MASTER 
 NEGA TIVE 
 NO. 91-80151 
 
MICROFE.MED 1991 
 COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY LIBRARIES/NEW YORK 
 
 44 
 
 as part of the 
 Foundations of Western Civilization Preservation Project" 
 
 Funded by the 
 NATIONAL ENDOWMENT FOR THE HUMANITffiS 
 
 Reproductions may not be made without permission from 
 
 Columbia University Library 
 
COPYRIGHT STATEMENT 
 
 The copyright law of the United States - Title 17, United 
 States Code ~ concerns the milking of photocopies or other 
 reproductions of copyrighted material... 
 
 Columbia University Library reserves the right to refuse to 
 accept a copy order if, in its judgement, fulfillment of the order 
 would involve violation of the copyright law. 
 
AUTHOR: 
 
 BLAIR, WALTER 
 
 TITLE: 
 
 LATIN PRONUNCIATION, 
 AN INQUIRY INTO THE... 
 
 PLACE: 
 
 NEW YORK 
 
 DA TE : 
 
 1873 
 
COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY LIBRARIES 
 PRESERVATION DEPARTMENT 
 
 BIBLIOGRAPHIC MICROFORM TARHFT 
 
 Master Negative # 
 
 Original Material as Filmed - Existing Bibliographic Record 
 
 ,(*] 
 
 -^^^V^^^^m 
 
 Blair, Walter, 
 
 Latin pronunciation, an inquiry into the prope: 
 sounds of the Latin lancuage during the olaooioal 
 period, by Tfalter Blair... Hew York, Barnes,1873 
 
 136 p. 19 o"^ 
 
 Restrictions on Use: 
 
 •U 
 
 TECHNICAL MICROFORM DATA 
 
 FILM SIZE: '}ilnic^_ REDUCTION RATIO: 
 
 IMAGE PLACEMENT: lA (^ IB IIB 
 
 DATE FILMED: JL_lllii INITIALS <ri >^ C- 
 
 FILMED BY: RESEARCH PUBLICATIONS, INC WOODBRrDGE7cT 
 
 ii > 
 
c 
 
 Association for information and Image IManagement 
 
 1100 Way ie Avenue, Suite 1100 
 Silver Spring, Maryland 20910 
 
 301/587-8202 
 
 Centimeter 
 
 12 3 4 
 
 ll,lilii,lilii]ililliliilillilll,iilil,lllil,ll 
 
 5 
 
 iiiliiiil 
 
 6 7 8 9 10 11 
 
 iiliiiiliiiiliiiiliiiiliiiiliiiiliiiiliiiiliiiiliiiiliii 
 
 m 
 
 12 13 14 15 mm 
 
 iiiiliiiiliiiiliiiiliiiiliiiiliiiil 
 
 TTT 
 
 TTT 
 
 II I II 
 
 TTT 
 
 1 
 
 Inches 
 
 1.0 
 
 IIIM 2.8 
 
 III 5 
 
 £ |3.2 
 
 liiuu. 
 
 1.4 
 
 2.5 
 22 
 
 LI 
 
 2.0 
 1.8 
 
 1.6 
 
 1.25 
 
 MflNUFfiCTURED TO RUM STHNDflRDS 
 BY APPLIED IMAGE, INC. 
 

 aJ^i^^ps 
 
 
 tl 
 
 ^ 
 
 *-i. 
 
 
 M 
 
 v^ 
 
 >i''^ '<£i^^'ij£¥L 'x4c9^ 
 
 
— .1 
 
 THE mmm series oe stiiiidiird school-booiis 
 
 COMPRISES STANDARD WORKS 
 
 In every department of instniction and of every grade. The teacher in want of a book for any par- 
 ticular purpose or class, will always find the best of its kind in our catalogue. No other series even 
 claims to be as complete as this. None is so extensive or so judiciously selected. Among so many 
 volumes a high standard of merit is maintained, as it is our aim never to permit our imprint upon a 
 poor or unworthy book. It is also our plau to make books not for a class or sect, but for the whole 
 country— unobjectionable to parlies and creeds, while inculcating the great principles of political 
 freedom and Christianity, upon which all right-minded persons are agreed. Hence, and from their 
 almost universal circulation, the name—" National Series." Among the principal volumes are 
 Parker & Watson's Readers-in two distinct series, each complete in itself. Uie 
 National Jteaders, of full grade, in large, elegant volumes, adequate for every want of 
 the most thorough and high —. — - - _ 
 
 8TT.I5 
 
 BST 
 
 (S,0lnntbici ©iJiUge 
 in tijc ffiitu of %Uttt Uork. 
 
 library. 
 
 volumes, for Common Scho« 
 series. Spellers complet 
 
 Davies' ZXEathemati 
 
 Ac. — Camplete ia every br 
 called for, and the sale inc 
 the places of those that are 
 
 Barnes' Brief Histc 
 
 — For one term of study. 
 Interesting by cdarming Ian, 
 the most important events. 
 
 ZVEonteith's Geog:rai 
 
 — These works are eminent I.' 
 a number of volumes not ne 
 
 Steele's Natural Sc 
 Chemistry f A sir one 
 
 they make science available 
 
 Clark's Diag-ramma: 
 
 novel analysis. Gradually; 
 
 Wonnan's BXodern 
 
 Ac— Upon a new plan for cc 
 new ones. 
 
 Searing's Classics— i 
 
 and others, with Notes, Lexii 
 "r> ARE MENTION only can 
 
 English Zanguage—Cu 
 
 Composition, Logic, Critici 
 finers, Dictionaries, Writing 
 KXD'a Series of Speakers— Z. 
 
 JTiSfOr?/. —MONTEITH'3 Chill 
 
 England— RicoRDs Rome- 
 Pen and l*e nci I.— Bkers 
 
 —Smith & Mautin's Bookl 
 Drawing. 
 
 Natural Science Norto 
 
 Chemistry— McIntyre's As „^ _ „ ...^„,„., 
 
 Chambers' Zoology— Peck's Mechanics— Bartletts College Philosophy. 
 Important Works also are Pujol's French Class Book-DwicnT's Mythology-HcNTixo- 
 
 TOJf's Fine .\rts— Champli.vs Political Economy— Mansfield's Government Manual— Aldens 
 
 Ethics— Brooks' Manual of Devotiou— Tracy's School Record, Ac. 
 
 The Teacher's IJbrartj ron^Ms of over 20 vohm-s of strictly professional literature, asPAGK-g 
 Theory and Practice— Holbrook's Normal Methods— No UTUEXD's Teacher's Assistant, Ac. 
 
 A DESCRIPTIYE CATALOGUE of all these and many more may be obtained by enclosing a 
 
 stamp to the Publishers, 
 
 A. 2. BARNES & COMPAKY, 
 
 National Educational Publishers, 
 111 & 113 WILLIAM STREET, NEW YO 
 
 GIVEN BY 
 
 Dt- HeriTU 
 
 ID 
 
 Tisle'r 
 
 '"&j — »t v»UA» a xiuiaij^-> 
 
 II 
 
 I 
 
 r 
 
 m TOMAS SEEKS IH MOIEEll IAS8DAGE. 
 
 A Complete Course in German. 
 
 By JAMES H. WORMAN, A.M. 
 
 EMBRACINa 
 
 g-ermla.:n' reader, 
 
 G^ERMAJSr COI>Y-BOOKS. GER]Mi^lSr ECHO. 
 
 IN PREPAKA'nON, 
 
 HISTORY oii^ germ:ai>3- x^itera.ttjre, 
 
 GERMAI^r AI^D E1>^&LISI£ LEXICOJ^. 
 
 T TTTV aT:nMAX GltAMMAltS of Wonnan are widely preferred on ac- 
 
 • f^rthPirH^lrexDlicit method (on the conversation plan), introducing a Bystem 
 
 Sfall^g?^ ^d comp^^^^^^ wilSthr learner.' own langtla.^e and others commonly 
 
 ^%hetrt8 of Bpeakinff, of understanding the spoken language, and of correct pronun- 
 
 ^%r new "^^^^^^^"^^^"^^^ of irregular ^.rh« are .of great -lue to the 
 pupil S use of heavy type to indicate etymological changes, is new. The \ ocabu- 
 kry id »ynonymical—ail»o a new leature. 
 
 TT Trn»ir4V'«f arJlMAX JiEAJyEJl contains progreepive Pelectiona 
 
 tranrtlatiou into the German. 
 
 TTT irnmtr4WfS GT:RMAX r.cno (Deutsckes EcTio) is entirely a new 
 thfn^^n ?h^?ounfr?^ It prey's familiar colloquial exercises without translation, 
 and wiU teach fluent conversation in a few months of diligent study. 
 
 No other meSwill ever make the student "I'S "Ve^J'i^^SXougUnd 
 he thinks in. as well as speaks it. For the time be ng he is ^Jf^:^^^^^^£^ J-ee 
 through. The laborious process of translatmg his thoughts no longer imyeucB ixi.c 
 
 unembarrassed utterance. 
 
 p ■ ♦ >> 
 
 WORIAN'S COMPLETE FRENCH COURSE 
 
 IS INAUGURATED BY 
 
 L'EOia:0 IDE I>-A.Il.IS, 
 
 Or "French Echo;" on a plan identical with the German Echo described above, 
 ur, X "'"^"^j^.g ^.jj ^g followed in due course by the other volumes of 
 
 THE ere:n^ch: series, 
 
 VIZ. * 
 
 A COMPLETE GTiAMMAR, \A E IS E X C H ^^^f^^^' 
 
 AX ELEMENTARY O RAMMA R,\ A FRENCH LEXICON 
 A HISTORY OF FRENCH LITERATURE 
 
 • • ♦ •• 
 
 XJlVRIVAX^Er>. 
 
 WORMAN'S WORKS 
 
 are simply 
 
 1' 
 
 — — I 
 
 .IJHBfc,"^* 
 
0°0 o?0 ° 
 O 0° 
 
 °0° »o« 
 
 o "o o° " o ■ 
 
 LATIN PRONUNCIITION. 
 
 ) a o o 
 
 ' O 3 5,5 T 1 
 
 AN INQUIRY INTO THE 
 
 PROPER SOUNDS OF THE LATIN LANGUAGE 
 
 DURING 
 
 THE CLASSICAL PEEIOD. 
 
 BY 
 
 WALTEK BLAIK, A.M., 
 
 PROFESSOR OP LATIN IN HAMPDEN SIDNEY COLLEGE, VIBGINIA. 
 
 A. S. BARNES & COMPANY, 
 
 NEW YORK AND CHICAGO. 
 
 1873. 
 
• • • 
 
 • • I 
 • I 
 
 • • I 
 
 >• •. .« « 
 
 • « • 
 « « « « 
 
 t * 
 
 t e 
 
 c « 
 
 * » e « c t • 
 
 • t 
 
 ( t c c 
 
 • « 
 
 < e • 
 
 I t 
 
 etc etc 
 
 t - e 
 c c 
 t ( 
 
 » c > 
 
 
 Entered according to Act of Congress, in the year 1870, by 
 
 WALTER BLAIR, 
 
 In the Office of the Librarian of Congress, at Washington. 
 
 
 
 PREFACE. 
 
 The following treatise was originally prepared by 
 appointment of the Educational Association of the State 
 of Virginia. Having been favorably received by that 
 body, it is now respectfully offered to a larger circle of 
 teachers and scholars, in the hope that thereby some 
 contribution may be made towards a just settlement of 
 the still very uncertain practice of our schools in the 
 matter of Latin Pronunciation. 
 
 to 
 
 CM 
 
 ■i>Ci ^ « J 
 
 /^' 
 
«>"0 
 
 ■> 
 
 ) 9 O O o o 
 
 • o ' > a o 
 
 » 000 , 
 
 ' 0^'^ 
 " •»• "o" OO 
 
 INTRODUCTION. 
 
 Quid enim tatn necessa7-iu7n quatn recta locutio, — QuiNT. 
 
 MANY languages have been richer than the Ijatin 
 in variety of sounds; but no people were ever 
 more attentive at once to discrimination and refinement 
 in their utterance than the Komans. Their poets and 
 orators were held to a strict account in this respect ; and 
 the sedulous endeavor of these to satisfy the claims of a 
 sensitive ear is apparent in their written performances. 
 
 In the way of direct testimony, moreover, the writers 
 on the fine art of elocution furnish abundant evidence 
 of the exacting judgment of a Roman auditory. They 
 make it certain that during the most cultivated period 
 of the Latin literature, all who pretended to any refine- 
 ment of letters, and even the general crowd, which was 
 subject to the polishing influences of the metropolis, pos- 
 sessed and cherished the most delicate sense of propriety 
 in the rendering of the sounds of their language.* 
 
 When, therefore, it is recollected further, that the 
 compositions which have come down to us from that 
 distant period were never designed to be absorbed through 
 the eye, in silence, from a written page, but were dis- 
 
 * Cic. Orat , c, 44. . . . . " aures ; quarum est iudicium superbia- 
 simum." Cf. c. 48. 
 
• • • 
 
 • • . • 
 
 • • • 
 
 • • • 
 
 • • • 
 
 
 6 c IXTRODUCTIOJ^. 
 
 ••1 *•••-• • •- • * ' 
 
 ••••.*•.*: : : «•..*.■ 
 
 •..tihcfely and c6nsciously planned for the interpretation of 
 
 .•t^ke: totigije,^ve must feel how hopeless is the effort to 
 •/.perietrate" to any true and intimate knowledge of the 
 : ..f-^tii? jlanguagc, not only in its beauties but even in its 
 •• essential nature and powers, until we shall render the 
 signs before us back again into the sounds which they 
 were designed to represent.* 
 
 This necessity is patent with regard to poetry, the 
 whole texture of which is persistently controlled by the 
 exigencies of recitation : but it is also true (though a 
 somewhat closer observation is necessary to reveal the 
 fact), that many an appearance, both regular and occa- 
 sional, in the structure of the plainest prose is directly 
 traceable to the influence of sound. 
 
 But notwithstanding the astonishing neglect of our 
 ancestors, for generations, of the proper sounds of the 
 Latin language ; perhaps no thoughtful student of the 
 present day needs any longer to be convinced of the im- 
 portance of their revival. And should there be any to 
 whom it is still necessary to justify the demand made 
 for an inquiry into the Latin Pronunciation; if we can 
 satisfy them at all, we cannot hope to do so in a better 
 way than by inviting them to enter with us upon the 
 inquiry itself. Therefore, to this we address ourselves 
 at once, assuming for our present duty the endeavor to 
 satisfy as far as we can, rather than to justify the ques- 
 tion which has been assigned us. That question is, to 
 ascertain the "correct Accentuation, Quantitv, and Pro- 
 nunciation of the Latin Language." These are three 
 
 * Hie enim est usus litterarum, ut custodiant wees et velut deposi- 
 tum reddant legentibus, itaque id exprimere debent quod dictuH 
 sximns. Quint, j, 7, § 31 ^ 
 
 INTRODUCTION. 
 
 distinct modifications of the voice in speech, closely asso- 
 ciated it is true in practice, so as to exert an important 
 influence upon each other, yet quite separate in their 
 nature and causes. The pitch, the stress, the time, or 
 Accent and Quantity, are accidents of the vocal tone, 
 while Pronunciation, as commonly understood, has to 
 do with the essential quality and stamp of the uttered 
 sound. In a particular examination of these three, then, 
 the natural order to be observed will be the reverse of 
 that just stated, and it is the Pronunciation which must 
 engage us first.* 
 
 And here we conceive our task to be purely a practical 
 one, that is, to indicate, as far as we may be able, what 
 were the true and actual sounds of the Latin, furnishino" 
 if possible, reasonable evidence of their authority. Of 
 the evidence now available to us, it is to be remarked 
 in the outset, that all of it is probable in its nature, so 
 that its principal force must arise from concurrence and 
 accumulation. Such arguments, therefore, as shall be 
 sufficient to establish the convictions which we seek 
 must of necessity be various, while a certain extent of 
 detail also cannot be avoided. 
 
 Some seem to have supposed it possible to arrive 
 directly at the desired results by ar simple application 
 of the general principles of phonetics. 
 
 These have found it easy to construct a neatly arranged 
 dogmatic system /or Latin sounds; but in offering us a 
 plan already suspicious from its very perfections, they 
 omit to demonstrate the actual connection between their 
 theory and the facts. The Latin pronunciation was cer- 
 
 * The present inquiry will extend no further. 
 
 m- 
 
 
'■* ! 
 
 8 
 
 introductio:n^. 
 
 INTRODUCTION. 
 
 9 
 
 III 
 
 tainly simpler and more regular than that of our own 
 language ; but a perfect simplicity and regularity will be 
 far from appearing to the candid student : nor will he 
 be able to content himself, for example, with the dogma 
 that the "pronunciation of the diphthongs in common 
 use IS to be determined, ai o?ice and infallihly, by the 
 well established sounds of the component elements"* 
 Such consistency and symmetry is, no doubt, to be pre- 
 ferred to the hopeless variety and accident to which our 
 practice has abandoned the Latin which we read • but 
 reformers must be careful, or reaction may overreach 
 itself. 
 
 The only fair and reasonable way of obtaining a satis- 
 factory knowledge of the sounds which, in the classical 
 age, were actually in use among the Eomans, is by com- 
 panng together such statements of the ancients, and such 
 other particular facts, bearing upon the matter, as are 
 withm our reach. As has been already intimated, we 
 shall find that the best of this evidence is only probable. 
 The ancients had but an imperfect acquaintance with the 
 physiology of the vocal organs and of the natural causes 
 which determine the quality of sound; and hence it was 
 out of their power to describe the elements of their 
 speech m any more certainly unmistakeable way than by 
 appealing to the familiar sensation of the ear in hearing 
 it. Therefore in all that the old Eomans have to say 
 concerning the sounds of their tongue, there is nothing 
 which furnishes in itself an adequate account for foreign 
 ears or remote posterity.! 
 
 * J. F. Richardson, Roman Orthoepy (N. Y., 1859), p. 29. 
 
 t Cic. Orat., c. 49 «rerum, verbonimque judicium, pruden- 
 
 Cicero discourses profusely on the proprieties of enun- 
 ciation, and some of his remarks will furnish a useful 
 preliminary to the more particular inquiry which we have 
 to undertake. Especially in De Orat, III, cc. xi-xiii, and 
 Orat., cc. 45-48, as well as in many passages of " Brutus,^^ 
 we have a great number of general precepts for the man- 
 agement of the tongue, the breath, and the tone. — The 
 voice must be sustained and uniform {permanens) ; the 
 tone must be natural and unaffected {recta, simplex) ; 
 syllables must be distinctly heard, but not inflated nor 
 expanded ; letters must not be slurred, nor offensively 
 thrust into prominence ; the drawl (latitudo verhorum, 
 dilatare syllabas), and harsh and strident, coarse, thick, 
 and deep sounds are condemned as " rustic " and inelegant ; 
 while a full-rounded, sonorous tone, sweet without weak- 
 ness, gentle without effeminacy [vox {plena), canora ; and 
 suavis, lenis opposed to mollis], concise but clear, imparts 
 the indescribable but indispensable " ring " and " color " 
 of "urbanity." {BruL 46, §§ 171, 172.) 
 
 These precepts already put some limit to an indefinite 
 range of possibility for the Latin sounds. But from 
 Cicero and other philosophical writers on the use of 
 language, we cannot obtain the special and minute in- 
 struction which we need. The nature and power of the 
 several " elements " to Avhicli the single letters correspond 
 was not discussed by those writers, as being a subject 
 which, in a scientific aspect, was too particular and too 
 obscure (" subtilior cognitio ac ratio literarum "),* but in 
 
 tiae est : wcum autem et numerorum, aures sunt judices 
 illis ratio invenit, in his sensus artem." 
 * Cic. Compare also Quint. I, 4, § 6. 
 
 in 
 
 ?'- 
 
 #\\^#-"^^ 
 
10 
 
 IXTROD LCTIOA'. 
 
 its popular aspect, too familiar for the more elevated and 
 more general aims of philosophical disquisition. (See 
 Oic. d. Or. Ill, c. 13.) 
 
 Yet there were some, and they too the most learned of 
 their age, who even as early as the time of Cicero, made 
 long and careful studies of the elements of pronunciation 
 Marcus Ter. Varro (b.c. 64), - doctissinms Romanorumr 
 IS, for us, the first, and Priscianus Csesariensis (instructor 
 at the court of Constantinople, a.d. 510), among the last 
 of a long series of grammarians, to whose instructions we 
 must now turn, in order to gather, by inference, and not 
 without great care and pains, the information which 
 might have been easily and more certainly had by spend- 
 ing an hour with the Roman boys in their elementary 
 school. It IS impossible to undertake here an estimate 
 of the responsibility of the different Latin Grammarians 
 severally. An effort shall be made, as far as may be, to 
 keep in mind a reference to this in the use which is to 
 be made of their remarks in the following pages. Those 
 of a later time often copy their predecessors freely, while 
 on the other hand, occasionally discrepancies occur 
 
 But it must be remembered in the general, that even 
 the later writers of this class represent an uninterrupted 
 hterary tradition, which remained to a great extent, if 
 not entirely, unimpaired among scholars long after the 
 popular speech of the Romans had entered upon its rapid 
 course of corruption.* 
 
 The statements of grammarians, however, are not 
 
 * The popular speech was full of corruptions at all times Taci- 
 tus allusion (Dial. d. Orat. 32) to the qnotidiam sermonis foeda ac 
 
 aCtlt nf'; Ti! "T"^' "''^' irrespective of the sounds, while 
 applying also to the choice and other management of words 
 
 INTRODUCTION. 
 
 11 
 
 enough to satisfy us : since they presuppose a practical 
 knowledge of the very sounds which they describe. 
 When, for example, Priscian says : " Vocales .... per se 
 prolatcB nomen sintm ostendunt /' that is a valuable 
 statement, and carries us a great way towards a perfect 
 knowledge of the sounds of the vowels: but while it 
 serves to remove many possible doubts, it nevertheless 
 stops short of the last point ; and we learn from it, after 
 all, only that the name of the vowel I {e. g.) contains the 
 sound of I. The accounts of grammarians, therefore, 
 must be brought into comparison with separate lines of 
 probable argument. Among these — 
 
 1. The tradition of scholars is entitled to a place ; and 
 the inherited, if even perverted, sounds of the modern 
 Romance languages may be usefully compared, with a 
 cautious regard to their history. 
 
 2. The Greek rendering of Latin sounds is instructive 
 so soon as it is made to appear (as may be and has been 
 done), that the Greeks endeavored to indicate the Latin 
 sounds, Avhich they heard in Roman mouths, as faithfully 
 as their alphabet would permit.* 
 
 3. The third source of concomitant evidence is the 
 face of the language itself, as seen in its records which 
 have been preserved to us. Since the value of this evi- 
 dence depends upon the assumption that it was the 
 practice of Latin orthography to accommodate itself 
 faithfully to the sound, and to change with its changes, 
 it is of importance to show that such an assumption is 
 
 * Certain deviations from the uniformity of this practice have 
 been happily elucidated by Strehlke in Kuhn's Zeitsch. f. Vergl. 
 Sprachf., Vol. I, p. 311 and after. 
 
 i 
 
 ir 
 
[2 
 
 l:5fTRODUCTI02f 
 
 III 
 
 tins and bes.des the fact that the ancient g.-ammaLs 
 generally proceed upon that assumption, we are not at a 
 los for passages in the Latin authors, which both directly 
 and implicitly declare, that correspondence of form with 
 sound was aimed at, and understood in practice also to 
 be (certainly in the main) tho fact.* 
 Quintilian says directly (I, 7, 11) : " Verum orthograpMa 
 
 8how that their author said Burrus instead of Pyrrhns 
 
 (x\. A., IX, 14, §§ 21-23), in order to prove that Lucilius 
 trZot;!''"^' (^^'---O/^.^. etc., instead of^l 
 
 tat:in!tt f ^''>"' '™" ''^' ^'^^^"''^ e.„W.^., con- 
 taining the form in question. And so, everywhere aLon^ 
 the grammarians. ^ ueie among 
 
 But this very principle, being continued into later 
 mes, has served to corrupt the orthography of th liss 
 
 d hi: th";/''^^ 1 ''''-'' *— i/tsL Of eail; 
 
 th fi y.r' ""*r' '^"'^ -- --e ancient than 
 tne touith. For a period earlier than that, therefore thP 
 only unquestionable authority for Latin rth^hy" 
 to be fotind in the monumental records. The la^^'^Sn 
 able collections which have been made of thos . sc L 
 
 enaence for the Latm sounds. To the study of them is 
 
 * So that tlie existence of two forms, «* *i, 
 dence also of two soynds • e T" (ZT ; ' ''°'' ^"^^ '' ''^^- 
 tnm : mt ntroquc utarcr c/c^Orat ^7 "^ '''•' ^'''> '"^"^^^^ 
 
 INTRO DUCTIOlir. 
 
 13 
 
 due the chief merit of Prof. W. Corssen's masterly work 
 on Latin Pronunciation. Perhaps we should not here 
 regret the want of access to original documents, since the 
 results of Corssen's extended labors lie before us ; and 
 these we shall not hesitate in using, so far as may suit 
 the purposes of this more humble and restricted inquiry. 
 
 It may be allowed us to mention as other modern 
 works, from which we have derived instruction and taken 
 facts : Lachmann's Commentary on Lucretius ; various 
 essays in Kuhn's Zeitschrift fiir Vergleichende Sprach- 
 forsclmng ; and Seyffert's Latin Grammar (Branden- 
 burg, 1798), from which particularly have been drawn 
 many extracts from the Latin Grammarians. Those who 
 are acquainted with the more or less well known names 
 of scholars who have written specially on the subject 
 assigned us, will miss the most of them from this short 
 list. Of the works of some, particularly of Schneider, we 
 have ourselves deeply felt the need 
 
 Having defined the purpose before us to be a limited 
 and practical one, we shall endeavor to direct our inves- 
 tigation solely towards results which are to be of ser- 
 vice in the school, and will inquire, therefore, only into 
 the sounds actually in use among the Eomans in the 
 period commonly known as the classical age. No allusion 
 shall be made to the popular or provincial variations, 
 except w^hen these can be made use of to illustrate the 
 main object of our search. For the same reason, and to 
 the same extent, it will be proper to exclude all parti- 
 cular account of the early and late history of the Latin 
 sounds. 
 
 And yet, with all restrictions, our undertaking remains 
 a considerable one. Without a particle of positive evi- 
 
 I; 
 
14 
 
 INTRODUCTION. 
 
 IM 
 
 dence, our only resource is in the multiplication of prob- 
 able proofs; and so also we cannot escape the risk of 
 prolixity, since there is no choice between dogmatism 
 with brevity on the one hand, and a spreading out of 
 details on the other, if even a feeble hope be indulged of 
 producing, in the minds of any, a reasonable conviction. 
 This conviction we believe to be the prominent demand 
 of the present time with respect to the important ques- 
 tion in our hands : for while few are found disposed to 
 undertake a hopeless defence of that utter abandonment 
 into which the pronunciation of the Latin has fallen 
 among us, yet before adopting another plan all think 
 (and justly think) themselves entitled to exact a show of 
 Its authority. To give up even a corrupt and barbarous 
 manner of pronunciation, requires a sacrifice of habit 
 which will not be generally conceded without a sufficient 
 reason. 
 
 Firmly believing that the true Latin sounds may in 
 the main be known, and may be sufficiently defended 
 but not without a due sense of the difficulty of our 
 performing the task in a satisfactoiy and suitable man- 
 ner, we proceed to the details of our inquiry. 
 
 PRONUNCIATION OF LATIN. 
 
 The fundamental units of speech {elenienta) were 
 represented in the classical period of the Latin language 
 by the following signs (Utter ce) : 
 
 A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I, (K), L, M, N, 0, P, 
 Q, K, S, T, V, X, [Y, Z]. 
 
 The whole group is called by Tacitus literatura, but 
 by later authors often compendium, and commonly by the 
 Greek name Alphabet um. Severally their names were 
 (Vid. Prise. P. p. 540) : 
 
 A, Be, Ce, De, E, cF, Ge, Ha, I, Ka, eL, eM, 
 cN, 0, Pe, Qu, eR, eS, Te, V (and Vau), iX, 
 (Ypsilon, Zeta). 
 
 It will be convenient, in a particular examination, to 
 consider the vowels first. 
 
 A.. 
 
 A stream of air vibrating from the vocal chords, and 
 forcing its own way through the buccal tube, which is 
 left unmodified by any activity of the organs situated 
 along its course, will produce inarticulate sound only. 
 
IG 
 
 I'KONUNCIATION OF LATIN. 
 
 II 
 
 II 
 
 But the same Stream, accompanied by the easiest, and 
 (If ^ve begin with the root of the tongue) the first modi- 
 flcation of the size and shape of the buccal tube, gives 
 nsc to a suTiplc vocal sound, which for many reasons 
 Jiistoncal as well as natural, deserves to hold the place 
 al«^ys assigned it at the head of the Latin alphabet, 
 ihis IS the vowel A, made by a conformation of the 
 buccal tube through the action of the root of the tongue 
 and the soft palate.* The whole extent of the tongue 
 m advance of the root, remains in repose (suspensa lin- 
 gua), as do all the muscles of the jaws and lips, which 
 are separated by allowing the lower jaw to fall to the 
 extent to which its weight will carry it {ridu pcdulo). 
 
 The resulting sound is that of a in English Mr, or 
 French barbarc.^ That this was the sound, and the only 
 sound of the Latin A, is to be argued from the combined 
 toree of a variety of considerations, as : 
 
 1. Every form of tradition maintains this sound, and 
 no authority supports another. 
 
 2. The history of internal changes of Latin words,, 
 the modifications and combinations to which this vowel 
 has been subject, furnish evidence in the same sense 
 
 3. A comparison with other languages-whether his- 
 torically or actually instituted-favors ihe same. (Com- 
 pare, for example, Latin a with Greek a in equivalent 
 forms.) 
 
 Mr.M'r f^f r''"""* ""^ '^'' P^siology of the vocal organs, see 
 Max Muller s Lectures on Science of Language, Second Series 
 
 tint ^'lv"T7 *^'l' the English and French a have a difference of 
 tint, ^^e believe that the Latin was more strictly the same with 
 «ie French . ; but it may be for practical purposes also sufficiently 
 well represented by a in English " barr n^ieniiy 
 
 PRONUNCIATION OF LATIN. 
 
 17 
 
 4. The testimony of Latin writers, before their spoken 
 language had lost its authority, points in the same 
 direction. 
 
 But it will not be necessary to deyelop all this evi- 
 dence. The sound of Latin A is so little disputed, that 
 Ave may safely assume it and pass on at once to a par- 
 ticular remark — the only one necessary to be added. 
 This is, that the short sound of A differs not at all in 
 kind, but only in quantity, from the long sound. While, 
 therefore, long A has the sound of a in English barter, 
 the short sound of Latin A is not heard in English batter. 
 The English rarely uses the short Latin a in its purity. 
 It is sometimes accidentally given in unaccentuated places 
 in English words, in which it is common, however, to 
 hear either an uncertain sound or another sound of Eng- 
 lish a, as in the first syllables of papa, dliah, marauder. 
 In German, French, and Italian the short sound of Latin 
 a is regularly heard. We have it in French battre. 
 
 It is obvious that the English short a of batter differs 
 not only in quantity but also in quality from the long a of 
 barter. But of such a difference in quality between the 
 long and the short A of the Latin, we can infer nothing 
 indirectly, and we hear nothing directly. All accounts 
 speak only of one sound.* 
 
 * For the ten varieties, spoken of by Priscian (ap. P. p. 539), do 
 not belong to the nature of the sound, but are due to the various 
 combinations of accent and quantity, and even aspiration, since he 
 enumerates ha among them. Upon consulting the passage, rather 
 long for insertion liere, it will be plain, that if we remove by 
 elimination all the elements of the author's mischievous confusion, 
 we shall have left only the one sound of A. Much of the obscurity 
 and apparent contradiction found in the ancient Grammarians (and 
 there is no little of it), is simply due to a want of accurate and close 
 
I 
 
 18 
 
 PRONUi^CIATIOIs^ OF LATIl^. 
 
 Marius Vldormm (P. p. 2453) : "A litera, rictu patulo, 
 suspensa neque impressa dentibus lingua, enuntiatur." 
 
 Priscian (P. p. 540): "Vocales per se prolate 
 
 nomen suuni ostendunt/' 
 
 :N"ay, the identity of sound is certainly contemplated by 
 Lucilius as quoted by Ter. Scaurus (P. p. 2255, ap. Cors- 
 sen I, p. 140) : 
 
 " ' A ' primum longa, brevis syllaba, nos tamen unum 
 Hoc faciemus, et uno eodemqiie ut dicimus pacto, Scri- 
 bemus: ^pAcem, pUcide, JAnum, Aridum, Acetum/ 
 ' "Apsg, "Apeg ' Graeci ut faciunt/' 
 
 Hence, 
 
 long A is equal to a in Eng. barter, 
 short A " " " a " Fr. battre. 
 
 E. 
 
 Latij^ E is in form the Greek epsilon. A correspond- 
 ence in sound, also, to the sound of that letter in the 
 Greek, is to be inferred from 
 
 Latin, Secundus, 
 Geta, 
 Tubero, 
 
 a 
 
 (( 
 
 a 
 
 a 
 
 Servilius, 
 
 Porsenna (and Por- 
 sena). 
 
 Greek, 2e«oi;vdof, 
 " Tov(iipG)v, 
 
 cc 
 
 ti 
 
 lepoviXiog, 
 
 Uopatvvag (and Uop- 
 orjvag), 
 
 discnmmation between permanent qualities and accidental condi- 
 tions of sound-distinctions which have become familiar and neces- 
 sary to the more rigorous method of modern times 
 
 f' 
 
 PRONU]^CIATION OF LATIN. 
 
 19 
 
 and, assuming rj = e, 
 
 Latin, Suetonius, 
 " Aurunculeius, 
 « Zeno, 
 " zelotypia (Pliny), 
 
 Greek, ^evriTovLog, 
 " AvpovvKovXTjlog^ 
 " Zrjvu)v, 
 " ^TjXoTVTTla, etc., etc. 
 
 The practice of scholars generally makes a true dif- 
 ference in the timbre * or essential tone of e and e ; so 
 that the e of e(/i is as clearly separated from the e of ego 
 as are the vowel sounds heard in English bake and beck — 
 and that quite irrespective of the quantity. Such a 
 practice must be regarded as inconsistent with the words 
 of Priscian quoted above (p. 18), the import of which is, 
 that each vowel had but one proper sound. The dif- 
 ference, however, between a short rendering of a in bake 
 and S in beck, although real, is small, and to insist upon 
 a difficult reform in so minute a particular may well be 
 thought by some an instance of misdirected diligence 
 (molestissima diligentiae perversitas, Quint. I, 6, 17). 
 For us who have no longer an appeal to the criterion of 
 the ear, it is impossible to decide positively for the 
 authority of either of these two sounds as compared with 
 the other, yet probability seems to favor the belief that 
 it was the sound now heard in egi, which contained the 
 true stamp of the vowel e. 
 
 This sound seems best adapted to the deviations in the 
 rendering of E among the Komans, which must now be 
 considered. The first of these is indicated by the inter- 
 
 "* What by the French is called the timbre of a vocal tone, and 
 by Prof. Tyndal (in imitation of the German) the dang-tint, is vari- 
 able only with the shape of the vocal tube. A change of timbre^ 
 therefore, is both physiologically and actually to the ear a change 
 ofvoicd. See Tyndal on Sound : Lecture V. 
 
 -f I 
 
I 
 
 20 
 
 PRONUNCIATION OF LATIN. 
 
 change of e and m, well attested in very numerous 
 instances from early times on. The following all belong 
 to the classical period, or were older : 
 
 (Varro, ap. Lach. Luc. p. 25). 
 
 Hedus, 
 
 Haedus, 
 
 cena, 
 
 caena, . 
 
 merere, 
 
 maerere. 
 
 cespes, 
 
 caespes. 
 
 penuria, 
 
 paenuria. 
 
 Murena, 
 
 Muraena, 
 
 levis, 
 
 laevis, 
 
 ve! 
 
 vae! 
 
 ne! 
 
 nae! 
 
 On inscriptions, in- 
 stanced by grammarians, 
 and in MSS. 
 
 Varro, L. L., VII, 96. In pluribus verbis A ante E alii 
 ponunt, alii non , . . . ac rustici Pappum Mesium, 
 non Mmsium, 
 
 Now assuming the proper sound of e to be that of a 
 in English lake, experiment shows it to be difficult to 
 dwell upon this sound in certain situations (namely, in 
 an open final syllable or before a dental or labial letter), 
 without mixing with it an after ring of i. This done' 
 the result will nearly coincide with what will hereafter 
 appear to have been the sound of m in Latin : so that the 
 e which was often confounded with m must have sounded 
 like ei and ai in the English rein, rain; veil, vail, etc. 
 [And such was, perhaps, the " E plenissimum " of Cicero 
 d. Orat. Ill, 13, 46.] ' 
 
 Another impurity of e is mentioned by Quintilian, I, 4, 
 8, and 5, 22 (and Gell. X, 24), in the case of the word here, 
 which he says was written heri both by the ancients and by 
 the Emperor Augustus, while in the pronunciation of his 
 
 PRONUNCIATION OF LATIN. 
 
 21 
 
 
 own time it was hard to decide for the e or the r. What 
 was the exact nature of this obscure sound must now be 
 left to conjecture. It seems to be indicated by Velius 
 Longus (p. 2235, P.) as that of the second syllable of tibei 
 for tiU, as spoken by some whom he blames ; and must 
 have been heard in those places where the orthography 
 fluctuated between e and i, as in caeretes, caerites, etc. 
 (See Liv. XXII, 1, and Drachenborck : " Utrumque Cmri- 
 tes et Cmretes apud ipsim Livium invenitur.") 
 
 Quint. Inst. Orat. I, 7, 24 : « Sibe et QUASE scriptum in 
 multorum libris est, sed an hoc voluerint auctores, 
 nescio : T. Livium ita his usum ex Pediano comperi, 
 qui et ipse eum sequabatur ; hcec nos I littera fini- 
 
 » 
 
 mus. 
 
 Further, the short e must have had an uncertain, indif- 
 ferent, or neutral sound, not only in final er as in acer,* 
 Muter, pater, inter, etc. (Corssen), but also in intellego, 
 protenus, donee, saltern, and many others, f 
 
 The normal and approved sound of E, therefore, was, 
 
 e, g., in 
 
 <5 of egi, z=z am English bake, 
 while e in ego = the same sound shortened. 
 
 Deviations in practice were, on the one hand, to a slight 
 after augment of i, in the case of long e, making eplenis- 
 simum ; thus e in 
 
 * Cf. acris, patris, etc. 
 
 f We shall see, later, that the neutral sound of e was often inter- 
 changed with that of i, in early Latin, as in timedus, navebos (Rib- 
 beck, Com. Ant., p. 10). 
 
 % 
 
 ^y #Vr"^^*-*, 
 
J-> 
 
 22 
 
 PRONUl^CIATION OF LATIl^. 
 
 PRONUNCIATION OF LATIN. 
 
 23 
 
 1 
 
 frenum 
 Uvis 
 
 = ai in English refrain, etc. 
 
 2. «, in last syllable of Mre, and others, had an uncertain 
 sound between e and i. 
 
 3. e, as in uter, etc, was neutraJ, as in English other. 
 
 I. 
 
 The terms exilis and a;^^«,/«, applied by the ancients 
 to the vowel I, are well suited to the sound which tradi- 
 tion assigns to that vowel. This is the sound of ee in 
 Enghsh reed, which is made with a greater contraction of 
 the resounding space of the vocal tube, than is the case 
 m soundmg any other vowel.* [I spiritus, prope dentibus 
 pressis." Martin. Capella.] 
 
 Latin, Ariminum; Greek, 'Api^uvov, Italian, Rimini. 
 
 Ihat the Latin short i generally partook of that pecu- 
 liar dullness which belongs to the English i in rid, cannot 
 be shown. 
 
 Corruptions of the I sound were at all times very com- 
 mon. From the nature, the direction, and the history of 
 these corruptions, as well as from the remarks made upon 
 them by the ancients, much probable evidence may be 
 elicited, pointing to the above-named sound as the proper 
 one of I. ^ ^ 
 
 Af * ^Zl^'^^'f^'^ "^^""^^ ^^y^d^l'« I^^t^^res mi Sound, p. 200 and 
 Max Muller s Lee, on Science of L,ng., od Ser., p. 
 
 Such inferences must be left to suggest themselves. 
 The facts which appear are briefly these : 
 
 In earlier times, and in the sermo rusticus of Cicero's 
 time, I in some cases was pronounced with a certain ful- 
 ness which approximated to the sound of e. Men spoke 
 diequinti and diequmie, ^^^istmi and pristme, proclivi and 
 proclive (A. Gell. X, 24), lieri and here (Quint. I, 6), tihi 
 and tihei (Velius Longus, P. 2235). For this fluctuation 
 in orthography there was a middle sound neither quite i 
 nor quite e, [Quint, neque e plane auditur neque t.] 
 Lucilius proposed to regulate the practice of his time by 
 indicating this obscure sound by EI, and confining its 
 use to the plural number in the case of vowel stems,* 
 thus genitive singular imeri, nominative plural puereL 
 \Ye will follow this no farther as a point of grammar, 
 and introduce it merely in evidence of the existence of 
 the sound in question. That it is evidence of such impu- 
 rity of sound in the vowel i in Lucilius' time, and not a 
 mere form of grammatical distinction addressed to the 
 eye, may easily be shown ;f but for brevity will be taken 
 as true on the opinion of Quintilian (I, 7, 13, 15-18). 
 The common people of Cicero's time went further and 
 pronounced full broad e instead of u For this is the 
 most likely interpretation of De Orat. Ill, 12, 46. Quare 
 Cotta noster, cuius tu ilia lata, Sulpici, nonnumquam imi- 
 taris, lit Iota literam tollas, et E plenissimam dicas, non 
 milii oratores antiquos, sed messores videtur imitari. But 
 neither of these sounds received in the classical times the 
 sanction of scholars, and down to a late period to which 
 
 * See Scaurus, p. 2255 ap. Seyffert, p. 142. 
 f Yet see Aul. Gell. XIX, 14, in fin. 
 
24 
 
 PROXUNCIATION OF LATIX. 
 
 PRONUNCIATION OF LATIN. 
 
 25 
 
 thej continued to be more or less heard they incurred 
 the disapproval of grammarians, who declared for the 
 thin, fine, j)roper sound of i {tenuitatejn i literce. See 
 Velius Longus, P. p. 2235). 
 
 There was another impurity of the i sound heard in 
 the approximation and confusion of short i and short u, 
 as in simus* for stimiis. 
 
 The words 
 
 maxumus 
 
 lacrumm 
 
 optumus 
 
 alumenta 
 
 luhido 
 
 artuhiis 
 
 mancupium 
 
 aucupare 
 
 contumax 
 
 existumat 
 
 monumentum 
 
 nolumus 
 
 aurufex 
 
 and others f 
 
 are mentioned by grammarians, who say of them that 
 they contained the uncertain sound, which they describe 
 as " something half way between i and ^^" " thicker than 
 i, thinner than w,"— a sound, says one (Priscian, Putsch, 
 p. 539), which " seems to be that of the Greek yJ' Cors- 
 sen observes upon these forms, as well as upon a large 
 number of others, which he has drawn from inscriptions 
 of all periods, that the uncertain sound of i or u appears 
 to have been used almost exclusively before labials m, b, 
 p, f. In this observation he is somewhat more discerning 
 than Priscian, who, however, adds to his list of words in 
 
 87. 
 
 * So spoke the Emperor Augustus, according to Suet. Vit. Octav. 
 
 r. 
 
 t Tibi is for tali (Sansc. tubyam). 
 
 Tvhicli this sound was heard (on the testimony of Donatus) 
 the following : video, vim, virtus, vitium, vix.* 
 
 Finally, for our guidance in practice, we have to 
 observe : 
 
 1. That the u sound in such words was the ancient 
 one, which may be gathered from the fragments of the 
 ancient comedians and tragedians (Ribbeck), from the 
 MSS. of Plautus and Terence, as well as from the state- 
 ments of grammarians. 
 
 2. That the decision of Cicero and Cassar was given in 
 favor of i; and 
 
 3. The sanction of grammarians to the i sound. 
 Agnaeus Cornutus (Putsch, p. 2284). Lacrumm an 
 
 lacj'imcB ; maxumus an maximns, et si quae similia sunt 
 scribi debeant, quaesitum est. Ter. Varro tradidit, Caesa- 
 rem per i eiusmodi verba solitum esse enuntiare et scri- 
 bere ; inde propter auctoritatem tanti viri consuetudinem 
 fadam. Sed ego in anti(iuiorum multo libris, quam 
 Caius Cassar est, per u pleraque scripta invenio : optumus, 
 intumus, p^ulcherriimus, dlcundum . . . . ; melius tamen 
 et ad enuntiandum et ad scribendum, i literam pro u 
 ponere, in quod iam consuetudo inclinavit. 
 
 The normal sound of I, therefore, when long, was as e 
 in English retail; when short, as e in retail 
 
 THE CONSONANT I (SEMI-VOWEL). 
 
 Besides the sound which we have seen represented 
 by I as a vowel, this letter played also another part— 
 
 * And for some other rather surprising instances of this sound, 
 see Vol. Longus, P. p. 2216 (in prodiro, etc.). 
 
 2 
 
 
J>G 
 
 p R X r X CI A T 1 X r l a t i x . 
 
 P 11 O X U X C 1 A T 1 X OF L A T I X' . 
 
 27 
 
 that, namely, of a consonant, or (as, in view of all the 
 facts, it is better called), a semi-vowel. 
 
 The organs being all set for the pronunciation of the 
 vowel I, the intonation was more or less completely with- 
 held ; thereby reducing the function performed more or 
 less completely to that of a consonantal check. This 
 happened only when I occurred immediately before a 
 vowel sound in the same syllable.* There are two cases. 
 
 1. In the beginning of a word, as in Janus, JujypUer, 
 iungo, and in the beginning of the second member of a 
 compound word, as in cibiectus, iniuria, eiedus, diiiicUco. 
 In such a situation, the consonant I was sounded like the 
 English y consonant: thus, Yanus, Yiipjnter, ahyectiis, 
 diyudico. 
 
 In defence of this sound, which is that of tradition, it 
 need only be said, that there is no allegation in antiquity, 
 nor any evidence of another sound — of such, for instance, 
 as that of j in French or of g before ^ in Italian and 
 English.f Further, any such distinct consonantal power 
 could not have belonged to a letter which was continually 
 allowed to relapse into the original vowel sound of i, 
 and was always spoken of as essentially the same letter, 
 
 * If I was ever a consonant in the end of a word, as ai (af), hei 
 (hej\ is not certain. 
 
 f Evidence of this must not be supposed to exist in the fact, that 
 Jods, dims, dies, etc., are made from the same root (Sansk. did.). 
 Jovis (Diovis) dropped its d not because the I was relied upon to 
 represent alone the dj (dg) sound, but because the i, becoming hard- 
 ened into the consonant sound, rejected the preceding d as incom- 
 patible with its pronunciation. A parallel appearance is that of 
 leUum from diiellum. So that Italian giorno from Latin diumiis is 
 not in any way to be compared here. 
 
 called by the same name,* and marked by the same 
 sign. 
 
 The resolution of the consonant into the vowel sound 
 may be abundantly shown, and will appear in the next case. 
 But no better proof can be wanted than this : that ancient 
 grammarians thought it worth while to point out par- 
 ticularly the cases in which I was not a vowel but a 
 consonant. Thus P. Nigidius (ap. Aul. Gell. IST. A., XIX, 
 14, 6), the learned contemporary of Cicero, says, " i et u 
 vocales semper subditae .... Si quis putat praeire u 
 in his : ' Valerius,' * Vennonius,' ' Yolusius,' aut i in his : 
 ' iampridemj' ' iecur,' ' iocum,' ' incundum,' errabit, quod 
 hse literae, cum prsseunt, ne vocales quidem sunt." And 
 it is manifest that no remark could be more utterly use- 
 less and uncalled for to those who were sensible of any 
 such difference between the vowel i and the consonant ^, 
 as is implied in sounding the latter like several modern 
 languages sound their /.f 
 
 The fact, that some proposed to derive the name 
 Janus from eo, ire, and to write it Eanus, is very signi- 
 ficant in this connection. (See Forcellini sub. v.) 
 
 2. The second case is the occurrence of i after a 
 vowel in the preceding syllable and before a vowel 
 in its own syllable, within a simple word: as in aio, 
 maior, maiestas, eius, huius, Veil, Pompeii, In this situ- 
 ation i discharged the function of a double consonant, 
 according to the very explicit testimony of the ancients 
 (^'pro duplici accipitur consonant e''), Now let any one 
 
 * As Quint I, 4, 11. Atqui littera Inbi insidit, coniicit enim est 
 ab illo iacet. 
 
 f The passage alluded to will be better appreciated if consulted 
 more at length. 
 
 W-- 
 
 3^• 
 
28 
 
 PRONUNCIATION OF LATIN. 
 
 consider the statement of Priscian, that the i in Troia 
 must be treated as a double consonant in this way (like 
 English y in destroyer) ! Can it possibly be supposed 
 that a double consonant, like, say, English gg, could then 
 be contemplated (Trogga or Trojja) ? If this were the 
 case, nothing could be accomplished in the sound by 
 doubling; for Trojja could not be distinguished from 
 Troja, more than caussa from causa (with s sharp). But 
 if this were not the case, and the consonant i was nothing 
 but the vowel i rendered without tone (/. c. English ^, 
 consonant), then it is evident not only that the effect of 
 it might be doubled in the supposed situation, but that 
 it would necessarily hQ doubled. And Cicero's manner 
 of writing aiio, Maiia, and the manner of others in writ- 
 ing Pompeiil, was only a faithful rendering of the sound 
 inevitably heard, provided ai, etc., be not taken as a 
 diphthong (against which Priscian warns), and provided 
 i\^Q consoniint i was sounded like English \j, [Compare 
 French ennui with ennuyer ; envoi with envoyer, etc.] 
 
 Quint. I, 4, § 11 : "Sciat etiam Ciceroni placuisse aiio, 
 Maiiamque geminata i scribere, quod si est, etiam 
 iungetur ut consonans. [Thus, ay-yo, or in fact also 
 ai-yo.] For another use of II, see Quint. I, 7, § 14. 
 
 Priscian, I, 4, 18;* ap. P. p. 545: Et i quidem modo 
 pro simplici, modo duplici accipitur consonante : pro 
 simplici, quando ab ea incipit syllaba in principio 
 dictionis posita subsequente vocali in eadem syllaba, 
 ut Juno, Jupiter, pro duplici autem, quando in medio 
 dictionis ab ea incipit syllaba post vocalem ante se 
 
 T * oo^ ^""^^^^ ^^ '^''''^^^ ^^ Auf reclit in ZeUmh. f. Vergl Sprachf., 
 
 PEONUNCIATION OF LATIN. 
 
 29 
 
 positam subsequente quoque vocali in eadem syllaba, 
 ut maius, 2)eius, eius, in quo loco antiqui solebant 
 geminare eandem i literam et maiius, peiius, eiius, 
 N.B.! scribere, quod non aliter pronunciari posset, quam si 
 cum superiore syllaba prior i, cum sequente altera 
 proferretur, ut pei-us, ei-ius, mai-ius. Nam quam- 
 vis sit consonans, in eadem syllaba geminata jungi 
 non potest. Ergo, non aliter, quam tellus, mannus 
 proferri debuit. TJnde Fompeiii quoque, genitivum, 
 per tria Hi scribebant, quorum duo superiora loco 
 consonantium accipiebant, ut si dicas Pompeiii \i. e, 
 Fompeyyi]. Nam tribus Hi junctis qualis possit 
 syllaba pronunciari ? Nam postremum ^ pro vocali 
 est accipiendum, quod Caesari doctissimo artis gram- 
 maticae placitum a Victore quoque in arte gramma- 
 tica de syllabis comprobatur. Pro simplici quoque 
 in media dictione invenitur, sed in compositis, ut 
 iniuria, adiwigo, eiectus, reiice. Virgilius in Buco- 
 lico proceleusmaticum posuit pro dactylo : 
 
 Tityre ptascentes aflumine reiice capellas. See also 
 the same, I, 9, 50. 
 
 I consonant is rendered in Greek by iota, as in : 
 no/x7r?}io^, Br^ioL (Veii), Tdiog, 
 
 Finally, then, Latin I consonant = English y in yam, 
 young, etc. 
 
 i 
 
 The vowel is to be identified with the Greek omi- 
 cron, as well in its nature as in the shape of its written 
 sign. The sound approved as its proper one in the 
 
 ii 
 
30 
 
 PEONUNCIATIOX OF LATIN. 
 
 PRONUNCIATION OF LATIN. 
 
 31 
 
 classical period seems to have been but one and simple ; 
 and there is nothing to disturb the accepted opinion, that 
 this sound was the same which is heard, first short and 
 then long, in the English word postpone. 
 
 In the practical rendering of Latin short o, those Avho 
 speak the English language need to be guarded against 
 using the short o of English not, etc., between which and 
 the simple shortened sound of o (as in English post) 
 there is a qualitative difference — a difference due, as 
 every qualitative difference must be, to a different atti- 
 tude of the parts engaged in modifying the extent and 
 shape of the room in which the voice resounds. The 
 English is in the habit of deadening the sound of all its 
 short vowels. This is done with the o of 7iot, and a pro- 
 longation of that sound will not give the a of post, but 
 rather that of frost. Of such deviation in the simple o 
 sound of the Latin we have no proof. Probably no one will 
 question that the o of ser?nd was sounded like the same 
 vowel in sermonis ; and yet there is no reason for supposing 
 the character of the vowel sound to have been otherwise 
 heard in arlor or arhoris, except a supposed necessity for 
 such a change, arising from the closure of the syllable. 
 Now this supposition is natural, to be sure, to the speaker 
 of the English language, but it cannot on that account 
 only be applied to the Latin. And if any will maintain a 
 second sound for o, they must sustain their opinion by 
 some sort of evidence drawn from the Latin itself, or from 
 some natural law of speech of universal application.* 
 
 * The in unaccented, so to speak, neglected places, as in the 
 ancient nominatives jiUos, servos, and perhaps in many other forms, 
 was no doubt often blurred ; but in thus losing its own character- 
 istic tone it merely became neutral at most. This neutrality befel 
 
 How the Greeks heard Latin o may be inferred from 
 
 *Fodav6g^ 
 
 for 
 
 Rhodanus (Polyb.) 
 
 Kevofidvoi, 
 
 (I 
 
 Cenomanni, " 
 
 HoaroviiLogj 
 
 a 
 
 Postumius, 
 
 "P^flT], 
 
 it 
 
 Roma, 
 
 KaTTt,T(i)?iLOVj 
 
 a 
 
 Capitolium, etc.* 
 
 In the forms Plato. Zeno, etc., it is reasonable to sup- 
 pose that the a had the same sound as the w in UXdrcjv, 
 etc., and yet it is not likely that the final a of Latin 
 names was commonly sounded long. 
 
 So much for the recognized regular sound of o. There 
 were irregularities in practice. 
 
 1. Grammarians state, and MSS. show (as the inscrip- 
 tions are said to do also), that in the ancient Latin, o 
 appeared written in many places where u was afterwards 
 the accepted orthography of the classical age. 
 
 Priscian (P. p. 554) says : Multa praeterea vetustissimi 
 etiam in principalibus mutabant syllabis, ut cungrum pro 
 congrum, cuncJiin pro concliin, huminem pro hominem 
 proferentes, funtes pro fontes, frundes pro frondes. 
 
 most of the Latin vowels when situated in unimportant places, so 
 that frequently they went practically for nothing : witness xincluTiif 
 sceclum, accipter (for accipiter) ; spiclum (for spiculum) ; the Greek 
 renderings AetrAof, KarAo:-, for Lentulus, Catulm ; avpra (for 
 supera)^, and when defatigat us wa,3 written defetigatus (Ter. And. 
 667), that e should probably not be taken with the true sound of e, 
 and representing thus a new sound for a, but only as an accidental 
 rendering of a neutral a. 
 
 * This comparison will have to go for what it is worth. Some, the 
 most perhaps, among us suppose the Greek o = o in English not. 
 This is not our opinion. The modern Greeks know no distinction 
 of sound between w and^o. 
 
 i 
 
 I 
 
 i 
 
 -•a 
 
 i 
 
 
 
 I 
 
 I-' 
 
 « 
 
«t«l 
 
 32 
 
 PKOXUXCIATIOX OF LATIN. 
 
 I 
 
 Unde Lucretius in Lib. Ill ; Atqiii animarum etiam, 
 
 qucBcunqiie Acheriinte profiindo : pro Acherofite .... 
 Quae tamen a junioribus repudiata sunt, quasi rustico 
 more dicta. U quoque multis Italiae populis in usu non 
 erat, sed e contrario utebantur o: unde Eomanorum 
 quoque vetustissimi in multis dictionibus loco ejus o 
 posuisse inveniuntur, poplicum pro ptibUcmn, quod testa- 
 tur Papyrianus de Orthog., poMrum pro pidchrum, col- 
 pam pro culpam dicentes, et HcrcoUm pro Herculem, et 
 maxime Digamma [r] antecedent^ hoc faciebant, ut: 
 servos pro servus, volgos pro vulgus, Davos pro Daviis. 
 
 There must have been a transition period when o thus 
 situated (chiefly after v, or before s or m, in final sylla- 
 bles) had a sound approximating u, and that sound must 
 have been heard even in the time of Cicero, in such words 
 Tis cervos, equom, servom, cBvom, rivom, nativom, etc. This 
 was retained so late for the sake of a grammatical the- 
 ory, and was subjected thus for a time, till it was relieved 
 of this duty, to the anomalous representation of the u 
 sound, which had become the prevalent one for the situa- 
 tion above indicated. 
 
 Quint. I, 7, 26. Kostri pr^ceptores servmn cervumque 
 U et litteris scripserunt, quia subjecta sibi vocalis 
 in unum sonum coalescere et confundi nequiret : nunc 
 IT gemina scribuntur ea ratione, quam reddidi. But the 
 uncertainty here indicated was early removed, and the o 
 and the u clearly separated. 
 
 There was another fluctuation of orthography in which 
 the was concerned, namely, the putting o for au. This 
 occurred in contemporary forms of the same stem, and 
 to a limited extent in all periods of the language. 
 
 PKOKUNCIATION OF LATIJS:. 
 
 33 
 
 Cato wrote, dehorito, tor dehaurito ; 
 
 The ancient comedians, lotus, " lautus ; 
 
 (See Ribbeck & Priscian.) jjlostrum, " plaUStriWl J 
 
 Cicero, ^;ZocZo, " plaiido ; 
 
 exploditur, " explauditur ; 
 clodicat and claudicat ; 
 
 while in the time of the empire also we find : 
 
 (Suet. Vit. Tib. Caes. II) Clodius and Claudius ; 
 ( " Yesp. 22) plostra " plaustra ; 
 
 Polla " Paula, and others. 
 
 It may be supposed with Corssen (I, p. 148), that this o 
 had the fullest possible sound. 
 
 To repeat, then ; the stamp of the Latin o sound was 
 that of in English note. Hence 
 
 sounded like o in English expose ; 
 d " " " ex2)osition, 
 
 (and not like o in English expositor). 
 
 Deviations. — 1. A confusion of o and u, which once 
 obtained, was disallowed by the classic Latin. 
 
 2. Already in the time of Cicero (and by him), o was 
 sometimes written for au — an inaccuracy which had its 
 seat probably in the popular speech, and which showed 
 itself in literary forms to a small extent in all times. It 
 is safe to presume that this o contained only the radical 
 sound above given, but was given as full as might be. 
 (Compare English clothes, earlier cloathes.) 
 
 
 1 
 
34 
 
 PR02^U:t^CIATI0N OF LATIN. 
 
 Marius Victorinus (P. p. 2454) says : " V literam, quo- 
 tiens enuntiamus, productis et coeuntibus labris effere- 
 mus.'^ 
 
 Professor Tyndal (on Sound, p. 200) : " For the pro- 
 duction of the sound u (English oo in hoop), I must push 
 my lips forward, so as to make the cavity of the mouth as 
 deep as possible, at the same time making the orifice of 
 the mouth small."* These two statements, so nearly 
 coincident, point to an identity of sound in Latin ti and 
 English 00 in pool, hoop. This is the traditional sound of 
 the Latin vowel, and the probable evidence within our 
 reach contributes to support the same. 
 
 The Greeks rendered the Latin u by their ov, thus : 
 
 Also, 
 
 Sallustius, 
 
 liaXovario^, 
 
 TertuUianus, 
 
 TeprovXtavog, 
 
 Lugdunum, 
 
 Aovydovvov, 
 
 Superbus, 
 
 Jlovnep(3og, 
 
 Brutus, 
 
 BpovTog, 
 
 Numitor, 
 
 Noi;/i?jT6)p, 
 
 Corbulo, 
 
 KoppovXcjv, 
 
 populus. 
 
 no}nov?LOvg, 
 
 These forms are from MSS. (of Polybius, Plutarch, and 
 Dion Cassius). It is said that inscriptions show : 
 
 * Compare Max MiUler's Science of Language, 2d Series, p. 130. 
 
 PRONUNCIATION OF LATIN. 
 
 35 
 
 for tuum, 
 " laborum, 
 " suo, 
 " singularii. 
 
 TOVOfl, 
 
 Xapopovfj,, 
 
 aovcj, 
 
 GLyyovXdpioi, 
 
 and many such ; but we can dispense with further exam- 
 ples when we have the statement of Marius Victorinus 
 (p. 2454) : " u litteram, quam nisi per ov conjunctam, 
 Graeci scribere ac pronuntiare non possunt." It is very 
 clear, therefore, that such a pronunciation as corhewlo for 
 corhulo is quite out of the question. It was entirely in 
 the power of the Greek to express this sound, but it can 
 never be supposed to have been heard in Kop,3oi;Awv. 
 
 But while the statement of Victorinus, amply supported 
 by examples, is sufficient to remove all doubt that the 
 proper sound of u w^as that of Greek ov ; the fact is that 
 there were various other ways of wanting in Greek the 
 Latin syllables containing this vowel. Some of these 
 must be taken to indicate an entire surrender of the u 
 sound in obedience to certain influences operative in the 
 Greek language. Thus Strehlke {Zeitschf. /. Vergl 
 Sprachf., I, p. 223) shows admirably how Lucius, Lucul- 
 lus, etc., were rendered,* Aeviuog, AevKovXXog, etc., in 
 obedience to a principle of popular etymology, pointing 
 to XevKog ; just as AoAoj3t'AAa^ (besides AoAo/3fc'AAaf) for 
 the sake of the supposed element doXog. 
 
 But other varieties of Greek rendering cannot be 
 accounted for in this way, and are found, moreover, to 
 correspond with analogous fluctuations in the Latin 
 orthography itself, both together pointing to certain 
 varieties of sound in the Latin w. 
 
 * Besides morD rarely the ordinary Aor/c^of, etc. 
 
 
 ] 
 
 
r^,X^^li^dUSSEffi 
 
 36 
 
 PRO NUN CI ATI ox OF LATIN. 
 
 1. These are : o for u, as seen in 
 
 
 MofiiiLog for 
 
 Mummius, 
 
 I.aTopvlvog " 
 
 Saturninus, 
 
 KaXiyoXag " 
 
 Caligula, 
 
 KopoyKaviog " 
 
 Coruncanius, 
 
 'I6/3ac " 
 
 Juba, 
 
 UoK^iog (also UovnXtog) " 
 
 Publius, etc. 
 
 Besides the widespread ancient use of o for later u in 
 Latin words, as in 
 
 polsi 
 
 for 
 
 pulsi, (Eib. Com., p. 136.) 
 
 exfociont 
 
 a 
 
 exfociunt. 
 
 
 vivom 
 
 a 
 
 vivum, (Ter.) 
 
 
 Fohius 
 
 a 
 
 Fulvius, 
 
 
 Hecoba 
 
 (( 
 
 Hecuba, ^ 
 
 
 probaveront 
 
 a 
 
 probaverunt, > 
 
 . (Quint. I, 4, 16.) 
 
 dederont 
 
 a 
 
 dederunt, j 
 
 - 
 
 aequom 
 
 a 
 
 aequum, "j 
 
 
 quom 
 
 
 quum, > 
 
 • (Ter.) 
 
 quoi 
 
 a 
 
 cui. J 
 
 
 A similar orthography was practiced to a limited 
 extent also in classical times. It is said * that the best 
 MSS. not only of Plant, and Lucret., but also of Virgil 
 and Cicero have such forms as : 
 
 PRONUNCIATION OF LATIN. 
 
 37 
 
 \ 
 
 volt. 
 
 volnus. 
 
 voltis. 
 
 avolsa. 
 
 volgus,- 
 
 revolsum, 
 
 volpes, 
 
 Voltumus, etc., 
 
 * Coresen's Aussprache, 1, 260. 
 
 while MSS. of Livy have promuntorium, and those of 
 Ovid and Pliny show both coralium and curalium, (Met 
 IV, 750.) 
 
 Thus in some cases even in the classical age (chiefly 
 before liquids, as appears in the above examples), there 
 must have been a sound given to u approximating to the 
 0, perhaps analogous to that which is heard for o in Eng- 
 lish front and London. But the tendency, in the best 
 period of the language, was to distinguish and purify 
 the u ; and when the word avolsa was written avulsa, 
 we must suppose that the u was sounded as in English 
 full {L e., its own sound). 
 
 2. A second impurity of the Latin w was a tone like 
 that of Greek v [alluded to apparently by Velius Long., 
 p. 2215, from Verr. Flac], heard by the Greeks, at least 
 sometimes, in : 
 
 Eomulus, which appears as 'Pw/zvAof, 
 Marullus, « « " MdpvXXog, 
 
 Tullius " « « TvXXiog, 
 
 Capua « « " KaTTVT}, 
 
 and Cures " " " Kvpeig. 
 
 This must have been the half-way sound spoken of by 
 Quintilian (I, 4, 8), when he says : medius est quidam TJ 
 et I literae sonus; non enim sic optimum dicimus ut 
 opimwn." In optimum, therefore, even after the change 
 from the older orthography of optumum, was heard this 
 middle sound, not quite u, not quite i, i, e., without 
 doubt the French u, or German il. This must have been 
 the sound of u in such words as : 
 
 I 
 
J, 
 i 
 
 38 
 
 PRONUNCIATION OF LATIN. 
 
 sacrifuco, 
 
 magnuficus, 
 
 signufex (signuficem),' 
 
 carnufex, 
 
 lubet, 
 
 lacruma, 
 
 manufestus, 
 
 maxume, 
 
 So also probably in 
 
 Tolumus, 
 nolumus, 
 
 I for some time I 
 before they were 
 I written, 
 
 saerifico, 
 Imagnificus, 
 signifex, 
 carnifex, 
 libet, 
 lacrima, 
 manifestus, 
 maxime. 
 
 sumus, 
 emolumentum, 
 
 and in many other words, which like 
 
 inclutus, and inclytus, 
 
 obstupui, « obstipui, (Ter.) 
 
 Brundusium " Brundisium, 
 
 remained of uncertain orthography during the classical 
 period, (when i had become established as the regular 
 form in carnifex, libet, mstimo, victima, etc., etc.). 
 
 In these words the full sound * of u (besides that form 
 of writing) was antique, and its remains in Cicero's time 
 were characterized by that author as rustic. The more 
 refined and approved sound was, however, not quite that 
 of ^, as stated by Velius Longus (P. p. 2216); while 
 grammarians directed it to be nevertheless so written ; 
 and cite C. J. Caesar as authority. 
 
 Mar. Victor. (P. p. 2465) : "voces istas (i. e. proximum, 
 etc.) per i scribite." lb.—" C. Caesar per i scripsit ut 
 
 * Atque illis (antiquis) fere placuisse per u talia scribere et enun- 
 tiare. Vel. Long. 
 
 
 PRONUNCIATION OF LATIN. 
 
 39 
 
 apparet ex titulis ipsius." (Cf. Cassiodorus ap. P. p. 
 2284.) 
 
 Agnseus Cornutus (P. p. 2284) : Lacrumce an lacrimcB; 
 maxumus an maximus, et si quae similia sunt scribi 
 debeant, quaesitum est. Terentius Varro tradidit, 
 Csesarem per i ejus modi verba solitum esse enuntiare 
 et scribere. 
 
 [To represent this half-way sound was the object of 
 one of the three characters ( h ) which the Emperor 
 Claudius attempted to add to the Latin alphabet. Vid. 
 Tac. Ann. XI, c. 13, and Suet, in Claud, c. 41, and the 
 Grammarians.] 
 
 RECAPITULATION. 
 
 I. The proper sound of U, 
 
 as in Brutus, Bructeri, bule, > ^ ^^^^ ^^ .^^^^^^ 
 Gr. BpovTog, BpovKrepoL, povXrj,) 
 
 The proper sound of it = English u in picU. 
 
 II. In classical times there were a few instances, ap- 
 parently accidental, in which syllables written with u had 
 something of the o sound. To pronounce o for u after 
 the ancient style, as dederont for dederunt, mquom for 
 cequum, was thought inelegant in the time of Cicero. 
 Yet the short u, especially in a final syllable before s and 
 m, often had a neutral sound easily exchangeable with the 
 neutral sound of o, 
 
 III. U sometimes (but more frequently i) is written 
 to answer to a sound like the French w. Thus, u in Latin 
 incluta, like u in French lutter» 
 
, iii*«as«i»»M. 
 
 40 
 
 PBOKUNCIATIOK OF LATIN. 
 
 
 CONSONANT "V" (SEMI-VO WEL), VA U. 
 
 Withhold the intonation from the vowel u, and its 
 function is reduced to that of a consonantal check, equal 
 to the English lo, which, by the slightest alteration, may 
 be hardened to the adjacent consonant v. This change 
 from Yowel to consonant passed upon the Latin u when 
 it was followed in the same syllable by a vowel sound. 
 And the nature or power of the Latin v consonant was 
 just that of the English v, in which case it was fully a 
 consonant, or it only approached this, and retaining 
 something, but not all, of its original vowel character, 
 was equivalent to the English zv. Accordingly, the evi- 
 dence which we have to adduce points to a normal sound 
 for this consonant, which is a medium between English 
 V and w. It is soft like to when, after s, g, and q, in the 
 same syllable, it is followed by a vowel ; hard like v in 
 other situations. Thus, suetus, sanguis, qidsquam, 
 sounded swetus, sangivis, qivisqivam, and seruus, imlgus, 
 servus, vulgus.^ 
 
 In the way of evidence we remark : 
 
 1st. That this u is pointedly and most expressly dis- 
 tinguished by the grammarians from the u vowel ; as by 
 Nigidius (ap. Gell. XIX, 14, 6): " Fin Valerius, Volu- 
 sius, etc., is not a vowel at all." Quintilian (I, 7, 26) 
 says that the writing ceruum with the sign which belongs 
 to the vowel u, does not represent the sound that is 
 heard. Again (I, 4), in his ''seruus et uulgus iEolicum 
 digammon desideratur.'^ That is, "a suitable representa- 
 
 * See Appendix, Note A. 
 
 !l1i 
 
 PRONUNCIATION OF LATIN. 
 
 41 
 
 tive of the sound of the first u in seruus, etc., would be 
 made by a character like that of the (lost) ^olic f." 
 Accordingly the Latin grammarians very generally speak 
 of the consonant u by the name Digamma, as Agnaeus 
 Cornutus (P. p. 2282) : " Nos hodie V literam in duarum 
 literarum potestatem coegimus ; nam modo pro Digamma 
 scribitur, modo pro Vocali." Velius Longus (P. p. 2223) : 
 •" V literam Digamma esse— debemus advertere— in eo, 
 quod est QVIS." See also Mar. Victorin. (P. p. 2461).* 
 If we knew precisely and independently the sound here 
 contemplated as that of the Digamma, our inquiry touch- 
 ing the sound of u consonant, would now be satisfied. 
 But our knowledge of the Digamma's sound is conditioned 
 by the very question upon which we are now engaged. 
 It is necessary, therefore, to proceed, and to our first ob- 
 servation — that the u tvas truly a consonant— ^Q add a 
 second, viz. : 
 
 2d. That even wimi a consonant the u was always felt 
 to have such intimate relations to the vowel u that they 
 each respectively easily passed into the place of the other, 
 as when for 
 
 a 
 
 tenuior, 
 quattu-or, 
 extenuantur, " 
 genua, " 
 
 and conversely for 
 
 silva, 
 
 we find tenvior,f 
 
 quat-tuor (quattvor), 
 
 extenvantur, 
 
 genva. 
 
 a 
 
 a 
 
 a 
 
 i( 
 
 a 
 
 silua,! etc. 
 
 * Also p. 2463. 
 
 f Lachman on Lucret. p. 192-3, and Corssen II, p. 167. 
 X In ancient Latin it would seem that a difference between the 
 vowel and the consonant u was scarcely appreciated, if we will 
 
 t 
 
 t 
 
 
, ■'ne^m^^^M 
 
 42 
 
 PRONUNCIATION OF LATIN. 
 
 (( 
 
 it 
 
 Destroy the connection of v with following vowel in 
 the same syllable, and v immediately reverts to u, thus : 
 
 From ancient plovo comes finally pluo ; 
 
 " " flovo " " fluo; 
 
 From the root gavicl, when i falls out, we have gaudeo ; 
 
 audeo ; 
 
 nauta ; 
 
 fautum ; 
 
 cautum ; 
 
 lautum. 
 
 a 
 
 With 
 
 avid, " 
 
 navita, " 
 faveo, instead of favitum, 
 caveo, " cavitum, 
 
 lavo, with falling out of i, 
 
 « 
 
 tc 
 
 u 
 
 u 
 
 6t 
 
 And if any think it likely that the u of laiitum, etc., 
 retains the consonantal power of the same u when fol- 
 lowed by a vowel (like modern Greek avrog, pronounced 
 aftos), then to be considered is the further form lotum,* 
 In the same way we get Opiter, for Aupiter, from avi- 
 pater.f 
 
 Seeing then, 1st, that u was certainly a consonant, and 
 as such, therefore, essentially distinct from u vowel ; and 
 2d, that this consonant was at the smallest remove from 
 the vowel u, the natural probability is in favor of the 
 English tu as its sound. 
 
 Compare now the Greek equivalents : 
 
 OvaKnaiovg, for Vaccaeos, 
 lepovihog, " Servilius, 
 
 judge by the words of Scaurus {De Orthog., P. p. 2251) : antiqui — 
 — ignorantes earn {u) praepositum Vocali, consonantis vice fungi 
 et poni pro ea litera quae sit/. 
 
 * Cicero de Divinatione II, 40, supposes cauneas intelligible for 
 cave ne eas. 
 
 f And vid. Prise. P. p. 560 : Non potest Vau, id est Digamma, in 
 fine svUabfD inveniri. 
 
 PRONUNCIATION OF LATIN. 
 
 43 
 
 OvTjioif 
 
 for 
 
 Veii, 
 
 ^EXovTjTiay 
 
 (( 
 
 Helvetia, 
 
 Kovadoi, 
 
 <( 
 
 Quadi. 
 
 This orthography of the Greek favors the opinion that 
 the Greeks heard just our w sound in the words above 
 given.* But the passage from w to v is short and easy, 
 and there is reason .to believe that the latter came to be, 
 and in the classic age was, nearer the actual sound of u 
 consonant in the majority of cases, i. e., probably every- 
 where except in the combination qu, gu, su (of which 
 more particularly below). For this opinion there is sup- 
 port to be found in the general tendencies of the Latin 
 speech ; but even to glance at this would carry us too far, 
 and we will adduce here only : 
 
 1st. The circumstance that, besides the spelling of ov, 
 the Greeks employed also /3 to represent Latin u conso- 
 nant, thus : 
 
 Brjtoi, for Veii ; 
 
 (^XdfiLog, as well as (P^aomog, " Flavins, 
 'E?il3rjTia, " Helvetia, etc., 
 
 and these forms were in use at the same time with the 
 others in ov, 
 
 2d. The statement of the grammarian Velius Longus 
 (P. p. 2223): "Vliteram Digamma esse interdum, non 
 tantum in his (vocibus) debemus animadvertere, in qui- 
 bus sonat cum dliqua aspiratione, ut in Vahnte et Vitulo, 
 etprimitivo, et Genitivo, sed etiam in his quibus confusa 
 haec litera est, in eo quod est Quis. 
 
 * Ov is also the modem Greek equivalent for English «r, as in 
 Ovil'kiy^riiv for Wellington, etc. 
 
 
44 
 
 PRONUKCIATIOK OF LATIN. 
 
 I 
 
 Now in view of all that we have heretofore seen of the 
 nature of this letter u, the natural conclusion (it seems 
 not too much to say), the irresistible conclusion from 
 such language is, that Velius Longus understood by the 
 u, ^* sounded with an aspiration,^' the sound of English v, 
 as Valc7ite ; while for that sound of it in which he says it 
 was ''combined, or confused {confusa)'' the English w 
 answers for it exactly, as Qwis. 
 
 That the w sound was that heard in u after g, s, and q, 
 seems to have been certainly the opinion of Priscian, who 
 says (Lib. I) : Est, quando amittit V yim literae tam 
 vocalis quam consonantis {i. e., becomes a sort of half 
 w^ay thing between the two), ut cum inter Q et aliam 
 vocalem ponitur . . . . uti : QVISQVAM. Hoc idem ple- 
 rumque patitur etiam inter g et aliquam vocalem, ut : 
 sanguis, liiigua, 8 quoque antecedente u, et sequente a 
 vel e hoc idem fit, ut : suadeo, suavis, suesco, suetus. 
 
 It will be seen that Priscian here makes no distinction 
 w^hatever as to the sound of u in gu-, su-, qu-. 
 
 It has been frequently affirmed * in modern times that 
 the u in qu was silent in the classical Latin, and that 
 these two letters together represented no other sound than 
 that of the guttural tenuis h ; thus ki, kae, kod, kis, etc., 
 instead of kwi, kwae, etc., for qui, quae, etc. There is 
 certainly some show of ground for this opinion, and since 
 that is true, we may not perhaps (even upon the proof 
 we have brought), assume the matter to be entirely set- 
 tled, until an Investigation is undertaken more extended 
 and particular than is now possible to us. Such an 
 
 * See the bold statement made by J. F. Richardson, in Roman 
 Orthoepy, p. 43 and after. 
 
 PRONUNCIATION OF LATIN 
 
 45 
 
 
 investigation will certainly make it evident that in a 
 number of particular cases the u after q was not heard,* 
 in some regularly, as quum {cum), quotidie (cotidie), and 
 others: in some generally, as equus {ecus?), coquits\ 
 {cocus), and others: in some occasionally, as quoque \ 
 (sounded kol^e), and others. Other reasons, moreover, 
 and reasons too of apparent force, have been given in 
 favor of the opinion that the dropping of the u element 
 was the rule in qu. But our belief is that the superior 
 weight of evidence lies decidedly on the other side. We 
 shall have to content ourselves here w^th a few of the 
 many very clear statements of grammarians. 
 
 Vel. Long. (P. p. 2223) : " V literam Digamma esse — 
 debemus advertere — in eo, quod est QVIS." 
 
 Quiutilian XII, 10, § 30 : " Duras et ilia (sc. Q) sylla- 
 bas facit, quas ad conjungendas demum subjectas 
 sibi vocales est utilis, alias supervacua, ut equos liac 
 ct equum scribimus; cum etiam ipsaB hae vocales 
 {i. e., uo and uu) duae efficiant sonum, qualis apud 
 GrcBcos nullus est, ideoque scrihi illorum litteris non 
 potest.^' But what easier than EKOig, tKovfi ? 
 
 Scaurus (P. p. 2253) : " Q litera aequo retenta est, 
 
 quia cum ilia V litera conspirat, quoties consonantis 
 loco ponitur, id est, pro vau litera, ut: QVIS, 
 QVALIS." 
 
 * It ought to be considered that u was not unfrequently dropped 
 in sound after other consonants also, as after s, g, and t Cf. 
 saxium for suavium, urgeo for urgueo, and the old Latin sam for 
 siiam, Us for tnis, etc. Vid. Schleicher, Zeitsch. f. Vergl. Sprachf., 
 II, 377. 
 
 f See the pun of Cicero rcpoiied bj Quintilian I, 0, 3, 47. • 
 
I 
 
 4G PIIOXUXCI ATIOX OF LATIX. 
 
 Marius Victorinus (P. p. 2461) : " !N'os vero, qui non 
 habemus hujus vocis (i. e., Digamma) — notam, in 
 ejus locum, quoties una vocalis, pluresve junctae 
 
 unam syllabam faciunt, substituimus V literam 
 
 At cum (V) praeponitur vocali, tunc accipitur pro 
 consonante, ut est ANGVIS, EXTINGVIT, LIN- 
 GVA, PELVIS." 
 
 We are ready to admit that in qu there was a some- 
 what closer union (" fusion ") of the two elements than 
 was the case in gu, or su. But further, there is a state- 
 ment of Priscian, quoted by Corssen (Aussp. I, p. 37), 
 which indicates his belief that the w of qu becomes more 
 or less influenced (assimilated) by the following vowel. 
 It may be taken for what it is worth : u autem quamvis 
 contractum, eundem tamen [hoc est y] sonum habet inter 
 q Qt c vel i yel ce diphthongum positum, ut " que, qum^^ 
 nee non inter g et easdem vocales, cum in una syllaba sic 
 invenitur, ut 'pingue, sanguis, lingucB^ This places the 
 u of qui, quae, etc., in precisely the same category with 
 the u of pingue, linguae, etc., and further attributes to 
 the u, when followed by the i and e sounds, a character 
 somewhat accommodated to the same : that is, the u of qui 
 and of lingucB are here contemplated as having a sound 
 like u in the French etui, while before a and o (quo, 
 linguam) the sound would be that of French ou in 
 Edouard, 
 
 In the following extract from Q. Terent. Scaurus (ap. 
 P. p. 2261) there is more than we have space to develop. 
 We quote it for its bearing upon the points already 
 made : 
 
 Quis quidam per cuis scribunt, quoniam supervacuam 
 
 <h* 
 
 r R X ri: CI A T 1 N or l a t i x. 
 
 47 
 
 esse Q literam putent ; sed nos cum ilia {i. e. Q) V literam 
 et S [^. e. su, as in suetus], quando tertia ab ea vocalis 
 ponitur, consentire jam demonstravimus ; C autem in 
 dativo ponemus ut sit differentia, cui et Qui, id est dativi 
 et vocativi singularis ctt. 
 
 Beda, de Orthogr., ap. P. p. 2332 : Coquus, coqui, prima 
 syllaba per C, secunda per q scribenda est [as in the 
 above quotation, q is supposed to involve hy implica- 
 tion the after sound o/u] ; non enim dicimus Quo- 
 QUERE, sed CoQUERE, Of. Aul. Gell. X, 11, § 9. 
 
 It remains to compare the Greek equivalents for Qu ; 
 among which we find : 
 
 KovaSoc 
 
 for 
 
 Quadi, 
 
 TopKovarog 
 
 a 
 
 Torquatus, 
 
 ^rjKovavoL 
 
 a 
 
 Sequani, 
 
 Koviplvog 
 
 i( 
 
 Quirinus, 
 
 d^pEfcovivreg 
 
 66 
 
 obsequentes ; 
 
 also, 
 
 
 
 KoivTog 
 
 for 
 
 Quintus, 
 
 Koadoi 
 
 66 
 
 Quadi, 
 
 ItTJKOaVOL 
 
 66 
 
 Sequani ; 
 
 and, before ^, 
 
 
 
 KvpXvog 
 
 for 
 
 Quirinus, 
 
 TapKvvia 
 
 66 
 
 Tarquinia, 
 
 'AKvXag 
 
 66 
 
 Aquila, 
 
 Kvpireg 
 
 66 
 
 Quirites. 
 
 ^p 
 
 All these point directly to the sound of English lo, for 
 that of u in qu, except the last case, viz : kv for qui : 
 
48 
 
 PKONCNCIATION OF LATIN. 
 
 PRONUNCIATION OF LATIN. 
 
 49 
 
 and this seems to g.ve evidence of an extreme attenuation 
 of the u of qu when followed by i. If KvpXv., alone 
 were found this would indicate Kyrlnus as the sound" 
 Qumnus; but when we find in the same author (Strabo), 
 both Kvp,v,oc and Kmjplvo, (Oorssen's Aussp., I, p. 37) we 
 are forced even here to strike a mean, and to a sume Me 
 
 hat of French uvacuir. The fairest inference, then, 
 
 which can be drawn from this fluctuation of Greek ren 
 
 dermgs, is that practically the force of u in qu wa. often 
 
 ost be ore leaving its trace only in the Ltn^ction of 
 
 the following . towards the u sound; but that often also 
 
 efinrdrth! r " "^ "'^*"^' - ^°-^' —hi: 
 
 refaned by the mfluence and in the direction of the sub- 
 sequent vowel. And here, therefore, so far as this Z 
 dence is concerned, we shall have to suppose an irregu- 
 
 can L /™'T''*"" ^"'"» ^-ery narrow limits which 
 can no longer be precisely ascertained. For our own 
 practice there is no other resort than the employment of 
 the normal sound. ^ 
 
 that^in Win t '"'^ '" '"° '^^' ''''''''''' ^ -f-' 
 that in Latin the consonant V sounded like English V 
 
 when It began a word or a syllable (unless in combLtion 
 
 with preceding ., ^, or q). When, after ., ^, and , i^ 
 
 began a syllable, the intonation of the vowe « was m 
 
 Ja ly supplied to it, yielding a sound like EngSh'"' 
 
 After . and ^, the u was sometimes lost ; and after Tth" 
 
 ex^ptir :r Z"'"*^""^ *'^ ^^^^' ^"'>-^''' -«' « 
 
 whTch the I ""''' *'' P"^*'^*^'^'- "-*--« in 
 Id tfi d.^ Their'^^"' '-'''''' '^^^ '' -^^^-'^y 
 
 Validus, seruus, uulgus, sounded Validus, servus, vulgus 
 
 (comp. Eng. Valid), 
 Suavis, suesco, " Swavis, sivesco 
 
 (comp. Eng. Sweet). 
 Ungwentum, lingiva 
 (comp. Eng. Unguent), 
 Questio, relinquo, quamquam, " Qwestio, relinqwo, qwam- 
 
 [qwam (comp. Eng. Question), 
 
 Unguentum, lingua, 
 
 a 
 
 During the classical age the vowel Y was not theo- 
 retically (in strictness not even actually) a member of 
 the Latin alphabet. Cicero (Nat. Deor., II, c. 37) admits 
 twenty-one letters only in the Roman list. 
 
 The poet Attius made no use at all of Y in his writ- 
 ings, according to the testimony of Marius Victorinus 
 (p. 2456) : Accius — nee z literam nee y in libro suo 
 retulit. Shortly after the time of Attius, however, the 
 foreign sign Avas commonly adopted for the more perfect 
 writing of foreign words. Cicero alludes to this practice 
 as modern in his day. Orat, c. 48 : Burrum, semper 
 
 Ennius, nunquam Pyrrhum : Bruges non Phryges 
 
 Nee enim (antiqui) Graecam literam adhibebant; nunc 
 autem etiam duas. Yet the Y was not admitted to a 
 place in Latin words, and Quintilian (XII, 10, 27) still 
 treats it expressly as a foreign element : . . . . incundis- 
 simas ex Graecis litteras non hahemus, vocalem alteram 
 alteram consonantem .... ut in Epliyris et Zephyris, 
 
 Accordingly, in a systematic treatment of Latin letters 
 3 
 
 t\ 
 
 
50 
 
 PRONUNCIATION OF LATIN. 
 
 the Y can claim no place. Still, for practical purposes, 
 we require to know how the Romans rendered that ele- 
 ment of Greek words, employed by them, which they 
 represented by this sign. 
 
 In order to this, it will be enough to present the fol- 
 lowing brief considerations. 
 
 Latin Y, it must be repeated, was not merely some- 
 thino- nice the Greek T, but was understood, was designed, 
 to represent that very sound itself. (See Quint. I. I.) 
 
 Now Greek T was sometimes rendered into Latin by 
 TJ: (Bruges, Burrus, Eurudica), It was also at the 
 same time (later far oftener) represented by I : (Stigio 
 for "Lrvyiid, Sisipus for ^iav(t)og, etc.). It would there- 
 fore seem to have had a sound between that of Latin IT 
 and Latin I. Now we know that a middle, uncertain 
 sound of this sort was very familiar to the Latin speech ; 
 and the final proof that the Y represented precisely or 
 nearly precisely that sound is found in direct statements 
 of gi'ammarians to that eifect, as thus : 
 
 Mar. Victor. (P. p. 2465) : Sunt qui inter u quoque et i 
 literas supputant deesse nobis voces (?), sed pinguius 
 quam i, exilius quam u; sed (pace eorum dixerim) non 
 vident y literam desiderari ; .... Priscian, speaking of 
 the same sound, upon the testimony of Donatus, says 
 (P. p. 539), sonum y graecae videtur habere. An interest- 
 ing confirmation of the same is found in certain forms 
 reported from inscriptions of the time of the Emperor 
 Claudius, which show T represented by the sign invented 
 by that Emperor for the sound in question : as, Mg V pti, 
 Che nus for ^gypti, cycnus, and others. 
 
 There can be no doubt, then, that the souud given to 
 
 PRONUNCIATION OF LATIN. 
 
 51 
 
 Y by the Romans was between u and i, that is, the sound 
 of French u or German u — the German ii more particu- 
 larly perhaps, since that is more subject to be sounded 
 like pure I, which was the most frequent corruption of Y 
 in Latin. 
 
 DIPHTHONGS. 
 
 A diphthong is the sound resulting from an effort 
 to pronounce two vowels, the one after the other, at one 
 breath. The sound, therefore, of a diphthong is a unit, 
 but begins while the organs of the vocal tube are set for 
 the sound of one vowel, and does not end until after 
 those organs have assumed the attitude necessary for 
 rendering another. And further, as meanwhile the breath 
 must not be suspended or interrupted, the resulting 
 sound will also necessarily be modified by the intermediate 
 transitory conformation of the vocal tube during the 
 change. 
 
 This is the sense in which it is necessary to receive the 
 old definition of diphthong, as given e, g. by Terent. 
 Maurus (P. p. 2392) : 
 
 " Diphthongos eas 
 
 Graeci dicunt magistri, quod duae junctaB simul 
 
 Syllabam sonant in unam." 
 
 (Cf. Priscian, P. p. 561.) 
 
 Upon the failure of any of the conditions named, the 
 diphthong also essentially fails ; and we may get in its 
 stead, the sound of a vowel and a consonant, as aj (pro- 
 
r 
 
 h% 
 
 PRONUNCIATION OF LATIN. 
 
 PRONUNCIATION OF LATIN. 
 
 53 
 
 nounced ay) for ai, or two vowels, as ai (pronounced a-ee) 
 for -ai {auldi), or one long vowel, as Pretor for PrcBtor, 
 usus for oisus. 
 
 The Latin language was once very rich in diphthongs, 
 but gradually surrendered them by yielding to the im- 
 perfections which have just been pointed out ; until the 
 only diphthongs recognized by ancient grammarians as 
 heard in the classical age were four, viz. : cb, au, eu, and ce. 
 Some admit ei, but allow it to be a diphthong only in a 
 very few cases [" ista rarior Diphthongus EI ;" Ter. 
 Maur., p. 2393], while others distinctly reject it, as 
 Diomedes : " Ex his Diphthongus EI ; cum apud veteres 
 frequentaretur, usu posteritatis explosa est." And fur- 
 thermore, we shall find good reason to distrust the 
 integrity of some of the admitted four. The most of 
 them, indeed, nearly succumbed to a corruption, which 
 none of them entirely escaped. There are fluctuations 
 here, which fall within the classic period, and which do 
 not square with that theory of beautiful uniformity and 
 consistency which some have been satisfied to assume for 
 the Latin pronunciation. This must now be made to 
 appear by a particular examination. But first, a few of 
 the statements of grammarians, as to the number and 
 kind of diphthongs in the classical Latin. 
 
 Terent. Maurus (P. p. 2392) : 
 
 " Porro Diphthongos Latini quatuor fixas habent. 
 Quatuor ideo separavi, quinta quod sit rarior." 
 
 Priscianus (P. p. 561) : Sunt igitur vocales praepositivae 
 aliis vocalibus subsequentibus in eisdem syllabis : a, e, 
 oj subjunctivae : e, u, ut cb, au, eu, ce. /quoque apud 
 
 antiques post e ponebatur, et ei Dipthongum facie- 
 bat, quam pro omni i longa scribebant more antique 
 
 Grsecorum Sunt igitur Diphthongi, quibus 
 
 nunc utimur, quatuor. 
 
 Diomed. (P. p. 422) : Cum .... du89 vocales jungun- 
 tur, ut (B, au, eu, ce, ei, yi. Ex his Diphthongus ei ; 
 cum apud veteres frequentaretur, usu posteritatis 
 explosa est. Item yi graeca potius, quam latina est. 
 
 The use of ei for I (as mentioned by Priscian), was 
 condemned already in Cicero's time by Nigidius, 
 ap. Aul. Gell. N. A., XIX, 14, 8 : Graecos non tantas 
 inscitiaG arcesso, qui ov ex o et v scripserunt, quantae 
 nostri fuerunt, qui {e)i ex e et i: illud enim inopia 
 fecerunt, hoc nulla re subacti. 
 
 Upon consultation of the organs of speech, it seems 
 likely that the sound of cb would lie between that of the 
 diphthong ai and that of one of the simple elements a 
 or e. Accordingly, in that well ascertained progression 
 which the Latin made in the diminution of its vowel 
 sounds, we find this regular descent: Caisar, Ccesar, 
 Cesar ; praifedus, prcefectus, prefecius ; quaistor, qucedor, 
 questor. On the testimony of those who have access to 
 the careful reports which have been made of Latin 
 inscriptions, we know that forms like these belong 
 respectively to the ante-classic, the classic, and the post- 
 
r 
 
 ^4 
 
 PRONUNCIATION OF LATIN. 
 
 PRONUNCIATION OF LATIN. 
 
 55 
 
 classic periods.* The first transition, that of ai to cb, is 
 in entire conformity with the statements of the ancient 
 grammarians, who represent the change as so far com- 
 plete in the cultivated age of Latin literature that every 
 instance of ai employed in that period was to be regarded 
 merely as a vestige of antiquity. 
 
 Quint. I, 7, § 18 : yH syllabam, cuius secundam nunc 
 E litteram ponimus, varie per ^ et / efferebant ; qui- 
 dam semper ut Gra}ci, quidam singulariter tantum, 
 cum in dativum vel genitivum casum incidissent, 
 unde 'pidai vesHs et aquai Vergilius amantissimus 
 vetustatis carminibus inseruit. In iisdem plurali f 
 numero E utebantur, hi Syll(B, Galhm. 
 
 But the further transition, that namely of cb into e 
 is equally manifest from inscriptions on which are found : 
 from the first century after Christ, Lelio for Lwlio, prime 
 for primce (genitive singular) ; from the second century, 
 condite (dative singular) ; from the third century, aque, 
 patrie, for aquce, etc. (genitive singular) ; from the fourth 
 century, que for qum (nominative singular), and many 
 others. Of course the change of sound which preceded 
 these changes in orthography must have been more or 
 less gradual, and for a time it may have been hard for 
 the ear to decide whether the sound heard was one which 
 would be more truly represented by m or by e. Such a 
 complete uncertainty is shown by inscriptions of the 
 third century after Christ, on which are found such 
 remarkable forms written together as : 
 
 * See Corssen's Aussp , I, p. 178. 
 
 f Corssen shows from inscriptions that or was frequent in the 
 plural before it was common in the singular, for ai. 
 
 Dative. 
 bonae femine, 
 Impiae Juste, 
 Fructuose filise, 
 
 As well also as the e alone, as : 
 
 Dative. 
 Julie felicissime, 
 Tulliane Marcelle, 
 mee pudicissime, 
 
 Genitive. 
 mire sapientiae, 
 vitae nostre, 
 Coccejae Severe, 
 
 Genitive. 
 Bancte memorie, 
 vite sue, 
 benignissime femine. 
 
 How thorough was, in later times, the prevalence of 
 the e sound in place of the Latin m, scarcely need be 
 mentioned ; and no more convincing proof of it can be 
 given than the frequent occurrence in the copied MSS. 
 of ancient authors which have reached us of a mistake 
 by which ce is written where e properly belongs ; as, e. g., 
 sjjrwtorum for spretorum,* 
 
 The principal question for us, therefore, is : when did 
 that sound which in classical Latin is represented by m cease 
 to be spoken like ai, and when did it begin to be undis- 
 tinguishable from the sound of e 9 The most satisfactory 
 of the approximate answers possible to this question, will 
 be found by consulting the varying orthography of the 
 monumental records of the language according to its 
 different periods. Those records are beyond our reach, 
 but all who will consult Corssen's elaborate comparison 
 of the forms which he has drawn from that instructive 
 source, will be ready to accept his conclusion, that the 
 
 * So in the Cd. Puteanus (eighth century) of Livy, XXI, 63. 
 Vid. Fabri ad loc, cf. aesculus, esculus, caella, cella, cena, caena, 
 Cffispes, cespes, ssBCulum, seculum. 
 
 I- 
 
 ! I 
 
56 
 
 PKOXUNCIATIOI^ OF LATIN. 
 
 if 
 
 testimony of inscriptions is about the following: "As 
 early as the Syrian war (say B.C. 190), the sound ai was 
 giving way to that of ce, and this sound prevailed uni- \ 
 versally after about the time of the Gracchi (say B.C. 130). 
 But already in ancient times (b (at least by the vulgar) 
 was frequently sounded like e, and from the earliest 
 times of the Empire this e for cb was heard in the mouths 
 of the cultivated; and, gaining in use and favor, hy 
 about the third century a.d. this was the exclusive sound 
 of that sign" 
 
 The first part of this testimony, I e., the abandonment 
 of the sound as well as the form ai before the classical 
 age, is affirmed also, directly and indirectly, by Quintilian 
 and the grammarians. Thus Quintilian (as we have seen 
 above) says: "The syllable which we now make m they 
 (/. e., the ancients) used to pronounce (N.B., not only 
 write !) «i— some invariably, others only in the genitive 
 and dative singular." * And Virgil's use of pictai, aulai, 
 he ascribes to the Poet's love for the antique. Compare 
 also Priscian, P. p. 728.f 
 
 The sound of iv, therefore, was 7iot that of ai. But 
 before the bloom of the Latin literature was passed, it 
 
 * This, in order to distinguish the singular forms in (b (ai) from 
 the nominative plural, as appears also in a similar but slightly dif- 
 ferent rule laid down by Nigidius (ap. Gell. XIII, 26). The 
 inscriptions, however, show that these rules were not observed in 
 practice. 
 
 t In the face of these statements, and in spite of all the evidence 
 of a changed orthography, Prof, Richardson (Roman Ortkoepi/ 
 N. Y., 1859) lays down the law,-JS (= AI) sounds like ay, the 
 English adverb of affirmation." Will he render Virgil's ^cbcb 
 after this fashion? (Vid. ^neid. III, 386.) And with his gu = k, 
 will he read Infemike lacus Ayayayie insula \\\xkayf 
 
 PKOKUNCIATION OF LATIN. 
 
 57 
 
 was to a very large extent confounded with the e sound, 
 with which it was soon after entirely identified. That in 
 the early classic period, however, there was a separate 
 sound for or, at least in the city of Kome, may be seen 
 from Varro de L. L., VII, 96: "In pluribus verbis A 
 ante E alii ponunt, alii non . . . . ac rustic! Pappum 
 Mesium non Mcesium" Again, Lib. 4, c. 9 : " In latino 
 rure Hedus, quod in Urbe, ut in multis, A addito, 
 H^DUS. It is important to notice the terms of these 
 statements. When taken together with what we know 
 of the history of this diphthong, they seem to point us to 
 the characteristic sound of which we are in search. This 
 was the sound which very soon was e in everybody's 
 mouth ; but now (in Varro's time), at least with the city 
 people, it was e " with an a sound before it" * The two 
 elements are not spoken of as though they were of equal 
 importance. The e evidently has the most weight in the 
 mind of the writer. The e being already there, as it 
 were, " the a is put in before it by some." Haedus is 
 Hedus " with an a added." It can hardly be doubted 
 that the sound so described was that of ae' and not de: 
 ae could hardly be distinguished in practice from the 
 old ai, while de' is on the high road to e — just what the 
 history of the sound demands. For the earlier part of 
 the classical period, therefore, we infer that the sound of 
 (B was that of ai in French raison, while before the end 
 of the classical period, it is certain that the fine distinc- 
 tion between that sound and the sound of the simple 
 vowel e was to a great extent ignored, and soon after 
 became extinct, f 
 
 * See Appendix, Note B. 
 
 f See Appendix, Note C. 
 
 f ■ 
 r 
 
 
 I* 
 
58 
 
 PBONUl^CIATION OF LATIN. 
 
 Ilii 
 
 AV, the diphthong fullest of tone, was the only one 
 of the Latin diphthongs which maintained its integrity 
 throughout the period when good Latin was spoken. 
 The natural sound of a combination of a and w, if the 
 first element be given with stress, is just that of English 
 ow in now, or ou in flour. And the records of the lan- 
 guage, the comparison of the Greek, the tradition of 
 scholars, and the absence of important adverse evidence 
 all conspire to confirm the probability of this as the true 
 sound of au, 
 
 1. The written sign AV, is said to be very abundantly 
 found in Latin inscriptions, from the earliest to the latest 
 period. 
 
 2. The Greek rendering of au may be seen in KXavdtog, 
 fPavoTvXog (Strab.), KvXipKLoi (Latin Aulerci) ; while the 
 Latin renders the Greek av by au in Aulis, auloedus, 
 Aiiletes, etc., etc. 
 
 3. The diphthong au was not entirely exempt from the 
 influence of the general devocalizing tendency of the 
 Latin, and from the time of the earliest records onward 
 (through the classic period and afterward), it was not 
 unfrequently reduced very nearly, if not quite, to the 
 simple sound of its second element, or to that of the 
 cognate vowel o.* The first {L e., the change to u) could 
 be effected by removing the stress of utterance to the 
 second element {aii instead of du), which would leave the 
 first an easy prey to neglect or assimilation. The second 
 
 * See Appendix, Note D. 
 
 PRONUNCIATION OF LATIN. 
 
 59 
 
 change involved a further departure, the substitution, 
 namely, of kindred o for w, and the assimilation of the «, 
 as in the first case, thus ; du, do, ao, o.* But whatever 
 the mode, the facts are : 
 
 {u for au) 
 
 for 
 
 rudus 
 
 adrudus 
 
 defrudo 
 
 frudavi 
 
 cludo 
 
 u 
 
 with 
 
 it 
 
 it 
 
 raudus, 
 (adraudus), 
 fraudo, 
 fraudavi, 
 claudo ; 
 
 Pola 
 Plotus 
 dehorito 
 plodo 
 
 for 
 
 (o for au) 
 Paula, 
 
 ^, . > (ante'Classic.) 
 Plautus, ) 
 
 dehaurito, (Cato.) 
 
 plaudo, ( Cicero.) 
 
 clodicat as well as claudicat, " 
 
 plostra for plaustra; {Suet. Vesp. 22,) 
 
 t( 
 
 And in the fifth century, A.D., when Diomedes wrote, 
 
 clostra was heard as well as claustra, 
 coda " " " " " Cauda, 
 
 For the interpretation of these facts, it must be re- 
 marked first, that the change into u was very rare. And 
 those few cases in which this sound was heard as a 
 representative of earlier au, so far as they have any bear- 
 ing upon the general sound of the diphthong in question, 
 imply the probability of English oiv as that sound. Thus 
 
 * Gniter (quoted by Corssen, I, p. 168) reports Aordius from a 
 very ancient tablet found at Spoletum. 
 
GO 
 
 PRONUNCIATION^ OF LATIN. 
 
 cldudo (du = English oiv) need only be sounded claudo 
 with no change in the quality of the vowel sounds, and 
 the result is already almost identical with cludo. 
 
 The number of eases in which o appears for au is very 
 much more considerable; but still, in mere point of 
 numbers, these instances are not sufficient to warrant the 
 belief of anything like a generally prevailing confusion 
 of the sounds of o and au — a confusion which some 
 modern scholars have been too prone to assume. The 
 conclusion thus stated may be defended by argument ; 
 but we happen to possess an anecdote told *by Suetonius 
 (Vit. Vesp. c. 22), which settles beyond dispute that in 
 the time of Vespasian, at least, there was a clear difference 
 hQtwQQii 2)lau sir a smd plosfra, Florus and Flaurus. The 
 emperor, who was rebuked by his courtier for saying 
 Idlostra, is characterized by the historian, just before and 
 in the same immediate connection, as being fond of low 
 expressions. There are other indications also,* that o 
 for au was in most cases a vulgarism, and without the 
 sanction of the learned. We may therefore safely believe, 
 that not only properly but actually as a general rule 
 among the educated, au had its O'wn sound, L e, 
 
 AV sounded like ou in English cloud. 
 
 In many instances among the people, and in some also 
 in the practice of the cultivated classes, au was allowed 
 through carelessness, or for some other reason, to sink 
 into the sound of o (may-be a little thicker than the 
 common of). In these cases the orthography accom- 
 modated itself to the change ; and we have now no right 
 
 * See Corssen's Aussp., I, p. 167. 
 
 PRONUNCIATION OF LATIN. 
 
 61 
 
 to suppose that any word which we find written with au 
 was sounded with o. 
 
 CE. 
 
 The* sign (E is representative of the most unstable, 
 and therefore the most uncertain of all the Latin vowel 
 sounds. If it only marked one stage of the descent oi, 
 ce, e, we might surely infer at least a close approximation 
 to its sound, as we do for that of cb in the scale ai, cb, e. 
 But the old Latin oi descended through os in three direc- 
 tions, namely to u, to l, and to e (or cb). Thus : 
 
 also. 
 
 (while the cases ending in -i of stems in o, have in this 
 i the remains of former -oi, as populi for pojmloi, Roniani 
 for Bomanoi. The intervening form (b is said to appear 
 in a few accidentally preserved ancient instances, as 
 Pilumnoe, poploe, nominative plural) ; 
 
 and, 
 
 r 
 
 moiros, pomoenum, pomenum, 
 
 rroLvri, poena, paenitet (and poenitet), 
 
 h 
 
 'f 
 
 OlSUS, 
 
 oesus, 
 
 usus, 
 
 r 
 
 coiravit, 
 
 coeravit, 
 
 curavit, 
 
 I 
 
 ploira. 
 
 ploera, 
 
 plura, 
 
 J 
 
 TTOLVTjy 
 
 poena. 
 
 punire, etc. ; 
 
 1 
 
 foidus. 
 
 foedus, 
 
 fidus. 
 
 ' 
 
 ohog, 
 
 
 vicus, 
 
 
 quoi, 
 
 
 cui. 
 
 
M 
 
 62 
 
 PRONUNCIATION OF LATIN. 
 
 coena, 
 obsccenus, 
 Coelius, 
 coeteri. 
 
 caena (and cena, Cato and Ter.), 
 
 obscsenus (and obscenus), 
 
 Caelius, 
 
 caeteri (and ceteri), etc. 
 
 From these obseryations we should be obliged to 
 infer that the sound of ce diverged from that of oi in at 
 least three different ways. And when now we turn to 
 inquire in what order of time those various forms of 
 orthography prevailed, and to what extent respectively, 
 we find in Corssen's exhibition drawn from inscriptions, 
 
 1. That oi (having begun from the earliest times to 
 give way to (b) had ceased entirely to be written before 
 the classical period. 
 
 2. That from an early period i was, collaterally with oe, 
 a substitute for earlier oi in the terminations of cases of 
 nouns. (In this place m gave way entirely to i in the 
 classical period.) 
 
 3. That from the time of Plautus on, od in the stems 
 of words gave way to w, loliich became the 'prevailing ortho- 
 graphy after the time of the Gracchi and through the 
 classical age, ■ 
 
 4. The few words which during this time retained the 
 written form ce were pronounced by the later Latins with 
 an c.* 
 
 The most positive inference, which we seem entitled 
 to draw from such evidence, is, that along with the sign 
 of oi, the sound also of that diphthong had disappeared 
 from the Latin before the classical age. And the pro- 
 posal, therefore, of some modern scholars to return to 
 
 * See Corssen, I, p. 207. 
 
 PRONUNCIATION OF LATIN. 
 
 63 
 
 that antiquated sound for oe is not only in conflict with 
 the broadly marked general tendency of the Latin towards 
 a reduction of its diphthongal sounds, but singularly at 
 variance with the particular history of the diphthong ce. 
 The zeal of reform has impelled some to deny the exist- 
 ence of any irregularity or obscurity in the Latin pro- 
 nunciation : but these cannot help us here ; nor can we 
 adopt any such adventurous dogma as prescribes for our 
 practice a sound which was obsolete for Cicero. 
 
 There is certainly a consolation for our ignorance in 
 the belief that the Romans themselves did not know for 
 any length of time together a certain sound for this 
 diphthong. And if now it be thought necessary for us 
 to fix some uniform sound, by which in our practice to 
 render those words which, in printed texts furnished us, 
 appear written with the sign ce, we must choose between 
 the sound of e, as in Latin fetus, French pretre, or that 
 of German oe (p) in Goethe. The first of these sounds is 
 recommended : 
 
 1. By considerations of convenience, chiefly in view of 
 the fact that in almost every instance (except, namely, in 
 the word ccetus and possibly a few others) the words 
 which are spelled in our texts sometimes with ce, are also 
 frequently (some as frequently) found with m, as : ohscce- 
 nus, obsccenus, and even obscenus (French obscene); 
 pcejiitet, pcenitet ; moeror, moeror, etc., etc. 
 
 2. Where better reasons fail, the authority of the post- 
 classic Latin deserves to be heard ; and this speaks for e. 
 On the other hand, the general turn taken by ce into u 
 in the practice of the cultivated Romans of the classical 
 period, establishes a good degree of probability for the 
 prevalence at that time among the educated of a sound, 
 
 if. 
 
64 
 
 PRONUKCIATION OF LATIN. 
 
 which conjecture can represent no better than by that 
 which the German scholars have adopted; the sound, 
 namely, of their own «?— [nearly the French eu mfleur].* 
 
 Thus the ce in j^rosliiim would sound nearly like 
 
 in English ivorld or 
 
 (( 
 
 a 
 
 whirL 
 
 " The diphthong eu, if we except Greek words, occurs 
 only in heus, Jieu, and eheu, in ceu, seu, and neu, and in 
 neuter and neutiquamJ' (Zumpt, Lai Gr. p. 1.) The 
 orthography of these words was uniform, and there is no 
 reason to suppose that the integrity of this diphthong 
 was ever disturbed except by the license of poetry — it 
 being rendered sometimes in verse by diaeresis, according 
 to the testimony of Servius ad. ^n. II, 69. " Heu modo 
 est una syllaba, sed interdum propter metrum duae sunt, 
 ut.est: Heu I quam pingui, etc.'' Supposing, then, 
 both elements to be heard, as is necessary for a true 
 diphthong (nam singulae vocales suas voces habent; 
 Priscian, P. p. 561), it becomes only further necessary to 
 know which element has the stress. There is no other 
 Latin diphthong in which the stress does not associate 
 itself by preference either with one or the other of the 
 two combined constituents, and upon the selection thus 
 made depends the principal coloring of the sound. Now 
 
 * See Appendix, Note E. 
 
 
 PRONUNCIATION OF LATIN. 
 
 65 
 
 we know of no case in which Latin eu has passed into e, 
 but some instances are reported from the early Latin 
 containing eu which was afterwards heard as w. Such 
 forms are Leucesie (Carm. Sal.), Teurano (Sc. d. Baccan.), 
 and others. This appearance argues in favor of the pre- 
 dominance of the latter element, which is also after the 
 analogy of m and ce. We infer, therefore, that Latin eu 
 had the sound in perfect conformity with its simple ele- 
 ments, with the stress on the last. This is the sound of 
 English ew in few, jpew, etc. 
 
 CONSONANTS. 
 
 Having found it convenient to consider the vowel 
 sounds separately, we pass now to the remaining charac- 
 ters of the Latin alphabet. In a systematic view of these 
 elements it would be necessary to divide them into sev- 
 eral classes according to the organs (or parts of organs) 
 chiefly engaged in their utterance : but for our present 
 purpose, which is special and particular, it will be best, 
 not indeed to forget the nature and power of letters 
 which is shown by the science of Phonetics, but to 
 keep a limited inquiry of this nature free from the 
 embarrassing admixture of general considerations. The 
 letters which remain to be treated of, therefore, we shall 
 consider under the one category of Consonants (among 
 which the breathing h also will be admitted to a place) ; 
 and take them up in the common order of the alphabet. 
 
66 
 
 PBONUNCIATION OF LATIK. 
 
 There is every reason to believe that the Latin B was 
 the same with our own. The English h — the "soft 
 check" of the lips — described by M. Miiller (Lee. 2d 
 Ser., p. 156), will be found to suit, as no other consonant 
 loill, the description of the Latin h, as given by Marius 
 
 Victorinus (P. p. 2454) : B et P literae dispari inter 
 
 se officio exprimuntur ; nam prima [B], exploso e mediis 
 labris sono ; sequens [P], compresso ore, velut introrsum 
 attracto vocis ictu, explicantur. 
 
 Our b (a compromise between the labial hard check 
 and the labial breathing) stands half-way between p, 
 on the one hand, and v, on the other. Precisely the 
 same was true of the Latin b ; as is plainly shown by the 
 interchange now of b and p, and now of b and v. If 
 these fluctuations w^ere contemporaneous they would in- 
 dicate a very uncertain sound for b in practice, still 
 implying, however, a normal sound equal to English b. 
 But when it becomes evident that the interchange of b 
 with p belonged mainly to the early (ante-classic) Latin, 
 and that it was only in the later history of the language, 
 that b began to be confounded with v, then there can be 
 no reasonable doubt but that during the intervening 
 (classical) period the prevailing actual pronunciation of 
 b was just that of our labial media. 
 
 In proof of the ancient interchange of b and jt? we have 
 a statement made on the authority of Papyrianus, that 
 Ennius said, mipo, scripo, and, on the other hand, rebo, 
 
 PBONUNCIATIOK OF LATIN. 
 
 67 
 
 for the later nubo, scribo, and repo. Cicero (Orat. 48, 160) 
 says of the same author, " Burr urn semper Ennius, num- 
 quam Pyrrhum:' And Q. Ter. Scaurus (P. p. 2252) says: 
 "Graeci -nvppiav, nostri Byrriam ; et quem Purrum, 
 antiqui Burrum; .... item Publicolam Boblicolam; 
 alii scajnllum, alii scabillum dicunt." In most cases p had 
 become fixed instead of b before s and t in the classic age, 
 as in scripsi, nupta. Forms like opsonium, sup persona 
 (Rib. com. p. 273) were discontinued after early times, 
 but the b in oUineo and similar cases had a sound very 
 like p in Quintilian's time (aures magis audiunt p, Lib. 
 I. c. 7, § 7). B was therefore at this time different from 
 p, but nearer to it than to any other sound. After the 
 classic period it became softened to v ; and inscriptions 
 of the late empire are said to shoAV, 
 
 incomparavile 
 
 venemerenti 
 
 liventer 
 
 for 
 
 M 
 
 66 
 
 incomparabile, 
 benemerenti, 
 libenter ; 
 
 also, 
 
 fobere 
 
 fabente 
 
 bixit 
 
 for 
 
 66 
 
 66 
 
 fovere (a.d. 344), 
 favente ( " 367), 
 vixit ( « 409), 
 
 and great numbers of similar forms. This v sound for 
 b, was perpetuated into the new languages * made from 
 the Latin [cf. English vervain, Latin verbena, English 
 tavern, Latin taberna (modem Greek rafiipva pronounced 
 taverna)], but did not prevail in the classical Latin 
 itself.t 
 
 * The existing MSS. of ancient authors are said to be infested 
 with errors from this source. Danuvius for Danubius, etc., etc. 
 f See Appendix, Note F. 
 
1^ 
 
 68 
 
 PBONUNCIATIOK OF LATIK. 
 
 C. 
 
 Quintilian (I, c. 7, § 10) says : Nam K quidem in nul- 
 lis verbis utendum puto, nisi quae significat, etiam ut sola 
 ponatur. Hoc eo non omisi, quod quidam earn, quotiens 
 A sequatur, necessariam credunt, cum sit C littera, quae 
 ad omnes vocales vim suam perferat. This language 
 merits careful attention, as it brings the weight of 
 Quintilian's authority directly to bear upon some of the 
 most important points raised in the dispute which has 
 been many times renewed over the proper sound of 
 Latin c. The points made by Quintilian are these: 
 " K having become obsolete ought not now to be em- 
 ployed in the spelling of any words except those few for 
 which it is also used by itself {K.) as an abbreviation (as 
 K, for KcBSO, or Kalendm) : that letter is not only anti- 
 quated but also superfluous as an element in words ; and 
 those persons are in error who hold that the guttural 
 tenuis must be given by k when an a is to follow it (as, 
 e. g., in Kaput, Kalumnia), For c is perfectly adequate to 
 take the place of k hefore A as tvell as before all the other 
 voioelSy since it 7naintains its own sound in connection ivith 
 them all" 
 
 In view of the simple and unmistakable character of 
 such an announcement, when we consider farther, that 
 it is confirmed both directly and indirectly by later 
 grammarians, with never a word to the contrary as re- 
 gards the classical period, it would seem that we were 
 already at the end of our inquiry. For the sound of k is 
 entirely undisputed, and that, said Quintilian, was the 
 
 PROKUNCIATION OF LATIN. 
 
 69 
 
 i 
 
 sound of c. But the practice of all modern Europe, except 
 among the Greeks, has agreed to reject the dogma of 
 Quintilian except so far as it applies to c before a, o, 
 and u. In that situation all sound it like h ; but before 
 e and i, cb, eu, ce, and y, a hiss is substituted, varying in 
 its character according to the people who employ it. 
 
 Thus the Latin words cicercula, caedes 
 are sounded 
 
 by Germans and Slavonians, tsitserkula, tsaedes, 
 
 " Italians, chicherkula, chaedes, (?) 
 
 " French and English, siserkula, saedes. 
 
 Of all these sounds the most defensible is that of ts, 
 and those who prefer for reasons of convenience to accept 
 the authority of the late Latin can satisfy themselves of 
 a change during the late Empire at least of ci, followed 
 by a vowel, into a hissing sound, a sound which as early 
 as the sixth century became established for the situation 
 indicated. But even these persons can find no reason 
 beyond the analogies of their own tongue (which it is 
 frivolous to adduce without ancient support) for a hissing 
 sound of c before single i, or before e, cb, ce, eu, y. Our 
 design, however, is now to return to the higher ground 
 occupied by Quintilian, and to offer some further reasons 
 in defence of his declaration that c in the classical age 
 was k everyxohere. It will be convenient to proceed 
 according to the objections raised by those who defend 
 the hissing sounds. 
 
 Those objections are : 
 
 1. " There is an inherent absurdity in supposing the 
 Komans to have pronounced Kikero, kesso, pakis for 
 
 «^ 
 
 I 
 
 if I 
 
70 
 
 PRONUNCIATION OF LATIN. 
 
 Cicero, cesso, pacts,'* Now every student of language 
 knows how hazardous it is to assume impossibilities of 
 sound ; and it is further quite plain to every one that the 
 only reason (!) which underlies, such a statement as the 
 above is (to omit other languages) that the English says 
 .^; Sisero, sesso, pasis, 
 
 AVeak as is such reasoning, it has stood, and still stands, 
 more in the way of fair argument on this subject than 
 any other obstacle. It may be worth while to confront 
 it with a counter objection of the same form but more 
 valid. Shall it be thought that the Eomans could 7iot 
 have said hihero, etc., and yet that they could have said 
 esca, esscBj* hucca, biicsce; Perdiccas, FerdicscBj Marcus, 
 Marse; jloccus, flocsi ; pax (paks), pasis ; docui, doserc ; 
 cadere, sesidi ; dico, disis ; dos(i)tum and doctum ; au- 
 das(i)ter and andacterf Kikero has against it the anal- 
 ogies of modern European languages ; while essm, disis, 
 if so sounded, would obliterate the most important 
 element of the stem, in violation of general probability, 
 and of a distinctly felt desire with the Latins to keep the 
 same stem throughout the inflected forms of words. 
 The offence to Latin ears of such fluctuations in the 
 stem of declined words may be gathered from the words 
 of Cicero (Orat. 48, § 160), where he speaks of the absurdity 
 of such a change, and is to be inferred also from the face 
 6i the language : so that we may be quite sure of a strong 
 tendency to say dokeo, dokes, etc., with dokui and dolctum, 
 or if doseo, etc., then also dosui, etc. But dokui is undis- 
 puted, and hence a better reason than the shallow 
 objection above stated must be brought to defend a 
 sound like doseo. Accordingly, great pains have been 
 
 * The same will apply to estsm, etc. 
 
 PRONUNCIATION OF LATIN. 
 
 71 
 
 taken to furnish a reason from the Latin orthography ; 
 with what success remains to be inquired. But be- 
 fore we leave the consideration of general probabilities 
 we would ask : if c in excisus is equal to s, why do we not 
 sometimes find exisus written by neglect, as we often do 
 exatiare for exsatiare, exul for exsul, etc., etc. ? * 
 Once more ; on reading the fragment of Titinius : 
 
 Reliqui acus aciasque ero atque erae nostrae , 
 
 and this of Atilius : 
 
 Cape cacde, Lyde, come conde . . . . , f 
 
 is not the design of « a^iwomi waif lo" sufficiently evident 
 to make it incredible that aJcus and asias, Kape and 
 Srnde, or {tswde, etc.) could have been the sound of those 
 adjacent words ? We have seen already that qu involved 
 the h sound. When, therefore, Nonius (6, 17) says, 
 "illicere est proprie illaqueare," we can see how he 
 should say this of illikere, but can scarcely believe it 
 would ever have b3en said of iUisere (illilsere, etc.). 
 
 2. There is an allegation of evidence in the orthography 
 of the Latin for a hissing sound of c; but the argument 
 drawn from this source will apply at best only to c when 
 followed by i succeeded by another vowel. The fluctua- 
 tion, it is said, between the forms -cio and -tio, -cius and 
 'tius, -cium and -Hum in the end of many Latin words is 
 a proof of a similarity of sound between ci and ti fol- 
 lowed by a vowel, which can only be understood by 
 supposing both the c and the t when so placed to have 
 
 * This particular objection applies only to the English and 
 French pronunciation of c. 
 f Ribbeck, Com. Lat. Frag., pp. 27 and 115. 
 
 
 \ 
 
 'V0 '"^ 
 
72 
 
 PRONUNCIATION OF LATIN. 
 
 PRONUNCIATION OF LATIN. 
 
 73 
 
 i/ii^ 
 
 degenerated into that hissing sound like ts or Italian zz, 
 which may be easily shown to have been used for each 
 of them in the post-classical Latin. Now before such a 
 sweeping conclusion can be allowed, it is necessary to 
 establish the fact of the alleged fluctuation not only, but 
 also that it prevailed during the classical period in such a 
 sense that it was indifferent for the sound in the case of 
 a given word whether it was written with ti or ci. But 
 recent investigations of inscriptions made with this view, 
 show, according to the testimony of Hiibner and Corssen, 
 that the fluctuation in question was extremely rare until 
 after the early Empire. Almost the only authentic in- 
 stances are said to be the proper names : 
 
 Mucins, 
 
 Mutius, 
 
 Lacia, 
 
 Latia, 
 
 Marcius, 
 
 Martins, 
 
 Accius, 
 
 Attius, 
 
 Volcacius, 
 
 Volcatius, and others. 
 
 There are, now, two ways of explaining this variety of 
 form : one by assuming a common sound for Marcius and 
 Martins — say 3Iartsius— the other by supposing a dia- 
 lectic variety in the sounding of those names, so that 
 some said Marhius while at the same time others spoke 
 Martins. The first explanation seems hardly credible in 
 view of the entire silence of Grammarians concerning 
 any such sound for c ; while the second does not demand 
 remark from them, since Markius and Martins were in 
 fact two * names for the same individual, just as Atus 
 (or Attus) Clausus, in Sabine, and Appius Claudius in 
 
 * See Appendix, Note G. 
 
 Roman style. (See Liv. II, 16.) And so when Plutarch 
 wrote Mapnog, he preferred to adopt the form with t, and 
 when he wrote UopKia he chose the k sound heard in 
 Porcia, 
 
 This c, then, as well as c everywhere in Latin, is ren- 
 dered uniformly by h by Greek authors contemporary 
 and nearly contemporary with the classical period : thus 
 not only Karm', but KiKepiov and Kalaap, Kekoog, AeKiog, 
 UXaKEVTia, etc. Now it is plain from such forms as 
 Ovrjiot, KoivTog and KmvTog, 'EliSrjTia and 'EXovTjrla, 
 AevrXog, etc., etc., that the Greeks tried to render as 
 nearly as possible the sounds of proper names which they 
 heard in the mouths of the Romans. Their imitation 
 was not hampered by technicalities or traditions of or- 
 thography; and was limited only by the powers of their 
 alphabet. 
 
 And so if Plutarch, in the early part of the second 
 century after Christ, had heard the Romans say Martsius, 
 Portsia, there is every reason to believe that he would 
 have written them MdpT^iog, or Mdpraiog, Uoproia : just 
 as the modern Greeks commenced (at least as early as the 
 sixth century) now and then to write Bever^la for Venetia, 
 T^iPi ra N6/3a for Civita Nova.* 
 
 Further afiirmative evidence for the hard sound of c 
 may be dispensed with, if, as is hoped, sufficient offset 
 has been found for the alleged objections to Quintilian's 
 general statement. Scholars, it may be added, are now 
 commonly agreed that that statement was correct, and 
 that in the classical Latin, C was equal to K. 
 
 * Sophocles' Modern Greek Grammar, p. 13. 
 
 . s#f^ "^ 
 
u 
 
 PROi^UNCIATIOX OF LATIK. 
 
 PRONUNCIATIOX OF LATIN. 
 
 75 
 
 ID. 
 
 A remark of Quintilian, that " D was akin to T," is 
 in conformity with the accepted opinion, that the Latin 
 D represented one of the members of the lingual scale, 
 t, d, th (as in English the). From a more particular 
 description by Martianus Capella, which distinguishes 
 between the t and the d, we have the further information 
 which we need ; showing that d was the 7nedia of the 
 above series, and equivalent, therefore, to the English d. 
 " A appulsu lingua circa superiores dentes, innascitur. 
 
 ^^ appulsu linguae dentibus impulsis, excutitur." 
 
 Similar statements of other Grammarians are not want- 
 ing ; but in the absence of objection it does not seem 
 necessary to produce either those statements or other 
 corroborative evidence of the sound just indicated. 
 
 It remains only to be said with regard to the practice 
 of the classical age, that d in the end of words frequently, 
 perhaps generally, was sounded hard like t. For not 
 only in the MSS. of older authors * do we find aput, set, 
 haut, but these forms are said to appear also on inscrip- 
 tions of the late Republic, as well as afterward, along with 
 the other spelling apud, sed, hand. Well authenticated 
 instances of the same kind may be found in aliut, quit 
 (for quid), illut, quitquit, it (for id), and others. 
 
 Before the classical age, the confusion of d and t seems 
 to have been more general. Before Cato's time " (mare) 
 
 * See Ribbeck's collection of Fragments, and the editions of 
 Plautus. 
 
 Hadriaticum" had been calledi Atriaticum. And Quin- 
 tilian, I, c. 4, § 16 : " Quid D litterae cum T quaedam 
 cognatio ? Quare minus mirum, si in vetustis operibus 
 urbis nostras et celeb ribus templis legantur Alexanter et 
 CassantraJ^ 
 
 This language clearly implies that in the classical age 
 a distinct separation had been effected between the two 
 letters, at least generally. The tendency to the hard 
 sound was now confined to the end of words ; but that it 
 still existed in practice for that situation (like in Ger- 
 man Kind, Brod, etc.) is shown by the above examples and 
 by such remarks as those of Quintilian (I, 7, 5) and of 
 Charisius (P. p. 87): ^ HaiuV similiter d litera termina- 
 tur ; 6v6e enim, graeca vox, d litera terminari ccepit, .... 
 sed et per t scribi, son us vocis admittit. 
 
 D, therefore, not in the end of a word, as in dodrans, 
 was sounded like English d ; in the end of words, more 
 like English t. 
 
 F. 
 
 The nature and actual power as well as the history of 
 Latin F have been plentifully announced and discussed 
 by the ancient Grammarians. They, not omitting to 
 quote certain remarks of Varro, Cicero (Orat. c. 48), and 
 Quintilian (I, c. 4), have expressed so decidedly the dis- 
 tinction to be observed between the sound of F and that 
 of the consonants akin to it, and have even pointed out 
 BO plainly the office of the organs engaged in rendering 
 
7t> 
 
 PRONUXCIATION OF LATIN 
 
 PEOIS^UNCIATION OF LATIN. 
 
 77 
 
 the proper sound in question, that we cannot attain our 
 practical end in a better way than by simply making a 
 few quotations. In these it will be seen that for its 
 origin F is usually traced to a sound either like that of 
 the vanished iEolic Digamma (the character for which is 
 supposed to be preserved in that of F *), or like that of 
 Greek <p ; which ((/>), it is important to observe, is every- 
 where in these discussions contemplated as having, not 
 the sound of English F, but of p followed (in union) by h, 
 as would be heard in a close union of p and h in the 
 English words UpJiam, souphouse \ (leaving away U- and 
 
 sou-). 
 
 Further, from the separation made between the sound 
 of /, and that of the ^olic Digamma, as well as that of 
 </>, of h, and of h, we have left only the sound of our own 
 F, which is, moreover, indicated by the descriptions of 
 the manner of utterance. 
 
 1. Fwas not equal to Digamma, or Latin V (vau). 
 
 Mar. Victorinus, P. p. 2468 : Scripseram autem vobis 
 . . . . f J_^olis duntaxat, idem valere, quod ajmd 
 nos V, cum pro consonanti scribitur, vocarique fiav 
 
 et Digamma. 
 
 [That Latin F once had this sound of later V (uni- 
 versally taken by Grammarians as the classical repre- 
 sentative of Digamma) is affirmed by Cornutus 
 
 * Agnaeus Corautus, P. p. 2282 : Est quaedam litera in F literse 
 speciem figurata, qu« Digamma nominatur, quae duos apices ex 
 Gamma litera habere videtur. 
 f Except among the .Eolians, where </> is supposed equal to/ 
 X This is, of course, not meant for the sign of Latin F, but for 
 Digamma. 
 
 (P. 2282) on the evidence of Fotum, Firgo, and 
 others, found by him in certain ancient books for 
 votum, virgo, etc.] 
 
 2. F was not equal to 0, or its Latin equivalent (in 
 Cicero's time) pA. 
 
 When Cicero (Orat. c. 48) says of Ennius' substitute 
 for Greek <f)\ ''Vi patefecerunt Bruges'^ non Phry- 
 GES ; ipsius antiqiii declarant libri. Nee enim 
 GrcBcam literam adhihehant : nunc autem etiam duas " 
 [i, e., ph] : he means evidently that Ennius, if he 
 had not inaccurately spoken with B, would have 
 been forced to use / as the nearest then available 
 equivalent for 0, since itself could not be employed, 
 and the more exact mode of rendering by means of 
 ph had not in Ennius' day come into use. 
 
 Priscian speaks very satisfactorily to the same points 
 (P. p. 542) : F, jEolicum Digamma, quod apud anti- 
 quissimos Latinorum eandem vim, quam apud ^oles 
 hdbuit 0; eum autem prope sonum, quern nunc 
 halet f significdbat p cum aspiratione, sicut etiam 
 apud veteres Grmcos pro 0, p et H, TJnde nunc 
 quoque in Greeds nominihus antiquam scripturam 
 servamus, pro 0, p et H ponentes, ut : Orpheus, 
 Phaeton, Postea vero in latinis [with a correspond- 
 ent in Greek] placuit verbis pro p et h, Fscrihi, ut: 
 fama . . . . ; loco autem Digamma, V pro conso- ' 
 nante, quod cognatione soni videhatur affinis esse 
 Digamma ea litera. Thus, indisputably, was the 
 
 * The editions previous to Emesti's give the reading Fruges. 
 
 
 I: 
 f 
 
78 PRONUNCIATION OF LATIN. 
 
 sound of /, as in fanum, a medium between v in 
 vanum and (/> (with the tt audible) in ^avov, and 
 equal, therefore, to /in English Fan, 
 
 With this agree now also the prescriptions for its 
 enunciation. 
 
 Priscian (P. p. 543) : Hoc tamen scire dehemus, quod 
 7ion tamfixis labris est pronuntianda /, quomodo ph : 
 atque lioc solum interest inter F ct ph, 
 
 Terent. Maurus (P. p. 2388) : 
 
 Imum swperis dentihus adprimens Idbellum, 
 
 Spir amine lent , 
 
 Hanc ore sonahis 
 
 To the expression " spiramine leni," if it is to be under- 
 stood strictly of the " spiritus lenis," we must oppose the 
 language of Quintilian (XII, 10, 28 and 29), where it is 
 plain that a very rough breathing is contemplated. 
 Admitting the rough breathing, this description coin- 
 cides with that given by Max Miiller (2d Ser. Lee. p. 146) 
 for the English/. 
 
 " A sixth barrier is formed by bringing the lower lip 
 against the upper teeth. This modifies the spiritus asper 
 to /." 
 
 Gr. 
 
 No one doubts, and there is no room for doubting, that 
 this letter was in full play as a familiar element of Latin 
 words during the classical period. It is therefore un- 
 
 PBONUNCIATION OF LATIN. 
 
 79 
 
 necessary for us here to set forth or to espouse either side 
 of the historical question concerning the time when its 
 sign w^as introduced into the Latin alphabet. The state- 
 ment made by Plutarch, and often repeated after him, 
 that Sp. Carvilius Ruga (A. U. C. circ. 520) first gave the 
 sign G a place among the Latin letters (assigning it the 
 place of the disused z), has been much questioned as to 
 its accuracy, in later times — and with reason. But quite 
 • independently of the merits of that statement as a piece 
 of history, the mere fact that it was made involves two 
 inferences of importance to us. 
 
 It shows, first, that scholars knew of a time when a 
 separate sign for G had not been thought necessary ; and, 
 secondly, that they knew that that time had long ceased 
 to exist, and that, before the classical period, a distinct 
 mark for the G sound had been recognized as a neces- 
 sity. 
 
 Such inferences are supported by more certain evi- 
 dence ; which will show, first, that the sounds of C and 
 G were never far asunder; second, that in the classical 
 age they iverc distinct ; and, third, that the difference lay 
 in this : that in the scale of 1c mutes (Jc, g, %) C was the 
 tenuis and G the media. 
 
 1. Lachmann (Lucr. p. 148) reports from the Cd, Lei- 
 densis of Lucretius (called by him ohlongus), the readings 
 centis for gentis, vacari for vagari, conspercunt for con- 
 spergunt, grecis for gregis, Jucehat for lugebat, etc., etc. 
 
 Such spelling may indeed be not a faithful copy of the 
 archetype, but only a mark of inaccuracy in the German 
 copyist of the ninth century. The same doubt, however, 
 cannot attach to the statement of Marius Victorinus 
 (P. p. 2459), that the ancients put C for G in " Cahino 
 
80 
 
 PRONUNCIATION OF LATIN. 
 
 PRONUNCIATION OF LATIN. 
 
 81 
 
 for Gahino, lece for lege, acna for agna.^' Allowing that a 
 separate sign and a separate sound of G existed in those 
 early times, this confusion in orthography shows all that 
 we want now, namely that the sound of G and C must 
 have lain very near together. And the same is further 
 to be seen in the perpetuation of C for G (or G for C) in 
 forms which continued always to retain their old spell- 
 insr, even after the establishment of clear distinction 
 between the two closely related consonants. The reason- 
 ing here need not be long. Maximus Victorinus (P. p. 
 1945) says, .... duplex est x: constat enim aut ex g et 
 6- Uteris, aut ex c et s, ut puta rex, regis ; pix, picis. 
 Quippe ante x literam, quae postea in compendium inventa 
 est, rex per gs \regs\, item pix per cs [pics] veteres 
 scribebant. The g sound, therefore, when combined with 
 subsequent s was so nearly identical with the c sound 
 under the same circumstances that it was found con- 
 venient to represent both groups by the same sign x. 
 
 The interchange of G and C, both regularly and acci- 
 dentally, may be pointed out in a great many other 
 combinations also : thus agere, actum, actor ; lugere, luc- 
 tus, etc., etc.; negotium for necotium, gurgiilio and cur- 
 culio, congorclia and concordia, Progne for UpoKvrj, cygnus 
 as well as cycnus for icmvog. These examples, which 
 might be multiplied, are not arranged with respect to 
 the time of their origin, since there is no design of show- 
 ing here the steps in the history of the alliance between 
 g and c. Having shown that the two sounds were always 
 very nearly related, it is now to be shown : 
 
 2. That in the classical pronunciation there was, never- 
 theless, a clear distinction between them. It is plain 
 that this may be fairly inferred from some of the very 
 
 instances which we have cited for showing the approxi- 
 mation of the sound. For if it is true that lece once 
 served sufficiently to represent what was afterwards heard 
 as lege, it must be equally true that for the once fully 
 established lege, lece would no longer serve. 
 
 Cicero (de Nat. Deor. II, 26, § 67) says : Mater autem 
 est a gerendis frugibus Ceres tanquam Geres : casuque 
 prima litera itidem immutata, ut a Graecis : nam ab illis 
 quoque ArjfjLrjTTjp quasi Tfj fiT)T7jp nominata est. And 
 Quintilian writes precisely to our point in the words 
 (I, 5, 12) : Nam duos in uno nomine faciebat barbaris- 
 mos Tinga Placentinus (si reprehendenti Hortensio credi- 
 mus) preculam pro pergula dicens, et immutatione, cum 
 c pro g uteretur, et transmutatione, cum r praeponeret 
 antecedenti. 
 
 G, therefore, was clearly different from the kindred C 
 — but in what ? The answer to this question will com- 
 plete our principal inquiry, and can be sufficiently found 
 in the words of Priscian and Mar. Victorinus. 
 
 Priscian (P. p. 549) : Inter C sine aspiratione, et cum 
 aspiratione est G. 
 
 Mar. Victorinus (p. 2454) : C etiam et G, ut supra, 
 sono proximae, oris molimine nisuque dissentiunt; 
 nam C reducta introrsum lingua hinc atque hinc 
 inter molares surgens, haerentem intra os sonum 
 vocis excludit; G vim prioris pari linguae lapsu 
 palato suggerens, lenius reddit. 
 
 Thus is the Latin G seen to be the media of the 
 ^-mutes, or our own hard G. 
 
 The soft sound of G so familiar to our practice when 
 
 •4' 
 
 
82 
 
 PRONUNCIATION OF LATIN. 
 
 PRONUNCIATION OF LATIN. 
 
 83 
 
 this consonant occurs before e and i sounds (Italian 
 Giorgio; English George), could not have been known 
 to the classical Latin. 
 
 Evidences of so important a variation of sound could 
 not fail, if the variation had existed ; but no such evi- 
 dence is visible until a very late period — so late as to be 
 beyond the scope of our inquiry. As to any such double 
 power of the letter G, ancient Grammarians in all that 
 they have to say about that letter are entirely silent ; and 
 in maintenance of the uniform hard sound we might 
 repeat a great part of the considerations already presented 
 in connection with the discussed softening of the tenuis C. 
 Such repetition will be needless, and we will call atten- 
 tion only to one passage of Aulus Gellius (IV, c. 9) : 
 ^'Masurius Sahinus .... ^ Religiosum,^ inquit, est . . . . 
 verhum a 'relmquendo' dictum, tamquam ' cmrimonicB^ 
 a ' carendo.' " 
 
 Such supposed derivations, founded, as they are, on a 
 similarity of sound, do not allow us to suppose that we 
 should here contemplate karere and serimonia, or relin- 
 kuere and relidjiosum. Therefore, 
 
 Latin G = English G in gag» 
 
 The sign H in the Latin alphabet represented that 
 effort of speech known both to us and to the Latin 
 Grammarians as the rough breathing. 
 
 This conclusion is indicated unmistakably by the 
 history of the character as employed in Latin (its origin 
 being identical with that of the Greek npoo(j)dia daaela, 
 or spiritus asper), and by what has been said about H by 
 the Latins, Grammarians, and others, as compared with 
 what we know of the nature of our own H. 
 
 As to the first point, Priscian (P. p. 1345) says: H, 
 Eimrok Vetustissimi cnim quique Grasci pro aspiratione, 
 H scribebant, quam habebant HECATOjS" in principio. 
 And Mar. Victorinus (P. p. 2459) : Graeci, ..,,•&, (f), x, 
 priusquam a Simonide invenirentur, exprimebant iuxta 
 T, et iuxta tt et k, aspirationis notam II ponendo.* 
 
 As to tlie second point ; the nature of our H, especially 
 in view of the physiology of its utterance, gives rise to 
 the question whether in strictness it deserves to be called 
 a letter. But precisely the same question was debated by 
 the Latin . Grammarians with respect to their H. We 
 know of ours that it is made by a rush of air driven 
 through the open glottis f by the contraction of the 
 muscles of the abdomen. Of theirs it was said by Mar. 
 Victorinus (P. p. 2455): H — profundo spiritu, anhelis 
 faucibus, exploso ore fundetur. 
 
 Through a deficiency in Victorinus' observation these 
 two descriptions are not quite coextensive, but they lie 
 together, and point in the same direction. 
 
 When Donatus says (P. p. 1737) : H interdum con- 
 sonans, interdum adspirationis creditur nota. He refers 
 not to more than one distinct function of H, but to a 
 difference of opinion among Grammarians, as to whether 
 
 * See Appendix, Note H. 
 
 f Vid. M. Muller, Science of Language, 2d Series, p. 139, ff. 
 
 %i 
 
84 
 
 PRONUNCIATION OF LATIN. 
 
 PRONUNCIATION OF LATIN. 
 
 85 
 
 H ought to be regarded and called a consonant, or not. 
 And among the Grammarians who maintain respectively 
 the two sides of this dispute, all admit, on the one hand, 
 that H represents an aspiration ; and none claim more, 
 on the other hand, than that this aspiration effects so dis- 
 tinct and individual a modification of the adjacent vowel 
 sound, that it deserves a regular place among the con- 
 sonants. Thus Velius Longus (P. p. 2218) : Accedit 
 huic, quod, si accedens literae esset, cum ipsa litera enun- 
 tiaretur ; nunc vero et ante Vocalem, et post Vocalem 
 sonat sic, quomodo est alia syllaba ca, et alia ac, et alia 
 ha, alia ah, sic alia ha, alia ah. Nam quod ex H quoque 
 existimant quidam colligi posse corfsonantem et adsigni- 
 ficantem, apparet ex eo, quod aut accedens, aut recedens 
 immutat significationem ; siquidem aliud est hira, aliud 
 dira canam, exemplum. 
 The difference, therefore, between 
 
 a 
 
 a,nd 
 
 ha. 
 
 aheo 
 
 u 
 
 haheo, 
 
 iste 
 
 a 
 
 histrio, 
 
 ortus 
 
 (C 
 
 hortus, 
 
 aut 
 
 u 
 
 hand, 
 
 ordo 
 
 ti 
 
 hordeum, 
 
 (mien 
 
 u 
 
 homo, 
 
 oro 
 
 a 
 
 horror, etc., etc., 
 
 was just this, that the initial vowels of the latter forms 
 were preceded (or accompanied) by what was on all 
 hands acknowledged to be an aspiration — this aspiration 
 being regarded by some as merely an accident of the 
 vowel, that is to say, an extraordinary impulse imparted 
 to the column of air, whose intonation makes the vowel 
 
 sound ; while others considered it an element of so pre- 
 cise and separable a nature as to be justly entitled to the 
 name of consonant. In all this we have a description 
 well nigh perfect and complete of our own H. 
 
 The Latin H was therefore the same with the Eng- 
 lish H. 
 
 It now remains to inquire how far the integrity of the 
 H was respected by the practice of the Latin tongue. 
 We know what has been the fluctuating history of the 
 aspirate consonant in modern languages; how, through 
 every stage of attenuation, it has finally vanished from 
 words in which it once constituted a regular (often an 
 organic) part ; and how accident and caprice has often 
 secured it a more or less temporary, or a conceded and 
 permanent place, to which there was not the faintest 
 historical title. 
 
 All this happened also to the Latin H. 
 
 And it would be possible, if necessary, to collect many 
 particulars in support of Quintilian's statement, which 
 
 follows (Lib. I, c. 5, § 19, sq.) : H cuius quidem 
 
 ratio mutata cum temporibus est saepius. Parcissime ea 
 veteres usi etiam in vocalibus, cum cedos tVcosque dice- 
 bant, diu deinde servatum, ne consonantibus aspirarent, 
 ut in Graccis et in triumpis ; erupit brevi tempore 
 nimms usus, ut choronm, chenturiones, prcechones adhuc 
 quibusdam inscriptionibus maneant, qua de re Catulli 
 nobile epigramma est* Inde durat ad nos usque vehe- 
 
 * We must make room for this epigram (LXXXIV) here : 
 
 CTvommoda dicebat, si quando commoda veUet 
 Dicere, et hinsidias Arrius insidias. 
 
 M 
 
 '§} 
 
86 
 
 PRONUNCIATION OF LATIN. 
 
 menter et comiJrehendere et mihi, nam mehe quoque pro 
 me apud antiques tragoediarum praecipue scriptores in 
 yeteribus libris invenimus. 
 
 If, now, for our practical purpose, an attempt be made 
 to ascertain the particular instances in which, during the 
 classical period, the H was actually heard in its proper 
 force (and therefore also properly written), we shall find 
 so much conflict in the evidence which remains to us, as 
 to leave us no hope of satisfaction. Corssen's interroga- 
 tion (Vol. I, p. 50, sq.) of inscriptions, and the most 
 ancient MSS., bring to light the contemporaneous exist- 
 ence of (among others) the following forms : 
 
 harundo, 
 
 haruspex, 
 
 harena, 
 
 heres, 
 
 hordeum, 
 
 Hammon, 
 
 Hiberus, 
 
 vehemens, 
 
 prehendo. 
 
 arundo, 
 
 aruspex, 
 
 arena, 
 
 eres, 
 
 ordeum, 
 
 Ammon, 
 
 Iberus, 
 
 vemens, 
 
 prendo, etc., etc. 
 
 Et turn mirifice sperabat se esse locutum, 
 Quura, quantum poterat, dixerat hinsidias. 
 Credo sic mater, sic liber avunculus eius. 
 Sic maternus avus dixerit, atque avia. 
 Hoc misso in Syriam, requierant omnibus aures, 
 Audibant eadem haec leniter et leviter. 
 Nee sibi postilla metuebant talia verba ; 
 Quum subito adfertur nuntius horribilis : 
 lonios fluctus, postquam illuc Arrius isset, 
 lam non lonios esse, sed Hionios. 
 
 ^ — 
 
 PRONUNCIATION OF LATIN. 
 
 Grammarians report for the early classical Latin : 
 
 87 
 
 mihi 
 
 and 
 
 mi. 
 
 nihil 
 
 t€ 
 
 nil, 
 
 cohors 
 
 U 
 
 coors, cors, and others.* 
 
 In MSS. of later date the increasing tendency to drop 
 the h must be ascribed, no doubt, in large degree, to the 
 operation of that softening tendency which resulted in 
 the final banishment of the spiritus asper, as well from 
 the Italian as from the Greek languages, and to an 
 ignorance among copyists of the proper Latin sound. 
 
 The Cd. " qiiadratus " of Lucretius, which, according 
 to Lachmann, seems to be the work of a German copyist 
 in the sixteenth century, has the forms : 
 
 aborret, orror, orrifico, orrida, proibere, distraitur, is 
 for his, etc. 
 
 The improper addition of H seems to have been a mark 
 of antiquity or rusticity, if we judge by the remarks of 
 Quintilian and Catullus given above, and the language 
 of Gellius (II, 3), which follows : 
 
 If literam sive illam spiritum magis quam literam dici 
 oportet, inserebant eam veteres nostri plerisque vocibus 
 verborum firmandis roborandisque, ut sonus earum esset 
 viridior vegetiorque. .... Sic 'lachrimas,' sic ' sepid- 
 chriim,^ sic * ahenum,^ sic ^ vehemens,^ sic ' incohare,^ sic 
 ^helluari,^ sic ^halucinari^ sic 'honera^ sic ^honustum,^ 
 dixerunt. In Gellius' time, therefore, it must have been 
 considered proper to say not only onera, onustum, lacri- 
 
 * See Appendix, Note I. 
 
 ■i 
 
 f^. 
 
 i4: 
 
 If 1 
 
88 
 
 PROiq^UNCIATION OF LATIK. 
 
 PRONUNCIATION OF LATIN. 
 
 8d 
 
 mas, inchoare (pronounced incoare), etc., but also vemens, 
 alucinari, and in the same way probably a number of 
 other words which are more or less frequently still 
 written with the h in the MSS. which have been handed 
 down to us. 
 
 Since, then, in the matter of adding or withholding 
 the H, the practice of the Eomans themselves was never 
 very determined and uniform, our practice can only con- 
 form itself to some authority, or when this fails, to the 
 probability furnished in the best attested forms of or- 
 thography. For authority (such as it is), we have some 
 lists given by the Grammarian Phocas (De Aspif atione, ap. 
 P. p. 1722, sq, Lind., I, p. 353, sq,), too long to be given 
 here. For the rest, wherever H is properly written in a 
 Latin word, there is no choice left us but to render it, 
 and that with the force of English K* 
 
 The sign K had fallen into general disuse in the clas- 
 sical period ; and, but for the very few scanty remains of 
 its employment, which will be mentioned, we should have 
 nothing to say of that letter here. 
 
 Quint. Inst. Orat., I, vii, 10 : ]^am K quidem in nullis 
 verbis utendum puto, nisi quae significat, etiam ut sola 
 ponatur. It was the opinion of some Grammarians that 
 the K should have a somewhat more extended use— that 
 
 * Of the combinations ph, th, ch, rh, we shall come to speak 
 hereafter. 
 
 it should be put, namely (instead of C), in all places 
 where its sound was followed by the vowel a. This state- 
 ment Quintilian adds to the above : Hoc eo non omisi, 
 quod quidam earn, quotiens A sequatur, necessariam 
 credunt, cum sit littera, quae ad omnes vocales vim 
 suam perferat. 
 
 This dogma of orthography was often repeated by 
 later Grammarians, who founded it on the reason that K 
 already contained A in the sound of its name — Ka, while 
 the C was sounded Ce, that is, Ke (see Scaurus de 
 Orthog., ap. P. p. 2253). It was sometimes further eon- 
 tended (as by Scaurus, 1. 1) that it was the C, and not the 
 K, which should be universally surrendered. And all 
 this implies, of course, that which is also directly stated, 
 that the consonant K was equal to the consonant C* 
 
 With this our inquiry is at an end. It may be added, 
 however, upon the testimony of the best MSS., and upon 
 that of inscriptions too, according to Corssen's report, 
 that in practice the K was banished more completely 
 even than was sanctioned by Quintilian : who himself, 
 moreover, seems in I, 4, 9 to admit the fact that in his 
 time this sign was only used, as we see it now — in certain 
 few abbreviations — K, quae et ipsa quondam nominum 
 nota est. [As K. for Kmo, Karthago, Kalendce.] 
 
 * Priscian L. I. (ap. P. p. 543) : K supervacua est, ut supra 
 diximus, quae quamvis scribatur, nullam aliam vim habet, quam C. 
 
 % h 
 
 / 
 
 j- 
 
I! 
 
 90 
 
 PBONUl^CIATIOlf OF LATIK. 
 
 1 
 
 L. 
 
 The nature of L is thus described by Mar. Victorinus 
 (P. p. 2455) : L, quae validum nescio quid, per partem 
 palati, qua primordium dentibus superis est, lingua 
 trudente, diducto ore, personabit. Add the further cir- 
 cumstance, which is recognized by all the Latin Gram- 
 marians, that L is a liquid or semi-voivel, or, in other 
 words, intonable, and we have here a full account of 
 the English L ; which is given by the author of the 
 Principles of Pronunciation, in Webster's Dictionary, in 
 these words: "This letter has only one sound, which 
 consists of an efflux of vocalized breath, or voice, over the 
 sides of the tongue, while its tip is pressed against the 
 gums of the upper front teeth." Latin L is therefore the 
 same with English L. 
 
 Corroboration for this may be found, if needed, in a 
 comparison of Latin L with Greek A ; and further, in 
 observation of the affinities and modifications to which 
 this letter was subject in the history and growth of Latin 
 words, and the practice of Latin speech, from which it 
 will appear, as shown by Bopp (in § 20 of his Compara- 
 tive Gr., V. 1, and elsewhere), that L appears in Latin 
 under the same conditions and in the same relations as 
 those in which the same letter is also employed in Greek, 
 Gothic, Sclavonic, and the other languages of the same 
 stock. Here should be consulted also Corssen, Max 
 Muller, and Pott (Etymol. Forsch. II, 97), whom Corssen 
 and Miiller both quote. But we need not expand our view 
 so far. Since there is no objection to the point wc have 
 
 PRONUNCIATIONS' OF LATIN. 
 
 91 
 
 to make, we are fully warranted in accepting the undis- 
 puted tradition of the power of Latin L, supported by 
 the statement of Victorinus reported above. 
 
 In respect to variation or modification in the rendering 
 of L we have been able to find no intimation of any- 
 thing more than a slight difference in the force or vigor 
 of its utterance in different situations. On this subject 
 there is a statement of Pliny, quoted by Corssen from 
 Priscian, as follows : L triplicem, ut Plinio videtur, sonum 
 habet: exilem, quando geminatur secundo loco posita, 
 ut ' ille, Metellus,' plenum, quando finit nomina vel syl- 
 labas, et quando aliquam habet ante se eadem syllaba 
 consonantem, ut 'sol, silva, flavus, clarus,' medium in 
 aliis ut ' lectum, lectus.' 
 
 Thus, the second of two L's put between vowels was 
 slight ; as must, indeed, have been necessarily the case 
 if both were sounded alike. For the same must have 
 been true of other consonants likewise, as, e. g., of the 
 second s in caussa, aussus, fussus, odiossus, mentioned 
 by Victorinus (p. 2456) as the earlier, more pronounced 
 mode of rendering (and writing) causa, etc. Greatest in 
 strength or weight was the L at the end of a word (no 
 doubt also at the end of a close syllable), and after an- 
 other consonant at the beginning of a syllable; and 
 neither particularly strong nor particularly weak, the L 
 in all other situations — in all but strength, however, 
 always simple L.* 
 
 * See Appendix, Note K. 
 
92 
 
 PRONUNCIATION OF LATIN. 
 
 M. 
 
 It is the universally accepted tradition that the M of 
 the Latin was the same with that of the cognate lan- 
 guages—the same, therefore, with our own. The tradition 
 is sufficiently supported by these words of Mar. Yicto- 
 rinus (ap. P. p. 2455) : At M, impressis invicem labiis, 
 mugitum quendam intra oris specum, attractis naribus, 
 dabit. Compare also Quintilian, XII, 10, § 31 ; and VIII, 
 3,45. 
 
 There were some situations, however, in which the 
 practice of the Eoman speech declined to render M with 
 its normal force and expression ; and other situations in 
 which the sound of M was not only obliterated but 
 supplanted by another sound under the assimilating 
 influence of a following letter. Without going minutely 
 into the physiology of M, it will be seen at once that 
 when the labial organs are in the proper position for the 
 production of this letter, the degree of distinctness with 
 which it may be rendered, will still depend upon another 
 condition, namely, the degree to which the necessary 
 column of breath, without obstruction by the tongue, is 
 allowed access to the hollow of the mouth {specus), where 
 it is to reverberate (mugire). The lowest degree of dis- 
 tinctness (next to absolute inarticulation) is that which 
 is heard when the breath is not only excluded from the 
 cavity of the mouth but is debarred a free passage through 
 the nose, but, being restricted behind that organ, only 
 reverberates there. This is the French nasal M. One 
 degree higher, perhaps, may be set the sound supposed 
 
 -^ 
 
 PRONUNCIATION OF LATIN. 
 
 93 
 
 to be represented with us by the m in the written form 
 Hm ! , for here the breath, so long as let on at all, is 
 given free passage through the nose. Between this 
 minimum approach to the full sound of m, and the com- 
 plete rendering of the same, many degrees of approxima- 
 tion are possible, degrees, however, which we have no 
 means of recording. It remains now to be said that 
 somewhere within the scope of these the pial M of the 
 Eomans fluctuated While some distinctions are to be 
 known, we shall never be able to determine the distinct- 
 ness which properly belonged to final M in all cases. 
 Discrimination is here difficult in itself, and so the 
 Komans found it also evidently in their own practice.* 
 
 We now introduce some statements of the ancients 
 touching the value of M, and will then proceed briefly to 
 arrange and apply the same. 
 
 Quint. IX, 4, § 40. Atqui eadem ilia littera [M], quo- 
 tiens ultima est et \1)calem verbi sequentis ita con- 
 tingit, ut in cam transire possit, etiam si scribitur, 
 tamen parum exprimitur, ut Multum ille et Quan- 
 tum erat ; adeo ut paene cuiusdam novae litterse 
 sonum reddat. Neque enim eximitur sed obscuratur 
 et tantum aliqua inter duas vocales velut nota est, 
 ne ipsae coeant. 
 
 Priscian I, 555, (Vid. Forcel.) : M obscurum in extremi- 
 tate dictionum sonat ut 'templum,' apertum in 
 principio ut ' magnus,' mediocre in mediis ut ' um- 
 bra.' 
 
 Donat. ad Ter. Adel. II, 1, 53 : Mussitare .... dictum 
 
 See Appendix, Note L. 
 
 .A 
 
I 
 
 94 PRONUNCIATION OF LATIN. 
 
 vel a muto, Tel ab M : quae littera est nimium pressae 
 vocis ac pene nullius : adeo ut sola omnium quum 
 inter vocales incident, atteratur atque subsidat. 
 
 Vel. Longus (P. p. 2238) : Nonnulli synaloephas quo- 
 que observandas circa talem scriptionem existima- 
 verunt, sicut Verrius Flaccus, ut ubicunque prima 
 vox m littera finiretur, sequens a vocali inciperet, M 
 non tota, sed pars illius prior (M) tantum scribere- 
 tur, ut appareat exprimi non debere. 
 
 Quint. VIII, 3, § 45 : — si cum hominihus notis loqui nos 
 dicimus, nisi hoc ipsum liominibiis medium sit, in 
 praefanda {h. e., in obscoenum intellectum) videmur 
 incidere; quia ultima prioris syllabae littera, quaB 
 exprimi nisi labris coeuntibus non potest, aut inter- 
 sistere nos indecentissime cogit aut continuata cum 
 insequente in naturam eius corrumpitur [thus, cun 
 notis], Cf. Cic. Orat. 45, §454. 
 
 These statements contain explicitly and implicitly the 
 following points : 
 
 First (generally), m in the end of words is obscure, 
 weak, uncertain, and often almost nothing ; and this is 
 shown. 
 
 Second (particularly), by the almost complete evanish- 
 ment or subsidence of M (with the vowel preceding) at 
 the end of a word in verse,* when a vowel sound fol- 
 lows in the opening of the next word ; and. 
 
 Third (particularly) ; everywhere, in prose as well as 
 in verse, final M, in the succession of words, is assimilated 
 
 And also in prose, when the connection was close. 
 
 PRONUNCIATION OF LATIN. 
 
 95 
 
 by the influence of an immediately following consonant 
 (of a certain class), provided the connection be close, as 
 it is, e, g., between the preposition and its case. (As in 
 cun notis, cun nobis ; for which, besides Quintilian, as 
 quoted above, see also Cicero, Orat. 45, 154.) 
 
 We must add to this third case, that the assimilation 
 here spoken of as occurring at the end of a word was 
 demanded by stronger reason, and, in fact, generally was 
 effected at the end of a syllable in the midst of a word. 
 In this situation, therefore, M was assimilated to N 
 before C, Q, and G (concipere, conqueri, congerere) ; also 
 before D and T {condere, cundem, contingere, etc.) ; and 
 before F, S, the consonants I and V, and before K Fur- 
 ther, before vowels, and S, I, V, N, M, and GN, the M 
 was often lost. See Lachmann on Lucr., p. 136, touching 
 the forms coopertus, cocoleretur, coicere, coventionid, conic- 
 bium, comovisse, cognomen, etc. 
 
 These analogies should lead us to conclude that where 
 we find MM written as in comyninus (well attested in 
 most ancient MSS. for more common cominus), the first 
 M should be very weakly rendered, i. e., no attempt made 
 to give a distinct utterance to two M's ; and so for all 
 those cases as well, where the MM is the unchanging 
 orthography. And further, similarly, for such forms as 
 umquam, cumque, numquid, tamquam, it is necessary to 
 suppose that the M was so uncertain that many heard 
 and many spoke, as many also wrote, tinquam, cunque, 
 nunquid, tanquam, etc. 
 
 Before the labials B and P within a word, the M w^as 
 moderately distinct, according to Priscian, c. g., " umbra,'^ 
 of the two, less distinct probably before P, as in compo- 
 trix (written also conpotrix, etc.). [Compare here com 
 
90 
 
 PRONUNCIATION OF LATIN. 
 
 11 
 
 in English " composing/' rather than in French '' com- 
 poser."] 
 
 It is plain that in all the instances just named the 
 utterance of complete, clear (apertum) M could only be 
 effected by a stoppage, highly inconvenient and offensive 
 in the midst of a word. 
 
 But further we are told by Quintilian, that not only 
 thus in the midst of a word, but also in the rapid 
 sequence of words, this stoppage was " unseemly " in the 
 end of a word when closely followed by a sound requiring 
 a rearrangement of the organs. The question, therefore, 
 now reverts to the sound of final M as it was heard in 
 practice. This difficult question is by no means satisfac- 
 torily disposed of by Priscian's " M obscurum in extremi- 
 tate dictionum sonat," for there are several degrees of 
 obscurity through which it is possible for the M to range, 
 not to say anything about its transformation by assimila- 
 tion. There is reason for supposing a good deal of 
 fluctuation in the Eoman practice here, and certainty in 
 particular cases is clearly no longer attainable for us. 
 The final M appears to have been less respected in 
 ancient times than it was afterwards in the classical 
 period.* The forms diee for diem, " Jiecipie apud Cato- 
 nem pro recipiam, nt alia eiiismodi complura'' \ show 
 this ; and the same is probably the explanation of the 
 old forms tame,X cume (and quome, S. C. de Bach.), in 
 which the irrational e was added for the preservation of 
 the otherwise final M. The writing of the m in diem, 
 
 * After the classical period the M became weaker again. 
 
 f Festus, in Jordan's Cato, p. 90. 
 
 t Vid. Scaurus de Orthog., ap. P. p. 2261. 
 
 PRONUNCIATION OF LATIN. 
 
 97 
 
 etc., and the dropping of the e in tam^e), etc., are both 
 signs of an increase of force in the final M. 
 
 If we weigh the language of Quintilian in discussing 
 the order of the words cum hominibus notis, and Cicero's 
 similar remarks on the forms 7iohiscum., rnecum, tecum 
 (Orat. § 154), it will bo manifest that the fanciful reason 
 which they assign was certainly not the jmncipal reason 
 for the order nohiscum rather than cun uobis ; and it 
 cannot be reasonably doubted that in the close connection 
 alluded to, a place was sought for cum in which its final 
 letter would not be lost in another sound or in nothing- 
 ness, or cause an offensive stoppage by being given in its 
 own sound.* It is fair, therefore, to infer that in mecum, 
 etc., and also in the sequence cum hominibus the final 
 M was weak, to be sure, but nevertheless a distinctly 
 audible M. But for the pronunciation of cum hominibus 
 we must call attention very particularly to what Quin- 
 tilian says of the pronunciation of M final before a vowel 
 opening the following word. It will be remembered that 
 his language is very explicit, and, 
 
 1. His statement is inconsistent with oiir commonly 
 received dogma of Ecthlipsis by which the M and its 
 preceding vowel go for naught. Donatus too (Lib. Ill, 
 seq. 4 ap. L.) does not countenance the dropping of the 
 M in the situation alluded to, when he says : Ecthlipsis 
 est consonantium cum vocalibus aspere concurrentium 
 quaedam difficilis ac dura collisio, ut 
 
 Multu7n ille ct tcrris iactatus et alto. 
 
 The M remains then, for, it must be to it that the 
 
 * Vid. Servius in II Donati Editionem, ap. P. p. 1797: Nemo 
 enim dicit cum me, cum tc, propter cacophatou. 
 
 1^ 
 
 I 
 I 
 
 {f. 
 
98 
 
 PRONUNCIATION OF LATIN. 
 
 PRONUNCIATION OF LATIN. 
 
 99 
 
 " dura coUisio " is due : it is very much weakened though, 
 for, 
 
 2. Quintilian says that it is faintly rendered and hardly 
 recognizable particularly as M ; but, 
 
 3. While he speaks of the M here as a sort of middle, 
 severed thing between the two vowels, yet he evidently 
 regards it as 2Mssing over to the opening vowel of the 
 subsequent word with which it is brought in close con- 
 tact (ita contingit, ut in earn transire possit). Tho 
 conflict between the statements, that the M passes over 
 to the second vowel, and remains as a sort of mumbled 
 connection between the two is not great, and will be 
 accounted for if we think of the M as actually by the 
 speaker attached to the second vowel while he remembers 
 that it belongs really to the first. 
 
 In this way we shall get 3IuUu' mille, Quantu' meraf, 
 cu' 7n hominibiis, etc., etc., in which the rn must be 
 obscurely rendered, i. e., as nearly suppressed as possible 
 consistently with its still remaining M, "Neque enim 
 eximitur, sed obscuratur." The previous vowel, more- 
 over, will be given irrationally, i. e., with but faint trace 
 of its own characteristic tone, and so short as not to count 
 for quantity. 
 
 In accordance with what has been said ; if we take the 
 sentence : " numquam ego pecuniam neque meam neque 
 sociorum per ambitionem dilargitus sum," we shall find 
 a clear complete M only in the first syllable of meam 
 (M apart um) ; in the first syllable of ambitmiem it is 
 dimmer, weaker, but still M {M mediocre); in the sound 
 of the first m of numquam, we have the same weakness, 
 out of which grows an uncertainty of sound in practice 
 
 more like n than m, as nu7iquam * {M incertum). Lastly, 
 the final M is, in each of its occurrences, more obscure 
 still than the m mediocre {M obscurum), but with some 
 differences; thus in numquam the final m is almost 
 nothing (jjo^w^ nullius vocis) as far as numquam is 
 concerned, but passes over in a weak utterance to join 
 the e of ego closely following, thus : numqud mego (with 
 which we may compare English d in the connection 
 "baffled investigation,'' if pronounced baffle' dinvestiga- 
 tion). In all the other instances in which final M is 
 found in the above sentence, nothing more can be said 
 than that it is obscure, for we are not entitled to read 
 pecunian neque, or mean neque, since we have not here 
 the close connection of cun nobis. In pecuniam meam, 
 if we had it, this connection would obtain, and there is 
 every probability that we should say pecuma' meam. 
 
 The faintness of m in sum is said by Corssen to be sup- 
 ported by the form su, found on an ancient inscription. 
 
 The Latin N" was naturally and normally, for the most 
 part also actually, the same with our own N. This 
 appears from tradition ; from the ancient description of 
 the formation of this letter; by implication also from 
 ancient allusions to the same of a less direct kind ; and 
 
 * It is necessary to remark, however, not in conflict with this but 
 in addition to it, that in this place we shall have the sound of N 
 advUerinum, as described in the next section. 
 
 lit' 
 
100 
 
 PRONUis^CIATIOJ^ OF LATIN. 
 
 I« 
 
 from an obseryation of the part played by N in the con- 
 stitution of words and their changes. 
 
 For the normal force of ^ we present the following 
 description of Mar. Victorinus (P. p. 2455) : JV vero sub 
 convexo palati liiujua inli(Brmte, gemino naris et oris spi- 
 ritu cxplkaUtiir : in which, when due allowance is made 
 for the usual want of positive and experimental accuracy, 
 we see indicated with a good degree of certainty our own 
 K— the nasal letter described by Helmholtz and Miiller 
 in Miiller's Science of Lang., 2d. Ser., pp. 158-9. 
 
 The accidents and affinities of Latin JS" in contact Avith 
 other sounds are conformable to the nature of our N as 
 indicated, and the identity is further seen in the circum- 
 stance that the Latin Grammarians uniformly class IN" 
 with the semi-Yowels. N, therefore, in Latin, like M, 
 was a weak consonant. The firmest sound which it had 
 was generally given it in the beginning of a v^ord. This 
 is fairly inferred from the fact that N in this situation is 
 scarcely ever lost or changed.* The changes to which N" 
 was subject when variously pla<jed within a word are too 
 numerous to be named and suitably estimated here. 
 
 The most important of them may be seen briefly stated 
 in Forcellini's Lexicon, and fully expanded and discussed 
 by Corssen (Ausspr. I, p. 93, ff.). As we have not space 
 for so wide a view, we shall give this author's conclusions 
 in his own words, embracing his highly probable opinion 
 of the value of N final ; pausing first only to name one 
 peculiar sound of IN", pointed out and described by Nigi- 
 dius Figulus, and others, and called by them N aduUeri- 
 num. This is a sound like ng, acquired by 'N when it 
 
 * We cannot speak absolutely here, while we find, e. g., Lympha 
 for NympTm. See Festus in Forcellini's Lex. under Lymphatus. 
 
 PRONUNCIATION OF LATIN. 
 
 101 
 
 occurs immediately before the sound of c, q, and g (there- 
 fore also before x), 
 
 Aul. Gell. N. A. XIX, 14, 7 : Item ex eodem lihro {sc. 
 commentariis Nigidii) verba lime sunt : Inter literam 
 N et G est alia vis, ut in nomine 'angiiis' et 'angari' 
 et 'ancorm' et 'increpat' et 'incurrit' et ' ingenuus' 
 In om7iibus Us non vernm n, sed adulterimim poni- 
 tur, Nayn N non esse, lifigua indicio est ; nam si ea 
 litera esset, lingua 2)alatum tangeret. 
 
 This language is sufficiently unmistakable, but any 
 who wish more proof may, by consulting Mar. Victorin., 
 pp. 2462-3, 24G5, and Priscian, p. 556, see it placed 
 beyond a doubt that the sound indicated as that of N 
 adiiUerinum was that of English n in " rancor," " fin- 
 ger," "hungry," etc. 
 
 This is embraced in Corssen's conclusions, which are as 
 
 follows : 
 
 1. "N had the well defined, steady, lingual sound in 
 the beginning of words, and within a word between two 
 vowels,* and (in the classical language) before lingual 
 
 mutes." 
 
 2. "N has a weak, dull sound, like Sanscrit A^msivara, 
 and like the n in such German words as Gans, Zins, 
 Sense, when it occurs within a word immediately before 
 s, and (in compound words) also before the semi- vowels 
 j and V, and before the strong labial breathing /; it has 
 
 * We have seen one instance (viz. : Wymphd) in which, in the 
 beginning, n was not so steady : in the middle of a word between 
 two vowels, it seems also not to have been always quite firm, at 
 least in the popular speech ; for we have Messaim turned by the 
 people (" vulgus ") into Messala. See Senec. de Brev. Vit., 13, 5. 
 
102 
 
 PRONUNCIATION^ OF LATIN. 
 
 a weak, dull sound also within a word after m, likewise 
 also in the end of a tvord.'' [So that in nomen, etc., the 
 last 71 is fainter than the first.] 
 
 3. " The sound of N is guttural in its character when 
 it occurs immediately before c, q, g, cli, x. This sound 
 of n the Latins sought at various times to represent in 
 yarious ways ; by g [as in aggulus for angulus ; see Pris- 
 cian], by nc [nuncqiiam for mmqumn], by c [nucguam], 
 and (occasionally in very late times) by dropping all sign 
 [as in pricipi for principi]. The sound itself corres- 
 ponds to French nasal n [?] and to the n in German 
 ^ Danh,^ ' sinken,^ ' Klang^ ' singcn^ " [English ' tJianky 
 etc.] 
 
 P. 
 
 P, labris spiritus erumpit, Marrian. Capella. Mar. 
 Victorinus (P. p. 2454) : B et P liter m — dispari inter 
 se oris officio exprimuntur ; nam prima exploso e mediis 
 lahiis S0710 ; seqiiens (P) compresso ore, velut introrsum 
 attracto vocis ictu, explicantur. Webster's Dictionary: 
 " P is formed by closely compressing the lips, and sepa- 
 rating them suddenly with an explosive emission of 
 breath." Add the uniform testimony of tradition to 
 these declarations, and nothing more is necessary to show 
 that, Latin P = English P. 
 
 The only noticeable confusion of the sound of P with 
 that of any other letter is to be seen in the interchange 
 of P and B, the sonant of the same organ. The history 
 and import of that interchange has already been dis- 
 
 PRONUNCIATION OF LATIN. 
 
 103 
 
 cussed in connection with the letter B. The circum- 
 stances and the time (mostly ante-classical) of the fluctua- 
 tion, point rather to a stiffening of B than to a softening 
 of P. And it has been further made to appear that the 
 practice of the classical time made a clear distinction 
 
 between the two. 
 
 Nothing more remains to be said, except that in one 
 situation we may take it for granted that the P had a 
 weak sound— that situation, namely, where not unfre- 
 quently it seems to have been employed by insertion to 
 protect an M against the corrupting influences of follow- 
 ing N, T, or S, as in emptus, sumpsi, contemptnere, 
 arumpna (A. Gell., VII, 16, 9, H.). 
 
 Q. 
 
 Q was one of three signs employed by the Latin for 
 representing the guttural tenuis (English K). Through- 
 out the classical time it was prescriptively assigned and 
 confined to that situation in which the guttural tenuis 
 was to be followed by V, that is, to the combination QV. 
 In itself considered, Q was held to be entirely equivalent 
 to C or K, This is abundantly stated on authority, and 
 appears from the fact that many linguists from the early 
 times of the cultivated Latin sought to banish the Q 
 entirely (equally with the K). 
 
 Mar. Victorinus (P. p. 2456) : Licinius Calvus Q litera 
 non est usus. 
 
104 
 
 TROKUNci atio:n^ of latin. 
 
 Quint. I, 4, 9 : Q, cuius similis effectu specieque, nisi 
 quod paulum a nostris obliquatur [compare 9 and 
 9], Koppa apud Graecos .... 
 
 Priscian, L., 1: Quamvis in yaria figura et vario 
 nomine fuit K, et Q et C, tamen quia unam vim 
 habent tam in metro quam in sono, pro una litera 
 accipi debent. 
 
 Accordingly Qura would be equal to cura, 
 Dequs " " « " decus, 
 Pequnia " " " " pecuniae 
 
 and these and similar forms are often found on inscrip- 
 tions of ancient date (see Schweitzer's de titulo Mum- 
 miano, in Kuhn's Zeitsch., II, p. 377). The established 
 practice of the later classical period, however, added one 
 more restriction to the use of Q, which was then con- 
 fined to use before V when that element was followed by 
 another vowel. (See Quint. 12, 10.) [The effect of V 
 in this connection has been discussed already, in another 
 place, p. 44.] 
 
 By a simple comparison of Latin K with the same let- 
 ter in cognate languages, we soon arrive with certainty 
 at the nature and power of that letter uj? to certain limits. 
 That is to say, it is easy to ascertain its identity with 
 (e.g.) the English E. But this is still to speak very 
 loosely ; for while our Grammarians have not thought fit 
 
 PROKUNCIATION OF LATIN. 
 
 105 
 
 to employ more than one name and sign for R, yet we 
 are familiar with several quite different renderings of 
 
 this element. 
 
 There are, namely, with us at least three clearly dis- 
 tinguishable modes of uttering R. First we have the flat 
 or dull R,as in "far," "future;" second, the unfolded, 
 rolled or round R, as in "wrap," "reap," "farrier," 
 "futurity;" and, third, the "trilled" R-not at home, 
 indeed, in English, but heard, e. g., in the French "rap- 
 port." The question must then recur: With which of 
 these R's is the Latin R to be identified? For an answer 
 to this question we find the material but scant and slen- 
 der. But such considerations as we have to offer seem to 
 favor the belief * that the Romans sounded their R in 
 each of the three ways above indicated, and that the 
 difference was with them, as with us, determined to some 
 considerable extent by the situation of the R. 
 
 The separate character of the three R's will be best 
 discerned by reference to the organs of speech ; and it 
 must be observed that in the utterance of each there is 
 the vibration of some soft part in the vocal tube ; and 
 that further, in the case of each, there is a tendency to 
 contact between the point of the tongue and the hard 
 palate, but a short distance behind the teeth. This ten- 
 dency never becomes perfect effect (in which case the R 
 would cease to be the semi-vowel, which it always re- 
 mains), but the degree and mode in which it approxi- 
 mates attainment constitutes a large part of the difference 
 between the R's ; while the other elements of distinction 
 are referable to the parts which vibrate (whether the soft 
 
 * In one case ratlier the conjecture. 
 
 mmmm0tH!IKKi9t!l^ 
 
106 
 
 PRONUNCIATIOlf OF LATIN. 
 
 palate or the tip of the tongue), and to the space which 
 confines the vibrating air (whether this be the mouth 
 only, or the mouth together with the pharynx and the 
 cavity of the nose). Some other points of difference 
 there are, but these will be enough for our purpose. 
 
 The dull E, then, is given when the point of the 
 tongue lies nearly passive in the front of the slightly 
 opened mouth. Unless there is some tendency, however, 
 of the tongue towards the contact of its tip with the 
 palate, the R cannot be rendered at all, and may fade 
 entirely away, as sometimes in English farther, etc. In 
 this E, the soft palate vibrates and the nose is open. 
 
 In the rolled or round E the tongue becomes active, 
 makes a vigorous effort as though towards contact with 
 the palate, but its tip curls backward into the mouth 
 instead, just short of the contact. The air is now let on, 
 the soft palate vibrating and the nose being open as 
 before. Under these conditions, when the tongue un- 
 folds, the round E is delivered. Let it be noted, however, 
 that until the tongue is unfolded, the sound of this 
 E may, instead of being discharged, be prolonged at 
 pleasure. 
 
 In the trilled E the tip of the tongue partially suc- 
 ceeds in making the contact alluded to, but in its per- 
 sistent efforts to maintain it, is repeatedly defeated by 
 the passing column of air. The tip of the tongue thus 
 vibrates against the hard palate behind the teeth. The 
 soft palate does not vibrate, and the nose is closed. 
 
 Whether the trilled or rattling E was known to the 
 Eomans it is not easy to say with certainty, and suppos- 
 ing it known, still more difficult is it to know the limits 
 of its use. It may be that most persons will refer to this 
 
 I 
 
 PRONUNCIATION OF LATIN. 
 
 107 
 
 E, the words of Mar. Yictorinus (P. p. 2455) : E, qu86 
 vibratione vocis in palato, linguae fastigio fragorem 
 tremulis ictibus reddit. 
 
 Further, it seems not unlikely (more cannot safely be 
 said) that this was the sound of that E which in Latin 
 was readily interchangeable with L ; since L was also a 
 "trilled" letter, according to Helmholtz and Miiller, in 
 Science of Lang., 2d Ser., p. 149, f. 
 
 The interchange of E and L is pointed out by Bopp 
 (§20, Comp. Gr., Vol. I), by Pott (Etymol. Forsch., 
 II, 97), and fully by Corssen (I, p. 80). And the readi- 
 ness with which the transition was made is well illustrated 
 by the jocose use of Hillus for Hirrus by Cicero (Epp. 
 ad Fam. II, X, 1).* This furnishes, however, only a 
 slight ground for conjecturing a trilled sound of E, and 
 on the other hand if Bentley (Hor. Serm. I, 3, 47) is right 
 in supposing Hirrus called " ah hirriendo,'' it is probable 
 that we must recognize in this word the littera canina, 
 and in that case we have no argument left, that we 
 have discovered, for the trilling of E in Latin, except 
 what may be found in the words of Victorinus, quoted 
 
 above. 
 
 Passing now to the rolled or round E (English roiv), 
 a regard to the organs of speech, and a general view of 
 the practice of many languages — the Latin included — 
 leads us to determine this as the normal E. For the 
 Latin particularly, we argue that Persius must have felt 
 this, and must have had this round E in view in the use 
 of his phrase littera canina (Sat. I, 109) : sonat hie de 
 nare canina Littera, That E was the letter here referred 
 
 * See Appendix, Note M. 
 
108 
 
 PIl0 2s'UKCIATI0K OF LATIN. 
 
 to, is shown by words of Lucilius, reported by Donatus in 
 Ter. Adelp. II, 4, 18, and further by Donatus in Ter. 
 And. Ill, 4, 18, where he says of the word irritatus : 
 Ducitur autem verhum a canibus, qui restrictis dentihiis 
 ham literam R imitantur. Too much importance must 
 not be attached to obseryations like these, which have 
 often been abused ; but as far as they are worth inter- 
 preting, they point plainly to the round R, as above 
 described. An easy experiment will show that by causing 
 the voice to dwell on the R in {e. g) rasp, we effect the 
 nearest possible imitation of the snarling of a doo-. 
 
 The 7iose is open now, as Persius knew, and resounds 
 with the air vibrating from the soft palate ; but this is 
 not the case with the trilled R 
 
 The same will be thought the most likely sound of the 
 R, which in the history of Latin words appears so very 
 often in the place of former S ; as in 
 
 Furius for Fusius (Liv. Ill, 4), 
 
 Papirius " Papisius (Cic. Ep. ad Fam. XXI), 
 
 qucBrundum {qnmrendiim) and qumsundum, in a fragment 
 of Ennius (Ribbeck, Trag. p. 23) ; in connection with 
 which is to be noted the remark of Festus, p. 258, M. : * 
 qumere ponitur ah antiquis pro qucerere. 
 
 Corssen makes a full exhibition of this very wide- 
 spread phenomenon, and points out the similar activity 
 in i\\Q point of the tongue in the utterance of S and the 
 utterance of that R of which we now speak, and which 
 we have called the round R. It is true that we have here 
 only another basis for conjecture, but we add it to what 
 
 * See Ribbeck, 1. 1. 
 
 PRONUNCIATION OF LATIN. 
 
 109 
 
 
 has been already said, in support of what seems to be 
 certainly the most probable belief, namely that the round 
 R (our own normal R) was the normal, and most com- 
 mon, R of the Latin. 
 
 We have now to inquire whether the sound above 
 described as that of flat or dull R was ever heard, and 
 if ever, where it was heard, in Latin words. 
 
 Whether we think of the effect of the sound, or have 
 regard to the relaxation of the point of the tongue in 
 uttering this letter, it is plain that, on comparison with 
 the normal R, the chief character of the dull R is 
 weakness. 
 
 We argue now then briefly that final R in Latin words 
 of more than one syllable is weak, since the vowel before 
 it is weak, and therefore incapable of receiving a strong 
 check after it. We hold, accordingly, that probability is 
 unquestionably in favor of dull, weak R (as in English 
 farther, river) in the end of Latin words, as in juhar, 
 nectar, pater, acer, duumvir, soror, inmror, satur, rohur, 
 etc. The vowel before R final is short and without stress, 
 Avhile in many cases it must be supposed so weak and 
 indifferent as to be almost irrational, as in satur, rohur, 
 acer, duumvir, and many others. With such a sound 
 before, and no sound to follow, the R must be faint. 
 
 s. 
 
 In such allusions to the Latin S, as have heretofore 
 been occasionally made, we have assumed for it that 
 
 •♦ 
 
i 
 
 110 
 
 PR0N"U1TCIATI01T or LATIl^. 
 
 sound commonly known as the sharp 5. In proof of this 
 as the normal character of Latin S, we need only refer to 
 the voice of tradition and the sustaining evidence to be 
 had by even a cursory series of observations of the part 
 played by S within the Latin and the languages allied to 
 it. We need not introduce these observations here, 
 partly because a sufficient number of them are familiar 
 to all, partly because some of them will appear below, 
 and partly because the tradition, undisputed, is enough 
 to establish this one point, viz. : that the normal force of 
 Latin S was that of the English S in "see,'' ''bless.'' 
 
 From regard to the organs engaged, this S maybe 
 called the t hiss, while the soft S of our own and other 
 languages may be marked as the d hiss (z). The ques- 
 tion remains, whether the Latin did not also use the soft 
 rendering of S. We have for answer to this, that in what 
 we have found said of S by the ancient Grammarians, no 
 allusion, at least no distinct allusion, can be found to 
 the soft sound. 
 
 The importance of this negative argument is great, and 
 other reasons must be strong if they shall be sufficient to 
 establish the soft sound. Such reasons are to be sought 
 in the conditions of the use of S ; and some, accordingly 
 (as Corssen), have wished to interpret certain appearances 
 among those conditions, as indicating a soft sound for 
 this letter in the midst of a loord between two voicels. 
 
 But what shall we say, then, to the doubling of S in 
 Cicero's time in such words as caussa, aussns, divissio, 
 odiossus,otc.? Quint. (I, 7, 20) : Quid? quod Ciceronis 
 temporibus paulumque infra, fere quotiens S littera 
 media vocalium longarum vel subiecta longis esset, gemi- 
 nabatur, ut caiissce, cassus, divissiones ? 
 
 PRONUNCIATION OF LATIN. 
 
 Ill 
 
 We scarcely need the assurance of Vel. Longus (P. p. 
 2233): "S vero geminata vocis sonum exasperat," or 
 that doubled S is intended to mark the sharpest sound 
 
 of S. 
 
 And from this it appears that the single s in causa, 
 etc., when so written, must also have had the sharp 
 sound ; if, as Corssen admits, it is plain from that fluc- 
 tuation in orthography between ss and s (which he 
 further illustrates from inscriptions), that there " could 
 not have been an essential difference " in the pronuncia- 
 tion, in the situation alluded to, between the doubled 
 and the single sign. For if Corssen, admitting this, will 
 still speak catiza for causa, he must also say that cauzza 
 was the sound that Cicero, Virgil, and others, thought 
 proper to indicate by caussa; but in this position he will 
 find himself pointedly opposed by the words quoted 
 above from Vel. Longus, and will further lay himself 
 under the necessity of saying iuzzi or iuzi for iussi (for, 
 according to the tesimony of Quintilian, in continuation 
 of the passage quoted above, this word was, shortly before 
 Cicero's time, also written iusi). 
 
 The readiest and most reasonable conclusion which can 
 be drawn from that fluctuation in orthography seems to 
 be simply this. There may have been a tendency at 
 times to weakness in the utterance of s occurring between 
 two vowel sounds, the first of which was long. Possibly 
 to guard against this, certainly for some reason, there 
 were those who, about Cicero's time, thought it best to 
 mark s in this place by a double sign (not to change a 
 d hiss into a t hiss, but) simply to mark unmistakably 
 the normal strong t hiss. When this doubling of the s 
 
112 
 
 PROI^UNCIATION OF LATIIT. 
 
 PROKUKCI ATIOK OF LATIN. 
 
 113 
 
 ll 
 
 became again unusual,* it was because the single s could 
 be relied on for the purpose ; while the same opinion had 
 influenced the writers of an early period in using only 
 one s in lussi, and probably other perfect forms. 
 
 It is also easy to suppose that some slight variety in 
 syllabication might prevail in such forms in the practice 
 of a limited time, and that on such variety might be 
 based a particular idea with some as to the proper form 
 of orthography. Again, the first of two s's may have been 
 now used, and again supposed unnecessary, for metrical 
 purposes, to mark as long the foregoing vowel sound. 
 But in any of these suppositions the identity in character 
 between ss and simple s must be taken for granted. 
 Hence, the significance of this phenomenon of doubling 
 the S is altogether in favor of the sharp sound of single 
 S in the midst of a word between two vowels, f 
 
 Final S, in words of more than one syllable, deserves 
 particular notice, because of a weakness to which this 
 consonant, like others, was subject in this situation. It 
 does not follow, however, that weak S is sofl S. [It has 
 not perhaps been sufficiently remembered that a t hiss 
 may be weak or faint, without being turned into a d hiss • 
 thus in English busijiess {hiznes) we have a strong d hiss 
 
 * It was disapproved bj Quintilian, and condemned by later 
 Grammarians, as by Q. Ter. Scaurus, P. 2257, and others. 
 
 f Corssen has several independent reasons to urge for the soft 
 sound of S between two vowels. But they are not unanswerable. 
 We are a httle surprised to see to what an extent that learned 
 author IS led m this particular by the analogy of modern languages. 
 Moreover, in citmg Italian cosa as containing soft ., we find him in 
 conflict with Dr. Mahn (Lehrbuch der Ital. Sp.), who says, « S is 
 almost always sharp; as in 'sentire,' 'cosa; • casa.' There are 
 only a few exceptions— perhaps in a dozan words." 
 
 {z) followed by a weak t hiss («)]. To say nothing of 
 other considerations, the weakness of final S during the 
 best time of the Latin, is probable in view of the manifest 
 exceeding faintness of that letter in the end of words 
 both before and after the classical age. For the ancient 
 weakness of final S we need only point to the extensive 
 dropping of S from the end of grammatical forms. Like- 
 wise also in the post-classic time, on inscriptions of 
 the late Empire are said to occur the forms filio (for 
 filiosy nominative case), Mariu, CBtati, and many others 
 with loss of final S (Corssen, I, 120). It is hence plain, 
 that during the classical age itself the final S could not 
 have been strong ; yet we have evidence that it was then 
 thought proper to sound it stronger than in the earlier 
 or the later times, when it often faded into nothing. 
 
 Cic. (Orat, c. 48, §161) says: Quin etiam, quod iam 
 suhrusticiim videtur, olim autem politius, eorum ver- 
 borum, quorum eaedem erant postremas duas literae, quae 
 sunt in ' optumus,' postremam literam detrahebant, nisi 
 vocalis insequebatur.* Ita non erat offeusio in versibus, 
 quam nunc fugiunt poetae novi. Ita enim loquebamur 
 [al. loquebantur] : Qui est omnibu' princeps, non omnibus 
 princeps, et. Vita ilia dignu' locoque, non dignus. 
 
 S final, accordingly, although weak, should still be 
 heard distinctly, and that too with its normal sound. 
 
 But, lastly, there is reason for believing S to have had 
 not only the weak but also the soft sound {z) when it 
 occurred at the end of a word, and was preceded immedi- 
 ately by the letters B or N, as in plebs, scobs, mons, demens, 
 
 * A vowel sound immediately following, if in close connection, 
 would practically destroy the final situation of S, 
 
lU 
 
 PEOKUNCIATIOK OF LATIJ?". 
 
 PRONUNCIATION OF LATIN. 
 
 115 
 
 dodrans, etc. The Latin S (sharp) is, as to the effect 
 exerted by it on a previous contiguous consonant, per- 
 fectly analogous to Greek 2. Thus, while in Greek Kg or 
 rr = ^, so in Latin cs or gs = x. In Greek r or 6 before 
 r are dropped ; so in Latin, as in "miles,'' "palus." But 
 in Greek f3 before g becomes n (n, s., (pXeip, stem 0Af)3-) : 
 thus in Latin we ought to have ajjs, apsque, apscondere, 
 opsonium, opsecro, etc., besides, nujosi, scripsi, lapsus, etc. 
 The B might be rejected, also, or assimilated as in iusi 
 or iussi, but could not stand as B before the normal S. 
 Accordingly, when such forms as aps, opsonium, etc., 
 found in the old Latin (as seen, e. g., in the critical edi- 
 tions of Plautus), came to be written ahs, obsonium, etc., 
 this must in all probability have been in consequence of 
 a softening of the S. 
 
 Again, the v falls out in Greek before a in XifiEoi (for 
 XifXEvm), etc. So also often in Latin n falls out before S 
 
 as m 
 
 toties 
 quinquies 
 cosol 
 praBgnas 
 
 for 
 
 u 
 (( 
 
 a 
 
 totiens, 
 quinquiens, 
 consol, 
 praegnans, etc, etc. 
 
 Now ^, being the nasal of D, is much more easily con- 
 sonant with the d hiss, or soft S, than it could be with 
 the hard or normal S. We infer, then, that it was the 
 hard S before which the N fell away, as in toties, while 
 that sound of the S must have been the softened one, 
 which admitted K before it, in the same syllable, as in 
 totiens. 
 
 So that we ought to give the S soft in mens, amans, 
 
 etc., while, however, it remains hard as usual in men-sura, 
 
 man-sit, etc. 
 
 S, then, is normally and generally in Latin the hard 
 or t hiss, the strength of which is moderated in the end 
 of a word. The hiss is transferred to the d contact when 
 S occurs in the end of a syllable, before a syllabic pause, 
 and immediately preceded by the consonants n ov.b. 
 
 T. 
 
 It will not be thought necessary to adduce here proofs 
 of the normal power of Latin T. The conditions of the 
 use of this letter in Latin words, its appearances and 
 disappearances, furnish evidence coincident with that 
 which more obviously arises from comparing the use of 
 the same consonant in Latin forms and in corresponding 
 forms of cognate languages ; and all this evidence, most 
 of which lies very near, justifies the unquestioned prac- 
 tice of tradition in giving to Latin T the same power as 
 that of our own (lingual-dental tenuis) T. 
 
 We must infer that T in the end of words had a weak 
 sound ; and this in the case of polysyllables, from a gen- 
 eral regard to the barytone prosody of Latin words. But, 
 secondly, evidence of the same is also seen in the dis- 
 appearance of t from the end of words (monosyllables 
 included) during the period antecedent to the time when 
 Latin words assumed their settled forms of orthography. 
 Thus, to speak now only of nouns, a t sound originally 
 
I 
 
 IIG 
 
 PRONUNCIATIO^^^ OF LATIN. 
 
 belonged to the ablative case, as in dolot for dolo, malot 
 for malo, capitet for capite, concionet for condone, iuret 
 for iure, suot for suo, etc. These words, found in the 
 XII tables, were written, it is true, dolod, kapited, conci- 
 oned (cf. coventmiid), ioured, souod, etc. But this d 
 (representing Sanscrit /, sign of the ablative case) was 
 sounded, as we have before seen, not differently from t 
 There was here, therefore, a dropping of the final t sound. 
 Such dropping of T becomes more striking proof of 
 the general weakness of that letter in a final situation, 
 when instances occur in which it smnetimes falls away 
 and sometimes not And this is the case, for instance, in 
 the Haut and Hau (both for Hand) in MSS. of Plautus. 
 We have therefore in ta7igU, cantat, mittit, essentially the 
 same T twice, but weaker in the last place.* 
 
 There is only one, but that in effect a very decided 
 corruption of T, which now demands our attention. It 
 is maintained and very commonly admitted that already 
 in the classical age, an assibilation was superinduced 
 upon this letter by following I, when the I was followed 
 again by another vowel sound. 
 
 It is well known that the representative of this Latin 
 T, which appears in the derived forms of modern lan- 
 guages, is in them given by some form of a hiss. (Latin 
 histitia, Italian giustizia, Sj^anish jusHcia, French justice, 
 
 I 
 
 * It is probable that final d was practically not distinguished in 
 sound from final t. This was argued before at pp. 69, 70. To the 
 evidence there given we add a remark from Phocas' de Aspiratione 
 (P. p. 1724\ incidentally confirming the same point in the case of 
 hand = haut. Adverbium (baud) autem discretionis causa dasian 
 [H] habet praepositam, ut ne cuniunctio fuerit, veluti legimus: 
 *Aut portum tenet.' 
 
 « 1 
 
 PRONUNCIATION OF LATIN. 
 
 117 
 
 etc., etc.) This fact used as an argument requires the 
 assumption of a hissing sound for the Latin T (more 
 strictly TI) in the situation indicated, at a time early 
 enough for the Latin letter to have served, as it un- 
 doubtedly did, as a common source for the Spanish c, 
 Italian z, French p, etc. 
 
 But as this falls far short of proving a hissing sound 
 for T in the classical time of the Latin, other evidence 
 must be had for the use of such a sound in that early 
 
 time. 
 
 Here, then, is to be considered again that fluctuation 
 in orthography between ci and ti found by those who 
 have had access to ancient inscriptions, upon stones of 
 date as ancient as the early Empire. The value of this 
 phenomenon as bearing upon the question of a similar 
 hissing sound for both ci and ti we have already con- 
 sidered in connection with the letter C. 
 
 We ventured then to express the opinion that the few 
 earliest observed interchanges of C and T do not require us 
 to suppose a third sound different from the proper sound 
 of each of these ; that is, that jiimtius and nunkius might 
 have existed together as dialectic varieties (as moikie for 
 7noitie in Canada, and 'ayKXcd for 'avrXia in modern 
 Greek, etc.). If this is so, the argument for a hissing 
 sound of either ci or ti which is founded on the inter- 
 change of these letters, must remain uncertain until a 
 hissing sound is established for either the ci or ti upon 
 
 other grounds. 
 
 Now this is easy to do, in the case of both, in the late 
 and corrupt days of the Latin, but attended with ever- 
 increasing difficulty (according to the exhibition of those 
 who have had access to the most ancient records) on pene- 
 
 
 1 
 
 

 1 
 
 |i 1 1' ■' 
 
 118 
 
 PRONUNCIATIOK OF LATIN. 
 
 trating backward towards the classical era. In default of 
 data suflBcient for a settled opinion, we cannot do more 
 than record the conclusion which will generally, no 
 doubt, be regarded as justly reached by Corssen. That 
 is : that the T before I followed by another vowel began 
 to be heard with a hiss in the very best times of the 
 classical Latin ; that the assibilation became more uni- 
 versal as well as more marked with the advance of time. 
 As to the sound itself ; it was in the late Latin marked 
 by z, as in iustizia, as well as also by Greek f and rf, by 
 ts, and by tc. Comparing dova^Lovefi (for donationem), 
 'aKT^io (for actio), Constantsa (for Constantio), milizia 
 (for militia), Bincentce (for Vincent ice), all late forms; we 
 see that the hiss sometimes was felt to represent the T 
 only, sometimes the TI together, and that the sound 
 probably was about that of ts or tsch— such a ts, e. g., as 
 might be put in place of ce in the end of English ' ounce,' 
 thus, ounts ; or such a tsch as might represent the pro- 
 nunciation of te in English "righteous" thus, "rlt- 
 tschusP 
 
 lustitia, according to this, would sound institsia or 
 iastitschia. 
 
 The limits to the hissing sound of T in ti must be 
 briefly stated. 
 
 1. The I must be consonantal I, and consequently short. 
 Hence, when the I is long, as, e. g,, in totiiis, the T has 
 the pure sound. Further, in Greek words (as Mgyptius), 
 as the I is not consonantal, the T cannot be hissed. 
 Again, in the old infinitive passive forms, as nitier, qua- 
 tier,^ etc., the I was not consonantal, as appears, and the 
 T was not hissed. 
 
 * For we never find nuier, nitsier, etc., written for this form. 
 
 PRONUNCIATION OF LATIN. 
 
 119 
 
 2. For manifest natural reasons it is commonly agreed 
 as improbable that the T could have been hissed when it 
 was immediately preceded by another T, or by a hiss, as 
 S or X. (See Zumpt's Lat. Gr., p. 7. 
 
 Notwithstanding a dispute which has caused some 
 doubt concerning the time when X was adopted into 
 the Latin alphabet, and notwithstanding that some 
 writers have wished to fix this as late as the time of 
 Augustus, yet it is certain that X appears in the oldest 
 records of Latin which have been preserved to us ; and 
 many facts might be adduced to prove that the letter 
 was commonly, if not universally, used throughout the 
 classical period. Quintilian (Lib. I, c. 4, § 9) makes allu- 
 sion to X as occupying the last place in the Latin " com- 
 pendium," or alphabet : and as to the power of the letter, 
 the same author remarks, that the sign was not indis- 
 pensable for use in the Latin. That implies, of course, 
 that its office could be fully performed by other means 
 at the disposal of the Latin alphabet. Accordingly, all 
 the Grammarians affirm, and their declaration is abun- 
 dantly confirmed by collateral evidence, that X was a 
 monogram representing the combination CS or GS. So 
 perfect was the equivalence that many, especially in 
 earlier times, thought proper always to write cs or gs 
 instead of resorting to the simpler figure. And Nigidius 
 
I ^ 
 
 irj 
 
 if 
 
 
 120 
 
 PRONUNCIATION OF LATIN. 
 
 Figulus, the learned linguist and Latin purist of the time 
 of Varro and Cicero, is said never to have used the X. 
 (See Mar. Victorinus, P. pp. 2456 and 2466.) 
 
 Max. Victorinus (P. p. 1945, Lind. 277) : Ex his (semi- 
 vocalibus) duplex est x : constat enim aut ex ^ et 5 
 literis, aut ex c et s, ut puta rex, regis ; 2nx, picis. 
 Quippe ante x literam, quaa postea in compendium 
 
 ' inventa est, rex per gs \regs\, item pix per cs [pics] 
 veteres scribebant. 
 
 Turning now to the monumental records (Corssen I, 
 p. 124), we find that indiscriminately throughout the 
 classical time it was common to find such forms as saxsum, 
 maxsmne, j^roxsimum, deduxsit, faxsit, etc. In this we see 
 evidence that the S element of the X was heard as 
 sharply as possible, and in that point there is no dis- 
 tinction observed between the X which stood for gs and 
 the X Avhich stood for cs. Further, from what we know 
 of the nature of G we are prepared to believe that when 
 thus closely combined with s, the sound would be vir- 
 tually, in all probability, precisely the same as that of 
 the c element in cs. 
 
 We do not therefore suppose two sounds, one harder 
 and one softer for Latin X, but believe that during the 
 classical age that letter was sounded like our own sharp 
 X in '^mixP 
 
 \ 
 
 J 
 
 PBON UNCIATION OF LATIN. 
 
 121 
 
 z. 
 
 In the case of Z, as once before also, in the case of Y, 
 we have to consider the sound of a Greek letter as it was 
 heard among the Romans ; who employed it sometimes 
 in the rendering of Greek words. X was the twenty-first 
 and last letter of the Latin alphabet for the Ciceronian * 
 and later classical age ; and however true it may be that 
 the Z was not unknown to Latin usage at a much earlier 
 date (see Vel. Long., P. p. 2216, and Agn. Cornut, p. 
 2286), yet it is plain that the common consciousness of 
 the classical age was quite unmindful of any importance 
 belonging to such an historical fact, if, indeed, its exist- 
 ence was thought of. Certain it is, that during the 
 period of which we have to speak; Z was recognized as a 
 Greek letter. So the Grammarians : 
 
 Asper Junior (P. p. 1725): Sunt autem .... literge 
 latino sermon! accommodatae una et viginti, quibus 
 Grsecorum accedunt duae z^i y; nam Mezentiim et 
 Hylam et alia nobis peregrina nomina scribere et 
 enunciare proprio sono non possumus. 
 
 Domt. (P. p. 1737, Lind. L, p. 6) : Y et z remanent, quas 
 litteras propter Graeca nomina admisimus. 
 
 Diomed. (P. p. 421) : Z consonans semivocalis duplex 
 grgeca, quse propter graeca vel barbara nomina ad- 
 mittitur, ut: Zcnon, Zacynthus, Mezcnfivs, gaza. 
 
 * Cf. Cic. de Nat. Deor,, II, c. 37. 
 
:iH 
 
 ^i tl 
 
 122 r R X U N C I A T I X OF L A T I K . 
 
 Pro hac veteres duabns ss utebantur, ut Messentius, 
 et pitisso, tablissOf etc. 
 
 Our question then is : How did the Romans sound the 
 Greek Zeta ? Without doubt, as the Greeks themselves 
 did. But this is an answer satisfactory to those only 
 who, independently of this our inquiry, know Avhat the 
 sound of Greek Zeta was. 
 
 The statements of the Latin Grammarians are, upon 
 their face, so perplexing and inconsistent touching the 
 power of this letter, that a reconciliation of their views 
 upon any likely hypothesis seems at first almost hope- 
 less. 
 
 As Diomedes above, so Agyimus Cornutus (P. p. 2'2S(d) 
 says: .... pro ilia [Z] [in aatiquis lihris) ss pone- 
 ban tur, ut : crotalizo, crotalisso ; tiialicizo, inalacissOy 
 et his similia. 
 
 VeL Long. (P. p. 2217) : Mihi videtur .... esse aliud 
 z, aliud sigma .... 
 
 Taking ss to represent only strong, clear, decided s ; 
 these statements say, the first that z is (or ivas virtually 
 considered to be) equal to s ; the second that z is 7wi 
 (at least not properly) equal to s. 
 
 Again, in Vel. Long. (P. p. 2216), we have the report 
 of Verrius Flaccus, that it was the opinion of some in 
 his time, that z consisted of a and 6. (sd.) 
 
 So 3fax. Victorinus (P. p. 1945, Lind. I, 277) : Literae 
 peregrinae sunt Z et Y, quae peregrinae a nobis prop- 
 ter Graeca quaedam nomina assumptae sunt, ut Hylas, 
 Zephyrus ; quae si non essent, Hoelas, et Sdephirus 
 
 
 PRONUNCIATION OF LATIN. 
 
 123 
 
 diceremus. — Mezentium per s et d Mesdentium 
 scriberemus. 
 
 On the other hand. Mar. Victorinus (P. p. 2453) : Sic 
 et z, si modo latino sermoni necessaria esset, per d et 
 s literas faceremus. {ds.) 
 
 Further, Prisciafi (P. p. 552): Antiquissimi quoque 
 Mcdentius dicebant pro : Mezentius. 
 
 But, Vcl. Long us (P. p. 2217): Scribe enim per unum 
 Z, et consule aurem ; non erit d^rjxag quomodo 
 
 ddexag ;— . 
 
 Thus ^ye have here these statements : 
 
 1. Z Avas anciently represented in Latin by ss : hut it 
 was not equivalent to pure s. 
 
 2. Some persons in ancient times put a d in the place 
 of z in foreign words: but if the ear be consulted, d will 
 not give the proper sound. 
 
 3. A third way which seemed proper to many for 
 exhibiting the phonetic power of z was a combination of 
 the two just named; they wrote it by sd; but others 
 gave it by ds. 
 
 Now it appears to us that there is only one hypothesis 
 upon which may be reconciled and harmonized so many 
 diverse endeavors to indicate the same sound ; and that 
 hypothesis is the assumption that the sound intended was 
 that of Modern Greek Zeta and Etiglish z. Submitting 
 this sound to the test, we find— 
 
 1. No surprise in seeing it represented by the cognate 
 
 m 
 
 .ill 
 
1:^4 
 
 PRONUNCIATION OF LATIN. 
 
 II 
 
 >S,* and are at the same time quite ready to be told that 
 it is not sigma, or pure 8. 
 
 2. If we remember that our Z or soft S is a d-hiss, or a 
 hiss passed over the tongue when just ready to finish the 
 d-contact, it will not be strange that some more mindful 
 of this last condition of the utterance, should have sought 
 to characterize it by the d alone (these not feeling that 
 the z was a double consonant). Others, of course, would 
 be discerning enough to see that d could not be a true 
 and complete mark of the sound. 
 
 3. Others again might naturally think it best and right 
 to represent both the hiss and the d-attitude of the 
 tongue. The interesting fact that both sd and ds were 
 employed to render it, seems to indicate this as the only 
 aim of those who wrote so : that is, that each of these 
 compounds were intended as modes of indicating a 
 d-hiss; the one meaning, as it were, a hissed d, the 
 other a d hissed. 
 
 Finally, when almost all the ancient Grammarians 
 agree in calling Z a double consonant, we feel obliged 
 to regard this as an imperfect and inaccurate observation ; 
 in which view we have the support of Velius Longus, 
 wiio says (P. p. 2217) : Denique siquis secundum naturam 
 vult excutere heme literam, id est Z, inveniet diiplicem non 
 esse, si modo illam aure sinceriore exploraverit. In our 
 opinion, therefore, 
 
 Latin Z = English Z. 
 
 See Appendix, Note N. 
 
 PRONUNCIATION OF LATIN. 
 
 125 
 
 I 
 
 Ch, Ph, Th, Rh. 
 
 With respect to these combinations it will be enough 
 to report the statement of Diomedes and Pnscian. 
 
 Diomedes (P. p. 417) says: ^quoque -terdum con- 
 nans intcrdum aspirationis creditur nota. H«c si c 
 r2 subjuncta fuerit, x -tat gr^cam : si , pr^po- 
 Ta f ueri! , significat. Item si t pr^posxta u^n 
 
 aspiriationi, pro « ^^^^^J^^^:^ 
 positee 1/- graecam affeiunt. osett^ruiu 
 nunquam snpponitur nisi in intenectione «/*. 
 
 Priscian (P. p. 543) : Sciendum tamen, quod hie quo- 
 nue error a quibusdam antiquis Gr«.corum gramma, 
 ticis invasit Latinos, qui ^ X ^ semivocales putabant ; 
 nulla alia causa, nisi quod spiritus m eis abundet 
 inducti. Quod si esset verum, debuit c quoque vel t 
 addita aspiratione, semivocalis esse; quod omn, 
 caret ratione. Spiritus enim potestatem liter* non 
 mutat: unde nee vocales addita aspiratione ali« 
 sunt, ot ali* ea adempta. Hoe tamen scire debemus, 
 nuodnontam fixis labris est pronuneianda /, quo- 
 modo ph : atque hoc solum interest inter/ et ph. 
 
 Ch, ph, th, and Tl, therefore, are nothing but c p, t, 
 and r with the subaddition of /., which does - change 
 L nature and power of the previous part of the com- 
 Wion. Accordingly, oU was sounded like H m Mor« 
 
12G 
 
 PROXUKCIATION OF LATIl^. 
 
 (remains of English ink-horn), and so for the others, so 
 that 
 
 ch was sounded like ch in Sanscrit chanda, aclianda, 
 1'^' " " " y^ " " phalla, ntphulla, 
 
 ^^ " " " th " " citha, thurvami, 
 
 r^ " " " P " Greek Tw, 
 
 "appriv. 
 
 III 
 
 I 
 
 m 
 
 o 
 
 vi 
 
 cd 
 
 G) 
 
 O 
 
 
 
 o> 
 
 J>BONUN 
 
 CIATION OF LATir 
 
 I 
 
 :a> 
 
 » 
 
 W 
 
 £ cj p; e 
 
 ^ S w .r ^ 
 2 fe S i^ ^. 
 
 ^ 
 
 
 
 
 ^ ^^ gis s g g §? o 
 
 Ph <J H h^ jJ *| jj . 
 
 QQ 
 
 o w 
 
 
 - fe 
 
 vx 
 
 m 
 
 
 <*-( 
 
 ^ (SS Ph 
 
 Q P ^1 P^ Ph frt 1^ 
 
 S ^ ^^ ^ 
 
 O W P < 
 
 PQ 
 
 <u 
 
 72 %• <• 
 
 03 
 
 02 
 
 a; 
 
 
 S 
 
 « - c 
 
 
 O 
 
 ^ H ^ 
 
 3 rP 
 
 
 O' r— t as 
 
 83 »— ' 
 
 - 0) 
 
 S =iSl|S^^££«§SS«£ 6 
 
 fl - '2 rt 2 - 5 2 
 
 lU 
 
 « 
 
 0) 
 
 
 a> 
 
 <03 
 
 e 
 
 ■-g fc P-r^^ g <3^ "& E O 'p. 
 
 
 a 
 
 o ^ 
 
 
 •C oj 
 
 o 
 
 5 5 <d .t! 
 
 <y o ,0 w 
 
 n3 "tS P< s3 
 
 s s 
 
 «♦-( 
 
 o 
 
 a> 
 
 tie 
 
 8 
 
 127 
 
 £ 
 
 « 
 
 N 
 
 « 
 
 e 
 
 
 o 
 
 a 
 
 p. 
 
 OQ 
 
 O) 
 
 OQ 
 
 >•<••>• 
 
 P xn CH 
 
 •So ^ g 
 
 o 
 
 u 
 
 ^ O c3 
 
 CD 
 
 *S 1^ >« l<» J^ !«» *^ '^ 
 
 ?^ S 
 
 
 o 
 
 OS 
 
 Si,"^ 
 
 
 
 
i-2S 
 
 S 
 
 El] 
 
 o 
 
 a 
 a 
 
 as 
 
 
 ^ O 
 
 a 
 
 a 
 a 
 
 0) 
 
 PROX UXCl ATIO X OF LATIX. 
 
 a; 
 
 02 
 
 C 
 •^ 
 
 cd 
 
 8 
 
 o 
 Pi 
 
 s 
 
 i 
 
 be 
 
 c3 O e3 *J~ 
 
 32 -M " 
 
 P 
 
 o ?i 
 111 o 
 
 o 
 
 
 
 Hi 
 
 
 o 
 o 
 
 -si 
 
 X! 
 
 o 
 
 o 
 
 -^ 
 
 s 
 s 
 
 < 
 
 s 
 
 
 
 ^ 
 ^ 
 
 
 » 
 
 ^ 
 
 & 
 
 
 as 
 
 >H .p-4 
 
 s . 
 
 c 
 
 c 
 
 cS 
 
 CO 
 
 .-4 •-< ^ 
 
 C - 
 
 33 O sS 
 
 W ^ S 
 
 N* V* 
 
 
 '3 
 
 t^ ^ l2 i^ 
 
 -d 
 tf 
 
 Cj 
 
 =5 
 
 
 
 ® 
 <?3 
 
 ■~N — 
 
 
 -d 
 <« o ^- 
 
 .S ^ — £* s 
 
 
 OS 
 
 -fa 
 
 o 
 
 CD 
 
 S 
 O 
 a 
 
 Ph 
 
 o 
 
 
 o 
 ^ 
 
 sS 
 
 5 
 
 CJ 
 
 a, 
 
 133 
 
 oJ 
 
 03 
 
 s 
 
 PQ 
 
 a* 
 
 cr 
 
 03 •rH 
 
 'd 
 
 c3 
 
 o 
 
 CO 
 
 •s •^• 
 
 
 > CD 
 
 .3 OJ 
 
 83 
 
APPENDIX. 
 
 Note A, page 40. 
 
 On the sound of u after, and in the same syllable with s, g,q. 
 
 That the combination su sounded like English sic, and not like 
 English sv (therefore, sicaris, etc.^, is very strongly confirmed by an 
 examination of such words as, anterior to their life in the Latin 
 speech, contained the sound sv. There are numbers of such. And 
 if we compare, e. g., 
 
 Sanscrit svas with Latin suus, 
 svasar " " soror, 
 svapnas " " somnus, 
 svedas " " sudor. 
 
 *t 
 
 a 
 u 
 
 and many other forms, we see that the Latin was averse to the 
 connection 8i\ when v was a full consonant. To avoid that con- 
 nection, the Latin proceeded to reduce the given forms to its own 
 preferred softer sound, either by rejecting the v altogether, as in 
 the above examples except the first, or by investing the v with the 
 character of a vowel, as in suus for svas (although in old Latin the 
 forms SOS, sis, etc., for suus, suis, etc., are said to be found also). 
 Now then, when, corresponding to Sanscrit smdus, we have Latin 
 suatis, it is certainly to be presumed that the u of suavis is not 
 sounded like English r, but that the utmost approach to a conso- 
 nantal sound will be represented by the English ic, like the vowel 
 ^t m quattuor (when that word is pronounced with two syllables). 
 y after t is also inadmissible in Latin, as is well shown in an 
 mteresting article by Grassmann, in Kuhn's Zeitschrift fiir Ver- 
 gleichende Sprachforschung, Vol. I, p. 1 and after, where he seeks 
 to extend the same obsermtion to kv (gv) (gv). 
 
 A P P E iH D I X . 
 
 131 
 
 Thus [f in Sanscrit being represented by the guttural tenuis 
 (k, c, q) in Latin], Sanscrit ^van, dog, would give Latin qvanis, or 
 kvanis {cvanis) ; but the Latin will not have a « so situated, and 
 drops it, leaving canis. Again, when ^vas passes into Latin the v 
 is changed to r, and we get eras : so also with cvi, to grow, from 
 which the Latin has (not qves-co but) cresco. And in the Latin 
 rendering of Sanscrit a^vas, another mode of avoiding cv (or qv) is 
 adopted, that namely of localizing the v ; for so we get equus. Now 
 this equus is a perfect parallel to suus in respect of the value and 
 origin of its first u ; and from the point of view furnished by com- 
 parative grammar, no one has more reason for supposing u to be 
 silent in equus, than may be alleged for its silence in svus, svavium, 
 quattuor. And further, if, confining the view to the Latin alone, 
 it be insisted that there is direct testimony to the fact (in Pris- 
 cian) that equus was sounded equs (or ecus), this may be admitted, 
 as well as some other (even numerous other) instances of the same 
 sound as indicated by oculus and oquliis, secutus and sequutus, etc. 
 On the other hand, we can show also the forms sos, sis, for suus, 
 suis, savium for suavium, quattor for quattuor, urgeo for urgueo ; 
 and are we, therefore, emry where to pronounce, e. g., sus, sam, for 
 suus, suam ; satis, sesco, for suavis, suesco ; angis, linga, for anguis, 
 lingua ? All as reasonably as torket for torquet. 
 
 Note B, page 57. (^.) 
 
 Gellius, XVI, 12, 8 : M. Varro . . . . M. Catonem et ceteros 
 setatis eius * feneratorem ' sine a litera pronuntiasse tradit, sicuti 
 'fetus ' ipse et 'fecunditas ' appellata. 
 
 A very instructive passage on the sound of m occurs in Quint. I, 
 5, 17. It would occupy too much space to develop all that it 
 implies. The principal point is that the cb of Asice, etc., ought not 
 to be spoken with " ditislo," i. e., so that both elements be distinctly 
 heard ; while on the other hand the ce of Phcpthon {'^afffuv) ought 
 to be so sounded, but that nevertheless P. Varro had rendered this 
 Greek name per " complexionem,' i. e., giving the m in one sound 
 (therefore, Phcethon = Phethon). Notice the accent of ^atOuv. 
 
i! 
 
 132 A r r p: X i) 1 X . 
 
 XoTE C, page 57. 
 
 Tlie following words of Varro seem to indicate, first, a difference 
 between the sounds of ca and of e, and second, that that difference 
 was veri/ small. 
 
 Varro, L. L., Lib. 6, c. 5 : Ohscctnum dictum a scena, ut Grseci 
 (lis enim gkj]vii dicitur). Ea (ut Accius scribit) scaona. In 
 pluribus rectis A ante E alii ponunt, alii non ; ut, quod partim 
 dicunt scccptrum, partim dicunt secptrnm. 
 
 Note D, page 58. 
 
 There are a few instances also of tlie settlement of au into the 
 Bound of its first element a. For such is the history of the first syl- 
 lable of arrugia from rt?r?*«m,and Arnintius{2i\so spelled Aruntius) 
 from Aurunca, a town of Campania. [Arruntiiis is for Arrunciua 
 (cf. Attius, Accius), an enlargement of Amincus, (cf. Atus, Attiiis, 
 Appius, Serous, Serviu^, TuUus, TuUius).'\ Cf. Aurunculeius formed 
 on the same stem. 
 
 Note E, page 64. {(E.) 
 
 Max. Victorinus (p. 1945) (Lind. I, 277) says : *' We have taken 
 from the Greek Y and Z for the spelling of Greek words, as e. g., 
 Hylas, Zephyrus. If we had not done this we should have said 
 JIaias and Sdephirus.^' If the Greek T was what we hold it to be 
 (nearly the French a), and this ce of Haiaa was no nearer to it than 
 the Sd of Sdephirus was to the true sound of Z ; then our assump- 
 tion for the normal sound of oe is, to say the least, not weakened by 
 the above declai-ation. It should have its weight, however, in 
 assisting our estimate of the true tone of the diphthong, which we 
 have not felt entitled to indicate more definitely than by supposing 
 it nearly like that of German Oe in Oel, 
 
 APPENDIX. 133 
 
 Note F, page 67. 
 
 The affinity of B with V (Digamma) was, however, not obscurely 
 felt in early times also. Priscian, ap. P. p. 709 : " Habebat haec F 
 litera sonum quern nunc habet V, loco consonantis posita, unde 
 antiqui (before the classic period) AF pro AB scribere solebant, 
 .... Siflum quoque pro Sibilum, teste Nonio Marcello de doc- 
 torum indagine, dicebant." 
 
 Note G, page 72. 
 
 In favor of this double sound may be adduced on authority of 
 MSS. the forms Atus and (feminine) Aca (and Attus, Area), natta 
 and naeca, also nact<(, stloppus and scloppus (?). Here there can be 
 no idea of a compromise by a hiss for the c and t. And before any 
 one will undertake to say that there is any reason in the general 
 principles of Phonetics, any physiological or other natural difficulty 
 in the contemporaneous employment of two such different sounds 
 as /j and t in the same word, he should consider some facts stated 
 by Max Miiller (Sci. Lang., 2d Ser., pp. 181, 182): "No two conso- 
 nants would seem to be more distinct than k and t. Nevertheless, 
 in the language of the Sandwich Islands these two sounds run into 
 one, and it seems impossible for a foreigner to say whether what he 
 hears is a guttural or a dental. The same word is written by 
 Protestant missionaries with k, by French missionaries with t" 
 Again, " we are told by careful observers that the lower classes in 
 Canada habitually confound t and k, and say mekier, moikie, for 
 metier, moitie." 
 
 Consider also the interchange of the equally diverse guttural and 
 palatal k and p, as in (Sanscrit paC-ami) Greek tzeU-tu, Latin {pop- 
 ina and) coQu-o. 
 
 Note H, page 83. 
 
 The Greeks separated their sign into /- and -/> its two elements, 
 to serve, the one of them for the daaela, and the other for the fL^.jj. 
 
13^ 
 
 APPENDIX. 
 
 f became L and ^ ; y^ similarly, -J and ^. Priscian (P. p. 1287) : 
 Quid est Dasea ? Flatilis, quae liac notatur figura /-. Quid est Psile ? 
 Siccitas, quae notatur sic, -/, The Latins evidently considered the 
 -ipLAii as practically equivalent to nothing. Cf. Phocas ; de Aspirat. 
 Segm II, ap. Lindeman. Omnia quae post i, a fuerint habentia, 
 c«re?i^ aspiratione, \it Janus. So also: ordo ignorat aspirationem ; 
 Ilian we^a^ .dasian. 
 
 i 
 
 Note I, page 87. 
 
 It must be noticed that the organic character or ancient title of 
 the H did not protect it even in early times from dissipation ; thus 
 ml for mihi corresponding to Sanscrit mahyam ; nil for nihil, from 
 ne Mum. Hilum probably = filum (and not as is commonly said 
 ioTpilus)\We harena corresponding to ^'dh'me fassna ; made also 
 arena in Latin. In cedus (cedus) for ha!dus (Quint.) the lost h was 
 organic substitute for //, as seen in Gothic gaits, old high German 
 geiz. (Cf . Corssen's Aussp., p. 47 ; and Lottner in Kulin's Zeitsch. 
 f. Vergl. Spraclif., Vol. 7, p. 184, sqq.) 
 
 XOTE K, page 91. 
 
 Xo evidence of an L mouille in Latin has appeared to our investi- 
 gation ; but rather proof could be offered, if there were space for it, 
 that Latin L was in all places essentially the same. This much we 
 may say, that the appearance of alius compared with Greek u'a'aoc, 
 and milia by the side of mUlia is no sign of the vocalization of an L. 
 In the first case, it is the second a of a/.Aoi;- which needs to be 
 accounted for, and not the i of alius, which is the more immediate 
 representation of the Sanscrit y in any as; and in the second case, 
 there is no vocalization, but a falling away of I. Among the 
 instances of the doubling of a consonant, i. e., of course, giving the 
 same consonant twice, Victorinus mentions I, without any mark of 
 a distinction between it and other consonants in this respect. The 
 doubling, namely, was employed simply to give strength to the 
 
 APPENDIX. 
 
 135 
 
 consonantal element, or to fortify the length of the previous vowel. 
 Victorinus (p. 2456): Annius, Lucullus, Memmino. So was reUigio 
 sometimes written just as Juppiter, and puUus (from puerulus) 
 just iiBpuppus. 
 
 d 
 
 Note L, page 93. 
 
 This blunting, deadening, more or less complete suppression of 
 the closing M, may be fitly compared with the Sanscrit Anuswara, 
 which also had its origin in the M sound. The dt adening of the 
 Latin M seems, however, to have gone farther than the Anuswara, 
 since in its highest instance it involved the almost complete enerva- 
 tion and obliteration of the foregoing vowel ; so that, in place of 
 J)Oth consonant and vowel, there was often left only a sort of " after- 
 noise," or weak, irrational utterance, which is represented by e in 
 dice, etc., which the ancient llomans (in Cato's time) spoke and 
 wrote for dicam, etc. (Vid. Quintil. IX, 4, and Jordan's Catoim 
 Beliqq., p. 90.) This e was probably n^xt to nothing, as it was also 
 in the imperative form dice, before this fell to die. (Vid. Naev. 
 Reliqq., ap. Ribbeck, p. 69.) But as the Anuswara made position 
 in poetry, so also the Latin final M, if it was followed in a verse by 
 a consonant, was restored to the proper functions of a consonant 
 (not clear M, but a consonant), while the vowel before it also 
 resumed its characteristic color and power. 
 
 Note M, page 107. 
 
 It is said that on a wall in Pompeii was found scribbled : 
 ALMA VILVMQ. CANO TLO 
 
 Note N, page 124. 
 
 It must be admitted that the choice of ss instead of simple 8 for 
 representing s in the middle of a word seems to militate against 
 
136 
 
 APPENDIX. 
 
 
 the soft sound of z which we contemplate. Whilst we do not feel 
 able to remove this difficulty satisfactorily, we can at least elimi- 
 nate it from the present discussion by remarking that the objection 
 found here will lie in all cases with equal strength, and in some 
 cases with much greater strength, against any of the other sup- 
 posed sounds of z, except the very one of sharp s itself. 
 
 NaliOTial Series of Standard School-Books, 
 
 PUBLISHED CY 
 
 A. S. BARNES & COMPANY. 
 
 IBs ^s&s' w^M»^ ^Vi^^^^^^ 
 
 ursi " ., . ^ .^„, Each volume, amonr, so many, maintains the general stand- 
 
 The Series ia umformhj f^f^j^']^- .^^ound the perfect whole. 
 a.d of m.rit, and assists y. us pUcco round^ ^dio^ojy 
 
 nd aSr.r. jts place, o ^-"^ the per: ^-^^^^^^ ^,^,^ andhy ecery c/a^. 
 
 airly represeatthe whole. ^ ^ TITifl 
 
 nwn I imWl "'"'"^I^'EPSSiENT READERS & SPELLERS. 
 
 ^^Sne?; rS?. i.elf. and of high and lower --^^ ^^^^L . ^,p. 
 
 TllVlP.S' Complete Unified ''West Poiijt Course" in ffiAltlfcMilU. 
 
 iJliVlJCiO ^O'l^H-^;^ I Geometry, Calculus, Surveying, and all branches. 
 
 Including Anthraelics, Algebra, ueomeiry, v. fiPfinD A "DUV 
 
 MOKTEiTH & McsALLrs ^-:ii,!r:!JLH5?ff ''• 
 
 Three books, with optional volumeb. Tlub is the on j --^, ,qtt pT) A MM A D 
 
 nUfi]['S Diagram Systeq for Leari)ii)g ENljLlbU llKAmMn. 
 
 OlJlluIiW Uldgi*"; •'^ , ,^ ..H^- also Analysis. Key and Chart separate. 
 
 Two Grammars (Primary and Advanced), also Analjsis. ^ UTQfPnDV 
 
 RUBHPS' Series of Brief Books for One Tern^ of Study iq tllOlUtll. 
 
 BMWliO ^^^^^^ , V u ^ • IR-l A General History and others to follow at once. 
 
 United States History, published m 18.1. A General H ^ QnTT?K[PP 
 
 QTPPTP'S < Fourteen Weeks" in eacljbraijcb of MAlUllAL OUimiUri, 
 
 OlbliLDO rOUlietJU _^ .^Jogynowwady. Physiology in press. 
 
 Philosophy, Chemistry, Astronomy, and Geology now J| AUPTTArr 
 
 WnRMMl'S Popular Method for Teachiijg tUKhlljlK LMlJUAUli. 
 
 VI UlllUllW ^"F" * p^.,„ch series happily commenced. 
 
 A German Series is now nearlj complete, anu 
 
 WILLARD'S Course of History. 
 PECK'S GANOT S Natural Philosophy. 
 JARVIS' Physiology and Health. 
 WOOD'S Text-Books in Botany. 
 PORTER'S Principles of Chemistry. 
 'CHAMBERS' Elements of Zoology. 
 PAGE'S Elements of Geology. 
 BEERS' Round-band Penmanship. 
 SMITH'S Orthography and Etymology. 
 
 BOYD'S Course in English Literature. 
 
 SMITH U MARTIN'S Bookkeeping. 
 
 PAYSON. DUNTON & CO.'S Writing.. 
 
 A MDREVyS & STODDARD'S Latin Series 
 
 CROSBY'S Greek Series. 
 
 PUJOL'S Complete French Class Book. 
 
 ROOT'S School Music-Books. 
 
 SEARING'S Virgil and Classical Tex » 
 CLEVELAND'S Compendiums. 
 CHAPMAN'S American Drawing. 
 MANSFIELD'S Political Manual. 
 NORTHEND'S Graded Speakers. 
 CHAMPLIN'S Political Economy. 
 BERARD'S History of England. 
 SHERWOOD'S Writing Spefler. 
 BROOKFIELD'S Child's Composition. 
 TRACY'S SchoDi Record. 
 PECK'S Applied Mathematics. 
 CHURCH'S Hgher Mathematics. 
 BARTLETT'S College Philosophy. 
 MAHAN'S Mental Science. 
 ALDEN'S Text-Book of Ethics. 
 BROOKS' School Devotion. 
 
 ANY BOOK SEOT'i^i^^S^ RECEIPT^OF ITS PRICE. 
 
 -fitr 
 
 Who would know more of this unrivaled Series shotM -'^"«"!{5'^*'fg;£TSTR'5SEi?3^^L^^^ 
 TIVE CATALOGUE,^ free. to. Teachers ; others W^^^^^ f^ii of instruction for Teachers; su^ 
 TIONAL BULLETIN, periodical organ of the f umisner. , 
 acription, 10 cents; sample free. Address m.!*««VN 
 
 A. S. BAKNES & COMPANY. New York, or Chicago. 
 
TheJ\,\aioiHd Series of Standard Sc/iool- TJooks, ' 
 
 MENTAL PHILOSOPHY, 
 
 Mahan's Intellectual Philosophy ... $1 75 
 
 The subject exhaustively considered. The author has evinced learn- 
 mg, candor, aud independent thinking. 
 
 Mahan's Science of Logic 2 00 
 
 A profuund analysis of the laws of tliotight. The system possesses the 
 merit of being intelligible and self consistent. In addition to the author's 
 c;irefully elaborated views, it embraces results attained by the ablest 
 innids of Great Britain, Germany, and France, in this department. 
 
 Boyd's Elements of Logic 1 25 
 
 A systematic and philosopliic condensation of the subject, fortified with 
 additions from Watts, Abercrombie, Whately, &c. 
 
 Watts on the Mind 
 
 The Improvement of the Mind, by Isaac Watts, is designed as a guide 
 for tne atUmment of useful knowledge. As a text-book it is unparalleled ; 
 and the discipline it affords cannot be too highly esteemed by the edu- 
 cator. ' 
 
 50 
 
 MORALS. 
 
 -•••- 
 
 Alden's Text-Book of Ethics 
 
 For young pupils. To aid in systematizing the ethical teachings of 
 "Ihe IJible, and point out the coincidences between the instructions of the 
 sacred volume and the sound conclusions of reason. 
 
 Willard's Morals for the Young . . . . 
 
 Lessons in conversational tyle to inculcate the elements of moral phi- 
 losophy. The study is made attractive by narratives and engravings. 
 
 CO 
 
 *75 
 
 GOVERNMENT. 
 
 -•■^> 
 
 Howe's Young Citizen's Catechism .... 
 
 Explaining the duties of District, Town, City, County, State, and 
 Uiuted states Officers, with rules for parliamentary and commercial busi- 
 n«ss-that which every future " sovereign" ought to know, and so few 
 
 75 
 
 are taught 
 
 Young's Lessons in Civil Government . . 1 25 
 
 ^ A comprehensive view of Government, and abstract of the laws show 
 mg the rights, duties, and responsibilities of citizens. 
 
 Mansfield's Political Manual 1 25 
 
 This is a complete view of the theory and practice of the General and 
 State Governments of the United States, designed as a text-book. The 
 author is an esteemed and able professor of constitutional law, widely 
 known for his pagacious utterances in matters of statecraft through the 
 public pres-s. Recent events teach with emphasis the vital necessity that 
 the rising ^'eneration should comprehend the noble polity of the Amer- 
 ican government, that they may act intelligently when endowed with a 
 voice in it. 
 
 39 
 
 Tht J\rational Series of Standard School-Tiooks, 
 
 MODERN LANGUAGE. 
 
 French and English Primer, I i^ 
 
 German and English Primer, 10 
 
 Spanish and English Primer, 10 
 
 The names of common objects properly iUustrated and arranged in aasy 
 lessons. 
 
 Ledru's French Fables, ^^ 
 
 Ledru's French Grammar, '^^^ 
 
 Ledru's French Reader, . . . ^ . . . • • 1 00 
 
 The author's long experienco has enabled him to present the most thor- 
 oughly practical text-books extant, in this branch. The system of pro- 
 nunciation (by phonetic illustration) is original with this author, and wUl 
 commend itself to all American teachers, as it enables their pupUs to se- 
 cure an absolutely correct pronunciation without the assistance of a nativa 
 master. This feature is peculiarly valuable also to " self-taught" student \. 
 The directions for ascertaining the gender of French nouns—also a great 
 Btumbling-block— are peculiar to this work, and will be found remarkably 
 competent to the end proposed. The criticism of teachers and tha test ot 
 tUe school-room is invited to this exceUent Berie3, with coafideacj. 
 
 Worman's French Echo, 1 25 
 
 To teach conversational French by actual practice, on an entirely new 
 plan, which recognizes the importance of the student learning to think in 
 the language which he speaks. It furnishes an extensive vocabulary of 
 •words and expressions in common use, and suffices to free the learner 
 from the embarrassments which the peculiarities of his own tongue are 
 likely to be to him, and to make him thoroughly familiar with the use 
 of proper idioms. 
 
 Worman's German Echo, ^ ^^ 
 
 On the same plan. See Worman's German Series, page 29, 
 
 Pujol's Complete French Class-Book, ... 2 25 
 
 Offers, in one volume, methodically arranged, a complete French conrso 
 
 usually embraced iu series of from five to twelve books, including the 
 
 Ijulky and expensive Lexicon. Here are Grammar, Conversation, and 
 choice Literature — selected from the best French authors. Each branch 
 is thoroughly handled ; and the student, havi ig diligently complected the 
 course as prescribad, may consider himself, without further application, 
 aufait in the most polite and elegant language of modern times. 
 
 Maurice-Poitevin's Crammaire Francaise, • 1 00 
 
 American. schools are at last supplied with an American edition of this 
 famous text-book. Many of our best institutions have for years been pro- 
 curing it from abroad rather than forego the advantages it offers. The 
 policy of putting students who have acquired some proficiency from the 
 ordinary text-books, into a Grammar written in the vernacular, can not 
 • be too highly commended. It affords an opportunity for finish and review 
 at once ; while embodying abundant practice of ita own rules. 
 
 Willard's Historia de los Estados Unidos, • 2 00 
 
 The History of the United States, translated by Professors Tolon and 
 Pb Tobnos, will be found a valuable, i:i£tructive, and «atcrt;iiaiaij read- 
 ing-book for Spanish classes. . .-. 
 
The J\^atlo7ial Series of Slandard School- ^Books. 
 
 Pujol's Complete French Class-Book. 
 
 TESTIMONIALS. 
 From Prof. Elias Peissner, Union Cdlege. 
 I take great pleasure in recommending Pujol and Van Norman's French Class- 
 Book, as there is no French ifraramar or class-book which can be compared with 
 It in completeness, system, clearness, and general utihty. 
 
 Frorn. Edward North, President cf Hamilton College. 
 I have carefully examined Pujol and Van Nonnan's French Class-Book, and am 
 satijfiel of its superiorij^y, for college purposes, over any other heretofore Uf-cd. 
 We shall not fail to use it with our next clasa in French. 
 
 From A. Curtis, Prcs't of Cincinnati Literary and Scientific Institute. 
 I am confident that it may be made an instrument in conveying to the studer.t, 
 in from six months to a year, the art of speaking and writing the French with 
 almost native iluency and propriety. 
 
 From ITir.ATi Orcutt, A. M., Prin. Glenwood and Tilden Ladies'' Seminaries. 
 
 I have used Pujol's French Grammar in my two remiraries, exclusively, for 
 more than a year, and have no hesitation in Faying that I rejard it the best text- 
 book in thi3 department extant. And my opinion ii confirmed by the testimony 
 of Prof. F. De Launay and MadcmciLollo Ilcrindin. They aesure me that tl.e 
 book is eminently accurate and practical, as tested in the tchool-room. 
 
 From Pro:'. Tnro. F. D3 Fuhat, Hetyrcw Educational Institute, Memphis, Tenn. 
 M. Pnjors French Grammar ^^ one of the bcrt and most practical works. The 
 French language i 5 chosen and elcjart in rtj-lc — modern ai:d caiy. It is far tu- 
 perior to the other French claes-bochs in this country. The Felection of the con- 
 versational part y very good, and v. ill interest pupils ; and being all completed in 
 only one volume, it is especially desirable to have it introduced in our schools. 
 
 From Prof. Jaiies n. Woruan, Bordentown Female Cdlege, N. J. 
 
 The work ij upon the same plan as the text-boohs for the study of French and 
 English published in Berlin, ibr the study of thot^o v.ho have not the aid of a 
 teacher, and these books are considered, by the flrct authorities, the beet books. 
 In most of our institutions, Americans teach the modem languages, and hereto- 
 fore th3 trouolc has been to give them a text-book that would dispof^e of the 
 difficulties of the French pronunciation. This difficulty is successfully removed 
 by P. and Van N., and I hnxo every rcaron to tciicve it w ill soon make its way 
 into most of our best echoob. 
 
 From Prof. CnAr.Li}3 S. Dod, Ann Drnith Academy, Lexington, Va. 
 
 I cannot do better than to recommend " Pujol end Van Norman." For compre- 
 hensive and systematic arrangement, progressive and thorough development of 
 all grammatical principles and idioms, v/ith a due admixture of theoretical knowl- 
 edge and practical exercise, I regard it as superior to any (other) book of the kind. 
 
 Fivm A. A. Fokcter, Prin. Pinehurst School, Toronto, C. W. 
 
 I have great satisfaction in bearing testimony to M. Pujol's System of French 
 Instniction, as given in hia complete class-book. For cicarress and comprehen- 
 oivcness, adanted for all classes of pnpilc-, I have found it superior to any other 
 work of the kind, and have nov/ used it for 6omc years in my establishment with 
 great success. 
 
 From Prof. Otto F^ddef., Maplewood Lictitut3, Fittsfield, Mass. 
 
 The conversational excrciseiA vv'ill prove an immense raving of the hardest kind 
 ot labor to teachers. There is scarcely any thing more trying in the way of 
 teaching language, than to rack your brain for short and easily intelligible bits 
 of conversation, and to repeat them time and again with no better result than 
 extorting at long intervals a doubting '• oui," or a hesitating " non, monsieur " 
 
 The JVatlonal Series of Siatidard School-Mooks. 
 
 i 
 
 ZW" For further testimony of a similnr character, sec special cjrenlar. 
 curreiit numbers of the Educational Bulletin. 
 
 41 
 
 and 
 
 GERMAN. 
 
 A COMPLETE COURSE IN THE GERMAN. 
 
 By JAMES H. WORMAN, A. M. 
 
 Worman's Elementary German Grammar -^i so 
 Worman's Complete German Grammar • 2 00 
 
 These volumes are designed for intermediate and advanced classes respectively. 
 The bitterness with which they have been attacked, and their extraordinary suc- 
 cess in the face of an unpriucipled opposition, are facts which have stamped them 
 ns no';se«'sin"' unparalleled merit. 
 
 Though foltowing the same general method with "Otto" (that cf ' Gaspey > 
 cur author differs essentially in its appUcation. He is more '^J^'''f''\^fllll^ 
 tematic, more accurate, and besides introduces a number of mvaluable feature* 
 which have never before teen combined in a German grammar. 
 
 Among other things, it may be claimed for Prof. Worman that he has bceii 
 tkf^^.0 introduce'!; an American text-book for l-ming Germar, a s .^^^^ 
 of analogy and comparison with other languages. Our best teachers are also 
 IhusiaSc about his' methods of inculcating the art of speaking of und-^^^^^^^^^^ 
 the sDoken lan<nja-e. of correct pronunciation ; the sensible and con> enient origi 
 narc'las^iLationo^f n^^^^^^ (in Lr cleclensions), and of irre^^^^^^^^^^^ 
 serves much nraise We also note the use of heavy type to indicate etymoiopca. 
 ran?erm-^digms, ,nd, in the exercises, the parts which specially lUustrata 
 preceding nilcs. 
 
 Worman's German Reader • • ^\.^ 
 
 The flnct co=>pitotlon cf clasrical and .tandanl German If**^'"^^;^;"^'^ 
 to American students. It embraecs, progressively ar^ged, selects from 'te 
 
 masterpieces of Goethe, Sehiller, Komer, Se™'=. ^If »''.• ^f ■^*' ^^ 
 Sehlegel, Holty, Lenau, Wieland, Herder, Lesstag, ^ant. J;*'^;,^^''^"„^,' ,„'^. 
 kelmfnn Unmboldt, Eanke, Ranmer, Menzel GerVmus Ae a»d^»°t^'»« ^^. 
 Plete Goethe-s " Ipbigenie," Schiller's " Jangfran ;" also, for mstruction m moa 
 ern conversational German, Benedix'8"E>gen8mn „„„Mh„tiiiir Notes 
 
 There are besides, Biographical Sketches of each »«''''; ^'°"'"J"''^"/iuS 
 explanatory and philological (after the text), G™""";"'"^ Kf^^^?"^ '" °" '**" 
 tog gnuamars, as well as the editor's own, and an adequate \ ocabulary. 
 
 Worman's German Echo •••••• .;. *^ jf 
 
 Consists of exercises in colloquial stylo ^''"■■^ly Ji *V r^f'^hl' «tTm1 - 
 quate vocabulary, not only of words but of idioms. Jhe objec "' ^^^yf " \l^ 
 yeloped in this work (and its companion volume m *e French) is to break up the 
 
 laborious and tedious habit of '«>«'««»» «%''^?''v:V*t«.»(^«« 
 most effectual bar to fluent conversation, and to lead hiin ^ Wen* m «^^^^^f 
 in ,„hi,-h h' 'veaks As the exercises illustrate scenes m actual life, a con.iaera 
 Netntledgrofthe manners a.d customs of the German pcoplo i. aUo acquxrod 
 from the use of this manual. 
 
 42 
 
The Vatioual Series of Standard Schoot-2^ooks. 
 
 JVational Series of Stajtdai'd School- ^Books. 
 
 Worman's German Grammars. 
 
 TESTIMONIALS. 
 
 From Prof. R. W. Jones, Petemhurg Female College, Ta. 
 
 *. F'*?™ 7^*' ^ ^*^6 ^en of the work it is almost certain / shall introduce it into 
 this institution. ^ 
 
 From Pro/. G. Campbeli,^ TJniversit)/ of Minnesota. 
 
 Avalucble addition to our school-books, a.id will find many friends, and do -rcr t 
 
 From Prof. O. II P. Corpkf.w, J/ary MiliturT/ Inst , 3hl. 
 
 I am better pleased with them than any I have ever taught. I hare already ordered 
 through our booksellers. / « 
 
 From Prof. II. 3. Kendall, Vernon Academy, Conn. 
 
 I at once put the Elementary Grammar i.ito tha hunds of a class of beginners, and 
 nave used it tcitk great xatixfaction. 
 
 From Prof. 1). E. IIolmks, LerV.u Academy, Wis. 
 Worman's German works are superior. I shall use thorn hereafter in my German 
 
 From Prof Magnl's Buciiiioltz, Hiram. College, Ohio. 
 
 I have examined the Complete Grammar, and find it excellent. You may rely that 
 it will ba used here. / j • 
 
 From Prin. Tiros. TV. Tobev, Paducah Female Seminary, Ky. 
 The Complete Germ in Grammar is worthy of an exte.u;ivo circulation. It is ad- 
 tmrably adapted to the class-room, I shall use it 
 
 From Prof. Alkx. Rosknspitz, Ilonston Academy, Texas. 
 Bearer will take and pay for 3 dozen copies. Mr. Wormj^n deserves the* approbation 
 and esteem of the teacher and the thanks of the student. 
 
 From Prof. G. Malmene, Augusta Scminctnj, Maine. 
 The Complete Grammar cannot fail to giv2 great 82lisfa,',tion by the simpliuity 
 of Its arrangement, and by its completeness. 
 
 From Prin. Oval Piukev, Christian University, Mo. 
 Just stick a series as is positively necessary. I do hope the author will succeed as 
 well in the French, &c., as ho has in the Gei-man. 
 
 Fronf Prof. S. D. IIillman, Dickinson Collje, Pa. 
 The class have lately commenced, and my examination thus tV.r warrants me in say- 
 ing that I regard it as the best grammar for instruction in the G.irman, 
 
 From Prin. Silas Liveumore, Bloomfield Seminary, Mo. 
 I have found a classically and scientifically educated Prus.sife,n gentleman whom I 
 propose to make German instructor. I haye shown him both your German grammars. 
 Me has expressed Jiis approbation of them generally. 
 
 From Prof Z. Test, /lowland School for Young Ladies, K. Y. 
 I shall introduce the books. From a cursory cxaminatio i I have no hesitation in 
 pronouncmg the Complete Grammar a decided impri>vemeut on the text-books at 
 present ia use ia this country. 
 
 From Prof Lewis Kistler, KortJacestern Univtrfiity, III. 
 Having looked through the Complete Grammar with some car.i I must say that you 
 have produced a good hook: yon may be f-warded with this gratification— that your 
 grammar promotes the facility of learning the German language, and of becoming 
 acquaintei with its ric!i literature. 
 
 From Pres. J. P. Rous, Stockwell Collegiate In^t., Ind. 
 I supplied a class with the Elementary Grammar, and it gives complete saitsfae- 
 Uon. rhe conversational and reading exercises arc well calculated to illustrate' the 
 principles, and lead the student on an easy yet thorough courss. I thiuli the Com 
 pl«t3 Grammar equally attractive. 
 
 43 
 
 
 THE CLASSICS. 
 
 LATI]Sr. 
 Silber's Latin Course, $i 25 
 
 The book contains an Epitome of Latin Grammar, followed by Rcadin'^ Exercises 
 with explanatory Notes and copious References to the leading Latin Grammars and 
 also to the Epitome which precedes the work. Then follow a I.Atin-English Vocabu- 
 lary and Exercises ia Latin Prose Composition, being thus complete in itself and a 
 very suitable work to put ia the hands of one about to study the language. ' 
 
 Searing's Virgil's ^neid, 2 25 
 
 It contains only the first six books of the ^neid. 2. A very carefully constructed 
 Dictionary. 3. Sufficiently copious Notes. 4. Grammatical references to four lead- 
 ing Grammars. 5. Numerous Illustrations of the highest order, 6. A superb Map 
 of the Mediterranean and adjacent countries. 7. Dr. S. II. Taylor's "Questions on 
 the ^neid." 8. A Metrical Index, and an Essay on the Poetical Style. 9. A photo- 
 graphic fac simile of a i early Latin M.S. 10. The text according to Jahn, but para- 
 graphed according to Ladewig. 11. Superior mechanical execution. 
 
 Hanson's Latin Prose Book, 3 oo 
 
 Hanson's Latin Poetry, 3 oo 
 
 Andrews & Stoddard's Latin Grammar, *i so 
 
 Andrews' Questions on the Grammar, . *o 15 
 
 Andrews' Latin Exercises, *i 25 
 
 Andrews' Viri Romae, *i 25 
 
 Andrews' SaHust's Jugurthine War, &c. *i so 
 
 Andrews' Eclogues & Georgics of Virgil, *i 50 
 
 Andrews' Caesar's Commentaries, .... *i 50 
 
 Andrews' Ovid's Metamorphoses, . . . *i 25 
 
 G-REEK. 
 
 Crosby's Greek Grammar, 2 oo 
 
 Crosby's Xenophon's Anabasis, i 25 
 
 MYTHOLOGY. 
 Dwight's Grecian and Roman Mythology. 
 
 School edition, $1 25; University edition, *3 00 
 
 A knowledge of the fables of antiquity, thu8 presented in a systematic form, is as 
 Indispensable to the student of general literature as to him who would peruse intelli- 
 pently the classical authors. The mythological allusions so frequent ia literature are 
 J»eadily understood with such a Key as this. 
 
 44 
 
T?ie ^Vatlonal Series of Standard Sc/ioot-l^oolb 
 
 SEARING'S VIRGIL. 
 
 SPECIMEN FRAGMENTS OF LETTERS. 
 
 '•I adopt it gladly."— Prin. V. Dabney, Loudoun. School, Va. 
 
 "I like Searing's Virgil."— Pbop. Bristol, Ripoii College, Wis. 
 
 "Meets my desires very thoroughly. "-Prop. Clark, Berea College, Ohio. 
 
 "Superior to any other edition of Virgil.' —Pres. Hall, Macon College, Mo. 
 
 "Shall adopt it at once."— Prin. B. P. Bakbr, Searcy Female Institute, Ark. 
 
 "Your Virgil is a 6^aw^y."— Prop. W. H. De Motte, Illinois Female College. 
 
 "After use, I regard it the best."— Prin. (}. H. Barton, Borne Academy, N. T. 
 
 "We like it better every day."— Prin. R. K. Buehrle. Allentown Academy, Pa. 
 
 " I am delighted with your Virgil."— Prin. W. T. Leonard, Pierce Academy, Maes. 
 
 "Stands well the test of class-room." -Prin. F. A. Chase, Lyons Col. Inst., loiva. 
 
 "I do not see how it can be improved."— Prin. N. F. D. Browne, Chart. Hall, Md. 
 
 "The most complete that I have seen."— Prin. A. Brown, Columbus High School, 
 Ohio. 
 
 '.'9"'' Professor of Language very highly approves."-SuPT. J. G. James, Texas 
 Mihfai-y Institute. 
 
 '• It responds to a want long felt by teachers. It is beautiful and complete."— 
 Prop, Brooks, University of Minnesota. 
 
 ''The ideal edition. We want a few more classics of Ihc same sort."— Prin. C. F 
 P. Bancroft, Lookout Mountain Institute, Tenn. 
 
 '•I certainly have never seen an edition so complete with important requisites for 
 a student, nor with such fine text and general mechanical execution."— Pres. J. R. 
 Park, Lmversity of Deseret, Utah. 
 
 •'It is charming both in its design and execution. And, on the whole, I think it 
 .? the best thing of the kind that I have seen."- Prof. J. De F. Richards. Pres. 
 pro tsrn. of Umve?'sity of Alabama. 
 
 "In beauty of execution, in judicious notes, and in an adequate vocabularv. it 
 merits all praise. I shall recommend its introduction."— Pres. J. K. Patterson 
 Kentucky Agricultural and Mechanical College. 
 
 •' Containing a good vocabulary and judicious notes, it will enable the industrious 
 student to acquire an accurate knowledge of the most interesting part of VirLnl'ii 
 works."— Prop. J. T. Dunklin, Ea^t Alabama College. 
 
 "It wants no element of completeness. It is by far the best classical text-book 
 with which I am acquainted. The notes are just right. They help the studei.t 
 when he most needs help."— Prin. C. A. Bunker, Caledonia Grammar School, Vt. 
 
 "I have examined Searing's Virgil with interest, and find that it more nearly 
 meets the wants of students than that of any other edition with which I am ac- 
 quainted. I am able to introduce it to some" extent at once."— Prin. J. Easter, 
 East Genesee Conference Seminary. 
 
 " I have been wishing to get a sight of it. and it exceeds my expectations. It Ls 
 a beautiful book in every respect, and bears evidence of careful and critical study. 
 The engravings add instruction as well as interest to the work. I shall recommend 
 it to my classes."— Prin. Chas. H. Chandler, Glenwood Ladies' Seminary. 
 
 "A. S. Barnes & Co. have published an edition of the first s-ix books of Vireil's 
 ^neid, which is superior to its predecessors in several respects. The publishers 
 have done a good service to the cause of classical education, and the book deserves 
 a large circulation."- Prof. George W. Collord, Brooklyn Polytechnic , N. Y. 
 
 "My attention w-as called to Searing's Virgil by the fact of its containing a voca- 
 bulary which would obviate the necessity of procuring a lexicon. But use in the 
 class-room has impressed me most favorably with the accuracy and just proportion 
 of its notes, and the general excellence of its grammatical suggestions. The gen- 
 eral character of the book in its paper, its typography, and its engravings is highly 
 commendable, and the fac-simile manuscript is a valuable feature. I take great 
 pleasure in commending the book to all who do not wish a complete edition of 
 Virgil. It suits our short school courses admirablv."— ]5.!enry L. Boltwood. Master 
 (^Princeton High School, III. 
 
 45 
 
 
" A WeU of EngUsh Undefiled." 
 
 LITERATURE AND BELLES LETTRES. 
 PROCESSOR CLEVELAND'S WORKS. 
 
 A WHOZi: JLIBHAJtT IN TOVB VOLUMJJS. 
 
 COMPEim 
 
 Of ENGIISN 
 
 W I9th CENT Y 
 
 OF AMERICAN 
 
 OF CUSSUiAL 
 
 One Hundred and Twenty Thousand of these Volumes have been sold, 
 
 and they are the acknowledged Standard wherever 
 
 this refining study is pursued. 
 
 PROF. JAMES R. BOYD'S WORKS. 
 
 Z3CBKACINe 
 
 COMPOSITIOX, T.OGIC, LITERATURE, RUETOItlC, CRITICISM, 
 BIOGRAPHY }-VOETBY, AND BROSJS, 
 
 BOYD'S COMPOSITION AND RHETORIC. 
 
 Remarkable for the space and attention given to grammatical principles, to afford a 
 pnbstantial groundwork ; al^o for the admirable treatment of synonyms, figurative 
 language, and the sources of argument and iilnstratiCMi, with notable exercises for pre- 
 paring the way to poetic composition. 
 
 BOYD'S ELEMENTS OF LOGIC. 
 
 explains, first, the conditions and processes by which the mind receives ideas, and 
 then unfolds the art of reasoning, with clear directions for the establishment and con- 
 flrmation of sound judgment. A thoroughly practical treatise, being a systematic and 
 philosophical condensaticm of all that is known of the subject. 
 
 BOYD'S KAMES' CRITICISM. 
 
 This standard work, as is well known, treats of the fiicnlty of perception, and the 
 result of its exercise upon the tastes and emotions. It may therefore be termed a Com- 
 pendium of Aesthetics and Natural Morals ; and its use in refining the mind and heart 
 has made it a standard text-book. 
 
 BOYD'S ANNOTATED ENGLISH CLASSICS. 
 
 Milton* 9 Paradise lost. 
 Young* s Night TlionghtM. 
 Cowper^s Task, Table Talh, «frr. 
 
 TJiontson*s Seasons. 
 Polloh*s Course of Time. 
 Lord Bacon* s Essays. 
 
 In six cheap volumes. The service done to literature, by Prof. Boyd's Annotations 
 upon these standard writers, can with difBculty be estimated. Line by line their ex- 
 pressions and ideas are analyzed and discussed, untU the best comprehension of the 
 powerful use of language is obtained by the learner. 
 
 • 
 
 gtU p«tt, all pannerg, aaa all %\x&t% 
 
 KATIOSAL 
 SERIES. 
 
 IISTOEY. 
 
 STANDARD 
 TEXT-BOOKS, 
 
 "History is (Philosophy teaching by Examples.'' 
 
 THE UNITED STATES. 
 
 ROME 
 
 and d< 
 charm 
 
 rirNrRAI WHIard's Universal History. 
 
 U^ 1 1 [■ n H Li ■ and illustrated as to be less diffl 
 
 2. General Summary of History. Bemg the Summaries of American, am 
 of English and French History, bound in one volume. The leading events m 
 the histories of these three nations epitomized in the briefest manner. 
 
 A. S. BARNES & CO., 
 
 I. Youth's History of the 
 
 UNITED STATES. By Jamiw 
 HoNTBiTH, author of the National Geographical Series. An elementary work 
 ^oVthe (iatechetical plan, with Maps, Engravings, Memoriter Tables, etc For 
 the youngest pupils. 
 
 2 Wlllard's School History, for Grammar Schools and Academic classes 
 Desicmed to cultivate the memory, the inteUect, and the taste, and to bow the . 
 eeedr of virtue, by contemplation of the actions of the good and great. \ 
 
 o Willard's Unabridged History, for higher classes pursuing a complete J ^ 
 ^ course Notable for its clear arrangement and devices addressed to the eye, wiUxV 
 
 a series of Progressive Maps. W 
 
 A Summary of American History. A skeleton of events, with all the prom- t 
 ^ Sact^ and dates, in fifty-three p/ges. May be committed to -e-ory .^- \ 
 Xatlm, used in review of larger volumes, or for reference simply. A mmiature \ 
 of American History." ^ 
 
 run liUn I. Berard's School History of England, combining 
 
 tnuLAllU" an interesting history of the social Ufe of the English 
 
 people, with that of the civil and military transactions of the realm. Religion, 
 literature, science, art, and commerce are included. 
 
 2 Summary of English and of French History ff^j^NCE. 
 
 A series of brief sStements, presenting more pomts of ■ ■■""'^'■' 
 attachment for the pupil's interest and memory than a chronological table. A 
 weU-proportional outline and index to more extended readmg. 
 
 Ricord's History of Rome. A story-like epitome of this inter. 
 
 esting and chivalrous history, profusely illustrated, with the legends 
 
 and doubtful portions so introduced as not to deceive, while adding extended 
 charm to the subject. 
 
 A vast subject so arranged 
 
 difllcult to acquire or retain. Its 
 
 whole substance, In fact,' is summarized on one page, in a grand "Temple of 
 Time, or Picture of Nations. 
 
 \ 
 
 ' 
 
i^m 
 
 ■ ■■f *-:,i 
 
 '- F3^*^^-^%^-*