Timothy Thibodeau collaborated with Dom Anselme Davril osb in editing the text of William Durand's Rationale divinorum officiorum (CCCM cxl, 1995–2000). His long and close engagement with the text is thus unrivalled in undertaking an English translation of the prologue and first book. Durand's frame of reference is scriptural, theological, liturgical, legal and allegorical; and a new translation of even one of the eight books of the Rationale offers those with less fluency in medieval Latin access to a representative segment of this indefatigable provincial bishop's influential writings. In this attractively printed and well-bound volume, Thibodeau begins with a helpful and well-referenced introduction. His translation then sets out ‘to balance fidelity to the literal meaning against readability for a modern audience’, replacing the more archaic translation of the same book made without the benefit of a critical edition of the Latin text by J. M. Neale and Benjamin Webb (Leeds 1843).Footnote ¹

Despite his laudable aims, Thibodeau's literalism can prove unhelpful, particularly where it fails to draw out Durand's underlying meaning. Only a small number of indicative examples can be cited here. Plectrum is transliterated as ‘plectrum’ rather than paraphrased as ‘clapper’ of a bell (book i, chapter iv, section 5 – hereinafter i.iv.5); candelabrum is also transliterated, rather than translated as ‘candlestick’ throughout. Philateria is confusingly translated as ‘vase’, rather than ‘vessel’ or ‘container’ for holy relics (i.iii.26), and capsa as ‘case’ rather than ‘casket’ when describing the pyx for the host (i.iii.25). Neale and Webb are not necessarily better: they render philateria as ‘reliquary’ and capsa as ‘pyx’ without explanation, which may not have been a problem for their High Church Anglican readership familiar with these objects, but does not help a modern ‘unchurched’ reader.

Such difficulties can also extend to phrases and sentences. Literalism sometimes obscures categorisation and classification, as in the ranking of the styles of ringing bells (i.iv.12); and allegory and symbolism, as in the placing of the cross between two candlesticks on the altar (i.iii.27). Here Thibodeau's translation makes no sense, while Neale and Webb appear to be working from a corrupt text. Liturgical interpretation is not always correct: Thibodeau interprets the passage about Sunday as a celebration of the resurrection (even in penitential times) as referring to Eastertide (i.iii.37); Neale and Webb more logically relate this to Lent. There are some places, though, where Durand is unclear: in i.iii.50, does ‘sacrarium’ as the place where the altar linen is washed mean ‘sanctuary’ (as preferred by Thibodeau), ‘sacristy’ (Neale and Webb) or ‘piscina’ (the stone basin drained to earth, which might better suit the context of the paragraph which goes on to consider other basins)? All three meanings appear in medieval Latin glossaries.

Truth to tell, neither Thibodeau's new translation nor Neale and Webb's reissued version serves the modern English reader entirely adequately. A freer paraphrase that draws out more of Durand's layers of meaning and liturgical description may be necessary, preferably presented with the Latin text in parallel. This might be a collaborative project, better undertaken in the more fluid environment of the world-wide web, at least in the first instance, rather than in the permanent medium of the printed book.