11

It is my understanding that Julius Caesar, Cicero, Octavian (Augustus) would have pronounced Latin in a manner that is decidedly Classical, characterised by:

  • "v" as /w/
  • "c" and "g" always hard (i.e., /k/ and /g/)
  • both long and short vowels
  • "ae" diphthong as /ae̯/
  • consonantal "i" as /j/

(All these points distinguishing it from Vulgar and Ecclesiastical Latin pronunciation.)

I also understand that Vulgar Latin pronunciation started to develop around the first century BC as well, but took a long time to become the standard for the upper classes. I have heard it was standard even among the patricians and senators by the early 5th century, but quite possibly earlier.

My question relates to Marcus Aurelius (121–180), and how he and others of the higher echelons of Roman society would have spoken Latin. Of course, Marcus Aurelius grew up in Rome, so he would most likely have had a very orthodox pronunciation/accent for the time, despite his provincial heritage (from southern Hispania). Would his pronunciation likely have been totally Classical, like that of Caesar or Augustus, or would it already be showing signs of "vulgarisation"? How late did this "correct" Classical pronunciation persist amongst the highest classes during the Imperial period?

(Incidentally, I presume that Marcus Aurelius' usage of grammar and vocabulary – and probably spelling too – would all have been very much Classical/Ciceronian in any case.)

Canned Man
  • 3,429
  • 12
  • 37
Noldorin
  • 213
  • 1
  • 7
  • 2
    One point to consider is that his family came from Iberia, though Marcus was born in Rome. The question is what speech varieties he was exposed to, and which ones had an influence on his Latin pronunciation. Also, it is very likely that he would have spoken several different lects of Latin (as well as of Greek) in different contexts, to different people. That's what happens when only a thin veneer of the culture is literate and everybody else speaks whatever works. –  Jul 09 '19 at 02:38
  • 1
    @jlawler Yeah, I mention that in my post actually. :-) Most people tend to be influenced predominantly by their general environment more than their parents however, in the long run, and M.A. had training in rhetoric, philosophy, and other things from a young age (albeit mainly from Roman Greek scholars I believe). – Noldorin Jul 09 '19 at 02:46
  • 2
    Welcome to the Latin site! – Joonas Ilmavirta Jul 09 '19 at 05:18
  • 2
    Nice to see new people here. You have an interesting question! Unless an answer is posted shortly, I will consult Vox Latina when I get back home and see if he has any comments on 2nd century Latin. – Canned Man Jul 09 '19 at 06:46
  • Thanks @JoonasIlmavirta and Canned Man. I appreciate whoever migrated this over, as well. – Noldorin Jul 10 '19 at 15:38
  • 1
    No answer yet... Vox Latina sounds like a very interesting book, so that would be great. – Noldorin Jul 10 '19 at 15:39
  • Related: https://latin.stackexchange.com/a/7548/2476 // Looking at the linked answers there and a few more, one can construct a satisfying answer. I would try, but I don't have enough spare time at the moment. – Vincenzo Oliva Jul 22 '19 at 10:59
  • @VincenzoOliva Thanks. Still missing some important points, but I think some of the information there is wrong. For example, I believe the "ae" and "oe" spellings appeared well before the 2nd century AD, and the final "m" was still pronounced at least until the end of the Republic, if not later. – Noldorin Jul 22 '19 at 12:51
  • @Noldorin: Of course the "ae" and "oe" spellings appeared earlier, what I stated is they completely replaced "ai" and "oi" by the 2nd century AD. As for final "m" you're wrong, it was often omitted even in Old Latin inscriptions. – Vincenzo Oliva Jul 22 '19 at 13:22
  • Ah, that wasn't clear from the phrasing of your answer there... may be worth amending. :-) As for the final 'm', I did a bit of research, and it seems the issue is subtle: in the Classical period it was either pronounced very weakly and/or the preceding vowel was nasalised (I've seen claims to both), the distinction between the two being very subtle in any case. In Old Latin it seems to have been fully pronounced (at least, someone of the social class and era of Scipio Africanus would have), though I can certainly believe the lower classes had a more Classical Pronunciation towards the end. – Noldorin Jul 22 '19 at 23:42
  • (If you have a reference to that inscription where it was omitted, and a date, that would be great. I believe you, but purely out of curiosity!) – Noldorin Jul 22 '19 at 23:42
  • 1
    @Noldorin: Note that when one writes that final "m" was not pronounced or was weakly articulated, they do always mean that it nasalizes the preceding vowel. It is a bit of a simplification,but it's due to the fact that apart from final position, /m/ is usually pronounced [m] in its own right. As for an inscription, sure, one example can be seen here: starting from honc oino (which classically would be hunc unum) up to Scipione, all final M's are omitted except in Luciom . – Vincenzo Oliva Jul 23 '19 at 08:12
  • @VincenzoOliva Thanks for that. Very interesting. I suppose the other example there is "duonoro" (Classical "bonorum"), though maybe I missed another? As for the social class of the person writing this, I suppose tombstone inscription was probably a "middle class" job here (if we can say such a thing). i.e. Not a eques, but above your average citizen? I guess I'm trying to get an idea of when the "prescribed" (upper-class) Latin pronunciation would have dropped or weakened the final 'm'. It couldn't have begun before widespread literacy, I imagine. – Noldorin Jul 23 '19 at 22:35
  • @VincenzoOliva The claim that final 'm' in classical Latin nasalises the preceding vowel is made by Allen in Vox Latina. He says it both lengthens and nasalises the vowel... although in some cases that final vowel is then elided. In some other cases (e.g. when the followig word started with a "g") the final "m" would have been realised as [ŋ], according to Allen. – rjpond Aug 19 '20 at 22:27

1 Answers1

6

For the most part, the upper classes in Rome still spoke Classical Latin in the 2nd century AD.

Features in common with Classical Latin

  • c - hard, as /k/. The softening came much later.
  • g - hard, as /g/ (although whether it was still /ŋ/ before "n", or had become a simple /g/ there too by this time, is unclear).
  • h - the educated élite probably still pronounced it, at least in careful speech.
  • i - still /j/ as a consonant.

Likely change: consonantal u

  • It's likely that by this point, consonantal "u" was no longer /w/ and was realised either as [v] or more likely [β].

Likely change: vowels

  • By sometime in the 2nd c. AD Velius Longus observed a qualitative difference between long and short "i". This suggests that Latin short "ĭ" and long "ē" had already started their convergence towards Romance [ẹ], while "ī" remained [i].

Possible change: diphthongs

  • ae - unclear whether it was still /ae/ or had become /e/ at this point.
  • au - would have become /a/ in unstressed syllables, but might still have been /au/ in stressed syllables.

The above observations are deduced or inferred from Allen, Vox Latina.

rjpond
  • 1,021
  • 12
  • 15