What do you think?
Rate this book
拉丁文帝國
兩千年前的羅馬帝國官方語言拉丁文，為何至今它仍具有一定的吸引力？拉丁文對西方世界有什麼深厚的影響？拉丁文漸漸沒落，在西方宗教界、學術界仍處處出現拉丁文，這又是為什麼？拉丁文為現代社會提供了一幅怎樣的想像願景？
隨著羅馬帝國打遍天下的拉丁文，曾是西方文明和知識的重要源頭。雖然羅馬帝國瓦解於五世紀，拉丁文深厚的文化和知識寶庫依然讓這種語文流傳近兩千年的歷史。拉丁文曾經孕育了許多文明的種子，它的文字深深影響了西方世界各種語文，至今，所有生物物種的學名以拉丁文命名。
文藝復興運動後，拉丁文在十六世紀獲得史無前例的重視。天主教教會決定以拉丁文作為禮儀語言，學校也以教育拉丁文為主，西方世界沉浸在拉丁文的世界中。雖然當時各地方言日益抬頭，拉丁文仍以其優異的文化傳統屹立不搖。拉丁文是各種方言詞彙之母，是學習語言所無法規避的必經之路。
然而隨著講求效益、實用的近代社會出現，西方世界正面臨了一場語文的大革命。拉丁文面臨了經濟效益和實用性的大考驗。雖然各界領袖極力擁護拉丁文，聲稱拉丁文是人文主義教育的根源，仍然不敵實用性的挑戰。《拉丁文帝國》作者瓦克為法國國家科學研究中心研究主任和文化史專家，精彩且詳細描繪了西方世界這一段的語文陣痛期，並分析了為何在教會、教育界和貴族的支持下，為何最終還是走向衰弱一途。
二十世紀，拉丁文不再獨占教會禮儀，學校也不再強制學習拉丁文，但仍有些許學生投入拉丁文的懷抱，緬懷那份文明源頭的歷史。想要理解拉丁文的命運，以及它之所以曾為西方世界文明的搖籃，這本歷史資料豐富、分析透澈的《拉丁文帝國》將你走一回拉丁文及西方文化的近代史。
隨著羅馬帝國打遍天下的拉丁文，曾是西方文明和知識的重要源頭。雖然羅馬帝國瓦解於五世紀，拉丁文深厚的文化和知識寶庫依然讓這種語文流傳近兩千年的歷史。拉丁文曾經孕育了許多文明的種子，它的文字深深影響了西方世界各種語文，至今，所有生物物種的學名以拉丁文命名。
文藝復興運動後，拉丁文在十六世紀獲得史無前例的重視。天主教教會決定以拉丁文作為禮儀語言，學校也以教育拉丁文為主，西方世界沉浸在拉丁文的世界中。雖然當時各地方言日益抬頭，拉丁文仍以其優異的文化傳統屹立不搖。拉丁文是各種方言詞彙之母，是學習語言所無法規避的必經之路。
然而隨著講求效益、實用的近代社會出現，西方世界正面臨了一場語文的大革命。拉丁文面臨了經濟效益和實用性的大考驗。雖然各界領袖極力擁護拉丁文，聲稱拉丁文是人文主義教育的根源，仍然不敵實用性的挑戰。《拉丁文帝國》作者瓦克為法國國家科學研究中心研究主任和文化史專家，精彩且詳細描繪了西方世界這一段的語文陣痛期，並分析了為何在教會、教育界和貴族的支持下，為何最終還是走向衰弱一途。
二十世紀，拉丁文不再獨占教會禮儀，學校也不再強制學習拉丁文，但仍有些許學生投入拉丁文的懷抱，緬懷那份文明源頭的歷史。想要理解拉丁文的命運，以及它之所以曾為西方世界文明的搖籃，這本歷史資料豐富、分析透澈的《拉丁文帝國》將你走一回拉丁文及西方文化的近代史。
382 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1998
6 people are currently reading
113 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 6 of 6 reviews
May 30, 2018
Great account of the history of the post-Renaissance survival of Latin in Europe (with a few references to the rest of the world). A bit dry, but brilliant, if depressing.
April 11, 2007
One often hears that Latin was, for centuries, the common language of scholarship, and a sign of unity in the Catholic liturgy. Yet, how true was this? This book explores how Latin became a sign of unity in early modernity, but it gradually lost its force as the centuries passed. Very few, even among the educated and clerical classes, spoke and wrote Latin well enough to be truly fluent in its usage. The author cites the fact that the First Vatican Council employed translators, because the various speakers attending put their own national accent on Latin such that the Council proceedings were more Babel than unity.
The book is an interesting cultural history, especially in the ongoing culture wars.
The book is an interesting cultural history, especially in the ongoing culture wars.
August 25, 2017
A good introduction to European cultural history and linguistic history.
Of interests are two:
1. Latin syllabus in middle age schools;
2. Conflict of Latin empire with Chinese Empire. In opposition of each other, one sees the very nature itself.
Of interests are two:
1. Latin syllabus in middle age schools;
2. Conflict of Latin empire with Chinese Empire. In opposition of each other, one sees the very nature itself.
August 24, 2014
I am currently reading this; it is a fascinating book; fascinating, at least, for anyone in love with the Latin language and the rich cultural and historical heritage connected with that language.
January 27, 2025
This wasn't quite what I expected—I didn't realize it was only on Modern (post-Renaissance) Latin and thus didn't discuss the Medieval world at all—but it was still an extremely interesting, if slightly dispiriting, history of its topic.
I was surprised by how long Latin dominated secondary (i.e. middle and high school) education in the US and much of Europe, with students spending half their time learning Latin well into the Twentieth Century in many cases but also a little surprised at the low quality of the Latin this actually produced. I had known that the First and Second Vatican Councils were conducted in Latin, and was not surprised to learn that the Second Vatican Council required translators because many of the participants did not know Latin well enough—or did not speak it well enough, or with consistent-enough accents—for the proceedings to occur without them, but it was a bit startling that the same was true for the First Vatican Council.
It seems that Latin during the period Françoise Waquet covers (roughly 1500 to 1950) was living a sort of half-life of decline. Although the "Republic of Letters" was traditionally conducted in Latin, scholarly publications in Latin largely died out during the 1700's, and Latin largely died as a language of diplomacy except in the Holy Roman and Austro-Hungarian Empires during the same period. Even though it clung to life longer in schools and the Catholic Church, its use in schools seems to have been more about establishing class barriers between those who had studied Latin and those who had not than about actually producing adults who could write or speak the language, or even read or understand it well. And, in the Catholic Church, even priests tended to not know much more than was needed to recite the formulas of the liturgy, and the laity's resistance to the conversion of the Mass to the vernacular after Vatican II had more to do with an attachment to the idea of a mystical significance of sequences of sounds than to any actual understanding of what was being said.
I admit to being a bit horrified at how ineffective 19th and 20th Century Latin instruction seems to have been: perhaps worse, given the amount of time invested relative to the results than modern American teaching of foreign living languages. I'm not sure, and Françoise Waquet doesn't really make a clear argument on the matter, how much of this was due to poor choices of teaching techniques and how much was due to the fact that it was a dead language that was used for little other than translating classical Roman texts, which everyone involved knew had essentially no relevance to their lives after school ended.
The book did leave me rather wanting to read a comparison between the role of Latin in Renaissance Europe and that of Classical Chinese in Qing-era China, which seems to have persisted much more strongly, if likely to the detriment of the education system as a whole.
I was surprised by how long Latin dominated secondary (i.e. middle and high school) education in the US and much of Europe, with students spending half their time learning Latin well into the Twentieth Century in many cases but also a little surprised at the low quality of the Latin this actually produced. I had known that the First and Second Vatican Councils were conducted in Latin, and was not surprised to learn that the Second Vatican Council required translators because many of the participants did not know Latin well enough—or did not speak it well enough, or with consistent-enough accents—for the proceedings to occur without them, but it was a bit startling that the same was true for the First Vatican Council.
It seems that Latin during the period Françoise Waquet covers (roughly 1500 to 1950) was living a sort of half-life of decline. Although the "Republic of Letters" was traditionally conducted in Latin, scholarly publications in Latin largely died out during the 1700's, and Latin largely died as a language of diplomacy except in the Holy Roman and Austro-Hungarian Empires during the same period. Even though it clung to life longer in schools and the Catholic Church, its use in schools seems to have been more about establishing class barriers between those who had studied Latin and those who had not than about actually producing adults who could write or speak the language, or even read or understand it well. And, in the Catholic Church, even priests tended to not know much more than was needed to recite the formulas of the liturgy, and the laity's resistance to the conversion of the Mass to the vernacular after Vatican II had more to do with an attachment to the idea of a mystical significance of sequences of sounds than to any actual understanding of what was being said.
I admit to being a bit horrified at how ineffective 19th and 20th Century Latin instruction seems to have been: perhaps worse, given the amount of time invested relative to the results than modern American teaching of foreign living languages. I'm not sure, and Françoise Waquet doesn't really make a clear argument on the matter, how much of this was due to poor choices of teaching techniques and how much was due to the fact that it was a dead language that was used for little other than translating classical Roman texts, which everyone involved knew had essentially no relevance to their lives after school ended.
The book did leave me rather wanting to read a comparison between the role of Latin in Renaissance Europe and that of Classical Chinese in Qing-era China, which seems to have persisted much more strongly, if likely to the detriment of the education system as a whole.
January 24, 2019
The down to earth Latin application in real life.
Displaying 1 - 6 of 6 reviews