Comments on: How did the collapse of the Western Roman Empire affect the quality of Latin writing?

Question: How did the collapse of the Western Roman Empire affect the quality of Latin writing?

jason's_planet — Mon, 05 Mar 2007 07:40:39 -0800

How did the Latin language degenerate during the collapse of the Western Roman Empire? Precise, elegant writing is the product of more than just individual talent and that individual's determination to make the most of his talent. It depends on the existence of an educational system and related institutions (libraries, publishers, etc.) which in turn depend on the larger society. When that society begins to collapse, the struggle for physical survival takes priority over established cultural standards.

When the Roman Empire collapsed in the West, what happened to those cultural standards? How did Latin prose change from, say, the year 300 to the year 600? Did the quality of the writing decline? If so, how? Can any of you recommend any books on this topic?

Many thanks in advance.

By: cgc373

cgc373 — Mon, 05 Mar 2007 08:07:00 -0800

You aren't going to get a good answer to this question, because its premises aren't good, jason's_planet. You assume way too much about how prose interacts with society or how society affects prose, glossing over too many difficult concepts to make sense.

For example, how much do you know about Latin prose in pre-collapse times? Do you know enough to be able to recognize differences between the republic and the empire? (I don't, not without a lot of contextual help from sources beyond any particular text.)

Anybody who takes a crack at this one has my sincere sympathy.

By: jason's_planet

jason's_planet — Mon, 05 Mar 2007 08:11:46 -0800

How did the Latin language degenerate during the collapse of the Western Roman Empire?

Seems pretty straightforward to me.

By: TheophileEscargot

TheophileEscargot — Mon, 05 Mar 2007 08:12:48 -0800

I've just listened to this lecture course which has a bit of information on the subject.

Basically in mainland Europe Latin slowly evolved into the modern Romance languages like French and Italian. These changes were seen as degeneration at the time. In Ireland where Latin had never been in colloquial use, it was taught formally in monastaries, and hence remained similar to classical Latin.

Eventually the Carolingian dynasy (Charlemagne and his successors) started a program of copying manuscripts, and in the process codified Latin into a fairly rigid form.

I think if you are doing this for an academic course you'll get a slap on the wrist for talking about "degeneration" though: the current thinking is that languages evolve into other languages but we shouldn't make judgements as to which form is better.

By: Aidan Kehoe

Aidan Kehoe — Mon, 05 Mar 2007 08:26:32 -0800

You want the Wikipedia article on Vulgar Latin. And note that people continued to write in (more or less classical) Latin until modern times; try Thomas Aquinas for mediæval composition in the language.

By: greycap

greycap — Mon, 05 Mar 2007 08:27:32 -0800

You also need to distinguish between classical/written Latin and vulgar/spoken Latin. It was the latter that evolved, so the strict answer to your question - how did Latin prose evolve - is that it didn't, at least not to the extent that spoken Latin did. It got codified through the establishment of laws under Justinian and then by medieval copyists as TheophileEscargot says. My knowledge on this isn't great but Wikipedia seems to have a good start - although I prepare to stand corrected by those who know more than me.

By: greycap

greycap — Mon, 05 Mar 2007 08:27:54 -0800

Or what Aidan said...

By: cog_nate

cog_nate — Mon, 05 Mar 2007 08:29:08 -0800

Seems pretty straightforward to me.

No, it's not. Also, you're confusing language with writing. They are two different things.

As far as writing goes, what survives from Rome is pretty much the language of the literate/elite (and they're takes on how the lower class(es) spoke). And, though I'm not a classicist, from the period you specify I'd guess that the elite and literate were Christians (newly so in the early 3rd century). So, I'd guess that the literature transitioned from secular or pagan writings to Christian-oriented themes.

A cursory search in WorldCat brings up Greek and Latin literature of the Roman Empire: from Augustus to Justinian. Start there.

By: greycap

greycap — Mon, 05 Mar 2007 08:31:44 -0800

Also, looking at your tags - and apologies that this is off-topic, but it does link into your general conception of the language and the period - don't make the mistake of thinking society collapsed. Yes, society changed; yes, the western empire ceased to exist. That's not to say things degenerated or collapsed.

By: Deep Dish

Deep Dish — Mon, 05 Mar 2007 08:50:39 -0800

I'd put the date of the collapse of the Roman empire to be about the 6th century, although it evolved numerous times and people claimed to be a "Roman Emperor" of sorts up until at least the first World War. When people speak of the fall of the Roman Empire, they generally mean the fall of the Western Empire.

The city of Rome was a basket case by about the sixth century, but the empire survived with notable levels of wealth, power, prosperity and civilization out of Constantinople. Most people call the Eastern Roman empire consider the Eastern empire a new Greek empire and it is usually called the Byzantine empire. The people spoke Greek, and had Greek institutions but this had been the case during the previous centuries of Roman government.

SO Why did it collapse? Germanic tribes had invaded cities, depleted border armies and sacked cities. Typical Roman military discipline declined because these same tribes that attacked Rome were hired as mercenaries to defend it, and mercenary armies tended to work for however paid the most - it became easy for any reasonably ambitious frontier to raise an army and march on Rome. Usage of slave labour increased and agricultural output decreased. Societal standards began to consider military service a lowly occupation. Christianity spread to the point it became the official cult of the empire. In short, traditional "Roman" institutions declined and were replaced by new and often inferior customs, institutions and traditions.

The Roman language was not necessarily latin, everyday residents of Britain, Rome, Athens, Damascus, and Alexandria did not speak a common language at any point in history. Latin would be a proper and courtly language for elites, and those who would frequently do business in and around the city of Rome. The decline of courtly institutuions would naturally cause a decline in its usage. Eventually the courtly use of latin evolved into a language used by the Christian church and classicaly trained students. Church use of latin did not decline until the 18th century, and remained in everyday liturgy and many school systems until the mid 20th century.

By: Phanx

Phanx — Mon, 05 Mar 2007 08:59:08 -0800

I'm no linguist, but I'm a bit puzzled by the references to latin being 'codified' in Byzantine and Medieval times.

My understanding is that the models of good literary Latin were established by Roman authors - Virgil, Ovid, and so on. There's some room for individual style, but basically those models will never change.

As others have said, spoken Latin was probably always a bit different, and gradually became more so. The Romance languages are essentially descended from the slangy Latin of the Roman army. You can tell because, to quote the ususal examples, the 'proper' latin for 'head' is caput, whereas Romance languages get their word for head from the slang equivalent 'testa'. Or again, the literary latin for horse is 'equus', but all the Romance words for horse come from 'caballus'.

By: TheWhiteSkull

TheWhiteSkull — Mon, 05 Mar 2007 13:55:26 -0800

Not only would spoken language have had a great deal of variation (class, region, etc.) during the Roman period, but as the Empire receded, the breakdown in the communication network (roads) and security would have increased the level of linguistic drift occurring in many areas.

Combined with declining rates of literacy, this led to the rapid emergence of local vernaculars. These increasingly distinct variants would then adhere to the new centers of power emerging in the wake of the Empire. Barbarian invasions (both a source new power and linguistic variation) further contributed to language change, and the contraction of a Latin-educated elite class (leaving the Church as the primary source of Latin education).

At the end of the Dark Ages, as communication began to improve, and certain centers of power began to expand their territories, the languages associated with these centers tended to expand as well.

By: bad grammar

bad grammar — Mon, 05 Mar 2007 16:31:14 -0800

You need to set a more specific time frame.

"Degenerate language" is also a value judgement of traditional classicists (esp. nineteenth and early twentieth centuries) who regarded the style of Cicero and Vergil (last century BCE) as superior to the "Silver" Latin style of the first and early second centuries CE (Tacitus, Juvenal, Martial) and the latter authors as superior to the style of the fourth and fifth centuries CE.

It's very subjective. The Latin language had not yet begun to change drastically by 400; by 800 you would really be discussing a language shift and different cultures (Germanic). If anything, the Latin of c. 350-450 CE is more sophisticated (more convoluted) than its predecessor; most Anglo-American classicists of the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries disliked this verbosity, which they associated with the pomposity of the Later Roman court.

By: jason's_planet

jason's_planet — Tue, 06 Mar 2007 18:17:11 -0800

Thank you all for the erudite and articulate responses to my question. I've really learned a lot here. I'll give a more in-depth response of my own later, when I have had some sleep and my brain is cooperating with me.

By: cgc373

cgc373 — Wed, 07 Mar 2007 07:17:16 -0800

All right, good deal. I'm sorry for poo-pooing the idea at the top of the thread, jason's_planet. Just because these sorts of answers don't do a lot for me, means nothing when it comes to whether they'll mean something or a lot to you, who asked the question. Again, sorry.