Would God that (...) were stained

[mmasny]

Another passage from The Name of the Rose.

I was told that years later, the new general of the order, Raymond Gaufredi, found these prisoners in Ancona and, on freeing them, said: "Would God that all of us and the whole order were stained by such a sin."

I don't understand the guy's sentence at all. I can't recognize the grammatical structure he uses.
PS: I guess it's some kind of third person imperative or subjunctive, but still I have no idea what that 'would' is supposed to mean. Some more eloquent volitive 'will' maybe?

 

[euncu]

It seems to me that we need a verb here, like; Would God forbid ...

 

[mmasny]

That's what I thought too... But it's not there...

 

[bhaisahab]

That's what I thought too... But it's not there...

It's a way of wishing that god would make it so. In the case of your text, that "the whole order were stained by such a sin". If you google it you will probably find quite a few examples.

 

[mmasny]

Thank you. There are some examples indeed, and they certainly mean what you said. But in this particular context, I still don't understand. How is Raymond supposed to have wished that they all, him included, had been guilty of a sin?

 

[bhaisahab]

Thank you. There are some examples indeed, and they certainly mean what you said. But in this particular context, I still don't understand. How is Raymond supposed to have wished that they all, him included, had been guilty of a sin?

It's 25 years since I last read that book and I don't remember it very well. For me to answer that question you'd have to tell me what happens before.

 

[mmasny]

OK, I'll type more.

In the final thirty years of the last century, the Council of Lyons rescued the Franciscan order from its enmies, who wanted to abolish it, and allowed it ownership of all property in its use (already the law for older orders). But some monks in the Marches rebelled, because they believed that the spirit of the Rule had been forever betrayed, since Franciscans must own nothing, personally or as a convent or as an order. These rebels were put in prison for life. It does not seem to me that they were preaching things contrary to the Gospel, but when the possesion of earthly things is in question, it is difficult for men to reason justly. I was told that years later, the new general of the order, Raymond Gaufredi, found these prisoners in Ancona and, on freeing them, said: "Would God that all of us and the whole order were stained by such a sin."

I think however that more important is what I found somewhere else. I'll translate to English the Polish translation of this sentence:

"God willed that all of us and the whole order were stained by such a sin."

So in Polish translation, it's a statement, and not an expression of a wish. Maybe then, it's another meaning of the phrase "would God that"?

 

[bhaisahab]

OK, I'll type more.
I think however that more important is what I found somewhere else. I'll translate to English the Polish translation of this sentence:
So in Polish translation, it's a statement, and not an expression of a wish. Maybe then, it's another meaning of the phrase "would God that"?

That's very interesting, thanks. Perhaps "God would wish/want that all of us..." is a good interpretation.

 

[bhaisahab]

In answer to your previous question, I would say that "Would God that all of us and the whole order were stained by such a sin." is ironic, he is saying that to deny possessions is not a sin.

 

[mmasny]

That's very interesting, thanks. Perhaps "God would wish/want that all of us..." is a good interpretation.

Do you mean the past-making 'would'?
It's 'volesse Dio che...' in Italian. Again this construction with the imperfect subjunctive is unknown to me.

In answer to your previous question, I would say that "Would God that all of us and the whole order were stained by such a sin." is ironic, he is saying that to deny possessions is not a sin.

You could be right. It would mean that the Polish translator didn't catch the meaning correctly. But shouldn't there be a question mark there in this case?

 

[bhaisahab]

Do you mean the past-making 'would'?
It's 'volesse Dio che...' in Italian. Again this construction with the imperfect subjunctive is unknown to me. No, I mean "would" as a desire that something should happen/be.

You could be right. It would mean that the Polish translator didn't catch the meaning correctly. But shouldn't there be a question mark there in this case? No, no question mark, it's an ironic statement.

.

 

[Raymott]

This is similar to the obsolete expression "I would that ..." meaning I wish that ..." No one talks this way any more.

A: I'll call for dinner at 7pm.
B: I would that you came a little later.

A Google search for "I would that" will reveal some examples of its use.

The use of the inverse wording, "Would God that ..." may be subjunctive.
A: He loves her desperately
B: Would he that she loved him back.

I would that I could think of a good example from literature. In any case, it doesn't sound odd to me for an historical novel.

 

[mmasny]

So, do you mean that it means: 'God wishes that all of us...'? This is strange to me as I would expect 'God wished...' here.

 

[Raymott]

So, do you mean that it means: 'God wishes that all of us...'? This is strange to me as I would expect 'God wished...' here.

I don't think it matters how you translate it.
Either way it means that God would like/would wish that it were so.
Of course, God doesn't exist is time, and since it's hypothetical, the tense is irrelevant. God would have it so, whatever tense you use to express that.
In:
A: He loves her desperately
B: Would he that she loved him back.
Again, the tense you translate it into depends on the surrounding context. He would have it that she loved him back. But the narrative might occur in the past, present or future. It's subjunctive.

 

[mmasny]

I don't understand... I have two sentences:
He wishes that she loved him back.
He wished that she had loved him back.

Both subordinate clauses are in subjunctive. Either sentence means something different from the other's meaning, and either subjunctive used is in a different tense. Do I understand you well that
Would he that she loved him back.
can be substituted for both of the above?

 

[Raymott]

I don't understand... I have two sentences:
He wishes that she loved him back.
He wished that she had loved him back.

Both subordinate clauses are in subjunctive. Either sentence means something different from the other's meaning, and either subjunctive used is in a different tense. Do I understand you well that
Would he that she loved him back.
can be substituted for both of the above?

I have no idea, sorry. I wouldn't substitute it all. You hear the sentence and, from the context, you understand what it means.
Perhaps someone else could analyse it grammatically.

 

[mmasny]

It would be very nice, because, in the original case, the context is not enough for me to understand it. I am still not sure what was the sin that Gaufredi was talking about. It could be either, as bhaisahab says, denying the righteousness of possesion or keeping the monks imprisoned (what I infer from the Polish translation and how I understood it when I first read it). And I think understanding it on the grammatical level could be a key to understand the whole thing for me.

 

[BobK]

It would be very nice, because, in the original case, the context is not enough for me to understand it. I am still not sure what was the sin that Gaufredi was talking about. It could be either, as bhaisahab says, denying the righteousness of possesion or keeping the monks imprisoned (what I infer from the Polish translation and how I understood it when I first read it). And I think understanding it on the grammatical level could be a key to understand the whole thing for me.

Time out. ;-) I think it's about the Cathars, who were found guilty by a corrupt ecclesiastical establishment of being over-zealously Christ-like in their poverty and self-denial. Raymond really did wish the whole order had sinned in the same way because he questioned the Vatican's definition of sinfulness.

There's no need for a second verb. The Polish translation was theologically accurate, in that Raymond believed that God did favour the behaviour of the Cathars, but it was unfaithful to the original's irony.

Read more here: Catharism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

b

 

[bhaisahab]

It would be very nice, because, in the original case, the context is not enough for me to understand it. I am still not sure what was the sin that Gaufredi was talking about. It could be either, as bhaisahab says, denying the righteousness of possesion or keeping the monks imprisoned (what I infer from the Polish translation and how I understood it when I first read it). And I think understanding it on the grammatical level could be a key to understand the whole thing for me.

The "sin" is in denying the rightiousness of possession, not in freeing the prisoners. I'm afraid I can't explain it to you grammatically either. This is archaic language from an author well versed in the authentic use of such language which defies, to a certain extent, modern grammatical analysis. All I can say to you is that I know that that is what it means.

 

[bhaisahab]

Time out. ;-) I think it's about the Cathars, who were found guilty by a corrupt ecclesiastical establishment of being over-zealously Christ-like in their poverty and self-denial. Raymond really did wish the whole order had sinned in the same way because he questioned the Vatican's definition of sinfulness.

There's no need for a second verb. The Polish translation was theologically accurate, in that Raymond believed that God did favour the behaviour of the Cathars, but it was unfaithful to the original's irony.

Read more here: Catharism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

b

I think it has more to do with the Franciscans than the Cathars. The Franciscans argued that Christ owned nothing and thus it was immoral for the servants of Christ to have possessions.