ANALECTA ROMANA INSTITUTI DANICI
XLIV
ANALECTA ROMANA
INSTITUTI DANICI
XLIV
2019
ROMAE MMXX ANALECTA ROMANA INSTITUTI DANICI XLIV © 2020 Accademia di Danimarca ISSN 2035-2506
Scientific Board
Mads Kähler Holst (Bestyrelsesformand, Det Danske Institut i Rom) Jens Bertelsen (Bertelsen & Scheving Arkitekter) Iben Fonnesberg-Schmidt (Aalborg Universitet) Karina Lykke Grand (Aarhus Universitet) Thomas Harder (Forfatter/writer/scrittore) Morten Heiberg (Københavns Universitet) Hanne Jansen (Københavns Universitet) Erik Vilstrup Lorenzen (Den Danske Ambassade i Rom) Mogens Nykjær (Aarhus Universitet) Vinnie Nørskov (Aarhus Universitet) Niels Rosing-Schow (Det Kgl. Danske Musikkonservatorium) Erling Strudsholm (Københavns Universitet) Lene Østermark-Johansen (Københavns Universitet)
Editorial Board Marianne Pade (Chair of Editorial Board, Det Danske Institut i Rom - 31.08.19) Charlotte Bundgaard (Chair of Editorial Board, Det Danske Institut i Rom) Patrick Kragelund (Danmarks Kunstbibliotek) Sine Grove Saxkjær (Det Danske Institut i Rom) Gert Sørensen (Københavns Universitet) Anna Wegener (Det Danske Institut i Rom) Maria Adelaide Zocchi (Det Danske Institut i Rom)
Analecta Romana Instituti Danici. — Vol. I (1960) — . Copenhagen: Munksgaard. From 1985: Rome, «L’ERMA» di Bretschneider. From 2007 (online): Accademia di Danimarca.
ANALECTA ROMANA INSTITUTI DANICI encourages scholarly contributions within the Academy’s research fields. All contributions will be peer reviewed. Manuscripts to be considered for publication should be sent to: [email protected] Authors are requested to consult the journal’s guidelines: www.acdan.it Contents
Signe Buccarella Hedegaard & Cecilie Brøns: Lost in Translation: An Introduction to the Challenging Task of Communicating Long-lost Polychromy on Graeco - Roman Marble Sculptures 7
Lærke Maria Andersen Funder: Continuity and Reception: The Life of the Spinario 29
Claus Asbjørn Andersen: What is Metaphysics in Baroque Scotism? Key Passages from Bartolomeo Matri’s Disputations on Metaphysics (1646-1647) 49
Costantino Ceccanti: “Andre udmærkede Bygmestre”: Hermann Baagøe Storck e lo stile toscano nella Danimarca dell’Ottocento 73 Philology Then and Now Proceedings of the Conference held at the Danish Academy in Rome, 16 July 2019
Introduction: Making Sense of Texts: From Early Modern to Contemporary Philology 95
Minna Skafte Jensen: The Emic-Etic Distinction: a Tool in Neo-Latin Research? 99
Šime Demo: Getting Help from a Daughter: Linguistic Methodology and Early Modern Philology 113
Paolo Monella: A Digital Critical Edition Model for Priscian: Glosses, Graeca, Quotations 135
Johann Ramminger: Stylometry in a Language without Native Speakers: A Test Case from Early Modern Latin 151
Marianne Pade: Imitation and Intertextaulity in Humanist Translation 169
Julia Haigh Gaisser: Philology and Poetry in the Humanism of Giovanni Pontano 187
Karen Skovgaard-Petersen: Philological Pessimism: Henrik Ernst’s Treatise on Textual Criiticism (1652) 205
Trine Arlund Hass: The Meaning of Jul (Christmas) according to Pontanus, Vedel and Worm: Etymology, Controversy, and Foundation Myths of the Danes 217
Report
Jan Kindberg Jacobsen, Claudio Parisi Presicce, Rubina Raja & Massimo Vitti:
Excavating Caesar’s Forum: Present Results of the Caesar’s Forum Project 239
PHILOLOGY THEN AND NOW
Proceedings of the Conference held at The Danish Academy in Rome, 16 July 2019
Getting Help from a Daughter: Linguistic Methodology and Early Modern Philology
by Šime Demo
Abstract. Philology and linguistics have been so closely related in their development that the nature of their mutual relationship is by no means clear. Although modern linguistics originated from philological work – the fact that gave rise to the ‘mother–daughter’ metaphor figuring in my title – it has been established as a separate discipline, with an elaborate methodology, coherent internal division, and more or less clearly defined scope of interest. Philology, on the other hand, has found itself struggling with its own identity and place among the humanities. In the present paper, the example of the linguistic analysis of Early Modern Latin will be used to show how philology can profit from making use of linguistic methodology. We will consider an insufficiently explored way in which linguistics can be used to cast new light on old philological problems. This possibility is based on the fact that the relationship between language and its context of use is central to both philology and the branch of linguistics labelled pragmatics. We will see how in many cases the two fields disciplines talk about the same phenomena, but in differently structured ways and using various metalanguages. An example will be used to show how various contextual factors can boost a linguistic change and accordingly modify the range of uses that a word can have.
Introduction between linguistics and philology and how Seeing that philology is concerned with texts one can profit from the other.1 and that the use of language is central to texts, In light of the broad span of activities that it is no surprise that philologists are working have fallen under the heading of philology, it with language all the time. Old-fashioned as is probably better not to define it here more it may seem, many professional associations, precisely than as “the discipline of making university departments, and journals sense of texts.”2 Furthermore, if its disciplinary that are relevant to, inter alia, language- coherence is challenged by its designation related phenomena, still contain the word as “a vague congeries of method,”3 then “philology” and its derivatives in their names. resolving the theoretical status of philology In the last two centuries, however, the primary becomes less critical and one can engage in responsibility for research on language has considerations of a more practical nature. rested with linguistics, a separate discipline, Acknowledging that topics commonly complex and varied, which has cultivated considered to belong to the field of linguistics clear methodologies and an internal division have always figured in philological work, of labour. This has led to some ambiguity the extent to which and the ways in which regarding the nature of the relationship the development of linguistics has reflected
1 See Melville Bolling 1929 for the persistence of this 2 Pollock 2009, 934; Pollock 2014. uncertainty – in the English language – deep into 3 Pollock 2009, 946. the twentieth century. 114 Šime D emo philological concerns will be discussed in These are: the philological efforts of the the following sections. I will then present a humanists, the comparative linguistics of the specific facet of linguistic research called nineteenth century, and the pragmatics of the pragmatics, which, in my opinion, has the recent decades. Other concurrent trends have potential not only to enrich philological addressed more abstract considerations. work, but also to integrate it into other The humanists’ data-oriented work areas of scholarship and to help it to secure was partly a reaction to the theory-centred a place in the modern academic world. speculative grammar of the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries. For the humanists, Philology and linguistics: a historical outlook the usage, not the grammatical rules, Although I call linguistics a “daughter” of was the supreme guide. Central to the philology in the title, this does not imply “linguistic” thought of the Renaissance was that philology is the child of a single parent. not theorising about language as a road to It also has another – namely, philosophy. In understanding the human mind or God, fact, until the nineteenth century, people who but the practical questions, such as which devoted themselves to analysing language language and language variety to use, how to were called either philologists or philosophers. teach grammar efficiently, how to describe To push the family metaphor a little further, and refine individual languages (of both the genes of one parent or another have Europe and the New World), how to achieve taken turns at being dominant throughout the the most appropriate literary style, how to course of history. This duality is reflected in comment on and (especially in the Protestant the opposition between theory-oriented and lands) translate the Holy Scriptures, and how data-oriented approaches to language that can to correct and interpret ancient texts. The be observed from classical antiquity onwards. linguistic examples were not, as in scholastic Theories of the origin and nature of language modist grammars, invented, but meticulously were a part of philosophy, while investigating sought for in model authors.4 individual texts was the concern of philology. This was the period in which philology Opposing terminological pairs such as pervaded discussion about language.5 On analogia–anomalia, ratio–usus, artes–auctores, the other hand, philosophical considerations and verba–res demonstrate this disparity. about language were scarce. For example, in a Grammar was generally considered a practical section of a history of language philosophies area until it dissociated itself from philology dealing with the philosophy of language, during the thirteenth century in the wake of no name is given between W. Ockham (c. the scholastic rediscovery of Aristotle and 1280–c. 1349) and J. Locke (1632–1704).6 The his incorporation into Christian theology, at lack of emphasis on theoretical questions which point (non-didactic) grammar became has led some modern scholars to regard the a part of logic. Since the Middle Ages, three Renaissance contribution to the history of trends stand out as decisively dominated by linguistic theory as relatively insignificant. the data-oriented approach to language – all Although few students of the Renaissance three of them particularly relevant to the would unconditionally subscribe to the present topic because they show the continuity sweeping statement that “Johann Gutenberg of scholarly work that has emphasised the (c. 1398–1460), by setting up Europe’s first importance of context for language use. printing press, eventually had a far greater
4 Colombat 2002; Formigari 2004, 98–100. from the Renaissance period figure anywhere in the 5 Lepschy (ed.) 1997. book. 6 Formigari 2004, 57–81. Relatively few persons
Getting Help from a Daughter 115 influence on linguistic thought than Erasmus, into Graeco-Roman, Biblical, Arabic, and Scaliger, Ramus and Sanctius put together,”7 the like) began to be distinguished from the equally few would fail to recognise that the comparative and historical study of languag- heyday of the Renaissance, which can be es (which were still often called comparative agreed to have come to its end by the time philology) and from theories of the origin of the Council of Trent (1545–1563), was and nature of language. The awareness that predominantly the period of linguistic practice the separate fields of knowledge occupied by rather than theory. philology (such as language, law, and politics) The first to herald the return to explanatory – particularly when referring to texts from questions was J. C. Scaliger, who, in his book the past – might call for separate research De causis linguae Latinae (1540), discarded practices was reflected in the creation of the the philological strivings of the humanists new terminology. This period witnessed the by considering grammar to be a part of earliest instances of terms such as vergleichende philosophy. His work had a strong influence Grammatik (1803), Linguistik (before 1808), on developments over the next two centuries.8 and indogermanique (1810) / Indo-European In the seventeenth century, the focus (1813).9 of those concerned with language shifted Scholars using the comparative method back to theoretical considerations, with two referred to Linnaeus and Newton to propose crucial advances. The first was represented that language was a natural object to be by the school of Port Royal, which explored studied scientifically. Although theoretical a generalised grammatical form in order considerations existed throughout the period, to facilitate language instruction and make the main methods in language research were thought processes clearer through the use data collection and comparison, while general of language. Even more theoretical than theories about language became a secondary the Port Royal work was the second trend, topic. which promoted universal language schemes In the early twentieth century, the and sign systems. It developed out of the direction of mainstream linguistics switched need to fill the void left by Latin, which was once again. The Saussurean distinction on the decrease as the primary language of between langue (abstract structure) and parole intellectual communication. The eighteenth (actual use) established the former as central century was marked by similar tendencies: to linguistic inquiry, relegating the latter to scholars were particularly interested in the the peripheral zones merging into other question of the role of language in thought disciplines, including philology.10 With the (e.g. E. B. Condillac), as well as its origins as a establishment of structural linguistics, which human ability (e.g. J. G. Herder). Consequently, emphasised the synchronic study of language ideas of linguistic relativity, summarised as a formal system and departed from data- in expressions such as génie de la langue and driven comparative method, the dividing line Volksgeist, came to the fore. between linguistics and philology became In the first decades of the nineteenth cen- even sharper.11 tury, textual philology stricto sensu (diversified De Saussure’s Cours de linguistique générale
7 Harris and Taylor 1997, xvii; see also Nifadopou- used pejoratively by the Spanish Inquisition (e.g. in los 2005, who does not mention any one of these the case of F. Sanctius qua philologist, see Zamora names. 2006, 546). 8 Kerecuk 2006, 1. The Roman Church, especially 9 Koerner 1997; Morpurgo Davies 1998, 59–60; in the period of the Counter-Reformation, was Turner 2014, x. not sympathetic towards the textual criticism of 10 Matthews 2003: 11. religious texts: the word “grammarian” was even 11 Turner 2014, 252–253. 116 Šime D emo
(1916) initiated a period of a renewed interest neighbouring fields, the relevant overlapping in linguistic theory. The comparative method zone poses challenges but provides the continued to be practised, but was no longer possibilities for rewarding results. the most innovative term of art in the field. Developments in linguistics over the last Even when they relied on data to identify five decades have been marked (less in America patterns in language, all the main linguistic than elsewhere) by a series of important shifts approaches of the first half of the twentieth in “thought styles,” among which at least seven century – e.g. the Geneva, Prague, and turns have been singled out: the pragmatic Copenhagen linguistic schools, behaviourism, turn (from theorising about the competence distributionalism – had the aim of separating of an idealised speaker to investigating real- segments of language from their actual usage world performance), the socio-cultural turn and focusing on general laws operating within (from isolated langue to contextualised parole), sentences as the central issue. This trend the dispersive turn (from core to marginal culminated in Chomsky’s radically rationalist language phenomena), the empirical turn generative grammar, a mathematically precise (from introspection to the perusal of existing description of a language belonging to texts), the digital turn (from qualitative to abstract ideal users in which native speakers’ quantitative methods), the discursive turn intuitions about grammaticality are used as the (from fixed categories to dynamic and fuzzy main analytical tool. In generative grammar, concepts), and the diachronic turn (from an examples are invented rather than being atemporal to a historical outlook).15 Most of extracted from texts, and data frequency and these turns effectively bring linguistics a few the context of use alike are disregarded.12 steps closer to philology. In these circumstances it was difficult to Most recently, technological progress, imagine any viable linking of linguistics and particularly the increasing availability of philology.13 digitised texts, has resulted in a tremendous At the same time, various strands of methodological leap, not only in the sense of research developed that valued variety rather fostering the use of quantitative methods, but than unity in language. For a broad family of also in providing new angles to view language functionalist programmes, communication use which were inaccessible to previous is the main purpose of language, which is generations. Consequently, it became possible fully understandable only if its inextricable to combine careful human philological work connection to the context is taken into and insight with the speed, memory, and account. In fields such as sociolinguistics, accuracy of machines. As a heuristic method, pragmatics, text linguistics, neurolinguistics, induction gained a powerful ally. and conversation analysis, language is considered to be firmly embedded in a much Pragmatics: basic concepts wider reality, ranging from biochemical to One of the most radical and most explicit social structures. Cross-fertilisation among examples of the departure from the armchair the disciplines is sometimes so intense that approach of generative grammar is provided linguistics merges with neighbouring areas to a by pragmatics, which has been so influential degree at which its autonomy becomes highly in modern linguistics that, as we have seen, questionable.14 As philology is one of these some scholars have discussed a pragmatic
12 Fabb 2006. Chomsky expressly (and controversial- 13 Martin-Nielsen 2015. ly) linked his method to the seventeenth-century ra- 14 Harris 2006, 209. tionalist grammar (most notably in Chomsky 1966). 15 Taavitsainen & Jucker 2015. Getting Help from a Daughter 117 turn taking place in the discipline. During the choices made in social situations. In order to second half of the twentieth century, research make sense of linguistically encoded meanings established that what was communicated in – studied in turn through the medium any conversation consisted of much more of syntax, phonology, morphology, and than what could be extracted via a grammatical semantics – individuals use various contextual analysis and the dictionary meaning of clues to decipher the complete message.20 words and phrases. Sentences are not real- Researchers have elaborated on certain world objects: they are abstractions that can basic concepts that became building blocks usually be interpreted in an infinity of ways. of the pragmatic view of language. The Utterances – that which is verbally exchanged theoretical development of the idea that during communication – are only partly communication is a cooperative effort was encoded grammatically, while the rest has to boosted in the 1970s by the work of H. P. be inferred from the context. All expressions Grice, who postulated that a conversation are to some extent underdetermined until could only be successful if the participants used in a real-life situation. The awareness observe the cooperative principle: “Make that words carry generalised, incomplete ideas your contribution such as is required, at the that can be concretised only in actual usage stage at which it occurs, by the accepted led to the development of pragmatics.16 purpose or direction of the talk exchange in Although the term pragmatics is generally which you are engaged.”21 From this principle, agreed to date back to the work of the he derived a set of maxims (such as “Do not semiotician and behaviourist Charles Morris say what you believe is false” or “Do not in the 1930s, its establishment as a separate make your contribution more informative area of study can be dated to the late 1960s and than is required” or “Avoid ambiguity”) that early 1970s in the wake of seminal work by the interlocutors do not breach unless they want philosophers J. L. Austin, J. R. Searle, and H. P. to transmit more content than they utter.22 Grice.17 On the other hand, the foundations for In fact, additional meaning is usually present pragmatics as a linguistic discipline were laid even when the maxims are observed. by earlier philosophers including C. S. Peirce, The part of communicated meaning that G. Frege, R. Carnap, and L. Wittgenstein. In is not encoded in that which is uttered can be the course of its development, it has received expressed by one or more propositions called important impulses from other neighbouring implicatures. Implicatures are made possible by disciplines, such as psychology, neuroscience, bits of information that are taken for granted anthropology, ethnology, sociology, and by the participants during the conversation, semiotics.18 and they are expressed by propositions Definitions of pragmatics are many and called pragmatic presuppositions. Segments varied, but most of them agree that it is of reality that supply implicit information the study of language use in context.19 In are referred to in the widest possible sense its analyses, it includes participants in the as context, and are referred to in pragmatics conversation, along with their backgrounds by a series of closely related terms such as and thoughts, and examines the linguistic common ground, common background belief,
16 Lyons 1997, 164; Blakemore 2002, 66–67; Bach 19 Huang 2015, 205. 2005, 15; Cruse 2006, 164. 20 Yule 1996, 3–4. 17 Nerlich 2009. 21 Grice 1975, 45. 18 Basic readings, pointing to further literature, are 22 Later theorists either reduced or expanded the array Mey 2001; Horn & Ward (eds.) 2004; Mey (ed.) of maxims. Some suggest that their number can be 2009. stretched ad infinitum. 118 Šime Demo common knowledge, mutual knowledge, (scripts).27 For example, the Latin word domus shared knowledge, tacit knowledge, and (“a house”) presents a frame that creates culture. Layers of context comprise social certain expectations about the size, number, status, personal history, profession, mutual and type of rooms in a dwelling, as well as the relations, linguistic competence, the interests, inhabitants, function, and so forth. However, convictions, beliefs, and intentions of all these expectations vary depending on parties involved, logical rules, the immediate whether one is discussing an ancient Roman, setting of the conversation, the history of the a Renaissance, or a nineteenth-century domus. text production, relevant social norms, the legal With regard to the scripts, an example is the framework, and religious and mythological conventions of warfare in various historical knowledge.23 Domains of context are both periods. Differences among cultures based on emerging (that is to say, constantly modified differences in these schemes is the concern of by the progress of the text or conversation) intercultural pragmatics. and embedded in each other.24 A more complex concept is that of the It follows that no act of linguistic speech act, which was introduced in the 1950s referencing is complete without recourse to by the philosopher J. L. Austin. A speech some aspect of context. This applies not only act is an action that a person performs by to deictic and anaphoric expressions such as uttering something. It is a way of changing the pronouns, but also to lexical words, which world by using language. Words can be used communicate extralinguistic reality through to express apologies, orders, compliments, their semantic content only to a limited promises, threats, curses and so on; even a degree.25 For example, the Latin adjective plain statement normally has its purpose, magnus (“large”) refers to different orders for example to convey information. If the of magnitude depending on whether one is appropriate contextual requirements (called discussing ants, humans, or cities. Moreover, felicity conditions) are met, one’s use of even if the noun is unchanged, the referent language can represent an officially recognised standard of the adjective meaning can action, sometimes with legal consequences vary – magna urbs (“large city”) implies one (for example, absolving sins during penance, thing for a medieval Frank, another for an or condemning someone to death in a eighteenth-century Frenchman. Various ideas court). Speech acts can be performed using and emotions prompted by an expression a particular grammatical form (such as depending on the context – which may imperative for orders) or an appropriate lexical render it pejorative, refined, or euphemistic, item (such as using “I beg you” when asking for example – are frequently called its for something), but can also be indirect, in connotations.26 Connotational meaning is which case presuppositions and implicatures frequently used in contrast to denotational are needed; for example, saying “It’s so hot meaning, which refers to the portion of in here!” to imply a request to turn on the air meaning which is literal, non-symbolic, and conditioner. relatively independent of context. Another concept that is important in Background information can be organised pragmatic research is politeness, which is an into schemes, or contextually shaped structures extension of the cooperative principle. This of knowledge. These are either relatively static consists of linguistic strategies that people (such schemes are called frames), or dynamic use to manage their relationships during a
23 Sperber & Wilson 1986, 86–90; Yule 1996, 3; Cruse 25 Levinson 2004, 107. 2006, 28. 26 Allan 2006. 24 Hanks 2006. 27 Yule 1996, 86–88. Getting Help from a Daughter 119 conversation. A crucial politeness concept is knowledge: called face, and was introduced by sociologist E. Goffman in the 1960s and developed (2a) >> “Poking one’s nose into other in linguistics by P. Brown and S. Levinson people’s business is rude.”30 especially. Face is a public self-image that can be positive (representing the human need to His “question” in (1a) does not express receive approval from and be accepted by expectation of a reply about Chremes’ priority others) or negative (reflecting the need to be list. He does not refer to himself directly at independent and autonomous). In the course all – instead, his lengthy “question” impolitely of conversation, participants use language to threatens Chremes’ face by implicating the protect or threaten each other’s or their own following: face. Politeness is dependent on contextual factors to a significant degree, particularly (2b) +> “You are an inquisitive idler.” on the social and cultural backgrounds and relationships of the participants.28 Addressing Chremes by name might appear Let us consider an example, and let it be a to mitigate the force of impoliteness (after all, well-known exchange from the beginning of in a few moments he agrees to confide in his Terence’s comedy, The Self-Tormentor. Chremes neighbour), but it can also be a conventional stops by his wealthy neighbour Menedemus’ theatrical device to introduce a character’s fence and wonders why he toils in the field all name at the onset of the piece. day by himself rather than delegating work to Finally, he implicates an indirect speech act his servants. Menedemus says: of request:
(1a) Menedemus: Chreme, tantumne ab re (2c) +> “Leave me alone!” tuast oti tibi aliena ut cures ea quae nil ad te attinent? The beginning of Chremes’ reply, on the other (Ter. Haut. 75–76) hand, looks like a platitude – apparently, he acts as if Menedemus does not know he is human. Have you so much leisure, Chremes, from Neither does the rest do much more to answer your own affairs, that you can attend the question directly, and thus – just as with to those of others – those which don’t Menedemus’ “question” – the cooperative concern you? (transl. H. T. Riley)29 principle is apparently flouted, because it seems to give at the same time more and less Chremes famously replies: information than required by the question. In order to make Chremes’ answer meaningful, (1b) Chremes: Homo sum: humani nil a me we have to “add in” some information. He alienum puto. (Ter. Haut. 77) starts from another set of presuppositions: I am a man, and nothing that concerns a man do I deem a matter of indifference to (3a) >> “It is a (desirable) property of hu- me. mans to care about the well-being of fellow humans.” Menedemus starts from the following presupposition, pertaining to the common (3b) >> “(In my opinion) your well-being
28 Yule 1996, 47; Cruse 2006, 131–133; Kearns 29 Terentius, Heautontimorumenos: The Self-Tormenter, 1.1. 2000, 256–261; Horn 2004, 11; Huang 2015, 210; 30 In pragmatic literature, “>>” is the symbol for pre- Tekourafi 2015. supposition, “+>” for implicature. 120 Šime Demo
is being compromised.” (This is said by two explicitly,32 while a few years earlier Chremes in the preceding lines, thus ha- a philosopher/pragmaticist had analysed ving become a part of his and Menedemus’ rhetorical figures in pragmatic terms.33 In fact, common ground or mutual knowledge.) the two disciplines frequently discuss the same phenomena, albeit using different words and Doing nothing more than supplementing in different ways. Even without advocating these presuppositions with two obvious facts far-reaching integration or calling on a kind – that he is human and that nothing human is of Occam’s razor to shave away duplication, alien to him – Chremes manages to generate becoming familiar with how pragmaticists at least two speech acts: a statement (3c) and address traditional philological matters can a request (3d): help to make philological analyses more comparable to language analyses in general. (3c) +> “Your well-being is my business.” Finding a common denominator in written and spoken language, in present and past language (3d) +> “Don’t mind my meddling (and use, and in everyday and scholarly human listen to my advice).” activity can reveal the analogous cognitive and social forces that underlie all these aspects of By talking only about himself and not about human linguistic behaviour. This could lead his interlocutor, Chremes is doing his best to the better mutual understanding between to save Menedemus’ face and to secure the the specialists in various disciplines and to the progress of the conversation (which, as the smoother establishment of interdisciplinary ensuing lines of the play show, is indeed studies. achieved). Not all pragmatic work can be applied to Presuppositions and implicatures can philological tasks equally well. The general depend on various factors, ranging from conditions for using language as a means language rules to immediate situation to wider of communication are relatively language- cultural conditions, such as an appeal to moral independent and, for this reason, less behaviour in (3a), later underscored by St. interesting in the consideration of historical Augustine of Hippo, who strongly influenced texts within their context. A view, more further commentators.31 present in the work of Anglo-American researchers, that pragmatics is an additional Historical texts and pragmatics component of linguistic theory along The investigation of details such as those in with phonetics, phonology, morphology, the above example – including who wants to syntax, and semantics can do little to foster say what when uttering something and the contrastive and historical research. Most of linguistic means to do so that are available the corpus of theoretical pragmatic research in a given situation – is part of the core has been conducted on present-day, spoken, business of philology. In fact, the awareness dialogical, and native-speaker material, while that pragmatics and philology overlap has historical texts are written, predominantly existed within both fields from the early monological, and in many cases (e.g. of Early days of pragmatics. Some four decades ago Modern Latin, see below) were not authored a historical linguist/philologist equated the by native users. The alternative – (European)
31 An alternative would be to see in Chremes’ reply the line is sometimes used nowadays as an adage. a mere apology for – being a curious human – not 32 Watkins 1981, quoted in Watkins 1990, 23–24. having resisted prying. This is the context in which 33 Sperber 1975. Getting Help from a Daughter 121 continental – tradition views pragmatics as a new area of research – historical pragmatics functional perspective on all linguistic activity. – emerged in mid-1990 at the crossroads of According to this view, everything that is pragmatics and philology. Like pragmatics contextually motivated in language concerns in general, this can be pursued in the Anglo- pragmatics, which is intertwined both with American or the (European) continental way peripheral linguistic domains and with by focusing respectively on the relationship neighbouring disciplines. This way of doing between implicatures and semantic change, or pragmatics opens up more possibilities for on the way in which the language in historical empirical research based on historical texts, texts relates to broad context.37 Within the including corpus analysis.34 Proponents of European, macropragmatic perspective, two the perspective view of pragmatics see it as “a orientations can be distinguished: diachronic point of convergence for new interdisciplinary pragmatics presents a pragmatic view of fields of study,”35 with the potential to renew language change, and “focuses on the philology. linguistic inventory and its communicative use As they work with texts, philologists across different historical stages of the same take into account context understood in the language,”38 while pragmaphilology, which widest possible sense, ranging from internal is essentially a synchronic study, “describes cognitive forces to interpersonal and social the contextual aspects of historical texts, conditions to the broad cultural backdrop. including the addressers and addressees, their This corresponds to macropragmatics, which social and personal relationship, the physical is the study of language in relation to all and social setting of text production and contextual aspects, such as psychological text reception, and the goal(s) of the text.”39 conditions, power relations, ideology, Diachronic research can analyse how a single institutional settings, literary conventions, and linguistic form maps onto different functions anthropological and ethnological factors.36 (the semasiological approach, such as the Applied at a macro-level, pragmatics can shed study of terms of address, grammaticalisation, light on all manner of traditional philological or pragmatic markers) or how a single issues involving historical texts and their function takes various linguistic forms (the authors in relation to the respective societies onomasiological approach, such as expressing and cultures. speech acts, politeness, or stance). In the early period of the development of pragmatics, analyses were almost exclusively The case of Early Modern Latin limited to present-day language, particularly Studies in historical pragmatics originated spoken dialogues. This is understandable, from work on the history of the English because the ease of access to cultural clues and language; and that most busily researched the interactional character of such discourses modern language still dominates the field, allow them to reveal the interdependence although an increasing number of other of communication dynamics and contextual languages have been covered. In the case factors most readily. of Latin, a substantial amount of pragmatic However, textual material from the past research contemporary with or predating the exhibits specific features that require a volume widely recognised as inaugurating modified methodology. Unsurprisingly, a pragmatic research on older texts40 did not
34 Jucker 1994, 534; Jacobs & Jucker 1995, 10–11, 24; & Fitzmaurice 2007 for the latter approach. Mey 2001, 8–10; Verschueren 2009. 38 Jacobs & Jucker 1995, 13. 35 Taavitsainen & Jucker 2015, 15. 39 Jacobs & Jucker 1995, 11. 36 Huang 2015, 211–216. 40 E.g. Pinkster 1987; Jones 1991; Risselada 1993; 37 E.g. Traugott 2004 for the former, and Taavitsainen Toth 1994; Kroon 1995; Pinkster 1996; Hilton 122 Šime Demo attract much attention from the early historical understood otherwise than in the context pragmatists.41 of the cultures in which they are inextricably Although the pragmatic aspects of Latin embedded; so language and culture are have since gained serious consideration among studied together.45 linguists, the majority of these efforts – not unlike Latin linguistics in general – have been This view is related to D. Hymes’s notion limited to its ancient varieties.42 As almost of communicative competence, which, in no corresponding work with regard to later the late 1960s, marked a rejection of the periods of the language has been undertaken, Chomskyan concept of linguistic competence the great majority of Latin texts are still in isolated from context.46 It comprises an ability need of this kind of treatment.43 Moreover, to use language appropriately in any given the investigation of the pragmatic aspects of context.47 Thus a person could have linguistic Early Modern Latin might yield particularly competence in Latin, but a full communicative interesting results for at least two reasons.44 competence only in Early Modern Latin. Firstly, during the Early Modern period, Renaissance humanist authors were convinced Latin was part of a sociolinguistic ecosystem that they were using the same language as their that was unlike the one it had inhabited ancient models. But, though it was structurally during classical antiquity and the Middle the same idiom, functionally it was a separate Ages. Its domains of use were remodelled, entity. For example, if we were to invent a a new set of motives for using it emerged, time machine and take Cicero to the early and the linguistic and social background of Cinquecento, for the humanists this would those who employed it were different. When probably be a dream come true. But Cicero, the same grammatical structure is shared by although flawlessly competent in grammar, two separate cultures, the discrepancies are would be in many ways communicatively extremely relevant for the study of language. illiterate. Until well socialised, he could not As J. Lyons puts it: have got many of his Renaissance hosts’ jokes and hints or Christian references, or known Particular languages are associated when to use Latin at all.48 historically with particular cultures; the Renaissance controversies over the desired languages provide the key to the associated level of purism in Latin – most notably cultures, and especially to their literature; illustrated in Erasmus’ Ciceronianus (1528) – the languages themselves cannot be fully were in great part driven by exploration of the
1997. See also Handius 1829–1845, or even Tursel- rather than “Neo-Latin.” By this I want to include in linus 1598, and for Ancient Greek Devarius 1588! consideration all Latin texts produced in the period, The milestone volume of historical pragmatics is even those resisting humanist reform of the lan- Jucker (ed.) 1995. guage. Furthermore, “Early Modern Latin” is more 41 Helsinki Corpus of English Texts (1984–1991) is re- consistent with the well-established term “Medieval peatedly labelled the first diachronic corpus (see e.g. Latin” and the less established but felicitous “ancient Taavitsainen & Jucker 2015, 10), although Thesaurus Latin.” Additionally, there are analogous terms for Linguae Graecae (1972–) is much older. chronologically parallel phenomena: “Early Modern 42 Recently, a volume devoted to pragmatics of clas- English,” “Early Modern Spanish,” and the like. sical languages was published (Denizot & Spevak 45 Lyons 1981, 324. (eds.) 2017). In the title the modifier “ancient” is 46 Yamashita & Noro 2004, 166. connected only to Greek, but in reality it applies to 47 Chomsky himself later accepted the notion of Latin as well. pragmatic competence as opposed to grammati- 43 There are exceptions: see for example Ramminger cal competence, though still maintaining the idea 2016 for an implicitly pragmatic case study in po- of the grammar’s independence from the context liteness-related early modern distinction for tu/vos. (Chomsky 1980, 224). 44 In referring to Latin of the Early Modern Period, 48 For a discussion of the Renaissance need for new I use the chronological label “Early Modern Latin” words and meanings see Blatt 1975–1976. Getting Help from a Daughter 123 possibilities for faithful replication of ancient be turned against them particularly intensely Latin in new contexts. As strict Ciceronian at the end of the twentieth century.52 Analysis language could not have been capable at the pragmatic level could reveal additional of satisfying all the functional needs of innovations, both conscious and unconscious, modern communities, more relaxed solutions reflecting interactions among the texts and the prevailed. Viewed in this way, ancient Latin is circumstances of their creation. Establishing functionally closer to Hellenistic Greek than such rapports has traditionally been considered to Early Modern Latin, which, in turn, is more to be the concern of philology. tightly related to its chronological peers – for As the last point of the present section, it example, Early Modern High German.49 seems useful to address two crucial features The second reason is related to philology of Early Modern Latin that set it apart from more directly. The phrase “early modern all other languages that have been explored by philology” in the title of this paper is historical pragmatics, as well as from ancient deliberately ambiguous. It can mean either (especially substandard) Latin. the philological investigation of early modern Due to the specific conditions of its texts, or philology as practised by early modern existence, Early Modern Latin does not people. Renaissance philology is a rare example display a linear historical development. It is an (comparable to the cases of Hebrew and extremely conservative language, and at certain Sanskrit) of a widespread concern with texts points in time it can be even said to move written in an ancient, dead language together backward – humanist linguistic reform, for with an imitation of that particular language example, reverted it to the standard that existed as the metalanguage of the analysis. As more before the Middle Ages, while ecclesiastic, distant periods tend to be more interesting to administrative, and scientific use retained (and philologists,50 early modern researchers aimed occasionally revived) many features that were to analyse Latinity of the ancient period. In once shunned by literary more elaborated the same vein, modern philological attention works. As it was learned exclusively in artificial has turned to early modern philologists: their settings, the development of its properties at language, and that of their contemporaries, various points in time and space depended on has become the object of investigation, a set of complex factors, causing a collapse of and they are seen as equal participants in the strictly diachronic view. Consequently, the the overall development of Latin. The research methodology cannot unconditionally metadiscourse of Latin humanism can be refer to diachronic axis; more often than not, weighted linguistically against the discourses it other elements, such as text type, will be of aimed to address.51 In terms of grammar and critical importance. On the other hand, since vocabulary, the humanists’ weapons came to the passing of time still bears some relevance
49 Prominent Indologist and theorist of philology tion of ancient texts (e.g. Pollock 2014). Sheldon Pollock, whom I quoted near the begin- 50 Pollock 2014, 400. ning of this paper, learned through first-hand ex- 51 See e.g. den Haan (ed.) 2016. Metadiscourse is perience how far-reaching the consequences of partly dealt with in a branch of pragmatics called differing concepts of cultural competence can be. metapragmatics (Verschueren 2009, 22). For exam- Motivated chiefly by disagreements about current ple, early modern Latin authors frequently display political issues, in early 2016 a group of Indian their awareness of the status of the words they scholars opposed his appointment as the chief used, always measuring them against pragmatically editor of a newly established series of bilingual edi- motivated standards (e.g. when signalling switches tions of classical Indian texts (Jaschik 2016). One to modern languages by vulgo, or introducing taboo of the main arguments was an outlandish idea that words by s. v. (v.), or attaching labels like improprie). Western academics cannot competently deal with 52 Most steadily by T. Tunberg in a series of articles Indian heritage. Ironically (and to the point), Pol- published between 1988 and 2001, mainly in the lock himself had extensively written about the im- journal Humanistica Lovaniensia. portance of present-day contexts in the interpreta- 124 Šime Demo on a global level even for Early Modern Latin, published in 1871: “Che crede secondo le rette it is necessary in the historical pragmatic dottrine della religione cattolica.”55 However, analysis to combine pragmaphilological and towards the end of the Early Modern Period, diachronic approaches. a new use emerged and became common, Finally, while historical linguistics views even among the members of the opposed spoken language as the primary locus of religious camps, to the effect that now the linguistic change, which then percolates into term regularly refers to certain Eastern and the written texts,53 in Early Modern Latin Oriental Christian denominations that have this state of affairs is reversed: lacking native the word included in the official name of their users, spoken Latin is secondary to its written respective churches (for example, the Greek form. Still, some text types tend to have a Orthodox Church). Let this be “naming” (N) higher degree of immediate communicativity use.56 and can be analysed as reflecting more closely The term did not in fact undergo semantic direct, spoken conversation: these include narrowing: both before and after the shift, theatrical plays, letters, court transcripts, both uses coexisted. What changed is that didactic colloquia, bureaucratic interviews, previously people used it only relatively, in and the like. Their investigation is relatively referring to their own denomination, while more comparable to the historical pragmatic later the use specific to Eastern/Oriental research on modern languages. Christians – that is, D (which for them happens to be N as well) – became a technical Example: orthodoxus from D-use to N-use term among the non-members, consequently It seems appropriate to round off the present losing its theological charge in this particular discussion by observing the interplay of use (but only for the outsiders, of course). contextual factors and language development The OED registers 1679 as the year of through an example. Differing and often the first N-use of the term “Orthodox conflicting uses of various terms are plentiful confession,” but only as a rendering of a on the slippery terrain of religious language. foreign term, and 1772 as the year of its first A case in point is the Latin word orthodoxus,54 independent appearance in an English text.57 with its derivatives and equivalents in modern Samuel Johnson’s Dictionary of 1755 does languages. The term, originally coming from not have it.58 The Grimm Wörterbuch (1838– Greek, means, roughly, “of the right opinion,” 1961) even lacks an entry for “orthodox.”59 and has been used by various religious The fifth edition of Weigand’s German communities, each of which, of course, dictionary (1909–1910) has the word, but maintains its own belief as the “right” one. still not the N-use.60 The third edition of We can call this use “doctrinal” (D). Note, for Larousse’s Nouveau dictionnaire de la langue example, the main definition of “Ortodosso” française (published in 1856) does not include in Tommaseo’s Dizionario, in the volume the use, but his Grand dictionnaire universel du
53 Taavitsainen & Jucker 2015, 9. thodox Marxism,” or “She is an orthodox philolo- 54 In what follows I will, as a rule, write the word ortho- gist” (?!)). Here I focus only on specific use related doxus without quotation marks, because it is treated to Christianity. A somewhat analogous case is pre- as an abstract concept under discussion. This also sented by the term catholicus – although it means applies to its derivatives and modern language “universal” and has been claimed by various Chris- equivalents. Other words and phrases taken from tian denominations, the association with the Ro- the relevant literature will be given within quotation man Catholic Church has prevailed. marks. 57 Proffitt (ed.),s . v. ‘Orthodox.’ 55 Fusi (a cura di), Tommaseo Online, s.v. “Ortodosso.” 58 Besalke (ed.). 56 The term can be used for other religious (e.g. Or- 59 Burch (ed.). thodox Jews) and non-religious concepts (e.g. “or- 60 Weigand 1910, 348–349. Getting Help from a Daughter 125
XIXe siècle (1866–1890) does have it.61 As for not necessarily exclusively), the meaning of Italian, Tommaseo 1871 indicates the use, “orthodox” in a particular instance can be still not regarding it universal: “Ortodossi correctly determined only after examination intitolansi i Greci divisi dalla Chiesa di Roma” of the context in which it appears.”65 In terms (my emphasis).62 Vocabolario of the Crusca, of linguistic analysis, we are inevitably in the first published in 1612, introduces the lemma domain of pragmatics. “ortodosso” as late as 1923 within the fifth Domains of context that can have edition (1863–1923), acknowledging the use influence on how a word is used normally as universally accepted (taking a step further overlap, or are concentrically embedded with respect to Tommaseo), but displaying within one another. In what follows we will an outright traditional Roman Catholic observe how individual contextual factors perspective: “Oggi communemente si usa per might have directed the emergence of the Che segue la religione dei Russi e dei Greci N-use of orthodoxus. Also, where they can be scismatici” (my emphasis).63 shown to connect these factors and linguistic Leaving aside the details of the complex practice, bits of pragmatic theory introduced history of the term, we can summarise that in earlier will be reintroduced. the period between roughly the seventeenth Early modern use of orthodoxus in the Roman and the nineteenth centuries, the N-use of the Church is aligned with the initial D-use of the term emerged in major European languages term. Symptomatic for this period is the use and was codified in the dictionaries by the in Leo Allatius, Graecia orthodoxa (1652–1659), first decades of the twentieth century. where orthodoxa is implied to mean “agreeing Now we turn to the trajectory of the with our [Roman Catholic] orthodoxy.” It is word in Latin – more precisely, its use in the hard to say when the word was first employed Roman Catholic Church, the main preserver in official Catholic writings to refer to what we and developer of Cicero’s language after it know as Eastern/Oriental orthodoxy, but this went out of fashion in most domains. N-use use is not found in major Church documents is absent from the dictionaries of Latin that (conciliar records, apostolic constitutions, cover the periods earlier than the twentieth apostolic letters, encyclicals, motu proprio) century, but had entered them by its end.64 before the twentieth century. Trends in the use of the word orthodoxus and The end of the Early Modern period is its equivalents in modern languages have been characterised by all-encompassing cultural governed by various contextual factors, which changes embodied in a set of concepts are only vaguely hinted at in the dictionaries such as secularism, Enlightenment, religious and which cannot be fully described in relativism, and individualism. Theological terms of denotational semantic content. As D-use of orthodoxy-related phenomena Encyclopaedia Britannica puts it (about D-use): was much less relevant from the irreligious “Because almost every Christian group viewpoint, which increasingly gained believes that it holds the true faith (though prominence. As the influence of the religious
61 Larousse 1856, 396; Larousse 1874, 1513. reasons, it took a while until this linguistic change, 62 Fusi (a cura di), s.v. “Ortodosso.” which in modern languages did take place in the 63 Fanfani & Biffi (a cura di),s .v. “ortodosso.” Early Modern Period, found its way into Latin. 64 E.g. Bartal 1901 (no N-use); Egger et al. 1997; del 65 Pappas, Th. (ed.), s. v. “Orthodox (religious doc- Col 2007. The twentieth century, of course, does trine).” Cf. Krebs 1843, 563: “Diesen Begriff not belong to the Early Modern Period, and Latin verbindet man freilich heutzutage nicht mit dem of this period is more properly labelled Modern Worte, indem ohnehin ein Jeder seinen Glauben für or Contemporary Latin. However, the purpose of den wahren, und was er glaubt, für die vera Christi the example is to show how, for specific contextual doctrina hält.” 126 Šime Demo hierarchies in society decreased, their specific political pamphlet Épisode de l’histoire de Russie: usage presented less of an obstacle to the Les faux Démétrius (1853) by Prosper Mérimée introduction and spread of the theologically (for the word orthodoxie), and the ethnographic discharged N-use. Furthermore, political book La Grèce contemporaine (1854) by Edmond circumstances during the eighteenth century About (for orthodoxe).68 On the other hand, the included the cultural and diplomatic opening English Historical Book Collection at Sketch of Russia towards the West during the reigns Engine (containing EEBO, ECCO, and the of Peter the Great and Catherine the Great, Evans corpus) displays the first (and only) use which made the Russian Orthodox Church of “Greeke Orthodox Church” in a religious more visible and plausibly helped the gradual polemic work published in 1627; however, the westward introduction of its endonym. For immediate context and the remaining ten uses example, the 1772 use from the OED is attested in the same book of the word orthodox show in a book entitled The Rites and Ceremonies of the that this is in fact a blend of N-use and D-use.69 Greek Church in Russia, written by cleric John The progression of the N-use by the Glen King, chaplain to the British Factory Roman Catholic Church can be followed in Saint Petersburg, an organisation which in ASS/AAS, which has been published was instrumental in promoting economic yearly since 1865. We first find it during cooperation between the two countries. The the papacy of Pius X (1906–1914), in the title page of the book displays a medal bearing writings of the Sacred Congregation of the Catherine’s image. Council and the Roman Rota concerning The type of discourse (e.g. conversational the validity of interconfessional marriages. situation for oral interchanges, text type for The Congregation plainly N-uses the terms writings) also sets conditions for the use of “Ecclesia orthodoxa” and “Episcopo graeco a word.66 Religious, bureaucratic, literary, orthodoxo,” although in the same document colloquial, and other domains favour v we find a D-use.70 The use here is closely uses of certain words, especially if they are tied to dealing with a cultural scheme: for emotionally or ideologically loaded. For the the Church, marriage is a strictly defined reasons listed above, early N-uses were much frame whose contracting and management more likely to appear in journal reports, essays, is determined by an established script. In and generally secular texts, specifically those marriages wherein spouses belong to differing that used to deal with Eastern regions, than confessions, divergent schemes collide and in ecclesiastical or notably official Church the Church has to deal with such situations in documents. This is confirmed by the available a practical and agreeable way. This is therefore evidence from various languages: although an appropriate domain in which to open up religious documents consistently use the term towards a more neutral use of dogmatic terms. throughout the period, the earliest examples of It is therefore not surprising that the N-use N-use are predominantly secular. Thus the first – already established in non-religious texts – instances of “Orthodoxe Kirche” used in this first enters the ecclesiastical discourse at this way that I was able to find in DT are found technical level, only later, if ever, percolating in articles in the Augsburg Allgemeine Zeitung into weightier, dogmatic documents. (1840).67 In French, the early examples of N-use The transition was by no means abrupt. In include quotes from the pseudo-historical this early period, Sacra Rota admits the N-use
66 The litterature on the interdependence of linguistic 68 Dendien (éd.). It is the dictionary of the nineteenth features and text types is infinite; an example is Busse and the twentieth century French. 2001, from a collection brought to my attention by 69 Kilgarriff et al. (eds.). The collections contain Eng- the anonymous reviewer of the present paper lish books published between 1473 and 1820. 67 Klein (her.). It covers the period 1473–1927. 70 ASS 1908, 252, 253, 258. Getting Help from a Daughter 127 of orthodoxus, but explains it with the addition Atque exinde confidimus futurum, ut of either “schismaticus” or “haereticus.”71 nationes orientales, cum tot maiorum A little later, Benedict XV omits the old- suorum pietatis, doctrinae, artium, fashioned heretic/schismatic connection, but luculentissima monumenta suis ipsae more often than not accompanies the term oculis conspexerint, re ipsa edoceantur with a meta-linguistic qualifier.72 quanto in honore vera, perennis, legitima The transitional stage continued “orthodoxia” a Romana Ecclesia throughout the first half of the century.73 In habeatur, quantaque religione conservetur, this period, the Roman Church increasingly defendatur, propagetur.74 acknowledges the N-use even in higher- level documents, but still displays strong And thus We hope that the Oriental nations, adherence to its dogmatic tradition. This can seeing with their own eyes the monuments be illustrated by an example, which will also of the piety, the learning, and the arts of show how the particular situation in which the their ancestors, shall be taught how true, use of a word is embedded – the narrowest eternal [and legitimate] orthodoxy was held context zone, which might be an individual in honor in the Roman Church and with encounter, a single verbal exchange, a specific what sacredness it is preserved, defended text, a conversational turn, or an utterance and propagated.75 – must be taken into account if a full understanding of a text is wanted. While wider The document is, normally for an encyclical, cultural and historical factors, such as those directed to the prelates who are in communion discussed above, are best dealt with within with the Holy See. At this point, however, it the perspective of diachronic pragmatics, mentions members of the churches not in here a pragmaphilological approach is most communion with Rome, most of which have appropriate. Combined with other factors, the “Orthodox” in their official names. It is unclear immediate intention of the speaker/writer whether the D-used orthodoxia refers strictly to determines not only the choice between D Roman Catholic orthodoxy in its entirety, or and N-uses, but also the connotation, which only to the parts of the doctrine that are shared can be humorous, ironic, sarcastic, disdainful, by the Roman and Eastern/Oriental churches. euphemistic, or affectionate. One such But the fact that the term is used in connection possibility for orthodoxus and its cognates is a with non-Catholic Christians, and that it is rhetorical blend of D and N-uses, such as the placed between quotation marks,76 along with use of orthodoxia in the following sentence by the ensuing suggestion that they should unite Pius XI, used in a 1928 encyclical: under the Pope,77 reveals a clear reference to the N-use. The use of the epithets “vera,”
71 E.g. “in publicis tabulis ecclesiae orthodoxae (sci- 74 Pius XI 1928a. licet schismaticae) … coram ministro orthodoxo 75 Pius XI 1928b. (scilicet schismatico)” (AAS 1910, 172–173); 76 Not in the English translation given here, but in the “schismaticam puellam graeco-orthodoxam … ritu official Latin version, as well as in Italian and Ger- graeco-orthodoxo” (AAS 1916, 75); “pro matrimo- man translations. niis haereticorum seu orthodoxorum … haereticae 77 “... ut sperare aequum est ... quidni Orientalium ple- nempe graecae-orthodoxae religionis” (AAS 1916, rique ... ad optatissimam gestiant redire unitatem, 77). quae ... in uno ovili sub uno Pastore consociandos 72 “Orientalibus tum unitis tum orthodoxis qui appel- integra atque aperta fidei professione fulciatur?” lantur” (AAS 1917, 532), but also “Ecclesia Ortho- (Pius XI 1928a). “May We not hope, that … the doxa Graeco-Slavica” (AAS 1918, 6). greater number of Orientals … will desire to return 73 See also Italian examples: “Vescovi cattolici ed or- to that Christian unity maintained by a full profes- todossi” (AAS 1930, 92); “confessione chiamata sion of faith … united in One flock under One ‘ortodossa’” (AAS 1949, 9); “Chiese Ortodosse – Shepherd?” (Pius XI 1928b). This statement (a come si dicono” (AAS 1959, 9). representative, in speech-act terminology) is indi- 128 Šime Demo
“perennis,” and “legitima” for “orthodoxia” is In Latin preparatory documents for the pleonastic and flouts the Gricean cooperative Second Vatican Council (1962–1965), as well principle, because orthodoxy is in any case as in synodal transcripts, the term orthodoxus is “true,” “eternal,” and “legitimate.”78 In a very regularly used for Eastern/Oriental Christians subtle way, the Pope alludes to his own (and extra communionem. Here it appears along with the official Catholic) conviction that Eastern the D-use introduced only sporadically by orthodoxy, notwithstanding its name, is not as qualifiers such as “sic dictos” or placed within “vera,” “perennis,” and “legitima” as it would scare quotes. In the documents issued by be if those communities united with the the Council (constitutions, declarations, and Roman Church. These additional messages decrees), orthodoxus is used once (D-wise),80 can be expressed in terms of implicatures in a and Orthodox Christians are regularly called similar way to the example taken from Terence. “orientales seiuncti” or “fratres seiuncti.” In The second half of the twentieth the 1970s, the period of Paul VI – the Pope century witnessed the advance of mutual who famously met (and warmly hugged) the understanding and respect among religious Greek patriarch Athenagoras – N-use appears communities, which has taken the shape of regularly in official Church documents, the modern ecumenical movement. In the new without qualifiers. In semasiological terms, circumstances of direct and friendly dialogue, the new use of the word became stabilised to religious leaders are no longer free to use a high degree. politically incorrect, impolite, face-threatening Although the unqualified N-use of expressions such as “heretics,” “schismatics” orthodoxus has since been established at or “splitters”: these have become taboo the highest levels in Roman Church (e.g. in relations among major denominations. “Ecclesiae orthodoxae” and “orthodoxi” in That schisms came about is acknowledged the Catechism of John Paul II of 1997)81, the and grieved over, but the guilt is now more terminology is still inconsistent: one also finds evenly distributed, modifying the scheme of lengthy circumlocutions, such as “membr[a] what orthodoxus represented and, as a result, Ecclesiarum orientalium quae plenam cum its connotations. Even in its internal affairs, Ecclesia catholica communionem non the Roman Church tends to avoid the terms, habent” (Codex Iuris Canonici 1983)82 and or uses them in a very general way. They are “christifidel[es] Ecclesiarum orientalium qui however freely employed when referring to plenam cum Ecclesia catholica communionem the extinct divisions of Christianity (such as non habe[a]nt” (Pope Francis in 2016).83 These Gnostics, Pelagians, the Bosnian Church, or are all ways of coping onomasiologically with Glasites) because, as a rule, there is nobody the new politeness standards. now to be offended by them.79 Consequently, We can add here briefly that the differences the D-use of orthodoxus can no longer be can be affected by the situation in individual insisted upon in the same way as was possible languages. Thus in both Latin and English, up to the nineteenth century. the D-use of orthodox(us), both religious
rect, disguised in the form of a rhetorical question. tive than is required.”), or the maxim of relevance Indeed, for potential readers who are members of (“Be relevant.”). the Eastern/Oriental Churches (not the primary 79 For example, in Franciscus 2013 and Ladaria & addressees of the document), this sentence has an Morandi 2018, official Roman Catholic documents, additional layer of indirectness: for them, it can be Pelagianism and Gnosticism are referred to as “her- understood as a speech act of invitation (falling un- esies.” der the category of directives). 80 Paulus VI et al. 1964, § 66. 78 According to Grice 1975, 45–46, the maxims in- 81 Ioannes Paulus II 1997, § 247, § 838, § 2066. volved are either one of the two maxims of quanti- 82 Ioannes Paulus II 1983, canon 844, § 3 ty (“Do not make your contribution more informa- 83 Franciscus 2016, amendment to canon § 1116. Getting Help from a Daughter 129 and non-religious, is still frequent and not Early modern philology deals with the texts unusual. Other languages have had different written in or heavily referring to all three developments. For example, during the Early periods, each of which sets a basic framework Modern period, Croatian and Serbian D-used that in turn contains factors that have been two calques interchangeably: pravov(j)eran able to block or trigger creative uses of the (who believes rightly)84 and pravoslavan (who term. Pragmatics, rather than semantics, is celebrates rightly), the “celebrate” part being a capable of and responsible for explaining mistranslation.85 With the ramification of uses, the relationship between particular instances pravov(j)eran specialised for the D-use (along of the word and these factors. Philological with the internationalism ortodoksan), while commentary and translation (especially in a pravoslavan has been employed exclusively language that differs in this respect from the in the N-use ever since. This prevents any language of the original text) must keep in homonymy and confusion, but also limits sight the same details that are the object of a the linguistic potential of these words. For pragmatics analysis. example, the pun in the name of the Serbian Celtic folk band Orthodox Celts (D: “we play Conclusion real Celtic music,” N: “we are members of a The emergence of the N-use of orthodoxus in (typically) Orthodox nation”) would not be modern European languages overlaps with possible if the name was in Serbian.86 the transition from Early to Late Modernity, In summary, viewed in a wider historical and is, in fact, one of its symptoms. Such perspective, the use of orthodoxus in relation pragmatically motivated linguistic changes to Eastern/Oriental Christians can be divided point to extralinguistic circumstances – in this into three stages: particular case, the end of an era and the start of a new one. On the other hand, the fact that • Antiquity: when the main churches in the last two centuries religious terminology were united and only minor movements within Latin texts was used predominantly by separated, the D-use was by and large the officials and other members of the Roman identical across the Christian mainstream Catholic Church has had crucial repercussions • Middle Ages and the Early Modern on the developments within that language. Period: when the Oriental Orthodox (from Because of the ideological positions of the the fifth century), Eastern Orthodox (from Church, the change came about gradually and the eighth century) and the Catholic and was not fully established until deep into Late Protestant churches (from the sixteenth Modernity. century) each started to claim the only Pragmatics examines phenomena that proper orthodoxy as their own, the D-uses are interesting to philology, but through a diverged somewhat different lens. It has developed • Early and Late Modern Periods: the a rich set of analytical tools that can be put N-use for Orthodox Christianity emerged to use in work that has traditionally been and began to compete with the D-use in the concern of philology. The two fields the West overlap inasmuch as both are interested in the relationship between language use and its
84 See “orthodoxus Pravo verni” in a dictionary by I. (Vitezović 2010, 322). Belostenec (c. 1594–1675), written in 1660s, fin- 85 See “Catholica fides … pravoslavna verra” in ished and published in 1740 (Bellostenecz 1740, Vitezović 2010, 71. 851) and “Orthodoxus. … pravoverni” in a manu- 86 See their website Orthodox Celts. script dictionary by P. Ritter Vitezović (1652–1713) 130 Šime Demo context. If philologists are willing to consider eventually build the synergy essential for the enriching and modifying their traditional common task of making sense of texts. methods by the scientific apparatus developed within pragmatics, but also to invest some Šime Demo energy into showing that philology has been Associate Professor doing the pragmatic work for millennia, the University of Zagreb two fields can inform each other, and can [email protected]
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
AAS Acta Apostolicae Sedis – Commentarium officiale EEBO Early English Books Online ASS Acta Sanctae Sedis OED Oxford English Dictionary DT Deutsches Textarchiv TLF Trésor de la Langue Française ECCO Eighteenth-Century Collections Online
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Acta Apostolicae Sedis – Commentarium officiale,
Allan, K. Blatt, F. 2006 “Connotation.” In: Brown, K. (ed.), Encyclopedia 1975-1976 “Die letzte Phase der lateinischen Sprache,” of Language and Linguistics, Vol. III, Amsterdam Archivum Latinitatis medii aevi 40, 65–75. [etc.], 41–44. Burch, Th. (hrsg.) Bach, K. Deutsches Wörterbuch von Jacob Grimm und Wilhelm 2005 “Context ex machina.” In: Gendler Zsabó, Z. Grimm,
Chomsky, N. Formigari, L. 1966 Cartesian Linguistics, New York & London. 2004 A History of Language Philosophies, Amsterdam & Philadelphia. Chomsky, N. 1980 Rules and Representations, New York. Franciscus 2013 “Litterae encyclicae Lumen fidei,” Franciscus Colombat, B. < Litterae encyclicae,
Huang, Y. Linguistics, Vol. XII, Amsterdam [etc.], 1–2. 2015 “Pragmatics: Language use in context.” In: Al- lan, K. (ed.), The Routledge Handbook of Linguis- Kilgarriff, A. et al. (eds.) tics, London & New York, 205–220. Sketch Engine,
Ioannes Paulus II Koerner, K. 1997 “Catechismus Catholicae Ecclesiae,” Documenta 1997 “Linguistics vs philology: Self-definition of Catholica Omnia,
Melville Bolling, G. Pius XI 1929 “Linguistics and philology,” Language 5, 27–32. 1928b “Rerum Orientalium: On the Promotion of Oriental Studies,” Papal Encyclicals Online, Mey, J. L.
Morpurgo Davies, A. Pollock, S. 1998 History of Linguistics. Volume IV: Nineteenth-Cen- 2014 “Philology in three dimensions,” Postmedieval: a tury Linguistcs, London & New York. journal of medieval cultural studies 5/4, 398–413.
Nerlich, B. Proffitt, M. (ed.) 2009 “History of Pragmatics.” In: Mey, J. (ed.), Con- Oxford English Dictionary,
Pappas, Th. (ed.) Sperber, D. Encyclopaedia Britannica,
Language and Linguistics, Vol. VII, Amsterdam Watkins, C. [etc.], 206–219. 1981 “Language, culture, or history?” In: Masek, C. S. et al. (eds.), Papers from the Parasession on Language Toth, A. and Behavior, Chicago, 238–248. 1994 “Thema, Topik und Koda im Lateinischen. Zu einigen syntaktischen, semantischen und prag- Watkins, C. matischen Problemen der lateinischen Gram- 1990 “What Is Philology?” Comparative Literature Stud- matik,” Papers on Grammar 4, 177–210. ies 27/1, 21–25.
Traugott, E. C. Weigand, F. L. K. 2004 “Historical pragmatics.” In: Horn, L. R. & 1910 Deutsches Wörterbuch. Zweiter Band: L bis Z, Ward, G. (eds.), The Handbook of Pragmatics, Ox- Gießen. ford, 538–561. Yamashita, H. & Noro, K. Turner, J. 2004 “Kommunikative Kompetenz – Sprachliche 2014 Philology: The Forgotten Origins of the Modern Hu- Kompetenz / Communicative Competence – manities, Princeton. Linguistic Competence.” In: Ammon, U. et al. (eds.), Sociolinguistics: An International Handbook Tursellinus, H. of the Science of Language and Society = Soziolinguis- 1598 De particulis Latinae orationis libellus utilissimus, Ro- tik: Ein internationales Handbuch zur Wissenschaft mae. von Sprache und Gesellschaft, Vol. I, Amsterdam & Philadelphia, PA, 165–171. Verschueren, J. 2009 “Introduction: The pragmatic perspective.” In: Yule, G. Verschueren, J. & Östman, J.-O. (eds.), Key No- 1996 Pragmatics, Oxford. tions for Pragmatics, Amsterdam & Philadelphia, 1–27. Zamora, J. Z. 2006 “Renaissance Linguistics: Spanish Tradition.” Vitezović, P. R. In: Brown, K. (ed.), Encyclopedia of Language and 2010 Lexicon Latino-Illyricum. Svezak drugi: prijepis i Linguistics, Vol. XI, Amsterdam [etc.], 544–549. obrada, [ed. Marotti, B.], Zagreb.