ERINNI. - Minor Greek deities whose nature and the etymology of whose name remain obscure: they would be personifications of storm clouds, or the spirits of the unjustly slain dead who have not been avenged, or personified curses. In Homer they are fearsome beings: summoned by curses, they rise from the Underworld shrouded in mist and drive men to wicked deeds. Some say they were born from the blood flowing from the genitals of Uranus; they are terrifying, yet they also promote fertility and fruitfulness. In Aeschylus they persecute Orestes after the murder of Clytemnestra: terrible and just avengers—
ERINCLAK, DIOCESE OF. - Plan of the church of the monastery of Karapet.
ERIGERO OF LÜTTICH (HERIGERUS LEODIENSIS). - Abbot of Lobbes (10th c.). He was a distinguished scholar and mathematician. His works include: De computatione temporum (written perhaps in collaboration with Notker); Epistolae ad quendam Hugonem monachum (PL 139, 1129-1366), dealing with chronological questions; the Regulae Herigeri in abacum (ed. N. Bubnov, Gerberti opera mathematica, Berlin 1899, pp. 205-23) show him to have been a notable mathematician. Other works are lost. Sigebert of Gembloux attested that E. had collected many patristic texts against Paschasius Radbertus. In 1655 the Celler published an anonymous De corpore et sanguine Domini which Mabillon immediately claimed for E. Pez, however, attributed it to Gerbert (Sylvester II), and under this name it was reprinted by Migne (PL 189, 179-88). According to Hauck every attribution is unfounded; “the judgment of Dümmler is that the authentic work of E. is found in ms. 969 of the University of Ghent under the title: Herigeris abbatis exsageratio plurimorum auctorum de corpore et sanguine Domini, which is essentially a florilegium of texts on the real presence (Hilary, Ambrose, Augustine, Gregory, Bede, Paschasius Radbertus) to be opposed to Ratramnus, with an epilogue by the compiler. This view is shared also by Amann. Heurtentvent, Morin, and Vernet, however, consider Mabillon’s attribution correct. The author begins by recalling the disagreements between Paschasius and Ratramnus on the Eucharist; he reproduces many texts for both tendencies and concludes rather in favor of Paschasius, in whose doctrine the figure and the truth were reconciled. To explain the identity of the eucharistic body with that born of the Virgin, he enunciates this principle: “credendum in ipsa immolationis hora... illud (corpus) angelorum ministerio in sublime deportari altare, quod est ipse Christus... coniectuque illius unum fieri” (col. 187). The sentence is obscure and unhappy, yet not so fraught with error (eristological-eucharistic dualism), as some have asserted.