Hans Kohn's mention of The Works of Ossian is far too brief. Anyone willing to fake an entire collection of heroic poetry allegedly about the Celtic forebears of Great Britain is someone with a very strong national feeling. Though perhaps such a person was exceptional in his having that feeling, or his conception of "nation" is just too loose for Kohn.
No doubt, the reason that Kohn just gives a brief mention to James Macpherson's forgery is that he's really concentrating on France in his discussion of shifting ideas of sovereignty. I think he's justified in doing so, but also missing out on what's going on in the peripheries.
Nonetheless, it's fascinating to know that French had no problem becoming a universal language in the eighteenth century, but struggled to become a common language within France. For the longest time Latin persisted as the language of instruction, though most of the contemporary philosophers and writers put their thoughts down in their nation's common tongue.
Eventually, Latin was pushed aside in favour of French as the language of instruction and politics, and was thereby legitimized. That this happened some time after ideas of governance started to swing around to the governed governing themselves really gives substance to the idea that Latin was a prince among languages.
And indeed it was.
Latin had been the language of instruction and diplomacy for centuries, and yet, it outlasted the much older idea of governance by an active monarchy in Europe. Though Latin wasn't subject to as much change as governance was over the centuries. Given that, perhaps it rusted shut in a way and that's why it lasted that little bit longer.
No comments:
Post a Comment