Hey of us, Fireplace this week! The brand new semester is beginning up subsequent week, so issues could also be slightly extra fireside-y than normal over the subsequent few weeks, however I do promise we’ll get to the tip of “Life, Work, Loss of life and the Peasant” finally. That stated, since I’m educating Latin somewhat than historical past this semester, I assumed it is likely to be enjoyable this week to speak briefly about Latin pronunciation (a minimum of within the English-speaking world). I’m going to attempt to preserve this simple-ish and I’m positive a few of these simplifications will draw the ire of extra expert philologists, however largely right here I’m within the truth of a number of pronunciation programs, somewhat than their exact variations. There are already any variety of guides on-line, starting from the straightforward to the very, very complicated, on the exact variations between these programs.
There are a lot of pronunciation programs for Latin. This can be a product of the language surviving because the language of training and diplomacy throughout a lot of Europe lengthy after its dwelling part had fragmented into the Romance languages. In a way, we may even argue that the subject of ‘Latin pronunciation’ ought to incorporate phonetic shifts between Spanish, Portuguese, French, Italian and so forth, since these languages are, in a really actual sense, ‘fashionable Latin’ as it’s lived and breathed at present. However as Latin lived on as an undead language, its native pronunciation in every a part of Europe acquired the quirks of native pronunciation, such that by the trendy interval Latin was pronounced barely in a different way in every.
Consequently, the trendy resident of an English-speaking nation is prone to encounter three completely different pronunciation programs for Latin. ‘Three’ will even be the quantity for many audio system of different European languages, apart from Italians, for whom there’ll largely be solely two. However I’m most aware of the Anglophone Latin triplet, so that’s the place we’ll focus.
Within the Anglophone international locations, we time period these programs ecclesiastical, conventional and classical. I’m not going to undergo all the variations between the programs right here, simply a few of them, however we will exemplify them by selecting a single Latin phrase and strolling by way of how its pronunciation modifications based mostly on programs. A very good one, as a result of it has a whole lot of shifting sounds, is the authorized precept stare decisis (which we ought to write down stāre dēcīsīs to seize vowel size, that’s long-short, long-long-long), with the additional advantage that we could educate a terrific many attorneys, lots of whom appear to have adopted a pronunciation for the phrase which is – in some way – not right in any of those programs.
We are able to begin with what is usually known as ecclesiastical Latin. Ecclesiastical Latin shaped a typical pronunciation through the Carolingian Renaissance, however in observe its fashionable kind is principally the globalization of the standard Italian pronunciation of Latin that developed within the centuries since then. Different areas had diverged from that Caroline basis in different instructions, however for the final century or so the Catholic Church has held the standard Italian model to be the ‘official’ pronunciation of the Church. Consequently, ecclesiastical Latin’s pronunciation is basically a simplified type of the unique (‘classical’) Latin, with an admixture of Italian pronunciation parts.
The primary simplification is vowels: whereas classical Latin vowels may be both brief or lengthy and alter their pronunciation accordingly, in ecclesiastical Latin, every vowel will get one sound. In impact, I’d say that (in comparison with Classical), a, i, o, and u are at all times lengthy, whereas e is at all times brief. Thus filii, which in Classical Latin is long-short-long (fee-li-ee) in ecclesiastical Latin every vowel has the identical size, fee-lee-ee. Likewise, classical Latin unus is long-short (oon-uhs) however in ecclesiastical Latin pronounced oon-oos.
In the meantime, the consonants get extra sophisticated; the place classical Latin has one sound per consonant (no onerous or gentle letters), ecclesiastical Latin has some letters carrying double-duty. Essentially the most instantly audible instance is c: earlier than e, i, y, ae, and oe it’s pronounced ‘ch’ however in all different circumstances maintains the onerous Latin c (like an English ok in all circumstances); likewise ‘g’ is gentle (like a ‘j’ sound or the ‘g’ in ‘gel’) earlier than that very same set of vowels however different sensible onerous (like ‘hole’). Thus ecclesiastical Latin says for genus jee-noos (cf. classical geh-nuhs) however for galea ‘gah-lay-ah.’ ‘V’ has a ‘v’ sound. There are different variations (see this useful information), however you possibly can see how Italian has influenced the pronunciation in ecclesiastical Latin.
Returning to our sample section, stāre dēcīsīs, none of these vowel size markers matter as a result of the sounds are all the identical in ecclesiastical Latin. However that ‘c’ proceeds an ‘i’ and so goes to be a ‘ch’ sound. So we’ll get stah-reh deh-chee-sees. The cheese stands (alone) certainly. Likewise che-sar for Caesar with that easy brief e for the Latin ae-dipthong.
Subsequent, there may be conventional English Latin pronunciation, which in an Anglophone nation is simply going to get known as ‘conventional Latin.’ Nobody learns that is faculty anymore, but it surely persists in frequent Latin phrases, phrases and particularly names that entered the English lexicon previous to the reconstruction of Classical Latin within the late nineteenth and early twentieth century. There may be an irony that on the one hand these pronunciations are essentially the most acquainted to of us, however that nobody truly makes use of this technique anymore (we don’t educate it) and it’s insanely complicated and idiosyncratic, much more so than precise classical Latin, made but tougher as a result of we nonetheless use these pronunciations, however don’t practice anybody in them. It’s, after all, complicated and idiosyncratic as a result of the essential rule right here is to pronounce Latin as if it was English (with some exceptions) and English pronunciation is already a large number of exceptions and unusual conventions, even earlier than it’s layered over one other language.
Vowel lengths range and don’t essentially observe classical vowel lengths, however they do generate completely different sounds. Fairly just a few consonants differ their sounds based mostly on the letters round them and the general syllable construction. Principally these pronunciations really feel intuitive to English audio system – that is, in spite of everything, largely simply “Latin pronounced prefer it was English” – however the second you step off of the intuitive pronunciation being proper, of us are out to see due to what number of letters shift sounds is odd methods. So that you get that gentle ‘c’ in Lucius, Caesar or Cicero, however a tough ‘c’ in Marcus and Caecus (each of them – kae-kus).
What makes this lingering conventional pronunciation a ache is that even in classics we usually maintain on to it for names, for the plain cause that if I discuss to my college students about ki-keh-roh they will be very confused, versus Si-ser-oh, a determine they’re vaguely conscious of. For essentially the most half, nobody learns your complete conventional system (I positive didn’t), however as an alternative learns every persisting conventional pronunciation individually. It’s putting to me that whereas there is a motion amongst Hellenists to maneuver away from conventional spellings and pronunciations of historic Greek works to nearer to their unique (thus Seleukos (sel-e-ooh-kos) as an alternative of Seleucus (seh-lou-kuss and even typically seh-lou-suss)) there doesn’t appear to be a lot of the identical amongst Latinists, most likely as a result of the whole lot thinks Ki-keh-roh sounds foolish and doesn’t need to need to say it.
In any case, for stare decisis, conventional Latin pronunciation says stah-ray dee-sise-is (first ‘i’ is lengthy, making an ‘eye’ sound, second is brief, so decisis rhymes with ‘disaster’). Gaius Julius Caesar is pronounced Geye-uhs Jool-e-uhs See-zer.
Lastly, there may be classical Latin pronunciation. That is our greatest guess at how Latin would have sounded within the metropolis of Rome through the first centuries (each of them) or so. This didn’t come right down to us by way of a dwelling custom – you possibly can see what a large number the dwelling traditions are – however as an alternative needed to be reconstructed. We use a mixture of strategies to parse this out: poetry offers us a window into right vowel size, whereas phonetic values may be revealed by way of issues like how Latin was transliterated into different languages (e.g. Latin ‘c’ at all times changing into Greek kappa, by no means sigma), the misspellings Romans often made (which sign which letters is likely to be confused for one another) and feedback by historic authors (particularly grammarians) on correct pronunciation. Whereas some uncertainty should at all times stay we’re fairly assured that classical Latin pronunciation may be very shut approximation to how Latin was truly spoken in antiquity, in Rome and Latium. After all there will need to have been (and in lots of circumstances we will know there have been) a mountain of regional accents in antiquity.
I’ve to confess, I actually admire classical Latin pronunciation’s directness and ease. There are not any silent letters (additionally true in ecclesiastical Latin), the consonants all have one-to-one letter-to-sound relationships (as long as we’re not placing two letters collectively) and phrase stress (‘accent’) follows very nice predictable guidelines (not like Greek). I discover this handout information, designed to be used with Wheelock’s Latin remarkably useful for understanding the foundations.
One difficult quirk for Classical Latin is vowel size: vowels may be lengthy or brief and range their pronunciation accordingly. In observe, studying the language, you simply need to memorize these lengths. Whereas textbooks and different pupil texts will dutifully print long-marks over lengthy vowels, Latin was not written with these marks in antiquity and most tutorial texts don’t embrace them. This may be difficult as a result of vowel size can be grammatically essential: amīca is within the nominative (the topic of a sentence), however amīcā is within the ablative and doing all types of enjoyable ablative issues. However in observe in most Latin texts, you’ll see amica (as a Roman, studying, would) and have to determine from context if that ultimate a is lengthy or brief and thus what case the phrase is in.
On prime of this, after all, classical Latin has no ‘j’ however as an alternative ‘i’ may be both a vowel or a consonant (thus Iulius, not Julius), the place it has a ‘y’ sound like ‘yikes.’ In the meantime, the Romans usually merged ‘v’ and ‘u,’ writing them as the identical letter (‘v,’ thus VNVS, ‘one’), the place the consonantal kind (by custom written as ‘v’ in fashionable texts) will get a ‘w’ sound. When you understand that ‘v’ has the phonetic worth of ‘w’ (double-u) the truth that it shares a letter with ‘u’ truly makes a whole lot of sense, they’re related sounds.
In any case in case you take Latin at present, you can be taught classical pronunciation.
Returning to our paradigm phrase stāre dēcīsīs – again with our lengthy marks as a result of we’d like them – the lengthy ‘a’ reads as in father, the brief ‘e’ as in pet, the lengthy ‘e’ as in ‘they’ and the 2 lengthy ‘i’s because the i in machine. The ‘c’ is tough and the ‘r’ ought to be calmly trilled, giving us stah-reh dey-kee-sees. Gaius Julius Caesar is rendered as Geye-uhs Yoo-lee-uhs Keye-sar.
So there you have got it. In Latin pronunciation, the oldest system can be the youngest and we use it in scholarly contexts, besides after we don’t in an effort to keep away from sounding foolish.
On to Suggestions:
I need to begin with this outstanding piece by fellow classicist Clifford Ando on the monetary and fairly frankly ethical disaster on the College of Chicago, which simply introduced the pause – and certain closure – of principally all of its graduate language packages. As Ando notes, the sins of U-Chicago could also be uncommon in scale however they aren’t uncommon in presence: the essential sample of universities making large, largely speculative investments in costly (largely STEM) fields that put in any other case economically steady establishments in danger has proven up time and again as increased training crumbles. The present administration’s choice to slash medical and science grants has turned this ulcer right into a bleeding wound, however the observe was not viable within the long-term even earlier than final yr. But, pushed by an ideological bias that favors fields with direct and slim ‘job utility’ – even when these fields now have worse job outcomes – universities proceed to double down into this error, pillaging humanities departments that, as a result of they educate extra cheaply, run at a ‘revenue’ for the college, in an effort to make investments extra closely into enterprise and STEM, which they’ll not afford.
Sadly I see no indicators this self-destructive ideological habits will cease. As a substitute if something, as a current, remarkably silly, short-sighted piece in The Dispatch suggests, critics of the college will proceed to double-down on a STEM-first, business-and-law-second, humanities-never technique at the same time as the present administration burns down the final skinny helps holding up even the empty suggestion of its plausibility. It will be a darkish few years in academia, for everybody.
In the meantime, there’s a new Pasts Imperfect (observe they’ve moved off of substack), the principle essay of which (by Lauren Donovan Ginsberg) tackles precisely this theme. Ginsberg notes that humanities departments are usually convey in additional than they price, regardless of the absence of grant funds, as a result of we’re comparatively low-cost to run and educate extra per yr, whereas on the identical time humanities levels stay in considerably increased demand on the job market than standard knowledge would counsel, usually outpacing college students with levels in ‘skilled’ topics extra instantly tied to a selected profession path. As at all times, Pasts Imperfect, now that it’s again from hiatus, is a good common learn to maintain monitor of what’s going on on the planet of Classics.
In the meantime on the historic, fanatic aspect, I ought to observe that Tod Todeschini is operating a kickstarter fundraiser in an effort to fund one other version of testing medieval bows and arrows in opposition to medieval armor to suss out the bounds of safety and penetration. Tod’s first two movies (and the supplemental movies he did round them) are truthfully among the most rigorous analysis work on this query I’ve seen, rivaling and in some circumstances decidedly surpassing scholarly efforts over the previous a number of many years. Proper now the challenge appears to be like to be absolutely funded, however there are stretch objectives. College students usually ask why extra of this form of analysis isn’t accomplished and the reply is usually “the funding doesn’t exist” – a minimum of, not for this type of experimental work within the humanities (which get a tiny fraction of the analysis funding of different fields). So if you wish to see extra rigorous testing of weapons and arrows banging off of or by way of medieval armor, now could be your likelihood.
And for this week’s guide suggestion, I’m going to advocate E. Alyagon, Inked: Tattooed Troopers and the Track Empire’s Penal Navy Advanced (2023), which in flip was really useful to me by James Palmer and is properly well worth the learn. The guide’s ‘hook’ is the outstanding Track dynasty observe of tattooing their troopers (sometimes with unit assignments) as a way of exerting management, however Inked goes past simply the query of tattoos to current a reasonably full imaginative and prescient of the Track army system from the soldier’s eye view. The guide covers the emergence of the Track army system after which follows it from recruitment, by way of coaching and unit task, appears to be like on the households and social standing of troopers after which continues all the way in which to discharge or revolt. The reader thus will get a imaginative and prescient of the entire system from an organizational and institutional tradition perspective (although not arms or techniques) and that overview is delivered remarkably properly. The guide is remarkably properly written and really readable, even for the lay reader (as certainly, in terms of Chinese language historical past, I’m successfully the lay reader).
Alyagon notes within the introduction on older pressure within the historic reception of the Track dynasty during which Track troopers took the blame for the decline and eventual destruction of the Track dynasty (by the hands of the Mongols), regardless of the Track dynasty itself having a fame as a interval of technological development and renaissance, overseen by Confucian scholar-officials. That judgement on Track dynasty troopers themselves is sort of definitely unfair, however one factor that struck me studying Alyagon is that the Track army system doesn’t beat the rap. Rising out of a need by the early Track emperors and their forms administration to convey the military beneath agency management, the Track army system in Alyagon’s telling emerges as an aggressively dehumanizing establishment. Navy service was usually a authorized penalty (and so the standing of prisoner-conscripts very low) however on the identical time males had been additionally conscripted from the civilian populace or dragooned from troopers’ households to serve. They had been tattooed in an effort to stop desertion (which created issues for males who served honorably and had been discharged – discharge papers may very well be misplaced, tattoos had been perpetually) and sorted and assigned based mostly on bureaucratic metrics with few connections to precise efficiency.
One of the putting practices that comes up often was ‘rotation’ – just like the Romans, the Track acknowledged leaving a commander in control of a selected military on the frontier long-term was harmful. However somewhat than doing the Roman factor and rotating commanders, the Track rotated troopers, marching their frequent soldiery lengthy distances, usually in tough situations away from their house to facilitate rotating armies. It’s such a staggeringly inefficient, brutal system of management that, to me, it served properly as a abstract of your complete system of intense top-down management the place each facet was engineered to swimsuit the whims of the ‘enlightened’ scholar-officials operating the system, fairly no matter army effectiveness or fundamental humanity. Studying, I discovered I used to be not shocked that, as soon as the facility of the Track started to interrupt, these armies swiftly collapsed or switched sides.
Nonetheless, Alyagon’s guide is a priceless learn for anybody excited by army historical past, as a result of it’s such a whole portrait of the institutional tradition of a army system, helpful each in itself but in addition as a comparability level to consider different army programs. I discovered in studying that I used to be struck by how the Track system felt like a mirror picture of the early Roman imperial army system, however with the standing of the troopers being a lot decrease and consequently the stability of coercion and incentive was much more tilted in direction of coercion. It’s, after all, putting then that the Roman imperial army system, when it confronted fragmentation within the context of intense safety challenges in its third century survived, whereas the Track system, when it met the identical problem (at about the identical level in its ‘life cycle’) collapsed. I didn’t discover myself, by the tip of the guide, mystified by the distinction in efficiency.
