The Interpretation of Correctness in Late Latin Texts

Abstract

Whatever our interpretation of the exact nature of the language of Latin documents and inscriptions of the centuries preceding the emergence of written Romance may be,' there seems little doubt that the deviations from Classical or standard Latin which are found in these written materials are due to interference coming from the speech of their writers. Thus, ever since Diez and Schuchardt, Romanists have turned to the mistakes found in Vulgar Latin writings in order to find corroborating evidence for developments which took place in spoken Romance. Recent studies have shown that the mistakes made by the Late Latin writers and scribes follow consistent patterns which reveal the developments and even the underlying dialectal trends of their speech.2 The real problem of interpreting Late Latin documents and perhaps the real crux of the controversy connected with those documents is, strangely enough, not the interpretation of consistent deviations from Classical standards, but the evaluation of patterns of consistent conformity with that standard. Systematic deviations from the standard are basically capable of only one interpretation: influence or interference from the spoken language. Adherence to the classical standard can be interpreted in at least three possible ways: (1) the writer or scribe has learned Classical Latin rather well, and hence is capable of using the classically correct forms although his speech patterns may be radically different; (2) his speech patterns and Classical or standard written Latin are in agreement, so that there is no noticeable interference of those speech patterns in his written Latin; (3) the speech patterns have diverged