What are you currently reading?

[Florestan]

We're Romaniacs!

About the "Third Rome", perhaps?   

[Todd]

About the Third Rome perhaps?   

Tee-hee.

[kishnevi]

Actually, it is (or at least was) routine among historians to speaking of the "Angevin Empire" in speaking of the Plantagenet state in the last half of the 12th century. 

BTW

Nicolae Iorga came the closest one could get to making exactly this claim in his 1935  " Byzance après Byzance

Note which term he used...

[Jo498]

Did Latin ever stop being used for state documents in the HRE?

To my knowledge Latin remained the official document language in the HRE and even later in Poland and Hungary (I don't have a good source, only a German language wikipedia article that mentions this in passing).

Apart from legal documents Latin clearly dominates as lingua franca of science (and related stuff, simply anything vaguely scholarly) until the 18th century. During the 18th century French becomes also important, especially in diplomacy.
But even until about 1900 Latin was very important and many academic writings (such as dissertations) were (or had to be) written in Latin.
I think at some universities one is still allowed to turn in a Latin dissertation but I guess it is by now uncommon even in Classics. But prefaces and critical apparatus for editions of Latin and Greek texts are still done in Latin as are of course all official papal writings.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Latin#Notable_works_.281500.E2.80.931900.29

[Christo]

Actually, even today there is a country called Romania and a people who identify themselves as Romanians. 
Bottom line, we might not be Romans, but we surely are Romanians, which in itself is no small accomplishment, all things considered. 

I read Nicolae Iorga's classic already in the 1990s and yes, am aware of Romania's Roman heritage. But the very name - Romania- is a 19th Century invention, isn't it?

Reading here and now, in a very Roman, but even hotter, Cyprus:

[kishnevi]

To my knowledge Latin remained the official document language in the HRE and even later in Poland and Hungary (I don't have a good source, only a German language wikipedia article that mentions this in passing).

Apart from legal documents Latin clearly dominates as lingua franca of science (and related stuff, simply anything vaguely scholarly) until the 18th century. During the 18th century French becomes also important, especially in diplomacy.
But even until about 1900 Latin was very important and many academic writings (such as dissertations) were (or had to be) written in Latin.
I think at some universities one is still allowed to turn in a Latin dissertation but I guess it is by now uncommon even in Classics. But prefaces and critical apparatus for editions of Latin and Greek texts are still done in Latin as are of course all official papal writings.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Latin#Notable_works_.281500.E2.80.931900.29

Thanks.  I realize how long Latin survived in the professions and academia, just was not sure of its use in actual government.

My high school library had Latin translations of Lewis Carroll.

[Christo]

To my knowledge Latin remained the official document language in the HRE and even later in Poland and Hungary (I don't have a good source, only a German language wikipedia article that mentions this in passing).

Correct. And of course in Austria, where replacing Latin by German later in the 18th Century - as it happened- only managed to damage delicate internal relations.

[Florestan]

I read Nicolae Iorga's classic already in the 1990s and yes, am aware of Romania's Roman heritage. But the very name - Romania- is a 19th Century invention, isn't it?

România as the name of the country is indeed a 19-th century creation, but român/rumân for the people and românește/rumânește for the language are documented the 16th century, as well as the term Țeara Rumânească, ie The Romanian Land.

[Jo498]

Thanks.  I realize how long Latin survived in the professions and academia, just was not sure of its use in actual government.

I think one reason might also be that some regional (slavic) languages were hardly standardized until rather late. Of course this is a feedback loop: if anything official/printed is in Latin or French or German or whatever, it will take a long time for standardized written Polish or whatever to develop.
Again it is interesting that the early missionaries (like Cyril and Method or (W)Ulfilas mentioned in the article Florestan linked) took a different approach, they helped developing alphabets for illiterate cultures and translated parts of the bible into the regional languages.
(This is still a difference between the orthodox churches that use local languages (or ancient versions of some local languages) and the Roman catholic church that has been a Latin church since late antiquity. Of course this also is because there is no orthodox Pope.)
And I also have read what Christo hints at that in the 18th/19th century Latin was often a compromise because German would have felt oppressive to the regional lower administrators and Czech or whatever would have been too separatist and inacceptable to the German speaking higher bureaucrats.

[Bogey]

Just finished this.  Beyond excellent.  On to the next installment.

[kishnevi]

Just finished this.  Beyond excellent.  On to the next installment.

Hullo! Did not know that one existed. I've only read the "trilogy".  Must investigate.

BTW, you won't fully understand and appreciate the first book of the Trilogy until you've read the last book....

[Karl Henning]

Hullo! Did not know that one existed. I've only read the "trilogy".  Must investigate.

BTW, you won't fully understand and appreciate the first book of the Trilogy until you've read the last book....

I do feel that I want to re-read it . . . fond memories of inhaling the trilogy when I was a teenager.

[Bogey]

There are two prequels and I believe two sequels to the series to bring it to seven....I believe.

[Florestan]

România as the name of the country is indeed a 19-th century creation, but român/rumân for the people and românește/rumânește for the language are documented the 16th century, as well as the term Țeara Rumânească, ie The Romanian Land.

The strong Roman identity retained by Romanians throughout the centuries can be also seen in their onomastics: arguably the only Romance people in which Traian and Constantin are common forenames (the latter being also a common surname in the form of Constantinescu; cf. former Romanian presidents Emil Constantinescu and Traian Băsescu --- the very common suffix -escu, of uncertain etymology, originally denoted paternal filiation, as in Emil son of Constantin).

[Bogey]

Also finishing up this:



Peter David knew from my comic collecting days, so thought I would give one of his Star Trek novels a whirl. Just decent enough to keep me reading.

[Christo]

The strong Roman identity retained by Romanians throughout the centuries can be also seen in their onomastics: arguably the only Romance people in which Traian and Constantin are common forenames (the latter being also a common surname in the form of Constantinescu; cf. former Romanian presidents Emil Constantinescu and Traian Băsescu --- the very common suffix -escu, of uncertain etymology, originally denoted paternal filiation, as in Emil son of Constantin).

Come on, that "tradition" no doubt only started in the 19th c. as well, about the same time Hungarian boys were named Attila and Georgian and Finnish girls Nino and Aino, respectively. Or would you suggest in the Romanian case there's a real, continuous, tradition? I myself never saw any example in Europe, not even in the Greek case.

And as to the historical "Țările Române" or Românească that I saw much referred to in the Romanian history that I read, what we really need to know is what exact meaning this terminology in these 16th c. sources bore. In any case, my wild guess would be that they are a typical modern and premodern (Renaissance) interpretation of history, not a traditional one. No doubt, you know a better answer. 

[kishnevi]

The strong Roman identity retained by Romanians throughout the centuries can be also seen in their onomastics: arguably the only Romance people in which Traian and Constantin are common forenames (the latter being also a common surname in the form of Constantinescu; cf. former Romanian presidents Emil Constantinescu and Traian Băsescu --- the very common suffix -escu, of uncertain etymology, originally denoted paternal filiation, as in Emil son of Constantin).

Trajan I will allow you, but Constantine had a long and illustratious use in the Greek speaking Roman Empire, and then a prominent use in Russia. If nought else: an older brother, son, and grandson of Tsar Nikolai I Pavlovich were all named Constantine, all of course related to the great granddaughter of Nikolai who happened to marry King Ferdinand of Romania.  That name had much closer sources of propogation

[Ken B]

As to the thesis, I agree that it is hard to imagine anything new that could make a comparable improvement in my standard of living as having electricity, plumbing, vaccines and antibiotics

Wait until you see what Intersectional Queer Theory does for you!

The book sounds like it strokes some of my prejudices. In particular my belief the 19th was the century of the most dramatic and fundamental change, and that most people don't appreciate it. I recommend the book Inventing the Victorians, which debunks many myths.

[Ken B]

That I really don't know. Maybe Jo can help.

Three comments.

1. England was not an empire (at least for the time frame you considered).

2. Norman French was itself an acculturation phenomenon since the Normans were originally Vikings who did not speak a iota of French.

3. French itself is a curious case: a Romance language which derives its name from a Germanic tribe which originally did not speak a iota of Latin.

The (unbiased and honest) study of the Late Antiquity and the Middle Ages is actually the best antidote for nationalism that I am aware of. 

Last sentence: odd to read that Andrei, from a Romanian nationalist!

[kishnevi]

Wait until you see what Intersectional Queer Theory does for you!

The book sounds like it strokes some of my prejudices. In particular my belief the 19th was the century of the most dramatic and fundamental change, and that most people don't appreciate it. I recommend the book Inventing the Victorians, which debunks many myths.

I agree.
Thought experiment
Imagine yourself talking with someone from 1900.  You might need long explanations but you would find yourself able to describe our technology in terms of 1900 technology, as extensions or adaptations of things already existing in 1900, with the possible exception of perhaps nuclear physics and computers.

Then imagine that person from 1900 trying to describe the technology of his era to a person from 1800. He would have a long heavy slog before he  finished, because so much of 1900 stuff had no real analog in 1800.

And finally, have that person from 1800 describe the technology of 1800 to a person from 1700.  It would be a fairly brief conversation, but not much actually changed.  Even the first phases of the Industrial Revolution were not that,er, revolutionary.