Tag Archives: German

Early Pentecostal Tongues: Part 1

EarlyPentecostalPioneers

This four-part series covers how the traditional definition of tongues all but died and was replaced by the pentecostal practice of glossolalia — an umbrella term for the language of adoration, singing and writing in tongues, and/or a private act of devotion between a person and God.

This series was started to settle a mystery – why the doctrine of tongues had changed so dramatically after 1906. Up until the early 1900s the christian doctrine of tongues was a stable doctrine that either was a miraculous ability to speak in one or more foreign languages, or a miracle of one language being adapted in transmission and understood within each listener’s mind.

After 1906, a potpourri of definitions arose. There was the traditional doctrine of a miraculously endowed foreign language by some while others added newer ones, depending on a number of influences: the gift of tongues vs. the utterance of tongues, writing in tongues, singing in tongues, the language of adoration and worship, a private prayer language, and glossolalia. For an unknown reason, the miracle of hearing was entirely dropped from the pentecostal conversation.

This is an investigation into solving this mystery.

Table of contents for the entire series:

Part 1: Introduction

Part 2: The Tongues Crisis

  • The Missionary Tongues Movement
  • The Missionary Tongues Dilemma
  • The Gibberish Movement

Part 3: Solutions to the Pentecostal Tongues Crisis

  • Ignore the Problem
  • Utterance vs. Gift of Tongues
  • Writing and Singing in Tongues
  • Tongues as an Expression of Praise and Adoration
    • V.P. Simmons
    • William Manley and the Household of God
    • A. B. Cox
    • Paul H. Walker
  • Tongues as a Heavenly or Private Prayer Language
  • Tongues as Glossolalia

Part 4: Pentecostals, Tongues and Higher Criticism

  • Pentecostal Reliance on Higher Criticism for defining Modern Tongues
    • Philip Schaff
    • Frederick Farrar
    • Conybeare and Howson
    • Encyclopedia Brittanica
    • James Stalker
    • Pulpit Commentary
  • T. B. Barratt’s Defence against Higher Criticism
  • Conclusion

Introduction

The Gift of Tongues Project has traversed through a variety of challenges: from identifying, translating and digitizing important Greek, Latin and Syriac texts, to understanding ancient Greek philosophy and Jewish liturgy, wading through medieval Catholic mysticism and early Protestant writings, and charting through the German scholars to find answers. The study has centred on places such as Alexandria (Egypt), Constantinople, Rome, London, Kagoshima (Japan), Berlin, and Los Angeles.

However difficult these challenges have been, one of the greatest mysteries has been why the semantic range of christian tongues had been so greatly expanded since the early 1900s. It remains one of the most difficult keys to solving this puzzle.

The late Pentecostal professor, Gary B. McGee lightly touched on this topic believing the shift happened because of the failure of the missionary tongues movement. Unfortunately, he hardly delved into any detail on this. The early Pentecostal biographer, Stanley Frodsham, simply ignored the transition and jumped from the traditional to the new definitions without any explanation. Regardless of any pentecostal author, there is a serious lack in any of their literature detailing this shift.

There definitely was a crisis of tongues in early pentecostalism; largely because of the missionary tongues failure but also because of the public outcry that this movement was bonkers. They were accused of manufacturing gibberish. These two tensions forced early pentecostals to either review their tongues doctrine or admit they made mistakes. History clearly shows they chose to revise their definition.

How did they do this and where did they get license to do such?

There is one theory that has hardly been investigated and that is the correlation between early Pentecostalism and the original doctrine of glossolalia devised by German scholars in the early 1800s. Glossolalia became the standard interpretation in the primary and secondary religious dictionaries, encyclopedias and commentaries before the 1900s. In fact, it was hard to even find the traditional definition of speaking in tongues within any substantive publication by this time.

The Early Pentecostals on Tongues is a continuation of a previous series; History of Glossolalia which covered the origins and early development of the glossolalia doctrine. The emphasis of the original series was how the concept of glossolalia overtook the traditional definition and became the only option in most primary, secondary and tertiary source materials produced after 1879. As will be shown, their dominance in the publication realm helped shape the framework for pentecostal tongues as well.

By the early 1800s the traditional doctrine began to unravel and different streams of understanding began to appear. This began with the London-based Irvingite movement in the 1830s which brought a heightened academic interest and a critical re-analysis. This led to German scholars reclassifying speaking in tongues as glossolalia – that is speaking in tongues was an unintelligible discourse proceeding from an ecstatic state above the ordinary language of communication.(1)Augustus Neander. Planting and Training of the Christian Church by the Apostles. London: Henry G. Bohn. 1851. 3rd ed. Vol. 1 Pg. 11 In short, they defined speaking in tongues as a psychological condition rather than a miraculous state. The leading scholar of this subject was August Neander, whose thoughts made it into the English religious vocabulary largely through the later influence of Philip Schaff and Frederick Farrar.

This is a critical study on Pentecostalism between 1906 and 1930 and how it was deeply influenced by doctrine of glossolalia. The Pentecostal archives, along with the Missionary Alliance archives, and books produced by early pentecostal leaders were resourced to see the connections between early pentecostalism and higher criticism on the topic of tongues. Higher criticism was the name of the scholarly movement whose framework produced the original glossolalia doctrine. This study will show there was a deep connection.

It was an unintentional connection. Early Pentecostals were deficient in any intellectual framework and internal mechanisms to solve this doctrinal dilemma. They lacked the textual skills of Greek, Latin or Aramaic where the majority of tongues texts resided untranslated into English. Instead, they chose to look at the currently available histories and secondary books published in the English language for their solution. Here they found the works of the highly touted historian Philip Schaff, the Anglican church leader and writer, Frederick Farrar, the Anglican writers Conybeare and Howson and a short list of others. Pentecostals found that these writers conclusions matched their experiences. They did not realize that these authors were strong proponents of the higher criticism doctrine of glossolalia that started in the early 1800s – a doctrine that departed substantially from the christian traditional definition.

All of these scholarly writers lived near the time the pentecostal outbreak happened. They were held with high authority and esteem in the religious academic world. None of these authors had connections with Methodism or establishments that American Pentecostalism was railing against. Neither were these authors adhering to the doctrine of cessationism which the pentecostal accounts are always in contest with. These were all great writers who could be understood by someone with an intermediate reading level. All of these authors were appealing to an experience, not a doctrine.

The early pentecostals were looking for a solution that was within the bounds of Biblical interpretation, free from a preconceived bias, inclusive of the variety of tongues experiences that their pentecostal activity had discovered under the perceived and unquestionable direct power of the Holy Spirit.

The historian Schaff and other similar writers were able to fill this void. Their emphasis on a divine encounter that impacts the innermost soul and results in exalted preaching, ecstatic utterances, poetic words, adoration, and sometimes accidentally a foreign language fit nicely in with the early pentecostal experience.

Pentecostals didn’t realize that these authors formulated and promoted an alternative explanation that started in the 1830s. This doctrine did not follow the traditional christian trajectory of tongues. Ironically, the modern pentecostal definitions are the children of German higher criticism.

There are no early or even later Pentecostal writers that seriously pondered their experiences through the primary source literature of Greek, Latin, or Aramaic dictionaries or texts. They steadfastly held to tertiary literature especially English ones.

The baptism of the Spirit with the initial evidence of speaking in tongues is a doctrine unique to the Pentecostal/Charismatic movement that started in the early 1900s. An editorial decision has been made not to trace this doctrine. The final ambition of The Gift of Tongues Project is to find out why the traditional definition all but died in 1906 and why it was replaced by glossolalia. This is the final piece for the Project to complete.

The major goal of the Gift of Tongues Project is to trace the perceptions of speaking in tongues throughout the centuries. The perceptions need not necessarily align with reality. The realities, whatever they may be, are up to the reader to decide. You don’t even have to agree with my commentary or analysis. As per the Gift of Tongues Project goals, the majority of the important source texts have been digitized and provided on this website. You can look at the sources themselves and draw your own conclusions.

Although this series will demonstrate today’s doctrine of tongues a new phenomenon in the annals of christian history, it should not be viewed as the litmus test for Pentecostals, Charismatics, and Third Wavers credibility (collectively called Renewalists). There is much more to Renewalists than speaking in tongues. They have grown far beyond tongues and have forayed into far more important matters. The Renewalists are positive agents for social change in our world.

Next: Early Pentecostal Tongues Part 2: The Tongues Crisis.

References   [ + ]

Book Review: Soldiers: German POWs on Fighting, Killing, and Dying

Soldiers: German POWs on Fighting, Killing, and Dying, by Sönke Neitzel and Harald Welzer is an eye-opening book about the amorality and monstrosities of German soldiers in the Second World War and how this mindset developed.

Soldiers: German POWs on Fighting, Killing, and Dying, by Sönke Neitzel and Harald Welzer

Sönke Neitzel, a German historian and “currently Professor of Military History at the University of Potsdam”(1)https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S%C3%B6nke_Neitzel and Harold Welzer, a German social psychologist, combine to build a definitive and unassuming portrait based on taped conversations of Germans detained in Allied war prisons. These were secretly done and transcribed by British and American intelligence agents during the Second World War. These dialogues helped the Allied forces better understand the technological and strategic initiatives within the German military during the War. However, the social and moral dynamics found in these discussions had little strategic value and were left unused for over five decades.

Neitzel accidentally found out about these records while working as a visiting lecturer in Glasgow in 2001. Further investigation uncovered a large library of over 100,000 pages. Neitzel contacted Harold Welzer who was electrified about the findings: “. . .men were talking live, in real time, about the war and their attitudes towards it. It was a discovery that would give unique, new insight into the mentality of the Wehrmacht and perhaps of the military in general.”(2)Pg. Ix Indeed, the documents revealed a rich wealth of information to build a historical and psychological portrait. The findings offered lessons not only on the German war machine, but war in general.

Their analysis dispelled the myth that German soldiers were merely following orders or that the violence was committed by a few rogue groups or leaders. The dialogues portrayed the everyday soldier, airman, or seaman, along with the upper echelons of military brass were compliant in the atrocities. Even the civilian administration was guilty. The mass executions were a lure for a good show, a “semipublic spectacle with a high amusement value.” The circumstances extended even to police officers who wanted to kill someone for the thrill of the experience.(3)Pg. 137

The book does not delve into the hearts and minds of soldiers and leaders who worked inside the concentration camps, only those captured in battle.

The authors sought to discover what influenced German soldiers to shift into an amoral and monstrous mindset. They concluded the most important factors were unlimited power, unbridled youth, shame, group dynamics, and the military frame of reference. The analysis ruled out any socio-economic status, religious identity, education level, or ethnicity as a contributing factor. Nor was ideology a force. Most soldiers were apolitical.(4)Pg. 319 The infamous SS or its armed wing, Waffen units, were neither entirely responsible. Soldiers in the general armed forces, the Wehrmacht, had also perpetrated severe violations. The actions were consistent of any participant in the German enterprise.

Wartime soldiers are by and large youngish men who have been separated from their real or would-be partners and freed from many social constraints. When stationed in occupied areas, they are given the sort of an individual power they would never enjoy in civilian society.” (5)Pg. 165

Soldiers were most concerned with their own individual survival, their next home leave, the loot they could pilfer, and the fun they could have, and not the suffering of others, especially those considered racially inferior. Soldiers’ own fate was always at the center of their perception. Only in rare cases did the fate of enemy troops or occupied peoples seem worthy of note. Everything that threatened one’s own survival, spoiled the fun, or created problems could become the target of unlimited violence.(6)Pg. 77

The book is a much harsher reality than the one portrayed in the movie, Schindler’s List, but less intense than the narrative provided by Philippe Aziz, in his book, Doctors of Death, — which focused on the German medical leadership and experimentation on Jewish subjects. The atrocities being widespread and not restricted to loose canons or hierarchical force was also substantiated by Edwin Black in his book, IBM and the Holocaust: The Strategic Alliance Between Nazi Germany and America’s Most Powerful Corporation where he shows that low-level clerks and commoners who did the data entry for identifying Jewish identity in Nazi-occupied territories were also direct contributors to the holocaust.

The prison conversations bring to light the general war problem of autotelic violence“violence committed for its own sake without any larger purpose.”(7)Pg. 49 This is a natural outcome when the modern rules of law are suspended in times of war. The authors shared a conversation of a Luftwaffe observer named Lieutenant Pohl, who said it only took him three days to get used to the violence. After the fourth day, he enjoyed shooting down soldiers — it was breakfast amusement. On one occasion he wanted to drop bombs on a crowded Polish town because he was so full of rage and he didn’t give a damn. “It would have been great fun if it had come off.”(8)Pg. 46

Another conversation shows how autotelic violence had become routine:

“We sank a children’s transport. . . which gave us great pleasure.”(9)Pg. 69

Neitzel and Welzer make a formative statement that the rape, tortures, mass killings, forced plunder, genocides, and other war-related fatalities were nothing new in the historical annals of war. The difference was the increased dimension and expression of such phenomena exercised by the Germans. The introduction of new technology and weaponry – the switch from horses, cannons and bayonets to planes, tanks, semi-automatic rifles, and weapons of mass destruction, allowed for death and destruction beyond any historical framework. This greatly expanded the ability to destroy without any limit.(10)Pg. 321 The coverage of later wars and revolts by the revered journalist, Robert Fisk, clearly points out that these evils are not a proprietary problem of Germany, but an expression of humanity’s dark side wherever a social system collapses and there are no limits on violence.(11)See the The Great War for Civilisation for more info Another distinction within the German establishment was the elimination of certain groups that had “nothing to do with the war itself.”(12)Pg. 76

The authors build a framework to answer why out of 17 million members of the Wehrmacht, there were only 100 attempts at rescuing Jews.(13)Pg. 100 They believe the solution can be found in their frame of reference. The frame of reference was built around military values in a wartime situation. It became extreme because German society was passive, tolerant of repression, restricted their opinions to the private realm, and did not question the military value systems.(14)Pgs. 34–35 More importantly was the individual soldier’s relationship with his immediate comrades. Going against the group existential existence, even if the purposes are inhuman, is tantamount to the individual’s emotional or physical death.(15)Pg. 336

Naturally, the horrendous acts of violence against Jews are included in many conversations. These come as no surprise, but the callousness and the uncaring does. Soldiers got extra rations, pay incentives and other perks for execution duty.(16)Pg. 126Ff But a switch began to happen as the war began to shift into Allied control. More emphasis was placed on hiding the killings, including exhuming bodies and destroying any evidence. There was a certain fear that if the Germans lost the war, Jews would look for revenge.

The prisoners conversations about sexual assaults, rapes and violence against women was shocking. The soldiers’ dialogues carried the sense of pleasure and power without any remorse. While some women did receive better treatment, it was far from altruistic — the soldiers traded protection for a sexual favours. The women were eventually shot and killed in order to hide the abuses and avoid public shame of sex with a Jewish woman. There was also rampant prostitution. The authors described that the sexual predation was widespread throughout the military and led to a major spread of gonorrhoea and syphilis that overwhelmed the medical facilities. Antibiotics treatment had not been introduced yet, and contracting a VD severely weakened the military’s available manpower. The military responded by setting up and sponsoring brothels in order to counter this.

But without doubt, sex was part of soldiers’ everyday existence – with a whole series of consequences for the women involved.(17)Pg. 169

A statistic for the amount of rapes, violence, and murders against women done by German soldiers has never been given. However, the conversations by the soldiers indicate the rate must have been significantly high.

The overall discussions were so dark, contorted and distasteful, that my mind has difficulty imagining them. But they compelled me to ask, what kind of persons are we dealing with here? How could men with such strong values of hard work, respect, and honour, turn dark so quickly and heartlessly? How could they go home and speak to their wives, mothers or sisters about what they did? Once the war was over, was there a place for them to live? Or did their conscience already die and they moved about as empty shells?

The authors answered the first two questions. The latter questions about the post-war lives of these soldiers are left unanswered. How could these people find peace? Corrie Ten Boom, a Dutch woman dispatched to a concentration camp by the Nazis for concealing Jews in her family home, and author of Hiding Place gave one clue. While giving a speech in Germany shortly after the War, a former prison guard at Ravensbruck concentration camp approached her, though not familiar with each other, asked her for forgiveness against the cruelty he enacted on the people at Ravensbruck. She felt both were liberated through the act of forgiveness: letting go of her bitterness that could cripple one’s body and soul, and him, from the prison of his guilty conscience.(18)https://www.guideposts.org/inspiration/stories-of-hope/guideposts-classics-corrie-ten-boom-on-forgiveness?nopaging=1 Was this type of remorse and wanting catharsis widespread with post-war soldiers, or was Ten Boom’s encounter an exception? Soldiers: German POWs on Fighting, Killing, and Dying, would have been a more powerful book if the authors followed up interviewing a few of these prisoners that did such atrocities to find whether they remained defiant or later became remorseful.

The popular term today in military mental health circles for soldiers in this circumstance is called moral injury — the “reaction stemming from perpetrating, failing to prevent, or bearing witness to acts that transgress deeply held moral beliefs.”(19)Psynopsis: Canada’s Psychology Magazine Most literature on moral injury tend to treat the person as a victim and a mental health problem. I think the authors of Soldiers: German POWs on Fighting, Killing, and Dying would dispute the claim of the perpetrator as a victim. Although many situations can be a perceived sense of guilt and not real, the victims of a person committing a moral injury are either dead, disabled or emotional invalids, while the perpetrator goes on living. This is a cop-out that avoids addressing the moral failure and prevents the perpetrator to admit wrongfulness and receive full catharsis.

The stories shared in the book evoke such anger for real justice. If there is no remorse given by the perpetrators, or any attempt to say sorry to those who have been wronged, the only solace is that these people will have to answer before God at the day of reckoning for the blood of the innocents.

What can be learned from this book for today? This is not a book about ideology but the everyday person in the German military. The idea that, I don’t give a rat’s ass about anything except what affects me, was consistent within all the discussions and a key undertone among many others. A condition that allows hatred to ignite and go unchecked. A mindset that allows the person to complete instructions even against one’s moral convictions, and removes the person from any social responsibility. This circumstance opens a pandora’s box of monstrous proportions when no rules exist. Apathy is a much harder vice to correct than hatred and is the essence of inhumanity. This is not a simply a problem of World War II Germany – examples can be found in almost any major modern conflict in the world. Every society has to guard against this sin.

Would I recommend this book? This is one of the most difficult readings I have ever done. It is well written, researched and documented, but the subject matter is grisly. This book is not recommended for the casual reader, or for anyone personally haunted by the bitterness of war, but a source work for the historian, social psychologist, teacher, or journalist. Neither should one attempt to read in one, two or three sittings. The very nature forces one to read only bits at a time and put it away for a while.

References   [ + ]

St. Norbert of Xanten Speaking in Tongues

Translation and analysis of St. Norbert of Xanten. A 12th-century Christian who is claimed to have spoken in tongues.

The medieval biography of the Saints called Acta Sanctorum only includes a brief reference to him and it is not clear whether it was a miraculous act. Perhaps it was a description of St. Norbert as a very charismatic and intelligent communicator. Great eloquence and showmanship can cross linguistic barriers even if the audience doesn’t understand the language being spoken.

Pope Benedict the 14th does not include St. Norbert in his historical examination of tongues in his 18th century treatise, De Servorum Dei Beatificatione et Beatorum Canonizatione. The Acta Sanctorum text suggests this as a miracle, but it is not a strong argument.

If the passage translated below is to be taken as a miraculous intervention, then this incident would be credited as a miracle of hearing.

St. Norbert name lives on as the founder of the Prémontré community – a Catholic organization that still exists throughout the world today. The official Prémontré website gives a brief biography as one who was very ascetic and sought for reforms within his original Xanten community but was rebuffed. He chose then, at the approval of the Pope, to become an itinerant preacher.(1)http://www.premontre.org/chapter/cat/people/perpetual-calendar-of-order-saints-and-blesseds/st-norbert-june-6/ He must have been a charismatic and passionate person because his preachings resulted in numerous monasteries, a substantial following and founder of a movement.

St. Norbert would have been relatively forgotten in the greater annals of history outside of the Prémontré community, but his narrative began a different discussion. His name resurfaced regarding which principle language was spoken in Belgium during the 12th-century. The debate brought in the miracle of tongues, not out of a theological enquiry, but collateral baggage in answering the above question. Fortunately, this discussion brought information on how the gift of tongues was applied and understood within the Church.

Xanten is a city situated in the north-east part of modern Germany. Valenciennes is a city found in northern France near the Belgium border. Valenciennes has traded territories throughout history. It was ceded to France under King Louis the XIV in the mid to late 1600s(2)https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/County_of_Hainaut

The Valenciennes language of the 12th century was covered by Philip Mouskes in his 1836 work, Chronique rimée de Philippe Mouskes. This is a historical account of Belgium which included a brief description of city of Valenciennes through the lens of St. Norbert’s life. This is a French work with a good outline of St. Norbert. It is better to translate Mouskes, along with the Latin passage from Acta Sanctorum than to begin an entirely new exposition on the subject.

The following translation is from the Latin found in Acta Sanctorum. AASS, June I, 815 v. 24

When the three came to Valenciennes on Palm Sunday. On the next day then he gave a sermon to the people, clearly hardly knowing or understanding of this Romance language until now,(k) because he never learned it. But then he was without despair, so he began to address in his mother tongue. The Holy Spirit which had formerly taught the 120 people(3)Acts 1:15 different languages, then made the uncivilized of the German(4)Teutonic language and the difficulty of the eloquent Latin language suitable to be understood by the hearers. And therefore, through the grace of God, became acceptable to everyone that they compelled him to carry through to the end of the feast days and somewhat revive parts of the body. While to such an offer he did not wish to relax, in fact his face was of going to the Cologne Episcopate, on account of the people and language which he had familiarity with.

The footnote listed as (k) in Acta Sanctorum states “He understands the poor, the ignorant, unlearned, and the Rustic. It was the Romana language which is presently called Gallican or French.”

The Romana language was interpreted in the 1800s to mean a mixture of Latin and Celtic. Some writers preferred to use Rustic as the definition instead of Romana though the interchangeability between these two words is confusing. The Gallican language was styled after the Romana language.(5)The Southern Review. Vol. 5. February and May, 1830. Charleston: A.E. Miller. 1830. Pg. 376

As shown above, the text itself alludes to St. Norbert speaking in languages as the 120 did in the Book of Acts, but the example afterwards lacks strength. However, a Medieval theological portrait can be gleaned about speaking in tongues. When St. Norbert spoke in either German or Latin, the audience understood him speaking in their own Romana language. The author of Acta Sanctorum understood this was a miracle of hearing.

The following is translated from the book: Philip Mouskes. Chronique rimée de Philippe Mouskes. Vol. 1. Bruxelles: Le Baron De Reiffenberg. 1836. Pg. CXXVIff.

Note that the text was written in French but he sometimes left quotes in the original Latin, which are translated into English too.

“The life of saint Norbert, founder of the order of the Premonstratensians,(6) Prémontré – http://www.premontre.org/ is written by one of his contemporaries and gathered by the Bollandistes, gives us a subsequent and overabundant proof, that in 1119, the only common language in Valenciennes(7)https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Valenciennes and in Fosse,(8)https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fosses-la-Ville near Namur, was the Romance language, and that the German language was entirely unknown by the people there.

Norbert was born in Xanten, in the land of Cleves. After his conversion, he embraced the austere missionary life. Having travelled in Germany, Italy and crossed a part of France, he arrived at Valenciennes with three companions, the eve of Palm Sunday, in 1119, with the intention of going to Cologne in order to preach there. Although he did not know how yet to speak the Romance language, which was the language of the land which he had not learned, the strength of his zeal gave him the determination to preach the following day in the presence of the people. He was so favourably received by the entire public that they vigorously solicited him to stay for the Easter celebrations at Valenciennes, and to rest there of his tiredness; to which he did not want to agree, (his intent was to go to the diocese of Cologne because he knew the language and the inhabitants), it happened through the dispensation of God, that his companions having been fallen upon with a sudden illness, that he could not then depart any further at that time.

[Translation from the Latin] When the three came to Valenciennes on Palm Sunday. On the next day then he gave a sermon to the people, clearly hardly knowing or understanding of this Romance language until now, because he never learned it. But then he was without despair, so he began to address in his mother tongue. The Holy Spirit which had formerly taught the 120 people(9)Acts 1:15 different languages, then made the uncivilized of the German(10)Teutonic language and the difficulty of the eloquent Latin language suitable to be understood by the hearers. And therefore, through the grace of God, became acceptable to everyone that they compelled him to carry through to the end of the feast days and somewhat revive parts of the body. While to such an offer he did not wish to relax, in fact, his face was of going to the Cologne Episcopate, on account of the people and language which he had familiarity with.[end of Latin and back to French]

This preaching probably consisted in a fervent elocution, of multiple gestures and expressions and these shouts, these vivid accents which rarely miss their effect on the multitude. It was a lively expressive gesture of some tonic phrases and where the enthusiasm of the actor connects with the spectators.

Norbert, despite his resistance, nevertheless had been forced to spend some time at Valenciennes because his associates had fallen sick and all three died in this city. Meanwhile, Burchard, Bishop of Cambrai, arrived there and Norbert, who had known him at the court of the emperor, thought that he ought to make a visit with him. He presented himself there under the most modest attire of a poor missionary who travelled by bare feet despite the hardship of the season.

The Bishop had a priest named Hugh for a chaplain, native of Fosse, near Namur, and who had been a student of the monastery of this city. Hugh showed Norbert into the mansion of the Bishop who had difficulty recognizing his old friend in a raiment so different than those which he formerly wore at the Court. But when he recognized him, he tenderly kissed him and showed him the most affectionate feelings. Hugh the priest, who was standing and present about their conversation, however, understood nothing from it because they were speaking in German, but astonished about the ways of the Bishop towards this singular character. He took the liberty to step forward near the Dignitary and asked him who this stranger was. Then the Bishop related to him the story of St. Norbert. Hugh was so touched by all this which he learned about this subject that, after a few days, he formed a resolution to follow the missionary and become his most faithful companion, the same one who many authors attribute the life of Saint Norbert and where they draw these details from.

[Translation from the Latin] In fact, while the previously mentioned cleric who introduced him stands and saw the affection of the Bishop towards the man, yet hardly understands at all their conversation because they are speaking in German, dared to venture closer and asked who then is this person? Immediately the Bishop says, etc.,(11)Mouskes took this from Pg. 816 of Acta Sanctorum. AASS, June I[end of Latin and back to French]

This account is a little long, but nothing of being boring. We have already documented the outcome that we claim to draw such out of.

Another point of interest that is yet longer, of where the result clearly is that at the City of Liége, the people did not speak German between each other. At the end of 1146 and what was the demarcation of languages the same as today – a state of affairs which might have been spontaneously realized and which the time had inevitably prepared.”

———-

For further info

References   [ + ]