“In the last century [then the seventeenth century], Latin was the universal language of Europe. Correspondence among the learned, and indeed among merchants and men of business and the conversation of strangers and travellers, was generally carried on in that dead language. In the present century [then the eighteenth century], Latin has been generally laid aside, and French has been substituted in its place; but has not yet become universally established, and according to present appearances, it is not probable that it will. English is destined to be in the next and succeeding centuries, more generally the language of the world, than Latin was in the last, or French is in the present age.”
Anecdote about how our Founding Fathers were avid students of Latin
Our Founding Fathers were avid students of Greek and Latin. For example, over the years, John Adams wrote a number of letters to his future-president son John Quincy Adams. In 1781, specifically, John Adams once told his son: “You go on, I presume, with your Latin exercises: and I wish to hear of your beginning upon Sallust who is one of the most polished and perfect of the Roman historians, every period of whom, and I had almost said every syllable and every letter is worth studying.” (Source: Letter of 18 May 1781) In another letter, John Adams also told his son that “The writings of Cicero too, you should read in turn. When I speak of reading I dont mean holding a book in hand and dreaming over it— take your pen.—and make yourself master of every sentence.— By all means make yourself master of the Latin tongue and that immediately.” (Source: Letter of 4 October 1790) Thus, John Adams advised his son to “go on … with your Latin exercises,” and “By all means make yourself master of the Latin tongue and that immediately” (as cited above). Thus, John Adams must have considered the study of Latin to be valuable. More about his admiration for the Ancient Greek language here.
Cicero, Roman philosopher and statesman admired by John Adams and Thomas Jefferson
Sallust, Roman historian admired by John Adams and Thomas Jefferson
Latin has some connection to the New Testament, although less so than Hebrew or Greek
But I freely admit that I’m quite far from “measuring up” to our Founding Fathers as a classical scholar – or in any other way, for that matter. It’s true that I have learned the Ancient Greek language (as I describe here). And I have also learned some Biblical Hebrew (as I describe here). But my primary interest in ancient languages is in their connection to the Christian Bible. Hebrew and Greek turn out to be particularly relevant here. The Latin language is mentioned twice (but only twice) in the New Testament. Both of them are in reference to the crucifixion of Jesus. As you may know, this seems to have been done (to some degree, at least) with the blessing of the Romans. One of these New Testament verses simply says: “And a superscription also was written over him in letters of Greek, and Latin, and Hebrew, THIS IS THE KING OF THE JEWS.” (Source: “The Gospel According to St. Luke,” Chapter 23, Verse 38 – as translated by the King James Version of the Bible) Thus, “Latin” is one of the languages to be mentioned there, since it is the language of the Romans. I will save the other verse for the footnote to this blog post. Suffice it to say here that the New Testament took place in Roman Empire times. Thus, the Latin language is still somewhat relevant to Biblical Studies, even for Protestants and Latter-Day Saints. And, of course, for Catholics, it is far more important. The original language of the New Testament seems to have been Greek. Nonetheless, some early translations of the Bible were in Latin. Many Catholics also learn the Latin of Jerome’s later Vulgate Bible, because of its historical importance in Catholicism. Latin continued to be used as a liturgical language for Catholics long into the twentieth century – and, even today, it continues to be an important language for Catholics. For me, though, Hebrew and Greek seem to be far more relevant to my interests. This is part of why Latin has less sway for me than Hebrew and Greek.
Andrea di Bartolo, Way to Calvary, circa 1400
Frontispiece of the original Sixtine Vulgate Bible
I’m content to read Cicero, and some great Roman historians, in English translation
You might recollect that, in an earlier part of this blog post, I quoted some letters from John Adams, to his son John Quincy Adams. In another part of one of these same letters, John Adams actually told his son that “In company with Sallust, Cicero, Tacitus and Livy, you will learn wisdom and virtue. You will see them represented, with all the charms which language and imagination can exhibit, and vice and folly painted in all their deformity and horror.” (Source: Letter of 18 May 1781) There are other Founding Father quotations praising some of these same authors. (More about those here.) This is why I currently have plans to read these four Roman authors at a later time. Cicero was a philosopher and a statesman. By contrast, the other three (Sallust, Tacitus, and Livy) were all historians. All of them originally wrote their works in Latin. But the other languages that I’m learning are enough to keep me busy. (Incidentally, they also include the modern languages of Spanish and French as well.) Thus, I imagine that I will be content to read these four authors in English translation instead. I already have some of these English translations on my bookshelf. I’m sure that such works will help me to get into the ancient world even more, if I indeed succeed in reading them. Some of these books would allow me to learn more about the Roman Republic, while others would help me to learn about the Roman Empire – the more famous period of Ancient Rome.
Tacitus, Roman historian admired by John Adams and Thomas Jefferson
Livy, Roman historian admired by John Adams and Thomas Jefferson
The importance of Latin for the Magna Carta, for British law, and for some later works
One part of this same Roman Empire was our mother country of Great Britain. I suppose that this is how Latin came to be used as a legal language in the British Isles, although I don’t know this for certain. Latin also continued to be used for much official business throughout the Middle Ages, and even through the Renaissance. As John Adams once mentioned, Latin was “the universal language of Europe” well into the seventeenth century. This is why a true scholar of the pre-American-Revolution British laws … would be well-advised to learn Latin. They would also be well-advised to learn some French, because French was also a legal language in Britain during the Norman conquest. As mentioned above, I know some French. This has been truly helpful in my study of these past British laws. For example, French has been most helpful in reading Sir Edward Coke’s “Institutes of the Laws of England,” written in the seventeenth century. This work quotes from the prior writings of Sir Thomas de Littleton, written in the law French of the fifteenth century. To a lesser degree, French was also helpful in reading Sir William Blackstone’s “Commentaries on the Laws of England,” written in the eighteenth century. But, as I have been reading these two works (especially Sir Edward Coke), I have sometimes wished that I knew some Latin as well. Reading philosophical works from this period also sometimes makes me wish that I knew some Latin – for example, reading Montesquieu in the original French, with his Latin footnotes. But, unless I were to attempt to read these works all over again, it’s too late for me to get the benefit of understanding the Latin that they use. This is another reason that I have tended to shy away from learning Latin, charming though it might be. I’m sure that this would help me to understand laws like the Magna Carta, which was written in Medieval Latin. This, too, is a major influence upon our Founding Fathers. But this would be a late time for me to learn such things, given that I’ve already read some of these works in near-total ignorance of their use of Latin. There are two other Latin-language works, incidentally, that I’ve been content to read in translation. These are Sir Thomas More’s “Utopia” (written during the Renaissance), and John Locke’s “A Letter Concerning Toleration” (written in the seventeenth century). For Thomas Hobbes, I would probably be content to stick with his original English – although his own Latin translation of “Leviathan” is often studied by Hobbesian scholars today.
The Magna Carta (1215), originally written in Medieval Latin
Sir Thomas More, who wrote the work “Utopia” in Latin
Latin also helps you to understand the origins of many English words (but so does French)
One other benefit of studying Latin might be worth mentioning here. That is, many English words (perhaps 30% of our vocabulary) were borrowed directly from Latin, at one time or another. Many other English words (perhaps another 30% of our vocabulary) were actually borrowed from French, which is a daughter language of Latin. Thus, learning either of these two languages … helps you somewhat, to understand the many “Latinate” loanwords into English. I’m sure that someone with experience in both of these languages … will have much greater insight into the vocabulary of English as a result. But, personally, I’d rather content myself with just knowing the French part. One still gets some broad knowledge of our language’s Latin vocabulary, even from a background in French – although I’ll admit that I’m often painfully aware of what I’m missing in this area. Some scholars estimate that only 5% of English words were borrowed directly from Ancient Greek. Thus, Ancient Greek is helpful here as well, albeit to a somewhat lesser degree. A scholar of English “etymologies” (or “word origins”) would do even better to learn some Old English, as Thomas Jefferson actually did. (More about that here.) It may be only 20% or so of our vocabulary, but the Old English words tend to be far more commonly used. For example, 93 of the 100 most common Modern English words come from Old English. But my literary acumen is somewhat limited, so the Old English of Beowulf has somewhat less appeal to me as a result. I may one day become a decent Biblical scholar, but I freely admit that I’m a second-rate etymologist.
Remains of Castle Nick, Milecastle 39 – part of Hadrian’s Wall, an old Roman wall in England
Ancient Roman bath – In the city of Bath, England
Conclusion: Learning Latin would be cool, but it continues to be less of a priority for me
This is why I continue to have inner conflicts about learning Latin. I know full well that it carries many benefits, and yet I continue to give priority to my other languages. Spanish, as you might expect, is a lot more useful where I live. (I live in Arizona, in the Southwestern United States.) Moreover, some of the related benefits of my learning French, Ancient Greek, and Biblical Hebrew have been mentioned earlier in this post. But I continue to think that it would be cool if I could learn the Latin language. I just don’t know if it’s enough of a priority for me at this time. I’m not even sure if it will ever become such later on.
“And Pilate wrote a title, and put it on the cross. And the writing was, JESUS OF NAZARETH THE KING OF THE JEWS. This title then read many of the Jews: for the place where Jesus was crucified was nigh to the city: and it was written in Hebrew, and Greek, and Latin.”
If you liked this post, you might also like:
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment