GEN-MEDIEVAL-L Archives
Archiver > GEN-MEDIEVAL > 1998-08 > 0902064275
From: <>
Subject: Re: Languages Other Than English in Genealogy
Date: 2 Aug 1998 13:24:35 GMT
Jennifer I. Fisher wrote:
> As to the use of Latin names versus names in vernacular languages, Fisher
> says:
>
> "The use of Latin was universal among the literate class, and Latin was the
> *lingua franca* of western Europe. .....
In medieval times, the "literate class" was restricted to the clergy, and for
the most part the upper clergy at that. It was a very small percentage of the
population. William Marshall, Earl of Pembroke, for instance, was one of the
great men of his day. He was the first person, not a king or a saint, to have
a biography written about him and ended his career as Regent of England in the
minority of Henry III. Yet he was illiterate. It was a very different world
from the one we know.
> To write in a vernacular language
> was felt to be a condescension which needed an apology."
There is no snob like and intellectual snob, and that was obviously just as
true in medieval times.
> So maybe, just to get into a medieval spirit, we should use Latin names for
> all medieval notables? But vernacular languages (including Old or Medieval
> English, Provencal, Catalon, etc.) for non-notables? Hmmm ........
Again, I think we should give some regard to the first principle of language,
which is to communicate efficiently. If you call him "Charlemagne" every reader
will know instantly whom you mean and continue on to find out what you have to
say about him. If you call him "Carolus Magnus" your more astute readers will,
in effect, say to themselves, "Oh, he means Charlemagne," and then resume
reading what you have to say. Your less astute readers will say to themselves,
"who?"
What has been accomplished by using "Carolus Magnus" beyond pointlessly
demonstrating the writer's sterile erudition? You have slowed the reader down
(or stopped him in his tracks) and for what? To be "correct"?
But there is no such thing as "correct" in this context. History is not a tea
party.
John Steele Gordon
This thread: