Cover not available
Article published In:
Historiographia Linguistica
Vol. 48:2/3 (2021) ► pp.205–227

The ghost of Vulgar Latin

History of a misnomer

 | Radboud University Nijmegen
The concept of a colloquial variety of Latin as an intermediate variety between Latin and the Romance languages has a long standing. Sometimes called Vulgar or Popular Latin, this variety is often conceptualized as a discrete linguistic variety, which is held responsible for the changes in the provincial realization of Latin. Since a great deal of evidence for this variety is collected from written texts, studies on the emergence of the Romance languages have tended to ignore the actual process of language acquisition in the provinces of the Roman empire. In the present paper I draw attention to the work of two early scholars, the Italian Celso Cittadini (1533–1627) and the Frenchman Pierre-Nicolas Bonamy (1694–1770), who did concern themselves with the acquisition of Latin, referring to the role of the Roman army in spreading the Latin language throughout the empire. Their suggestions about the process of Latinization can be substantiated with data on the military presence in the provinces of the Roman empire.
Article outline
  • 1.A tale of two languages
  • 2.A new idea
  • 3.From whom did they learn Latin?
  • 4.And when did they learn it?
  • 5.Two languages instead of one
  • 6.Conclusion
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • References
Available under the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) 4.0 license.

For any use beyond this license, please contact the publisher at [email protected].

Published online: 13 April 2022
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/hl.00091.ver
References (77)
References
A. Primary sources
Biondo, Flavio. 2015 [1435]. De verbis romanae locutionis Biondi ad Leonardum Arretinum. Flavio Biondo, Leonardo Bruni, Poggio Bracciolini, Lorenzo Valla: Débats humanistes sur la langue parlée dans l’Antiquité. Textes édités, traduits, présentés, annotés et commentés ed. by Anne Raffarin, 123–169. Paris: Les Belles Lettres.Google Scholar
Bonamy, Pierre-Nicolas. 1756. Mémoire sur l’introduction de la langue latine dans les Gaules, sous la domination des Romains. Mémoires de Littérature tirés des registres de l’Académie Royale des Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres XXIV1, 582–602. Paris: L’Imprimerie Royale. (Repr. in Pierre-Nicolas Bonamy: Vier Abhandlungen zum Vulgärlatein und zur Frühgeschichte des Französischen, ausgewählt, eingeleitet und kommentiert ed. by Jörn Albrecht, 1–22. Tübingen: Gunter Narr, 1975.)Google Scholar
Bruni, Leonardo. 2015 [1435]. Leonardus Flavio Foroliviensi S. Quaerit an vulgus et litterati eodem modo locuti sint. Flavio Biondo, Leonardo Bruni, Poggio Bracciolini, Lorenzo Valla: Débats humanistes sur la langue parlée dans l’Antiquité. Textes édités, traduits, présentés, annotés et commentés ed. by Anne Raffarin, 171–189. Paris: Les Belles Lettres.Google Scholar
Cittadini, Celso. 2019 [1601]. Trattato della vera origine e del processo, e nome della nostra lingua, scritto in volgar sanese (Venezia Ciotti). Edited by Pierluigi Ortolano. Florence: Franco Cesati. [Originally published in Venice: Ciotti, 1601.]Google Scholar
B. Secondary sources
Adamik, Béla. 2019. “Transformation of the Case System in A. L. as Evidenced in Inscriptions”. Acta Classica Universitatis Scientiarum Debreceniensis 551.13–36.Google Scholar
Adams, James N. 2007. The Regional Diversification of Latin 200 BC – AD 600. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2013. Social Variation and the Latin Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Albrecht, Jörn, ed. 1975. Pierre-Nicolas Bonamy: Vier Abhandlungen zum Vulgärlatein und zur Frühgeschichte des Französischen, ausgewählt, eingeleitet und kommentiert. Tübingen: Gunter Narr.Google Scholar
Alessio, Gian Carlo. 2015. “La grammatica speculativa e Dante”. Gian Carlo Alessio, Lucidissima dictandi peritia: Studi di grammatica e retorica medievale ed. by Filippo Bognini, 127–144. Venice: Edizioni Ca’ Foscari.Google Scholar
Bakker, Peter. 2008. “Pidgins versus Creoles versus Pidgincreoles”. The Handbook of Pidgin and Creole Studies ed. by Silvia Kouwenberg & John Victor Singler, 130–157. Malden, Mass. & Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Banniard, Michel. 2011. “Du latin tardif (IIIe-VIIe siècle) au protofrançais (VIIIe siècle): Vers un nouveau paradigme”. Diachroniques. Revue de linguistique française diachronique 11.39–58.Google Scholar
Becker, Lidia. 2014. “La protohistoire médiévale des langues romanes”. Manuel des langues romanes ed. by André Klump, Johannes Kramer & Aline Willems, 261–286. Berlin & New York: W. de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Blau, Joshua. 1982. “Das frühe Neuarabisch in mittelarabischen Texten”. Grundriß der arabischen Philologie. I. Sprachwissenschaft ed. by Wolfdietrich Fischer, 83–95. Wiesbaden: Reichert.Google Scholar
Clackson, James. 2016a. “Latin as a Source for the Romance Languages”. The Oxford Guide to the Romance Languages ed. by Adam Ledgeway & Martin Maiden, 3–13. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2016b. “The language of a Pompeian Tavern: Submerged Latin?”. Early and Late Latin: Continuity or Change? ed. by James N. Adams & Nigel Vincent, 70–86. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Coseriu, Eugenio. 1954. “El llamado « latín vulgar » y las primeras diferenciaciones romances: Breve introducción a la lingüística románica”. Montevideo: Universidad de la República.Google Scholar
Curchin, Leonard A. 2004. The Romanization of Central Spain: Complexity, Diversity and Change in a Provincial Hinterland. London & New York: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dardel, Robert de & Jacob Wüest. 1993a. “Latin vulgaire et créolisation”. Actes du XXe Congrès international de linguistique et philologie romanes ed. by Gerold Hilty, II1, 656–661. Tübingen & Basel: Francke.Google Scholar
. 1993b. “Les systèmes casuels du protoroman: Les deux cycles de simplification”. Vox Romanica 521.25–65.Google Scholar
Diez, Friedrich. 1836. Grammatik der romanischen Sprachen, I1. Bonn: E. Weber.Google Scholar
Eskhult, Josef. 2018. “Vulgar Latin as an Emergent Concept in the Italian Renaissance (1435–1601): Its ancient and medieval prehistory and its emergence and development in Renaissance linguistic thought”. Journal of Latin Linguistics 17:2.191–230. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ferguson, Charles A. 1959. “Diglossia”. Word 151.325–40. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Frank-Job, Barbara & Maria Selig. 2016. “Early Evidence and Sources”. The Oxford Guide to the Romance Languages ed. by Adam Ledgeway & Martin Maiden, 24–34. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gaeng, Paul A. 1992. “The Extent to which Inscriptional Evidence may serve as Source of ‘Vulgar,’ i.e. Spoken Latin”. Linguistica (Ljubljana) 321.19–29.Google Scholar
Gensini, Stefano. 2009. “Dante Alighieri”. Lexicon grammaticorum: A bio-bibliographical companion to the history of linguistics ed. by Harro Stammerjohann, I1, 351–356. 2nd ed. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer.Google Scholar
Goetz, Hans-Werner. 2003. Europa im frühen Mittelalter: 500–1050. Stuttgart: Ulmer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Grandgent, Charles Hall. 1907. An Introduction to Vulgar Latin. Boston: D.C. Heath.Google Scholar
Gulyás, Adrienn. 2019. “How Do New Languages Arise? A comparison of romanization and gallicization”. Acta Antiqua Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae 591.9–18. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Haynes, Ian. 1999. “Military Service and Cultural Identity in the Auxilia ”. The Roman Army as a Community, including papers of a conference held at Birkbeck College, University of London on 11–12 January, 1997 ed. by Adrian Goldsworthy & Ian Haynes, 165–174. (= Journal of Roman Archaeology, supplementary series 34.) Portsmouth, RI: Journal of Roman Archaeology.Google Scholar
. 2013. Blood of the Provinces: The Roman Auxilia and the Making of Provincial Society from Augustus to the Severans. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Herman, József. 2000 [1967]. Vulgar Latin. English transl. by Roger Wright. University Park, Penn.: The Pennsylvania State University Press. [Originally published as Le latin vulgaire. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France, 1967.]Google Scholar
Holtus, Günter. 1989. “Das ‘vulgare illustre’ als Modell einer italienischen Kunstsprache: Standard, Substandard und Varietät in Dante Alighieri’s Traktat ‘De vulgari eloquentia’ (1305)”. Sprachlicher Substandard. II. Standard und Substandard in der Sprachgeschichte und in der Grammatik ed. by Günter Holtus & Edgar Radtke, 1–13. Tübingen: Niemeyer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Imbach, Ruedi & Irène Rosier-Catach. 2005. “De l’un au multiple, du multiple à l’un: Une clef d’interprétation pour le De vulgari eloquentia ”. Mélanges de l’École française de Rome. Moyen Âge 117:2.509–529.Google Scholar
Janson, Tore. 2012. “Vulgar Latin and Middle Arabic”. High vs. Low and Mixed Varieties: Status, norms and functions across time and languages ed. by Gunvor Mejdell & Lutz Edzard, 24–31. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.Google Scholar
John, Alison. 2022. “Cultural Memory and Classical Education in Late Antique Gaul”. Making and Unmaking Ancient Memory ed. by Rajiv K. Bhola & Martine De Marre, 256–272. New York & London: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jorge, Muriel. 2018. Philologie, grammaire historique, histoire de la langue: Constructions disciplinaires et savoirs enseignés (1867–1923). Thèse de doctorat, Université Sorbonne Nouvelle–Paris 3.Google Scholar
Kiesler, Reinhard. 2018. Einführung in die Problematik des Vulgärlateins ed. by Volkert Noll. 2nd ed. Berlin and Boston: de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kramer, Johannes. 1998. Die Sprachbezeichnungen Latinus und Romanus im Lateinischen und Romanischen. Berlin: Erich Schmidt.Google Scholar
Křepinský, Maximilian. 1958. “Romanica. II. La naissance des langues communes et l’existence d’une période de leur évolution commune (latin vulgaire, période romane)”. Rozpravy Československé Akademie Věd, Řada Společenských Věd 131.1–55.Google Scholar
Lloyd, Paul M. 1979. “On the Definition of ‘Vulgar Latin’: The eternal return”. Neuphilologische Mitteilungen 80:2.110–122.Google Scholar
Löfstedt, Einar. 1956 [1933]. Syntactica: Studien und Beiträge zur historischen Syntax des Lateins, II1. Lund: C.W.K. Gleerup. [Originally published, Lund: C. W. K. Gleerup, 1933.]Google Scholar
Lo Piparo, Franco. 1986. “Sign and Grammar in Dante: A non-Modistic language theory”. The History of Linguistics in Italy ed. by Paolo Ramat, Hans-Josef Niederehe & Konrad Koerner, 1–22. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: J. Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lüdtke, Helmut. 2016. Der Ursprung der romanischen Sprachen: Eine Geschichte der sprachlichen Kommunikation. 2nd ed. Kiel: Westensee-Verlag. (1st ed., 2009.)Google Scholar
Mańczak, Witold. 1977. Le latin classique: Langue romane commune. Wrocław: Ossolineum.Google Scholar
Marazzini, Claudio. 2018. Breve storia della questione della lingua. Rome: Carocci.Google Scholar
Mathisen, Ralph W. 2018. “‘Roman’ Identity in Late Antiquity, with Special Attention to Gaul”. Transformations of Romanness in the Early Middle Ages ed. by Walter Pohl, 255–274. Berlin: de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Maurer, Theodoro Henrique. 1962. O problema do latim vulgar. Rio de Janeiro: Livraria Acadêmica.Google Scholar
Meyer-Lübke, Wilhelm. 1890. Grammatik der romanischen Sprachen, I1. Leipzig: Fues’s Verlag.Google Scholar
Marcellino, Giuseppe. 2019. “Latin and the Vernacular in Biondo Flavio’s Thought and Works”. Neo-Latin and the Vernaculars: Bilingual interactions in the Early Modern Period ed. by Alexander Winkler & Florian Schaffenrath, 11–35. Leiden: E.J. Brill.Google Scholar
Millett, Martin. 1990. “Romanization: Historical issues and archaeological interpretation”. The Early Roman Empire in the West ed. by Thomas Blagg & Martin Millett, 35–41. Oxford: Oxbow Books.Google Scholar
Mohrmann, Christine. 1951. “Les formes du latin dit ‘vulgaire’: Essai de chronologie et de systématisation de l’époque augustinéenne aux langues romanes”. Actes du Premier Congrès d’études classiques, 207–220. Paris: Klincksieck.Google Scholar
Nedeljković, Vojin. 2015. “Castles Made of Sand? Balkan Latin from Petar Skok to J.N. Adams”. The Danubian Lands between the Black, Aegean and Adriatic Seas (7th century BC – 10th century AD): Proceedings of the Fifth International Congress on Black Sea Antiquities (Belgrade 17–21 September 2013) ed. by Gocha R. Tsetskhladze, Alexandru Avram & James Hargrave, 323–328. Oxford: Archaeopress. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Palmer, Leonard Robert. 1954. The Latin Language. London: Faber and Faber. (Repr., Norman, Okla.: University of Oklahoma Press, 1988.)Google Scholar
Raffarin, Anne, ed. 2015. Flavio Biondo, Leonardo Bruni, Poggio Bracciolini, Lorenzo Valla: Débats humanistes sur la langue parlée dans l’Antiquité. Textes édités, traduits, présentés, annotés et commentés. Paris: Les Belles Lettres.Google Scholar
Raynouard, François Just Marie. 1821. Grammaire comparée des langues de l’Europe latine dans leurs rapports avec la langue des troubadours. Paris: Firmin Didot.Google Scholar
Rochette, Bruno. 2011. “The Language Policies in the Roman Republic and Empire”. A Companion to the Latin Language ed. by James Clackson, 549–563. Oxford: Blackwell. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rutgers, Leonard Victor. 1995. The Jews in Late Ancient Rome: Evidence of Cultural Interaction in the Roman Diaspora. Leiden: E.J. Brill. (Repr., 2000.) DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schlieben-Lange, Brigitte. 1977. “L’origine des langues romanes: Un cas de créolisation”. Langues en contact, pidgins – Creoles, Languages in Contact ed. by Jürgen M. Meisel, 81–101. Tübingen: Gunter Narr.Google Scholar
Schöntag, Roger. 2017a. “Das Verständnis von Vulgärlatein in der Frühen Neuzeit vor dem Hintergrund der questione della lingua: Eine Untersuchung zur Begriffsgeschichte im Rahmen einer varietätenlinguistischen Verortung”. Synchronie und Diachronie (= Bavarian Working Papers in Linguistics, 6) ed. by Barbara Sonnenhauser, Caroline Trautmann, Daniel Holl & Patrizia Noel Aziz Hanna, 111–129. Munich: Ibykos Verlag.Google Scholar
. 2017b. “Il dibattito intorno al volgare antico tra Leonardo Bruni e Flavio Biondo sullo sfondo della cognizione linguistica di Dante”. Forum Italicum 51:3.553–572. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schuchardt, Hugo. 1866. Der Vokalismus des Vulgärlateins, I1. Leipzig: B.G. Teubner.Google Scholar
Speidel, Michael Alexander. 1995. “Das römische Heer als Kulturträger”. La politique édilitaire dans les provinces de l’Empire romain. IIème-IVème siècles après J.-C.: Actes du IIe Colloque roumano-suisse (Berne, 12–19 septembre 1993) ed. by Regula Frei-Stolba & Heinz E. Herzig, 187–209. Bern: P. Lang. (Repr., Heer und Herrschaft im römischen Reich der Hohen Kaiserzeit, ed. by Michael Alexander Speidel, 515–544. Stuttgart: F. Steiner, 2009.)Google Scholar
Swiggers, Pierre. 2001. “Les débuts et l’évolution de la philologie romane au XIXe siècle, surtout en Allemagne”. History of the Language Sciences ed. by Sylvain Auroux, Konrad Koerner, Hans-Josef Niederehe & Kees Versteegh, II1, 1272–1285. Berlin & New York: W. de Gruyter.Google Scholar
. 2014. “Les études linguistiques romanes des origines jusqu’au début du XIXe siècle: Les ‘prémices’ de la romanistique”. Manuel des langues romanes ed. by André Klump, Johannes Kramer & Aline Willems, 13–42. Berlin and New York: W. de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tavoni, Mirko. 1990. “‘Ydioma tripharium’ (Dante, De vulgari eloquentia, I 8–9)”. History and Historiography of Linguistics: papers from the fourth International Conference on the History of the Language Sciences (ICHoLS IV), Trier, 24–28 August 1987 ed. by Hans-Josef Niederehe & Konrad Koerner, I1, 233–247. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
, ed. 2017. Dante Alighieri, De vulgari eloquentia. Milan: Mondadori.Google Scholar
Tovar, Antonio. 1964. “A Research Report on Vulgar Latin and its Local Variations”. Kratylos 91.113–134.Google Scholar
Väänänen, Veikko. 1981. Introduction au latin vulgaire. 3rd ed. Paris: Klincksieck. (Repr., 2012; 1st ed., 1963.)Google Scholar
Versluys, Miguel John. 2014. “Understanding Objects in Motion: An archaeological dialogue on Romanization”. Archaeological Dialogues 21:1.1–20. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Versteegh, Kees. 2002. “Dead or Alive: The status of the standard language”. Bilingualism in Ancient Society: Language Contact and the Written Word ed. by James N. Adams, Mark Janse & Simon Swain, 52–74. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2005. “Breaking the Rules without Wanting to: Hypercorrection in Middle Arabic texts”. Investigating Arabic: Current Parameters in Analysis and Learning ed. by Alaa Elgibali, 3–18. Leiden: E.J. Brill.Google Scholar
Vincent, Nigel. 2016. “Continuity and Change from Latin to Romance”. Early and Late Latin: Continuity or Change? ed. by James N. Adams & Nigel Vincent, 1–13. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Webster, Jane. 2001. “Creolizing the Roman Provinces”. American Journal of Archaeology 105:2.209–225. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Woolf, Greg. 1998. Becoming Roman: The Origins of Provincial Civilization in Gaul. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wright, Roger. 1982. Late Latin and Early Romance in Spain and Carolingian France. Liverpool: Cairns.Google Scholar
. 2002. A Sociophilological Study of Late Latin. Turnhout: Brepols. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2016. “Latin and Romance in the Medieval Period: A sociophilological approach”. The Oxford Guide to the Romance Languages ed. by Adam Ledgeway & Martin Maiden, 14–23. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by (1)

Cited by one other publication

Goldstein, David
2024. Divergence-time estimation in Indo-European. Diachronica 41:1 ► pp. 1 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 17 november 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.