Salvēte, sodālēs! A new edition of Arcadius Avellanus’ Fābulae Dīvālēs is now available. The work contains seven famous fairy tales translated into Latin, from Ciniscula (Cinderella) to Lucerna Aladdīnī (Aladdin’s Lamp). The text has been macronized for the first time and reformatted. The editors have included illustrations by Arthur Rackham and a short preface about Avellanus. You can find it on Amazon. Enjoy!
https://www.amazon.com/dp/B0BQ9RT5GF/ref=mp_s_a_1_4?crid=1ZSBQ9Q5UTNXD&keywords=fabulae+divales&qid=1671573160&sprefix=fabulae+divales%2Caps%2C109&sr=8-4
Interesting! The description doesn’t mention macrons. Where did you see they were added?
You can read the beginning of the book on Amazon.
From the preface:
(…) Sed post aliquanto illum ordinem reliquit, vitam philosophice strictam monachi repudians, et > Latinam > docere coepit. (…)
Avellanus propugnator Latinitatis vivae notus est. Secundum illum, > Latinam > et legere et interpretari et scandere ad discendum non sufficit. (…)
Itaque, encheiridion in multas partes divisum, titulo Palaestram, scripsit, in quibus ratio sua Latinitatis docendae discendaeque pansa est. Ut pueri ad > Latinam > legendam moverentur facultatemque Latine intelligendi sic exercerent, Avellanus nonnullos libros pueriles in > Latinam > vertit (…)
This use of Latina as a freestanding word for “Latin (language)”, without the word lingua anywhere close, is something I see quite often in Living Latin circles. I have always thought of it as somewhat mistaken but I’d appreciate it if someone more knowledgeable could weigh in on this topic.
Use ‘Look inside’ feature to preview the book:
My bad, I’m so used to not having any preview for rarer books, that I didn’t even think about it.
From what I can see in the introduction, the infamous œ and æ were changed into something more decent. As for other unorthodox hypercorrections, I don’t know what has been done.
They’ve removed the footnotes from the original, which is the biggest loss, I thought. I pretty much feel the same about macrons as the author (quoted in English in the intro).
The original with copious footnotes, more stories, and no vowel length (and free!) is here:
https://archive.org/details/fabuldivalesexn00apulgoog
I do hope all the macrons everywhere are getting some of the Lingua Latina folk into the poetry, but I haven’t heard great evidence of it yet.
Looking for the original source of this quotation in Palaestra, I see that the author makes some statements on this very similar to what I’ve discovered myself over the the years, excepting the finger-counting, which I think can be avoided by mentally attending the caesura.
I wouldn’t have posted to this thread, but he signed up for a new account just to advertise this post (against Textkit rules, which I didn’t make) and posted exactly the same wording across multiple sites.
Quantity is a phonemic trait in Latin, just as in English : saying “I go to the bitch” is totally different from “I go to the beach”. Conclusion : my opinion about Avellānus’ arguments is that they are fallacious:
1st- It has, just as I said.
2nd - It’s the same as 1st.
3rd - So what? It’s a false dichotomy : either mark long vowels with iron rules, either don’t mark long vowels.
4th - Much of it? I think he exaggerates. Some words are naturally subject of debate, but his objection is the fallacy of the perfect solution : just because the solution isn’t perfect, let us ignore it. Just every language has floating rules on some details, and this doesn’t prevent people from using them.
5th - It’s a mere opinion.
Not making the difference between short and long vowels totally changes the musicality of the language, making it sound like a different language. In some contexts, not marking the long vowels can lead to big ambiguities, making the text difficult to understand, so that even Avellānus himself notated some of them in some of his translations, which means that even he understood that things could be complicated like this.
If marking the vowels in prose is leading to Latinists who are better at reading poetry, then it’s worth the effort. If it’s not, then it’s a failed project and the effort could be better directed to other things.
As far as the difference between prose and poetry rhythms, try reading the lyrics to ABBA’s “Dancing Queen” aloud with the sung rhythm, and then again as plain speech. You’ll notice that in the first you deemphasize the normal English speech stress for vowel length (those Swedes!)
I find the views here on macrons a bit odd.
Students certainly should find it helpful to see, for example -ā at the end of a first declension noun indicating the ablative case and -ūs alerting them a the genitive singular in the fourth declension.
I always try to distinguish between ā and ǎ etc in reading LLPSI. I am not so concerned to achieve some kind of authentic pronunciation as to get students to notice quantity as it may help with meaning. I don’t insist they use macrons in the exercises but some of them do which is pleasing.
Arguments about pronunciation seem to me pointless as I am sure much like in the present world it differed in different places, times and social strata. In Rome apparently people laughed at Hadrianś Latin pronunciation although I doubt they did so to his face.
Not more knowledgeable but…
This is the entry in OLD
Latina - a e /
1 (sc. lingua) The Latin language.
► hoc graecum est et in «a cratis Var. L. 7.55.
2 (sc. uia) The Latin Way, a road from Rome to
Beneventum.
► spatia antiquae .. renouare «ae Stat. Si(v. 4.4.60;
Juv. 1.171.
The Varro is 55. In Persa:
Iam pol ille hic aderit, credo, congerro meus.
Congerro a gerra; hoc Graecum est et in Latina cratis. [cratis for gratis]
"In The Persian a:
Now sure he’ll be here at once, I think, my jolly chum.
Congerro b ‘chum,’ from gerra c ‘wickerwork’; this is a Greek word, d the Latin equivalent of which is cratis
a Plautus, Persa, 89.
b That is, ‘companion, playfellow’ from ‘fellow-trifler’; see next note.
c Usually plural gerrae; with derived meaning of ‘trifles, nonsense.’
d γέῤῥον ‘wickerwork’ or anything made of it, especially shields.
(loeb)
The Loeb rather sidesteps how we are to understand (sc.) Lingua but it suggests that Latina is an abbreviation for Lingua Latina.
For Lingua OLD gives
4 The particular mode of speech prevalent in a given
country, region, period, etc., a language, dialect, or
sim*
► is omnis -as scit Pl. Poen. 112; interpres, quo iste … ad
-am Graecam .. uti solebat Cic. Ver. 3.84; quod uerbum
.. nullum in -a Latina est Phil. 13.43; multa nouis uerbis
.. cum sit agendum propter egestatem vae Lucr. 1,139;
docte sermones utriusque -ae (i.e. both Latin and Greek)
Hor. Carm. 3.8,5; -am .. Etruscam Liv. 9.36.3; Lacon ille
qui captus clamabat ‘non seruiam’ sua ille Dorica -a
Sen. Ep. 77.14; Plin. Nat, 25,6; (Graecis) -arum .. inter se
differentium copia est Quint, Inst. 12,10.34; aliter .. ueteri
-a actus uocatur Gaius Inst 2.27;— (of animals and birds)
isti qui -am auium intellegunt (i.e. soothsayers) Pac. trag.
83; R .. canina si -a dico LUCIl. 378.
“-a = lingu-a”
I think the underlined text suggests that the classical usage would be Lingua Latina.
Thanks, seneca! Much appreciated.
The Varro example is interesting. It seems to be a unique case though (see this).
This conforts me in the idea that the use of Latina for “Latin language”, without lingua standing nearby, is a deviation from normal Latin usage.
As I mentioned above, I’ve see it not infrequently in texts written by Living Latin/LLPSI/… proponents and, while I’m glad there’s a push for more active use of Latin, I hope we’re not already reaching a point where people start creating their own brand of Latin, without regard for well attested Latin forms.
My pleasure. I couldn’t use the link you included but no matter.
I have just looked at Familia Romana and I wouldn’t lump that text with Living Latin etc.
Ørberg has :
Ecce duae sententiae: Lingua in ore inest et Lingua Latina difficilis est. p 136 30
Magister, qui pueros legere docet, ipse et libros Latinos et Graecos legere potest, nam is utramque linguam scit.
(with the marginal note utraque lingua : lingua Graeca et Latina) p 136 37- this seems to parallel “docte sermones utriusque -ae (i.e. both Latin and Greek)”
Zeno est servus doctus qui et Lat1ne et Graece scit. 159 p 141
(marginal note Latine scire = linguam Latinam scire)
Lingua Latina vobis discenda est. 215 p 259
So in this respect I think that Ørberg is perfectly classical.
I agree re: Orberg! My comment was about (some) LLPSI users, not about LLPSI itself! Sorry if I was unclear.
I have to quote the following from C.S. Lewis, from a volume of his letters that I received at Christmas: Utinam pestifera illa “Renascentia” quam Humanistae efficenrunt non destruxerit (dum erigere eam se jactabant) Latinam: adhuc possemus toti Europae scribere.
He is referencing a complaint (I believe) that the impossible Humanist standard destroyed Latin as a living language of communication. (Also…“Latinam”!)
Just a quick note: the footnotes are available in the back as endnotes. They are still in the book. 
Thanks for the reference, joel! In this case, I feel Latinam could still be relying on in lingua Italica in the previous sentence. Especially since there’s a continuity of thought: “I could have done that…If only the Humanists…”.
It still feels quite different from the indiscriminate use of Latina in the sentences I quoted above, where Latina is far removed from any instance of lingua.
And it is, I feel, even more unfortunate in the following:
Sed post aliquanto illum ordinem reliquit, vitam philosophice strictam monachi repudians, et Latinam docere coepit.
where a word like vitam comes just before Latinam, inducing the reading et Latinam [vitam] docere coepit.
Obviously. But keeping the distinction only for some declensions is okay for reading only in order to tell forms from others. But as for speaking, it’s another matter ; even before talking about phonemic difference, it’s a question of consistence, because it would be absurd, in my opinion, to have long vowels in speech only on some declensions.
That’s right. But we must consider that long vowels come from the simplification of older diphthongs (as ei or oi) or consonant clusters, and as such were clearly audible. Some variations may have occurred locally, but we can’t throw away everything just because we can’t be 100% correct ; and as for further evolution, like the loss of any distinction, it’s a major step towards the loss of declensions, which led to the emergence of proto-romance (and as such, not Latin anymore). We mainly have the writings on the literate population, so obviously what we have is biased, but I think we should do with what we have.
Well, it depends on what you try to achieve. My goal is to sound as authentic as possible and take in account the linguistic data (from PIE to romance), may it be flawed.
I fear my knowledge of English wouldn’t be enough and I don’t feel confident enough to discuss about this thoroughly. But what I can say is that in poetry, the words and their order are chosen specifically for their musicality. Sometimes, the lengths may be changed in order to make them fit. But the words themselves mainly remain unchanged.
Obviously. But keeping the distinction only for some declensions is okay for reading only in order to tell forms from others. But as for speaking, it’s another matter ; even before talking about phonemic difference, it’s a question of consistence, because it would be absurd, in my opinion, to have long vowels in speech only on some declensions.
I am not sure what you mean by this. But I hesitate to get involved in an exchange on all this. There is no such thing as “authentic” pronunciation. To claim a pronunciation as “authentic” is to condemn all the others as being “inauthentic”. I speak English with a rather old fashioned RP accent. I would not claim that this is the authentic way of speaking English. British poetry for example is written by people with a variety of accents and unless you hear them read their poetry you cannot from the text on its own work out how they want their poems to sound.
I dont advocate a free for all and it’s best to be as consistent as one can. But humans are not machines and it seems so artificial to insist that this scheme or that scheme is the only correct one. This debate often seems so sterile.
Obviously the language barrier shows here, I have trouble explaining my point.
‘authentic’ do have some meaning when talking about a specific period and a specific corpus of texts, when one tries to sound like the authors sounded. But ultimately a language is a vehicle modeled by its speakers and as such there is no absolute rule nor absolute ‘authenticity’. And as you point, there has been many variants, even at the time of Classical Latin (but for which we have few direct evidence) and finally id relies on personal preference, what we aim, and mutual intelligibility. Can we use whatever pronunciation we like just for the sake of it? Just a little thing though: reforms were made in the pronunciation of Latin and national pronunciations were mostly abandoned to be replaced by the restored classical pronunciation (with the notable exception of Ecclesiastical), precisely in order to be more ‘authentic’. Vowel lengths are part of this.
But the main point is about consistence: if a distinction between short and long vowels is deemed necessary in some situations (here we have the example of declensions), it wouldn’t be consistent to mark (especially when speaking or reading out loud) only these occurrences and not the others, that would sound artificial.
As for editions with macrons, they don’t do harm to people who don’t care about vowel length, but they are very useful for people who care about them.
So, as I said, no absolute truth, but everybody should try and do their best.
Hi thanks for responding. I think the problem lies not so much in the difficulty you have with the language (you are very clear and put me to shame) but that this subject is fraught with philosophical difficulties.
I think it’s best to avoid the word “authentic”. In the performance of 17/18 th century music for example what started as an “authentic movement” is now referred to as “historically informed performance”. This is in recognition, in part, of the plurality of styles which were used in the past and that baroque performers would often seek to vary the ways they played a particular piece, often radically.
A reconstructed pronunciation can only be an approximation as we have no access to native speakers. One can agree or disagree with the reconstruction on the basis of the evidence. One can agree with it and choose to do something else as in ecclesiastical Latin. Each country will also have its own traditions.
But the main point is about consistence: if a distinction between short and long vowels is deemed necessary in some situations (here we have the example of declensions), it wouldn’t be consistent to mark (especially when speaking or reading out loud) only these occurrences and not the others, that would sound artificial.
I think this may be based on a misunderstanding of what I said. I gave a few examples where having macrons aids intelligibility. I was not advocating only adding them in certain cases. Vowel length is very important in my opinion and so a text with macros is to be preferred. Others see it differently.