Why we use it and How to use it

BY

FRANCES E. LORD

Professor of Latin in Wellesley College

BOSTON, U.S.A. PUBLISHED BY GINN & COMPANY 1894

Copyright, 1894 By FRANCES E. LORD

ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

Contents (added by transcriber)

Introduction

PART I. Why We Use It.

Sounds of the Letters.

Vowels.

Diphthongs.

Consonants.

Quantity.

Accent.

Pitch.

PART II. How To Use It.

Elision.

Quantity.

Accent.

INTRODUCTION.

The argument brought against the ‘Roman pronunciation’ of Latin is twofold: the impossibility of perfect theoretical knowledge, and the difficulty of practical attainment.

If to know the main features of the classic pronunciation of Latin were impossible, then our obvious course would be to refuse the attempt; to regard the language as in reality dead, and to make no pretence of reading it. This is in fact what the English scholars generally do. But if we may know substantially the sounds of the tongue in which Cicero spoke and Horace sung, shall we give up the delights of the melody and the rhythm and content ourselves with the thought form? Poetry especially does not exist apart from sound; sense alone will not constitute it, nor even sense and form without sound.

But if it is true that the task of practical acquisition is, if not impossible, extremely difficult, ‘the work of a lifetime,’ as the objectors say, do the results justify the expenditure of time and labor?

The position of the English-speaking peoples is not the same in this as that of Europeans. Europeans have not the same necessity to urge them to the ‘Roman pronunciation.’ Their own languages represent the Latin more or less adequately, in vowel sounds, in accent, and even, to some extent, in quantity; so that with them, all is not lost iv if they translate the sounds into their own tongues; while with us, nothing is left—sound, accent, quantity, all is gone; none of these is reproduced, or even suggested, in English.

We believe a great part of our difficulty, in this country, lies in the fact that so few of those who study and teach Latin really know what the ‘Roman pronunciation’ is, or how to use it. Inquiries are constantly being made by teachers, Why is this so? What authority is there for this? What reason for that?

In the hope of giving help to those who desire to know the Why and the How this little compendium is made; in the interest of time-and-labor-saving uniformity, and in the belief that what cannot be fully known or perfectly acquired does still not prevent our perceiving, and showing in some worthy manner and to, some satisfactory degree, how, as well as what, the honey-tongued orators and divine poets of Rome spoke or sung.

In the following pages free use has been made of the highest English authorities, of Oxford and Cambridge. Quotations will be found from Prof. H. A. J. Munro’s pamphlet on “Pronunciation of Latin,” and from Prof. A. J. Ellis’ book on “Quantitative Pronunciation of Latin”; also from the pamphlet issued by the Cambridge (Eng.) Philological Society, on the “Pronunciation of Latin in the Augustan Period.”

In the present compendium the chief points of divergence from the general American understanding of the ‘Roman’ method are in respect of the diphthong ae and the consonantal u. In these cases the pronunciation herein recommended for the ae is that favored by Roby, Munro, and Ellis, and adopted by the Cambridge Philological Society; for the v, or u consonant, that advocated by Corssen, A. J. Ellis, and Robinson Ellis.

THE ROMAN PRONUNCIATION OF LATIN.

PART I. WHY WE USE IT.

In general, the greater part of our knowledge of the pronunciation of Latin comes from the Latin grammarians, whose authority varies greatly in value; or through incidental statements and expressions of the classic writers themselves; or from monumental inscriptions. Of these three, the first is inferior to the other two in quality, but they in turn are comparatively meagre in quantity.

In the first place, we know (a most important piece of knowledge) that, as a rule, Latin was pronounced as written. This is evident from the fact, among others, that the same exceptions recur, and are mentioned over and over again, in the grammarians, and that so much is made of comparatively, and confessedly, insignificant points. Such, we may be sure, would not have been the case had exceptions been numerous. Then we have the authority of Quintilian—than whom is no higher. He speaks of the subtleties of the grammarians:

[Quint. I. iv. 6.] Interiora velut sacri hujus adeuntibus apparebit multa rerum subtilitas, quae non modo acuere ingenia puerilia sed exercere altissimam quoque eruditionem ac scientiam possit.

And says:

[Id. ib. iv. 7.] An cujuslibet auris est exigere litterarum sonos?

2 But after citing some of those idiosyncrasies which appear on the pages of all the grammarians, he finally sums up the matter in the following significant words:

[Id. ib. vii. 30, 31.] Indicium autem suum grammaticus interponat his omnibus; nam hoc valere plurimum debet. Ego (note the ego) nisi quod consuetudo obtinuerit sic scribendum quidque judico, quomodo sonat. Hic enim est usus litterarum, ut custodiant voces et velut depositum reddant legentibus, itaque id exprimere debent quod dicturi sumus.

This is still a characteristic of the Italian language, so that one may by books, getting the rules from the grammarians, learn to pronounce the language with a good degree of correctness.

On this point Professor Munro says:

“We see in the first volume of the Corpus Inscr. Latin. a map, as it were, of the language spread open before us, and feel sure that change of spelling meant systematical change of pronunciation: coira, coera, cura; aiquos, aequos, aecus; queicumque, quicumque, etc., etc.”

And again:

“We know exactly how Cicero or Quintilian did or could spell; we know the syllable on which they placed the accent of almost every word; and in almost every case we already follow them in this. I have the conviction that in their best days philological people took vast pains to make the writing exactly reproduce the sounding; and that if Quintilian or Tacitus spelt a word differently from Cicero or Livy, he also spoke it so far differently.”

Three chief factors are essential to the Latin language, and each of these must be known with some good degree of certainty, if we would lay claim to an understanding of Roman pronunciation.

These are:

(1) Sounds of the letters (vowels, diphthongs, consonants);

(2) Quantity;

(3) Accent.

SOUNDS OF THE LETTERS.

Vowels.

The vowels are five: a, e, i, o, u.

These when uttered alone are always long.

[Pompei. Comm. ad Donat. Keil. v. V. p. 101 et al.] Vocales autem quinque sunt: a, e, i, o, u. Istae quinque, quando solae proferuntur, longae sunt semper: quando solas litteras dicis, longae sunt. A sola longa est; e sola longa est.

A is uttered with the mouth widely opened, the tongue suspended and not touching the teeth:

[Ars Gram. Mar. Vict. de orthographia et de metrica ratione, I. vi. 6.] A littera rictu patulo, suspensa neque impressa dentibus lingua, enuntiatur.

E is uttered with the mouth less widely open, and the lips drawn back and inward:

[Id. ib. vi. 7.] E quae sequitur, de represso modice rictu oris, reductisque introrsum labiis, effertur.

I will voice itself with the mouth half closed and the teeth gently pressed by the tongue:

[Id. ib. vi. 8.] I semicluso ore, impressisque sensim lingua dentibus, vocem dabit.

O (long) will give the “tragic sound” through rounded opening, with lips protruded, the tongue pendulous in the roof of the mouth:

4 [Id. ib. vi. 9.] O longum autem, protrusis labiis, rictu tereti, lingua arcu oris pendula, sonum tragicum dabit.

U is uttered with the lips protruding and approaching each other, like the Greek ου:

[Id. ib. vi. 10.] U litteram quotiens enuntiamus, productis et coeuntibus labris efferemus . . . quam nisi per ου conjunctam Graeci scribere ac pronuntiare non possunt.

Of these five vowels the grammarians say that three (a, i, u) do not change their quality with their quantity:

[Pompei. Comm. ad Donat. Keil. v. V. p. 101.] De istis quinque litteris tres sunt, quae sive breves sive longae ejusdemmodi sunt, a, i, u: similiter habent sive longae sive breves.

But two (e, o) change their quality:

[Id. ib.] O vero et e non sonant breves.

E aliter longa aliter brevis sonat. Dicit ita Terentianus (hoc dixit) ‘Quotienscumque e longam volumus proferri, vicina sit ad i litteram.’ Ipse sonus sic debet sonare, quomodo sonat i littera. Quando dicis evitat, vicina debet esse, sic pressa, sic angusta, ut vicina sit ad i litteram. Quando vis dicere brevem e simpliciter sonat. O longa sit an brevis. Si longa est, debet sonus ipse intra palatum sonare, ut si dices orator, quasi intra sonat, intra palatum. Si brevis est debet primis labris sonare, quasi extremis labris, ut puta sic dices obit. Habes istam regulam expressam in Terentiano. Quando vis exprimere quia brevis est, primis labris sonat; quando exprimis longam, intra palatum sonat.

[Ars Gram. Mar. Vict. de Orthog. et de Metr. Rat., I. vi. 9.] O qui correptum enuntiat, nec magno hiatu labra reserabit, et retrorsum actam linguam tenebit.

It would thus seem that the long e of the Latin in its prolongation draws into the i sound, somewhat as if i were subjoined, as in the English vein or Italian fedele.

The grammarians speak of the obscure sound of i and u, short and unaccented in the middle of a word; so that in a number of words i and u were written indifferently, even by classic writers, as optimus or optumus, maximus or maxumus. This is but a simple and natural thing. The same obscurity occurs often in English, as, for instance, in words ending in able or ible. How easy, for instance, to confuse the sound and spelling in such words as detestable and digestible.

[Serg. Explan. Art. Donat. Keil. v. II. p. 475.] Hae etiam duae i et u . . . interdum expressum suum sonum non habent: i, ut vir; u, ut optumus. Non enim possumus dicere vir producta i, nec optumus producta u; unde etiam mediae dicuntur. Et hoc in commune patiuntur inter se, et bene dixit Donatus has litteras in quibusdam dictionibus expressum suum sonum non habere. Hae etiam mediae dicuntur, quia quibusdam dictionibus expressum sonum non habent, . . . ut maxume pro maxime. . . . In quibusdam nominibus non certum exprimunt sonum; i, ut vir modo i opprimitur; u ut optumus modo u perdit sonum.

Priscian says:

[Keil. v. II. p. 465.] Cur per vi scribitur (virum)? Quia omnia nomina a vi syllaba incipientia per vi scribuntur exceptis bitumine et bile, quando fel significat, et illis quae a bis adverbio componuntur, ut biceps, bipatens, bivium. Cur sonum videtur habere in hac dictione i vocalis u litterae Graecae? Quia omnis dictio a vi syllaba brevi incipiens, d vel t vel m vel r vel x sequentibus, hoc sono pronuntiatur, ut video, videbam, videbo: quia in his temporibus vi corripitur, mutavit sonum in u: in praeterito autem perfecto, et in aliis in quibus producitur, naturalem servavit sonum, ut vidi, videram, vidissem, videro. Similiter vitium mutat sonum, quia corripitur; vita autem non mutat, quia producitur. Similiter vim mutat quia corripitur, vimen autem non mutat quia producitur. Similiter vir et virgo mutant, quia corripiuntur: virus autem et vires non mutant, quia producuntur. Vix mutant, quia corripitur: vixi non mutant, quia producitur. 6 Hoc idem plerique solent etiam in illis dictionibus facere, in quibus a fi brevi incipiunt syllabae sequentibus supra dictis

consonantibus, ut fides, perfidus, confiteor, infimus, firmus. Sunt autem qui non adeo hoc observant, cum de vi nemo fere dubitat.

From this it would seem that in the positions above mentioned vi short—and with some speakers fi short—had an obscure, somewhat thickened, sound, not unlike that heard in the English words virgin, firm, a not unnatural obscuration. As Donatus says of it:

[Keil. v. IV. p. 367.] Pingue nescio quid pro naturali sono usurpamus.

Sometimes, apparently, this tendency ran into excess, and the long i was also obscured; while sometimes the short i was pronounced too distinctly. This vice is commented on by the grammarians, under the name iotacism:

[Pompei. Comm. ad Donat. Keil. v. V. p. 394.] Iotacismum dicunt vitium quod per i litteram vel pinguius vel exilius prolatam fit. Galli pinguius hanc utuntur, ut cum dicunt ite, non expresse ipsam proferentes, sed inter e et i pinguiorem sonum nescio quem ponentes. Graeci exilius hanc proferunt, adeo expressioni ejus tenui studentes, ut si dicant jus, aliquantulum de priori littera sic proferant, ut videas dissyllabam esse factam. Romanae linguae in hoc erit moderatio, ut exilis ejus sonus sit, ubi ab ea verbum incipit, ut ite, aut pinguior, ubi in ea desinit verbum, ut habui, tenui; medium quendam sonum inter e et i habet, ubi in medio sermone est, ut hominem. Mihi tamen videtur, quando producta est, plenior vel acutior esse; quando autem brevis est medium sonum exhibere debet, sicut eadem exempla quae posita sunt possunt declarare.

The grammarians also note the peculiar relation of u to q, as in the following passage:

[Serg. Explan. Art. Donat. Keil. v. IV. p. 475.] U vero hoc accidit proprium, ut interdum nec vocalis nec consonans sit, hoc est ut non 7 sit littera, cum inter q et aliquam vocalem ponitur. Nam consonans non potest esse, quia ante se habet alteram consonantem, id est q; vocalis esse non potest, quia sequitur illam vocalis, ut quare, quomodo.

Diphthongs.

In Marius Victorinus we find diphthongs thus defined:

[Mar. Vict. Gaisford, I. v. 54.] Duae inter se vocales jugatae ac sub unius vocis enuntiatione prolatae syllabam faciunt natura longam, quam Graeci diphthongon vocant, veluti geminae vocis unum sonum, ut ae, oe, au.

And more fully in the following paragraph:

[Mar. Vict. Gaisford, I. v. 6.] Sunt longae naturaliter syllabae, cum duae vocales junguntur, quas syllabas Graeci diphthongos vocant; ut ae, oe, au, eu, ei: nam illae diphthongi non sunt quae fiunt per vocales loco consonantium positas; ut ia, ie, ii, io, iu, va, ve, vi, vo, vu.

Of these diphthongs eu occurs,—except in Greek words,—only in heus, heu, eheu; in seu, ceu, neu. In neuter and neutiquam the e is probably elided.

Diphthongs ending in i, viz., ei, oi, ui, occur only in a few interjections and in cases of contraction.

While in pronouncing the diphthong the sound of both vowels was to some extent preserved, there are many indications that (in accordance with the custom of making a vowel before another vowel short) the first vowel of the diphthong was hastened over and the second received the stress. As in modern Greek we find all diphthongs that end in iota pronounced as simple i, so in Latin there are numerous instances, before and during the classic period, of the use of e for ae or oe, and it is to be noted that in the latest spelling e generally prevails.

Munro says:

“In Lucilius’s time the rustics said Cecilius pretor for Caecilius praetor; in two Samothracian inscriptions older than B.C. 100 (the sound of ai by that time verging to an open e), we find muste piei and muste: in similar inscriptions μύσται piei, and mystae: Paeligni is reproduced in Strabo by Πελιγνόι: Cicero, Virgil, Festus, and Servius all alike give caestos for κεστός: by the first century, perhaps sooner, e was very frequently put for ae in words like taeter: we often find teter, erumna, mestus, presto and the like: soon inscriptions and MSS. began pertinaciously to offer ae for ĕ: praetum, praeces, quaerella, aegestas and the like, the ae representing a short and very open e: sometimes it stands for a long e, as often in plaenus, the liquid before and after making perhaps the e more open (σκηνή is always scaena): and it is from this form plaenus that in Italian, contrary to the usual law of long Latin e, we have pièno with open e. With such pedigree then, and with the genuine Latin ae always

represented in Italian by open e, can we hesitate to pronounce the ae with this open e sound?”

The argument sometimes used, for pronouncing ae like ai, that in the poets we occasionally find ai in the genitive singular of the first declension, appears to have little weight in view of the following explanation:

[Mar. Vict, de Orthog. et de Metr. Rat., I. iii. 38.] Ae Syllabam quidam more Graecorum per ai scribunt, nec illud quidem custodient, quia omnes fere, qui de orthographia aliquid scriptum reliquerunt, praecipiunt, nomina femina casu nominativo a finita, numero plurali in ae exire, ut Aeliae: eadem per a et i scripta numerum singularem ostendere, ut hujus Aeliai: inducti a poetis, qui pictai vestis scripserunt: et quia Graeci per i potissimum hanc syllabam scribunt propter exilitatem litterae, η autem propter naturalem productionem jungere vocali alteri non possunt: iota vero, quae est 9 brevis eademque longa, aptior ad hanc structuram visa est: quam potestatem apud nos habet et i, quae est longa et brevis. Vos igitur sine controversia ambiguitatis, et pluralem nominativum, et singularem genitivum per ae scribite: nam qui non potest dignoscere supra scriptarum vocum numeros et casum, valde est hebes.

Of oe Munro says:

“When hateful barbarisms like coelum, coena, moestus are eliminated, oe occurs very rarely in Latin: coepi, poena, moenia, coetus, proelia, besides archaisms coera, moerus, etc., where oe, coming from oi, passed into u. If we must have a simple sound, I should take the open e sound which I have given to ae: but I should prefer one like the German ö. Their rarity, however, makes the sound of oe, eu, ui of less importance.”

Of au Munro says:

“Here, too, au has a curious analogy with ae: The Latin au becomes in Italian open o: òro òde: I would pronounce thus in Latin: plòstrum, Clòdius, còrus. Perhaps, too, the fact that gloria, vittoria and the common termination -orio, have in Italian the open o, might show that the corresponding ō in Latin was open by coming between two liquids, or before one: compare plenus above.” “I should prefer,” he says, (to represent the Latin au,) “the Italian au, which gives more of the u than our owl, cow.”

Consonants.

B has, in general, the same sound as in English.

[Mar. Vict. Keil. v. VI. p. 32.] E quibus b et p litterae . . . dispari inter se oris officio exprimuntur. Nam prima exploso e mediis labiis sono, sequens compresso ore velut introrsum attracto vocis ictu explicatur.

10 B before s or t is sharpened to p: thus urbs is pronounced urps; obtinuit, optinuit. Some words, indeed, are written either way; as obses, or opses; obsonium, or opsonium; obtingo, or optingo; and Quintilian says it is a question whether the change should be indicated in writing or not:

[Quint. I. vii. 7.] Quaeri solet, in scribendo praepositiones, sonum quern junctae efficiunt an quem separatae, observare conveniat: ut cum dico obtinuit, secundam enim b litteram ratio poscit, aures magis audiunt p.

This change, however, is both so slight and so natural that attention need scarcely be called to it. Indeed if quantity is properly observed, one can hardly go wrong. If, for instance, you attempt, in saying obtinuit, to give its normal sound to b, you can scarcely avoid making a false quantity (the first syllable too long), while if you observe the quantity (first syllable short) your b will change itself to p.

C appears to have but one sound, the hard, as in sceptic:

[Mar. Vict. Keil. v. VI. p. 32.] C etiam et . . . G sono proximae, oris molimine nisuque dissentiunt. Nam c reducta introrsum lingua hinc atque hinc molares urgens haerentem intra os sonum vocis excludit: g vim prioris pari linguae habitu palato suggerens lenius reddit.

Not only do we find no hint in the grammarians of any sound akin to the soft c in English, as in sceptre, but they all speak of c and k and q as identical, or substantially so, in sound; and Quintilian expressly states that the sound of c is always the same. Speaking of k as superfluous, he says: