Lionel Deimel's Web Log

 

Random quick takes by Lionel Deimel
Lionel Deimel  

Subscribe to posts Subscribe to Posts:
[Atom] [RSS] [E-mail notice for church posts]

 

Most Recent Posts
Table of Contents

Previous Posts

Ground Zero Memorial
Back Again
Church and State in the Bush Administration
Disconnect
More Ambiguity
Cannot
Repartee
Thought Experiment Redux
Random Thoughts on Iraq
Constituent Services


Archives

Web Log Home

February 2002
March 2002
April 2002
May 2002
June 2002
July 2002
August 2002
September 2002
October 2002
December 2002
January 2003
February 2003
March 2003
April 2003
May 2003
June 2003
July 2003
December 2003
June 2004
July 2004
August 2004
September 2004
November 2004
January 2005
May 2005
July 2005
August 2005
September 2006
October 2006
November 2006
January 2007
February 2007
March 2007
April 2007
May 2007
July 2007
August 2007
September 2007
October 2007
November 2007
December 2007
January 2008
February 2008
March 2008
April 2008
May 2008
June 2008
July 2008
August 2008
September 2008
October 2008
November 2008

Web Log Home


Lionel Deimel's Farrago

Home
Commentary
Language Notes
Site Map
Search


This page is powered by Blogger. Why isn't yours?

Copyright © 2002-2008
Lionel E. Deimel, Ph.D.
All rights reserved.


June 24, 2004

Surprising Old Usages

I have been reading Richard H. Schmidt’s wonderful book Glorious Companions: Five Centuries of Anglican Spirituality. Schmidt describes the lives and writings of 29 notable Anglicans, beginning with Thomas Cranmer and ending with Desmond Tutu. For each Anglican writer, he also provides excerpts to help the reader gain a sense of that person’s work firsthand.

Schmidt treats his subjects chronologically, and, since I have only begun reading the book, I have been encountering some old text. This slows my reading somewhat but isn’t otherwise much of a problem. Every so often, however, I am stopped in my tracks by a word that clearly means something different from what it would mean in a modern context.

For example, addressing the intent of sacraments, Archbishop Cranmer writes: “Our Savior Christ hath not only set forth these things most plainly in his holy word, that we may hear them with our ears, but he has also ordained one visible sacrament of spiritual regeneration in water, and another visible sacrament of spiritual nourishment in bread and wine, to the intent that, as much as is possible for man, we may see Christ with our eyes, smell him at our nose, taste him with our mouths, grope him with our hands, and perceive him with all our senses.” Encountering that word “grope” is disconcerting. Clearly, it simply means handle or manipulate. The modern word is never used that way, and, I think, is being used less often to mean to reach or to search uncertainly (grope in the dark, grope for a word). The first meaning of “grope” that comes to my mind—and likely yours, I suspect—is, as The American Heritage Dictionary delicately puts it,“[t]o handle or fondle for sexual pleasure.” What an inappropriate meaning that would be in Cranmer’s sentence!

A confession from Lancelot Andrewes’ Private Devotions also contains a curious archaic usage. He begins (in the 1840 translation of John Henry Newman—Andrewes had a habit of writing in Latin, Greek, or Hebrew): “Merciful and pitiful Lord.” The word “pitiful” has the most obvious and straightforward meaning here—albeit a meaning lost to current usage—full of pity. The modern word, of course, means inspiring or deserving pity, perhaps due to some inadequacy. Andrewes, however, is hardly calling God inadequate!


Posted by Lionel Deimel at 10:10 AM
Permalink