Sainted saunterers: prayer and praise on the pilgrim road to Chartres

[JabbaPapa]

Great article, a month old, on the Chartres pilgrimage, by Gavin Ashenden :

https://catholicherald.co.uk/sainted-saunterers-on-the-pilgrim-road-to-chartres/

(possible paywall issues)

One interesting point --

Over three hundred seminarians and priests are accompanying the pilgrims, who span over twenty different nationalities. This river of pilgrims will flow down the Parisian roads, out into the suburbs and then the countryside. They will walk and stride, but – perhaps most evocatively – they will saunter.

Each of the words paints a different picture in our minds. Striding is alarmingly purposeful, and perhaps to purposeful for pilgrimages. Walking is a bit bland. Hiking is about self-improvement, but sauntering seems ideal. It has a joyful carefree tone to it. And as it happens, it is THE pilgrimage word.

In the Middle Ages, when many ordinary people throughout Europe would set off on pilgrimages to the Holy Land, people in the villages through which they passed asked would naturally ask them where they were going. The reply would come: “A la Sainte Terre,” – to the Holy Land. And so they became known as sainte-terre-ers or saunterers. To go on pilgrimage is to become a saunterer.

 

[dick bird]

In the Middle Ages, when many ordinary people throughout Europe would set off on pilgrimages to the Holy Land, people in the villages through which they passed asked would naturally ask them where they were going. The reply would come: “A la Sainte Terre,” – to the Holy Land. And so they became known as sainte-terre-ers or saunterers. To go on pilgrimage is to become a saunterer.

The OED thinks different: ¨†muse XV; †wander aimlessly XVII; walk leisurely, stroll XVIII. of uncert. orig.¨

One does wonder how a French expression came to enter the English language.

 

[JabbaPapa]

OED 2nd Edition 2009 has :

It is doubtful whether the word represented by the quots. under sense 1 is identical with the modern word, the unequivocal history of which begins with the mention by Skinner (quot. a 1667 under sense 2); for the supposed 15th c. examples see sauntering vbl. n. 1.
The current suggestion that the word is a. AF. sauntrer (= s'auntrer), to venture oneself, is unlikely (apart from difficulties of meaning) on the ground that the AF. word, of which only one instance has been found (1338 in Yearbks. Trinity 12 Edw. III, p. 619) is app. an adoption of ME. auntre to adventure n., and possibly a mere nonce-word; the conjecture that it represents a med.L. type *exadventūrāre is phonologically inadmissible.

But also gives in ex. :

1691 Ray S. & E. Country Words 111 To Santer about; or go Santering up and down. It is derived from Saincte terre, i.e. The Holy Land, because of old time‥many idle persons went from place to place, upon pretence that they‥intended to take the Cross upon them, and to go thither.

That sauntering vbl. n. 1. gives :

†1.1 (Sense uncertain; possibly not from the existing verb.) Obs.
The interpretation ‘loitering, vagrancy’ does not well suit the context, and the corresponding sense of the vb. has not been found before the middle of the 17th c. If sauntrell means ‘pretended saint’, sauntering may be a back formation from it, with the sense ‘a pretending to holiness’.

So there were possibly two words very similar in form but different in meaning ?

Or the supposed derivation from Saint is extant but unprovable ? There are some 15th to 17th words relative to pilgrimage that had such negative connotation.

 

[dick bird]

So there were possibly two words very similar in form but different in meaning ?

Or the supposed derivation from Saint is extant but unprovable ?

It is doubtful whether the word represented by the quots. under sense 1 is identical with the modern word It wouldn´t be the first time a word in the English language has drastically changed its meaning.

I think the supposed derivation is highly improbable. It relies on the assumption that ´idle persons etc...´ went about rural England muttering excuses about what they were up to in French. All kinds of things are unprovable, more to the point is whether they are credible. It´s a nice idea though. I fully intend to saunter a bit on my next camino regardless of where the word comes from.

 

[stevetay3815]

It is doubtful whether the word represented by the quots. under sense 1 is identical with the modern word It wouldn´t be the first time a word in the English language has drastically changed its meaning.

I think the supposed derivation is highly improbable. It relies on the assumption that ´idle persons etc...´ went about rural England muttering excuses about what they were up to in French. All kinds of things are unprovable, more to the point is whether they are credible. It´s a nice idea though. I fully intend to saunter a bit on my next camino regardless of where the word comes from.

Me, too!

 

[dbier]

OTOH - Given that the Norman invasion of 1066 probably brought their language with them (ancient french?), given the long centuries wherein Normandy was considered English territory, and posited that English through the centuries follows other languages down dark alleys and steals their vocabulary, I don't find the potential derivation of saunter to be unrealistic. ;-)

 

[JabbaPapa]

OTOH - Given that the Norman invasion of 1066 probably brought their language with them (ancient french?), given the long centuries wherein Normandy was considered English territory, and posited that English through the centuries follows other languages down dark alleys and steals their vocabulary, I don't find the potential derivation of saunter to be unrealistic. ;-)

It's complicated stuff.

There's Anglo-Norman, Picard, Gallo-Roman, Late Latin, Britannic, Germanic, "Celtic", and uncounted local dialects all in the mix of how people spoke.

My own English surname is Anglo-Norman, but I only know this from an obscure late 19th or early 20th Century dictionary of the Northern French dialects, that OED doesn't know about. And the word that my surname signifies was extraordinarily rare.

Nevertheless, I think that Dr Ashenden has it right this time.

 

[C clearly]

Each of the words paints a different picture in our minds. Striding is alarmingly purposeful, and perhaps to purposeful for pilgrimages. Walking is a bit bland. Hiking is about self-improvement, but sauntering seems ideal. It has a joyful carefree tone to it. And as it happens, it is THE pilgrimage word.

The word "saunter" does NOT paint a pilgrim picture in my mind. Surely a pilgrimage is purposeful, more than it is carefree. My interpretation of "saunter" is a much more casual unburdened stroll, without the focus of a pilgrimage.

I never saunter into town at the end of a day on the Camino.

 

[JabbaPapa]

The word "saunter" does NOT paint a pilgrim picture in my mind. Surely a pilgrimage is purposeful, more than it is carefree. My interpretation of "saunter" is a much more casual unburdened stroll, without the focus of a pilgrimage.

I never saunter into town at the end of a day on the Camino.

I simply reported on Dr Ashenden's views --- I suppose that my own most recent extraordinarily lengthy but slow Camino might qualify as a "saunter" in the modern sense, though it's not how I think of it.

But my occasional extremely short local pilgrimages certainly do, at best, and short local 3-day pilgrimages from Paris to Chartres certainly could !!

I think that Dr Ashenden has usefully highlighted a basic paradox in foot pilgrimage -- in that it is as simple as it is complex.

 

[C clearly]

I suppose that my own most recent extraordinarily lengthy but slow Camino might qualify as a "saunter" in the modern sense

From what I've read, I would never describe your Camino as a "saunter"! It is not the speed, but the attitude that is different.

 

[VNwalking]

From what I've read, I would never describe your Camino as a "saunter"! It is not the speed, but the attitude that is different.

Exactly. No matter what speed you were going it was hardly sauntering, @JabbaPapa.

 

[lalaone]

Saunter also sounds like "sans terre." Without a land / home / fixed abode. Which also fits pilgrimage... Now I see that the question has been debated for a long time! I like the "sainte terre" connection too. Fantastically interesting, thanks JabbaPapa.

JOHN MUIR and 'SAUNTER'

A walk through an etymological urban legend [D.R.H.]

www.etymonline.com

"Henry David Thoreau gave his own, elaborated version of the etymology fable in “Walking” in 1862:

I have met with but one or two persons in the course of my life who understood the art of Walking, that is, of taking walks,—who had a genius, so to speak, for sauntering; which word is beautifully derived "from idle people who roved about the country, in the Middle Ages, and asked charity, under pretense of going à la Sainte Terre," to the Holy Land, till the children exclaimed, "There goes a Sainte-Terrer," a Saunterer, a Holy-Lander. They who never go to the Holy Land in their walks, as they pretend, are indeed mere idlers and vagabonds; but they who do go there are saunterers in the good sense, such as I mean. Some, however, would derive the word from sans terre, without land or a home, which, therefore, in the good sense, will mean, having no particular home, but equally at home everywhere. For this is the secret of successful sauntering. He who sits still in a house all the time may be the greatest vagrant of all; but the saunterer, in the good sense, is no more vagrant than the meandering river, which is all the while sedulously seeking the shortest course to the sea. But I prefer the first, which, indeed, is the most probable derivation. For every walk is a sort of crusade, preached by some Peter the Hermit in us, to go forth and reconquer this Holy Land from the hands of the Infidels.

 

[dougfitz]

Saunter also sounds like "sans terre." Without a land / home / fixed abode. Which also fits pilgrimage... Now I see that the question has been debated for a long time! I like the "sainte terre" connection too. Fantastically interesting, thanks JabbaPapa.

JOHN MUIR and 'SAUNTER'

A walk through an etymological urban legend [D.R.H.]

www.etymonline.com

"Henry David Thoreau gave his own, elaborated version of the etymology fable in “Walking” in 1862:

I was reading this piece earlier, and quite like it. I think that this paragraph a little further on is starting to get to the crux of the etymological debate:

That 18th century etymology proposed by Johnson hasn't been taken seriously for more than 100 years, as far as I can detect. There is no evidence of anything like that in Middle English writings. The retort that "but if no one knows where it comes from, this story could be true" is not the sort of reasoning an intelligent person would offer for spreading a tale.

and in the context of this discussion:

Muir and Thoreau weren't advancing a theory about etymology. They were illustrating an attitude about the wilderness from a factoid they had in their heads. The attitude itself is the thing that we should remember and bequeath to the future. But the truth has to be (dis-)entangled from the falsehood which frames it, and which it accidentally legitimizes.

Something similar might be said of Gavin Ashenden on the subject of pilgrimage and saunterers.

 

[JabbaPapa]

Saunter also sounds like "sans terre." Without a land / home / fixed abode. Which also fits pilgrimage...

Good point !!

 

[JabbaPapa]

"That 18th century etymology proposed by Johnson hasn't been taken seriously for more than 100 years, as far as I can detect. There is no evidence of anything like that in Middle English writings. The retort that "but if no one knows where it comes from, this story could be true" is not the sort of reasoning an intelligent person would offer for spreading a tale."

OED shows that the "sainte terre" one has existed since at least 17th Century, but I think that OED giving "Of obscure origin" doesn't mean none of the proposed origins of the word are taken seriously, it just means there's simply not enough material evidence to properly affirm any of them, and so OED doesn't.

You didn't write the above, dougfitz, but merely quoted it -- but I'd reply that the reasoning of an intelligent person in the face of an unknown does not involve rejecting this or that explanation of it for mere reasons of personal taste.

People in here might talk of their "Caminoing", and that would be a similar word, similarly absurd etymologically, but still meaningful.

The French word coquillard is not of doubtful origin (and is a word from the same period of History), coming as it does from the coquille / scallop shell -- and it means something like "fake pilgrim" ; so is close in meaning to saunterer in that sense -- outcast, vagabond, tramp, and in the practice of abusing the trust of others.

So it's not an unlikely etymological origin, just one that cannot be confirmed from the sources. And there's the "sans terre" alternative theory, and it's just as good, but just as undemonstrable.

 

[dougfitz]

You didn't write the above, dougfitz, but merely quoted it -- but I'd reply that the reasoning of an intelligent person in the face of an unknown does not involve rejecting this or that explanation of it for mere reasons of personal taste.

Indeed, but the reasoning of an intelligent person does not include accepting an explanation because it appeals to some romantic notion that the lexicographer might have when the origen is at best murky or there is no evidence at all. That is what is being suggested here, and that the lexicographers who attempted definitions did so without sufficient evidence, arrived at quite contradictory romanticized explanations for the origin of the word saunter, and that more modern thinking on this has essentially rejected the earlier definitions. To put it crudely, the 17th century explanations were bunkum. Romantically appealing to lay-people like John Muir and others, but really of no value etymologically.

 

[JabbaPapa]

Indeed, but the reasoning of an intelligent person does not include accepting an explanation because it appeals to some romantic notion that the lexicographer might have when the origen is at best murky or there is no evidence at all. That is what is being suggested here, and that the lexicographers who attempted definitions did so without sufficient evidence, arrived at quite contradictory romanticized explanations for the origin of the word saunter, and that more modern thinking on this has essentially rejected the earlier definitions. To put it crudely, the 17th century explanations were bunkum. Romantically appealing to lay-people like John Muir and others, but really of no value etymologically.

My own training in lexicography suggested that where a solid history and etymology could be established, then follow that ; but where none can be, then accept the various theories as positive possibilities.

And in a case such as this, any reasoning person will follow his or her own leanings, albeit without dismissing outright any of those alternatives.

But to reject this or that possibility in the absence of a solid basis in word history and/or etymology and/or language history would seem like poor method to my mind.

My own experience of old French (thence into the Anglo-Norman > English) suggests to my mind that the "sans terre" proposal is more plausible than the "sainte terre" one, but without manuscript or other material evidence neither can be affirmed as being true. But it's a stretch to call them "bunkum" -- undemonstrable realities remain real, even when the evidence of those realities has been lost.

And it is far from unheard-of that traditional explanations poo-poo'd by experts have turned out to be true from new discoveries.

But then there may be some other unknown and even untheorized explanation for the word.

Accepting the pertinence of any explanation or theory is not the same thing as positively affirming it to be true ; but to positively affirm it to be false in the absence of any evidence either way is a doubtful tactic.

 

[JabbaPapa]

Otherwise OED 2nd Edition 2009 proposes a possible derivation from the rare and derogative :

† ˈsaintrel Obs.

[a. OF. sainterel, dim. of saint. Cf. santrel.]

A saintling.

c 1440 Promp. Parv. 451/2 Seyntrelle, sanctillus, sanctilla.

 

[dougfitz]

But to reject this or that possibility in the absence of a solid basis in word history and/or etymology and/or language history would seem like poor method to my mind.

Indeed. But this is my problem. It would appear that there is a solid basis for rejecting the 17th century explanations, repeated by Johnston, other lexicographers and other men of letter through to the mid-19th century. Modern sources do not entertain the earlier definitions. My reading of the discussion is that it appears that the evidence that modern lexicographers would need to advance the explanations you are supporting is just not there, and never has been, even when these explanations were first published. I cannot understand why you are stubbornly ignoring that. You seem to be holding out some faint hope that new research will turn up new sources that justify your position. Good luck with that.

 

[lalaone]

You both raise excellent points, dougfitz and JabbaPapa. I don’t want to get off-track… but perhaps this small excerpt on etymology in 20th century Europe adds some context on why these questions can get surprisingly heated...it seems they always have. Etymology is a special and difficult beast, at once science and art. Personally, I am not against more "Romantic" interpretations, so long as they are not entirely ruled out by the historical record or driven by political agendas. I see it as both a source and a result of languages’ creativity, often revealing surprising insights.

(I tend to agree with you on “sans terre” as well, JappaPapa – to my Anglophone ear, it’s something about the first syllable’s vocalization. Although you are also correct, dougfitz, to point out that the article’s author strongly opposed these interpretations.)

- -

The fact is, man is an etymologizing animal. He abhors the vacuum of an unmeaning word. If it seems lifeless, he reads a new soul into it, and often, like an unskilful necromancer, spirits the wrong soul into the wrong body. ABRAM SMYTHE PALMER, Folk-Etymology​

The textual production of the Italian philosopher and mystic Lanza del Vasto (1901–1981) evinces a desire for a return to something lost by humanity. From Imaginary Etymologies and The Code of Things, to Pilgrimage to the Source and Principles and Precepts of the Return to the Obvious, del Vasto’s titles make obvious his feeling of urgency to return to an earlier state or to the fundament of all things in the universe. Del Vasto’s curious biography, a mystically infused life trajectory comparable in many respects to that of Simone Weil, led him to desperately seek solutions for the human suffering he witnessed during the turbulent twentieth century. In the introduction to del Vasto’s Les etymologies imaginaires (Imaginary Etymologies), published in 1985 after his death in 1981, Pierre Souyris argued that del Vasto forced connections between etymologically unconnected words, simply because of homographic or homonymic similarity. Souyris’s reservations about these etymological reveries sums up a very old debate that was rehearsed anew during the course of the twentieth century. Can etymologies be trusted? And if so, of what use are they to us?

Wampole, Christy. Rootedness: The Ramifications of a Metaphor. University of Chicago Press. Kindle Edition.

 

[JabbaPapa]

Indeed. But this is my problem. It would appear that there is a solid basis for rejecting the 17th century explanations, repeated by Johnston, other lexicographers and other men of letter through to the mid-19th century. Modern sources do not entertain the earlier definitions. My reading of the discussion is that it appears that the evidence that modern lexicographers would need to advance the explanations you are supporting is just not there, and never has been, even when these explanations were first published. I cannot understand why you are stubbornly ignoring that. You seem to be holding out some faint hope that new research will turn up new sources that justify your position. Good luck with that.

Yes indeed, but I have no particular attachment to one theory of provenance or the other, although I do have a great respect for the erudition of Dr Ashenden.

And I am "supporting" no explanations over others, despite personal preferences, nor do I agree that rejecting some 17th Century explanations might be "solid" in the absence of any evidence thereto.

And you're not right that

Modern sources do not entertain the earlier definitions

OED deliberately quotes the late 17th Century explanation.

OED does not claim it to be true ; neither does OED claim it to be false.

Doubtful origin means precisely that -- it means that nobody knows for certain what the correct explanation might be.

And it means that every theory except for the one that OED explicitly rejects ("the conjecture that it represents a med.L. type *exadventūrāre is phonologically inadmissible.") cannot be rejected a priori.

 

[dougfitz]

OED deliberately quotes the late 17th Century explanation.

That is clutching at straws. The quotations in any entry (here, for saunter) provides examples of the words usage over time. On the other hand, the etymology section of the entry for saunter makes no mention of this 17th Century reference as a possible explanation for the origin of the word. It doesn't even acknowledge that this is any longer of legitimate interest in the discussion on the etymology.

And it means that every theory except for the one that OED explicitly rejects ("the conjecture that it represents a med.L. type *exadventūrāre is phonologically inadmissible.") cannot be rejected a priori.

That's just not sound reasoning. While the OED might hold itself out to have some primacy wrt to the meanings of English words, linguists and lexicographers that have an interest in this pursue their studies across the globe. They have clearly rejected the 17th Century etymology.

More, to suggest a theory, one would need to have some facts upon which it is built. The discussion that I read on this essentially suggests that there are no facts that supported the 17th Ray and 18th Johnson explanations for the origin of saunter. The one citation that the OED acknowledges might have justified the etymology proposed by Ray and Johnson they go on to state 'is phonologically inadmissible'. No facts - no theory, no theory - no a priori rejection.

 

[JabbaPapa]

That is clutching at straws.

No it isn't.

There are multiple theories of origin, and I have no idea why you wish to claim some of them as being wrong, in the complete absence of any solid theory of explanation.

The phrase "doubtful origin" means "dunno" -- it does NOT mean "everyone is wrong".

The quotations in any entry (here, for saunter)

state :

Origin: Of unknown origin.
Etymology: Of obscure origin

That is a poor basis to affirm the truth or falsehood of any origin theory.

On the other hand, the etymology section of the entry for saunter makes no mention of this 17th Century reference as a possible explanation for the origin of the word.

That is an argument from authority fallacy, especially given that I have already quoted a 17th Century reference thereto.

It doesn't even acknowledge that this is any longer of legitimate interest in the discussion on the etymology.

So what ?

That article is not absolutely truthful nor completely exhaustive.

That's just not sound reasoning. While the OED might hold itself out to have some primacy wrt to the meanings of English words, linguists and lexicographers that have an interest in this pursue their studies across the globe. They have clearly rejected the 17th Century etymology.

Your own personal opinion does not amount to "clearly rejected".

If you personally disagree, then just say so.

As to your "linguists and lexicographers that have an interest in this pursue their studies across the globe", it's an unwelcome and poor attempt at intellectual intimidation.

More, to suggest a theory, one would need to have some facts upon which it is built.

The 17th Century quote in OED is just such fact.

I do not claim that it is truthful, but to outright reject it on I don't know what basis would be an outright rejection of existing evidence.

The one citation that the OED acknowledges might have justified the etymology proposed by Ray and Johnson they go on to state 'is phonologically inadmissible'.

That is not true.

You are confusing the rejection of one theory with an entirely different one.

 

[C clearly]

I always like a good discussion about words. However, this is turning into an argument that will not be of much help to pilgrims, past or present, so I will close it.