IN the early years of the fourteenth century, Dante Alighieri (1265–1321) wrote De vulgari eloquentia (On Eloquence in the Vernacular, ca. 1302–1305), a manifesto propagating the use of the vernacular but published in Latin in order to be understood by a wide audience. Leon Battista Alberti (1404–1472) discussed the demise of Latin in the preface to the third book of his Della famiglia (On the Family, ca. 1432) but resorted to the classical language when writing his Momus sive de principe (Momus, or The Prince, ca. 1444–1450) a couple of years later. Erycius Puteanus (1574–1646), professor of Latin language and eloquence at the University of Leuven, incorporated praise of the vernacular tongue in his inaugural speech Iuventutis Belgicae laudatio (In Praise of Belgian Youth, 1607); as did Jacob Grimm (1785–1863) in his first (Latin) oration as professor at the University of Göttingen, entitled De desiderio patriae (On the Love of the Fatherland, 1830). Dissenting voices were heard as well: staunch supporters of the classical language produced a stream of treatises and speeches defending the use of Latin as a literary, scholarly, or universal language, a phenomenon that lasted well into the nineteenth century (De Santis 1995; IJsewijn and Sacré 1993), including texts by Romolo Quirino Amaseo (1489–1552), Carlo Sigonio (1522/3–1584), Johann Gottfried Herder (1744–1803), and Arthur Schopenhauer (1788–1860). These few examples illustrate that the discussion about which language to choose—Latin or the vernacular?—was a prominent one for more than half a millennium.
In the previous chapter, Keith Sidwell discussed the several phases that can be distinguished in the spread of Latin as a supranational medium of communication before the early modern period. Not only Romance languages, but also Germanic and other vernaculars went through a slow process of standardization and gained enough prestige to compete with Latin in several spheres of life from the thirteenth century onward. Focusing on texts favoring the use of the vernacular, such as those mentioned above, or the even more famous Deffence et illustration de la langue françoyse (The Defense and Illustration of the French Language, 1549) by Joachim Du Bellay (ca. 1522–1560), some scholars have argued that the questione della lingua (“linguistic question”) was settled in favor of the vernacular by the seventeenth century, resulting in an irreversible marginalization of Latin, which would only continue to “vegetate as a university jargon” (Blumenthal and Kahane 1979, 188). Others have stressed that Latin continued to be used to quite a substantial degree well beyond the early modern period, partly because it was often the only tool of communication that people from different language groups had in common. This led, for instance, to Latin translations of vernacular works. Peter Burke has counted more than 1,100 such translations, published between 1500 and 1799, indicating that this practice reached its peak in the seventeenth century and only gradually disappeared, by the second half of the eighteenth century (Burke 2007, 65; see also Grant 1954). A revealing fact is that a Latin translation of a vernacular text was often reprinted or commented upon more frequently than the original version (Waquet 1998, 108–9; Pantin 2007, 170) and regularly acted as the intermediary for other versions—as is the case with Jakob Locher’s Latin translation of Sebastian Brant’s Narrenschiff (Ship of Fools, 1494; Metzger-Rambach 2008). Latin also continued to be used as the language of administration, legislation, and justice, especially in political entities that united several groups, each with its own language, under one central government. This was, for instance, the case in seventeenth-century Hungary (Béranger 1969) or in the Holy Roman Empire, which upheld Latin as the official language until its disintegration in 1806 (Licoppe 2003, 44). The classical language furthermore remained the preferred vehicle of official documents and prestigious or festive forms of communication, which demanded a language that was considered to be both eternal and universal, as is evidenced in the querelle des inscriptions (“dispute about inscriptions”) in seventeenth-century France concerning the question of whether inscriptions on public monuments should be written in Latin or the vernacular (Denecker 2013), or in doctoral degrees bestowed honoris causa, which are, to this day, still written in Latin at many universities across Europe. Moreover, this continued use of Latin was certainly not limited to the “Old World”: it was also, for instance, used by Jesuit authors from New Spain constructing a Mexican legacy (Laird 2012, Chapter 33).
It is therefore important to do justice to the linguistic diversity, and sometimes confusion, in the early modern world, where Latin, as the supranational language, coexisted for several centuries with the various national languages in any number of cultural spheres. One needs to avoid the pitfall of focusing on the opposition between the classical language and modern vernaculars, which is the particular domain of linguistic theory and controversy, and instead try to respect literary and linguistic reality by considering what Grahame Castor and Terence Cave have termed “the interpenetration of Neo-Latin and the vernacular” (Castor and Cave 1984, xii). The early modern world was very much a polyglot one, in which all intellectuals mastered Latin besides their native tongue and possibly other vernaculars or ancient Greek (Frijhoff 2010; Van Hal 2011). In literature, this clearly led to a mutual enrichment, as is exemplified in the work of John Milton (1608–1674; e.g., Hale 1997). It also gave authors the opportunity to switch languages as they saw fit: Thomas More (1478–1535), François Rabelais (ca. 1494–1553), Jean Calvin (1509–1564), Galileo Galilei (1564–1642), Thomas Hobbes (1588–1679), René Descartes (1596–1650), and numerous others published in Latin as well as in their native tongues in order to reach different and broader audiences. When studying this code-switching, one finds indications that Latin and the vernaculars were regularly connected to specific situations or topics. A famous example is Martin Luther’s Tischreden (Table Talks, 1566), delivered in German and Latin, wherein Latin seems reserved for the discussion of intellectual matters, especially theological ones (Stolt 1964). One also encounters instances of friction, when the dividing line between the vernacular and Latin is put into question. An interesting example is found at universities, traditionally seen (together with the Roman Catholic Church, see Waquet 1998) as bulwarks for the classical language. Despite this traditionalist context, some early modern academics criticized the preponderance of Latin as the language of science and scholarship because they were concerned about the commercial success of their work (Knight 2006).
A particular category of sources, namely “polyglot publications”—used in this context as the overarching name for all books that contain more than one language, regardless of their organization, structure, or particular use—serves as an important testimony of the linguistic world of early modern Europe and offers vital information for the study of the social and cultural histories of the various languages involved. At the outset, it is important to identify different categories of polyglossia—for instance, on the basis of James Noel Adams’s distinction between “mixed-language” and “multilingual” texts (Adams 2003). Mixed-language texts combine two or more languages in the same discourse (for example, an English text peppered with occasional Latin quotes), while multilingual texts basically repeat the same message in two or more languages so that there always is a certain element of repetition between different text sections (for example, an edition of a Latin text with a facing translation into English). The fact that early modern authors were already aware of this distinction is evidenced by the Poematum Liber (Book of Poems, 1573) of Richard Willes (1546–1579?; see also Binns 1990, 50–60). This Poematum Liber is a remarkable collection of one hundred poems, followed by a disputation about poetry and a commentary written by Willes himself. The book was intended as a defense of the art of poetry and as a sort of introduction to various verse forms. The hundred examples include acrostics, anagrams, chronograms, and visual poems, but also a number of poems that combine several languages. Interestingly enough, Willes makes more or less the same distinction as Adams would more than four hundred years later. On one hand, he identifies poems as linguis diversis (poems whose content is repeated “in several languages,” which Adams calls “multilingual texts”); on the other, there are poems with a linguarum mixtio (so “mixed-language” texts). Willes explains that the interplay between the different languages in multilingual poems adds a certain charm, whereas mixed-language poems lift less distinguished languages to a higher level because they are paired with more prestigious ones.
A particular category of mixed-language texts, which became popular during the Renaissance, are so-called macaronics—a disputed term, with fuzzy boundaries, for texts composed of material from more than one language (Demo 2014). When defined most strictly, macaronic texts are written in dactylic hexameters, offering a mixture of Latin with another language for humorous purposes. The term is used a bit less strictly to denote poems in which two languages are mixed, so that as a result words and expressions of one language are forced into the grammatical (and sometimes idiomatic) framework of the other, principal language—typically Latin, into which vernacular words or groups of words are inserted and superficially Latinized (Sacré 2006). However, the term “macaronics” is also—most broadly, and, some would argue, erroneously—used to denote any type of text mixing several languages. The flexibility of the term is, in any case, illustrated in the 1813 collection Carminum rariorum macaronicorum delectus (Anthology of Remarkable Macaronic Poems), which contains only one “real” macaronic poem according to the strict definition, but several other mixed-language and multilingual texts, bringing together Latin and English on the printed page (Demo 2014, 96–97).
The mixture of languages in macaronics provides an opportunity to make a witty play on the social status of the languages involved. Some macaronic texts thus undermine the use of Latin as “a device to maintain the power of the clergy and other professional men such as doctors, lawyers and of course academics” (Burke 1987, 2), by making fun of pseudo-intellectuals who use (pig) Latin in an effort to distinguish themselves from the common herd. Famous examples of this are found in George Ruggle’s Ignoramus (1614), which is a merciless attack on legal jargon (Tucker 1977; Kallendorf 2003; Ryan 2013) and in the final scene of Molière’s Le malade imaginaire (The Imaginary Invalid, 1673), satirizing the pomposity surrounding the medical profession.
Besides the distinction between multilingual and mixed-language texts, further non-exclusive subcategories can be identified in the overarching group of polyglot publications, based on differences in their function and appearance (Verbeke 2013a). In what follows, attention will be paid to polyglossia used for didactic reasons, as well as to polyglossia as a literary device, leaving aside what one could call “accidental polyglossia,” which is, for instance, found when an author’s portrait accompanied by some laudatory verses in one language is reprinted in another publication in a different language. An example of this is provided by A Discourse of the Conference Holden before the French King at Fontaine-Belleau, betweene the L. Bishop of Eureux, and Monsieur du Plessis L. of Mornay, the 4. of May 1600 (1601), an English edition of a French text, with numerous Latin quotes printed in the margin. The main text is preceded by an engraved portrait of Philippe de Mornay (1549–1623), accompanied by a Dutch poem, and it can be surmised that both the portrait and the poem were reprinted from an earlier (further unrelated) Dutch publication.
An intentional and obvious form of polyglossia involving Latin and one or more vernaculars is found in publications used for linguistic instruction. This category contains, besides dictionaries and grammars, also phrasebooks and collections of dialogues or other texts enabling the user to compare the version in the language he or she knows with the version in the language he or she is trying to learn. A survey of these didactic publications informs us that Latin continued to play a role, both as the universal language that can be used as a common basis by individuals from separate language groups, and as a language that should be taught not only as a literary but also as a practical medium of communication. Some of these publications, in other words, do not approach Latin as an artificial language confined to the sphere of high culture, but treat it on the same level as the vernacular, to be used as a means of communication in daily life. A telling example of the role of Latin in didactic publications of this kind is found in the various editions of the Vocabulare (Vocabulary, 1527) of the Antwerp schoolmaster Noël de Berlaimont (d. 1531). The original Vocabulare, printed in Antwerp in 1527, was a bilingual Dutch-French course book, including a number of dialogues, a word list, and a survey of pronunciation rules (van der Sijs 2000). It was aimed at Dutch speakers who wanted to learn French through private study. The book enjoyed remarkable success and was revised and expanded over and over again to include other languages such as English, Breton, Polish, Malaysian, Czech, Spanish, Portuguese, Italian, German, and Latin. More than 150 editions of these multilingual revisions appeared between 1527 and 1759, and de Berlaimont’s work thus evolved into a truly international language manual used for more than two hundred years. The supranational status of Latin is proved by the fact that it frequently serves as the entry language in the reprints, while the entry language in the original edition was Dutch. We find, for instance, a bilingual Latin-French edition printed in Antwerp in 1576, omitting the Dutch original altogether and simply replacing it with a Latin translation, whereby the user was expected to learn French on the basis of his or her knowledge of Latin. A similar thing happens in a version with eight languages printed in the Dutch city of Vlissingen in 1613, in which Latin is clearly the dominant language, expected to be common to all possible users. The title page of this edition offers Latin first, in capitals and a large font, which is followed by the title in French and Dutch in smaller print. Moreover, all preliminary texts are written in Latin, and the Latin version of the dialogues is printed in the first column. This was probably done with the international marketing of this book in mind: as Latin was the universal language, it seemed logical to reserve the first place for it, so that it could be sold everywhere without having to change the title page or the structure of the book. The position of Latin is different in yet another revision of de Berlaimont’s work that was especially aimed at the English market. This English, Latine, French, Dutch, Schole-Master was printed in London in 1637 and was intended—according to its subtitle—as An Introduction to Teach Young Gentlemen and Merchants to Travell or Trade. Contrary to the previous example, this particular revision does not accord a privileged place to Latin at all. The title page and the preface are both exclusively in English, and the Latin version of the dialogues is printed in the last column, with the Dutch original in the first. Instead of assuming that the user already knows Latin, the editor of this particular version of de Berlaimont’s manual presents the classical language as a modern one that should be mastered by English-speaking merchants and other travelers in the same way as they should master Dutch or French. This practical application of Latin is also stressed in the preliminary poems—one in each of the four languages of the book—which advertise this publication as an ideal tool to acquire the expected linguistic skills, as is exemplified by the English one (de Berlaimont 1637, A2r):
If thou Foure uarious Languages would’st know,
Grudge not my price; For I to thee will show.
Their seuerall Dialects, with which you may,
Through spacious Europe trauell any way.
A related category of polyglossia is found in translations that print the Latin source text together with its vernacular rendition. This frequently happens with a didactic purpose in mind. Research over the last two decades has brought to light the many formats of bilingual presentation translators (or editors of translations) had at their disposal (Henkel 1995; Taylor 2006; Verbeke 2013b and 2015). Besides the (now common) mise-en-page (page placement) of printing the source text with its translation in parallel columns or on facing pages, we also find early printed books in which the source text is combined with an interlinear translation, mirroring medieval usage in, among others, biblical and liturgical texts (Hellgardt 1992). Such an interlinear version offers a vernacular equivalent for each individual Latin word, printed directly beneath or above it. It should thus be read vertically, as a word-for-word correspondence between the two versions, rather than horizontally (since the translation is not a syntactically coherent text when read horizontally). A variant offering sentence-by-sentence (instead of word-by-word) correspondence between the Latin original and its vernacular translation is, for example, found in bilingual phrasebooks based on Terence, such as the Vulgaria quaedam abs Terentio in Anglicam linguam traducta (Common Phrases Taken from Terence and Translated into English, first published in 1483 and reprinted six times up to 1529). This phrasebook was published in the same year and by the same printer as the Compendium totius grammaticae (Compendium of All Grammar, 1483) of John Anwykyll (d. 1487), schoolmaster of Magdalen College School in Oxford, and was thus most probably intended to be used with his grammar in the classroom. In the first couple of editions, each English phrase is followed by its Latin equivalent. The fact that the English comes first indicates that this was the entry language; the Latin, however, derives prominence from being printed in a larger font. But this layout changes in the editions of 1510 and 1529, in which the interlinear presentation is preserved, but the English and the Latin trade places: the Latin now comes first, while the English is printed in a larger font. The switch suggests that the intended use of these reprints was different from that of the original version. The English-Latin version was probably intended mainly to teach the students how to speak and write better Latin, starting from the English expressions and translating them into Latin. The Latin-English versions, on the other hand, start from the Latin and thus seem to be primarily designed to help students to translate Latin into English.
A more extreme example of a polyglot publication illustrating contemporary educational practice is provided by the bilingual schoolbooks printed according to the method of parsing, developed (and patented) by the linguist and physician Joseph Webbe (d. ca. 1630). The intention of Webbe’s method is to enable students to see immediately the links between Latin sentences and their English equivalents without having to refer to any grammatical explanation (Salmon 1961a and 1961b). The result is a complex typographical system using clause numbers, horizontal and vertical lines, and various symbols to indicate which parts of a certain Latin sentence correspond with which parts in its English translation, without altering the original word order of either of the two versions. Other formats of bilingual presentation of a translated text clearly serve less didactic purposes, as is exemplified by an anonymous English rendition of the Andria (The Girl from Andros) of Terence printed in Paris in 1520, which literally marginalizes the Latin text in the layout. This type of mise-en-page had previously been used for annotated texts, with the text in the center of the page and the glosses in the margin, and was later copied by the translators of the same texts (Molins 2007). The dominance of the vernacular in this particular edition of the Andria is perhaps explained by the translator’s desire to stress the (relatively) recently acquired status of the English language as a valid medium for literature. In a long preliminary poem, he argues that, thanks to the efforts of English poets such as Geoffrey Chaucer (ca. 1340–1400) and John Lydgate (ca. 1370–1449/50?), the English language is “amplyfyed so / That we therin now translate as well may / As in eny other tongis other can do” (Terence 1520, A1v).
A very diverse and large category of polyglot publications consists of multilingual and mixed-language texts that use polyglossia as a literary device (such as the macaronic texts already mentioned). In other words, Latin occurs in these texts together with one or more vernaculars to highlight the linguistic and literary abilities of the author or to add particular charm or humor to the text. A first example is the ballad Amantium irae amoris redintegratio est (A Lovers’ Tiff is the Renewal of Love) printed in 1625, in which six verses of English are each time followed by a refrain in Latin (a facsimile together with a modern recording of the ballad is found as “no. 30011” in the English Broadside Ballad Archive). This refrain is the proverb Amantium irae amoris redintegratio est, whose origin can be traced to Terence (Andria, line 555). The presence of a classical language seems quite remarkable, since ballads were aimed at a broad audience and their content and style were therefore supposed to be kept simple. The use of Latin does not seem to fit that picture, but it is perhaps explained by the author’s desire to elevate a popular genre as well as its vehicle—the vernacular—to a higher level, thus providing an example of Richard Willes’s explanation of mixed-language texts.
A more elaborate use of various languages is, for instance, found in the single-sheet print Ad Serenissimam Elizabetham Angliae Reginam (To the Most Noble Elizabeth, Queen of England) from 1588, signed by the French Protestant humanist Théodore de Bèze (1519–1605). This publication, celebrating the defeat of the Spanish Armada, contains verses in eight different languages: Latin, English, Dutch, Spanish, Hebrew, Greek, Italian, and French. Each section more or less repeats the content of the verses in the other languages, except for the last, anonymous, French poem, which is addressed to de Bèze. A translator is identified by his initials above the Spanish version, but there is no indication of other translators, which seems to suggest that all the other sections were written by de Bèze himself. This print is a clear example of propaganda. It is known that de Bèze was trying to secure English support in the war against Savoy (Geisendorf 1967, 291 and 377) and consequently flattered Elizabeth I as the protector of all European Protestants and particularly those living in France, the Low Countries, and Italy—for instance, in the dedicatory epistle of his commentary on Job (of which the English translation was printed in London around 1589), in which he called Elizabeth the “nourcing mother to the French, Duch, and Italians, exiles for the profession of Christ, and the victorious defendresse of the whole true Christian religion” (de Bèze 1589, A2r). This might explain the inclusion of verses in French, Dutch, and Italian, but they in each case also serve, along with the five other languages used, to confirm the celebrated linguistic skills of Elizabeth I (Knight 2015) and obviously advertise the linguistic and poetic talents of de Bèze himself as well.
Another example of a polyglot publication illustrating the linguistic abilities of a particular author is found in the Bausme de Galaad pour la guerison d’un coeur navré (The Balm of Gilead for the Healing of a Grieving Heart) of the Dutch preacher Daniel Souterius (1571–1634), a volume written for the consolation of Elizabeth Stuart (1596–1662) at the time of the death of her eldest son, Henry Frederick, Elector Palatine, who drowned in 1629. The book is divided into four parts, each with its own title page and separate pagination, and each written in a different language (English, French, Dutch, Latin). An inadvertent reader would at first assume that the four parts are interchangeable translations, but it becomes clear upon closer inspection that the situation is somewhat more complex. The Latin section does not correspond at all with the vernacular ones, while the French and Dutch parts are more or less expanded versions of the English text, offering the same arguments in a different sequence (and therefore cannot be described as real translations either). The volume thus offers an interesting compilation that can only be enjoyed fully when the user reads all four sections (and so needs to master all four languages in order to be able to enjoy the collection as a whole).
Commemorative volumes of this sort form a genre in which polyglossia is frequently found, especially if the poems are written by various authors. For instance, the collections Epicedium Cantabrigiense (Cambridge’s Poem of Lament) and Iusta Oxoniensium (Oxford’s Funeral Rites), produced at the Universities of Cambridge and Oxford on the occasion of the demise of another Henry Frederick (1594–1612), the Prince of Wales, consist mainly of Latin poems, but both also include poems in ancient Greek and French, with additional verses in English and Italian in the Cambridge compilation, and in Hebrew in the Oxford one.
Latin is also frequently combined with one or more vernaculars for literary reasons in polyglot emblem books, which Leonard Forster called “one of the characteristic literary products of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries” (Forster 1970, 20). A famous example is Silenus Alcibiadis, sive Proteus (The Silenus of Alcibiades, or Proteus) of the Dutch poet and politician Jacob Cats (1577–1660), perhaps better known under the title Sinne- en Minnebeelden (Portraits of Morality and Love). This collection of emblems first appeared in 1618 and offered fifty-one emblematic images accompanied by mottos, poems, and quotations in Dutch, French, and Latin. Many revised and expanded editions appeared, including one in the same year offering additional explanations in Dutch and Latin prose (for a critical edition with a full discussion of the various editions of Cats’s emblem book, see Cats 1996). As far as we know, the Dutch, French, and Latin texts in the original edition were written by Cats himself. The use of three languages paralleled the tripartite structure of the volume: the collection is structured in three parts mirroring the three Ages of Man (youth, maturity, and old age) and offers interpretations of the images on three levels; namely, amorous, moral, and religious. The division of labor between the three languages is both multilingual and mixed-language: certain sections are repeated in all three, whereas others are only available in one or two languages. Cats’s emblem book thus not only offers an interplay between text and image, but also between the various languages.
A similar case is the polyglot expansion of the Emblemes ou Devises Chrestiennes (Emblems or Christian Mottos) of Georgette de Montenay (1540–ca. 1581). This emblem book first appeared in a monolingual French edition in 1571 but was later reprinted with additional verses in Latin, Spanish, Italian, German, English, and Dutch. De Montenay was not responsible herself for these additional verses, which are not simply translations of the original French, but offer new information. Like the previous examples, the resulting emblem book thus demands of the reader a mastery of all languages involved in order fully to enjoy the collection as a whole (A. Adams 2002, 2003). Other polyglot emblem books are less demanding; for instance, when the sections in different languages are, essentially, interchangeable translations of the same text. A case in hand is the Lychnocausia sive moralia facum emblemata (Lychnocausia or Moral Emblems of the Light, 1638) by the obscure Scottish poet Robert Farley (fl. 1624–1638). The bilingual character of this collection of emblems is already evident from the title page and other paratexts. There are two dedicatory epistles: one in Latin, addressed to Robert Ker (1578–1654), first Earl of Ancram; and a second one in English, addressed to Anne Ker (née Portman), the second wife of Robert. With this division between Latin for the male dedicatee and English for the female dedicatee, Farley draws a linguistic line between the sexes, which has also been observed in sixteenth-century Danish culture (Skafte Jensen 1991). Farley’s dedicatory epistles are followed by several preliminary poems, both in English and in Latin. One of these, written by a certain Thomas Beedom, comments on the bilingual character of the collection and is—despite the fact that the poet is writing in English himself—not very complimentary toward the vernacular (Farley 1638, A6v, lines 9–14):
So in this Midwifery of wit, by Thee
Delivered, two lights, two Subjects be.
Thy nobler Roman stile to day-borne men
Children of Arts, directs thy Latin pen.
And that the duller ignorant might see,
They have a Mother-Moone begot by Thee.
This belittlement of the public for the English version of the text does not alter the fact that both languages are treated more or less equally in the collection. Each pictura (illustration) has a Latin and an English motto, and each has a Latin and an English poem, which are in essence reasonably trustworthy translations of each other. There is one exception: Emblem 57 has only an English explanation. It is thus clear that readers do not need to read all the verses in the different languages—as was the case in the polyglot editions of de Montenay and Cats. Instead, they can limit themselves to either the Latin or the English, and the division was probably intended to run along the same lines as the dedicatory epistles: men were supposed to read the Latin verses; women, the English.
One could state that mixed-language and multilingual texts from the early modern period acted as “ambassadors of Babel,” as eloquent emissaries of the polyglot world that was early modern Europe (and beyond). Latin was clearly still an important part (or perhaps even the most important part) of the linguistic tapestry of this polyglot world and continued to be used in a wide variety of contexts. It coexisted and interacted with the modern languages in any number of ways. Sometimes it was the dominant partner, used when the occasion called for a certain dignity, longevity, and international appeal that the vernaculars in the opinion of most still lacked. Sometimes Latin was just one of the many languages in a piece of linguistic bravura, used either as an element within a polyglot piece of art or in order to address a certain segment of the reading public. On other occasions, the continuing practical application of Latin prevailed. The examples discussed in this chapter thus illustrate the flexible status of Latin during this period. The classical language was used differently from context to context, from publication to publication, and from author to author. And while the rise of the vernaculars cannot of course be denied, the study of polyglot publications proves that this was a slow process in which Latin continued to play a role in many guises, and interacted with the various national languages in numerous ways.
SUGGESTED READING
Forster (1970) offers a concise survey of multilingualism in literature, which still acts as a very readable introduction to this field of study. Haynes (2003) provides a more detailed overview of different sorts of multilingual books and the interference of Latin with English literature, while Janson ([2002] 2004) discusses the use of Latin terminology in the sciences and technical subjects, as well as loan words and neologisms. Playful bilingualism is treated in Jeanneret (1987), as is the sociolinguistic status of post-medieval Latin in Burke (1993). More recently, the online journal Renæssanceforum has devoted two special issues to Latin and the vernaculars in early modern Europe (Hass and Ramminger 2010) and the role of Latin in linguistic identity and nationalism from 1350 to 1800 (Coroleu, Caruso, and Laird 2012), which contain numerous interesting case studies.
REFERENCES
Adams, Alison. 2002. “Georgette de Montenay in the 1619 Polyglot Edition.” In Female Saints and Sinners: Saintes et Mondaines (France 1450–1650), edited by Jennifer Britnell and Ann Moss, 147–62. Durham: University of Durham.
_____. 2003. “The Dutch Version of Georgette de Montenay’s Emblemes ou devises chrestiennes in the 1619 edition.” In The Stone of Alciato: Literature and Visual Culture in the Low Countries; Essays in Honour of Karel Porteman, edited by Marc van Vaeck, Hugo Brems, and Geert H. M. Claassens, 751–66. Leuven: Peeters.
Adams, James N. 2003. Bilingualism and the Latin Language. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Béranger, Jean. 1969. “Latin et langues vernaculaires dans la Hongrie du XVIIe siècle.” Revue Historique 242:5–28.
De Berlaimont, Noël. 1637. The English, Latine, French, Dutch, Schole-Master. London: A. G[riffin] for Michael Sparke.
De Bèze, Théodore. 1588. Ad Serenissimam Elizabetham Angliae Reginam. London: George Bishop and Ralph Newbery.
_____. 1589. Iob expounded by Theodore Beza, partly in manner of a commentary, partly in manner of a paraphrase. London: John Legatt for Abraham Kitson.
Binns, James W. 1990. Intellectual Culture in Elizabethan and Jacobean England: The Latin Writings of the Age. Leeds: Francis Cairns.
Blumenthal, Henry, and Renée Kahane. 1979. “Decline and Survival of Western Prestige Languages.” Language 55:183–98.
Burke, Peter. 1987. “Introduction.” In The Social History of Language, edited by Peter Burke and Roy Porter, 1–20. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
_____. 1993. The Art of Conversation. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.
_____. 2007. “Translations into Latin in Early Modern Europe.” In Burke and Hsia, 65–80. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Burke, Peter, and Ronnie Po-Chia Hsia, eds. 2007. Cultural Translation in Early Modern Europe. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Castor, Grahame, and Terence Cave. 1984. “Introduction.” In Neo-Latin and the Vernacular in Renaissance France, xi–xvii. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Cats, Jacob. 1996. Sinne- en minnebeelden. Edited by Hans Luijten. 3 vols. The Hague: Constantijn Huygens Instituut.
Coroleu, Alejandro, Carlo Caruso, and Andrew Laird, eds. 2012. The Role of Latin in the Early Modern World: Linguistic Identity and Nationalism 1350–1800. Special issue of Renæssanceforum: Journal of Renaissance Studies. Available at http://www.renaessanceforum.dk/rf_8_2012.htm.
Demo, Šime. 2014. “Towards a Unified Definition of Macaronics.” Humanistica Lovaniensia 63:83–106.
Denecker, Tim. 2013. “Joannes Lucas SJ, De monumentis publicis Latine inscribendis oratio (Paris, 1677): Introduction, Analysis of Assumptions about Language, and Annotated Edition.” Humanistica Lovaniensia 62:523–81.
De Santis, Carla. 1995. “Latin versus the Vernacular in Renaissance Italy: The Development of the Controversy with Special Reference to Carlo Sigonio’s De latinae linguae usu retinendo (1556).” Rinascimento 35:349–71.
English Broadside Ballad Archive. Available at http://ebba.english.ucsb.edu/.
Farley, Robert. 1638. Lychnocausia sive moralia facum emblemata. London: Thomas Cotes for Michael Sparke.
Forster, Leonard. 1970. The Poet’s Tongues: Multilingualism in Literature. London: Cambridge University Press.
Frijhoff, Willem. 2010. Meertaligheid in de Gouden Eeuw: Een verkenning. Amsterdam: Koninklijke Nederlandse Akademie van Wetenschappen.
Geisendorf, Paul F. 1967. Théodore de Bèze. Geneva: Jullien.
Grant, W. Leonard. 1954. “European Vernacular Works in Latin Translation.” Studies in the Renaissance 1:120–56.
Hale, John. 1997. Milton’s Languages: The Impact of Multilingualism on Style. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Hass, Trine A., and Johann Ramminger, eds. 2010. Latin and the Vernaculars in Early Modern Europe. Special issue of Renæssanceforum: Journal of Renaissance Studies. Available at http://www.renaessanceforum.dk/rf_6_2010.htm.
Haynes, Kenneth. 2003. English Literature and Ancient Languages. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Hellgardt, Ernst. 1992. “Lateinisch-deutsche Textensembles in Handschriften des 12. Jahrhunderts.” In Latein und Volkssprache im deutschen Mittelalter 1100–1500, edited by Nikolaus Henkel and Nigel F. Palmer, 19–31. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer.
Henkel, Nikolaus. 1995. “Printed School Texts: Types of Bilingual Presentation in Incunabula.” Renaissance Studies 9:212–27.
IJsewijn, Jozef, and Dirk Sacré. 1993. “The Ultimate Efforts to Save Latin as the Means of International Communication.” History of European Ideas 16:51–66.
Janson, Tore. (2002) 2004. A Natural History of Latin. Translated by Merethe Damsgård Sørensen and Nigel Vincent. New York: Oxford University Press.
Jeanneret, Michel. 1987. Des mets et des mots: Banquets et propos de table à la Renaissance. Paris: Corti. Translated by Jeremy Whiteley and Emma Hughes as A Feast of Words: Banquets and Table Talk in the Renaissance. 1991. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Kallendorf, Hilaire. 2003. “Exorcism and the Interstices of Language: Ruggle’s Ignoramus and the Demonization of Renaissance English Neo-Latin.” In ACNL 2003, 303–10.
Knight, Sarah. 2006. “It was not mine intent to prostitute my Muse in English: Academic Publication in Early Modern England.” In Print and Power in France and England, 1500–1800, edited by David Adams and Adrian Armstrong, 39–51. Aldershot: Ashgate.
_____. 2015. “Texts Presented to Elizabeth I on the University Progresses.” In A Concise Companion to the Study of Manuscripts, Printed Books, and the Production of Early Modern Texts, edited by Edward Jones. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.
Laird, Andrew. 2012. “Patriotism and the Rise of Latin in Eighteenth-Century New Spain: Disputes of the New World and the Jesuit Construction of a Mexican Legacy.” In Coroleu, Caruso, and Laird, op. cit. 231–61.
Licoppe, Guy. 2003. Le latin et le politique: Les avatars du latin à travers les âges. Brussels: Musée de la Maison d’Erasme.
Metzger-Rambach, Anne-Laure. 2008. “Le texte emprunté”: Étude comparée du Narrenschiff de Sebastian Brant et ses adaptations (1494–1509). Paris: Champion.
Molins, Marine. 2007. “Mises en page: Les efforts conjugués des traducteurs et des imprimeurs.” Camenae 3. Available at http://www.paris-sorbonne.fr/la-recherche/les-unites-de-recherche/mondes-anciens-et-medievaux-ed1/rome-et-ses-renaissances-art-3625/revue-en-ligne-camenae/.
Pantin, Isabelle. 2007. “The Role of Translations in European Scientific Exchanges in the Sixteenth and Seventeenth Centuries.” In Burke and Hsia, op. cit. 163–79.
Ryan, Cressida. 2013. “An Ignoramus about Latin? The Importance of Latin Literatures to George Ruggle’s Ignoramus.” In The Early Modern Cultures of Neo-Latin Drama, edited by Philip Ford and Andrew Taylor, 159–74. Leuven: Leuven University Press.
Sacré, Dirk. 2006. “Macaronic Poetry.” In Brill’s New Pauly Online, edited by Hubert Cancik and Helmuth Schneider. Leiden: Brill. Available at http://referenceworks.brillonline.com/entries/brill-s-new-pauly/macaronic-poetry-ct-e1502450.
Salmon, Vivian. 1961a. “Joseph Webbe: Some Seventeenth-Century Views on Language-Teaching and the Nature of Meaning.” Bibliothèque d’humanisme et renaissance 23:324–40.
_____. 1961b. “An Ambitious Printing Project of the Early Seventeenth Century.” The Library 16:190–96.
Skafte Jensen, Minna. 1991. “The Language of Eternity: The Role of Latin in 16th-Century Danish Culture.” In ACNL 1991, 41–61.
Stolt, Birgit. 1964. Die Sprachmischung in Luthers Tischreden: Studien zum Problem der Zweisprachigkeit. Stockholm: Almqvist och Wiksell.
Taylor, Barry. 2006. “Iberian-Latin Bilingual Editions, Fifteenth-Eighteenth Centuries.” In Latin and Vernacular in Renaissance Iberia, II: Translations and Adaptations, edited by Barry Taylor and Alejandro Coroleu, 149–69. Manchester: Manchester Spanish and Portuguese Studies.
Terence. 1520. Andria. Paris: Phillipe le Noir.
Tucker, E. F. J. 1977. “Ruggle’s Ignoramus and Humanistic Criticism of the Language of the Common Law.” Renaissance Quarterly 30:34–50.
Van der Sijs, Nicoline. 2000. “Wie komt daar aan op die olifant?” Een zestiende-eeuws taalgidsje voor Nederland en Indië, inclusief het verhaal van de avontuurlijke gevangenschap van Frederik de Houtman in Indië. Amsterdam: L. J. Veen.
Van Hal, Toon. 2011. “A Man of Eight Hearts: Hadrian Junius and Sixteenth-Century Plurilinguism.” In The Kaleidoscopic Scholarship of Hadrianus Junius (1511–1575). Northern Humanism at the Dawn of the Dutch Golden Age, edited by Dirk Van Miert, 188–213. Leiden: Brill.
Verbeke, Demmy. 2013a. “Polyglotte publicaties in de vroegmoderne tijd.” In De Tuin der Talen: Taalstudie en taalcultuur in de Lage Landen, 1450–1750, edited by Toon Van Hal, Lambert Isebaert, and Pierre Swiggers, 71–91. Leuven: Peeters.
_____. 2013b. “Cato in England: Translating Latin Sayings for Moral and Linguistic Instruction.” In Renaissance Cultural Crossroads: Translation, Print and Culture in Britain, 1473–1640, edited by Sara Barker and Brenda Hosington, 139–55. Leiden: Brill.
_____. 2015. “Types of Bilingual Presentation in the English-Latin Terence.” In Bilingual Europe: Latin and Vernacular Cultures, Examples of Bilingualism and Multilingualism c. 1300–1800, edited by Jan Bloemendal, 73–82. Leiden: Brill.
Waquet, Françoise. 1998. Le latin ou l’empire d’un signe: XVIe–XXe siècle. Paris: Albin Michel.