This two-part post is meant to serve as a basic introduction to the difference between classical and ecclesiastical Latin; in presenting the differences between these two forms of lingua latina we will look at the motives behind the sudden resurgence of the classical pronunciation at the turn of the last century and hopefully demonstrate why Catholics should prefer the ecclesiastical pronunciation to the classical.
We must also offer a disclaimer that we are not Latin scholars nor classicists, and that those who make the study of the Latin language their exclusive field of study may find specific points to critique in this overview. Knowing this, we have tried to remain broad. These posts are meant as an introduction, and readers who want to delve into more detail are encouraged to go to resources prepared by Classicists and Latin scholars, not amateurs like ourselves. Classical Latin refers to the Latin language as it was spoken during the time of the Roman Empire.
However, right away we are stuck with a reference that is too vague; Rome endured as a regional power for around seven hundred years, give or take a century depending on how you determine when Rome rose and fell.
This is a tremendous amount of time in linguistics; think of how different English as spoken in was different from modern English. To lump all English for the past seven centuries into a single category would be extraordinarily sloppy, and it is no less so when we try to equate "classical Latin" as that which was spoken "in classical times.
It is for this reason that Latin scholars have arbitrarily chosen one single moment in Rome's long history at which to crystallize the development of the language and measure all prior or subsequent developments by it. This Latin came into use following the cultural triumph of the Graecophiles following the Roman victory over Hannibal centered around the circle of Scipio Aemilianus , was developed by Greek-influenced playwrights like Terence and Ennius and reached its zenith in the prose of Cicero and the poetry of Virgil in the following century.
Therefore, classical Latin is most accurately understood to be the form of Latin used over about a hundred and fifty year period during the transition from the Republic to the Empire.
Ecclesiastical Latin or medieval Latin as it is sometimes called is the Latin language as it was developed in the early medieval period and utilized by the Catholic Church.
It is difficult to say when ecclesiastical Latin became the norm in the Church, but I'd say anywhere between and , though some place its development in the 4th century or even earlier; at any rate, it was definitely the standard form of the language by Carolingian times.
This ecclesiastical Latin was the language of Anselm, Alcuin and Aquinas, the Latin that was taught int he medieval universities and used at Lateran IV and Trent and which subsequently remained the language of the Church up until the upheaval of the Conciliar period, the sacra lingua of the Roman rite although we could also add that ecclesiastical Latin pronunciation was meddled with by St.
Pius X at the turn of the 20th century. What are the main differences between classical and ecclesiastical Latin? The pronunciation guide in the Memoria Press Forms Series is simplified for beginners so that pronunciation will not become an impediment to learning Latin grammar and vocabulary.
As students progress in Latin, pronunciation tips are added in a natural, incremental way. The simplified pronunciation system for Memoria Press Latin is based on these principles:.
Pronunciation tips are included in the Memoria Press Forms Series. Originally published in The Classical Teacher Spring edition.
She and her husband, Jim, were married for forty years and have two sons, both of whom were National Merit Finalists. Cheryl discovered Latin when she homeschooled her sons and was a self-styled apostle of Latin, claiming that Latin has more educational value than any other subject you can teach your children.
S in Biology. Cheryl had wide teaching experience, in both content and venue, teaching everything from phonics, reading, math, Bible, and chemistry to Shakespeare and Latin, and teaching in public and private schools, as well as homeschooling.
Cheryl and her son Brian founded Memoria Press in and in , the highly successful Highlands Latin School where all of the Memoria Press products are taught and field tested. You must be logged in to post a comment. Remember me Log in. Lost your password? If you are having trouble logging in, you may need to delete any site cookies in your browser for memoriapress.
The differences between Classical and Christian pronunciations are shown in the following chart: Classical vs.
What replaced it? Well, just as classical was never the one dominant form of Latin even in its heyday, so it was not replaced by a single dialect but evolved into various forms depending on the region; we would not expect the spoken Latin of Hippo Regius to be the same as the spoken Latin of Eburacum York or that of Asia Minor to be the same as that of the frontier of Moguntiacum Mainz.
Generally speaking, though, classical gave way to a form known as Latinitas Serior, or Late Latin, which came in at the end of the 3rd century AD. The first Latin fathers, exemplified by Tertullian and Cyrprian, utilized this form of Latin, though already by important developments were taking place in patristic writing as the Fathers stretched the limits of Latin in order to articulate Christian theological prinicples; this led to the development of something called "patristic Latin", which is a kind of sub-category of Late Latin.
From here on out the development of Latin gets more confusing; Late Latin in its spoken form became, by the 5th century, "Vulgar Latin", which was the colloquial form of Latin used throughout the empire that served as the core of what would become the Romance languages and differed from Late Latin relatively as much as the English of colonial Boston differs from our own, and from classical approximately to the degree that King James English differs from modern American.
The catalyst that broke these blanket of vulgar dialects up into the Romance languages was, of course, the barbarian invasions of later antiquity, which by the 7th century had transformed the vulgar dialects into proto-Spanish, French, Italian and later Romanian.
But this was only the case in spoken Latin. As the Church mainly communicated by writing, and as the barbarians were by and large illiterate in the first few generations, the propagation of knowledge and the governance of the Church continued on in the Latin tongue without nearly as much dilution from the Germanic languages as the spoken Latin had suffered.
Thus we are left with the reality, by the 6th century, of Church whose official language is one no longer spoken by the people. This form of Latin, to a degree influenced by the balkanization of the empire in its death throes and the developments of the 5 centuries since the time of Augustus, became known as "medieval" or "ecclesiastical" Latin. Unlike the spoken forms of Latin, this eccelsiastical usage was able to endure precisely because it was an administrative language; its spoken usage was also regulated by the liturgical books and sacramentaries, which acted as conservative bulwarks against the same kind of dilution that had turned Gaulish Latin into French.
In short, by being wedded to the liturgical and administrative needs of the Catholic Church, ecclesiastical Latin was rendered invulnerable to the same deteriorating influences that had swept away prior forms of Latin, and was thus enabled to endure as the language of the educated for many centuries.
But, given the amazing enduring power of ecclesiastical Latin, why the sudden switch at the end of the 19th century to a renewed emphasis on classical? Though we speak of the "restoration" of classical as coming in around , it actually goes back way further, to the Renaissance, in fact. We can see the preference for classical over ecclesiastical as part of the movement inaugurated by Petrarch and the humanists; that is, a fascination with ancient Greek and Roman culture coupled by a denigration of the culture and life of the Middle Ages.
The fascination with classical Latin came out of this period of Renaissance humanism; however, the reason why ecclesiastical was not displaced at that time was that, though the men of the Renaissance showed a lively interest in things classical, they were also devoted Catholics who would not have thought of trying to actively supplant the Church's own living language. The men of the Renaissance, scholars like St. Cajetan, found in the classical tradition something that enriched the life of the Church and was put to use for the Church's ends.
The moderns, by contrast, used the classical tradition to tear the Church's living tradition down. The men of the Renaissance may have admired the pagans of the past; it was the moderns who suggested that we actaully become pagans ourselves. In the same way, the men of the Renaissance admired the beauty and form of classical Latin, but it was the moderns who suggested that we displace a millenium and a half of tradition to replace our Catholic usage with a foreign one. Thus, the "revival" of the late 19th century can be seen as the linguistic equivalent of the heresy archaeologism - that Catholics must perpetually regard older usages as better and question developments.
This is the argument the classicists make. So then, what can we say? Why exactly should we prefer the ecclesiastical pronunciation? I can think of four reasons: 1. It is our Tradition. Regardless of how much we may admire the accomplishments of the ancient Roman civilization or the poetry and prose of the Augustan period, this is not the language of our Church or our tradition. It is the simple but profound Latin of Anselm, Aquinas and Bonaventure that has been the language of the Church.
Classical Latin was the language of pagan Rome, the Rome of the persecutions and the bloody spectacles of the amphitheaters. This is not the Rome of the holy pontiffs, nor the Latin of the Church. Therefore, at least in the context of Latin, we might modify Tertullian's famous line to say, "What has the Aquinas to do with Virgil? Jerome, "You are a Ciceronian, not a Christian. After century upon century of pronouncing Latin according to the usage of the Middle Ages, the classical pronunciation sounds awkward, artificial and forced.
In this article, she points out that many ecclesiastical pronunciations of words are so ingrained in our vocabulary that the even classicists do not say them according to the classical pronunciation. For example, according to Lowe, the classical pronunciation of a short a in classical Latin is uh.
Thus, the conjugation of amo would be uh-moh, uh-mas, uh-muht. Yet nobody says that; even classicists sayah-mo. Another example is Italia, which in classical would be ee-tuh-lee-ah. Thus, we are left with some words which use the medieval pronunciation just by convention Magisterium Magi, Italia, etc. The classical pronunciation actually hinders the comprehension of Latin by students because it is counter-intuitive.
0コメント