Patulæ tu Tityre, &c.,
and he will be shocked. He will also believe that the shock fell on his
ear. Yet his ear was unhurt. No sense was offended. The thing which
was shocked was his knowledge of the rules of prosody--nothing more.
To English ears there is no such a thing as quantity--not even in
hexameters and pentameters. There is no such thing as quantity except
so far as it is accentual also. Hence come the following phænomena--no
less true than strange,--viz. (1) that any classical metre written
according to the rules of quantity gives (within certain narrow
limits) a regular recurrence of accents; and (2) that, setting aside
such shocks as affect our knowledge of the rules of prosody, verses
written according to their accents only give metrical results. English
hexameters (such as they are) are thus written.
In the inferences from these remarks there are two assumptions: 1st,
that the old-fashioned mode of pronunciation be adhered to; 2nd, that
when we pronounce Greek and Latin words as they are pronounced in the
recitation of Greek and Latin poetry, we are as accurate as we need be.
It is by means of these two assumptions that we pronounce _Tityre_ and
_patulæ_ alike; and I argue that we are free to do so. As far as the
ear is concerned, the _a_ is as long as the _i_, on the strength of the
double _t_ which is supposed to come after it. It _does_ not indeed
so come; but if it did, the sound would be the same, the quantity
different (for is not _patulæ_ pronounced _pattule_?). It would be a
quantity, however, to the eye only.
This pronunciation, however, may be said to be exploded; for do not
most men under fifty draw the distinction which is here said to be
neglected? Do not the majority make, or fancy they make, a distinction
between the two words just quoted? They may or they may not. It is only
certain that, subject to the test just indicated, it is immaterial what
they do. Nine-tenths of the best modern Latin verses were written under
the old system--a system based not upon our ear, but on our knowledge
of certain rules.
Now it is assumed that the accuracy sufficient for English Latin is
all the accuracy required. Ask for more, and you get into complex and
difficult questions respecting the pronunciation of a dead language.
Do what we will, we cannot, on one side, pronounce the Latin like the
ancient Romans. Do what we will, so long as we keep our accents right,
we cannot (speaking Latin after the fashion of Englishmen) err in the
way of quantity--at least, not to the ear. A short vowel still gives
a long syllable; for the consonant which follows it is supposed to be
doubled.
Let it be admitted, then, that, for practical purposes, _Tityre_ and
_patulæ_ may be pronounced alike, and the necessity of a large class of
marks is avoided. Why write, as the first word in the book is written,
_Papiliō´nidæ_? Whether the initial syllable be sounded _papp-_ or
_pape-_ is indifferent. So it is whether the fourth be uttered as
_-own-_, or _-onn-_. _As far as the ear is concerned_, they are both
long, because the consonant is doubled. In Greek,πᾰππιλλιόννιδαι is as
long as πᾱππιλλιόννιδαι.
Then comes _Machā´on_, where the sign of quantity is again useless,
the accent alone being sufficient to prevent us saying either _Mákkaon_
or _Makaón_. The _a_ is the _a_ in _fate_. We could not sound it as the
_a_ in _fat_ if we would.
_Pīeridæ._--What does the quantity tell us here? That the _i_ is
pronounced as the _i_ in the Greek πίονος, rather than as the
_i_ in the Latin _pius_. But, in English Latin, we pronounce both
alike. Surely _Pī´eris_ and _Pie´ridæ_ tell us all that is needed.
_Cratæ´gī._--Whether long or short, the _i_ is pronounced the same.
_Sinā´pis_, _Rā´pæ_, and _Nā´pi_.--The (̄) here prevents us from
saying _Ráppæ_ and _Náppi_. It would certainly be inelegant and
unusual to do so. Tested, however, by the ear, the words _ráppæ_
and _náppi_ take just the same place in an English Latin verse as
_rápe-æ_ and _nápe-i_. Is any one likely to say _sináppis_? Perhaps.
There are those who say _Dianna_ for _Diana_. It is very wrong to do
so--wrong, not to say vulgar. For the purposes of metre, however, one
is as good as the other; and herein (as aforesaid) lies the test. The
real false quantities would be _Diana_ and _sinnapis_; but against
these the accent protects us. Nor is the danger of saying _sináppis_
considerable. Those who say _Diánna_ are those who connect it with
_Anna_ and would, probably, spell it with two _n's_.
_Cardamī´nēs._--All that the first (̄) does here is to prevent us
saying _cardami´nnes_. The real false quantity would be _carda´mmines_.
The accent, however, guards against this.
The second (̄) is useful. It is certainly better to say _cardamín-ees_
than _cardamín-ess_, because the _e_ is from the Greek η. And this
gives us a rule. Let the (̄) be used to distinguish η from ε, and ω
from ο, and in no other case. I would not say that it is necessary
to use it even here. It is better, however, to say _Macháōn_ than
_Macháŏn_. By a parity of reasoning, the (̆), rejected in the work
before us, is sometimes useful. Let it be used in those derivatives
where ε replaces η, and ο replaces ω; _e. g._ having written _Machaōn_,
write, as its derivative, _Machaŏnidæ_--_i. e._ if the word be wanted.
This is the utmost for which the signs of quantity are wanted for
English Latin. I do not say that they are wanted even for this.
One of the mechanical inconveniences arising from the use of the signs
of quantity is this--when a long syllable is accented, two signs fall
upon it. To remedy this, the work before us considers that the stress
is to be laid on the syllable _preceding the accent_. Yet, if an accent
mean anything, it means that the stress fall on the syllable which it
stands _over_.
A few remarks upon words like _Pīeridæ_, where the accent was
omitted.--Here two short syllables come between two long ones. No
accent, however, is placed over either. Evidently, quantity and accent
are so far supposed to coincide, that the accentuation of a short vowel
is supposed to make it look like a long one. It is a matter of fact,
that if, on a word like _Cassiŏpe_, we lay an accent on the last
syllable but one, we shock the ears of scholars, especially metrical
ones. Does it, however, lengthen the vowel? The editors of the work in
question seem to think that it does, and, much more consistent than
scholars in general, hesitate to throw it back upon the preceding
syllable, which is short also. Metrists have no such objection; their
practice being to say _Cassíope_ without detriment to the vowel. The
entomologists, then, are the more consistent.
They are, however, more consistent than they need be. If an accent
is wanted, it may fall on the shortest of all possible syllables.
Granting, however, that _Cassiópe_ (whether the _o_ be sounded as
in _nōte_ or _nŏt)_ is repugnant to metre, and _Cassíope_ to
theory, what is their remedy? It is certainly true that _Cássiope_ is
pronounceable. Pope writes--
"Like twinkling stars the _miscellanies_ o'er."
No man reads this _miscéllanies_; few read it _míscellánies_. The mass
say _mis´cellanies_. Doing this, they make the word a quadrisyllable;
for less than this would fall short of the demands of the metre. They
also utter a word which makes _Cas´siope_ possible. Is _Cássiope_,
however, the sound? Probably not. And here authors must speak for
themselves:--
"Take, _e. g._, _Cassiope_ and _Corticea_: in words like the former
of these, in which the last syllable is long, there is no greater
difficulty of pronunciation in laying the stress upon the first
syllable than upon the second."
True! but this implies that we say _Cássiopé_. Is _-e_, however, one
bit the longer for being accented, or can it bear one iota more of
accent for being long? No. Take _-at_ from _peat_, and _-t_ from _pet_,
and the result is _pe_--just as long or just as short in one case as
the other.
The same power of accenting the first syllable is "particularly the
case in those words in which the vowel _i_ can assume the power of _y_.
Latin scholars are divided as to the proper accentuation of _mulieres_,
_Tulliola_, and others: though custom is in favour of _mulíeres_,
_mul´ieres_ appears to be more correct." Be it so. Let _mulieres_ be
_múlyeres_. What becomes, however, of the fourth syllable? The word
is no quadrisyllable at all. What is meant is this:--not that certain
quadrisyllables with two short vowels in the middle are difficult to
accentuate, but that they are certain words of which it is difficult to
say whether they are trisyllables or quadrisyllables.
For all practical purposes, however, words like _Cassiope_ are
quadrisyllables. They are, in the way of metre, choriambics; and a
choriambic is a quadrisyllable foot. They were pronounced _Cassíope_,
&c., by English writers of Latin verses--when Latin verses were written
well.
Let the pronunciation which was good enough for Vincent Bourne
and the contributors to the Musæ Etonenses be good enough for the
entomologists, and all that they will then have to do is not to
pronounce _cratægum_ like _stratagem_, _cardamines_ like _Theramenes_,
and _vice versâ_. Against this, accent will ensure them--accent
single-handed and without any sign of quantity--_Cardamínes_,
_Therámenes_, _cratæ´gum_, _strátagem_.