Cover not available
Article published In:
Historiographia Linguistica
Vol. 45:3 (2018) ► pp.325–362

Among Latinists

Alfred Ernout and Einar Löfstedt’s responses to the ‘Nijmegen School’ and its Christian Sondersprache hypothesis

| University of Leuven
In the history of 20th-century Latin linguistics, the Catholic Dutch professors Joseph Schrijnen (1869–1938) and Christine Mohrmann (1903–1988) are known as the key figures of the ‘Nijmegen School’. They developed the disputable and indeed strongly debated hypothesis that the kind of Latin used by early Christians was a Sondersprache or langue spéciale (later Gruppensprache or langue de groupe) characterized by different types of ‘christianisms’. The aim of this article is to contribute to a critical historiography of the Nijmegen School by looking into the reception of its ideas among contemporary Latin linguists. In particular, it tries to reconstruct the evolving appraisals by Alfred Ernout (1879–1973) and Einar Löfstedt (1880–1955), on the basis of (a) the former’s reviews of studies published by the Nijmegen School (in contrast to reviews by other contemporary linguists), (b) studies published on neighbouring or overlapping subjects by Einar Löfstedt, and (c) a letter to Mohrmann from each of them, both of which are preserved in the archives of the Katholiek Documentatie Centrum in Nijmegen. In the case of Ernout, it is argued that he was probably always sceptical about the Sondersprache hypothesis, but that in his reviews of the 1930s this scepticism was mitigated to a ‘reticent’ attitude, possibly for reasons to do with the politics of science. In the case of Löfstedt, it is shown that he initially approved of the hypothesis and even integrated it into his own works, but that he gradually diverged from the Nijmegen School, partly on account of (Schrijnen and) Mohrmann’s polemical misrepresentation of his comments on gentes and pagani being semantic Umprägungen rather than Neuprägungen.
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Striking a balance: The case of Alfred Ernout
  • 3.‘Christian Latin’ or ‘Late Latin’? The case of Einar Löfstedt
  • 4.Conclusion and outlook
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 1 February 2019
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/hl.00029.den
References (130)
References
A. Archival sources
Note: All of the following items are held in, and were consulted at the Katholiek Documentatie Centrum of Radboud University Nijmegen
MOHR-91: letter from Jules Marouzeau to Christine Mohrmann, sent from Paris, dated 28.01.1938;
MOHR-117: letter from Einar Löfstedt to Christine Mohrmann, sent from Stockholm, dated 18.11.1951;
MOHR-118: letter from Alfred Ernout to Christine Mohrmann, sent from Paris, dated 02.03.1947;
SCHR-245: postcard from Einar Löfstedt to Joseph Schrijnen, sent from Berlin, dated 05.10.1936;
TEEU-16: letters from Joseph Schrijnen to Stephan/Étienne Teeuwen, sent from various places on various dates.
B. Secondary sources
Abbreviations used (mostly following L’année philologique).
BAGB = Bulletin de l’Association Guillaume Budé
BBKL = Biographisch-Bibliographisches Kirchenlexikon
BSL = Bulletin de la Société de Linguistique de Paris
IF = Indogermanische Forschungen
REL = Revue des études latines
RPh = Revue de philologie, de littérature et d’histoire anciennes
SEJG = Sacris Erudiri
VChr = Vigiliae Christianae
Bartelink, Gerard J. M. 1991. “L’œuvre scientifique de Christine Mohrmann (l’École de Nimègue)”. SEJG 32:1.23–37.Google Scholar
Bastiaensen, Antoon A. R. 1991. “Schrijnen — Mohrmann: Collaboration et succession retardée”. SEJG 32:1.39–59.Google Scholar
Bastuji, Jacqueline. 1974. “Aspects de la néologie sémantique”. Langages 8:36.6–19. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bautz, Friedrich Wilhelm. 1990 [1970]. “Bossuet, Jacques Bénigne”. BBKL 11.713–714.Google Scholar
Bierbach, Christine. 1978. Sprache als “fait social”: Die linguistische Theorie F. de Saussure’s und ihr Verhältnis zu den positivistischen Sozialwissenschaften. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Brachet, Jean-Paul. 2007. “L’évolution sémantique selon Löfstedt: Esquisse d’un programme”. Poccetti, ed. 2007a.127–131.Google Scholar
Burton, Philip H. 2008. “On Revisiting the Christian Latin Sondersprache Hypothesis”. Textual Variation: Theological and Social Tendencies? Papers from the Fifth Birmingham Colloquium on the Textual Criticism of the New Testament ed. by David C. Parker & Hugh H. Houghton, 149–171. Piscataway, N. J.: Gorgias.Google Scholar
2011. “Christian Latin”. A Companion to the Latin Language ed. by James Clackson, 485–501. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
Chantraine, Pierre. 1973. “Alfred Ernout (1879–1973)”. BAGB 4th series 31.307–312.Google Scholar
Charpin, François & Bernard Colombat. 2009. “Ernout, Alfred”. Stammerjohann, ed. 22009 vol. I1, p. 437.Google Scholar
Coleman, Robert. 1987. “Vulgar Latin and the Diversity of Christian Latin”. Latin vulgaire — latin tardif: Actes du Ier Colloque international sur le latin vulgaire et tardif (Pécs, 2–5 septembre 1985) ed. by József Herman, 37–52. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Daalder, Saskia. 2004. “Achter de schermen van een congres: Het eerste Internationale Lingutencongres (Den Haag, 1928)”. Voortgang 221.315–321.Google Scholar
. 2006. “‘Ik voel mij oud en afkeerig van strijd’: Een brief van C. C. Uhlenbeck aan Jos. Schrijnen uit 1929”. Amicitia in Academia: Composities voor Els Elffers ed. by Jan Noordegraaf, Frank Vonk & Marijke Van der Wal, 163–172. Amsterdam: Stichting Neerlandistiek VU & Münster: Nodus.Google Scholar
Daalder, Saskia & Ad Foolen. 2008. “Waarde collega! Vijf brieven van C. C. Uhlenbeck aan Jos. Schrijnen”. Ontheven aan de tijd: Linguïstisch-historische studies voor Jan Noordegraaf bij zijn zestigste verjaardag ed. by Lo Van Driel & Theo Janssen, 201–222. Amsterdam: Stichting Neerlandistiek VU & Münster: Nodus.Google Scholar
Debrunner, Albert. 1936. Review of Schrijnen & Mohrmann (1936). IF 541.306–307.Google Scholar
. 1940. Review of Janssen (1937). IF 571.63–65.Google Scholar
De Clercq, Jan & Pierre Swiggers. 1991. “L’histoire de la linguistique: “L’autre histoire” et l’histoire d’une histoire”. Neue Fragen der Linguistik: Akten des 25. Linguistischen Kolloquiums, Paderborn 1990. Band 11: Bestand und Entwicklung ed. by Elisabeth Feldbusch, Reiner Pogarell & Cornelia Weiß, 15–22. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
de Ghellinck, Joseph. 1939. “Latin chrétien ou langue latine des chrétiens”. Les études classiques 81.449–478.Google Scholar
Denecker, Tim. 2018. “The Nijmegen School and its ‘Sociological’ Approach to the So-called Sondersprache of Early Christians: A preliminary historiographical study”. Latomus 771.335–357.Google Scholar
Derks, Marjet & Saskia Verheesen-Stegeman. 1998. Wetenschap als Roeping: Prof Dr Christine Mohrmann (1903–1988). Nijmegen: Vantilt.Google Scholar
Droixhe, Daniel, Jean-Claude Muller & Pierre Swiggers. 1989. “Les correspondances de linguistes: Projet d’inventaire systématique”. Speculum historiographiae linguisticae: Kurzbeiträge der IV. Internationalen Konferenz zur Geschichte der Sprachwissenschaften (ICHoLS IV) Trier, 24.–27. August 1987 ed. by Klaus D. Dutz, 347–357. Münster: Nodus.Google Scholar
Ernout, Alfred. 1909a. Les éléments dialectaux du vocabulaire latin. Paris: Honoré Champion.Google Scholar
. 1909b. “Recherches sur l’emploi du passif latin à l’époque républicaine”. Mémoires de la Société de Linguistique de Paris 151.273–333.Google Scholar
. 1914. Morphologie historique du latin. Paris: Klincksieck.Google Scholar
. 1929. “Plaute, Captivi 221”. Teeuwen et al., eds. 1929.729–734.Google Scholar
. 1930. Review of Teeuwen et al. (1929). RPh 41.434–435.Google Scholar
. 1932a. Review of Schrijnen (1932). BSL 33:2.66–67.Google Scholar
. 1932b. Review of Mohrmann (1932). Ibid., 67–68.Google Scholar
. 1935. Review of Vroom (1933). BSL 35:2.77–78.Google Scholar
. 1936. Review of Schrijnen & Mohrmann (1936). BSL 37:3.70–71.Google Scholar
. 1937a. Review of Janssen (1937). BSL 38:3.74–75.Google Scholar
. 1937b. Review of Mohrmann (1935). RPh 111.183–184.Google Scholar
. 1938a. Review of Janssen (1938). BSL 39:3.70–72.Google Scholar
. 1938b. Review of Schrijnen & Mohrmann (1937). Ibid., 72–73.Google Scholar
. 1939. Review of Mohrmann (1938). RPh 13.276.Google Scholar
. 1940. Review of Mohrmann, Meertens & Roukens (1939). RPh 141.272–273.Google Scholar
. 1946. Le vocabulaire latin. Paris: [Collège de France].Google Scholar
. 1952. Review of Mohrmann (1951a). RPh 261.137–138.Google Scholar
. 1954. Aspects du vocabulaire latin. Paris: Klincksieck.Google Scholar
. 1960. Review of Löfstedt (1959). RPh 341.307–308.Google Scholar
Ernout, Alfred & Antoine Meillet. 1932. Dictionnaire étymologique de la langue latine: Histoire des mots. Paris: Klincksieck.Google Scholar
Ernout, Alfred & François Thomas. 1951. Syntaxe latine. Paris: Klincksieck.Google Scholar
Fredouille, Jean-Claude. 1996. “‘Latin chrétien’ ou ‘latin tardif’?”. Recherches augustiniennes 291.5–23. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Haverling, Gerd V. M. 2007. “Einar Löfstedt e la filologia classica in Svezia”. Poccetti, ed. 2007a.11–23.Google Scholar
Heurgon, Jacques. 1975. “Notice sur la vie et les travaux de M. Alfred Ernout, membre de l’Académie”. Comptes rendus des séances de l’Académie des Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres 119:1.76–93.Google Scholar
Jaberg, Karl. 1938. “Joseph Schrijnen als internationaler Organisator”. Eigen Volk 101.91–93.Google Scholar
Janssen, Harry. 1938. Kultur und Sprache: Zur Geschichte der alten Kirche im Spiegel der Sprachentwicklung. Von Tertullian bis Cyprian. Nijmegen: Dekker en Van de Vegt.Google Scholar
Janssen, Otger. 1937. L’expressivité chez Salvien de Marseille: Étude sur l’usage de quelques particules dans le latin chrétien. Nijmegen: Dekker en Van de Vegt.Google Scholar
Kiefer, Ferenc & Piet Van Sterkenburg, eds. 2013. Eight Decades of General Linguistics: The history of CIPL and its role in the history of linguistics. Leiden & Boston: Brill. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kienzler, Klaus. 1992. “Lacordaire, Jean-Baptiste-Henri (Ordensname Dominique)”. BBKL 41.944–948.Google Scholar
Knudtzon, Erik J. 1945. “Bidrag till en bibliografi över professor Einar Löfstedts skrifter 1904–1945”. Eranos Löfstedtianus: Opuscula philologica Einaro Löfstedt A.D. XVII Kal. Iul. anno MCMXLV dedicata = Eranos 431.357–376.Google Scholar
Lasch, Richard. 1907. “Über Sondersprachen und ihre Entstehung”. Mitteilungen der Anthropologischen Gesellschaft in Wien 371.89–101, 140–162.Google Scholar
Löfstedt, Einar. 1907. Beiträge zur Kenntnis der späteren Latinität. Stockholm: Svanbäcks.Google Scholar
. 1911. Philologischer Kommentar zur Peregrinatio Aetheriae: Untersuchungen zur Geschichte der lateinischen Sprache. Uppsala: Almqvist och Wiksell & Leipzig: Haupt.Google Scholar
. 1915. Tertullians Apologeticum textkritisch untersucht. Lund: Gleerup & Leipzig: Otto Harrassowitz.Google Scholar
. 1917. Arnobiana: Textkritische und sprachliche Studien zu Arnobius. Lund: Gleerup & Leipzig: Otto Harrassowitz.Google Scholar
. 1918. Kritische Bemerkungen zu Tertullians Apologeticum. Lund: Gleerup & Leipzig: Otto Harrassowitz.Google Scholar
. 1920. Zur Sprache Tertullians. Lund: Gleerup & Leipzig: Otto Harrassowitz.Google Scholar
. 21942 [1928]. Syntactica: Studien und Beiträge zur historischen Syntax des Lateins. Erster Teil: Über einige Grundfragen der lateinischen Nominalsyntax. Lund: Gleerup et alib.Google Scholar
. 1933. Syntactica: Studien und Beiträge zur historischen Syntax des Lateins. Zweiter Teil: Syntaktisch-stilistische Gesichtspunkte und Probleme. Lund: Gleerup et alib.Google Scholar
. 1936. Vermischte Studien zur lateinischen Sprachkunde und Syntax. Lund: Gleerup et alib.Google Scholar
. 1950. Coniectanea: Untersuchungen auf dem Gebiete der antiken und mittelalterlichen Latinität. Erste Reihe. Uppsala & Stockholm: Almqvist och Wiksell.Google Scholar
. 1959. Late Latin. Oslo: Aschehoug.Google Scholar
Lucarini, Carlo Martino. 2007. “Gli studi Arnobiani di Einar Löfstedt”. Poccetti, ed. 2007a.133–139.Google Scholar
Marouzeau, Jules. 1922. “Notes sur la formation du latin classique. V: Une antinomie: ‘archaïque et vulgaire’”. Mémoires de la Société de Linguistique de Paris 221.263–272.Google Scholar
. 1929. “Principes et méthodes de la syntaxe”. Teeuwen et al., eds. 1929.112–115.Google Scholar
. 1932a. Review of Schrijnen (1932). REL 101.241–242.Google Scholar
. 1932b. Review of Mohrmann (1932). Ibid., 485–487.Google Scholar
. 1936. Review of Schrijnen & Mohrmann (1936). REL 141.425–426.Google Scholar
. 1938a. Review of Schrijnen & Mohrmann (1937). REL 161.185–186.Google Scholar
. 1938b. Review of Janssen (1937). Ibid., 186–188.Google Scholar
McGuire, Martin R. P. 1937. Review of Schrijnen & Mohrmann (1936). The American Journal of Philology 581.502–504. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Meillet, Antoine. 31933 [1928]. Esquisse d’une histoire de la langue latine. Paris: Hachette.Google Scholar
Merkx, P[etrus] A[ntonius] H[enricus] J[ulius]. 1939. Zur Syntax der Kasus und Tempora in den Traktaten des hl. Cyprian. Nijmegen: Dekker en Van de Vegt.Google Scholar
Mohrmann, Christine. 1932. Die altchristliche Sondersprache in den Sermones des hl. Augustin. Erster Teil: Einführung, Lexikologie, Wortbildung. Nijmegen: Dekker en Van de Vegt & Van Leeuwen.Google Scholar
. 1935. “Das Wortspiel in den augustinischen Sermones”. Mnemosyne 3rd series 31.33–61. (Reprint in Mohrmann, ed. 1958–1977 vol. I1, 323–349.)Google Scholar
. 1938. De struktuur van het oudchristelijk Latijn. Nijmegen & Utrecht: Dekker en Van de Vegt. (French translation: “La structure du latin paléochrétien”. Mohrmann, ed. 1958–1977 vol. IV1, 11–28.)Google Scholar
. 1946. “Quelques traits caractéristiques du latin des chrétiens”. Miscellanea Giovanni Mercati. Volume 1: Bibbia — Letteratura cristiana antica, 437–466. Città del Vaticano: Biblioteca apostolica vaticana. (Reprint in Mohrmann, ed. 1958–1977 vol. I1, 21–50.)Google Scholar
. 1947. “Le latin commun et le latin des chrétiens”. VChr 11.1–12. (Reprint in Mohrmann, ed. 1958–1977 vol. III1, 13–24.)Google Scholar
. 1950. “Le latin langue de la chrétienté occidentale”. Aevum 241.133–161. (Reprint in Mohrmann, ed. 1958–1977 vol. I1, 51–81.)Google Scholar
. 1951a. “L’étude de la latinité chrétienne: État de la question, méthodes, résultats”. Conférences de l’Institut de linguistique de l’Université de Paris 101.125–141. (Reprint in Mohrmann, ed. 1958–1977 vol. I1, 83–102.)Google Scholar
. 1951b. “ Credere in Deum: Sur l’interprétation théologique d’un fait de langue”. Mélanges Joseph de Ghellinck, S. J., Tome I1: Antiquité, 277–285. Gembloux: Duculot. (Reprint in Mohrmann, ed. 1958–1977 vol. I1, 195–203.)Google Scholar
. 1952. “Encore une fois: paganus ”. VChr 61.109–121. (Reprint in Mohrmann, ed. 1958–1977 vol. III1, 277–289.)Google Scholar
. 1958. “Le latin médiéval”. Cahiers de civilisation médiévale 11.265–294. (Reprint in Mohrmann, ed. 1958–1977 vol. II1, 181–232.) DOI logoGoogle Scholar
, ed. 1958–1977. Études sur le latin des chrétiens. 41 vols. Roma: Storia e letteratura.Google Scholar
. 1977a. “Le latin médiéval substrat de la culture occidentale”. Mohrmann, ed. 1958–1977 vol. IV1, 49–72.Google Scholar
. 1977b. “L’étude du latin médiéval: Passé, présent, avenir”. Ibid., 73–89.Google Scholar
. 1977c. “Nach vierzig Jahren”. Ibid., 111–140.Google Scholar
Mohrmann, Christine, P[ieter] J[acobus] Meertens & Win[and] Roukens, eds. 1939. Collectanea Schrijnen: Verspreide opstellen van Dr. Jos. Schrijnen. Nijmegen & Utrecht: Dekker en Van de Vegt.Google Scholar
Natalucci, Nicoletta. 2007. “L’unità e la molteplicità del latino nel Philologische[r] Kommentar zur Peregrinatio Aetheriae di Einar Löfstedt”. Poccetti, ed. 2007a.61–77.Google Scholar
Noordegraaf, Jan. 2009a. “Ginneken, Jacobus Joannes Antonius (Jacques or Jac.) van”. Stammerjohann, ed. 22009 vol. I1, 538–539.Google Scholar
. 2009b. “Mohrmann, Christine Andrina Elisabeth Maria”. Stammerjohann, ed. 22009 vol. II1, 1035–1036.Google Scholar
Norberg, Dag. 1943. Syntaktische Forschungen auf dem Gebiete des Spätlateins und des frühen Mittellateins. Uppsala: Lundequist & Leipzig: Otto Harrassowitz.Google Scholar
. 1944. Beiträge zur spätlateinischen Syntax. Uppsala: Almqvist och Wiksell et alib.Google Scholar
Pieroni, Paolo. 1998. “L’attività filologica di Einar Loefstedt”. Maia 501.159–179.Google Scholar
Poccetti, Paolo, ed. 2007a. Einar Löfstedt nei percorsi della linguistica e della filologia latina. Atti del convegno internazionale, Roma, 6–7 maggio 2004. Pisa & Roma: Fabrizio Serra.Google Scholar
. 2007b. “Löfstedt dai Syntactica al Late Latin “. Poccetti, ed. 2007a.79–109.Google Scholar
Puech, Christian & Anne Radzynski. 1988. “Fait social et fait linguistique: A. Meillet et F. de Saussure”. Histoire Épistémologie Langage 10:2.75–84. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schlösser, Rainer. 2009. “Löfstedt, Einar”. Stammerjohann, ed. 22009 vol. II1, p. 922.Google Scholar
Schrijnen, Jos[eph]. 1910. De waarde der kultuurhistorische methode voor de kennis van de christelijke Oudheid. Amsterdam: Van Langenhuysen.Google Scholar
. 1912. Sociale klassieke taalkunde. Amsterdam: Van Langenhuysen.Google Scholar
Schrijnen, Jos[eph], with the assistance of O[dulphus] Van der Hagen, W[illem] Pompe & H[erman] Vroom. 1919. Uit het leven der oude Kerk. Bussum: Brand & Utrecht: Dekker en Van de Vegt.Google Scholar
Schrijnen, Jos[eph]. 1932. Charakteristik des altchristlichen Latein. Nijmegen: Dekker en Van de Vegt & Van Leeuwen. (Reprint in Mohrmann, ed. 1958–1977 vol. IV1, 367–404.)Google Scholar
. 1934. “Le latin chrétien devenu langue commune”. REL 121.96–116. (Reprint in Mohrmann, Meertens & Roukens, eds. 1939.335–356.)Google Scholar
. 1936/1937. Obituary of Meillet. Jaarboek der Koninklijke Nederlandsche Akademie van Wetenschappen [1936/1937].168–175.Google Scholar
Schrijnen, Jos[eph] & Christine Mohrmann. 1936. Studien zur Syntax der Briefe des hl. Cyprian, vol. I1. Nijmegen: Dekker en Van de Vegt.Google Scholar
. 1937. Studien zur Syntax der Briefe des hl. Cyprian, vol. II1. Nijmegen: Dekker en Van de Vegt.Google Scholar
Sheerin, Daniel. 1996. “Christian and Biblical Latin”. Medieval Latin: An introduction and bibliographical guide ed. by Frank A. C. Mantello & A. George Rigg, 137–156. Washington, D.C.: The Catholic University of America Press.Google Scholar
Souter, Alexander. 1938. Review of Schrijnen & Mohrmann (1936, 1937). The Classical Review 52:4. 149. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Stammerjohann, Harro, ed. 22009. Lexicon grammaticorum: A bio-bibliographical companion to the history of linguistics. 21 vols. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Swiggers, Pierre. 2006. “La mort de Meillet”. Meillet aujourd’hui ed. by Gabriel Bergounioux & Charles de Lamberterie, 137–146. Leuven & Paris: Peeters.Google Scholar
. 2008. “Antoine Meillet (1866–1936): De la grammaire comparée à la sociologie du langage”. Anamnèse = Petite anthologie des auteurs oubliés 21.141–154.Google Scholar
. 2009. “Meillet, Antoine (Paul Jules)”. Stammerjohann, ed. 22009 vol. II1, 997–999.Google Scholar
Teeuwen, Stephan. 1926. Sprachlicher Bedeutungswandel bei Tertullian: Ein Beitrag zum Studium der christlichen Sondersprache. Paderborn: Ferdinand Schöningh.Google Scholar
Teeuwen, Stephan et al., eds. 1929. Donum natalicium Schrijnen: Verzameling van opstellen door oud-leerlingen en bevriende vakgenooten opgedragen aan Mgr. Prof. Dr. Jos. Schrijnen. Bij gelegenheid van zijn zestigsten verjaardag, 3 mei 1929. Nijmegen & Utrecht: Dekker en Van de Vegt.Google Scholar
Väänänen, Veikko. 31981 [1964]. Introduction au latin vulgaire. Paris: Klincksieck.Google Scholar
Verheijen, Melchior. 1960. “En marge de Late Latin d’Einar Löfstedt”. BAGB 21.297–298.Google Scholar
Vircillo Franklin, Carmela. 22018 [2005]. “Christine Mohrmann (1903–1988) and the Study of Christian Latin”. Women Medievalists and the Academy ed. by Jane Chance, 599–612. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.Google Scholar
Vonk, Frank. 2009. “Schrijnen, Joseph (Jos.) Charles François Hubert”. Stammerjohann, ed. 22009 vol. II1, 1362–1363.Google Scholar
Vroom, Herman. 1933. Le psaume abécédaire de saint Augustin et la poésie latine rhythmique. Nijmegen: Dekker en Van de Vegt & Van Leeuwen.Google Scholar
Wright, Roger. 1993. Review article of Banniard, Michel. 1992. Viva voce: Communication écrite et communication orale du IVe au IXe siècle en Occident latin. Paris: Institut des études augustiniennes. The Journal of Medieval Latin 31.78–94. (Reprint in Wright, Roger. 2002. A Sociophilological Study of Late Latin, 49–68. Turnhout: Brepols.)Google Scholar
N.N. 1991. “Thèses dirigées par Christine Mohrmann”. SEJG 32:1.61–62.Google Scholar
Cited by (2)

Cited by two other publications

Anđelović, Aleksandar & György Geréby
2021. Contrastive Linguistic and Cultural Backgrounds of the Two Latin Translators of the Life of Antony. Clotho 3:2 ► pp. 5 ff. DOI logo
Sajovic, Miran
2021. Preliminary Remarks on the Latin of Jerome. Clotho 3:2 ► pp. 93 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 3 july 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.