Ultreia! Ultreya! Ultreïa!?? What's in the Codex Calixtinus?

[NobleSpaniard]

Buen Camino!

I've been trying to track down the legitimacy of the Ultreïa spelling, and thought perhaps someone here had already done so.

I understand that Ultreia and Ultreya are the two modern spellings of the word. But I have also seen it spelled Ultreïa in several places, and was wondering about the roots of this spelling.

Did the common Latin spelling of the word include the dieresis? Is it a legitimate Old English spelling? Or is it just something that some people have added, for character, to convey the archaic nature of the word in a way that is more graphically pleasing to the average hipster?

I have been working on a tattoo which I intend to get, and included the dieresis in my latest incarnation. My cousin from Sevilla says that the diéresis are not used, and that only Ultreia or Ultreya are correct. I understand that a tattoo is a personal decision, and that I should do whatever makes me happy. But, at the moment, finding out the legitimacy/origins of the Ultreïa spelling is what makes me happy.

So, I've been trying to find the word in images from an early version of the (or the original) Codex Calixtinus, but have thus far been unable to do so. I know it can be found in Chapter XXVI of Book I, but that is as far as I've gotten. I can only find translations, in various languages, on various websites, and neither an image of the text nor any commentary on how it is written originally.

Does anyone else have any input on the origins/legitimacy of spelling Ultreïa with dieresis, and/or how it was spelled in the Codex Calixtinus manuscript?

Thank you!

 

[pola]

You've probably come across this, but I think it has information that could help you decide on what variation of the spelling to get for your tattoo: http://santiagoinlove.com/en/ultreia-meaning/

In Latin, there is no dieresis. It would have most likely been spelt "Ultreia".

 

[mspath]

To add further uses/spellings of the term to your research check out the various citations in -- http://xacopedia.com/

 

[Deleted member 3000]

I have been working on a tattoo which I intend to get, and included the dieresis in my latest incarnation.

Do get it right. I have a relative who thought she was saying "Mother" on a tattoo in a foreign language, but it did not...

 

[NobleSpaniard]

You've probably come across this, but I think it has information that could help you decide on what variation of the spelling to get for your tattoo: http://santiagoinlove.com/en/ultreia-meaning/

In Latin, there is no dieresis. It would have most likely been spelt "Ultreia".

Thank you very much! I have actually looked over it several times, and appreciate the suggestion.

 

[NobleSpaniard]

To add further uses/spellings of the term to your research check out the various citations in -- http://xacopedia.com/

Thank you!

With this site, I managed my way to http://xacopedia.com/Dum_pater_familias , where I clicked on the manuscript page thumbnail, and was able to isolate the phrase.



"Herru Sanctiagu
Grot Sanctiagu
E ultreya (eultreya) e suseya (esuseya )
Deus aia nos”


I am still curious as to the origins of the Ultreïa spelling.

 

[Rick of Rick and Peg]

Thank you!

With this site, I managed my way to http://xacopedia.com/Dum_pater_familias , where I clicked on the manuscript page thumbnail, and was able to isolate the phrase.

View attachment 43360

"Herru Sanctiagu
Grot Sanctiagu
E ultreya (eultreya) e suseya (esuseya )
Deus aia nos”


I am still curious as to the origins of the Ultreïa spelling.

Is that a y or is it a j? Does Latin have a y?

 

[Kathor1]

Ultreia is not a Latin word.

 

[Kathor1]

Ultreïa is the preferred spelling of a (contemporary) French writer.

 

[NobleSpaniard]

Is that a y or is it a j? Does Latin have a y?

The 23-letter classical Latin alphabet does not have a J, U, or W. "Y" is called the "Greek i," which is still the name of the letter in Spanish, to distinguish it from the letter "i".

 

[Deleted member 39850]

For what it's worth, I took the vulgar latin/French attribution for my wrist tattoos. Because my wrists are extremely small my artist had to modify the script so that it would remain clear over time. The red mark on my wrist with the walker is from my watch band that usually covers much of the tattoo on whichever wrist I have the watch on.

 

[Kathor1]

Is that a y or is it a j? Does Latin have a y?

It’s a j but in those days i and j were apparently considered as variants of the same sound. A consistent transcription is either Sanctiagu, esuseya and aya or Sanctiagu, esuseia and aia. aia is translated as help in the usual quotes, but that’s not a proper Latin word either. The Latin verb is adiuvare so correct Latin is adiuvat (he helps) or adiuva (help!). That’s why the popular French contemporary version Tous les matins nous prennons le Chemin has the correct Latin phrase: Deus adiuva nos.

The old version is commonly described as a song of the Flemish pilgrims of Germanic origin. Who knows where they picked up the words ultreia and suseia. Best write it in a way that fits your native language I’d suggest.

 

[NobleSpaniard]

It’s not a Latin word.

That is not untrue.

However, the earliest record of the word (which has Latin roots) is in the Codex Calixtinus, which was written in Latin. Suggested to have been written in a deliberately bad Latin, but Latin nonetheless.

 

[NobleSpaniard]

Ultreïa is the preferred spelling of a French writer.

Yet, the French Scholar to whom the Codex is largely attributed didn't include the dieresis.

In addition to their appearance in Dum Pater Familias (as per my earlier post), the words ultreya and esuseya also appear in:
- a prose of Book I, Chapter XXVI, and
- the last verse of the full text of the hymn of Aymeric Picaud Ad honorem Regis summi.

I have not yet been able to find images of either of these pages, to see if perhaps he included the dieresis. I expect not, but thought it might be in the prose, if anywhere.

Otherwise, whence does the usage of dieresis in Ultreïa derive? Is it simply a modern preference of French pilgrims? Does its usage (in English, particularly, but in general) derive from an actual desire to separate the "i" for emphasis, as is their purpose; or is it a throwback to some record of it being written that way in Olde English, or in French centuries ago?

Or is its propagation mainly a result of "cool/hipster" folks thinking it gives the word more gravitas, or more of an archaic feel, or perhaps that it simply looks more interesting? And I don't mean that in a negative way, whatsoever; I actually understand, if that's a main reason for it cropping up.

I just thought it was worth a discussion. It has interested me for a while, and I thought this was a good place for the topic.

 

[NobleSpaniard]

It’s a j but in those days i and j were apparently considered as variants of the same sound (quoted; don’t quite understand that myself).

The letter J is only about 500 years old, so it wasn't around in those days.

y or i are the two options here

As an aside: yes, this means the name Jesus was actually printed as Iesus in the KJV into the 1600's, and the name "Jesus" didn't become commonplace (in religious or secular texts) until some time into the 18th century. Also, the Greek name Ioannis is pronounced very similarly to Johnny.

 

[Deleted member 3000]

The Codex is 1200’s. The dieresis is early 1600’s. It is unlikely in the original Latin.

 

[NobleSpaniard]

The Codex is 1200’s. The dieresis is early 1600’s. It is unlikely in the original Latin.

Thanks!

So, if that's true, then obviously the evolution of the Ultreïa spelling is less than four hundred years old. But whence does it derive?

Do the French tend to spell it that way, in general? Or just some of them (just like some others not from France)?

If it is not the common French spelling (perhaps, even if it is), I'd still love to know its origin.

Right now, I'm leaning towards, "it looks cool/different/archaic that way," as a solid reason for it cropping up in various places.

 

[Deleted member 3000]

I'm leaning towards, "it looks cool/different/archaic that way,"

My guess! Like Beyonce; just add an accent and it is way cooler...

 

[NobleSpaniard]

The Codex is 1200’s. The dieresis is early 1600’s. It is unlikely in the original Latin.

By the way, where did you find that dieresis originated in the 1600's? Some aspects of the modern Latin alphabet are relatively new, like the j, but I didn't think the dieresis was one of those.

Reading through what images of the Codex I can find, I see plenty of diacritics, including the two dots indicative of a dieresis or umlaut. The same punctuation dates back to Hellenistic Greek, where it is/was known as a trema.

 

[Deleted member 3000]

diaeresis, 1610s, "sign marking the division of a diphthong into two simple sounds," from Late Latin diaeresis, from Greek diairesis "division," noun of action from diairein "to divide, separate," from dia- "apart" (see dia-) + hairein "to take" (see heresy). In classical prosody, "the slight break in the forward motion of a line that is felt when the end of a foot coincides with the end of a word" [Miller Williams, "Patterns of Poetry"].

 

[NobleSpaniard]

diaeresis, 1610s, "sign marking the division of a diphthong into two simple sounds," from Late Latin diaeresis, from Greek diairesis "division," noun of action from diairein "to divide, separate," from dia- "apart" (see dia-) + hairein "to take" (see heresy). In classical prosody, "the slight break in the forward motion of a line that is felt when the end of a foot coincides with the end of a word" [Miller Williams, "Patterns of Poetry"].

Yes, according to the OED, the first record of the English word "diaeresis," describing the mark in question, is from 1611. But the punctuation mark itself has been in use -- as a mark of division, and to indicate the letter formed its own syllable -- for over 2000 years, particularly over the i and the u. Called a trema going back to ancient Greek, the English word diaeresis/dieresis comes from the Latin diaeresis, but its source is the Greek diairesis.

Notice the use of the same/similar punctuation in this page of the Codex Calixtinus (which is what made me shake my head and come back to this part of the conversation, hehe).

 

[t2andreo]

Others may have already alluded to this, but, the expression first begins to be used in the Codex Calixtinus, waaay back in the day, where the phrase "Ultre ia Et Sus eia, Deus adjuva nos!"is first found.

It can be translated as "we go further and go higher, God help us!"

It is correct, as some already stated, that the letters "j" "w" and the slower case "v" are not in the 23-letter ancient Latin alphabet. However, IIRC, the "j" is pronounced like a soft "y" in the English world "rhythm."

This is like 'ih' (phonetically) and sounds like the 'i' in 'hill'. It is not pronounced hard, like the 'j' in 'judge.' If there are any REAL Latin scholars out there, do please weigh-in if I got it wrong.

Hope this helps.

 

[NobleSpaniard]

Others may have already alluded to this, but, the expression first begins to be used in the Codex Calixtinus, waaay back in the day, where the phrase "Ultre ia Et Sus eia, Deus adjuva nos!"is first found.

Thanks a bunch for your response!

So far, they only instance of Ultreia in the Codex upon which I've been able to lay eyes is in the DumPater Familias, where they are written as, "eultreya esuseya Deus aia nos."
(Image shared in post #6)

I would love to find images of the other two pages where the words ultreya and esuseya also appear, in:
- a prose of Book I, Chapter XXVI, and
- the last verse of the full text of the hymn of Aymeric Picaud Ad honorem Regis summi.


And, of course, I'd love to hear anyone's input on the origins of the Ultreïa spelling, with dieresis. Does anyone know whether or not that is the common French spelling of the word? Any ideas regarding when/where else it might originate?

 

[t2andreo]

I am seriously NOT trying to be obtuse, but I cannot make out the text in the image of the actual original Latin script above. Is the actual line of text there?

On the other hand, my information came from a reprinted, (in Latin) but in modern typeface, rendition of the Codex...

 

[NobleSpaniard]

I am seriously NOT trying to be obtuse, but I cannot make out the text in the image of the actual original Latin script above. Is the actual line of text there?

No worries!

You might be looking at the image of a full page in post #21. If you look at the image in post #6, I isolated the line of text, enlarged it, and underlined the word "eultreya" in red.

I hope that helps!

 

[Curt Leiker]

Somewhere in the original post I realized that the intelligence level required for this discussion was stratospheric, but keep it up guys. It is interesting!

 

[Kathor1]

Maybe this helps:

Hallelujah (/ˌhælɪˈluːjə/ HAL-i-LOO-yə) is an English interjection. It is a transliteration of the Hebrew word הַלְלוּיָהּ (Modern Hebrew haleluya, Tiberian haləlûyāh).

That’s a quote from the English Wikipedia. The Spanish Wikipedia explains the word Aleluya. The French Wikipedia deals with Alléluia. Netherlands/Flemish has halleluja or alleluja.

It’s the same with ultreia/ultreya/ultreïa. All are a rendition of the same interjection. There is no single correct tattoo. Either use the facsimile of one of the old manuscripts and have an exact copy made, with their font, or decide on one of the contemporary transliterations ultreia, ultreya or ultreïa (presumably preferred way of correct spelling by English, Spanish and French speakers respectively).

The origin of ultreia is unknown. It’s possible that it was derived from French. And since many French words have a Latin root, it’s not surprising that ultreia may have a Latin root. However, that does not help with finding a correct spelling of a weird word in the 12th century.

 

[C clearly]

I am seriously NOT trying to be obtuse, but

No danger of that being a concern on this thread!

 

[NobleSpaniard]

Maybe this helps:

one of the contemporary transliterations ultreia, ultreya or ultreïa (presumably preferred way of correct spelling by English, Spanish and French speakers respectively).

Is Ultreïa the common/preferred spelling among the French? Or is that an assumption?

As for the Spanish: I have one cousin who prefers Ultreya, as it "feels" more Andaluz. Another prefers either of the other two, as Ultreya makes him want to pronounce it with the "j" sound attributed to the "y" or "ll," rather than the "i" sound with which most of us likely pronounce the word, regardless of spelling.

So, I can't say for sure that Ultreia is English, and Ultreya is Spanish. But, does anyone know if Ultreïa is the common spelling among the French?

In the end I'll decide on whichever I want for my tattoo, obviously. But that doesn't mean it's not at least mildly interesting to try and discern whence the Ultreïa spelling derived. You never know who might surprise you around here. Heck, I was hoping to find it in the Codex, and @mspath helped lead me to one of the three pages! Would still love to find the other two.

 

[Kathor1]

No danger of that being a concern on this thread!

Well, it’s crystal clear to me .

However, I start to wonder whether everybody realises just what a linguistic jumble these 4 lines are:

"Herru Sanctiagu
G[r]ot Sanctiagu
E ultreia e suseia
Deus aia nos”

The first two lines are definitely not Latin. Also, people can’t make up their minds whether the first word in the second line is got or grot and whether to translate it as good, great or even God. I side with good.

Just in case someone wants to have a tattoo of the whole lot ...

 

[NobleSpaniard]

Somewhere in the original post I realized that the intelligence level required for this discussion was stratospheric, but keep it up guys. It is interesting!

All thoughts are welcome!

Honestly, I'm thrilled that others find the topic interesting. And, even if I don't find the origin of the Ultreïa spelling, nor find images of the other two pages containing the word, I am very pleased with the discussion (and what I've learned) thus far.

 

[Rick of Rick and Peg]

Go with @Kathar1na's הַלְלוּיָהּ.

 

[NobleSpaniard]

Well, it’s crystal clear to me .

However, I start to wonder whether everybody realises just what a linguistic jumble these 4 lines are:

"Herru Sanctiagu
G[r]ot Sanctiagu
E ultreia e suseia
Deus aia nos”

The first two lines are definitely not Latin. Also, people can’t make up their minds whether the first word in the second line is got or grot and whether to translate it as good, great or even God. I side with good.

Just in case someone wants to have a tattoo of the whole lot ...

Absolutely.

If they want it straight out of the text, the third line would be

"eultreya esuseya"

The words got divided somewhere along the way.

But yes, the Codex Calixtinus is believed to have been intentionally written in a horrific version of Latin. I would assume an amalgamation of Latin and old French, but haven't studied the topic well enough to claim that to be the case.

 

[NobleSpaniard]

Go with @Kathar1na's הַלְלוּיָהּ.

I wouldn't get a tattoo of anything I can't read personally, hehe. I've heard too many stories.

 

[t2andreo]

You were correct. I WAS looking at the wrong post (#22 vs. #6) my bad. Thanks for the correction. However, when I followed your link to the source of your text (http://xacopedia.com/Dum_pater_familias), I found the following statement just above the printed "Dum Pater Familias." The bold emphasis is mine.

"With the intention of maintaining a Spanish version that would keep the rhyme and metric structure of the original as much as possible, to preserve its poetic form and be able to be sung in our language, a poetic adaptation was made, without any merit, but nothing like Sing(ing) this piece in its original text to give it its true sound dimension. The translation given here only seeks to offer an understandable meaning, without attending to metrics or rhyme. [ACE]..."

Thus, I suggest the version you are quoting might be a literary adaptation, intended to make the sung prayer sound more "correct" by inserting a phonetic cue to how the word should be pronounced when sung. My understanding, as referenced in my post, was based on a literal translation of the actual Latin verse, albeit printed in a modern typeface.

Does this sound correct to you?

 

[NobleSpaniard]

You were correct. I WAS looking at the wrong post (#22 vs. #6) my bad. Thanks for the correction. However, when I followed your link to the source of your text (http://xacopedia.com/Dum_pater_familias), I found the following statement just above the printed "Dum Pater Familias." The bold emphasis is mine.



Thus, I suggest the version you are quoting might be a literary adaptation, intended to make the sung prayer sound more "correct" by inserting a phonetic cue to how the word should be pronounced when sung. My understanding, as referenced in my post, was based on a literal translation of the actual Latin verse, albeit printed in a modern typeface.

Does this sound correct to you?

As you mention, that adaptation refers to the printed transcription of the entire song. The one printed, in typeface, on the website.
The image provided is of the original page, linked through the thumbnail at the top, and it is from that image that I provided the cropped and magnified image of the line in question.

That is why the transcription is, "e ultreya e suseya," when the actual written text shows "eultreya esuseya," which I indicated parenthetically in the post in question.

Does the page from which you took the purported literal Latin translation provide an image of the text, or anything else supporting the claim that it is a direct transcription? It seems to be a very reasonable adaptation, likely in an attempt to provide the most grammatically "correct," and more easily understandable, version (as with the website I linked, and numerous other variants on the phrase). But I can't respond further to the nature of the translation you quote, without being able to view the source. Regardless, it seems that you can't really get more direct than an actual image of the original written text.

Could you link to the site from which you pulled your quote? Regardless of the nature of its translation, I'm sure it would be a useful resource.

Thanks!

 

[t2andreo]

Here is the specific English translation I was referring to. I had saved the link, but could not locate it earlier. I misstated the text translation slightly, but the context and meaning are not altered.

http://theworldismycloister.blogspot.com/2012/07/pilgrims-walking-through-time.html

The operative phrase is the final line in the third stanza...

"And Onward! And Upward! God speed our way!"

I advise listening to the chant sung in Latin...click on the embedded You Tube video at the above URL.

I also found this source, with the full text of the chant in Latin.

http://orthodoxmartyria.blogspot.com/2012/06/dum-pater-familias-codex-calixtinus.html

Again, the operative phrase is in the final two lines of the fourth stanza...

"Herru Sanctiagu
Grot Sanctiagu
E ultreya e suseya
Deus aia nos"

Does this help?

 

[NobleSpaniard]

Well, it’s crystal clear to me .

However, I start to wonder whether everybody realises just what a linguistic jumble these 4 lines are:

"Herru Sanctiagu
G[r]ot Sanctiagu
E ultreia e suseia
Deus aia nos”

The first two lines are definitely not Latin. Also, people can’t make up their minds whether the first word in the second line is got or grot and whether to translate it as good, great or even God. I side with good.

Just in case someone wants to have a tattoo of the whole lot ...

They are Germanic:
Herru = lord
Got/grot = good/great

 

[NobleSpaniard]

Again, the operative phrase is in the final two lines of the fourth stanza...

Does this help?

That makes more sense.

What grabbed my attention was the claim that

in the Codex Calixtinus, waaay back in the day, where the phrase "Ultre ia Et Sus eia, Deus adjuva nos!"is first found

I had seen that transcription on a website, but never in anything resembling a definitive resource, or direct transcription. So your claim that it was a direct transcription really had me interested in whether it was truly written differently in one of the other two pages which I have not yet located.

The four lines you pasted mirror those I posted earlier.
The third line is actually very clearly written, "eultreya esuseya," in the original text, but splitting the "e" from eultreya is the one thing on which every transcription/translation seems to agree, giving Ultreya. I still don't know whence Ultreïa (or even Ultreia) derives.
Many split the e from esuseya, as well, but that is not consistent.
Most change "aia" to "adjuva," giving Deus adjuva nos.
Many eliminate the first "e," altogether, and some change the second "e" to "et," giving Ultreya et suseya.
But dividing ultreya and suseya further is not common, except among those trying to convey the roots and meanings of the words, rather than claiming to be a direct transcription.

 

[David Tallan]

Latin paleography isn't a simple subject. Scribes used lots of abbreviations and so the words "as written" weren't always equivalent to the words as spoken or as written elsewhere where no or different abbreviations were used.

That said, from what I've been able to find with a quick look, diacritics of the "umlaut" type did not seem to be a regular part of medieval latin paleography outside of some regions of central and eastern Europe. So while modern latin writers of Latin in Western Europe may prefer a diacritic in "ultreia", I'm somewhat skeptical that French of Spanish medieval scribes are likely to have used one. When I see markings above the text (usually like a tilde) in medieval latin manuscripts, generally I'm looking at something that marks an abbreviation.

Personally, my preferred spelling is "ultreia", but that is a personal preference.

 

[NobleSpaniard]

Personally, my preferred spelling is "ultreia", but that is a personal preference.

Thank you for your contribution! I found it very informative.

Out of curiosity, can you attribute your personal preference to anything linguistic in particular, or is your preference more aesthetic?

 

[Rick of Rick and Peg]

Slightly off topic: Watch "How Spanish got its ñ - the story behind that "n with a tilde"" on YouTube
YouTube ID = J7vreUPCI9c

 

[NobleSpaniard]

Slightly off topic: Watch "How Spanish got its ñ - the story behind that "n with a tilde"" on YouTube
YouTube ID = J7vreUPCI9c

Interesting!

Thank you for sharing!

 

[t2andreo]

This reminds me of the parable of the three blind men and the elephant...LOL

 

[Anik2001]

From my french speaking experience, in Quebec, we use both Ultreia or Ultreïa. Never done any research on the topic, though. I personally chose the second for my own tattoo.

 

[AlwynWellington]

Did the common Latin spelling of the word include the dieresis?

@NobleSpaniard , this quote seems to be point of your post. My response follows:

No, nada, nix dieresis (sic) in Latin of any stripe, ever.​

So, ignore common usage in graphical representations prepared for inhabitants of countries or regions where the dieresis is in common use for their modern (non Latin) texts.

But I have really enjoyed following the red herrings and other stuff in this stream.

 

[NobleSpaniard]

From my french speaking experience, in Quebec, we use both Ultreia or Ultreïa. Never done any research on the topic, though. I personally chose the second for my own tattoo.

Thank you for your insight!

 

[NobleSpaniard]

@NobleSpaniard , this quote seems to be point of your post. My response follows:

No, nada, nix dieresis (sic) in Latin of any stripe, ever.​

​

Thank you for the definitive response.
The point of my initial post was really to discern the origin of the use of dieresis when spelling Ultreïa.

The options I assumed were Latin, French, or Old English.
I appreciate the confirmation that Latin never used the dieresis. (nor trema?)
It doesn't appear to be a standard in modern French, either, if they interchange it the same as English speakers.
So, did it appear in Olde English, or perhaps old French translations?

Or is it a more modern convention of unknown origin, owing more to graphic design than linguistic evolution amongst a given nationality/language?

But I have really enjoyed following the red herrings and other stuff in this stream.

Likewise!

 

[David Tallan]

Thank you for your contribution! I found it very informative.

Out of curiosity, can you attribute your personal preference to anything linguistic in particular, or is your preference more aesthetic?

My understanding is that "y" was pretty rare in Latin and generally only shows up in foreign words. That's why they called it the "Greek I". As such, it seems less likely to show up in a Latin word, which I've always assumed "ultreia" to be. "Ultreya" struck me as more modern and Spanish. That said, I just learned through this conversation that "ultreia" doesn't exist in classical Latin and is a medieval construct. My knowledge of medieval Latin spelling rules is a lot less than some of my friends, so I feel less confident on weighing in on the "i" vs "y" discussion for medieval Latin than I do on the "ï" discussion.

 

[David Tallan]

​

Thank you for the definitive response.
The point of my initial post was really to discern the origin of the use of dieresis when spelling Ultreïa.

The options I assumed were Latin, French, or Old English.
I appreciate the confirmation that Latin never used the dieresis. (nor trema?)
It doesn't appear to be a standard in modern French, either, if they interchange it the same as English speakers.
So, did it appear in Olde English, or perhaps old French translations?

Or is it a more modern convention of unknown origin, owing more to graphic design than linguistic evolution amongst a given nationality/language?

Likewise!

Old English, I can answer with a lot more certainty than medieval Latin. I did take all of the Old English courses available to undergrads when I was in university (a long time ago, but the language hasn't changed much since then) and even composed an Old English riddle poem once upon a time. I also took all of the Middle English courses, probably more apropos since the Codex was after Old English shifted to Middle English.

Absolutely sure that the dieresis did not appear in Old English or Middle English.

 

[Kathor1]

I've been trying to wade through the endless websites that Google throws up when searching for ultreia etc and to find again reliable sources that I had once seen but not bookmarked but it's pretty hopeless. So, does anyone know the answer to this: ultreia/suseia appears three times in the Codex Calixtinus, once in the text of the song Dum Pater Familias. It is known that the expression was also used by crusaders as there is at least one medieval French song containing the expression in this context. The word also appears in prose in chapter XXVI of book I of the Codex Calixtinus and in the text of the song Ad honorem Regis summi, also recorded in the CC.

As far as I can make out, the manuscript of the whole Codex was rarely copied. I think there are 10 copies at best and most are only partial. The book containing the so-called Pilgrim's Guide was next to unknown to pilgrims throughout the ages; it became only known in the 19th century with the works of Spanish and French scholars, and then in the 1930s to a larger audience when it was translated into a modern language (French) for the first time. I'm less sure about the other books and the annex of the CC.

So my question is: are there any other medieval or early modern sources that even mention ultreia/suseia ? Were the songs Dum Pater Familias and Ad honorem Regis summi known throughout the ages or largely unknown and only rediscovered towards the end of the 19th century? I've read a few of the reports of early pilgrims and they never mention this so-called pilgrim's greeting.

 

[Kathor1]

It’s a j

I fear the answer to the OP's question may be "none of the three".

My old eyes did not deceive me when I read eultreja in the medieval manuscript shown above in message #6. As already mentioned, the CC was rediscovered at the end of the 19th century. Jose Flores Laguna and Pater Fidel Fita were among the first to publish about it. Laguna was one of the first to transcribe chants of the CC into modern notation and reproduced the text as follows:

 

[Kathor1]

Latin paleography isn't a simple subject. Scribes used lots of abbreviations and so the words "as written" weren't always equivalent to the words as spoken or as written elsewhere where no or different abbreviations were used.

Thank you for your comments, @David Tallan . Medieval Latin paleography is a fascinating topic and I know next to nothing about it. I can barely decipher a manuscript when I have a modern transcription right next to it!

Having another look at the extract that is already mentioned earlier I noticed a difference in the line Primus ex apostolis Martir Ierosolimis jacobus that is repeated several times in the Dum pater song (see below). At the first occurrence, I read it as [...] jerosolimis [...] and at the second occurrence as [...] jerosolimjs [...]. Are such differences within the same text common? BTW, I now noticed that the scribe used abbreviations for this line later on, as you pointed out. Interesting.

 

[Rick of Rick and Peg]

Maybe that j is an early symbol for an i that is to be sounded much like the i with the dots is used today???

 

[William Marques]

Like s and f (in fact a long s looking like a f without the -) in older English books, just a way of writing a letter that has become obsolete?

 

[Deleted member 3000]

Absolutely sure that the dieresis did not appear in Old English or Middle English.

It was used in early Latin (Hellenistic era) before words were separated by a space, partly to clarify that a vowel was its own syllabel and was spoken individually rather than as a dipthong or ellipsis. That usage continues today in a number of languages including the Romance languages including Occitan, Catalan, French, and Galician. I suspect that its use results from someone picking it up from something he/she has recently read, and passing it on. My grand-uncle, a chairman of a college history department, once said, "anyone who cannot spell a word more than one way is showing no imagination." He lived to be 105, and his published works, pre-spellcheck, show that he lived his philosophy!

 

[Kathor1]

And how much more difficult is proper or unified spelling if you may not even know the language to which the word belongs . Just take the first two words - herru Sanctiagu - in the ultreia 4-line stanza:

They are Germanic:
Herru = lord

That's what we often read and we understand herru Sanctiagu to mean Lord Saint James but what language is it really?

Herru could be Flemish or another Germanic linguistic version from the Rhineland but "only fundamentally and not formally" because -u is not a Germanic ending. Flemish nouns are/were heer, heere, hect or heert but not herru, according to L. Echevarria.

Another author speculates that it could be Latin, derived from herus, a word meaning master of the house or owner but the grammatical case would not be correct; or maybe it's a word used in Galicia, as a cultural-linguistic legacy from the Germanic Suebi who had invaded and then ruled Galicia for centuries.

Sanctiagu is most likely a Galician form of the Saint's name ....

Quite a mix of words in those four lines!

 

[Kathor1]

the words ultreya and esuseya also appear in:
- a prose of Book I, Chapter XXVI, and
- the last verse of the full text of the hymn of Aymeric Picaud Ad honorem Regis summi.
I have not yet been able to find images of either of these pages, to see if perhaps he included the dieresis.

From http://www.xacobeo.fr/ZF2.04.cha.Ad_honorem.htm

Ad honorem regis summi​

Hymne d'Aymeri Picaud, prêtre de Parthenay​

strophes 1 et 2 (Codex Calixtinus folio 190) ​

le folio 191 ayant disparu, les strophes 3 à 11 ont été reprises d'autres manuscrits ​

autre remarque : les paroles "E ultreia esus eia" figurent au couplet 11​

IOW, the site has photo images of individual pages (folios) of the CC, including the above mentioned hymn - see http://www.xacobeo.fr/YF2.04.folios_suppl_219v.pdf for verses 1 and 2. The words "E ultreia esus eia" appear in verse 11 of the hymn. However, folio 191 that contains the verses 3-11 is missing so the text that we know today is based on other manuscripts than the Santiago CC. Unfortunately, they don't mention what these other manuscripts are, and it appears that we will never know just how the two words - ultreia and suseia - looked like in the CC's version of the hymn.

So this leaves us with the third occurrence of the two words in Book I. Let's see if we can dig up a photocopy of the relevant folio of the CC, too. Did I mention already that the internet is a wondrous place?

BTW, although the hymn is attributed to Aymeri Picaud it doesn't mean that he wrote it with his own hands into the CC manuscript. There are other hymns in the CC that are attributed to other people, see list/index at http://www.xacobeo.fr/ZF2.04.chants_par.htm with links to their folios.

 

[Rick of Rick and Peg]

According to Wikipedia a copy of the codex is kept at the cathedral in Santiago. Maybe it is possible to photograph all the uses of Ultreya from that copy.

 

[Kathor1]

this leaves us with the third occurrence of the two words in Book I. Let's see if we can dig up a photocopy of the relevant folio of the CC, too.

the words ultreya and esuseya also appear in:
- a prose of Book I, Chapter XXVI

Found it! http://www.xacobeo.fr is a fantastic treasure trove. Below is a photocopied extract from the CC manuscript, Book I, Chapter XXVI, entitled Prosa sancti Iacobi latinis, grecis et ebraicis verbis a domno papa Calixto abreviata. I can clearly read the words gentes lingue tribus [...] clamantes sus eia ultreia and that someone has written sursum [...] above the words sus eia to explain what it means. And sursum is a proper Latin word .

So, according to this sermon/piece of liturgy in the Codex Calixtinus, all the people, languages, tribes shout "sus eia ultreia" in honour of Saint James, and below you can see how it was written down. Compare it with post #6 and be surprised or not surprised or frustrated.



Source:
http://www.xacobeo.fr/YF2.04.folios_liturgie_120v.pdf
http://www.xacobeo.fr/ZF2.00.codex.htm

 

[David Tallan]

Thank you for your comments, @David Tallan . Medieval Latin paleography is a fascinating topic and I know next to nothing about it. I can barely decipher a manuscript when I have a modern transcription right next to it!

Having another look at the extract that is already mentioned earlier I noticed a difference in the line Primus ex apostolis Martir Ierosolimis jacobus that is repeated several times in the Dum pater song (see below). At the first occurrence, I read it as [...] jerosolimis [...] and at the second occurrence as [...] jerosolimjs [...]. Are such differences within the same text common? BTW, I now noticed that the scribe used abbreviations for this line later on, as you pointed out. Interesting.

View attachment 43600

I can't say for sure with Latin, but in English spelling only became standardized some time after the introduction of the printing press. People are always going on about how many different ways Shakespeare spelled his own name, and he was several generations after Gutenberg and Caxton. If you look at the Oxford English Dictionary, you will generally see many spelling variants for the same word when you get back to the medieval versions of the word.

 

[David Tallan]

Like s and f (in fact a long s looking like a f without the -) in older English books, just a way of writing a letter that has become obsolete?

You can see the long s in the word "jerosolimis" that she is drawing our attention to.

 

[NobleSpaniard]

someone has written sursum [...] above the words sus eia to explain what it me and.

So, if we take the sursum annotation to indicate sus is short for sursum (up, above), eia could be from the suffix -eius, specifically in the form used to indicate someone who is associated with whatever thing to which the preceding root refers. So, suseia from sursum-eia, would refer to one who goes (or One who is) above. Followed by ultra-eia, meaning one who goes (or One who is) beyond.

Or is the use of eia not that of a suffix, but that of a word which means "ho!" (as in, "land, ho!") in English?

Thank you for your contributions to the research, and the conversation in general. Really wish we could read the rest of that annotation, but I doubt they will just open it up for me to snap a picture, when I get to Santiago in a couple of weeks.

 

[Kathor1]

the rest of that annotation

The words are hard to make out on the image pasted into this thread but it's possible to read it from the original manuscript. The words added above sus eia ultreia read as follows: sursum perge, vade ante.

Have a great camino!

 

[Kathor1]

I get the feeling that I'm amusing myself all by myself here .

I found the last of the three occurrencies of ultreia in an old manuscript of the Codex Calixtinus!

As mentioned earlier, the page with the verses 3-11 of the hymn Ad honorem regis summi are missing in the Santiago edition of the CC but there are (partial) copies of the CC held elsewhere, for example a manuscript from 1201 that is now kept in the National Library of France and includes all verses of the hymn. And they have a start-of-the-art online system for access and research! The Santiago manuscript of the CC is dated to around 1140, so the CC in Santiago and the manuscript in Paris are nearly contemporary.

Below are the first and the last verses of the hymn. The last verse contains the words E ultreia esus eia and there's no dieresis, as expected. The presumed author is credited as aimericus picaudi de parainiaco (Aymeric Picaud from Parthenay-le-Vieux, which is not far from Nantes and Poitiers in the South West of France).

 

[Kathor1]

I've been trying to find the word in images from an early version of the (or the original) Codex Calixtinus

In summary, here they are:


(from "prose" part in Santiago CC; from Dum pater in Santiago CC; and from Ad honorem in early partial copy of CC)

 

[Kathor1]

It is known that [ultreia] was also used by crusaders as there is at least one medieval French song containing the expression in this context.

Wow, just wow. I had no idea that all this stuff is on the internet. Below is an extract of the song from an edition from the 13th century, held at the BNF (folio 174v). It's written in French, not in Latin, and the word is outree (=outrée). It sounds very similar to ultreia, and it's the same Latin root. It's a song that expresses the longing and anxiety of a lady whose lover has gone on a crusade to the land of the Saracens [Arabs/Muslims] from where few men return.

The lines in question say: God! When they cry "Outrée", Lord, help the pilgrim [=crusader] for whom I am so afraid, for the Saracens are evil.



PS: Doesn't really help with the tattoo but confirms again, in my opinion, that the spelling ultreïa is modern.

 

[NobleSpaniard]

In summary, here they are:

View attachment 43645
(from "prose" part in Santiago CC; from Dum pater in Santiago CC; and from Ad honorem in early partial copy of CC)

So:
sus eia ultreia
eultreya esuseya
E ultreia efus eia (efus???)

All within the same text (or the earliest available transcription thereof). It doesn't seem like there has ever been much of a consensus about this phrase!

 

[NobleSpaniard]

Doesn't really help with the tattoo but confirms again, in my

The tattoo was the initial impetus, but the purpose of the thread was to delve into the origins of the word/phrase, and its various spellings. I never expected it to bear so much fruit!

I agree that the initial assessment of Ultreïa being a modern development, whether for aesthetics or other "trendy" reasons, seems to have been largely solidified. That certainly doesn't invalidate it, particularly for the purposes of tattoos or other cases in which one's own stylistic preferences are at least as valid as historically "accurate" representations of the word.

But I very much appreciate all of the opinions, input, and especially research which have been shared here. Please don't hesitate to continue sharing any further discoveries, or other thoughts, on the subject. That goes for everyone.

I believe this thread may have already become Google's top resource/result on the subject.

 

[Kathor1]

(efus???)

It's esus. They use two different letters for the sound "s", just like they use two different letters for the sound "i" and there doesn't seem to be a rule about when to use what, even by the same scriptor and even within the same hymn or running text.

People are always going on about how many different ways Shakespeare spelled his own name, and he was several generations after Gutenberg and Caxton.

Very interesting. I wasn't at all aware of that.

the purpose of the thread was to delve into the origins of the word/phrase, and its various spellings. I never expected it to bear so much fruit!

I have to thank you for stimulating this discussion! I had read about the various occurrences and presumed etymology of the word ultreia numerous times but it was only thanks to your question that I discovered that it's possible to view so many old manuscripts online and I find it fascinating. It makes a difference to actually see text in its orginal or near original form with one's own eyes instead of just reading about it in a book or article that relies on a source that relies on another source that relies on yet another source and so on, nearly ad infinitum.

Please don't hesitate to continue sharing any further discoveries, or other thoughts, on the subject. That goes for everyone.

I second that. The problem (perhaps) is that much of the scholarly research was done in the 19th century, and the 20th century of course, and the majority of these works were not published in English but in Spanish and in French and to a lesser degree in German and Italian, while older scholarly works are still in Latin, and the old manuscripts are also kept in archives in these countries. So there is a bit of a linguistic hurdle to overcome when one tries to wade through it all to finally find a clue that leads further.

 

[Kathor1]

We know of one occurrence of ultreia in a source that may be even older than the CC. It was authored by Landulf of Saint Paul who was alive/active during 1077–1137; he wrote a collection of chronicles known as "History of Milan" in Latin. I've not yet found online access to a medieval manuscript. Shortly after the re-discovery of the Codex Calixtinus, the Jesuit scholar Padre Fidel Fita travelled to Santiago to study it and wrote about it in his Recollections of a Trip to Santiago in Galicia. He refers to Landulf's work and mentions the Langobard crusaders and their chant of ultreia while in Milan on their way to Jerusalem. Fita writes in Spanish and quotes Latin and uses both ultreia and ultreja as you can see below. He also refers to the Old French oultre.