Re: Historical impications of Romanian ecclesiastical terminology

In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, george knysh 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.

For the sake of precision, let's mention also Rheto-Romance (Engad.)
"baselgia" and Dalmatian (Vegl.) "basálca" meaning `church`.

> *****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"?

Yes.

> If so, and if there is a way to date the inclusion of the word into

the

> language, the implications would be most interesting.

The Greek word got earlier in Latin language with the meaning of
`special
kind of (monumental) building`. When Constantine the Great gave Pope
Miltiades a palace on the Lateran hill as a residence and began
building
a church later called the Basilica of St. John at the Lateran (313 a.
D.),
the term had all reasons to acquire the new meaning in vernacular.
From
the IV-th century, "basilica" is attested with this new meaning.
Not many years after this moment, the First Ecumenical Council in
Nicaea
decided that churches should be called with another formula of Greek
inspiration, "ecclesia kyriakos" (325 a.D.). This time it was an
official
formula and should have been imposed by clergy. The word didn't made
it
into Balkan Romance.
It would be very tempting to say that Balkan Romance split up from
the
rest of Romance-speaking world between these two dates, but it would
be
obviously too naive. In fact, the word "basilica" got some popularity
with the new meaning, and intervention of ecclesiastical authorities
in
order to impose the "right" word for `church` couldn't be imposed over
night in vernacular language. Thus, the official version managed to
impose itself after some good decades.
Out of that, it failed to impose itself in those regions where there
was no Latin strong organized clergy.

> [...] The standard Latin term was ALWAYS "ecclesia".

Only after Nicaea. Up till then, the word meaned `assembly` and
incidentally `religious (Christian) assembly` (if I recall correctly).

> [...] The circumstances under which it was borrowed are obscure.

Well, not so obscure after all. :-)

> 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.)

... or even prior to that moment, but this is another story. The word
shows actually something more: not only post-Nicaean clerks had little
power to impose their official denominations, but also that Romanians
got Christianized early and naturally, at the base level of uneducated
people who accept a fate they feel appropriated to their spirit.
It shows also that at the end of the IV-th century, when "ecclesia"
got general elsewhere, linguistical contact between Balkan Romance and
Western Romania was in decline.

> PS> This is just an initial point. I'm rather interested in this

issue

> and hope to get some enlightenment from my Romanian friends. I hope

they

> won't be too dismayed by my playing the continued

advocatus diaboli

> role either.

No problemo. :-)

Regards,
Marius Iacomi