Chapter III: Part I: +why We Use It.+ (2)

This need of a new symbol, recognized by authorities like Cicero and Quintilian, is not an insignificant point in the argument.

Marius Victorinus says that Cicero adds +u+ (consonant) to the other five consonants that are understood to assimilate certain other consonants coming before them:

[Mar. Vict. I. iv. 64.] Sed propriae sunt cognatae (consonantes)
quae simili figuratione oris dicuntur, ut est +b+, +f+, +r+, +m+,
+p+, quibus Cicero adjicit +u+, non eam quae accipitur pro vocali,
sed eam quae consonantis obtinet vicem, et interposita vocali fit ut
aliae quoque consonantes.

He proceeds to illustrate with the proposition +ob+:

[Id. ib. 67.] +Ob+ autem mutatur in cognatas easdem, ut _offert_,
_officit_; et _ommovet_, _ommutescit_; et _oppandit_, _opperitur_;
_ovvertit_, _ovvius_.

Let any one, keeping in mind the distinctness with which the Romans uttered doubled consonants, attempt to pronounce _ovvius_ on the theory of consonant +u+ like English (+w+) (!).

By the advocates of the +w+ sound of the +v+ much stress is laid upon the fact that the poets occasionally change the consonant into the vowel +u+, and _vice versa_; as Horace, Epode VIII. 2:

"Nivesque deducunt Jovem, nunc mare nunc silu[¨æ];"

[Transcriber's Note: Letter æ printed with dieresis.]

Or Lucretius, in II. 232:

"Propterea quia corpus aquae naturaque tenvis."

Such single instances suggest, indeed, a common origin in the +u+ and +v+, and a poet's license, archaistic perhaps; but no more determine the ordinary value of the letter than, say, in the English poets the rhyming of w[)i]nd with mînd, or the making a distinct syllable of the _ed_ in participle endings.

Another argument used in support of the +w+ sound is taken from the words of Nigidius Figulus.

He was contending, we are told, that words and names come into being not by chance, or arbitrarily, but by nature; and he takes, among other examples, the words _vos_ and _nos_, _tu_ and _ego_, _tibi_ and _mihi_:

[Aul. Gell. X. iv. 4.] _Vos_, inquit, cum dicimus motu quodam oris
conveniente cum ipsius verbi demonstratione utimur, et labias sensim
primores emovemus, ac spiritum atque animam porro versum et ad eos
quibuscum sermonicamur intendimus. At contra cum dicimus _nos_ neque
profuso intentoque flatu vocis, neque projectis labiis pronunciamus;
sed et spiritum et labias quasi intra nosmetipsos coercemus. Hoc
idem fit et in eo quod dicimus _tu_ et _ego_; et _tibi_ et _mihi_.
Nam sicuti cum adnuimus et abnuimus, motus quidem ille vel capitis
vel oculorum a natura rei quam significabat non abhorret; ita in his
vocibus, quasi gestus quidam oris et spiritus naturalis est.

But a little careful examination will show that this passage favors the other side rather.

The first part of the description: "labias sensim primores emovemus," will apply to either sound, _vos_ or _wos_, although better, as will appear upon consulting the mirror, to _vos_ than to _wos_; but the second: "ac spiritum atque animam porro versum et ad eos quibuscum sermonicamur intendimus," will certainly apply far better to _vos_ than to _wos_. In _wos_ we get the "projectis labiis" to some extent, although not so marked as in _vos_; but we do not get anything like the same "profuso intentoque flatu vocis" as in _vos_.

The same may be said of the argument drawn from the anecdote related by Cicero in his _de Divinatione_:

[Cic. de Div. XL. 84.] Cum M. Crassus exercitum Brundisii imponeret,
quidam in portu caricas Cauno advectas vendens "Cauneas!"
clamitabat. Dicamus, si placet, monitum ab eo Crassum _caveret ne
iret_, non fuisse periturum si omini paruisset.

Now when we remember that Caunos, whence these particular figs came, was a Greek town; that the fig-seller was very likely a Greek himself (Brundisium being a Greek port so to speak), but at any rate probably pronounced the name as it was doubtless always heard; and that +u+ in such a connection is at present pronounced like our +f+ or +v+, and we know of no time when it was pronounced like our +u+, it is difficult to avoid the conclusion that the fig-seller was crying "Cafneas!"--a sound far more suggestive of _Cave-ne-eas!_ than "_Cauneas!_" of _Cawe ne eas!_

But beyond the testimony, direct and indirect, of grammarians and classic writers, an argument against the +w+ sound appears in the fact that this sound is not found in Greek (from which the _vau_ is borrowed), nor in Italian or kindred Romance languages.

The initial +u+ in Italian represents not Latin +u+ consonant, but some other letter, as +h+, in _uomo_ (for _homo_). On the other hand we find the +v+ sound, as _vedova_ (from _vidua_),--notice the two +v+ sounds,--or the +u+ sometimes changed to +b+, as _serbare_ from _servare_; _bibita_ and _bevanda_, both from _bibo_.

In French we find the Latin +u+ consonant passing into +f+, as _ovum_ into _oeuf_; _novem_ into _neuf_.

It seems not improbable that in Cicero's time and later the consonant +u+ represented some variation of sound, that its value varied in the direction of +b+ or +f+, and possibly, in some Greek words especially, it was more vocalized, as in _vae!_ (Greek #ouai#). Yet here it is worthy of note that the corresponding words in Italian are not written with +u+ but with _gu_, as _guai!_

In considering the sound of Latin _u_ consonant we must always keep in mind that the question is one of time,--not, was _u_ ever pronounced as English _w_; but, was it so pronounced in the time of Cicero and Virgil. Professor Ellis well says: "Any one who wishes to arrive at a conclusion respecting the Latin consonantal u must learn to pronounce and distinguish readily the four series of sounds: +[)u]a [)u]e [)u]i [)u]o+, +wa we wi wo wu+, +v'a v'e v'i v'o v'u+, +va ve vi vo vu+."

Now the question is: At what point along this line do we find the +u+ consonant of the golden age? Roby, though not agreeing with Ellis in rejecting the English +w+ sound, as the representative of that period, declares himself "quite content to think that a labial +v+ was provincially contemporary and in the end generally superseded it."

But 'provincialisms' do not seem sufficient to account for the use of #b# for +u+ consonant in inscriptions and in writers of the first century. For instance, _Nerva_ and _Severus_ in contemporary inscriptions are written both with #ou# and with #b#: #Neroua, Nerba#; #Seouêros, Sebêros#. And in Plutarch we find numerous instances of #b# taking the place of #ou#.

It is true that the instances in which we find #b# taking the place of #ou# in the first century, and earlier, are decidedly in the minority, but when we recollect that #ou# was the original and natural representative of the Latin +u+, the fact that a change was made at all is of great weight, and one instance of #b# for +u+ would outweigh a dozen instances of the old form, +ou+. That the letter should be changed in the Greek, even when it had not been in the Latin, seems to make it certain that the 'Greek ear,' at least, had detected a real variation of sound from the original +u+, and one that approached, at least, their #b# (Eng. +v+).

Nor, in this connection, should we fail to notice the words in Latin where +u+ consonant is represented by +b+, such as _bubile_ from _bovile_, _defervi_ and _deferbui_ from _deferveo_.

In concluding the argument for the labial +v+ sound of consonantal +u+, it may be proper to suggest a fact which should have no weight against a conclusive argument on the other side, but which might, perhaps, be allowed to turn the scale nicely balanced. The +w+ sound is not only unfamiliar but nearly, if not quite, impossible, to the lips of any European people except the English, and would therefore of necessity have to be left out of any universally adopted scheme of Latin pronunciation. Professor Ellis pertinently says: "As a matter of practical convenience English speakers should abstain from +w+ in Latin, because no Continental nation can adopt a sound they cannot pronounce."

+X+ has the same sound as in English.

Marius Victorinus says:

[Keil. t. VI. p. 32.] Dehinc duae supremae +s+ et +x+ jure
jungentur, nam vicino inter se sonore attracto sibilant rictu, ita
tamen si prioris ictus pone dentes excitatus ad medium lenis
agitetur; sequentis autem crasso spiritu hispidum sonet qui per
conjunctionem +c+ et +s+, quarum et locum implet et vim exprimit, ut
sensu aurium ducamur efficitur.

Again:

[Id. ib. p. 5.] +X+ autem per +c+ et +s+ possemus scribere.

And:

Posteaquam a Graecis #x#, et a nobis +x+, recepta est, abiit et
illorum et nostra perplexa ratio, et in primis observatio Nigidii,
qui in libris suis +x+ littera non est usus, antiquitatem sequens.

+X+ suffers a long vowel before it, being composed of the +c+ (the only mute that allows a long vowel before it) and the +s+.

+Z+ probably had a sound akin to +ds+ in English. After giving the sound of +x+ as +cs+, Marius Victorinus goes on to speak of +z+ thus:

[Keil. v. VI. p. 5.] Sic et +z+, si modo latino sermoni necessaria
esset, per +d+ et +s+ litteras faceremus.

QUANTITY.

A syllable in Latin may consist of from one to six letters, as _a_, _ab_, _ars_, _Mars_, _stans_, _stirps_.

In dividing into syllables, a consonant between two vowels belongs to the vowel following it. When there are two consonants, the first goes with the vowel before, the second with the vowel after, unless the consonants form such a combination as may stand at the beginning of a word (Latin or Greek), that is, as may be uttered with a single impulse, as one letter; in which case they go, as one, with the vowel following. An apparent exception is made in the case of compound words. These are divided into their component parts when these parts remain intact.

On these points Priscian says:

Si antecedens syllaba terminat in consonantem necesse est et
sequentem a consonante incipere; ut _artus_, _ille_, _arduus_; nisi
fit compositum: ut _abeo_, _adeo_, _pereo_.

Nam in simplicibus dictionibus necesse est +s+ et +c+ ejusdem esse
syllabae, ut _pascua_, _luscus_.

+M+ quoque, vel +p+, vel +t+, in simplicibus dictionibus, si
antecedat +s+, ejusdem est syllabae, ut _cosmos_, _perspirare_,
_testis_.

In semivocalibus similiter sunt praepositivae aliis semivocalibus in
eadem syllaba; ut +m+ sequente +n+, ut _Mnesteus_, _amnis_.

Each letter has its 'time,' or 'times.' Thus a short vowel has the time of one beat (_mora_); a long vowel, of two beats; a single consonant, of a half beat; a double consonant, of one beat. Theoretically, therefore, a syllable may have as many as three, or even four, _tempora_; but practically only two are recognized. All over two are disregarded and each syllable is simply counted 'short' (one beat) or 'long' (two beats).

Priscian says:

[Keil. v. II. p. 52.] In longis natura vel positione duo sunt
tempora, ut _do_, _ars_; duo semis, quando post vocalem natura
longam una sequitur consonans, ut _sol_; tria, quando post vocalem
natura longam duae consonantes sequuntur, vel una duplex, ut _mons_,
_rex_. Tamen in metro necesse est unamquamque syllabam vel unius vel
duorum accipi temporum.

ACCENT.

The grammarians tell us that every syllable has three dimensions, length, breadth and height, or _tenor_, _spiritus_, _tempus_:

[Keil. Supp. p. XVIII.] Habet etiam unaquaeque syllaba altitudinem,
latitudinem et longitudinem; altitudinem in tenore; crassitudinem
vel latitudinem, in spiritu; longitudinem in tempore.

Diomedes says:

[Keil. v. I. p. 430.] Accentus est dictus ab accinendo, quod sit
quasi quidam cujusque syllabae cantus.

And Cicero:

[Cic. Or. XVIII.] Ipsa enim natura, quasi modularetur hominem
orationem, in omni verbo posuit acutam vocem, nec una plus, nec a
postrema syllaba citra tertiam.

The grammarians recognize three accents; but practically we need take account of but two, inasmuch as the third is merely negative. The syllable having the grave accent is, as we should say, unaccented.

[Diom. Keil. v. I. p. 430.] Sunt vero tres, acutus, gravis, et qui
ex duobus constat circumflexus. Ex his, acutus in correptis semper,
interdum productis syllabis versatur; inflexus (or 'circumflexus'),
in his quae producuntur; gravis autem per se nunquam consistere in
ullo verbo potest, sed in his in quibus inflexus est, aut acutus
ceteras syllabas obtinet.

The same writer thus gives the place of each accent:

[Keil. v. I. p. 431.] (Acutus) apud Latinos duo tantum loca tenent,
paenultimum et antepaenultimum; circumflexus autem, quotlibet
syllabarum sit dictio, non tenebit nisi paenultimum locum. Omnis
igitur pars orationis hanc rationem pronuntiationis detinet. Omnis
vox monosyllaba aliquid significans, si brevis est, acuetur, ut
_ab_, _mel_, _fel_; et, si positione longa fuerit, acutum similiter
tenorem habebit, ut _ars_, _pars_, _pix_, _nix_, _fax_. Sin autem
longa natura fuerit, flectetur, ut _lux_, _spes_, _flos_, _sol_,
_mons_, _fons_, _lis_.

Omnis vox dissyllaba priorem syllabam aut acuit aut flectit. Acuit,
vel cum brevis est utraque, ut _deus_, _citus_, _datur_, _arat_; vel
cum positione longa est utraque, ut _sollers_; vel alterutra
positione longa dum ne natura longa sit, prior, ut _pontus_;
posterior, ut _cohors_. Si vero prior syllaba natura longa et
sequens brevis fuerit, flectitur prior, ut _luna_, _Roma_.

In trisyllabis autem et tetrasyllabis et deinceps, secunda ab ultima
semper observanda est. Haec, si natura longa fuerit, inflectitur, ut
_Romanus_, _Cethegus_, _marinus_, _Crispinus_, _amicus_, _Sabinus_,
_Quirinus_, _lectica_. Si vero eadem paenultima positione longa
fuerit, acuetur, ut _Metellus_, _Catullus_, _Marcellus_; ita tamen
si positione longa non ex muta et liquida fuerit. Nam mutabit
accentum, ut _latebrae_, _tenebrae_. Et si novissima natura longa
itemque paenultima, sive natura sive positione longa fuerit,
paenultima tantum acuetur, non inflectetur; sic, natura, ut
_Fidenae_, _Athenae_, _Thebae_, _Cymae_; positione, ut _tabellae_,
_fenestrae_. Sin autem media et novissima breves fuerint, prima
servabit acutum tenorem, ut _Sergius_, _Mallius_, _ascia_,
_fuscina_, _Julius_, _Claudius_. Si omnes tres syllabae longae
fuerint, media acuetur, ut _Romani_, _legati_, _praetores_,
_praedones_.

Priscian thus defines the accents:

[Keil. v. III. p. 519.] Acutus namque accentus ideo inventus est
quod acuat sive elevet syllabam; gravis vero eo quod deprimat aut
deponat; circumflexus ideo quod deprimat et acuat.

Then after giving the place of the accent he notes some disturbing influences, which cause exceptions to the general rule:

[Keil. v. III. pp. 519-521.] Tres quidem res accentuum regulas
conturbant; distinguendi ratio; pronuntiandi ambiguitas; atque
necessitas. . . .

Ratio namque distinguendi legem accentuum saepe conturbat. Siquis
pronuntians dicat _poné_ et _ergó_, quod apud Latinos in ultima
syllaba nisi discretionis causa accentus poni non potest: ex hoc est
quod diximus _poné_ et _ergó_. Ideo _poné_ dicimus ne putetur verbum
esse imperativi modi, hoc est _pône_; _ergó_ ideo dicimus ne putetur
conjunctio rationalis, quod est _érgo_.

Ambiguitas vero pronuntiandi legem accentuum saepe conturbat. Siquis
dicat _interealoci_, qui nescit, alteram partem dicat _interea_,
alteram _loci_, quod non separatim sed sub uno accentu pronuntiandum
est, ne ambiguitatem in sermone faciat.

Necessitas pronuntiationis regulam, corrumpit, ut puta siquis dicat
in primis _doctus_, addat _que_ conjunctionem, dicatque _doctusque_,
ecce in pronuntiatione accentum mutavit, cum non in secunda syllaba,
sed in prima, accentum habere debuit.

He also states the law that determines the kind of accent to be used:

[Id. ib. p. 521.] Syllaba quae correptam vocalem habet acuto accentu
pronuntiatur, ut _páx_, _fáx_, _píx_, _níx_, _dúx_, _núx_, quae
etiam tali accentu pronuntianda est, quamvis sit longa positione,
quia naturaliter brevis est. Quae vero naturaliter producta est
circumflexo accentu exprimenda est ut, _rês_, _dôs_, _spês_.
Dissyllabae vero quae priorem productam habent et posteriorem
correptam, priorem syllabam circumflectunt, ut _mêta_, _Crêta_.
Illae vero quae sunt ambae longae vel prior brevis et ulterior longa
acuto accento pronuntiandae sunt, ut _népos_, _léges_, _réges_. Hae
vero quae sunt ambae breves similiter acuto accentu proferuntur, ut
_bonus_, _melos_. Sed notandum quod si prior sit longa positione non
circumflexo, sed acuto, accentu pronuntianda est, ut _arma_,
_arcus_, quae, quamvis sit longa positione, tamen exprimenda est
tali accentu quia non est naturalis.

Trisyllabae namque et tetrasyllabae sive deinceps, si paenultimam
correptam habuerint, antepaenultimam acuto accentu proferunt, ut
_Túllius_, _Hostílius_. Nam paenultima, si positione longa fuerit,
acuetur, antepaenultima vero gravabitur, ut _Catúllus_, _Metéllus_.
Si vero ex muta et liquida longa in versu esse constat, in oratione
quoque accentum mutat, ut _latébrae_, _tenébrae_. Syllaba vero
ultima, si brevis sit et paenultimam naturaliter longam habuerit
ipsam paenultimam circumflectit, ut _Cethêgus_, _perôsus_. Ultima
quoque, si naturaliter longa fuerit, paenultimam acuet, ut
_Athénae_, _Mycénae_. Ad hanc autem rem arsis et thesis necessariae.
Nam in unaquaque parte oratione arsis et thesis sunt, non in ordine
syllabarum, sed in pronuntiatione: velut in hac parte _natura_, ut
quando dico _natu_ elevatur vox, et est arsis intus; quando vero
sequitur _ra_ vox deponitur, et est thesis deforis. Quantum autem
suspenditur vox per arsin tantum deprimitur per thesin. Sed ipsa vox
quae per dictiones formatur donec accentus perficiatur in arsin
deputatur, quae autem post accentum sequitur in thesin.

In the matter of exceptions to the rule that accent does not fall on the ultimate, we find a somewhat wide divergence of opinion among the grammarians. Some of them give numerous exceptions, particularly in the distinguishing of parts of speech, as, for instance, between the same word used as adverb or preposition, as _ánte_ and _anté_; or between the same form as occurring in nouns and verbs, as _réges_ and _regés_; and in final syllables contracted or curtailed, as _finît_ (for _finivit_).

But since on this point the grammarians do not agree among themselves, either as to number or class of exceptions, or even as to the manner of making them, we may treat this matter as of no great importance (as in English, we please ourselves in saying _pérfect_ or _perféct_). And here it may be said that due attention to the quantity will of itself often regulate the accent in doubtful cases; as when we say _doce_, if we duly shorten the +o+ and lengthen the +e+ the effect will be correct, whether the ear of the grammarian detect accent on the final syllable, or not. For as Quintilian well says:

Nam ut color oculorum indicio, sapor palati, odor narium dinoscitur,
ita sonus aurium arbitrio subjectus est.

PITCH.

But besides the length of the syllable, and the place and quality of the accent, another matter claims attention.

In English all that is required is to know the place of the accent, which is simply distinguished by greater stress of voice. This peculiarity of our language makes it more difficult for us than for other peoples to get the Latin accent, which is one of pitch.

In Latin the acute accent means that on the syllable thus accented you raise the pitch; the grave indicates merely the lower tone; the circumflex, that the voice is first raised, then depressed, on the same syllable. To quote again the passage from Priscian:

[Keil. v. III. p. 519.] Acutus namque accentus ideo inventus est
quod acuat sive elevet syllabam; gravis vero eo quod deprimat aut
deponet; circumflexus ideo quod deprimat et acuat.

In conclusion of this part of the work the following anecdotes from Aulus Gellius are given, as serving to show that to the rules of classic Roman pronunciation there were exceptions, apparently more or less arbitrary, some--perhaps many--of which we may not now hope to discover; and as serving still more usefully to show, by the stress laid upon points of comparative insignificance, that exceptions were rare, such as even scholars could afford to disagree upon, and not such as to affect the general tenor of the language. So that we are encouraged to believe that, as the English language may be well and even elegantly spoken by those whose speech still includes scores, if not hundreds, of variations in pronunciation, in sounds of letters or in accent, so we may hope to pronounce the Latin with some good degree of satisfaction, whether, for instance, we say _quiêsco_ or _quiésco_, _[)a]ctito_ or _âctito_:

[Transcriber's Note: The contrasts are circumflex vs. acute (quiesco),
long vs. short (actito).]

[Aul. Gell. VI. xv.] Amicus noster, homo multi studii atque in
bonarum disciplinarum opere frequens, verbum _quiescit_ usitate +e+
littera correpta dixit. Alter item amicus homo in doctrinis, quasi
in praestigiis, mirificus, communiumque vocum respuens nimis et
fastidiens, barbare eum dixisse opinatus est; quoniam producere
debuisset, non corripere. Nam _quiescit_ ita oportere dici
praedicavit, ut _calescit_, _nitescit_, _stupescit_, atque alia
hujuscemodi multa. Id etiam addebat, quod _quies_ +e+ producto, non
brevi, diceretur. Noster autem, qua est omnium rerum verecunda
mediocritate, ne si Aelii quidem Cincii et Santrae dicendum ita
censuissent obsecuturum sese fuisse ait, contra perpetuam Latinae
linguae consuetudinem. Neque se tam insignite locuturum, absona aut
inaudita ut diceret. Litteras autem super hac re fecit, item inter
haec exercitia quaedam ludicra; et _quiesco_ non esse his simile
quae supra posui, nec a _quiete_ dictum, sed ab eo _quietem_;
Graecaeque vocis #eschon kai eskon#, Ionice a verbo #eschô ischô#,
et modum et originem verbum illud habere demonstravit. Rationibusque
haud sane frigidis docuit _quiesco_ +e+ littera longa dici non
convenire.

[Aul. Gell. IX. vi.] Ab eo, quod est _ago_ et _egi_, verba sunt quae appellant grammatici frequentativa, _actito_ et _actitavi_. Haec quosdam non sane indoctos viros audio ita pronuntiare ut primam in his litteram corripiant; rationemque dicant, quoniam in verbo principali, quod est _ago_, prima littera breviter pronuntiatur. Cur igitur ab eo quod est _edo_ et _ungo_, in quibus verbis prima littera breviter dicitur, _esito_ et _unctito_, quae sunt eorum frequentativa prima littera longa promimus? et contra, _dictito_, ab eo verbo quod est _dico_, correpte dicimus? Num ergo potius _actito_ et _actitavi_ producenda sunt? quoniam frequentativa ferme omnia eodem modo in prima syllaba dicuntur, quo participia praeteriti temporis ex iis verbis unde ea profecta sunt in eadem syllaba pronuntiantur; sicut _lego_, _lectus_, _lectito_ facit; _ungo_, _unctus_, _unctito_; _scribo_, _scriptus_, _scriptito_; _moneo_, _monitus_, _monito_; _pendeo_, _pensus_, _pensito_; _edo_, _esus_, _esito_; _dico_, autem, _dictus_, _dictito_ facit; _gero_, _gestus_, _gestito_; _veho_, _vectus_, _vectito_; _rapio_, _raptus_, _raptito_; _capio_, _captus_, _captito_; _facio_, _factus_, _factito_. Sic igitur _actito_ producte in prima syllaba pronuntiandum, quoniam ex eo fit quod est _ago_ et _actus_.