
> inclusion of the word into the language, the
> implications would be most interesting. As you have
> stated, it is the Greek term (via Latin) which entered
> the vocabulary of the Romance speaking peoples
> (ecclesia, eglise etc.) I have some familiarity with
> early Christian writings. I cannot offhand remember a
> situation where "basilica" stood for "church" pure

and

> simple. The standard Latin term was ALWAYS "ecclesia".
> A basilica was a very special kind of church, a royal
> church, large and splendid (well we know this of
> course). Not your local village church or neighborhood
> church. Not the sort of word which you would use,
> especially simple people, to designate a church. So a
> people which adopted this term early or whenever as a
> designation for just "church" would not have been part
> of the standard late Roman Christian communities in
> any recognizable sense. It almost sounds as an exotic
> loan word. The circumstances under which it was
> borrowed are obscure. I won't let my imagination work
> overtime here. I would just say that this one word
> suggests that the Proto-Romanians had little if any
> dealings with either Roman or Greek clergy during the
> postulated early times of their alleged conversion
> (3/4 cs.) "Ecclesia" is simply not a word which would
> drop out of your vocabulary…******

******
A few tidbits I found, although not much help:
Elcock "The Romance Languages" (1960) writes: [ECCLESIA gained]in
the fifth century a marked ascendency over the rival word BASILICA,
a much earlier borrowing into Latin."
Buck's "Synonyms" has: Lat. 'basilica' ... hence Rum. 'biserica',
also Alb., Vegliot and Rhaeto-Roman words for 'church'
(Fr. 'basoche' in a quite different sense), and according to the
evidence of Christian inscriptions 'basilica' was once current over
a much wider area."
For those as ignorant as myself, i found somewhere:

basoche (French entry by Randle Cotgrave 1611)
Basoche: f. The whole troupe, or companie of Lawyers Clearks in the
palace of Paris, hauing among them a king, and their peculiar lawes;
hence also, reuell, misrule (for these fellowes are none of the
soberest) also, a certaine baudie Court, wherein wiues that beat
their husbands, are censured. Fief de la Basoche. Il tient du fief
de la B. He is a pratling, or iangling Lawyer; or (as a Lawyers
Clerke) an vnruly copesmate; or, his wife is his master. Roy de la
Basoche. The Master of Misrule, or chiefe man among the Clerkes,
when they make their shewes.

Dan