rudes

Pacifica

grammaticissima
Staff member
Hello,

Above the word scorpiones in Rev. 9:3; et de fumo putei exierunt locustae in terram, et data est illis potestas, sicut habent potestatem scorpiones terrae; there is a gloss saying i.e. rudes, and then there is a marginal gloss saying:

Rudes scorpioni comparat, quia sicut scorpio cauda percutit, sic haeretici percutiunt per temporalia quae debent post esse sicut cauda posterior pars in animali. Vel ideo scorpioni comparantur quia quando scorpio pungit non sentitur, postea paulatim venenum diffunditur, sic decepti ab haereticis non sentiunt, sed tandem perimuntur.

He compares rudes to the scorpion, because as the scorpion strikes with its tail, so do the heretics strike with temporal things which ought to be behind like the tail which is the posterior part in an animal. Or they are compared to the scorpion because, when a scorpion stings, you do not feel it, and the venom spreads afterwards little by little: in the same way, those who are deceived by the heretics do not feel it, but they are eventually destroyed.

I'm not sure at all what they mean by rudes. "Primitive/rude/ignorant people", "sticks", "wooden swords", "foils"... ? None of these makes a lot of sense to me.

Help, ideas?
 
It's not in my dictionary. It goes from Ructus (belching) to Rudens (rope-haylard).

But Rudis (a staff used in fencing by gladiators) seems like it might be related, just going by the meaning though.

It's from Livy and Ovid (if I'm reading the reference properly).
Tam bonus gladiator rudem tam cito accepista?
 

Pacifica

grammaticissima
Staff member
It's from Livy and Ovid (if I'm reading the reference properly).
Tam bonus gladiator rudem tam cito accepista?
Sorry if I misunderstand you - why are you posting this? Are you asking for a translation? (It's apparently from Cicero, if I believe L&S.)
 
Na, sorry, I think I've got the wrong end of the stick. I was just giving an example of a stinging type scenario for your query.
 

Pacifica

grammaticissima
Staff member
Ah, ok. So you think what they meant in the gloss is "fencing staff"? I suppose one can make a comparison between this and a scorpion's tail, indeed, but I wonder, seeing how dangerous they consider those locusts to be, why they wouldn't have chosen something more dangerous for their comparison than a staff used in exercise, which is not a real sword.
 

Pacifica

grammaticissima
Staff member
Btw, out of three books I'm working with, there is only one that has this gloss i.e. rudes; the two others have the big marginal gloss, but minus the part mentioning rudes ("He compares rudes to scorpions"). So I guess it's also a possibility that this be some weird mistake. But on the other hand it's the oldest manuscript (which I usually tend to trust most) that has it...
 

Pacifica

grammaticissima
Staff member
Thanks, it sometimes drives me crazy.
 

Cinefactus

Censor
Staff member
Ah, ok. So you think what they meant in the gloss is "fencing staff"? I suppose one can make a comparison between this and a scorpion's tail, indeed, but I wonder, seeing how dangerous they consider those locusts to be, why they wouldn't have chosen something more dangerous for their comparison than a staff used in exercise, which is not a real sword.

Presumably it relates to the last part sic decepti ab haereticis non sentiunt, sed tandem perimuntur
It is a wooden training sword, so you don't die immediately if you are hit by it, but it can still do you substantial damage if you are not careful. If get a chance to hold one you will see what I mean. They are quite heavy.
 

Pacifica

grammaticissima
Staff member
Presumably it relates to the last part sic decepti ab haereticis non sentiunt, sed tandem perimuntur
It is a wooden training sword, so you don't die immediately if you are hit by it, but it can still do you substantial damage if you are not careful. If get a chance to hold one you will see what I mean. They are quite heavy.
Not an impossible explanation. If that is what the glossator originally meant, I wonder why they don't explain it in the marginal gloss, then, instead of saying "he compares rudes to the scorpion because etc." without explaining why they said rudes in the first place. This all feels a bit weird to me, but ah well.
 

Pacifica

grammaticissima
Staff member
I've now reached this point in my revision and I still don't know what it means, so I bump in case someone had further ideas.
 

Pacifica

grammaticissima
Staff member
Yes, I have, but I'm not sure how it would fit here. What do you have in mind?
 

Pacifica

grammaticissima
Staff member
Thanks, but I'm still a bit confused. It doesn't seem to me like someone not (yet) well instructed in the religion is the same as a poisonous, scorpion-like heretic, is it?
 

Aurifex

Aedilis
Staff member
It doesn't seem to me like someone not (yet) well instructed in the religion is the same as a poisonous, scorpion-like heretic, is it?
Look at things in that way and you will inevitably see incongruity. The question is whether it's incongruous for a medieval commentator/glossator to refer to heretics as rudes. Since heretics are frequently regarded by their critics as ignorant of the "true" faith, I don't see anything incongruous at all in a reference to heretics as rudes.

Others seem to think the same way:

Quod autem Johannes de Deo et ceteri rudes haeretici dicunt...

Pueri autem ac rudes haeretici saepe invincibiliter illam evidentiam ignorant...

salutem adsequi possunt haeretici rudes...

ut tam rudibus haereticis exponat atque suadeat...

unde apud pueros aut rudes haereticos
 

Pacifica

grammaticissima
Staff member
I see... I guess. So they probably imply rudes haeretici rather than just rudes?
 
Top