393

vigiliae christianae 69 (2015) 393-421

brill.com/vc

VigiliaeChristianae

koninklijke brill nv, leiden, 215|doi 10.1163/15700720-12341228

Language Attitudes and Social Connotations in Jerome and Sidonius Apollinaris

Tim DeneckerKU Leuven Faculty of Arts Research Unit French, Italian and Comparative Linguistics, Blijde Inkomststraat 21 bus 3308, B-3000 Leuven, Belgium

[email protected]

Abstract

Jerome of Stridon and Sidonius Apollinaris, two authors particularly sensitive to lan-guages and linguistic differences, frequently evaluate the correctness, adequacy, and aesthetic qualities of classical Latin on the one hand, and of foreign or barbarian languages (Hebrew, Aramaic, or Germanic) on the other. They also evaluate variation within the Latin language, mostly in a negative way. In this paper, I look at Jeromes and Sidonius evaluative statements about languages and language varieties from the socio linguistic perspective of language attitude research. I start by defining the con-cepts of language attitude and social connotations hypothesis, and then proceed to the analysis of linguistic evaluations in Jeromes and Sidonius works. In accordance with the social connotations hypothesis, I argue that these evaluations about lan-guages or language varieties are strongly biased by the socio-cultural stereotypes the authors hold about the speakers of these languages or language varieties.

* This paper is part of a ku Leuven research project investigating the linguistic ideas of early Christian Latin authors. For a general outline, cf. T. Denecker, G. Partoens, P. Swiggers & T. Van Hal, Language Origins, Language Diversity, and Language Classification in Early Christian Latin Authors: Outline of a research project in progress (2011-2015), Historiographia Linguistica, 39 (2012), 429-39. A generous travel grant from the Research FoundationFlanders (fwo) allowed me to work on the subject of this paper with Thorsten Fgen at Durham University (uk). Drafts were presented during seminars for the Department of Classics and Ancient History of Durham University and for the Research Unit French, Italian and Comparative Linguistics of ku Leuven; I am grateful to both audiences for their stimulat-ing questions and suggestions. I am also much indebted to Thorsten Fgen, Robert Hayward, David Hunter, Gert Partoens, Pierre Swiggers, Toon Van Hal, and Joop van Waarden for the valuable remarks they made on various drafts of this paper.

394 Denecker


Keywords

Jerome Sidonius Apollinaris linguistic value judgments language attitudes social connotations hypothesis

1 Theoretical Foundation: Language Attitudes and the Social Connotations Hypothesis

Apart from their obvious communicative and referential functions, languages and language varieties have an important symbolic value. They are markers of identity and bearers of various socio-cultural connotations.1 It is this symbolic value of languages and language varieties that in present-day (socio)linguistics is often investigated in terms of so-called language attitudes. For the present purpose, these language attitudes can be defined as the complex of psycho-social beliefs and feelings one holds about a particular language or language variety, and of ones social acts corresponding to these beliefs and feelings.2 It is clear from this definition that language attitudes are made up of three com-ponents: an affective, a cognitive, and a behavioural one. That is to say, people have emotional preferences for particular languages or language varieties, they hold some (allegedly) rational beliefs about them, and they act in a particular way in certain situations involving linguistic differences or choices.

Language attitude research tries to explain why people evaluate languages or language varieties the way they do. People tend to label languages, dialects, sociolects or idiolects3 as beautiful, elegant, sophisticated, difficult, or logi-cal, or, to the contrary, as ugly, rude, primitive, easy, or underdeveloped. Although many people are aware that these labels may not have a scientific

1 Cf. J. Edwards, Language and Identity: An introduction, Key Topics in Sociolinguistics (Cambridge: cup, 2009), esp. 2, 55.

2 Although much of this theoretical foundation has become commonplace in introductions to language attitude research, I have drawn in particular on P. Garrett, Attitudes to Language, Key Topics in Sociolinguistics (Cambridge: cup, 2010), 19-29. Another relatively recent introduction to language attitude research (including a fine state of the art) is H. Giles & J. Edwards, Attitudes to Language: Past, present and future, in The Linguistics Encyclopedia, ed. K. Malmkjr (Abingdon/New York: Routledge, 2010), 35-40.

3 Cf. the Vier-Stufen-Modell (including four levels ranging from Sprachgruppen, over Einzelsprache and Varietten einer Einzelsprache, to persnlichen Sprachbesitz or Idiolekt) proposed by T. Fgen, Patrii sermonis egestas: Einstellungen lateinischer Autoren zu ihrer Muttersprache. Ein Beitrag zum Sprachbewutsein in der rmischen Antike, Beitrge zur Altertumskunde, 150 (Mnchen/Leipzig: Saur, 2000), 14-5.

395Language Attitudes & Social Connotations in Jerome & Sidonius


basis, such evaluations are pervasive in common thinking about languages and language varieties. Most people have a number of preferred beautiful lan-guages, while at the same time, there are also some languages which they think sound hard or ugly. Likewise, it is very common for people to judge the way a particular group or individual uses language as correct or careful on the one hand, or as incorrect or sloppy on the other.

The basic assumption of language attitude research is that such evaluations are not primarily motivated by an inherent value of the language or language variety itself. From a linguistic point of view, there is nothing inherently beau-tiful or ugly, logical or illogical to a language or language variety. Language atti-tude research starts from the assumption that peoples judgments about the correctness, the adequacy, or the aesthetic quality of a language or language variety are strongly biased by the social connotations or socio-cultural stereo-types people hold about its speakers.4 This is not to say that linguistic differ-ences do not exist; rather, it might be suggested that different languages possess certain salient features to which social connotations are likely to adhere. From the perspective of language attitude research, ones preference for (e.g.) Italian may be inspired by holiday memories or by more general associations with sun, wine and romance, while his/her negative appraisal of (e.g.) certain Slavic languages may be inspired by associations with a cold climate, desolation and militarism. Similarly, a negative evaluation of low-prestige language varieties such as Cockney English is likely biased by ones membership or would-be membership of a higher social class, and by ones concomitant disapproval of lower social classes. I will maintain the commonly used term social connota-tions hypothesis in order to refer to this basic assumption.

4 For a classic discussion of the notions of correctness, adequacy, and aesthetics, and on the social connotations hypothesis as opposed to the inherent value hypothesis, cf. P. Trudgill & H. Giles, Sociolinguistics and Linguistic Value Judgements: Correctness, adequacy and aes-thetics, in Functional Studies in Language and Literature, ed. F. Coppieters & D.L. Goyvaerts (Gent/Antwerpen/Brussel: Story-Scientia, 1978), 167-90 [Repr. in P. Trudgill, On Dialect: Social and geographical perspectives (Oxford: Blackwell, 1983), 201-25]; cf. Edwards, Language and Identity, 66-8. For a seminal discussion of the attitudinal basis for linguistic value judgments, cf. L. Bloomfield, Secondary and Tertiary Responses to Language, Language, 20 (1944), 45-55; cf. H. Giles & A.C. Billings, Assessing Language Attitudes: Speaker evaluation studies, in The Handbook of Applied Linguistics, ed. A. Davies & C. Elder (Oxford: Blackwell, 2004), 187-209 (191); Edwards, Language and Identity, 83.

396 Denecker


2 Methodological Observations

In this paper, I will focus on language attitudes as evidenced in the works of Jerome and of Sidonius Apollinaris. I have chosen to do so (1) because these are two authors with a particular sensitivity to languages and linguistic differences, (2) because the relevant material in these authors works is abundant and thus allows for a systematic treatment,5 and (3) because many analogies can be gathered between the language attitudes evidenced in both authors works. Much of the literary material that I will analyze in this paper has received con-siderable attention in scholarly literature. Most importantly, Jeromes appreci-ation of Hebrew has been discussed by James Barr,6 while Sidonius comments on the classical language in fifth-century Gaul have been analyzed by Michel Banniard.7 However, Barrs and Banniards treatments differ significantly from mine in purpose and approach. Barr concentrates on Jeromes appraisal of the literary possibilities of Hebrew as compared to those of Latin, and Banniard attempts to reconstruct the linguistic reality of fifth-century Gaul.8 I will focus on the level of metalinguistic reflection by making an attempt to extrapolate language attitudes in the works of Jerome and Sidonius Apollinaris, and by trying to explain why both authors evaluate particular languages or language varieties in the way they do.

Before applying the social connotations hypothesis in the analysis of ancient literary texts, I would like to add a number of methodological con-siderations.9 It is a well-known issue of language attitude research that what

5 Other early Christian Latin authors linguistic value judgments, which are generally more dispersed in nature, will be discussed in my doctoral dissertation, due to be finished in 2015.

6 J. Barr, St. Jeromes Appreciation of Hebrew, Bulletin of the John Rylands Library, 49 (1966), 281-302.

7 M. Banniard, La rouille et la lime: Sidoine Apollinaire et la langue classique en Gaule au Ve sicle, in De Tertullien aux Mozarabes. Tome I: Antiquit tardive et christianisme ancien (iiie-vie sicles), ed. L. Holtz & J.-C. Fredouille, Collection des tudes Augustiniennes: Srie Antiquit, 132 (Paris: Institut dtudes Augustiniennes, 1992), 413-27.

8 Banniard, La rouille et la lime, 414: Nous voudrions dabord scruter [...] deux des plus cl-bres testimonia que nous ait laisss Sidoine. Cits et exploits partout juste titre, ils con-stituent des sources remarquables pour lhistoire de la langue et de la culture latines dans la Gaule de cette poque: ils pourraient se rvler dcisifs sil savrait possible den lever les ambiguts. Nous voulons parler en premier lieu de son allusion la corruption du latin parl; en second lieu, de sa rfrence aux progrs langagiers de laristocratie.

9 Similar observations on the historical and documentary reliability of ancient literary texts as sources for linguistic facts and metalinguistic reflections have been made by M. Banniard, Viva Voce: Communication crite et communication orale du IVe au ixe sicle en Occident latin,



people overtly say about languages or language varieties and about their users, does not necessarily align with the attitudes they privately hold. Since the 1960s, sociolinguists have been applying an indirect approach, consisting of various deceptive techniques, in order to counter this issue.10 However, due to the historical distance separating us from Jerome and Sidonius, we have to confine ourselves to a less sophisticated approach, viz. to what is called a soci-etal treatment analysis or content analysis of Jeromes and Sidonius overt statements about languages or language varieties and their users. This type of analysis is commonly attributed only preliminary value in the study of lan-guage attitudes, but it is the only one applicable in this case.11

In addition, it is in literary textsoften in the self-reflexive text types of literary prefaces and lettersthat I will investigate these language attitudes.12 Accordingly, language attitudes will often appear to be combined with, and influenced by literary commonplaces and by conventions of genre. At times, the two authors appear to have enlarged or minimized certain aspects of their attitudes, in giving shape to their own profiles. For this reason, I will start my discussion of each author with a brief outline of their respective socio-cultural and linguistic profiles. In my analyses, I will also pay special attention to the formal aspect of language attitudes, viz. to the specific words and images used by the authors in order to evaluate languages and language varieties.

Collection des tudes Augustiniennes: Srie Moyen-Age et Temps Modernes, 25 (Paris: Institut des tudes Augustiniennes, 1992), 50 [Lieux communs et validit historique]; T. Fgen, Patrii sermonis egestas, 23-6 [Der Aussagewert von Spracheinstellungen im anti-ken Kontext]; and J.N. Adams, Bilingualism and the Latin Language (Cambridge: cup, 2003), 9-15 [lite and sub-lite bilingualism: Anecdotal evidence and its shortcomings]; and cf. n. 12 on commonplaces and literary conventions.

10 Garrett, Attitudes, 39-46.11 Garrett, Attitudes, 46-51 (51).12 On literary conventions in prose prefaces, cf. T. Janson, Latin Prose Prefaces: Studies in

literary conventions, Acta Universitatis Stockholmiensis: Studia Latina Stockholmiensia, 13 (Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell, 1964); C. Santini, N. Scivoletto & L. Zurli (eds.), Prefazioni, prologhi, proemi di opere tecnico-scientifiche latine, 3 vols, Biblioteca del Giornale Italiano di Filologia, 7 (Roma: Herder, 1990-1998). On literary conventions in ancient epistolography, cf. K. Thraede, Grundzge griechisch-rmischer Brieftopik, Zetemata: Monographien zur klassischen Altertumswissenschaft, 48 (Mnchen: Beck, 1970); H. Koskenniemi, Studien zur Idee und Phraseologie des griechischen Briefes bis 400 n. Chr., Annales academiae scientiarum Fennicae: Series B, 102, 2 (Helsinki: Suomalaisen Kirjallisuuden Kirjapaino, 1956); A.J. Malherbe, Ancient Epistolary Theorists, Society of Biblical Literature: Sources for Biblical Study, 19 (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1988).

398 Denecker


3 Language Attitudes in the Works of Jerome

Jerome of Stridon lived from about 347 until 419.13 A very influential Church Father, he had to face severe criticism during his lifetime, one important ground for this being his position with regard to contemporary Jews and Judaism. Jerome mastered Hebrew and Aramaic next to Greek and Latin, a linguistic command he put to use in commenting on the Bible and translating parts of the Old Testament directly from Hebrew into Latin. This translation provided the basis for the Bible version widely known as the Vulgate.14 However, his fas-cination with Hebrew matters and his reliance on Jewish informants gave rise to the suspicion that Jerome was a Judaizer, that he, in other words, wanted to introduce Jewish elements into Christianity by way of his Bible translation.15 It is also important to mention that Jerome spent considerable parts of his life in regions where Semitic languages were commonly spoken. Whereas he con-tinually had to justify his mastery of Hebrew with respect to his Latin contem-poraries, his life among speakers of Semitic languages may at the same time have led to a sense of linguistic isolation.

Aramaic is an Underdeveloped LanguageIn Ep. 7, a letter addressed to three Roman friends of his, Jerome complains about his sense of linguistic isolation during his solitary stay in the desert of

13 Good general studies of Jeromes life and works are: F. Cavallera, Saint Jrme: Sa vie et son uvre, 2 vols, Spicilegium Sacrum Lovaniense: tudes et documents, 1-2 (Louvain/Paris: Spicilegium Sacrum Lovaniense/Champion, 1922); M. Testard, Saint Jrme: Laptre savant et pauvre du patriciat romain, Collection dtudes Anciennes (Paris: Les Belles Lettres, 1969); J.N.D. Kelly, Jerome: His life, writings, and controversies (London: Duckworth, 1975); S. Rebenich, Jerome, The Early Church Fathers (London/New York: Routledge, 2002). Cf. A. Frst, Hieronymus, in Lexikon der antiken christlichen Literatur, ed. S. Dpp & W. Geerlings (Freiburg/Basel/Wien: Herder, 20003), 323-30.

14 Important studies of Jeromes advocacy of the Hebraica ueritas are S. Rebenich, Jerome: The Vir Trilinguis and the Hebraica Veritas, Vigiliae Christianae, 47 (1993), 50-77; M.H. Williams, The Monk and the Book: Jerome and the making of Christian scholarship (Chicago/London: University of Chicago Press, 2006); A. Cain, The Letters of Jerome: Asceticism, biblical exegesis, and the construction of Christian authority in late antiquity, Oxford Early Christian Studies (Oxford: oup, 2009). On the part played by Jerome in the genesis of the Vulgate, cf. P.-M. Bogaert, La Bible latine des origines au moyen ge: Aperu historique, tat des questions, Revue thologique de Louvain, 19 (1988), 137-59, 276-314 (156-9).

15 Cf. H.I. Newman, Jeromes Judaizers, Journal of Early Christian Studies, 9 (2001), 421-52 (430-1, 444).



Chalcis.16 In his complaint, he integrates a number of epistolary common-places which are well known from Ovids exile poetry.17 Jerome writes that he is forced to have a chat with his friends letter, that he embraces it, and that the letter even answers. Apart from this letter, he states, there is no one in the desert of Chalcis who speaks or understands any Latin. Jerome puts it as fol-lows: for here one must either learn to speak a barbarous semilanguage, or else remain silent. If we retain the reading barbarus semisermo, barbarous semilanguageas most recent commentators have done18this statement shows that Jerome evaluates the language spoken in the desert of Chalcis, viz. Aramaic or a local variety of it (Syriac), as incomplete and underdeveloped.19 This evaluation should certainly be understood in contrast to Latin, which Jerome, as we will see, regards as an elegant and refined instrument of culture and communication.20

Aramaic is Hard to Learn and Aramaic Sounds UglyLooking back years later on his stay in the desert of Chalcis, in the preface to his translation of the book of Daniel, Jerome describes how hard he found it to learn Aramaic. His description of the learning process is clearly dominated by a sense of discomfort. He calls the study a pistrinum, literally a pounding

16 On Jeromes epistolary activity, cf. Cain, The Letters of Jerome; B. Conring, Hieronymus als Briefschreiber: Ein Beitrag zur sptantiken Epistolographie, Studien und Texte zu Antike und Christentum, 8 (Tbingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2001).

17 On the theme of linguistic isolation and language loss in Ovids exile poetry, cf. e.g. E. Doblhofer, Exil und Emigration: Zum Erlebnis der Heimatferne in der rmischen Literatur, Impulse der Forschung, 51 (Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1987), 114-36 [Die Sprachnot des Verbannten am Beispiel Ovids]; E.P. Forbis, Voice and Voicelessness in Ovids Exile Poetry, in Studies in Latin Literature and Roman History. viii, ed. C. Deroux, Collection Latomus, 239 (Bruxelles: Latomus, 1997), 245-67; J.F. Gaertner, Ovid and the Poetics of Exile: How exilic is Ovids exile poetry?, in Writing Exile: The discourse of displacement in Greco-Roman antiquity and beyond, ed. J.F. Gaertner, Mnemosyne: Bibliotheca Classica Batava, 283 (Leiden/Boston: Brill, 2007), 155-72. Also cf. Fgen, Patrii sermonis egestas, 37-8; Adams, Bilingualism, 17.

18 E.g. Kelly, Jerome, 49 with n. 15; Rebenich, Jerome, 15.19 Tr. after Ancient Christian Writers [hereafter, acw] 33, 41; Ep. 7.2.1 (csel 54, 27): Nunc cum

uestris litteris fabulor, illas amplexor, illae mecum loquuntur, illae hic tantum Latine sciunt. Hic enim aut barbarus semisermo [al.: seni sermo] discendus est aut tacendum est.

20 Cf. M. Banniard, Jrme et lelegantia daprs le De optimo genere interpretandi, in Jrme entre lOccident et lOrient: xvie centenaire du dpart de saint Jrme de Rome et de son installation Bethlem. Actes du Colloque de Chantilly (septembre 1986), ed. Y.-M. Duval, Collection des tudes Augustiniennes: Srie Antiquit, 122 (Paris: tudes Augustiniennes, 1988), 305-22.

400 Denecker


mill worked by horses or asses, and writes that the study cost him a lot of time and effort but yielded little result. He pictures the unease of finding his way in an alien language as a walk through a crypt, with only scattered light shining from above. The learning process is presented as an exceptionally hard one, involving tedium, desperation, and loss of confidence. One might wonder why Jerome found it so hard to learn a language which he elsewhere describes as an underdeveloped one (cf. above). Presumably, he wanted to suggest that the very barbarity and ugliness of Aramaic made it a difficult language for a native speaker of the elegant Latin language. While he had always been accustomed to the rhetorical flowers of Cicero and Quintilian, he writes, he now had to acquire mastery of a language characterized by puffing and hissing words (halantia stridentiaque uerba).21 It will become clear that the words stridere, stridor, and stridulus, which refer to a hissing, harsh sound, are remarkably often used as depreciating labels for foreign languages.22 Harking back to the

21 Tr. after Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers [herafter, npnf] ii, 6, 493; pref. to the book of Daniel (R. Weber & R. Gryson [eds.], Biblia Sacra iuxta Vulgatam Versionem [hereafter, bsvv] [Stuttgart, 20075], 1341): Denique et ego adulescentulus, post Quintiliani et Tullii lec-tionem ac flores rethoricos [sic], cum me in linguae huius pistrinum reclusissem et multo sudore multoque tempore uix coepissem halantia stridentiaque uerba resonare et quasi per cryptam ambulans rarum desuper lumen aspicere, inpegi nouissime in Danihelem et tanto taedio affectus sum, ut desperatione subita omnem ueterem laborem uoluerim contemnere. Verum, adhortante me Hebraeo et illud mihi sua lingua crebrius ingerente: labor omnia uicit inprobus [Virgil, Georg. 1.145-6], qui mihi uidebar sciolus inter eos, coepi rursum discipu-lus esse Chaldaicus. Et ut uere fatear, usque ad praesentem diem magis possum sermonem Chaldeum legere et intellegere quam sonare.

22 Cf. R.A. Kaster, Guardians of Language: The grammarian and society in late antiquity, The Transformation of the Classical Heritage, 11 (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1988), 19-20 n. 25; P. Lardet, LApologie de Jrme contre Rufin: Un commentaire, Supplements to Vigiliae Christianae: Texts and Studies of Early Christian Life and Language, 15 (Leiden/New York/Kln: Brill, 1993), 331. Three passages from Jeromes works which include these depreciating labels and which will not be discussed in further detail are the following: Vita sancti Hilarionis 13.7 (sc 508, 250): Videres de ore barbaro, et qui Francam tantum et Latinam linguam nouerat, Syra ad purum uerba resonare, ut non stridor, non aspira-tio, non idioma aliquod Palaestini deesset eloquii.Liber tertius aduersus libros Rufini 27 (ccsl 79, 98-9): Magistrorum enim non uitia imitanda sunt, sed uirtutes. Grammaticum quidam Afrum Romae habuit, uirum eruditissimum, et in eo se aemulum praeceptoris puta-bat si stridorem linguae eius et uitia tantum oris exprimeret.Ep. 130.5.3 (csel 56/1, 180): Stridor linguae Punicae procacia tibi fescennina cantabit. An illustrative parallel in secular Latin literature is Pliny the Elder, Naturalis historia 5.8.45 (L. Ian & C. Mayhoff [eds.], C. Plini Secundi Naturalis historiae libri xxxvii, I, Bibliotheca scriptorum Graecorum et Romanorum Teubneriana [hereafter, bgrt] [Stutgardiae: In aedibus B.G. Teubneri, 1967], 379): Trogodytae [a barbarian/fanciful tribe] specus excauant; hae illis domus, uictus ser-



social connotations hypothesis, one could suggest that Jeromes evaluation of Aramaic as a difficult and an ugly language might be biased by his sense of linguistic isolation in the desert of Chalcis.

Hebrew is an Overly Complicated LanguageWhereas Jerome depicts Aramaic as an underdeveloped language, difficult for a native of Latin merely on account of its barbarian nature, he tends to present Hebrew as a difficult and even overly complicated language. This evaluation is especially clear from his commentary on Pauls epistle to Titus, where Jeromes negative appraisal of the Hebrew language is intricately bound up with his neg-ative attitude towards the speakers of Hebrew. Jerome is commenting on Pauls precept (Tit. 3:9) to avoid the genealogies, the formal conversations and the quarrels that issue from the Law. In his opinion, this is a reference to the idle arrogance he writes to encounter among contemporary Jews.23 According to Jerome, the Jews boast of their knowledge of the Law simply because Hebrew, the language of Scripture, is their native language and as such poses no prob-lem to them.

In this context, Jerome enters at length into the aspects that in his opin-ion constitute the difficulty of the Hebrew language, situating them in two domains. First, he mentions the domain of pronunciation; a non-native speaker of Hebrew, who is not acquainted with the origins of Hebrew personal names, will often pronounce these idiomatic elements in a wrong way. More specifically, these errors of pronunciation are related to accentuation and syl-lable length; non-native speakers of Hebrew tend to pronounce short syllables as long ones, or long syllables as short ones.24 As the most problematic sounds

pentium carnes, stridorque, non uox: adeo sermonis commercio carent. It is also revealing, as Thorsten Fgen points out to me, that words of the root strid- can be used to denote the sound produced by insects, cf. e.g. Pliny the Elder, Naturalis historia 11.51.266 (L. Ian & C. Mayhoff [eds.], C. Plini Secundi Naturalis historiae libri xxxvii, ii, bgrt [Stutgardiae: In aedibus B.G. Teubneri, 1967], 370): Idcirco et insectis sonum esse, non uocem, intus inmeante spiritu et incluso sonante; alia murmur edere, ut apes, alia contractum stridorem, ut cicadas, receptum enim duobus sub pectore cauis spiritum, mobili occursante membrana intus, attritu eius sonare.

23 On evaluations of superbia in ancient Rome, cf. Y. Baraz, From Vice to Virtue: The deni-gration and rehabilitation of superbia in ancient Rome, in kakos: Badness and Anti-Value in Classical Antiquity, ed. I. Sluiter & R.M. Rosen, Mnemosyne: Supplements. Monographs on Greek and Roman Language and Literature, 307 (Leiden/Boston: Brill, 2008), 365-97.

24 For an interesting parallel to Jeromes uel breuia producentes, uel producta breuiantes (cf. n. 25), cf. Philostratus, Vitae sophistarum 2.13, on Pausanias of Caesareas characteristi-cally Cappadocian pronunciation of Greek (C.L. Kayser [ed.], Flavii Philostrati Opera,

402 Denecker


to pronounce, Jerome singles out those sounds which are still today commonly regarded as typically Semitic or eastern; namely, as he puts it slightly pejora-tively, aspirations, and certain letters which are to be uttered with a scraping of the throat (cum rasura gulae). The second problematic domain he mentions is that of memorizing the Hebrew lexicon. Just as it is evident for a native of Latin to master the Latin lexicon, the Jews have absorbed Hebrew words and names from childhood onwards. In Jeromes view, it is this effortless command of the language of Scripture that constitutes the ground for the Jews arrogance.

As can be inferred from this passage, it is not primarily the difficulty of the Hebrew language itself that annoys Jerome. In accordance with the social connotations hypothesis, Jerome appears to be especially irritated by the pre-sumptuous attitude he encounters among contemporary Jews, and only sec-ondarily by certain characteristics of their language. When a non-native fails to express the barbarian idiom of Hebrew correctly, Jerome writes, the Jews are accustomed to raise laughter and to swear that they have no clue of what we are saying. Interestingly, here as in other relevant passages which we will come across, laughter is overtly involved in the manifestation of language attitudes. By the end of the passage, Jerome turns tables on the Jews: Latin Christians should not fear the arrogance of the Jews, who, as he puts it, rejoice in their loose lips, their twisted tongue, the hiss of their saliva (stridente saliua) and the scraping of their throat (rasa fauce). Jerome here judges the phonetic qualities of Hebrew in an outright negative way. The pejorative phrases he uses in doing so are very expressive and serve to ridicule the Jews as arrogant pedants, exert-ing themselves to pronounce their barbarous idiom in what they claim is the correct way.

This passage is especially revealing with regard to language attitudes. It contains negative evaluations of the aesthetic qualities of Hebrew, next to the belief that Hebrew is an overly complicated language. Even more importantly, Jeromes evaluations of the Hebrew language are explicitly tied in with his negative attitude towards the Jews. With reference to the social connotations hypothesis, this amply suggests that Jeromes negative appraisal of the Hebrew language is strongly biased by his negative attitude towards its speakers.25

ii, bgrt [Lipsiae: In aedibus B.G. Teubneri, 1871], 97): [...] , , [...].

25 Tr. mine; Commentarii in epistulas Pauli apostoli, Ad Titum 3.9 (ccsl 77C, 64-6): Quod autem ait: Genealogias et contentiones et rixas quae ueniunt ex lege deuita, proprie pul-sat Iudaeos, qui in eo se iactant et putant legis habere notitiam, si nomina teneant singu-lorum quae, quia barbara sunt et etymologias eorum non nouimus, plerumque corrupte



Hebrew is Hard to LearnJeromes belief that Hebrew is hard to learn appears from Ep. 30, addressed to his female pupil Paula. At her request, Jerome is about to provide mysti-cal explanations of the letters of the Hebrew alphabet. Jerome reminds Paula that he has already given these explanations orally, but admits that everything [he] said slips away from the memory, because of the barbarity (barbariem) of the language. Exactly because Hebrew is a barbarian, distinctly un-Latin languageit is understoodit is a language hard to memorize.26 More in gen-eral, Jerome repeats at several occasions that it is difficult to acquire mastery of the Hebrew language. In the preface to his translation of the book of Isaiah, he expresses the hope that he will be rewarded in the future life for his labo-rious study of the Hebrew language. By means of the verb form sudasse, to have sweated, he presents the study as a real physical exertion. The belief that Hebrew is hard to learn is made part of a rhetorical strategy. Jerome claims to have laboured in the study of a foreign language (in peregrinae linguae eru-ditione) in order that the Hebrews would no longer insult the Church on the alleged falsehood of its Scriptures. Thus, he actively puts a language attitude to use in order to present his Hebrew studies as a service to the Latin Church. The Jews, in turn, are presented as slanderers, a presentation which corresponds to, and probably affects Jeromes negative appraisal of the Hebrew language.27

Jerome also rhetorically elaborates on the alleged difficulty of learning Hebrew in Ep. 108, a funeral eulogy (epitaphium) on his pupil Paula. He begins

proferuntur a nobis. Et si forte errauerimus in accentu, in extensione et breuitate syllabae, uel breuia producentes, uel producta breuiantes, solent irridere nos imperitiae, maxime in aspirationibus et quibusdam cum rasura gulae litteris proferendis. [...] Si igitur a nobis haec nominum et linguae , ut uidelicet barbara, non ita fuerint expressa ut exprimun-tur ab Hebraeis, solent cachinnum adtollere et iurare se penitus nescire quod dicimus. [...] Haec immortale illud ingenium suo nobis labore donauit, ut non magnopere pertimescamus supercilium Iudaeorum, solutis labiis et obtorta lingua et stridente saliua et rasa fauce gaud-entium. Est et illis alia occasio superbiae: quomodo nos qui Latini sumus Latina nomina et origines de lingua nostra habentia facilius memoriae tradimus, ita illi a parua aetate uer-nacula sui sermonis uocabula penitissimis sensibus imbiberunt [...].

26 Tr. mine; Ep. 30.2.2 (csel 54, 244): Identidem flagitasti, ut tibi interpretationes singularum edicerem litterarum. Dixi, fateor; uerum, quia propter barbariem linguae memoria elabitur omne, quod diximus, desideras commentariolum fieri, ut, si in aliquo forte titubaris, obliuio-nem lectio consoletur.

27 Tr. mine; pref. to the book of Isaiah (bsvv, 1096): Quem quanto plus amatis, o Paula et Eustochium, tanto magis ab eo petite, ut pro obtrectatione praesenti, qua me indesinenter aemuli laniant, ipse mihi mercedem restituat in futurum, qui scit me ob hoc in peregri-nae linguae eruditione sudasse, ne Iudaei de falsitate scripturarum ecclesiis eius diutius insultarent.

404 Denecker


by evoking the great efforts he had to make himself in order to master just some Hebrew. The learning process is presented as a protracted and very intensive one, which he says resulted only in partial knowledge of the language. In accor-dance with his statement that Hebrew is hard to memorize, he contends that only through unremitting practice he is able to maintain his command of it. To this exceptionally modest representation of his own linguistic commandwhich is certainly due to the laudatory contextJerome contrasts Paulas quick progress in her study of Hebrew. She just had to decide that she wanted to learn the language and succeeded so well that she was able to sing the psalms in Hebrew and to pronounce the language without any idiomatic trait of the Latin language (absque ulla Latinae linguae proprietate). This appraisal gains even more weight in light of Jeromes statement that exactly the pronunciation is at the core of the difficulty of Hebrew (cf. above). However, the appraisal is of course strongly influenced by the rhetorical context of funeral eulogy.28

Hebrew Sounds UglyIn a way that reminds us of the description of his study of Aramaic, Jerome also evokes the process of learning Hebrew in Ep. 125, addressed to a monk named Rusticus. Interestingly, Jerome presents his study of Hebrew as a rem-edy against the carnal desires of his youth, and thus as a part of an ascetic way of life. It is very conceivable that in this way, he wanted to integrate his study of Hebrew and, generally, his biblical studies into the ascetic ideal he was con-tinually championing. As he did in the description of his study of Aramaic, Jerome contrasts the alleged harshness of Hebrew to the alleged elegance and literary versatility of Latin. Apparently, Jerome thinks the alleged ugliness of Hebrew is crucial to its difficulty for a native of Latin. When thinking back of the Latin authors he had formerly been accustomed to, he refers to the point-edness of Quintilian, the fluency of Cicero, the earnestness of Fronto, and the gentleness of Pliny. Turning to his initiation in Hebrew, Jerome evokes his sense of humiliation when having to start all over again by learning a new alphabet. This stage of language acquisition sharply contrasts with his pro-found mastery of stylistic registers in Latin literature. He also mentions the

28 Tr. mine; Ep. 108.26.3 (csel 55, 344-5): Loquar et aliud, quod forsitan aemulis uideatur incredulum: Hebraeam linguam, quam ego ab adulescentia multo labore ac sudore ex parte didici et infatigabili meditatione non desero, ne ipse ab ea deserar, discere uoluit et consecuta est ita, ut psalmos Hebraeice caneret et sermonem absque ulla Latinae linguae proprietate resonaret. Cf. the detailed discussion of this passage by A. Cain, Jeromes Epitaph on Paula: A commentary on the Epitaphium Sanctae Paulae. Edited with an introduction and transla-tion by ..., Oxford Early Christian Texts (Oxford: oup, 2013), 423-5.



hissing and puffing words (stridentia anhelantiaque uerba) he had to learn, referring to the inferior aesthetic qualities of Hebrew. The process of learning Hebrew is presented as a true agony, another suggestion of the difficulty of that language due to its alleged ugliness. Like his study of Aramaic, Jerome describes his study of Hebrew as an endless process of trial and error, over-shadowed by a sense of discomfort. He concludes by thanking the Lord that from the bitter seed of letters he is now culling sweet fruits.29

Jeromes aesthetic evaluation of Hebrew is very similar to the one he gives of Aramaic. In his opinion, Hebrew is an ugly language that sounds harsh to a native speaker of a language as elegant as Latin. In Ep. 20, an exegetic let-ter addressed to pope Damasus, Jerome passes over a minute treatment of a particular problem in the Hebrew Bible text. He states that such a treatment would offend the reader (molestiam tribuunt) on account of the barbarity (barbariam) of language and letters. Thus, he makes it plain that to him Hebrew is an unpleasant language.30 In the same letter, Jerome suggests that one has to suffer a little in order to gain access to the Hebraica ueritas, the truth which he claims is hidden in the Hebrew source text, and that his recourse to the Hebrew Bible text demands the effort of accommodating [his] ear to a foreign language.31 This passage provides us with an important clue to the interpretation of Jeromes attitude to the Hebrew language. His nega-tive aesthetic appraisal of Hebrew, which sharply contrasts with his promotion of the Hebraica ueritas, should probably be interpreted as part of a rhetorical strategy. More specifically, the alleged ugliness of Hebrew serves to highlight the great difficulty of his Bible translation and the self-sacrifice it required of

29 Tr. after npnf ii, 6, 248; Ep. 125.12 (csel 56/1, 131): Dum essem iuuenis et solitudinis me deserta uallarent, incentiua uitiorum ardoremque naturae ferre non poteram; quae cum crebris ieiuniis frangerem, mens tamen cogitationibus aestuabat. Ad quam edomandam cuidam fratri, qui ex Hebraeis crediderat, me in disciplinam dedi, ut post Quintiliani acu-mina Ciceronisque fluuios grauitatemque Frontonis et lenitatem Plinii alphabetum discerem, stridentia anhelantiaque uerba meditarer. Quid ibi laboris insumpserim, quid sustinuerim difficultatis, quotiens desperauerim quotiensque cessauerim et contentione discendi rursus inceperim, testis est conscientia tam mea, qui passus sum, quam eorum, qui mecum duxere uitam. Et gratias ago domino, quod de amaro semine litterarum dulces fructus capio.

30 Tr. after acw 33, 106; Ep. 20.4.1 (csel 54, 107): Sed quoniam hae minutiae et istiusmodi disputationis arcanum propter barbariam linguae pariter ac litterarum legenti molestiam tribuunt, ad explanandi conpendium uenio [...].

31 Tr. after acw 33, 108; Ep. 20.6 (csel 54, 110): Sed magis condecet ob ueritatem laborare paulisper et peregrino aurem adcommodare sermoni, quam de aliena lingua fictam ferre sententiam.

406 Denecker


him. It was this alleged service to the Latin Church that Jerome promoted in countering the charge of being a Judaizer.

Jerome also evaluates the phonetic qualities of Hebrew in his Book of Hebrew Names, which is actually an expanded translation of a Greek original. He com-ments on the curious linguistic fact that while Greek and Latin have only one letter s, the Hebrews have three. The first is called samech , he writes, and this one is simply read as if it was written with our letter s. The other one is called shin , and in this letter a certain hiss (stridor quidam) resounds which is foreign to our language. The third is called tsade , and this let-ter is totally abhorrent to our ears (quam aures nostrae penitus reformidant).32 While Jerome is pretending to merely describe a linguistic peculiarity of the Hebrew language, his description is clearly permeated by his negative attitude towards the Hebrew language in general.

Undue Contact with Hebrew Affects your Command of LatinAccording to another recurrent belief in Jeromes writings, undue contact with a foreign language affects the command of ones native language by way of mixture and obliviona phenomenon known as interference which is reported to be widespread among expatriates.33 In order to express this belief, Jerome found a ready model again in Ovids exile poetry (cf. n. 17). In Ep. 29 to Marcella, another female pupil of his, Jerome apologizes for his allegedly unsophisticated style. He disapproves of the barbarian influence as being rust (rubiginem) on his Latin speech, an image which we will see is also used by Sidonius. In order to describe his corrupted pronunciation, he uses the pejo-rative phrasing stridor quidam non Latinus interstrepat, a certain hiss resounds that is anything but Latin.34 In the strongly rhetorical context of Ep. 50, he

32 Tr. mine; Liber interpretationis Hebraicorum nominum, p. Lag. 10 (ccsl 72, 71): Siquidem apud Hebraeos tres s sunt litterae: una, quae dicitur samech, et simpliciter legitur quasi per s nostram litteram describatur: alia sin, in qua stridor quidam non nostri sermonis inter-strepit: tertia sade, quam aures nostrae penitus reformidant. Cf. my discussion of this passage in T. Denecker, uernaculum linguae uniuscuiusque idioma: Languages in con-trast in St. Jeromes exegetical works, in Metasprachliche Reflexion und Diskontinuitt: WendepunkteKrisenzeitenUmbrche, ed. G. Haler (Mnster: Nodus, forthcoming).

33 A classic study on linguistic interference is J. Juhsz, Probleme der Interferenz, Sprachen der Welt (Mnchen: Hueber, 1970). For a wide-ranging account of various forms of bilin-gualism and their effects on the Latin language, cf. Adams, Bilingualism. On cases of interference between Greek and Latin, also cf. M. Dubuisson, Le contact linguistique grco-latin: Problmes dinterfrences et demprunts, Lalies, 10 (1992), 91-109.

34 Tr. mine; Ep. 29.7.2 (csel 54, 242): Nos, ut scis, Hebraici sermonis lectione detenti in Latina lingua rubiginem obduximus in tantum, ut loquentibus quoque nobis stridor quidam non



writes that due to his absence from regions where Latin is commonly used, he has become a semibarbarus, half a barbarian.35

Jerome also evokes the belief that undue contact with Hebrew affects his command of Latin, both in writing and in speech. In the closing words of his commentary on Aggaeus, he asks his reader: please do not look for elegance of speech (eloquii uenustatem), which I have lost long ago due to my study of the Hebrew language.36 In his commentary on Pauls epistle to the Galatians, he also complains that a Hebrew hiss (stridor) has corrupted (sordidauit) the elegance (elegantiam) and grace (uenustatem) of his Latin speech. As in the previous instances, he combines language attitudes with a commonplace of modesty when writing: I leave to others to judge of the progress I have made with the indefatigable study of that language; what I have lost in my own lan-guage, I know very well myself. This quotation evidences Jeromes belief that his gradual progress in a barbarian language inevitably involves decay in the mastery of his native language. When referring to the elegance and grace of Latin and to the hiss of Hebrew, he suggests a strong opposition between the beauty allegedly inherent to Latin and the ugliness allegedly inherent to Hebrew.37 However, it has become clear from previous analyses that Jeromes

Latinus interstrepat. Vnde ignosce ariditati: etsi inperitus sum, inquit, sermone, apostolus, sed non scientia.

35 Ep. 50.2.3 (csel 54, 390): Nec mirum, si me et absentem et iam diu absque usu Latinae lin-guae semibarbarumque homo Latinissimus et facundissimus superet [...]. On attitudes towards barbarians in late antiquity generally, cf. e.g. P. Heather, The Barbarian in Late Antiquity: Image, reality, and transformation, in Constructing Identities in Late Antiquity, ed. R. Miles (London/New York: Routledge, 1999), 234-58. On stereotypes of barbarians in Jeromes works, cf. S. Weingarten, The Saints Saints: Hagiography and Geography in Jerome, Ancient Judaism and Early Christianity, 58 (Leiden/Boston: Brill, 2005), 181-91; little is contributed by J.-R. Palanque, St. Jerome and the Barbarians, in A Monument to Saint Jerome: Essays on some aspects of his life, works and influence, ed. F.X. Murphy (New York: Sheed & Ward, 1952), 173-99. For an extensive discussion of the term semibarbarus in Jerome, cf. Weingarten, The Saints Saints, 114-9.

36 Tr. mine; Commentarii in prophetas minores, in Aggaeum 2.21-24 (ccsl 76A, 746): Obsecro te, lector, ut ignoscas celeri sermone dictanti, nec requiras eloquii uenustatem, quam multo tempore Hebraeae linguae studio perdidi [...].

37 Tr. mine; Commentarii in epistulas Pauli apostoli, Ad Galatas 3 (pl 26, 399C): Loquar? Sed omnem sermonis elegantiam, et Latini eloquii uenustatem, stridor lectionis Hebraicae sordidauit. Nostis enim et ipsae, quod plus quam quindecim anni sunt, ex quo in manus meas numquam Tullius, numquam Maro, numquam gentilium litterarum quilibet auctor ascendit: et si quid forte inde dum loquimur, obrepit, quasi antiqui per nebulam somnii recordamur. Quod autem profecerim ex linguae illius infatigabili studio, aliorum iudicio derelinquo: ego quid in mea amiserim, scio.

408 Denecker


negative evaluation of Hebrew should actually be explained with reference to the negative social connotations which are for him attached to (the speakers of) that language.

Women Speak in an Affected WayThe eulogy on Paula in Ep. 108 (cf. above) is particularly interesting because of its positive appraisal of a womans multilingual command, something which must have been rather uncommon in Greco-Roman antiquity.38 As is already clear from the example of Paula, Jerome counted several women among his pupils,39 and held clear-cut views about the education of Christian girls. Multilingual competence was an essential part of this educational ideal.40 In Ep. 107 to Laeta, Jerome also discusses specific traits of pronunciation which he considers characteristic of female speech, and evaluates these in a distinctly negative way.41 He urges Laeta to protect her daughter from the silly preciosi-

38 On educated women in pagan antiquity, cf. E.A. Hemelrijk, Matrona Docta: Educated women in the Roman lite from Cornelia to Julia Domna (London/New York: Routledge, 1999); I.M. Plant (ed.), Women Writers of Ancient Greece and Rome: An anthology (Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, 2004). On educated Christian women in (late) antiquity and beyond, cf. A. Kadel, Matrology: A bibliography of writings by Christian women from the first to the fifteenth centuries (New York: Continuum, 1995).

39 The literature on Jeromes association with and attitudes towards women is abundant. Good bibliographical points of departure are R. Mathisen, The Use and Misuse of Jerome in Gaul during Late Antiquity, in Jerome of Stridon: His life, writings and legacy, ed. A. Cain & J. Lssl (Farnham/Burlington: Ashgate, 2009), 191-208 (207 n. 72); and T. Fgen, Gender-Specific Communication in Graeco-Roman Antiquity: With a research bibliogra-phy, Historiographia Linguistica, 31 (2004), 199-276 (230 n. 61).

40 Cf. Ep. 39.1.2-3 (csel 54, 294), another funeral eulogy where Jerome praises the trilingual competence of Paulas daughter Blesilla: Quis sine singultibus transeat orandi instantiam, nitorem linguae, memoriae tenacitatem, acumen ingenii? Si Graece audisses loquentem, Latine eam nescire iurasses; si in Romanum sonum lingua se uerterat, nihil omnino peregri-nus sermo redolebat. Iam uero, quod in Origene illo Graecia tota miratur, in paucis non dico mensibus, sed diebus ita Hebraeae linguae uicerat difficultates, ut in ediscendis canendisque psalmis cum matre contenderet. Cf. also Ep. 107.9.1 (csel 55, 300), where Jerome advises Laeta to have her daughter learn both Latin and Greek: Reddat tibi pensum cotidie scriptu-rarum certum. Ediscat Graecorum uersuum numerum. Sequatur statim et Latina eruditio; quae si non ab initio os tenerum conposuerit, in peregrinum sonum lingua corrumpitur et externis uitiis sermo patrius sordidatur.

41 For sociolinguistic approaches to female speech, cf. J. Holmes, Women Talk Too Much, in Language Myths, ed. L. Bauer & P. Trudgill (London et alib.: Penguin, 1998), 41-9; P. Trudgill, Social Identity and Linguistic Sex Differentiation: Explanations and pseudo-explanations for differences between womens and mens speech, in On Dialect, 161-8. For



ties of women due to which she would become used to chopping up her words and pronouncing only half of them (dimidiata dicere...uerba). Jerome explic-itly condemns this trait as offensive to a womans tongue.42

In Ep. 22 addressed to Eustochium, Paulas daughter, Jerome calls these alleged characteristics of female speech mere artificialities, contrary to any form of natural speech, and describes them in clearly pejorative terms. He writes that these women have a stammering tongue (balbutientem linguam), and that they speak now with their teeth pressed together, then with their lips dissolvedthe construction nunc...nunc suggesting their alleged female fickleness. As in Ep. 107, the words they pronounce are again described as being chopped up (dimidiata uerba). This swallowing of syllables is something Jerome apparently regards as a characteristic of female speech.43 His unfavour-able attitude towards female speech may again be explained with reference to the social connotations hypothesis. As a matter of fact, it is with married women that Jerome associates these traits of pronunciation, which he judges as adultery of the tongue.44 When he urges Christian girls not to talk like mar-ried women typically do, this advice undoubtedly relates to his disapproval of sexuality and his promotion of an ascetic ideal. It is tempting to relate Jeromes positive appraisal of a womans multilingual command (cf. above) to a similar denial of femaleness.

a general discussion of female speech in Greco-Roman antiquity, cf. Fgen, Gender-Specific Communication.

42 Tr. mine; Ep. 107.4.5-6 (csel 55, 295): Ipse elementorum sonus et prima institutio praecep-toris aliter de erudito, aliter de rustico ore profertur. Vnde et tibi est prouidendum, ne ineptis blanditiis feminarum dimidiata dicere filiam uerba consuescas et in auro atque in purpura ludere, quorum alterum linguae, alterum moribus officit, ne discat in tenero, quod ei postea dediscendum est.

43 Tr. mine; Ep. 22.29.6 (csel 54, 188): Non delumbem matronarum saliuam delicata secteris, quae nunc strictis dentibus, nunc labiis dissolutis balbutientem linguam in dimidiata uerba moderantur rusticum putantes omne, quod nascitur. Adeo illis adulterium etiam linguae placet. It is worth pointing out the analogy between the phrases labiis dissolutis, here used for women, and solutis labiis, used for Jews in the commentary on Pauls epistle to Titus (cf. above); although saliuam in the present passage may primarily mean taste, it also constitutes a parallel to stridente saliua in the same commentary, where it is used liter-ally and pejoratively. Cf. the discussion by N. Adkin, Adultery of the Tongue: Jerome, Epist. 22, 29, 6f., Hermes, 121 (1993), 100-8 (105). For a detailed commentary on the passage, cf. id., Jerome on Virginity: A commentary on the Libellus de uirginitate seruanda (Letter 22), arca: Classical and Medieval Texts, Papers and Monographs, 42 (Cambridge: Francis Cairns, 2003), 276-9.

44 Cf. Adkin, Adultery of the Tongue.

410 Denecker


4 Language Attitudes in the Works of Sidonius Apollinaris

Sidonius Apollinaris was born in 430 or 431 and died between 480 and 490. Bishop of Clermont in the Auvergne, he was among the typical proponents of episcopal aristocracy in fifth-century Gaul.45 Both his passionate defense of classical culture and his explicit contempt for barbarians and members of lower social classes relate to his efforts in constructing a Latinate elite iden-tity for himself and his aristocratic peers.46 Thorsten Fgen has quoted one of Sidonius letters as a typical instance of a general Rckwrtsgewandtheit among Latin authors of late antiquity. He has noted that Sidonius sticks to the stylistic ideal of antiquitas and that he considers the changes he observes in contemporary Latin as outright decay.47 It is a well-known phenomenon to sociolinguists that language variationbe it regional, social, or historical in natureis commonly conceived of as a negative fact. This negative appraisal is based on the belief that the older form of a language is also the better form, and that linguistic change is necessarily directed towards decline and extinc-

45 Good general studies of Sidonius life and works are C.E. Stevens, Sidonius Apollinaris and His Age (Oxford: oup, 1979 [1933]); A. Loyen, Sidoine Apollinaire et lesprit prcieux en Gaule aux derniers jours de lempire, Collection dtudes Latines, 20 (Paris: Les Belles Lettres, 1943); J. Harries, Sidonius Apollinaris and the Fall of Rome AD 407-485 (Oxford: Clarendon, 1994). Cf. N. Delhey, Sidonius Apollinaris, in Lexikon der antiken christlichen Literatur, 640-1. For a survey of scholarship on Sidonius between 1982 and 2002, cf. S. Condorelli, Prospettive Sidoniane: Venti anni di studi su Sidonio Apollinare (1982-2002), Bollettino di Studi Latini, 33 (2003), 140-74; for recent surveys of research on Sidonius, cf. D. Amherdt, Sidonius in Francophone Countries; H. Khler, Sidonius in German-Speaking Countries; S. Santella, Sidonius in Italy, in New Approaches to Sidonius Apollinaris, ed. J.A. van Waarden & G. Kelly, Late Antique History and Religion, 7 (Leuven/Paris/Walpole, ma: Peeters, 2013), resp. 23-36; 37-46; 47-59.

46 With regard to Sidonius (socio-)cultural and educational ideals, cf. F.-M. Kaufmann, Studien zu Sidonius Apollinaris, Europische Hochschulschriften, iii, 681 (Frankfurt am Main et alib.: Peter Lang, 1995), esp. 79-219 [Die Germanen aus der Sicht des Sidonius Apollinaris]; 221-68 [Gebildete und UngebildeteDie soziale Sicht des Sidonius]; J.D. Harries, Sidonius Apollinaris and the Frontiers of Romanitas, in Shifting Frontiers in Late Antiquity, ed. R.W. Mathisen & H.S. Sivan (Aldershot/Brookfield: Variorum/Ashgate, 1996), 31-44; D. Rijser, The Poetics of Inclusion in Servius and Sidonius, in New Approaches, 77-92; M. Gerth, Bildungsvorstellungen im 5. Jahrhundert n. Chr.: Macrobius, Martianus Capella und Sidonius Apollinaris, Untersuchungen zur antiken Literatur und Geschichte, 111 (Berlin/Boston: De Gruyter, 2013), 157-223 (183-99) [Sidonius Rede vom allgemeinen Verfall und die leuchtenden Ausnahmen].

47 T. Fgen, Bezge zwischen antiker und moderner Sprachnormentheorie, Listy filologick, 121 (1998), 199-219 (206).



tion. The alleged decline of a language is often ascribed to foreign influences which are thought to affect or corrupt the linguistic system. These beliefs are fundamental to Sidonius evaluations of languages and language varieties.

Standard Latin is CarefulSidonius Ep. 2.10 addressed to Hesperius evidences the belief that standard languagethat is, standard Latinis careful.48 In this letter, Sidonius praises his addressees carefulness and classical literacy, and presents this literacy as the very connection between himself and his addressee. This indicates that to Sidonius mind, classical literacy is a cultural object which imparts pres-tige on those who possess it and marks the boundaries of an elite in-group, as opposed to the uneducated otherscompare his frequent use of forms of nos and noster in this passage.49 Sidonius presents it as the merit of personal carefulness, rather than a privilege, to have this classical literacy mastered. In order to acquire it, he and his addressee had to draw their hands from under the roda commonplace in ancient literature on education, among others in Juvenal.50 The efforts and the pain Sidonius and his addressee had to go through only increase the value of the culture they eventually acquired. Their intimate knowledge of the Latin language and literature is, in Sidonius words, the most copious fruit of [their] own effort. Obviously, Sidonius belief that standard Latin is careful is strongly biased by the association of the alleged standard or high-prestige variety with higher social classes.51

48 All factual information on Sidonius letters is based on Loyens editions (cf. below). On Sidonius letters, cf. M. Zelzer, Der Brief in der Sptantike: berlegungen zu einem liter-arischen Genos am Beispiel der Briefsammlung des Sidonius Apollinaris, Wiener Studien, 107/8 (1994/5), 541-51.

49 Cf. P. Mhlhusler & R. Harr, Pronouns and People: The linguistic construction of social and personal identity, Language in Society (Oxford: Blackwell, 1990), 168-206 [We: Speaking for more than one].

50 Saturae 1.15 (J. Willis [ed.], D. Iunii Iuvenalis Saturae sedecim, bgrt [Stutgardiae/Lipsiae: In aedibus B.G. Teubneri, 1997], 1): Et nos ergo manum ferulae subduximus [...]; cf. Kaster, Guardians of Language, 175 n. 17; C.M. Chin, Grammar and Christianity in the Late Roman World, Divinations: Rereading Late Ancient Religion (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2008), 111-8, with a discussion of analogous instances in the works of Augustine, Jerome, John Chrysostom, and Martianus Capella.

51 All translations of Sidonius works are those by W.B. Anderson in the two Loeb volumes, with some adaptations. Ep. 2.10.1 (A. Loyen [ed.], Sidoine Apollinaire. Tome ii: Lettres (Livres I-V), Collection des Universits de France [Paris: Les Belles Lettres, 1970], 68): Amo in te quod litteras amas et usquequaque praeconiis cumulatissimis excolere contendo tantae diligentiae generositatem, per quam nobis non solum initia tua uerum etiam studia nostra commendas. Nam cum uidemus in huiusmodi disciplinam iuniorum ingenia succrescere,

412 Denecker


Sidonius presents standard Latin as a pure or unmixed form (meram), which sticks to its own proper nature (proprietatem). In Ep. 3.14, a reply to crit-ics of his literary work, he appropriates a number of cultural values as defini-tive of his own style. The values he enumerates are knowledge (scientia) and proper usage (proprietas) of the Latin language, next to the grandeur (pompa) which is inherent to it. These values can be understood as the very social con-notations that are, for Sidonius, attached to the high-prestige variety. Again in Ep. 2.10, Sidonius explicitly associates the classical standard of Latin with the notion of nobility and with the purple garments of the Roman upper class (nobilium sermonum purpurae). This shows very clearly that his appraisal of the high-prestige variety is inspired by his positive attitude towards higher social classes.52

The idea that standard Latin is careful is also evidenced in Sidonius much quoted Ep. 5.5 to Syagrius, containing ironic congratulations to the addressee, who is said to have learnt Germanic among the Burgundians. Sidonius con-structs a sharp opposition between Latin, which he presents as a high-prestige, cultivated language, and Germanic, which he presents as a low-prestige, bar-barian, and uncultivated language. I will discuss this letter extensively below.

Non-Standard Latin is Careless and Carelessness Corrupts Standard Latin

To the alleged carefulness of the classical high-prestige variety, Sidonius opposes the linguistic carelessness of the uneducated others. Well into the twentieth century among trained linguists, and until today in common thought about language, carelessness is regarded as a crucial factor in the change or decay of a language.53 In Ep. 2.10, Sidonius presents the careless-

propter quam nos quoque subduximus ferulae manum, copiosissimum fructum nostri laboris adipiscimur. Illud appone, quod tantum increbruit multitudo desidiosorum ut, nisi uel paucissimi quique meram linguae Latiaris proprietatem de triuialium barbarismorum robigine uindicaueritis, eam breui abolitam defleamus interemptamque: sic omnes nobilium sermonum purpurae per incuriam uulgi decolorabuntur.

52 Ep. 3.14.2 (Loyen, Sidoine Apollinaire. Tome ii, 109): De ceteris uero studii nostri derogato-ribus quid ex asse pronuntiem, necdum deliberaui. Nam qui maxume doctus sibi uidetur, dictionem sanam et insanam ferme appetitu pari reuoluit, non amplius concupiscens erecta quae laudet quam despecta quae rideat. Atque in hunc modum scientia, pompa, proprie-tas linguae Latinae iudiciis otiosorum maximo spretui est, quorum scurrilitati neglegentia comes hoc uolens tantum legere, quod carpat, sic non utitur litteris quod abutitur.

53 Cf. J. Aitchison, Language Change: Progress or decay?, Fontana Linguistics (London: Fontana, 1981 [and various reprints with cup]), 16: In spite of this, large numbers of intelligent people condemn and resent language change, regarding alterations as due to



ness of uneducated language users as a growing problem, stating that the mass of the sluggards (multitudo desidiosorum) is growing ever more numerous. In his opinion, these sluggards accelerate the decay of Latin by affecting it with the rust of vulgar barbarisms (triuialium barbarismorum robigine)note that like Jerome, Sidonius too uses rust as an image for linguistic interference or corruption.54 With reference to the social connotations hypothesis, it can be suggested that Sidonius negative appraisal of low-prestige varieties is biased by his contempt for lower social classes. To Sidonius mind, the corrupting influ-ence of low-prestige varieties constitutes a constant threat to standard Latin, which needs to be protected by the restricted number of careful language users the author and his addressee allegedly belong to. If it is not, its decay will soon proceed towards extinction. Further elaborating on the association of standard Latin with upper class purple garments (cf. above), Sidonius states that the noble purple of standard Latin will be discoloured (decolorabuntur) due to the sluggishness of the mass (per incuriam uulgi).55

Germanic is an Underdeveloped LanguageIn Ep. 5.5, Sidonius pictures his addressee Syagrius as a typical proponent of a sound Latin education (a.o. by means of the commonplace of the schoolmas-ters cane), and subsequently shows himself to be very surprised about the fact that Syagrius has so quickly and so easily acquired full command of Germanic (sermonis...Germanici notitiam). To the present-day reader, it seems likely that someone who is able to thoroughly master his mother tongue, will also learn other languages with relative ease. However, Sidonius argues the con-trary; advanced as Syagrius is in the mastery of his mother tongue, and char-acteristically Latinate as he is due to his pedigree, it should be all the more difficult for him to master a foreign, notably barbarian language as Germanic. Sidonius rhetorically asks his addressee how it is possible that he has man-aged to absorb so swiftly...the euphony of an alien race (euphoniam gentis

unnecessary sloppiness, laziness or ignorance. Cf. L. Milroy, Bad Grammar is Slovenly, in Language Myths, 94-102.

54 Cf. Adams, Bilingualism, 277; Gerth, Bildungsvorstellungen, 190; and Banniard, La rouille et la lime, 414-7.

55 Ep. 2.10.1 (cf. above) (Loyen, Sidoine Apollinaire. Tome ii, 68): Illud appone, quod tantum increbruit multitudo desidiosorum ut, nisi uel paucissimi quique meram linguae Latiaris proprietatem de triuialium barbarismorum robigine uindicaueritis, eam breui abolitam defleamus interemptamque: sic omnes nobilium sermonum purpurae per incuriam uulgi decolorabuntur.

414 Denecker


alienae).56 Most likely, this phrase should be read ironically; in Sidonius view, euphony is necessarily at odds with a barbarian language.

Playing on the alleged incongruity of his addressees command of Germanic, Sidonius states that in Syagrius presence the barbarian himself is afraid of committing a barbarism in his own language (formidet linguae suae facere bar-barus barbarismum). The pun of this statement is twofold. First, Syagrius is said to have become so accomplished that he masters Germanic better than the Germans. By means of the governing phrase quanto mihi ceterisque sit risui, Sidonius indicates that the members of his Latinate in-group laugh at the idea that the Germans are not even able to master their own language as thoroughly as Syagrius masters it. Here again, laughter is closely associated with the mani-festation of language attitudes. Second, for Sidonius it can only be meant as a joke that one could commit barbarisms in a barbarian language, since this would imply the existence of a classical norm, or correctness, in this barbarian language.57

Sidonius ironically transfers the social desirability of mastering the high-prestige variety to a German context. He states, in a strongly rhetorical way, that Syagrius command of Germanic has earned him popularity, authority, and prestige among the Germans. Allegedly, the elders of the Germans have chosen him as the umpire and judge in their mutual negotiations, and he is proclaimed the new Solon and the new Amphion of the Burgundians. That is to say, he is both an iconic lawgiver and an iconic singer-musician among the Burgundians. The humour of this passage is in the transfer of mythologi-cal representatives of Greco-Roman cultural values to an allegedly unculti-vated barbarian context. Interestingly, Sidonius specifies that the lyre this new Amphion is attuning, is a three-stringed one (in citharis, sed trichordibus). According to previous commentators, this is a pejorative expression which implies very simple and uncomplicated.58 It seems safe to assume that it is the Germanic language Sidonius presents as an underdeveloped instrument. Indeed, while elaboration (Ausbau) is often regarded as characteristic of high-prestige varieties, lack of it is often taken as indicative of low-prestige

56 Cf. Harries, Frontiers, 34-5.57 On correctness in language, cf. e.g. Trudgill & Giles, Sociolinguistics and Linguistic Value

Judgements, 167-71.58 W.B. Anderson (ed.), Sidonius, Poems and Letters. ii: Letters, Books iii-ix, The Loeb Classical

Library, 420 (London/Cambridge: Heinemann/Harvard University Press, 1965), 183 n. 3; Loyen, Sidoine Apollinaire. Tome ii, 181 n. 11, notes that the phrase is en tout cas [...] une expression pjorative.



varieties.59 On the whole, we can infer from this ironic passage that for Sidonius, Germanic is an underdeveloped language, which lacks euphony and a proper norm and is inconvenient for any manifestation of culture. In other words, Germanic to Sidonius mind lacks the features that are commonly thought to characterize cultivated languages such as standard Latin.60

In the case of Germanic, too, it is clear that language attitudes are not pri-marily motivated by an inherent value of the language concerned. Sidonius explicitly calls the Germans rigid and unshapeable in body and mind alike. This negative socio-cultural stereotype of the Germans obviously biases his appraisal of their language. Sidonius adds the statement that in his addressee, the Germans still embrace and learn their native language (sermonem patrium) and a Latin mind (cor Latinum) at the same time. The statement should be read as an oxymoron, implying that according to Sidonius, mastery of the Germanic language is necessarily incompatible with a sound Latin mind.61

59 H. Kloss, Abstand Languages and Ausbau Languages, Anthropological Linguistics, 9 (1967), 29-41; cf. Joseph, Language and Identity, 150.

60 Cf. M. Amsler, From Standard Latin to Standard English, in Language Variation in North American English: Research and teaching, ed. A.W. Glowka & D.M. Lance (New York: mla, 1993), 282-9; id., History of Linguistics, Standard Latin, and Pedagogy, Historiographia Linguistica, 20 (1993), 49-66.

61 Ep. 5.5.1-3 (Loyen, Sidoine Apollinaire. Tome ii, 180-1): Cum sis consulis pronepos idque per uirilem successionem (quamquam id ad causam subiciendam minus attinet), cum sis igitur e semine poetae, cui procul dubio statuas dederant litterae, si trabeae non dedissent (quod etiam nunc auctoris culta uersibus uerba testantur), a quo studia posterorum ne parum qui-dem, quippe in hac parte, degenerauerunt, immane narratu est, quantum stupeam sermonis te Germanici notitiam tanta facilitate rapuisse. Atqui pueritiam tuam competenter scholis liberalibus memini imbutam et saepenumero acriter eloquenterque declamasse coram ora-tore satis habeo compertum. Atque haec cum ita sint, uelim dicas, unde subito hauserunt pectora tua euphoniam gentis alienae, ut modo mihi post ferulas lectionis Maronianae postque desudatam uaricosi Arpinatis opulentiam loquacitatemque quasi de areola uetere nouus falco prorumpas? Aestimari minime potest, quanto mihi ceterisque sit risui, quotiens audio, quod te praesente formidet linguae suae facere barbarus barbarismum. Adstupet tibi epistulas interpretanti curua Germanorum senectus et negotiis mutuis arbitrum te discep-tatoremque desumit. Nouus Burgundionum Solon in legibus disserendis, nouus Amphion in citharis, sed trichordibus, temperandis, amaris, frequentaris, expeteris, oblectas, eligeris, adhiberis, decernis, audiris. Et quamquam aeque corporibus ac sensu rigidi sint indola-tilesque, amplectuntur in te pariter et discunt sermonem patrium, cor Latinum.

416 Denecker


Germanic Sounds UglyThe link between evaluations of languages and socio-cultural connotations is best visible in Carmen 12,62 addressed to a senator named Catullinus. This piece of poetry is actually a playful refusal (recusatio) to Catullinus, who had requested Sidonius to compose an epithalamium on the occasion of his mar-riage. Sidonius refuses on the pretext that the Burgundian allies, baracked in his Lyons estate, preclude any of his poetic activity. He argues that he is not able to compose verses while he has to endure Germanic words (Germanica uerba sustinentem).63 The phrasing indicates that Sidonius is irritated by hear-ing this language which he perceives as unpleasant and ugly.64 However, the remainder of the poem clearly shows that, in accordance with the social con-notations hypothesis, Sidonius negative evaluation of Germanic is inspired by his negative attitude towards its speakers. Sidonius calls his addressee fortu-nate because of his eyes, his ears, and his nose, thus summarizing the negative stereotype he holds of his uninvited Burgundian guests. As to his eyes, Sidonius writes that the Burgundians look like seven-feet-high giants who never stop eating. As to his ears, he writes to have no choice but to praise their songs, but to do so against his will, with a sour face. As to his nose, lastly, he states that the Burgundians just smell bad: they smear rancid butter on their hair, he writes, and their breakfast spreads a reek of garlic and foul onions. These elements make clear that the socio-cultural connotations which for Sidonius are attached to the Germanic language are highly negative. His irritation about his guests Germanic speech, which he adduces as his primary annoyance, is at least strongly biased by these social connotations.65

62 On Sidonius poetic style, cf. M. Roberts, The Jeweled Style: Poetry and poetics in late antiq-uity (Ithaca/London: Cornell University Press, 1989), passim.

63 Cf. the annoyance about the noise made by two Getic women expressed by Sidonius in Ep. 8.3.2 (A. Loyen [ed.], Sidoine Apollinaire. Tome iii: Lettres (Livres vi-ix), Collection des Universits de France [Paris: Les Belles Lettres, 1970], 86): Ad hoc, et cum me defetiga-tum ab excubiis ad deuorsorium crepusculascens hora reuocauerat, uix dabatur luminibus inflexis paruula quies; nam fragor ilico, quem mouebant uicinantes impluuio cubiculi mei duae quaepiam Getides anus, quibus nil umquam litigiosius, bibacius, uomacius erit.

64 Cf. W. Pohl, Telling the Difference: Signs of ethnic identity, in Strategies of Distinction: The construction of ethnic communities, 300-800, ed. W. Pohl & H. Reimitz, The Transformation of the Roman World, 2 (Leiden/Boston/Kln: Brill, 1998), 17-69 (27): There are instances when foreign, barbarian languages are ridiculed, from Sidonius Apollinaris derision of Noisy Burgundians to Lupus of Ferrires who complains about the vernacular harshness of Germanic names.

65 Carmen 12 (A. Loyen [ed.], Sidoine Apollinaire. Tome I: Pomes, Collection des Universits de France [Paris: Les Belles Lettres, 1960], 103-4): Quid me, etsi ualeam, parare carmen /



Undue Contact with Germanic Affects your Command of LatinThe conclusion of Sidonius Ep. 5.5 to Syagrius (cf. above) evidences a belief we already came across in Jeromes writings, namely that proficiency in a for-eign, barbarian language involves decay in ones native language.66 Sidonius advises his addressee to observe a balance between the two languages, again combining the sanction of laughter to the manifestation of a language atti-tude. The just balance Sidonius prescribes is as follows. On the one hand, Syagrius should maintain his command of Latin in order not to be laughed at by the members of the Latinate in-group he belongs to. On the other hand, he should also practise his command of Germanic, in order to be able to laugh at the Germans. That is to say, Syagrius should laugh at the Germans because as an educated native of Latin, his linguistic capacity enables him to surpass the Germans even in the mastery of their own language.67

The attitude about language loss is thematized in a similar way in Ep. 4.17 to Arbogast, the count of Trier. In this laudatory context, Sidonius makes a rhetorical use of the belief that undue contact with a foreign language affects ones command of Latin. More precisely, he claims that Arbogast is a notable exception to this tendency, and that his perfect mastery of Latin has not been corrupted by the Germanic language surrounding him. Thus, he magnifies his

Fescenninicolae iubes Diones / inter crinigeras situm cateruas / et Germanica uerba susti-nentem, / laudantem tetrico subinde uultu / quod Burgundio cantat esculentus, / infundens acido comam butyro? / Vis dicam tibi quid poema frangat? / Ex hoc barbaricis abacta plec-tris / spernit senipedem stilum Thalia, / ex quo septipedes uidet patronos. / Felices oculos tuos et aures / felicemque libet uocare nasum, / cui non allia sordidumque cepe / ructant mane nouo decem apparatus, / quem non ut uetulum patris parentem / nutricisque uirum die nec orto / tot tantique petunt simul Gigantes, / quot uix Alcinoi culina ferret.

66 Also cf. Sidonius depreciating statement about the Celtic language in Ep. 3.3.2-3 (Loyen, Sidoine Apollinaire. Tome ii, 86-7): Mitto istic ob gratiam pueritiae tuae undique gentium confluxisse studia litterarum tuaeque personae quondam debitum quod sermonis Celtici squamam depositura nobilitas nunc oratorio stilo, nunc etiam Camenalibus modis imbue-batur. Illud in te adfectum principaliter uniuersitatis accendit, quod, quos olim Latinos fieri exegeras, barbaros deinceps esse uetuisti. Cf. Banniard, La rouille et la lime, 417-21.

67 Ep. 5.5.4 (Loyen, Sidoine Apollinaire. Tome ii, 181): Restat hoc unum, uir facetissime, ut nihilo segnius, uel cum uacabit, aliquid lectioni operis impendas custodiasque hoc, prout es elegan-tissimus, temperamentum, ut ista tibi lingua teneatur, ne ridearis, illa exerceatur, ut rideas. Cf. Pliny the Younger, Ep. 4.3.5 (M. Schuster & R. Hanslik [ed.], C. Plini Caecili Secundi Epistularum libri novem, Epistularum ad Traianum liber, Panegyricus, bgrt [Stutgardiae/Lipsiae: In aedibus B.G. Teubneri, 1992], 108-9): Hominemne Romanum tam Graece loqui? Non medius fidius ipsas Athenas tam Atticas dixerim. Quid multa? Inuideo Graecis, quod illorum lingua scribere maluisti. Neque enim coniectura eget, quid sermone patrio exprimere possis, cum hoc insiticio et inducto tam praeclara opera perfeceris.

418 Denecker


addressees carefulness and cultural merit. Like the letter to Syagrius, this let-ter, too, contains a pun on barbarism and barbarians: you are intimate with the barbarians (barbarorum familiaris), Sidonius writes, but innocent of bar-barisms (nescius barbarismorum).

By putting to use the pessimistic belief that Roman culture and Latin speech are continually deteriorating, Sidonius is able to proclaim his addressee one of the last bulwarks of Latin literacy. The splendour of Roman speech (sermonis pompa Romani), he writes, if it still exists anywhere, has survived in you, and in your illustrious breast, there have remained traces of our vanishing litera-ture (uanescentium litterarum...uestigia). Sidonius advises his addressee, as he advised Syagrius, to continue and expand his mastery of classical literacy by constant reading (frequenti lectione).68 At this point, Sidonius appraisal of classical literacy and aversion from lack of education reach a rather shock-ing summit. He promises his addressee that through constant reading, he will discover that the educated are no less superior to the unlettered (anteferri rusticis institutos) than men are to beasts.69 This phrase makes it very clear that Sidonius negative attitude towards geographical and social low-prestige varieties is strongly biased by the stereotypes he holds of barbarians and of members of lower social classes.

68 The connection between reading and the construction of elite identity has been dealt with by W.A. Johnson, Readers and Reading Culture in the High Roman Empire: A study of elite communities, Classical Culture and Society (Oxford: oup, 2010).

69 Ep. 4.17.1-2 (Loyen, Sidoine Apollinaire. Tome ii, 149-50): Eminentius amicus tuus, domine maior, obtulit mihi quas ipse dictasti litteras litteratas et gratiae trifariam renidentis cultu refertas. Quarum utique uirtutum caritas prima est, quae te coegit in nobis uel peregrinis uel iam latere cupientibus humilia dignari; tum uerecundia, cuius instinctu dum inmerito trepidas, merito praedicaris; tertia urbanitas, qua te ineptire facetissime allegas et Quirinalis impletus fonte facundiae potor Mosellae Tiberim ructas, sic barbarorum familiaris, quod tamen nescius barbarismorum, par ducibus antiquis lingua manuque, sed quorum dextera solebat non stilum minus tractare quam gladium. Quocirca sermonis pompa Romani, si qua adhuc uspiam est, Belgicis olim siue Rhenanis abolita terris in te resedit, quo uel incolumi uel perorante, etsi apud limitem Latina iura ceciderunt, uerba non titubant. Quapropter alternum salue rependens granditer laetor saltim in inlustri pectore tuo uanescentium litterarum remansisse uestigia, quae si frequenti lectione continuas, experiere per dies, quanto antecellunt beluis homines, tanto anteferri rusticis institutos. Cf. the discussion in Gerth, Bildungsvorstellungen, 189-90, and the detailed commentary in D. Amherdt, Sidoine Apollinaire, Le quatrime livre de la correspondance: Introduction et commentaire, Sapheneia: Beitrge zur Klassischen Philologie, 6 (Bern et alib.: Peter Lang, 2001), 383-90.



5 Conclusions

In my analyses, I have tried to extrapolate the language attitudes documented in the writings of Jerome and of Sidonius Apollinaris. These language attitudes can be summarized in a number of catchphrases which I have introduced as subtitles, after the example of Laurie Bauer and Peter Trudgills 1998 Language Myths (cf. n. 41).

Apart from these particular attitudes, one can also observe a number of general trends in the authors evaluations of languages and language variet-ies. First, it is interesting to see that the political and religious changes of late antiquity and early Christianity considerably widened the linguistic horizon of Western intellectuals. Whereas the only languages that actually mattered in classical Roman antiquity were Latin and Greek,70 Jerome and Sidonius com-ment extensively on formerly peripheral languages such as Hebrew, Aramaic and Germanic. The prominent classical component in the authors cultural background may at the same time explain why they evaluate languages other than Latin and Greek in a negative way (as barbarian languages),71 whereas they evidently embrace Christianity, which is after all a religion of foreign ori-gin. Second, it is noteworthy that both authors regard their own language or lan-guage variety as the desirable one, something which is not necessarily the case. Instances of linguistic self-hatred are frequently observed by sociolinguists,72 and the authors could very well have proclaimed Greek superior to Latin, as various other early Christian Latin authors indeed do.73

70 Cf. J. Kaimio, The Romans and the Greek Language, Commentationes humanarum lit-terarum, 64 (Helsinki: Societas scientiarum Fennica, 1979); M. Dubuisson, Vtraque lin-gua, Lantiquit classique, 50 (1981), 274-86; id., Problmes du bilinguisme romain, Les tudes classiques, 49 (1981), 27-45; B. Rochette, Remarques sur le bilinguisme grco-latin, Les tudes classiques, 64 (1996), 3-19; id., Le bilinguisme grco-latin et la question des langues dans le monde grco-romain: Chronique bibliographique, Revue belge de philolo-gie et dhistoire, 76 (1998), 177-96.

71 Cf. B. Rochette, Grecs, Romains et Barbares: la recherche de lidentit ethnique et lin-guistique des Grecs et des Romains, Revue belge de philologie et dhistoire, 75 (1997), 37-57.

72 Cf. e.g. R.K.S. Macaulay, Negative Prestige, Linguistic Insecurity, and Linguistic Self-Hatred, Lingua, 36 (1975), 147-61.

73 Augustine, for instance, writes in De ciuitate Dei 8.2 (ccsl 47, 217): Quantum enim adti-net ad litteras Graecas, quae lingua inter ceteras gentium clarior habetur [...]. The latter part of the quotation was incorporated by Isidore of Seville and enriched with an aes-thetic appraisal of the Greek language in Etymologiae 9.1.4 (M. Reydellet [ed.], Isidore de Sville, tymologies. Livre ix: Les langues et les groupes sociaux. Texte tabli, traduit et com-ment par ..., Auteurs latins du Moyen ge [Paris: Les Belles Lettres, 1984], 33): Graeca

420 Denecker


Third, it is significant that both authors believe that allegedly undesirable languages or language varieties tend to interfere with allegedly desirable ones, thus corrupting them.74 This interference, they believe, occurs both on the micro and on the macro level. On the micro level, an individuals command of a high-prestige language or language variety may be corrupted by the use of a low-prestige language or language variety. On the macro level, an entire high-prestige language or language variety may be corrupted by foreign or internal low-prestige influences. Fourth and last, it is striking how often irony, laughter, and mockery are involved in the manifestation of mostly negative language attitudes. Apparently, the mechanism of humour is crucial to the disapproval of allegedly abnormal types of speech,75 and to the creation and confirmation of a linguistic norm.76

Throughout this paper, I have tried to show that value judgments about the correctness, the adequacy, or the aesthetics of a particular language or language variety are not primarily defined by an inherent value of the language or lan-guage variety concerned, but by the social connotations that are attached to it. Jeromes negative evaluation of Aramaic may be biased by a sense of linguis-tic isolation in the desert of Chalcis. His negative appraisal of Hebrew probably relates to the negative stereotypes held about the Jews in early Christianity. And his disapproval of female speech closely connects to his ascetic ideal for Christian girls. Sidonius utterly positive appraisal of the high-prestige variety of Latin obviously connects to his positive attitude towards higher social classes. His strong disapproval of low-prestige, non- standard varieties is

autem lingua inter ceteras gentium clarior habetur. Est enim et Latinis et omnibus linguis sonantior.

74 Cf. Juhsz, Probleme der Interferenz.75 Cf. E. Sapir, Abnormal Types of Speech in Nootka, in The Collected Works of Edward Sapir.

vi: American Indian Languages. 2, ed. V. Golla (Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter, 1991), 357-79 [Originally published as Memoir 62, Anthropological Series 5, Geological Survey, Department of Mines, Canada. Ottawa, 1915]. On the pages 370-3, Sapir deals in particu-lar with the connection between mockery and abnormal types of speech, viz. speech defects and foreign dialects. Similar cases of laughter and mockery as manifestations of language attitudes (viz. towards the mixture of Norwegian and English) are discussed by E. Haugen, The Confusion of Tongues, in The Ecology of Language: Essays by Einar Haugen. Selected and introduced by Anwar S. Dil (Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 1972), 110-32.

76 For an historical investigation of laughter as a (psycho-)cultural phenomenon, cf. S. Halliwell, Greek Laughter: A study of cultural psychology from Homer to early Christianity (Cambridge: cup, 2008). Chin, Grammar and Christianity, 131-5, deals with humour and laughter in connection to education and childhood beating.



certainly biased by his negative attitude towards lower social classes. Likewise, his negative attitude towards Germanic has appeared to be inspired by the ste-reotype he holds of its speakers as rude barbarians.

I have emphasized that it is in ancient literary texts, mostly in the self-reflexive text types of letters or prefaces, that I have tried to extrapolate lan-guage attitudes.77 It is important to stress that in these literary texts, a language attitude can be consciously exploited as part of a rhetorical strategy. Indeed, both authors seem to follow what could be termed a strategy of isolation in order to dissociate themselves from allegedly inferior or undesirable others. In the case of Sidonius, this dissociation obviously served the construction of a Latinate elite identity in fifth-century Gaul. In the case of Jerome, the exploi-tation of language attitudes probably connects to an effort of self-defense. As I have mentioned, Jerome continually had to face the charge that he was Judaizing the Christian Bible. The emphasis he lays on his alleged aversion to the Hebrew languagewhich is seemingly incompatible with his promotion of the Hebraica ueritasis most probably part of the strategy he followed in defending himself against this charge. When he made himself acquainted with the horrible language that Hebrew w

Documents

393