What do you think?
Rate this book
神與科學家的語言：拉丁文與其建構的帝國
象牙塔頂端的知識傳遞工具
兩千年前，羅馬帝國的官方語言拉丁文曾受到嚴格控管，是只有菁英分子才能學習的知識性語言。在16世紀文藝復興運動後，拉丁文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。作為歐洲曾經的正統語言，拉丁文一度獨佔了知識的統治地位，不只是各種西方語言詞彙之母，也成為醫學、法學、分類學等人類重要學門的根本語源。
拉丁文在近代社會地位的演變
隨著中世紀以後各民族國家與地方語言的崛起，拉丁文漸漸地式微，甚至在口語上成為一種「死亡」的語言。然而，拉丁文在近代西方的學校與教會中卻一直占有主導地位。到了二十世紀，當拉丁文正式從學校教育與教會中「除名」後，仍有許多建議恢復拉丁文作為國際通用語言的聲音。時至今日，所有新發表的生物物種也依舊以拉丁文命名。對現代社會來說，拉丁文扮演了什麼樣的角色，又具有何等的意義與價值？
歐洲文化史專家，詳細剖析唯一足以象徵西方共有文化資產的指標性語言
本書作者為法國國家科學研究中心的文化史專家。在本書中，她詳細分析了拉丁文在16世紀後，在教會、教育界和貴族的支持下為何卻逐漸無法對應現代社會，以及它在人類文化中的未來走向。在本書中，作者闡述了拉丁文在全盛時期所形成的知識版圖、說明它如何全面融入西方文化的所有面向、以及當今拉丁文具有的符號意義等。讓讀者更貼近理解這個即便在日常社會生活中看似不再重要，但對全人類有著深遠影響的重要語言。
兩千年前，羅馬帝國的官方語言拉丁文曾受到嚴格控管，是只有菁英分子才能學習的知識性語言。在16世紀文藝復興運動後，拉丁文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。作為歐洲曾經的正統語言，拉丁文一度獨佔了知識的統治地位，不只是各種西方語言詞彙之母，也成為醫學、法學、分類學等人類重要學門的根本語源。
拉丁文在近代社會地位的演變
隨著中世紀以後各民族國家與地方語言的崛起，拉丁文漸漸地式微，甚至在口語上成為一種「死亡」的語言。然而，拉丁文在近代西方的學校與教會中卻一直占有主導地位。到了二十世紀，當拉丁文正式從學校教育與教會中「除名」後，仍有許多建議恢復拉丁文作為國際通用語言的聲音。時至今日，所有新發表的生物物種也依舊以拉丁文命名。對現代社會來說，拉丁文扮演了什麼樣的角色，又具有何等的意義與價值？
歐洲文化史專家，詳細剖析唯一足以象徵西方共有文化資產的指標性語言
本書作者為法國國家科學研究中心的文化史專家。在本書中，她詳細分析了拉丁文在16世紀後，在教會、教育界和貴族的支持下為何卻逐漸無法對應現代社會，以及它在人類文化中的未來走向。在本書中，作者闡述了拉丁文在全盛時期所形成的知識版圖、說明它如何全面融入西方文化的所有面向、以及當今拉丁文具有的符號意義等。讓讀者更貼近理解這個即便在日常社會生活中看似不再重要，但對全人類有著深遠影響的重要語言。
416 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