+HOW TO USE IT.+
The directions now to be given may be fittingly introduced by a few
paragraphs from Professor Munro’s pamphlet on the pronunciation of
Latin, already more than once quoted from. He says--and part of this has
been cited before:
“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. With the same amount of evidence,
direct and indirect, we have for Latin, it would not, I think, be worth
anybody’s while to try to recover the pronunciation of French or
English; it might, I think, be worth his while to try to recover that of
German or Italian, in which sound and spelling accord more nearly, and
accent obeys more determinable laws.”
“I am convinced,” he says in another place, “that the mainstay of an
efficient reform is the adoption essentially of the Italian vowel
system: it combines beauty, firmness and precision in a degree not
equalled by any other system of which I have any knowledge. The little
ragged boys in the streets of Rome and Florence enunciate their vowels
in a style of which princes might be proud.”
And again:
“I do not propose that every one should learn Italian in order to learn
Latin. What I would suggest is, that those who know Italian should make
use of their knowledge and should in many points take Italian sounds for
the model to be followed; that those who do not know it should try to
learn from others the sounds required, or such an approximation to them
as may be possible in each case.”
We may then sum up the results at which we have arrived in the following
directions:
First of all pay particular attention to the vowel sounds, to make them
full and distinct, taking the Italian model, if you know Italian, and
always observing strictly the quantity.
Pronounce
+ā+ as in Italian _fato_; or as final +a+ in aha!
+ă+ as in Italian _fatto_; or as initial +a+ in aha! or as in fast
(not as in fat).
+ē+ as second +e+ in Italian _fedele_; or as in fête (not fate); or
as in vein.
+ĕ+ as in Italian _fetta_; or as in very.
+ī+ as first +i+ in Italian _timide_; or as in caprice.
+ĭ+ as second +i+ in Italian _timide_; or as in capricious.
+ĭ+ or +ŭ+, where the spelling varies between the two (e.g.
_maximus_, _maxumus_), as in German Müller.
+ō+ as first +o+ in Italian _orlo_; or as in more.
+ŏ+ as first +o+ in Italian _rotto_; or as in wholly (not as in
holly).
+ū+ as in Italian _rumore_; or as in rural,
+ŭ+ as in Italian _ruppe_; or as in puss (not as in fuss).
Let +i+ in +vĭ+ before +d+, +t+, +m+, +r+ or +x+, in the first syllable
of a word, be pronounced quite obscurely, somewhat as first +i+ in
virgin.
In the matter of diphthongs, be sure to take always the correct
spelling, to begin with, and thus avoid what Munro justly terms “hateful
barbarisms like _coelum_, _coena_, _moestus_.” Much time is wasted by
students and bad habits are acquired in not finding, at the outset, the
right spelling of each word and holding to it. This each student must do
for himself, consulting a good dictionary, as editors and editions are
not always to be depended on. Here it is the diphthongs that present the
chief difficulty and call for the greatest care.
In pronouncing diphthongs sound both vowels, but glide so rapidly from
the first to the second as to offer to the ear but a single sound. In
the publication of the Cambridge (Eng.) Philological Society on
“Pronunciation of Latin in the Augustan Period,” the following
directions are given:
“The pronunciation of these diphthongs, of which the last three are
extremely rare, is best learnt by first sounding each vowel separately
and then running them together, +ae+ as ah-eh, +au+ as ah-oo, +oe+ as
o-eh, +ei+ as eh-ee, +eu+ as eh-oo, and +ui+ as oo-ee.”
Thus:
+ae+ (ah-éh) as in German _näher_; or as +ea+ in pear; or +ay+ in
aye (ever); (not like +ā+ in fate nor like +ai+ in aisle).
+ai+ (ah-ée) as in aye (yes).
+au+ (ah-óo) as in German _Haus_, with more of the +u+ sound than
+ou+ in house.
+ei+ (eh-ée) nearly as in veil. (In _dein_, _deinde_, the +ei+ is
not a diphthong, but the +e+, when not forming a distinct syllable,
is elided.)
+eu+ (eh-óo) as in Italian _Europa_. (In _neuter_ and _neutiquam_
elide the +e+.)
+oe+ (o-éh) nearly like German +ö+ in _Goethe_.
+oi+ is not found in the classical period. (In _proin_, _proinde_,
the +o+ is either elided or forms a distinct syllable. +ou+ in
_prout_ is not a diphthong; the +u+ is either elided or forms a
distinct syllable.)
+ui+ (oo-ée) as in cuirass.
In the pronunciation of consonants certain points claim special
attention. And first among these is the sounding of the doubled
consonants. Whoever has heard Italian spoken recognizes one of its
greatest beauties to be the distinctness, yet smoothness, with which its
+ll+ and +rr+ and +cc+--in short, all its doubled consonants--are
pronounced. No feature of the language is more charming. And one who
attempts the same in Latin and perseveres, with whatever difficulty and
pains, will be amply rewarded in the music of the language.
A good working rule for pronouncing doubled consonants is to hold the
first until ready to pronounce the second: as in the words _we’ll lie
till late_, not to be pronounced as _we lie till eight_.
Next in importance, and, in New England at least, first in difficulty,
is the trilling of the +r+. There can be no approximation to a
satisfactory pronunciation of Latin until this +r+ is acquired; but the
satisfaction in the result when accomplished is well worth all the pains
taken.
Another point to be observed is that the dentals +t+, +d+, +n+, +l+,
require that the tongue touch the teeth, rather than the palate. Munro
says: “+d+ and +t+ we treat with our usual slovenliness, and force them
up to the roof of our mouth: we should make them real dentals, as no
doubt the Romans made them, and then we shall see how readily _ad at_,
_apud aput_, _illud illut_ and the like interchange.” This requires
care, but amply repays the effort.
It is necessary also to remember that +n+ before a guttural is
pronounced as in the same position in English, e.g., in _ancora_ as in
anchor; in _anxius_ as in anxious; in _relinquo_ as in relinquish.
Remember to make +n+ before +f+ or +s+ a mere nasal, having as little
prominence otherwise as possible, and to carefully lengthen the
preceding vowel.
Studiously observe the length of the vowel before the terminations
_gnus_, _gna_, _gnum_.
Remember that the final syllable in +m+, when not elided, is to be
pronounced as lightly and rapidly as possible, the more lightly and
indistinctly the better.
Remember that +s+ must not be pronounced as +z+, except where it
represents +z+ in Greek words, as Smyrna (Zmyrna), Smaragdus
(Zmaragdus), otherwise always pronounce as in sis.
Remember in pronouncing +v+ to direct the lower lip toward the upper
lip, avoiding the upper teeth.
In general, in pronouncing the consonants conform to the following
scheme:
+b+ as in blab.
+b+ before +s+ or +t+, sharpened to +p+, as _urbs = urps_; _obtinuit
= optinuit_.
+c+ as sceptic (never as in sceptre).
+ch+ as in chemist (never as in cheer or chivalry).
+d+ as in did, but made more dental than in English.
+d+ final, before a word beginning with a consonant, in particles
especially, often sharpened to +t+ as in tid-bit (tit-bit).
+f+ as in fief, but with more breath than in English.
+g+ as in gig (never as in gin).
+gn+ in terminations _gnus_, _gna_, _gnum_, makes preceding vowel
long.
+h+ as in hah!
+i+ (consonant) as in onion.
+k+ as in kink.
+l+ initial and final, as in lull.
+l+ medial, as in lullaby, always more dental than in English.
+m+ initial and medial, as in membrane.
+m+ before +q+, nasalized.
+m+ final, when not elided, touched lightly and obscurely, somewhat
as in tandem (tandm); or as in the Englishman’s pronunciation of
Blenheim (Blenhm), Birmingham (Birminghm).
+n+ initial and final, as in nine.
+n+ medial, as in damnable, always more dental than in English.
+n+ before +c+, +g+, +q+, +x+, as in concord, anger, sinker,
relinquish, anxious, the tongue not touching the roof of the mouth.
+n+ before +f+ or +s+, nasal, lengthening the preceding vowel, as in
_renaissance_.
+p+ as in pup.
+q+ as in quick.
+r+ as in roar, but trilled, as in Italian or French. (This is most
important.)
+s+ as in sis (never as in his).
+t+ as in tot, but more dental than in English (never as in motion).
+th+ nearly as in then (never as in thin).
+v+ (+u+ consonant) nearly as in verve, but labial, rather than
labio-dental; like the German +w+ (not like the English +w+). Make
English +v+ as nearly as may be done without touching the lower lip
to the upper teeth.
+x+ as in six.
+z+ nearly as +dz+ in adze.
Doubled consonants to be pronounced each distinctly, by holding the
first until ready to pronounce the second.
As Professor Ellis well puts it: “No relaxation of the organs, no puff
of wind or grunt of voice should intervene between the two parts of a
doubled consonant, which should more resemble separated parts of one
articulation than two separate articulations.”
“Duplication of consonants is consequently regarded simply as the
energetic utterance of a single consonant.”
ELISION.
Professor Ellis believes that the +m+ was always omitted in speaking and
the following consonant pronounced as if doubled (_quorum pars_ as
_quoruppars_). Final +m+ at the end of a sentence he thinks was not
heard at all. Where a vowel followed he thinks that the +m+ was not
heard, the vowel before being slurred on to the initial vowel of the
following word.
The Cambridge (Eng.) Philological Society, however, takes the view that
“final vowels (or diphthongs) when followed by vowels (or diphthongs)
were not cut off, but lightly run on to the following word, as in
Italian. But if the vowel was the same the effect was that of a single
sound.”
Professor Munro says:
“In respect of elision I would only say that, by comparing Plautus with
Ovid, we may see how much the elaborate cultivation of the language had
tended to a more distinct sounding of final syllables; and that but for
Virgil’s powerful influence the elision of long vowels would have almost
ceased. Clearly we must not altogether pass over the elided vowel or
syllable in +m+, except perhaps in the case of +ĕ+ in common words,
_que_, _neque_, and the like.”
This view, held by the Cambridge Philological Society and by Professor
Munro, is the one generally accepted; the practice recommended by them
is the one generally in use, and that which seems safe and suitable to
follow. That is: Do not altogether pass over the elided vowel or
syllable in +m+, except in cases of very close connection, in compound
words or phrases, or when the final and initial vowel are the same, or
in the case of +ĕ+ final in common words, as _que_, _neque_, and the
like; but let the final vowel run lightly on to the following vowel as
in Italian, and touch lightly and obscurely the final syllable in +m+.
The +o+ or +e+ of _proin_, _proinde_, _prout_, _dein_, _deinde_,
_neuter_, _neutiquam_, when not forming a distinct syllable, are to be
treated as cases of elision between two words.
QUANTITY.
In the pronunciation of Latin the observance of quantity and of pitch
are the two most difficult points of attainment; and they are the
crucial test of good reading.
The observance of quantity is no less important in prose than in verse.
A little reflection will convince the dullest mind that the Romans did
not pronounce a word one way in prose and another in verse; that we have
not in poetry and prose two languages. Cicero and Quintilian both enjoin
a due admixture of long and short syllables in prose as well as verse;
and any one who takes delight in reading Latin will heartily agree with
Professor Munro when he says: “For myself, by observing quantity, I seem
to feel more keenly the beauty of Cicero’s style and Livy’s, as well as
Virgil’s and Horace’s.”
Therefore until one feels at home with the quantities, let him observe
the rule of beating time in reading, to make sure that the long
syllables get twice the time of the short ones. In this way he will soon
have the pronunciation of each word correctly fixed in mind, and will
not be obliged to think of his quantities in verse more than in prose.
A long step has been taken in the enjoyment of Latin poetry when the
reader does not have to be thinking of the ‘feet.’
Young students particularly should be especially careful in the final
syllable of the verse. Since, so far as the measure is concerned, there
is no difference there between the long and the short syllable, the
reader is apt to be careless as to the length of the syllable itself,
and to make all final syllables long, even to the mispronouncing of the
word, thereby both making a false quantity and otherwise injuring the
effect of the verse, by importing into it a monotony foreign to the
original. Does not Cicero himself say that a short syllable at the end
of the verse is as if you ‘stood’ (came to a stand), but a long one as
if you ‘sat down’?
It is, in fact, in the pronouncing of final syllables everywhere that
the most serious and persistent faults are found, _būs_ for _bŭs_ being
one of the worst and most common cases. How much of the teacher’s time
might be spared, for better things, if he did not have to correct _būs_
into _bŭs!_
The disposition to neglect the double and doubled consonants is another
serious fault, as well as the slovenly pronunciation of two consonants,
where the reader fails to give the time necessary to speak each
distinctly, making false quantity and mispronunciation at the same time.
In general, if two symbols are written we are to infer that two sounds
were intended. The only exception to this is in the case of a few words
where the spelling varies, as _casso_ or _caso_. In such cases we may
suppose that the doubled consonant was only designed to indicate length.
Another, apparent, exception is in the case of a mute followed by a
liquid; but the mute and liquid are regularly sounded as one, and
therefore do not affect the length of the preceding vowel. Sometimes,
however, for the sake of time, the verse requires them to be pronounced
separately. In this case each is to be given distinctly; the mute and
liquid must not coalesce. For it must not be forgotten that, as a rule,
the vowel before a mute followed by a liquid is short, in which case it
must on no account be lengthened. Thus, ordinarily, we say _pă-tris_,
but the verse may require _pat-ris_.
Although the vowel before two consonants is generally short, we find, in
some instances, a long vowel in this position. For example, it would
appear that the vowel of the supine and cognate parts of the verb is
long if the vowel of the present indicative, though short, is followed
by a medial (+b+, +g+, +d+, +z+), as _āctus_, _lēctus_, from _ăgo_,
_lĕgo_.
Let it be remembered in the matter of _i_ consonant between two vowels,
that we have really the force of two +ii+’s, as originally written, one,
vowel, making a diphthong with the preceding, the other, consonant,
introducing the new syllable; and that the same is true of the compounds
of _jacio_, which should be written with a single +i+ but pronounced as
with two, as _obicit_ (_objicit_).
ACCENT.
The question of accent presents little difficulty as to place, but some
as to quality, and much as to kind.
As to quality, it must be remembered that while the acute accent is
found on syllables either short or long (by nature or position), and on
either the penult or the antepenult, the circumflex is found only on
long vowels, and (in words of more than one syllable) only on the
penult, and then only in case the ultima is short. Thus, _spês_, but
_dúx_; _lûnă_, but _lúnā_; _legâtus_, but _legáti_. In these examples
the length of the syllable is the same and of course remains the same in
inflection, but the quality of the accent changes. In the one case the
voice is both raised and depressed on the same syllable, in the other it
is only raised. As Professor Ellis puts it: “If the last syllable but
one is long, it is spoken with a raised pitch, which is maintained
throughout if its vowel is short, as: _véntōs_, or if the last syllable
is long, as: _fāmāe_; but sinks immediately if its own vowel is long,
and at the same time the vowel of the last syllable is short, as _fâmă_,
to be distinguished from _fā́mā_.”
But when we come to the question of the _kind_ of accent, we come upon
the most serious matter practically in the pronunciation of Latin, and
this because of a difficulty peculiar to the English speaking peoples.
The English accent is one of _stress_, whereas the Roman is one of
_pitch_.
No one will disagree with Professor Ellis when he “assumes,” in his
Quantitative Pronunciation of Latin, “that the Augustan Romans had _no_
force accent, that is, that they did not, as we do, distinguish one
syllable in every word _invariably_ by pronouncing it with greater
force, that is, with greater loudness, than the others, but that the
force varied according to the feeling of the moment, or the beat of the
timekeeper in singing, and was used for purposes of expression; just as
with us, musical pitch is free, that is, just as we may pronounce the
same word with different musical pitches for its different syllables,
and in fact are obliged to vary the musical pitch in interrogations and
replies. The fixity of musical pitch and freedom of degrees of force in
Latin, and the freedom of musical pitch and fixity of degrees of force
in English sharply distinguish the two pronunciations even irrespective
of quantity.”
But this pitch accent, while alien to us, is not impossible of
acquisition, and it is essential to any adequate rendering of any Latin
writer, whether of prose or verse. Nor will the attainment be a work of
indefinite time if one pursues with constancy some such course as the
following, recommended by Professor Ellis:
“The place of raised pitch,” he says, “must be strictly observed, and
for this purpose the verses had better be first read in a kind of
sing-song, the high pitched syllables being all of one pitch and the low
pitched syllables being all of one pitch also, but about a musical
‘fifth’ lower than the other, as if the latter were sung to the lowest
note of the fourth string of a violin, and the former were sung to the
lowest note of its third string.”
* * *
In the foregoing pages an effort has been made to bring together
compactly and to set forth concisely the nature of the ‘Roman method’ of
pronouncing Latin; the reasons for adopting, and the simplest means of
acquiring it. No attempt has been made at a philosophical or exhaustive
treatment of the subject; but at the same time it is hoped that nothing
unphilosophical has crept in, or anything been omitted, which might have
been given, to render the subject intelligible and enable the
intelligent reader to understand the points and be able to give a reason
for each usage herein recommended.
The main object in view in preparing this little book has been to help
the teachers of Latin in the secondary schools, to furnish them
something not too voluminous, yet as satisfactory as the nature of the
case allows, upon a subject which the present diversity of opinion and
practice has rendered unnecessarily obscure.
To these teachers, then, a word from Professor Ellis may be fitly spoken
in conclusion:
“To teach a person to read prose _well_, even in his own language, is
difficult, partly because he has seldom heard prose well read, though he
is constantly hearing prose around him, intonated, but unrhythmical. In
the case of a dead language, like the Latin, which the pupil never hears
spoken, and seldom hears read, except by himself or his equally ignorant
and hobbling fellow-scholars, this difficulty is inordinately increased.
Let me once more impress on every teacher of Latin the _duty_ of himself
learning to read Latin readily according to accent and quantity; the
_duty_ of his reading out to his pupils, of his setting them a
_pattern_, of his hearing that they follow it, of his correcting their
mistakes, of his _leading_ them into right habits. If the quantitative
pronunciation be adopted, no one will be fit to become a classical
teacher who cannot read a simple Latin sentence decently, with a strict
observance of that quantity by which alone the greatest of Latin orators
regulated his own rhythms.”
“All pronunciation is acquired by imitation, and it is not till after
hearing a sound many times that we are able to grasp it sufficiently
well to imitate. It is a mistake constantly made by teachers of language
to suppose that a pupil knows by once hearing unfamiliar sounds, or even
unfamiliar combinations of familiar sounds. When pupils are made to
imitate too soon, they acquire an erroneous pronunciation, which they
afterward hear constantly from themselves actually or mentally, and
believe that they hear from the teacher during the small fraction of a
second that each sound lasts, and hence the habits of these organs
become fixed.”
The following direction is of the utmost importance (Curwen’s “Standard
Course,” p. 3): “The teacher never sings (speaks) _with_ his pupils, but
sings (utters, reads, dictates) to them a brief and soft _pattern_. The
first art of the pupil is to _listen well_ to the pattern, and then to
imitate it exactly. He that listens best sings (speaks) best.”
* * * * *
* * * *
* * * * *
Errors and Inconsistencies (noted by transcriber)
[Keil. v. VI. p. 23.] F autem apud Aeolis
[_the letter is printed as an F, not a capital digamma_]
[Keil. v. II. p. 15.] ... Pro quo Caesar hanc [ϝ] figuram
[_the letter shown in brackets is printed as an upside-down
digamma_]
[Keil. v. II. p. 11.] ... apud veteres Graecos pro φ π et Ͱ
[_the third letter may not display on your computer; it is the
capital Heta, resembling the left half of capital H or Eta_]
+v+ (+u+ consonant) ... without touching the lower lip ...
[_text reads “touch-” at line-end_]