Pinguido rosea

[Pacifica]

"A rose-colored oiliness"/"the richness of a rose"?

Does anyone know what this can mean when referring to a precious stone? This is part of a comment on topaz in Rev. 21:20.

Pinguido rosea uerecundaque puritas; uicinus lapidi crisopraso magnitudine uel colore...

It has the richness of a rose and a modest purity; it is close to chrysoprasus in size and color...

 

[Aurifex]

Does anyone know what this can mean when referring to a precious stone?

Nearly all precious and semi-precious stones might be described as oily or rich when they've been polished. Topaz and chrysoprase are as alike as chalk and cheese. You have to wonder whether the writer of either the original passage or the commentary had ever actually seen the stones he was talking about.
I'd take the commentary for what it's worth, which is very little.

 

[Imber Ranae]

Topaz and chrysoprase are as alike as chalk and cheese. You have to wonder whether the writer of either the original passage or the commentary had ever actually seen the stones he was talking about.

The original passage in Revelation, you mean? Why do you say that? The two stones aren't compared there.

 

[Pacifica]

Nearly all precious and semi-precious stones might be described as oily or rich when they've been polished.

Ah. And what does it mean? That they shine like something that's been oiled?

 

[Imber Ranae]

I've been meaning to ask, but is pinguido just a weird medieval variant of pinguitudo? If so, I'd probably just translate it straightforwardly as 'a rosy richness'.

 

[Pacifica]

Rather a weird variant of pinguedo.

 

[Aurifex]

The original passage in Revelation, you mean? Why do you say that? The two stones aren't compared there.

I meant only that neither writer is likely to have intimate first-hand acquaintance with the stones he (i.e. each of them) mentions. It seems there's some doubt anyway about the identity of some of the stones referred to in Revelation. See note f. here: https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Revelation 21&version=NIV;VULGATE

Ah. And what does it mean? That they shine like something that's been oiled?

Possibly, yes - that at the very least they have a sheen if not a shine. Incidentally, I've read somewhere (can't find it now) that the stone designated by topaz in earlier times was often likely to have been peridot, which is in fact green as chrysoprase is. But the talk about topaz having a rosy richness makes it very unlikely that peridot was what the commentator had in mind, since, whilst topaz can be rosy, peridot is always green. I think ultimately the commentator's gemmological knowledge is unlikely to have been very good.

 

[Pacifica]

Ok, thank you.

 

[Imber Ranae]

I'm a bit confused because I've just found this, which appears to be a translation of your passage. But then again maybe it isn't, because it's a commentary on the Psalms rather than on Revelation. In any case it has the same problems of interpretation by comparing topaz to chrysoprase.

 

[Pacifica]

I'm a bit confused because I've just found this, which appears to be a translation of your passage. But then again maybe it isn't, because it's a commentary on the Psalms rather than on Revelation. In any case it has the same problems of interpretation by comparing topaz to chrysoprase.

Yes, it's obviously a translation of the same sentence. The commentary I'm translating is made mostly of a mix of quotations from other authors, sometimes word for word, sometimes shortened.

 

[Pacifica]

If some stones are mentioned both in the Psalms and in Revelation, it isn't surprising if whoever compiled my comentary took descriptions and interpretations of gems from a commentary on the Psalms if the same stones are mentioned.

 

[Pacifica]

Aurifex, since you're versed in stonelore, there's another passage with which you can perhaps help me. I've found two variants and can't decide which one is more likely since I don't know the stone myself, and Wikipedia doesn't help me much:

Version 1: Crisoprasus est uiridis aureaeque commixturae, quidam etiam purporeum iubar trahens, aureis interuenientibus guttis.

Version 2: Crisoprasus est uiridis aureaeque commixturae, quoddam etiam purporeum iubar trahens, aureis interuenientibus guttis.

The first one means there is a sort of chrysoprase green with a mixture of gold, and also another sort with a purple radiance and golden spots, whereas the second one is talking about only one sort of chrysoprase that is green with a mixture of gold, and also has a certain purple radiance with golden spots.

 

[Aurifex]

I'd be inclined to say the first reading should be translated "... a certain kind (i.e. of all the kinds of chrysoprase) even having..." rather than "...another sort [having]...".
The difference ultimately between the two readings is slight. The first one simply makes a special category of specimens with a purple gleam, whereas the second makes the purple gleam one of the general characteristics of chrysoprase.

 

[Pacifica]

I'd be inclined to say the first reading should be translated "... a certain kind (i.e. of all the kinds of chrysoprase) even having..." rather than "...another sort [having]...".

I actually translated it as "Chrysoprase is of a mix of green and gold; there is also one sort of it that has..."

What I gave above was a summary of the general implications of the versions rather than a translation strictly speaking taking care of all details.

The difference ultimately between the two readings is slight. The first one simply makes a special category of specimens with a purple gleam, whereas the second makes the purple gleam one of the general characteristics of chrysoprase.

I don't think the difference between mentioning one or two kinds of chrysoprase is a slight difference.

 

[Aurifex]

I don't think the difference between mentioning one or two kinds of chrysoprase is a slight difference.

There are limitless kinds of chrysoprase, or just one, depending on how you wish to classify this particular kind of chalcedony. Dividing it into two kinds (purple and non-purple) is completely arbitrary and unscientific.

The second reading doesn't necessarily imply there is only one identifiable kind of chrysoprase anyway, to my mind; it pretends to give no more than a very superficial description of the stone's general appearance. Such a description does not compel us to believe that the stone cannot be classified into different varieties based on certain consistently observable variations in the appearance of different specimens. Even a novice observer of precious and semi-precious stones will know that in the case of most kinds of stone you can often expect wide fluctuations in appearance from specimen to specimen.

 

[Pacifica]

Yes, I agree that neither does the second version necessarily imply there is in reality only one sort of it nor does the first one necessarily imply there are only two kinds of it. It's just that the second one mentions only one and the first one mentions only two.

As to being arbitrary and unscientific, well, I think we already know this commentary isn't exactly scientific anyway.

 

[Pacifica]

Still unsure about this.