Hostname: page-component-6898cfcb55-th4rj Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-11T20:52:47.642Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Interpretation of Correctness in Late Latin Texts

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  22 April 2026

Robert L. Politzer
Robert L. Politzer*
Affiliation:
University of Michigan
Get accessRights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Whatever our interpretation of the exact nature of the language of Latin documents and inscriptions of the centuries preceding the emergence of written Romance may be, there seems little doubt that the deviations from Classical or standard Latin which are found in these written materials are due to interference coming from the speech of their writers. Thus, ever since Diez and Schuchardt, Romanists have turned to the mistakes found in Vulgar Latin writings in order to find corroborating evidence for developments which took place in spoken Romance. Recent studies have shown that the mistakes made by the Late Latin writers and scribes follow consistent patterns which reveal the developments and even the underlying dialectal trends of their speech. The real problem of interpreting Late Latin documents and perhaps the real crux of the controversy connected with those documents is, strangely enough, not the interpretation of consistent deviations from Classical standards, but the evaluation of patterns of consistent conformity with that standard.

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Language , Volume 37 , Issue 2: April-June , June 1961, pp. 209 - 214
Copyright
Copyright © 1961 Linguistic Society of America

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

1 For discussion of the connection between spoken and written Latin, see E. Pulgram, Spoken and Written Latin, Lg. 26.458–66 (1950).

2 Such studies include M. A. Pei, The language of the eighth century texts in northern France (New York, 1932) ; R. L. Politzer, A study of the language of eighth century Lombardic documents (New York, 1949); Frieda N. and Robert L. Politzer, Romance trends in 7th and 8th century Latin documents (Chapel Hill, 1953). These studies are based on the following collections of manuscripts: Ph. Lauer and Ph. Samaran, Les diplômes originaux des mérovingiens (Paris, 1908); Jules Tardif, Monuments historiques (Paris, 1866); G. Bonelli, Codice paleografico lombardo (Secolo VIII) (Milan, 1908); L. Schiaparelli, Codice diplomatico longobardo I and II (Rome, 1929 and 1933). In this article I have utilized statistical information found in these studies, and shall refer to the collections of documents in the rest of this article. The Codice paleografico lombardo contains facsimiles of all its manuscripts. Facsimiles of most though not all of the pertinent manuscripts of the Tardif collection are found in the Lauer-Samaran collection. The Codice diplomatico longobardo does not contain facsimiles, but the editor states (ix) that he has put all restored abbreviations in parentheses. Late Latin scribes often abbreviated words and endings; also, special symbols were frequently used for -us, -um, -rum, -ur, -tur, etc. Cf. A. Capelli, Dizionario di abbreviature latine ed italiane xii–xxiv (Milano, 1949). These symbols are often simply restored to regular orthography by the modern editor. The discussion in the present article refers of course only to instances in which the endings were actually written out by the Latin scribe.

3 See Pei, 214.

4 See Frieda N. and Robert L. Politzer, 13.

5 Guy de Poerck, La diphthongaison des voyelles fermées du latin principalement dans le domaine gallo-romain et la palatalisation de ū, Romanica Gandensia 1.23–92 (1953).

6 Codex diplomaticus cavensis (Naples, 1873).

7 Ernst Diehl, Vulgärlateinische Inschriften (Bonn, 1910).

8 Ernst Diehl, Inscriptiones latinae christianae veteres (Berlin, 1924–1930).

9 H. F. Muller and P. Taylor, A chrestomathy of Vulgar Latin 109 (New York, 1932).

10 See E. Schwan and D. Behrens, Grammatik des Altfranzösischen 4 135 (Leipzig, 1899).

11 C. H. Grandgent, An introduction to Vulgar Latin 171 (Boston, 1907); F. Brunot, Histoire de la langue française 84 (Paris, 1905).

12 H. F. Muller, The passive voice in Vulgar Latin, Romanic review 12.68–93 (1921); A chronology of Vulgar Latin 74–78 (Halle, 1929).

13 Pei 273.

14 The case has been made again and again—cf. W. von Wartburg, Die Ausgliederung der romanischen Sprachräume 110 ff. (Bern, 1950)—for northern France and northern Italy as centers of Germanic influence. Surely the Germanic superstratum was not responsible for the death of the Latin synthetic passive and the emergence of analytical construction with the past participle; yet it seems plausible that Germanic influence could have helped in hastening the death of the Latin synthetic passive.

15 Pei 276; H. F. Muller, Origine et histoire de la préposition 'à' dans les locutions du type 'faire faire quelque chose à quelqu'un' 57 (Poitiers, 1912).

16 Muller and Taylor 246, describing the use of the analytic passive in the Capitulare francicum, state: ‘We find it only in the moods and tenses in which it has replaced the synthetic passive in the Romance languages. That is to say we do not find it, e.g., in the present indicative. In this tense the Latin passive has not been replaced by the analytical for verbs of action, and various substitutes had to be found.‘