Articles From The Classical Teacher
The
Language that Rose from the Dead
by
Rev. Randall Paine
"A language must die to be immortal"
When
it comes to expressing the eternal and immutable truths of
the Christian faith, the only good language is a dead language.
Chesterton
once made a disarming retort to the customary detraction of
Latin as a "dead" language. He simply remarked that
to say this is not a detraction at all, for quite in contrast
to the detractor's intentions, it throws into profile the
clear ascendancy of Latin over all the "living" languages
of today. "It is the question of a dead language and
a dying language. Every living language is a dying language,
even if it does not die. Parts of it are perpetually
perishing or changing their sense; there is only one escape
from that flux; and a language must die to be immortal."
Yes, indeed, pagan Latin eventually
bit the dust, and the Western mind turned with relish to the
new throng of spawning tongues which began to mottle the linguistic
map of Europe. Among them, the intense lucidity of French,
the irresistible bounce of Italian, the vehement velocity
of Spanish, and the nasal sincerity of Portuguese entered
upon their long evolutions, each of them drawing a thousand
voices of secular discourse into their new constellations
of emphases. But the golden tongue of Cicero was on
its way out, and along with the Empire whose body was dismembered
and put to seed for a new garden of nations, that ancient
tongue was almost buried too.
But then came one of those bizarre
turns in human history that makes us wonder just how human
it really is. After Rome had lost its imperial dignity
to Byzantium, and furthermore taken the moral nosedive of
soaking its arenas in Christian blood, it would have surprised
no one had the last dying syllables of the Empire's language
remained inaudible to history. But at the opening of
the 5th Century, the idiom that once vibrated on the tongue
of Cato was strongly and brilliantly ringing out again and
in the very midst of the collapsing walls of the Empire.
The Vandals had moved into northern Africa from Spain, and
in twenty years time would sally northwards and sack the imperial
capital itself. Meanwhile, within the African walls
of Hippo, St. Augustine was penning the last chapters of The
City of God and must have looked up from his desk every few
minutes or so, wondering if Genseric's hordes were going to
bring his episcopal residence down on his head. With
the grace of God, he finally brought his book to an end, but
in the interim, the Vandals had also brought Hippo to an end.
Latin
died to the world
This was in 430. Just years before,
St. Jerome had completed his Latin translation of the
Bible, destined to become the most influential Biblical
text ever. St. Jerome did his work largely in Palestine,
as St. Augustine had in Africa. But in Rome itself,
where the Hellenized Jewish converts had arrived with
the Good News from Palestine, many of them turned their
energies to the translation of the Greek Gospel and liturgy
into a Latin the waning Romans could understand. The language was dying, but the souls of those who still
spoke it were nonetheless in need of salvation. |
Roman
civilization went on and died; the last emperor unceremoniously
left the scene in 476. But paradoxically, the
heart of Latin was still beating strongly, and its
conjugations and declinations were carried on the breath
of a new host of talkers.
|
To everyone's surprise, there rose upon the field of this purely
instrumental effort something like a linguistic renaissance,
as a host of prefaces, collects, orations, secrets, and post-communions
grew into what is known to us today as the Leonine Sacramentary.
Roman civilization went on and died; the last emperor unceremoniously
left the scene in 476. But paradoxically, the heart of
the Latin language was still beating strongly, and its conjugations
and declinations were carried on the breath of a new host of
talkers. But there was a difference: for what these men
were talking about was something hitherto unheard of on the
street corners of history, and statements were being made that
no period of Cicero's had even remotely embraced.
This is Chesterton's point. The
Latin language died, indeed, but the death it died it died to
the world. In the small enclave of the Christian Church,
the same language experienced nothing less than a miraculous
resurrection; and the analogy can be pursued to the end.
The bloodless carcass of the language, filled to the skin with
the earthbound schemes of the ancients, could no longer respond
to the soul of paganism; like every merely natural body, the
life that had sustained it was merely mortal. So history
slowly drug it off to the grave, that one more might be added
to the thousand withered tongues of time.
But then came Latin's Easter sunrise;
for after the Gospel of Christ had been rejected by the Jews,
the Prince of the Apostles sealed his witness to the Master
by reddening a hill in Rome we now call the Vatican. And
then, like a hurricane abruptly changing course, the full fury
of Christ's message turned itself suddenly and excitedly upon
this prostrate language of the Romans, and, lifting a hand over
its lifeless heap of words--all of them tongue-tied by centuries
of unanswered questions--it cried out, "Ephphatha!"--and the tongue
was loosed, and Christian Latin began to speak to the world.
|
We will never appreciate the enormous importance of
the Latin language for our Church and our faith until
we grasp the supernatural character of what I have just
described. We grow so limp and woolly in our use
of intellect when anyone scares us with slogans like
"historical conditions" or "cultural coordinates";
we vaguely agree with we know not what and overlook
the most obvious features in the Church's past, such
as this one: in Christ, history itself was conditioned
by God, and nothing, including language, has looked
the same since. |
And
then, like a hurricane abruptly changing course,
the full fury of Christ's message turned itself
suddenly and excitedly upon this prostrate
language of the Romans.
|
|
The Church did not adopt Latin just because it was a ready-made
tool which historical conditions furnished and which she then
appreciatively picked up. It would be as big a lie as
saying that Bach took up the fugue because everyone else was
taking it up, when, in fact, everyone else was dropping it.
The fact that fugues loom so large in the history of music is
in no small way because Bach did pick it up when everyone else
was tired of it; ignoring the "winds of change," he breathed
his own storm of genius into the old form, while the others,
red in the face and with throbbing temples, turned at last to
the tamer challenges of novelty. In the same way, the
Church picked up the discarded morphemes of Latin.
We labor under a particular handicap
when we try to grasp this point today. The churchmen of
the Renaissance, and to a greater extent, the Jesuits of the
Counter-Reformation, were both anxious not to play second fiddle
to the humanists; so they began dragging the paradigms of classical
Latin into the ecclesiastical academies and reluctantly nodded
when the Christian language of St. Augustine and St. Bernard
was demoted beneath the flaunted standards of the ancients.
Not a little of the increasing disaffection
of modern clergy with Latin has to do with their being terrorized
by the tortuous Latin of many Church documents, including the
modern encyclicals, and being made to study Cicero and Virgil
when all they wanted to do was offer Mass. Rather than
enjoying the more accessible prose of many of the Fathers and
the simple Latin of St. Thomas's Summa, the drilling
of the mind in the complexities and subtleties of ancient Latin
was taken as the unavoidable baptism of fire in the Church's
native tongue. And many got predictably burnt out.
Dorothy Sayers thought this was all
wrong, even for grammar school students:
I
do not think it either wise or necessary to cramp the ordinary
pupil upon the Procrustean bed of the Augustan Age, with its
highly elaborate and artificial verse forms and oratory. Post-classical and medieval Latin, which was a living language
down to the end of the Renaissance, is easier and in some
ways livelier; and a study of it helps to dispel the widespread
notion that learning the literature came to a full stop when
Christ was born and only woke up again at the dissolution
of the Monasteries.2
Those who have read long and deeply into the works of St. Augustine,
St. Bernard, or St. Bonaventure, who have memorized a number
of Vulgate Psalms, or perhaps a Pauline passage or two,
and who have learned to appreciate the unique beauty and technical
appropriateness of the old collects and prefaces will know
what Miss Sayers means, and why she means it so energetically.
Classical Latin is indisputably grand, undeniably majestic,
and irrevocably dead; for the Renaissance did not
resurrect it, but only drug the skeletons out of the tombs
and taught us to marvel over the intensely interesting
way the bones are joined together. The classical
scholars may get more or less close to imagining the meat
and feeling the pulse of the language in its true Sitz
im leben, and a few men like Erasmus can certainly make
this sort of thing engaging. But the language is
not living again, neither as it did in antiquity, nor
through the infusion of a new life; for the humanist has
no new life to give. When framed in this unnatural
medium, the simple, sublime assertions and quasi-inspired
neologisms of Christian theology seem to bang about clumsily
amidst all the flourish and measured earnestness of Ciceronian
constructions. |
Classical
Latin is indisputably grand, undeniably majestic, and
irrevocably dead; for the Renaissance did not
resurrect it, but only drug the skeletons out of the
tombs and taught us to marvel over the intensely interesting
way the bones are joined together ... but the language
is not living again ... because the humanists have no
new life to give.
|
Moreover, all this is so time-wasting, for the Christian mysteries
have already forged their own language, and there, as nowhere
else, they unfold their truths not only accurately, but also
naturally. This was St. Augustine's great discovery about the
Latin Bible; for after first turning to it after years of Cicero,
he found the style cropped and barbaric, making him wonder what
crude doctrines were lurking behind such ingenuousness.
Indeed, the Scriptures "seemed to me unworthy of comparison
with the grand style of Cicero." But once he was touched
by the mysteries behind the style, he discovered the reason
for the plainness:
.
. . what I saw was something that is not discovered by the
proud and is not laid open to children; the way in is low
and humble, but inside the vault is high and veiled in mysteries
... these Scriptures would grow up together with a little
child; I, however, thought too highly of myself to become
a little child; I, swollen with pride, I was, in my own eyes,
grown-up.3
Or
in the familiar poetic paraphrase of Herbert:
Humble
we must be, if to heaven we go!
The roof is high there, but the gate is low.
The Christian Latin which we find in the Vulgate, in
St. Augustine and the Latin Fathers, and in the early Sacramentaries
is not just a salvaged Latin, shaken, dusted off, and clumsily
recycled in an age that had lost the inspiration of the days
of Virgil and Horace (which is the Renaissance view of the matter).
It is rather a language reborn through obstetrics irreducible
to ordinary linguistic evolution; and what the literati mistake
for barbaric unsophistication is rather the dignified simplicity
demanded by the mysteries of a God who is Simplicity Itself. The anointment of the Spirit seems to force this Latin to move
about more modestly, with a kind of self-forgetful gait, but
for all this it moves far closer to the hushed world of God's
most intimate secrets.
This is the first claim I should like to make for Christian
Latin, namely that it was the same language that had
"known" the wisdom of Greco-Roman antiquity, but had died
a natural death as that wisdom exhausted its resources.
It then was resurrected from the dead by the supernatural
Truth of Christ. After much malignment, academic
opinion has come to acknowledge this quasi-miracle, especially
after the 19th century researches of Ozanam, Roensch,
Goelzer, and others. |
...Though
Christian Latin was not born with Christianity itself,
it was nonetheless born with Christian theology.
|
The second claim I raise is the first of two consequences of
the first claim, and it is this: though Christian Latin
was not born with Christianity itself, it was nonetheless born
with Christian theology, and thus, not only its characteristic
simplicity (at least when compared with classical Latin), but
also its new world of meanings grew apace with the new understanding
of the faith. Here, certainly, Christian Latin was deeply
beholden to Christian Greek, at least in the early centuries.
Still, the unique powers of Western speculation, starting with
Augustine and one day to climax in the overwhelming Latin edifice
of Aquinas, were fruits borne in the language in which Christian
thought first moved and matured. Within the grammar and
vocabulary of Latin, pious reflections on Christ's revelation
had taken their inaugural steps, fashioned their first conceptual
tools, and demanded of syntax and morphology that they yield
to the sovereign exigencies of the WORD's own Word. All
this made Christian theology and Christian Latin into correlative
realities--each, in turn, a mother to the other.
The third claim I raise is the most
pertinent of all, at least for us who ride on the stampede of
20th century progress. Chesterton had observed that the
only way for a language to be truly living is to die and to
resurrect by the agency of a higher, life-giving force (such
as the Church). The common, vernacular tongues of everyday
life are immersed in the contingencies of time and subject
to the vagaries of the world's currents of change. Words are
dying almost every day, with new ones rising to take their place.
Through the king-of-the-mountain flurries of technological change,
one on the heels of the other, many of our words lose their
targets on the very tip of our tongue.
This has come home to me in a worrisome
way during the last 15 years. Although I am an American,
I have lived all this time overseas and spent most of these
years speaking European languages. Still, I have kept in touch
with my very American, monoglot brother. Very soon I noticed
that he was using new words I had never heard of before.
It even got out of hand when I made my visits; I almost
needed an interpreter. How is it that "bad" can, in some
cases, mean "good," and that today one can only keep up with
a contemporary conversation by hopping onto the carousel of
dizzily evolving computer technology and memorizing its witless
reworkings of dozens of words like "soft," "bit," "floppy,"
"bootstrap," to mention just a few? The new edition of
the Oxford Dictionary of the English Language documents this
overhaul the English tongue has undergone in the last 20 years;
and it does not document increasing profundity or clarity, let
alone consistency.
So--I repeat in a funereal tone--the English
If the truths of the faith are forever new (as they most definitely are), then we should keep them well nested within a language that has already been lifted above this linguistic mortuary we inhabit, invested with some share in the unchanging status of eternity, and thus made dead to this world and alive to another.
|
language is dying and with it, all the other "living" languages of the world. And sometimes they are even splitting in the middle. What is happening to Brazilian Portuguese when compared with continental Portuguese (as I recently experienced firsthand) is an even more dramatic case than American English compared with British. All the spoken languages of the world are undergoing slow deaths, and parts of them are being draped every day in black. But the only reason I bring all this up is the effect it has on our ability to think and talk about immutable doctrines.
If it is true that we are in possession of a supernatural revelation
regarding truths that are not dying, that is, that are rooted
in eternity and not subject to clocks and calendars, then it
stands to reason that they will be imperfectly preserved if
the only receptacles we have are the leaky "old" wineskins of
contemporary idioms. If the truths of the faith are forever
new (as they most definitely are), then we should keep them
well nested within a language that has already been lifted above
this linguistic mortuary we inhabit, invested with some share
in the unchanging status of eternity, and thus made dead to
this world and alive to another. For us in the Western
Church, the forever new wineskin ... has always been Latin,
and if this beverage is to refresh us all the way to eternity,
we had better turn a skeptical eye to all the "new, improved" wineskins being offered us today.
...Certainly we need to speak supernatural
truths in the vernacular as well, but I am afraid we will have
to drink the doctrine fast, for these old wineskins are hardly
better than paper sacks, and the weakness of our fickle contemporary
tongues is tearing leaks in the fabric of the language almost
as fast as we utter our words. Sometimes it is impossible
to find words whose bottoms do not fall right out of them when
you try to put truth into them.
Try, for instance, to put the doctrine
of the Trinity or the Incarnation into modern, American English
without feeling the need of a page of paraphrasing to bring
something close to theological content to the words "person"
and "nature" as we use them today. And when trying to
speak of the substance of the Eucharist, the need will be even
more acute. Without at least a substantial body of Latin
in the background of our memory, all three of these fundamental
notions (and with them, the burden of our faith) will be lost
to the English words they originally generated. The words
will be tossed around by history, and, unable to signify anything
beyond history, they will race out of the past and hasten into
the future; a rendezvous with the present will remain a rare
and puzzling accident.
Latin
Lives in Eternity
The whole glory of Christian Latin
is that it abides in the greatest present tense of all: the
"now" of eternity. Never needing to be up-to-date, it
stands free of the danger of ever getting out-of-date. And we who spend our hours speaking interminably about the
things that pass, must be able to turn in theological reflection
on God's unchanging mysteries, still inspired by a Breath
from the land of the living.

1 G. K. Chesterton, "Some of Our Errors," The Thing (New York: Dodd, Mead &Co., 1930), p. 193.
2 Dorothy Sayers, "The Lost Tools of Learning," National Review, 19 Jan. 1979, p. 94.
3 The Confessions of St. Augustine, trans.,
Rex Warner (New York: Mentor-Omega, 1963), p. 57. Fr.
Randall Paine is a priest of the Archdiocese of Brasilia,
Brazil, and professor of philosophy at the University of Brasilia.
He is the author of The Universe and Mr. Chesterton,
a study of G.K. Chesterton's philosophical thought (Sherwood
Sugden, 1999). This article is taken from the July, 1990
edition of Homiletic and Pastoral Review.
|
|