diff options
Diffstat (limited to 'old/69810-0.txt')
| -rw-r--r-- | old/69810-0.txt | 2248 |
1 files changed, 0 insertions, 2248 deletions
diff --git a/old/69810-0.txt b/old/69810-0.txt deleted file mode 100644 index 1d3dc23..0000000 --- a/old/69810-0.txt +++ /dev/null @@ -1,2248 +0,0 @@ -The Project Gutenberg eBook of The Pronunciation of Greek, by John -Stuart Blackie - -This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States and -most other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no restrictions -whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it under the terms -of the Project Gutenberg License included with this eBook or online at -www.gutenberg.org. If you are not located in the United States, you -will have to check the laws of the country where you are located before -using this eBook. - -Title: The Pronunciation of Greek - -Author: John Stuart Blackie - -Release Date: January 16, 2023 [eBook #69810] - -Language: English - -Produced by: deaurider and the Online Distributed Proofreading Team at - https://www.pgdp.net (This file was produced from images - generously made available by The Internet Archive) - -*** START OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK THE PRONUNCIATION OF -GREEK *** - - - - - -Transcriber’s Notes: - - Underscores “_” before and after a word or phrase indicate _italics_ - in the original text. - Equal signs “=” before and after a word or phrase indicate =bold= - in the original text. - Small capitals have been converted to SOLID capitals. - Old or antiquated spellings have been preserved. - Typographical and punctuation errors have been silently corrected. - - - - - THE - PRONUNCIATION OF GREEK; - - ACCENT AND QUANTITY. - - A PHILOLOGICAL INQUIRY. - - BY - JOHN STUART BLACKIE, - - PROFESSOR OF GREEK IN - THE UNIVERSITY OF EDINBURGH. - - EDINBURGH: SUTHERLAND AND KNOX. - LONDON: SIMPKIN, MARSHALL, AND CO. - MDCCCLII. - - EDINBURGH: T. CONSTABLE, - PRINTER TO HER MAJESTY. - - “_Sit omnibus rebus suum senium, sua juventus; et - ut verba verbis, sic etiam sonis sonos succedere - permittamus._”—BISHOP GARDINER. - - “_This new pronunciation hath since prevailed, - whereby we Englishmen speak Greek, and are able - to understand one another, which nobody else - can._”—THOMAS FULLER. - - “_Maxime cupio ut in omnibus Academiis nostris - hodierna Græcorum pronuntiatio recipiatur._” - —BOISSONADE. - - “_Neque dubitamus quin_ ERASMUS, _si in tantam - Græcæ pronuntiationis discrepantiam incidisset, - vulgarem usum intactum et salvum reliquisset_.” - —SEYFFARTH. - - “_Ich gebe der neugriechischen Aus-sprache im - Ganzen bei weitem den Vorzug._”—THIERSCH. - - “_Neque enim de cœlo dilapsa ad nos pervenit Græcorum - lingua, sed e patria sua una cum omnibus quæ habemus - subsidiis, suo vestita cultu prodiit, quem tollere - aut immutare velle esset imperium in linguam liberam - exercere._”—WETSTEN. - - “_Die sogenannte Erasmische Aus-sprache, wie es - in Deutschland erscheint, ist völlig grundlos, ein - Gebilde man weiss nicht von wannen es kam, ein - Gemische welches jeder sich zustutzt nach eigner - Lust und Willkühr._”—LISCOV. - - - - -THE PRONUNCIATION OF GREEK, &c. - - -It is purely as a practical man, and with a direct practical result in -view, that I venture to put forth a few words on the vexed question -of the PRONUNCIATION OF GREEK. He were a frigid pedant, indeed, who, -with the whole glorious literature of Hellas before him, and the rich -vein of Hellenic Archæology, scarcely yet opened in Scotland, should, -for the mere gratification of a subtle speculative restlessness, walk -direct into this region of philological thorns. So far as my personal -curiosity was concerned, Sir John Cheke, wrapt in his many folded -mantle of Ciceronian verboseness, and the Right Reverend Stephen -Gardiner’s prætorian edicts in favour of Greek sounds,[1] and the βή ϐή -of the old comedian’s Attic sheep, might have been allowed to sleep -undisturbed on the library shelves. I had settled the question long -ago in my own mind on broad grounds of common sense, rather than on -any nice results that seemed obtainable from the investigations of the -learned; but the nature of the public duties now imposed on me does not -allow me to take my own course in such matters, merely because I think -it right. I must shew to the satisfaction of my fellow-teachers and of -my students, that I am not seeking after an ephemeral notoriety by the -public galvanisation of a dead crotchet; that any innovations which I -may propose are in reality, as so often happens in the political world -also, and in the ecclesiastical, a mere recurrence to the ancient -and established practice of centuries, and that whatever opinions I -may entertain on points confessedly open to debate, I entertain not -for myself alone, but in company with some of the ripest scholars -and profoundest philologists of modern times. I have reason also for -thinking with a recent writer, that the present time is peculiarly -favourable for the reconsideration of the question;[2] for, although -Sir John Cheke might have said with some show of truth in his day, -“_Græca jam lingua nemini patria est_,”[3] none but a prophetic -partisan of universal Russian domination in the Mediterranean will -now assert, that the living Greeks are not a nation and a people who -have a right to be heard on the question, how their own language is to -be pronounced. Taking the Greek language as it appears in the works -of the learned commentator Corais, in the poetry of the Soutzos and -Rangabe, in the history of Perrhæbus, so highly spoken of by Niebuhr, -and in the publications of the daily press at Athens; and taking -the new kingdom for no greater thing than the intrigues of meddling -diplomatists, its own wretched cabals, and the guns of Admiral Parker -will allow it to be; it is plain that to disregard the witness of -such a speaking fact, standing as it does upon the unbroken tradition -and catholic philological succession of eighteen centuries, would be, -much more manifestly now than in the days of the learned WETSTEN, to -“exercise a despotism over a free language,” such as no man has a right -to claim.[4] Besides, in Scotland we have already had our orthodox -hereditary routine in this matter disturbed by the invasion of English -teachers of the Greek language; an invasion, no doubt, which our strong -national feeling may look on with jealousy, but which we brought on -ourselves by the shameful condition of prostration in which we allowed -the philological classes in our higher schools and colleges to lie -for two centuries; and it was not to be expected that these English -teachers, being placed in a position which enabled them to give the -law within a certain influential circle, should sacrifice their own -traditional pronunciation of the Greek language, however arbitrary, to -ours, in favour of which, in some points, there was little but the mere -conservatism of an equally arbitrary usage to plead. Finding matters -in this condition, I feel it impossible for me to waive the discussion -of a matter already fermenting with all the elements of uncertainty. I -have therefore taken the trouble of working my way through Havercamp’s -two volumes, and comparing the arguments used in the famous old -Cantabrigian controversy with those advanced by a well-informed modern -member of the same learned corporation. I have taken the learned -Germans, too, as in duty bound, on such a question, into my counsels; -I have devoted not a little time and attention to the language and -literature of modern Greece; and above all, I have carefully examined -those places of the ancient rhetoricians and grammarians that touch -upon the various branches of the subject. With all these precautions, -if I shall not succeed in making converts to my views, I hope, at -least with reasonable men, to escape the imputation of rashness and -superficiality. - -[1] _Ego sonorum causam tueor ex edicto possessorio, et ut prætor, -interdixi de possessione._ - -[2] An Essay on the Pronunciation of the Greek Language. By G. T. -PENNINGTON, M.A., late Fellow of King’s College, Cambridge. London: -Murray. 1844. This is the work that I recommend to the English student -who wishes to understand the subject in detail, without wading through -the confounding mass of pertinent and impertinent matter that the -learned eloquence of more than three centuries has heaped up. - -[3] _Sylloge scriptorum qui de linguæ Græcæ vera et recta -pronuntiatione Commentarios reliquerunt; edidit_ HAVERCAMPUS. _Ludg. -Bat._, 1740. Vol. ii. p. 220 - -[4] JOH. RUDOLFI WETSTENII: _pro Græca et genuina linguæ Græcæ -pronuntiatione Orationes Apologeticæ_. Basil; 1686, p. 27. The whole -passage is quoted in the prefixed mottoes. - -The exact history of our present pronunciation of Greek, both in -England and Scotland, I have not learning enough curiously to trace; -but one thing seems to me plain, that all the great scholars in this -country, and on the continent generally, in the fifteenth, and the -early part of the sixteenth century, could have known nothing of our -present arbitrary method of pronouncing;[5] for they could pronounce -Greek no other way than as they received it from Chrysoloras, Gaza, -Lascaris, Musurus, and the other native Greeks who were their masters. -Erasmus was, if not absolutely the first,[6] certainly the first -scholar of extensive European influence and popularity who ventured to -disturb the tradition of the Byzantine elders in this matter; but his -famous dialogue, _De recta Latini Græcique sermonis pronuntiatione_, -did not appear till the year 1528, by which time so strong a -prescription had already run in favour of the received method, that it -seems strange how even his learning and wit should have prevailed to -overturn it. But there are periods in the history of the world when the -minds of men are naturally disposed to receive all sorts of novelties; -and the era of the Reformation was one of them. Erasmus, though a -conservative in religion, (as many persons are who are conservative -in nothing else,) pleased his free speculative whim with all sorts of -imaginations; and among other things fell—though, if what Wetsten -tells be true, in a very strange way[7]—on the notion of purging -the pronunciation of the classical languages of all those defects -which belonged to it, whether by degenerate tradition or perverse -provincialism, and erecting in its stead an ideal pronunciation, made -up of erudite conjecture and philosophical argumentation. Nothing was -more easy than to prove that in the course of two thousand years the -orthoepy of the language of the Greeks had declined considerably from -the perfection in which its musical fulness had rolled like a river of -gold from the mouth of Plato, or had been dashed like a thunderbolt -of Jove from the indignant lips of Demosthenes; yet more easy was it, -and admirable game for such a fine spirit as Erasmus, to evoke the -shades of Cicero and Quinctilian, and make mirth to them out of a -Latin oration delivered before the Emperor Maximilian, by a twittering -French courtier and a splay-mouthed Westphalian baron.[8] It is certain -also that there are in that dialogue many admirable observations on -the blundering practices of the schoolmasters, and even the learned -professors, his contemporaries, which very many of them in that day, -and the great majority even now have wanted either sense or courage to -attend to; observations which, I doubt not, will yet bear fruit in the -present age, if education is to be advanced in the only way possible, -viz., by those whose profession it is to teach others, learning in -the first place to teach themselves. But in one great point of his -rich and various discourse, the learned Dutchman was more witty than -wise, and achieved a success where he was altogether wrong, or only -half-right, that has been denied to him where he is altogether right. -While his admirable observations on accent and quantity, and many of -his precepts on the practical art of teaching languages, have been -totally lost sight of by the great mass of our classical teachers, his -strictures on the pronunciation of the Greek vowels and diphthongs have -been received more or less by pedagogic men in all parts of Europe; -or at least prevailed so far as to shake the faith of scholars in the -pronunciation of the native Greek, and lead them to invent a new and -arbitrary Hellenic utterance for each country, an altogether barbarous -conglomerate, made up of modern national peculiarities and scraps of -Erasmian philology. This is a sorry state of matters; but as European -scholarship then stood, innovators could look for no more satisfactory -result. Neither Erasmus nor the scholars who followed his “divisive -courses” in England and other countries, were in possession of -philological materials sufficiently comprehensive for settling so nice -a point. Much less could they use the materials in their hands with -that spirit of calm philosophic survey, and that touch of fine critical -sagacity which the ripe scholars of Germany now exhibit. It was one -thing to quarrel learnedly with the pronunciation of Chrysoloras, and -to chuckle with academic pride over the tautophonic tenuity of σὺ -δ’ εἶπέ μοι μὴ μῆκος, and other such ingeniously gathered scraps of -Atticism in the mouth of a modern Turkish serf; another, and a far more -serious thing, to draw out a complete table of elocutionary sounds, -such as they existed at any given period in Greek literature; say at -the successive epochs of Homer, Æschylus, Plato, Callimachus, Strabo, -Chrysostom. Bishop Gardiner, therefore, was right to press this point -hard against the Erasmians,—“_Quod vero difficillimum dicebam neque -statuis neque potes, ut tanquam ad punctum constituas sonorum modum. Ab -usu præsente manifeste recedis: sed an ad veterum sonorum formam omnino -accedas, nihil expeditum est._” Here, as in more serious matters, the -good Bishop saw that it was easier to destroy than to build up; and -therefore he interposed his interdict despotically in the Roman style, -_ne quid detrimenti respublica capiat_. But these maxims of old Roman -aristocracy do not apply to the democracy of letters. So the Bishop’s -philological thunderbolt started more heretics than it laid. The love -of liberty was now conjoined with the love of originality; to speak -Greek with Erasmus became now the sign of academic patriotism and the -watchword of philological progress. FORCE being the chief apparent -power on the one side, it was naturally felt by those against whom it -was exercised, that REASON was altogether on their side. The matter was -therefore practically settled on the side of persecuted innovation; -the subtlety of a few academic doctors triumphed proudly over the long -tradition of Byzantine centuries, and the living protest of millions of -men, with Greek blood in their veins and Greek words in their mouths; -and they who were once the few despised Nazarenes of the scholastic -world, are now a sort of philological Scribes and Pharisees, sitting in -the seat of Aristarchus, whose dictum it is dangerous to dispute. - -[5] See the opinions of SCALIGER, SALMASIUS, and some others, quoted by -WETSTEN. - -[6] WETSTEN refers to a work by ALDUS MANUTIUS _de potestate -literarum_, which I have not seen. - -[7] “_Audici M. Rutgerum Reschium professorem Linguæ Græcæ in collegio -Baslidiano apud Lovanienses, meum piæ memoriæ præceptorem, narrantem, -se habitasse in Liliensi pædagogeo una cum Erasmo, eo superius, se -inferius cubiculum obtinente. Henricum autum Glareanum Parisiis -Lovanium venisse, atque ab Erasmo in collegium vocatum fuisse ad -prandium: quo cum venisset, quid novi adferret interrogatum dixisse -(quod in itinere commentus erat, quod sciret Erasmum plus satis -rerum novarum studiosum ac mire credulum) quosdam in Græcia natos -Lutetiam venisse, viros ad miraculum doctos; qui longe aliam Græci -sermonis pronunciationem usurparent, quam quæ vulgo in hisce partibus -recepta esset: Eos nempe sonare pro_ Vita Beta, _pro_ II ita Eta, -_pro_ AI, ai, _pro_ OI, oi, _et sic in cæteris. Quo audito Erasmum -paulo post conscripsisse dialogum de recta Latini Græcique sermonis -pronunciatione, ut videretur hujus rei ipse incentor, et obtulisse -Petro Alostensi Typographo imprimendum: Qui cum forte aliis occupatus -renueret, aut certe se tam cito excudere quam volebat non posse -diceret, misisse libellum Basileam ad Frobenium, a quo max impressus in -lucem prodiit. Verum Erasmum cognita fraude, nunquam ea pronunciandi -ratione postea usum, nec amicis, quibuscum familiariter vivebat, ut eam -observarent, præcepisse. In ejus rei fidem exhibuit Rutgerus ipsius -Erasmi manu scriptam in gratiam Damiani a Gœs Hispani pronunciationis -formulam, in nullo diversam ab ea, qua passim docti et indocti in hac -lingua utuntur._” The voucher for the story is VOSSIUS, from whose -_Aristarchus_, lib. 1, c. 28, Wetsten quotes it. - -[8] Havercamp, vol. ii. p 174. - -Nevertheless, Erasmus, Wetsten distinctly asserts, (pp. 15, 115,) -did not himself adopt in his practice the perfect theory of Hellenic -vocalization which he sketched out. So much the less cause is there -for our having any hesitation in considering the whole question as now -open, and treating it exactly as if Professor John Cheke, and Professor -Thomas Smith of Cambridge University, and Adolphus Mekerchus, knight -and perpetual senator of Bruges, and the other Havercampian hoplites -had never existed. Let us inquire, therefore, in the first place, -whether any certain data exist on which such a matter can be settled -scientifically. We shall give only the grand outlines of the question, -referring the special student to the English work of PENNINGTON already -quoted, the German work of LISKOV, and the Latin of SEYFFARTH.[9] - -[9] _Ueber die Aus-sprache des Griechischen._ Leipzig, 1825. _De Sonis -literarum Græcarum_; _auctore_ GUSTAVO SEYFFARTHIO. Lipsiæ, 1824. - -Now, there are five ways by which the method of pronunciation used by -any gone generation of “articulate-speaking men” may be ascertained, -if not with a curious exactness in every point, at least with such -an amount of approximation as will be esteemed satisfactory by a -reasonable inquirer. FIRST, we have the imitation in articulate letters -of natural sounds and of the cries of animals. There is nothing more -certain in the philosophy of language than that whole classes of -words expressive of sound were formed on the principle of a direct -dramatic imitation of the sound signified. Thus the words DASH, -HASH, SMASH, in our most significant Saxon tongue, evidently express -an action producing sound, in which the strong vowel sound of A is -combined with a sharp sound to which the aspirated S was considered -the nearest approximation by the original framer of the word. So, -in the names expressive of flowing water, the liquids L and R are -observed to preponderate in all languages, these being the sounds -which are actually given forth by the natural objects so signified: -thus _river_, ῤέω, _strom_, _flumen_, _purl_, the Hebrew _nahar_ and -_nahal_, &c. And in the same manner, if the bird which we call CUCKOO -was called by the Latins _cuculus_, by the Greeks κόκκυξ, and by the -Germans _kukuk_, no person can doubt that the vowel sounds at least, in -these words, were intended to be a more or less exact echo of the cry -of the bird so designated. In arguing, however, from such words, care -must be taken not to press the argument too closely; for two things -are manifest—that the original framer of the words might have given, -and in all likelihood did give only a loose, and not a curiously exact -imitation of the sound or cry he meant to express; and then that in -the course of centuries the word may have deviated so far from its -original pronunciation, as to be no longer a very striking likeness -of the natural sound it is intended to imitate. These considerations -explain the fact how the very simple and obvious cry made by sheep, -which no child will mistake, is expressed by three very different -vowels, in three of the most notable European languages,—our own -_bleat_, the Latin _balare_, and the Greek βληχή, pronounced like A -in _mate_, according to the practice of the Greeks in the classical -age. From such words, therefore, no safe conclusion can be drawn as -to the pronunciation of any particular word at any particular period -of a highly advanced civilization. It is different, however, with -words not forming any part of the spoken system of articulate speech, -but invented expressly for the occasion, in order to represent by way -of echo certain natural sounds. In this way, should we find in an -old Athenian spelling-book this sentence, “_the sheep cries_ Βή,” we -should be most justly entitled to conclude, if not that the Greek _B_ -was pronounced exactly like the corresponding letter in our alphabet, -(for the consonants are less easily fixed down in such imitations -of inarticulate cries,) certainly that _H_ had the sound of our AI; -and this conclusion would be irresistible if other arguments were at -hand, such as will presently be mentioned, leading plainly to the same -conclusion. Here, however, also, care must be taken not to generalize -too largely; for, strictly speaking, the inference from such a fact -as the one supposed, is only that at the particular time and place -where the said book was composed, a particular vowel sounded to the -ear of the writer in a particular way; the proof remaining perfectly -open that at some other place during the same period, or at the same -place fifty years later, the same vowel may have been pronounced in a -perfectly different way.[10]. Those who are at all acquainted with the -style of reasoning on such points, exemplified in almost every page of -Havercamp’s Collection, will see the necessity of applying at every -step of their progress the rein of a strictly logical restraint. - -[10] “If we find a word pronounced in a given manner in the time of -Athenæus, we are warranted, in the absence of proof, in supposing it -to have been pronounced in the same way in the time of Homer; and what -prevailed in Homer’s time may be presumed to have continued till the -age of Athenæus.”—PENNINGTON, p. 7. This is too strong. Considering -the immense interval of time and progress of culture between HOMER and -ATHENÆUS, and considering the tendency to change inherent in human -nature, I can see no presumption that the pronunciation of the language -should have remained through so many centuries unchanged. - -Another and a most scientific way by which we may recover the traces of -a lost orthoepy, is from the physiological description of the action -of the organs of speech in producing the sounds belonging to certain -letters, as preserved in the works of grammatical or rhetorical -writers. This method of proof, taken by itself, may, no doubt, fail of -giving complete satisfaction in delicate cases; for it is extremely -difficult to give such an exact description of the action of the organs -of speech as will enable a student of an unknown language to reproduce -the sound, without the assistance of the living voice. But, taken -along with other circumstances, the proof from this source may be so -strong as absolutely to force conviction; or at all events imperatively -to exclude certain suppositions, which, without the existence of -such a description, would have been admissible. Now, it happens most -fortunately for our present inquiry, that a very satisfactory scale -of the Greek vowel-sounds is extant in the works of the well-known -historian and critic Dionysius of Halicarnassus, who lived in the time -of Augustus Cæsar. This we shall quote at length immediately; and as -the author was a professional rhetorician, no higher authority on such -a point, for the epoch to which he belongs, can be wished for.[11] - -[11] “I cannot help thinking that if this treatise of Dionysius had -been in early times made a text-book in schools, no controversy would -ever have arisen upon the pronunciation of the Greek letters,” (except -the diphthongs,) “or upon the nature of quantity.”—PENNINGTON. - -Again, a very large and various field of proof lies in those instances -of the direct transference of the sounds of one language into those -of another, which literary composition sometimes requires, and which -are sure to occur very frequently in an extensive literature like the -Greek. Examples of this are most common in the case of proper names, -and occur especially in translations, as in the ancient translations of -the Hebrew Bible and of the New Testament, which have been admirably -used for the illustration of Greek orthoepy in the work of Seyffarth. -When Strabo, for instance, (p. 213,) in the case given by Pennington, -(p. 73,) says of the inhabitants of the newly colonized town of Como in -Upper Italy,—Νεο κωμῖται ἐκλήθησαν ἅπαντες· τοῦτο δὲ μεθερμηνευθὲν Νο -ϐουμκώμουμ λέγεται, we learn that the diphthong ου was considered by -an intelligent scientific man in the time of Augustus, as being either -the exact equipollent of the Latin U, or the nearest approximation -to it within the compass of Hellenic vocalization; and when we are -told further that the modern Greeks and the modern Italians pronounce -the same vowels the same way even now, we cannot for a moment doubt -that the method of pronouncing that Greek diphthong now practised in -Scotland (as in _boom_) is the correct one. From the same passage we -may legitimately draw the inference, with regard to the second letter -in the Greek alphabet, that it was in all probability pronounced -softly like our V; for our B is no representative whatever of the Latin -V, whether we suppose that letter to have been pronounced like the -corresponding letter with us, or like our W. The modern Germans, in -the same way, who have not our sound of W, substitute for it in their -language the sound of V regularly, as in WASSER, which they pronounce -VASSER, and many such words. If, therefore, an ancient Greek wished -to express the letter V, and does so by his own _B_, the inference is -irresistible, either that his _B_ was pronounced like our V, and was -viewed as the exact expression of the Latin letter so pronounced, or -as an approximation to it, if pronounced like our W; or, on the other -hand, that the Greek organ being utterly incapable of pronouncing the -soft sound of the Latin V, and having no letter or combination of -letters capable of expressing it, gave up the attempt in despair, and -wrote the soft Latin V with a hard Greek _B_. But this supposition is -improbable, for three reasons: FIRST, because the general character -of the Greek language, as contrasted with the Roman, was not that of -blunt hardness but of liquid softness, (see QUINCTILIAN and CICERO, -_passim_;) SECONDLY, the ancient Greeks, in fact, had a combination of -letters by which they could express in an approximate way the Latin -V, namely, ου, and by which they actually did so express it on many -occasions; THIRDLY, the modern Greeks likewise do pronounce the second -letter of the alphabet like the Latin V; and the burden of proof lies -on those who assert that the ancients pronounced it otherwise. - -A fourth method of proof lies in the remarks made on the identical or -cognate sounds of syllables, either incidentally by general writers, -or specially by grammarians in treating orthography and orthoepy; and -in the accidental interchange of letters in inscriptions and coins. -Of the strictly grammatical kind of evidence a very valuable fragment -has been preserved in the Ἐπιμερισμοί of Herodian, the Priscian of the -Greek grammarians, published by Boissonnade in 1817. In this work are -alphabetically arranged large classes of words, which, while they are -pronounced with the same vowel to the ear, are differently spelt to -the eye; as if I should say in English that the vowel-sounds in the -words FAIR, FARE, HEIR, THERE, have the same or a similar orthoepy, -but a very different orthography. Of the other, or incidental kind, -may be mentioned those plays of sound with which epigrammatic writers -sometimes amuse themselves, and of which the echo-poems found in some -of the collections of modern Latin, are the most notable example. Thus, -Erasmus, in ridicule of the Ciceronians, wrote two lines, of which -the first, a hexameter, ends with _Cicerone_, the ablative case of -the great orator’s Latin name, while the second line, a pentameter, -striking the ear as a sort of echo of the first, ends with the Greek -word ὄνε, _O you ass!_ from which significant jingle the inference is -ready enough, that the penultimate syllable of both these words, in the -classical pronunciation of Erasmus, was accented, and that the sound of -the vowel in both was the same. The proof, of course, in such a case -would have been equally complete if the word in the second line had -been spelt with a different vowel instead of with the same. - -_Fifthly_, In determining the pronunciation of any language at any -past period of its history, its presently existing pronunciation, -though furnishing no absolute proof, is entitled to be taken into -account along with other circumstances, and in the absence of any -distinct evidence to the contrary, must be taken as conclusive. Erasmus -appealed with great success to the vanity of academic men, when he -said, with reference to the common Greek pronunciation in his day, -“_Pronuntiationem, quam nunc habent eruditi, non aliunde petunt quam -a vulgo, scis quali magistro_;” but to this a learned advocate of the -existing Itacism very wisely replies, that even supposing it were -true that the vulgar pronunciation of Greek comes to us only from the -VULGAR, the common people, as is well known, are generally far more -tenacious of hereditary national accent than the upper classes of -society;[12] of which we have a familiar English example in the case -of the stout Yorkshiremen, who have preserved for two thousand years -the deep hollow sound of _u_, (saying _Ool_, for _Hull_, &c.,) which is -the normal sound of that vowel in all the European languages. In this -view it is passing strange to note, that the slender sound of the first -syllable of ἡμέρα, as if written _heeméra_, which is the rule with the -modern Greeks, is the precise sound, that in a passage of Plato is -noted as the ancient sound, compared with the fuller sound, _haiméra_, -fashionable in his day;[13] while Aristophanes[14] in one of his plays, -introduces a conservative old Spartan lady saying ἵκει, instead of -ἥκει; a distinct proof both that η was not considered identical with ι -in his day, and that it was then sounded as it is now, by one of the -most ancient people in the Pelasgic peninsula. - -Such appear to me to be the methods of proof that lie open to an -inquirer into the orthoepy of any language, living or dead, at any -given period of its history. With these, of course, the student must -combine such general rules on the philosophy of language, and on the -habits of human speech, as a little experience of practical philology -will readily supply. I now proceed to state the results to which I have -arrived, by a thorough study of the existing evidences. After that we -shall make our practical inference, and answer a few natural objections. - -[12] “_Vulgus antiquæ pronuntiationis tenacissimus est._”—WETSTEN. -Compare the observations of Professor L. Ross, below, on the antique -element in modern Greek. - -[13] Pluto Cratylus, sec. 74, Bekker. - -[14] Aristophanes, Lysist. 86. - -In the shape of results, therefore, all that my present purely -practical purpose requires me to lay down, with regard to ancient Greek -vocalization, may be combined in the following two propositions— - - PROPOSITION I.—It is demonstrably certain that the - method of pronouncing the vowels and diphthongs - generally practised in England and Scotland, - especially in England, since the days of Sir John - Cheke,—that is from about the middle of the sixteenth - century—is doubtful in many points, and in not a few - most important points directly opposed to the whole - stream of ancient authority and tradition. It is in - fact in a great measure conjectural, arbitrary, and - capricious. - - PROPOSITION II.—It is equally certain that the modern - Greeks have declined in several most important points - from the purity of Hellenic orthoepy, as practised - in the most classic times; but many of the striking - peculiarities of the modern pronunciation can be - traced back, with more or less uniformity, to a - period not far removed from the most flourishing - period of Greek literature, a period certainly when - pure Greek was both a spoken and a written language, - and preserving such a living organic power, as - entitled it by a spontaneous impulse from within to - modify the laws of its own orthoepy. - -Both these propositions, so far as the vowels are concerned, are proved -by a single glance at the passage of Dionysius (περὶ συντάξεως) already -referred to, and which I shall now translate:— - -“There are seven vowels; two long, η and ω, and two short, ε and ο; -three both long and short, α, ι, υ. All these are pronounced by the -wind-pipe acting on the breath, while the mouth remains in its simple -natural state, and the tongue remaining at rest takes no part in the -utterance. Now, the long vowels, and those which may be either long or -short, when they are used as long, are pronounced with the stream of -breath, extended and continuous; but the short vowels, and those used -as short, are uttered by a stroke of the mouth cut off immediately -on emission, the wind-pipe exerting its power only for the shortest -time. Of all these, the most agreeable sounds are produced by the -long vowels, and those which are used as long, because their sound -continues for a considerable time, and they do not suddenly break off -the energy of the breath. Of an inferior value are the short vowels, -and those used as short, because the volume of sound in them is small -and broken. Of the long again, the most sonorous is the α, when it is -used as long, for it is pronounced by opening the mouth to the fullest, -while the breath strikes the palate. The next is η, because in its -formation, while the mouth is moderately open, the sound is driven out -from below at the mouth of the tongue, and keeping in that quarter does -not strike upwards. Next comes the ω, for in it the mouth is rounded, -and contracts the lips, and the stroke of the mouth is sent against the -extreme end of the mouth, (ἀκροστόμιον, the lips, I presume.) Inferior -to this is the υ, for in this vowel an observable contraction takes -place in the extreme region of the lips, so that the sonorous breath -comes out attenuated and compressed. Last of all comes ι, for here the -stroke of the breath takes place about the teeth, while the opening of -the mouth is small, and the lips contribute nothing towards giving the -sound more dignity as it passes through. Of the short vowels, neither -is sonorous; but o is the least agreeable, for it parts the mouth more -than the other, and receives the stroke nearer the wind-pipe.” - -Now, while every point of this physiological description may not be -curiously accurate,[15] there is enough of obvious certainty in it to -settle some of the most important points of Greek orthoepy, so far as -the rhetorician of Halicarnassus is concerned; and his authority in -this matter is that of a man of the highest skill, which, as the daily -practice of our law courts shows, is worth that of a thousand persons -taken at random. That the ITACISM of the modern Greeks did not exist, -or was not allowed by good speakers[16] in the time of this writer, so -far as the single vowels are concerned, is abundantly manifest; for -not only do η, ι, υ, which the modern Greeks identify, mean different -sounds, but the sound of the η in particular is removed as far from the -ι as it could well be in any scale of vocalization, which sets out with -the supremacy of the broad A. And if these sounds were distinguished -by polished ears in the days of Augustus Cæsar, it is contrary to -all analogy of language to suppose that in the days of Alexander -the Great, Plato, or Pericles, they should have been confounded. -Provincialisms, indeed, and certain itacizing peculiarities, such as -that noticed by Plato, (page 24 above), there might have been; but -that any language should confound its vowel-sounds in its best days, -and distinguish them in its days of commencing feebleness, is contrary -to all that succession of things which we daily witness. Different -letters were originally invented to express different sounds, and did -so naturally for a long time, till fashion and freak combined with -habit, either overran the phonetic rule of speech by a rank growth of -exceptive oddities, (as has happened in English,) or fixed upon the -organs of articulation some strong tendency towards the predominance -of a particular sound, which in process of time became a marked -idiosyncrasy, from which centuries of supervening usage could not -shake the language free. This is what has taken place in Greece with -regard to certain vowel-sounds. But before pursuing these observations -further, let us see distinctly what the special points are, that this -remarkable passage of the Halicarnassian distinctly brings out. The -ascertained points are these,— - -[15] What he says about the tongue performing no part in the formation -of the vowels is manifestly false, as any one may convince himself by -pronouncing the three sounds, _au_, _ai_, _ee_, successively, with open -mouth before a mirror. He will thus observe a gradual elevation and -advance of the tongue, as the sound to be emitted becomes more slender. - -[16] This limitation must be carefully borne in mind; for after Athens -ceased to be a capital, being overwhelmed by Alexandria, it still -remained a sort of literary metropolis, giving, or affecting to give, -the law in matters of taste, long after its authority had ceased -practically to bind large masses of those whose usage fashioned the -existing language. - - 1. The long or slender sound of the English A, (as - in _lane_,) is not acknowledged by Dionysius, nor - is its existence possible under his description. It - is altogether an anomaly and a monstrosity—like so - many things in this island—and should never have been - tolerated for a moment in the pronunciation of Latin - or Greek.[17] - - 2. The slender sound of η used by the English and - the modern Greeks, is an attenuation the farthest - possible removed from the conception of Dionysius. - About ε there is no dispute anywhere. - - 3. The sound of υ described is manifestly the French - _u_, or German _ü_ heard in _Brüder_, _Bühne_: a very - delicate and elegant sound bordering closely on the - slender sound of _i_, (_ee_, English,) into which - it is sometimes attenuated by the Germans, and with - which, by a poetical license, it is allowed to rhyme, - (as _Brüder_—_nieder_,) but having no connection with - the English sound of _oo_, (as in _boom_,) with - which, in Scotland, it is confounded. This with us - is the more unpardonable, as our Doric dialect in - the south possesses a similar sound in such words as - _guid_, _bluid_, attenuated by the Northerns into the - slender sound of _gueed_, and _bleed_. The English - sound of long _u_ is, as Walker has pointed out, - a compound sound, of which one element is a sort - of consonant—Y. It is, besides, altogether a piece - of English idiosyncrasy, that we have no reason to - suppose ever existed anywhere, either amongst Greeks - or Romans.[18] - - 4. The English sound of I is another of John Bull’s - phonetic crotchets, and must be utterly discarded. - It is, in fact, a compound sound, of which the deep - vowel α is the predominant element—an element which, - we have seen, stands at the very opposite end of the - Halicarnassian’s scale! - -[17] In some English schools a small concession has been made to common -sense, and to sound principles of teaching, by confining the long -slender sound of _a_ to the long α, while the short α is pronounced -like the short _a_ in _bat_. Now, as changes are not easily made -in England, especially among schoolmasters, who are a stiff-necked -generation everywhere, it would have been worth while when they were -moving, to kick the barbarous English A out of the scholastic world -altogether. But their conservatism was too strong for this; besides, -the ears of many were so gross that they would not have distinguished, -or would have sworn that they could not distinguish, a long _a_ from a -short one, without giving the former the sound of an entirely distinct -vowel! There is no limit to the nonsense that men will talk in defence -of an inveterate absurdity. - -[18] The following passage from MITFORD (Pennington, p. 37) may stand -here as an instructive lesson, how blindly prejudice many sometimes -speak: “Strong national partiality only, and determined habit, could -lead to the imagination cherished by the French critics, that the -Greek υ was a sound so unpleasant, produced by a position of the -lips so ungraceful as the French U.”—_History_, book ii. sec. iii., -note. SCALIGER (Opuscula: Paris, 1610, p. 131) says rightly, “Est -obscurissimus sonus in Græca vocali υ, quæ ita pronuntianda est ut -proxime accedat ad iota.” - -So far as we see, therefore, the English, Scotch, and modern Greek -methods of pronouncing the five vowels all depart in some point from -the highest authority that can be produced on the subject; in fact, the -single vowel ω alone has preserved its full rounded purity uncorrupted -by any party. But with regard to the other four vowels, there is a -marked difference in the degree of deflection from the classical norm; -for, while the Scotch err only in one point, υ, the modern Greeks err -in two, η and υ, (though their error is but a very nice one in the case -of υ, and has, in both cases, long centuries of undeviating usage to -stand on,) and the English err in all the four points, α, η, ι, and -υ, and that in the most paradoxical and abnormal fashion that could -have been invented, had it been the direct purpose of our Oxonian and -Etonian doctors to put all classical propriety at defiance. In such -lawless anarchy has ended the restoration of the divine speech of -Plato, so loftily promised by Sir John Cheke; and so true in this small -matter also, is that wise parable of the New Testament, which advises -reformers to beware of putting new patches on old vestments. Instead of -the robe of genuine Melibean purple which Erasmus wished to throw round -the shoulders of the old Greek gods, our English scholars, following in -his track of conjectural innovation, have produced an English clown’s -motley jacket, which the Zeus of Olympus never saw, and even Momus -would disdain. But let us proceed to the diphthongs. - -Unhappily Dionysius, by a very unaccountable omission, has given us -no information on this head; so we are left to pursue our inquiries -over a wide field of stray inquiry, and conclude from a greater mass -of materials with much less appearance of scientific certainty. The -following results, however, to any man that will fairly weigh the -cumulative power of the evidence brought together with such laborious -conscientiousness by Liscov and Seyffarth, must appear unquestionable:— - -1. It is proved by evidence reaching as far back as the time of -the first Ptolemies, that the diphthong ΑΙ was pronounced like the -same diphthong in our English word _gain_.[19] So the diphthong is -pronounced by the living Greek nation. There is, therefore, the -evidence of more than 2000 years in its favour, and against the -prevalent pronunciation, which gives it the broad sound of _ai_ in the -German word KAISER, rhyming pretty nearly with our English word WISER. - -[19] “_Utut sit, id saltem nacti sumus interpretum S. sc. singularum -atque omnium auctoritate ut constet_ AI _mature atque optimis adeo -Græcorum temporibus simplici vocali_ E _respondisse_.”—SEYFFARTH, p. -101. See also the Stanza from CALLIMACHUS, where ναίχι echoes to ἔχει, -Epig. xxx. 5, (and SEXTUS EMPIRICUS _adv._ Grammat. c. 5.) - -2. The diphthong EI was pronounced in the time of Ptolemy Philadelphus -like the English _ee_ in _seen_, or _ea_ in _beam_.[20] This -pronunciation it retains at the present day. In this, as in the -preceding case, we have a striking proof of the tenacity with which -a great nation clings to elocutional peculiarities. What likelihood -is there that a people, so constant to itself for 2000 years under -the most adverse circumstances, should, in the 200 years previous to -that period, have known nothing of what was afterwards one of its most -marked characteristics? - -[20] “_Quâ potestate literæ_ EI _fuerint eâ Græcorum ætate in quam -veteres Sc. s. interpretes incidunt ex plurimis iisque variis verbis in -singulas linguas conversis adeo clarum est ut nulla fere restet causa -de eâ dubitare._”—SEYFFARTH. The Old Testament translators, in fact, -use it as regularly for _Hirek_ and _Yod_, as they do AI for _Tzere_, -_Segol_, and _Sheva_. - -3. The evidence for the pronunciation of the diphthong ΟΙ is more -scanty. Unfortunately the Septuagint translators use this diphthong -only once for expressing a Hebrew name in the whole compass of the -Old Testament. From other evidence, and by a train of deduction that -appears somewhat slippery, Seyffarth comes to the conclusion that its -original pronunciation was probably that of the German _oe_, from which -it was by degrees softened into the French _u_, and lastly into the -slender sound of _i_ (_ee_), which it now has. But as I am dealing -with certainties in this paper, and not with probabilities, it will be -enough to say that LISCOV has produced evidence to shew that it was -confounded with _i_ so early as the time of Julius Cæsar, =ΙΩΝΙΣΤΗΣ= -being found on a coin of the great dictator for οἰωνιστής. So in -the coins of Emperors of the second century, =ΟΙΚΟΣΤΟΥ= frequently -occurs for εἰκοστοῦ.[21] That λοιμός was not pronounced exactly like -λιμός in the time of Thucydides, has been concluded from a well-known -passage in his second book, (c. 54;) but the passage is of doubtful -interpretation,[22] and no man can tell at this time of day what the -exact, perhaps a very small shade of, difference, was between the two -sounds. - -[21] With regard to this sort of evidence arising from wrong spelt -words, it is manifest that a single example proves nothing. When Aunt -Chloe, for instance, in the American novel, says, “I’m _clar_ on’t,” -this is no proof that the Americans pronounce the _ea_ in _clear_ like -_a_; the only conclusion is, that certain vulgar people in America -pronounce it so, and a word with a different vocalization must be -written in order to express their peculiar method of utterance. But -when mistakes of this kind occur extensively, and in quarters where -there is no reason to suspect anything particularly vulgar, they -authorize a conclusion as general as the fact, especially where no -evidence exists pointing in a different direction. - -[22] THIERSCH uses the passage as a proof of the antiquity of the -modern slender sound.—_Sprachlehre_, § 16, 5. - -4. In the above three examples, the Scotch and the English have equally -conspired to overthrow the living tradition of two centuries, by an act -of arbitrary academical conceit or pedagogic carelessness. In the case -of OU, we Northerns have again been happy; while the English, with -their fatal facility of blundering in such matters, have invented a -pronunciation of this diphthong which seems more natural to a growling -Saxon mastiff than to the smooth fulness of ancient Greek eloquence. -The Greek writers, with great uniformity, agree in expressing by -this diphthong the sound of the Latin _u_; while the modern Greeks, -with equal uniformity, agree in pronouncing their ου as the Italians -pronounce _u_; that is to say, like the English _oo_ in _boom_. -Seyffarth classes this diphthong with _a_ and _i_, _o_ and _e_, as a -sound about which there is no controversy. - -5. The diphthongs AU and EU follow; and in their case the contrast -between the pronunciation of the living Greeks, and that of those who -are taught only out of dead grammars and dictionaries, is so striking, -that the contest has been peculiarly keen. Here, however, as is wont -to be the case in more important matters, it may be that after much -dusty discussion, erudite wrangling, and inky hostility, it shall turn -out that both parties are in the right. On the first blush of the -matter, it seems plain that such words as βασιλεύς, ναῦν, καλεῦνται, -sound extremely harsh, and not according to the famous euphony of -the Attic ear, if in them the second letter of the diphthong receive -the consonantal sound of _v_ or _f_ given by the modern Greeks. -=VASILEFS, NAFN, CALEFNTAE=—these are sounds which no chaste classic -ear can tolerate, and which, among the phenomena of human articulation, -are more naturally classed with such harsh Germanisms as _Pfingst_, -_Probst_, &c., than with any sound that can be imagined to have been -wedded euphoniously to Apollo’s lute. All this is very true; and yet, -as modern German is not all harsh, so ancient Greek, it may be, was -not all mellow; and no mere general talk about euphony or cacophony -can, in so freakish a thing as human speech, be allowed to settle any -question of orthoepy. Now, when we look into the matter an inch beyond -the film of such shallow scholastic declamation, we find that so early -as the time of Crassus, that is, in the first half of the first century -before the Christian era, the diphthong _au_, which we pronounce _ou_, -(as in _bound_,) and the English like the same vowel in their own -language, (as in _vault_,) was actually enunciated consonantally like -_av_ or _af_. For Cicero (Divinat. ii. 40) tells the anecdote how, -when that unfortunate soldier was on his way to the East, and about -embarking in a ship at Brundusium, he happened to meet a Greek on the -quay calling out CAUNIAS! by which call the basket slung over his -shoulder might have plainly indicated that he meant FIGS! figs of the -best quality (worthy of a triumvir) from Caunus, in the south-west -corner of Asia Minor; but the triumvir’s ear—dark destiny brooding in -his soul—caught up the syllables separately, as _Cav’ ne eas_—=BEWARE -HOW YOU GO!= Now, as no person pretends that the _v_ in _caveo_ was -pronounced like the _u_ in _causa_, or could be so scanned in existing -Latin poetry, it follows that the _au_ in Caunias was pronounced by -a Greek of those times as a _v_ or _f_, exactly as the living Greeks -pronounce it now. This is one example, among the many that we have -adduced, shewing in a particularly striking way how impossible it is -for modern schoolmasters, judging from mere abstract considerations, -and bad scholastic habits, to say how the ancient Greeks might or might -not have pronounced any particular combination of sounds. No doubt this -Calabrian fig-merchant might not have pronounced that combination of -letters exactly in the same way that Pericles did 400 years earlier, -when, from the tribunal on the Athenian Pnyx, with the ominous roar -of a thirty years’ war in his ear, “he lightened and thundered and -confounded Greece;” but there is no reason, on the other hand, why a -Greek fig-merchant and a Greek statesman should not have pronounced -certain rough syllables in the same way, (for a great orator requires -rough as well as smooth syllables;) and this much at least is certain, -the anecdote proves that the modern pronunciation of αὐτός, _aftos_, is -ancient as well as modern; and the talk of those who will have it that -this, and other most characteristic sounds of the living orthoepy, were -introduced by the Turks and the Venetians, or the Greeks themselves -under their perverse influence, is mere talk—talk of that kind in which -scholastic men are fond of indulging, when, knowing nothing, they wish -to have it appear that they know everything. What was the real state of -the pronunciation with regard to this and the other diphthong ευ in the -days of Pericles or Plato, we have no means of knowing. Meanwhile the -result which Seyffarth, after a long and learned investigation, brings -out, that they were pronounced before a vowel as _v_, or the German -_w_, and before a consonant as a real diphthong, seems probable enough. -This agrees both with the natural laws of elocutional physiology, and -explains how the imperial name FLAVIUS in Roman coins (_Liscov_, p. -51) came to be written sometimes =ΦΛΑΥΙΟΣ= and sometimes =ΦΛΑΒΙΟΣ=. -However this be, there is no doubt that the consonantal pronunciation -of these letters has for more than 1800 years been known among the -Greeks. It has therefore all the claims that belong to a venerable -conservatism; whereas, if we reject its title, we throw ourselves loose -into an element of mere conjecture; as no person can tell us whether -Demosthenes pronounced αυ in the Scotch or English way, (supposing -one of the two to be right;) and as for ευ, what extraordinary feats -the human tongue can play with it, we may learn from the Germans, who -pronounce it like _oy_ in our _boy_—a rare lesson to the restorers of a -lost pronunciation how much is to be learnt in such a field from mere -argument and analogy! - -Let us now collect the different points of this inquiry under a single -glance. In the days of the first Emperors, and, in a majority of cases, -as early as the first Ptolemies, the scale of Greek vocalization, -according to the best evidence now obtainable, was as follows:— - - Letter. Power. - Long Α = _a_, as in _father_. - Short Α = _a_, ” _hat_. - Η = _ai_, ” _pain_. - Ε = _e_, ” _get_. - Ω = _o_, ” _pore_. - Ο = _o_, ” _got_. - Long Υ = _ü_, ” _Bühne_. - Short Υ = the same shortened. - Long I = _ee_, as in _green_. - Short I = the same shortened. - AI = _ai_, as in _pain_. - EI = _ee_, ” _green_. - OI = _ee_, ” _green_. - OU = _oo_, ” _boom_. - AU = _av_, _af_, or? - EU = _ev_, _ef_, or? - -Now, in stating the results thus, I wish it to be observed in the -first place, that I throw no sort of doubt on the possibility that -in the days of Herodotus and Pericles some of the diphthongal sounds -here declared normal in the days of the Ptolemies and the Cæsars might -have been pronounced otherwise. The theory of Pennington, also, (p. -51), that there might have co-existed in ancient times a system of -orthoepy for reciting the old poets, considerably different from that -used in common conversation, may be entertained by whosoever pleases, -and is not without its uses; but in the present purely practical -inquiry we must leave all mere theory out of view. It is also perfectly -open to Liscov, or any philologist, working out a suggestion of the -great Herman, to prove from the internal analogy of the language, and -especially from a comparison of the most ancient dialects,[23] that -_originally_ the diphthongs were pronounced differently from what -they are now, and were in the days of Ptolemy Philadelphus, (Homer -unquestionably said, παις—_païs_, and not _pace_. II. _Z_, 467;) but -in the present investigation, as a practical man, I want something -better than general probabilities and philosophical negations, or -even isolated correct assertions; I want a complete scheme of Greek -pronunciation, for some particular age, congruous within itself, and -standing on something like historical evidence. This I find only in -the pronunciation of the modern Greeks, or in that of the Ptolemies -and Cæsars, which differs from the other only in a very few points. -What then, we may ask, should hinder us from at once adopting this -pronunciation? Nothing, I imagine, but the dull inertness of mere -conservatism, (which in such matters is very potent,) the conceit of -academical men, proud of their own clumsy invention, and the dread -of ITACISM. Is it not monstrous, we hear it said, that half a dozen -different vowels, or combinations of vowels, should be pronounced -in the same way, and that in such a fashion as only curs yelp, and -mice squeak, and tenuous shades with feeble whine flit through the -airy paths that lead to Pluto’s unsubstantial hall? Now, I at once -admit that the prevalence of the slender sound of _i_ (_ee_), is a -corruption from the original purity of Hellenic vocalization, from -which I have no doubt the Pelasgi, and the venerable patriarchs who -put up the lions, now seen on the gates of Mycenæ, were free; but no -language spoken by a polished people is free from some corruption -of this kind; and this particular corruption, like the defects -observable in men of great original genius, is characteristic. In such -strongly marked men as Beethoven, Samuel Johnson, and John Hunter -the physiologist, nothing is more easy than for the nice moralist to -point out half a dozen points of character that he could have wished -otherwise. So it is with language. Who, for instance, would not wish to -reform the capriciousness of our English systemless system of spelling -and pronunciation? Who can say that we have not too much of the -sibilant sound of _s_ and _th_ in our language? who will not lament the -want of body in our vocalization, and the tendency to the ineffective -tribrachic and even proceleusmatic accent in the termination of our -polysyllables? In German, again, who does not indulge in a spurt of -indignation against “_Wenn Ich mich nicht_,” and other such common -collocations of gutturals? and in Italian are we not so cloyed with -_ōnes_ and _āres_, and other broad trochaic modulations, that we -long for the resurrection of some Gothic Quinctilian to inoculate -the luscious “_lingua Toscana in bocca Romana_,” with a few harsh -solecisms; while the French, who for cleverness and refinement, (and -some other things also,) are a sort of Greeks, do so clip and mince -the stout old Roman lingo, which they have adopted, that except in the -mouth of flower girls and ballet dancers, their dialect is altogether -intolerable to many a masculine ear. All these things are true; but no -sane man thinks of rebelling against such hereditary characteristics -of a human language, any more than he would against the ingrained -peculiarities of human character. We take these things as we find them; -just as we must make the best of a snub nose, or a set of bad teeth -in an otherwise pretty face. So also we must even attune our ears to -the Itacism of the Greeks; otherwise we shall assuredly sin against a -notable characteristic of the language, much more intimately connected -with the genius of that singular people, than many a clipper of new -Greek grammars and filcher of notes to old Attic plays imagines. What -says QUINCTILIAN? _Non possumus esse tam_ GRACILES; _simus_ FORTIORES, -(xii. 10.) Now, I ask the defenders of our modern system of pronouncing -Greek in this country, which some of them perhaps call classical and -Erasmian, but which is in fact, as has been proved, an incoherent -jabber of barbarisms, what if the so much decried _Itacism_ were -part of this _gracilitas_, this slenderness or tenuity of ancient -Hellenic speech, by which it was to the ear of the greatest of Latin -rhetoricians so strikingly distinguished from the Roman? Certain it is, -that the rude Teutonic sounds of _ou_ and _i_, (English _i_ and _ai_ -in _Kaiser_), that we hear so often in English Greek, do not answer to -Quinctilian’s description. In fact, both English and Scotch, instead of -preserving this natural contrast between Greek and Roman enunciation, -have in this, and in other matters, (as we shall see presently, when -we come to talk of accents,) done everything in their power to sweep -it away; and of nothing am I more firmly convinced than of this, that -a living conception of what the spoken Greek language really was in -its best days, will never be attained by any scholar who has not the -courage to kick all the Erasmian academic gear aside for a season, and -take a free amble with some living Christopoulos, or Papadopoulos, on -the banks of the Ilissus, or round the base of Lycabettus. This living -experience of the language is indeed the only efficient way to argue -against the learned prejudices of academic men; for, as THIERSCH well -observes, every one laughs at that pronunciation to which he has not -been accustomed, (_Sprachlehre_, sect. xvii. 3;) and no man can live -at Athens for any time, without having his ears reconciled to a slight -deviation from perfect euphony, or even coming to admire it, as one -sometimes does the lisp of a pretty woman, or the squint of an arch -humorist.[24] - -[23] GODOFREDI HERMANI _de emendenda ratione Græcæ grammaticæ_, Lib. i. -c. 2, quoted at length by LISCOV, p. 21. - -[24] On revisal it strikes me I have given the enemies of Itacism an -unfair advantage by not stating, that, while in any other language -the attenuation of so many different sounds into one, might have -proved a very grievous evil, there is such a richness of the full -sound of α (which the English have effaced) and ω in Greek, that the -blemish rarely offends. I have to mention also, that, while a certain -prominence even of this slender sound seems necessary to the phonetic -character of Greek, as distinguished from Latin, I have no objection, -in reading Homer and the elder poets, (were it only for the sake of -the often quoted πολυφλοίσβοιο θαλάσσης!) to pronounce οι, as _boy_ in -English, and η, as we do it in Scotland; just as in reading Chaucer we -may be forced to adopt some of the peculiarities of the pronunciation -of his day. But in the common use of the prose language, I think it -safer to stick by the tradition of so many centuries, than to venture -on patches of classical restoration, where it is impossible to revive -a consistent whole. I may say also, that if υ be pronounced uniformly -like the French _u_, the itacism will be diminished by one letter, -while the difference between that and the modern Greek pronunciation -is so slight, that a Scotchman so speaking in Athens will be generally -understood, whereas our broad Scotch _u_ (_oo_) besides being -entirely without classical authority, recedes so far from the actual -pronunciation of the Greeks, as to be a serious bar in the way of -intelligibility. - -So much for the vowel-sounds. I say nothing of the consonants, because -they are of less consequence in the controversy. I have already -spoken incidentally about β, (p. 21 above), and I have no wish to -write a complete treatise. Detailed information on minute points of -neo-Hellenic pronunciation may be found in Pennington’s work already -quoted, and in a recent work by Corpe.[25] I now proceed to the matter -of ACCENT, which we shall find to be no less important, but happily -much more easily settled. - -“In the pronunciation of a Greek word,” says JELF,[26] “regard ought -to be had both to accent and quantity;” a most significant power -lying in that word OUGHT, as we know well that many teachers in this -country pay a very irregular regard to quantity in reading, and very -few, if any, pay any regard to accent.[27] But that the proposition -laid down by Mr. JELF is true, no scholar can doubt for a moment, -though Mr. PENNINGTON, in the year 1844, most evidently anticipated -a great amount of stolidity, obstinacy, and scepticism, among his -academic friends on this point; with such minute and scrupulous care, -and breadth of philological preparation does he set himself to prove, -what no man that had ever dipped into an ancient Greek grammar, or a -common Latin work on rhetoric, would ever dream of denying. However, -I gave myself some trouble to set forth this matter learnedly some -years ago,[28] knowing that I might have to do with persons not always -open to reason, and utterly impervious to nature and common sense; -and the Fellow of King’s also might have had occasion to know that it -is one thing to prick soft flesh with a pin, another to drive nails -into a stone wall. The fact is, that the living Greek language having -come down to us with most audible accentuation, and the signs of these -accents being contained in all printed Greek books, and not only so, -but commented on by a long series of grammarians, from Herodian and -Arcadius, down through the Homeric bishop of Thessalonica, to Gaza and -Lascaris; in this state of the case, if any man does not pronounce -Greek according to accents, while I do, the burden of proof lies with -him who throws off all established authority in the matter, not with -me who acknowledge it. If there is no authority for accent in the -ancient grammarians, then as little is there for quantity. The fact -of the existence of the one as a living characteristic of the spoken -and written language of ancient Greece, stands exactly on the same -foundation as the other. So many ancient grammars, and comments on -grammars have been published within the last fifty years by Bekker -and other library-excavators, that the teacher who now requires to be -taught formally that the ancients really used accents in their public -elocution, is more worthy of a good flogging than the greatest dunce -in his drill. But what were accents? Accents are an _intension_ and -_remission_ (ἐπίτασις and ἄνεσις) of the voice in articulate speech, -whereby one syllable receives a marked predominance over the others, -this predominance manifesting itself principally in a higher note or -intonation given to the accented syllable.[29] This definition occurs -fifty times if it occurs once in the works of the ancient grammarians -and rhetoricians; so I need not trouble myself here by an array -of erudite citations to prove it; and that such an accent is both -possible and easy to bring out in the case of any Greek word, may be -experienced by anybody who will pronounce κεφαλή with a marked rise of -the voice on the last syllable, or νεφέλη with a similar intension of -vocal utterance on the penult. That the living Greeks give a distinct -prominence to these very syllables, any man may learn by seeking them -out in Manchester or London, in both which places they have a chapel. -Why then should Etonian schoolmasters, and Oxonian lecturers not do -the same? Do they not teach the doctrine of accents? Have they not -translated GOETTLING? Do they not print all their books with those very -marks which Aristophanes of Byzantium, two thousand years ago, with -provident cunning, devised even for this purpose, that we, studious -academic men, in the then ULTIMA THULE of civilisation, should now have -the pleasure of intoning a philosophic period as the divine Plato did, -or a blast of patriotic indignation as Demosthenes? They say there are -no accents properly so called in the French language. This I never -could exactly understand; but do our academic men actually realize this -peculiar form of levelled human enunciation, (the ὁμαλισμὸς of the old -grammarians,) without intension or remission, by pronouncing Greek -altogether unaccented? Believe it not. As if determined to produce a -scholastic impersonation of every possible monstrosity with regard to -the finest language in the world, they neglect the written accents -which lie before their nose, and read according to those accents which -they have borrowed from the Latin! and this directly in the teeth of -the public declaration of CICERO and QUINCTILIAN, that Latin had one -monotonous law of accentuation, Greek another and a much more rich -and various one.[30] And, as if to place the top-stone on the pyramid -of absurdities which they pile, after reading Greek with this Latin -accent (which sounds to a Greek ear exactly as a rude Frenchman’s first -attempts at English sound to an Englishman) for some half dozen years, -they set seriously to cram their brain-chambers with rules how Greek -accents should be placed, and exercise their memory and their eye, with -a most villainous abuse of function, in doing that work which should -have been done from the beginning by the ear! If consistency could have -been looked for from men involved in such a labyrinth of bungling, -there would have been something heroic in throwing away the marks -altogether from their books and from their brains, as well as from -their tongue; certainly this procedure would have saved many a peeping -editor a great deal of trouble, and many a brisk young gentleman -riding up in a Cambridge “coach” right into the possession of a snug -tutorship in Trinity, would have travelled on a smoother road, and felt -less seriously how the flowers of ancient literature are scarce to be -enjoyed amid the thorns of modern grammar that besiege a man’s fingers -and eyes from all sides.[31] But intellectual consistency is not to be -expected from persons once involved in a gross error, any more than -moral consistency is from thieves; and it is well for all parties that -it is so; for by this wise arrangement of nature, as a thief’s story -often discovers the theft it would conceal, so a philologer’s nonsense -is most readily refuted by the remnants of incoherent sense that he had -not wit or courage enough to eliminate. Besides, the dictum of PORSON -stood mighty over their heads;[32] and as for the young men, the more -time that was wasted on a reasonless method of teaching Greek, the -less danger would there be of that rude invasion of BOTANY, GEOLOGY, -HISTORY, and all the array of modern sciences which has long been the -special terror of English academic men. So they went on, and so they -go on now, teaching that people ought to accent κεφαλή on the last -syllable, and yet actually accenting it on the first! The consequence -of which perverse proceeding is not only that accents are one of the -most difficult things to learn in Greek, and seldom thoroughly mastered -even by those who are excellent scholars otherwise, (_see_ JELF, page -52, _note_), but an accomplished English scholar, when he makes his -continental tour, as is common enough in these days, even with men -who have not much money, finds that his perverse enunciation of the -Greek vowels, combined with his utter neglect of accents, has put him -in possession of a language of which he can make no use except in -soliloquy, and which any person can understand sooner than a native -of the country to which it belongs.[33] He then comes home belike -and tells his English friends that the modern Greeks are a set of -barbarians, who speak a “swallow’s jabber,” so corrupt that no scholar -can understand a word they say! So true is the record which honest -Thomas Fuller has left of the issue of the notable Hellenic controversy -raised by Sir John Cheke—“Here Bishop Gardiner, chancellor of the -university, interposed his power, affirming Cheke’s pronunciation, -pretended to be ancient, to be antiquated. He imposed a penalty on all -such as used this new pronunciation, which, notwithstanding, since -hath prevailed, and whereby we Englishmen speak Greek and are able to -understand one another, _which nobody else can_.”[34] - -[25] CORPE’s Neo-Hellenic Greek Grammar. London, 1851. See also a -notice of this work in the ATHENÆUM for last year, where I am happy to -observe that the opinions advocated in this paper are supported. - -[26] Greek Grammar. 1851, sect. 44, 45. DONALDSON (Greek Grammar, p. -17) says, ‘The accent is the sharp or elevated sound with which one of -the last three syllables of a Greek word is _regularly_ pronounced. -This “_regularly_” is as significant as Mr. JELF’s “_ought_.”’ - -[27] Of course I except Professor MASSON of Belfast, whose complete -mastery of the living dialect of Greece is the object of admiration to -all who know him. - -[28] Classical Museum, vol. i. p. 338. - -[29] There is also a greater _emphasis_ or _stress_ given to the -accented syllable, as is manifest from the pronunciation of the modern -Greeks, and from the striking fact that in the modern dialect, the -unaccented syllable has sometimes been dropt, while the accented -constitutes the whole modern word, as δὲν for οὐδὲν, μᾶς for ἡμᾶς. - -[30] QUINCTIL., lib. i. c. 5; DIOMED. de Oratione, ii.; PUTSCH. i. 426. - -[31] JELF, in the Preface to his Grammar, calls the doctrine of accent -“a difficult branch of scholarship.” The difficulty is altogether an -artificial one, made by scholastic men who will insist on teaching by -the eye only and the understanding, what has no meaning at all except -when addressed to the ear. The doctrine of accentuation in English has -no peculiar difficulty, plainly because men learn it in the natural way -by hearing. - -[32] “_Si quis igitur vestrum ad accuratam Græcarum literarum scientiam -aspirat, is probabilem sibi accentuum rationem quam maturrime comparet, -in propositoque perstet scurrarum dicacitate et stultorum derisione -immotus_,” ad Med. 1, apud JELF, vol. i. p. 37. I wonder if Porson -himself pronounced according to the accents. If he did not, he is just -another instance of that extraordinary incapacity of apprehending a -large principle that is so characteristic of the English mind. - -[33] I may insert here the whole of the passage of BOISSONADE, from -which the words in one of the prefixed mottoes are taken. “_Nisi quod -maxime cupio, in omnibus academiis nostris, gymnasiis et scholis -hodierna Græcorum pronuntiatio recipiatur. Nam cum prorsus perierit -antiqua pronuntiandi ratio qua Demosthenes, et Sophocles, vel ipsi -Alexandrini sub Ptolemæis utebantur, et fere ridiculum sit unumquemque -populum ad suæ linguæ sonos, atque etiam ad libitum, Græcorum quos -legit librorum pronuntiationem efformare, id saltem boni, admissa -neotericorum pronuntiatione, lucrabimur, non solum ut Gallus homo -et Germanus Anglum intelligant Græce loquentem et ab illo Græce -ipsi loquentes intelligantur, sed id etiam ut cum Græcis doctis et -scholastica institutione politis confabulemur verbis antiquorum -et facillime, si velimus, hodiernæ linguæ cognitionem ac usum -assequamur._”—HERODIAN, Epimerisni, BOISSONADE. London, 1819. Prefat. - -[34] History of the University of Cambridge, Section vii. - -Let us now ask in a single sentence how all this mass of absurdity came -about; for we may depend upon it a whole array of brave philologic -hoplites cannot have stumbled on their way suddenly without the -apparition of some real or imaginary ghost. The ghost that frightened -them on the present occasion, and caused them to forswear SPOKEN -ACCENT (for as we have seen they stuck to it on PAPER) was QUANTITY; -concerning which, therefore, we must now inquire, whether it be a -real ghost or only a white sheet. Quantity, they say, cannot stand -before Accent, or rather is swallowed up by it. Like hostile religious -sects, or belligerent medical corporations, they cannot meet without -quarrelling; so the public peace is consulted by getting rid of one of -them, not in the way of violent murder, (for the law does not allow -that,) but by what certain philosophical Chartist-Reformers used to -call “painless extinction.” Therefore they who speak according to -accent, are wont to remove quantity out of the way noiselessly; and -they who speak according to quantity must treat accent in the same way. -This is an old story. The BEAR in Erasmus’ dialogue, (Havercamp, ii. -95,) speaking rare wisdom in a gruff Johnsonian sort of style, says, -“_Sunt quidam adeo_ CRASSI _ut non distinguant accentum a quantitate, -quum sit longe diversa ratio_. =ALIUD EST ENIM ACUTUM ALIUD DIU -TINNIRE: ALIUD INTENDI, ALIUD EXTENDI.= _At eruditos novi qui, quum -pronunciarent illud_ ἀνέχου καὶ ἀπέχου, _mediam syllabam, quoniam tonum -habet acutum, quantum possent producerent, quum sit natura brevis vel -brevissima potius_.” Certain learned men, it appears, in the beginning -of the sixteenth century, could not accent the word ἀνέχου on the -penult, as it ought to be accented, without in the same breath making -that syllable long, which it is not. To avoid this blunder, the -Etonians, Oxonians, and other famous modern teachers, omit the accent -altogether on that syllable and on every syllable—of which the name is -legion—similarly situated in the Greek language, and thus, by removing -the cause, are sure of annihilating the effect. A very obvious, but -surely a very clumsy expedient, and hardly worthy of the subtlety of -the academic mind. A man by running too hard sometimes breaks his -legs; and you forthwith vow to avoid his fate by sitting in your chair -constantly and taking no exercise! Let us see how the case stands here. -The accent, you say, lengthens the syllable. Take any English word -in the first place, (as nonsense is not so transparent in a learned -tongue,) and make the experiment. If a Scotsman says _véesible_, you -will allow, I suppose, that the first syllable of that word is both -long and accented: if an Englishman says _viśible_, ’tis equally clear -that the same syllable is still accented, but it is not now long. -Accent, therefore, in English has no necessary power to lengthen the -sound of the vowel of the syllable on which it is placed; and if some -learned men on the banks of the Rhine, in the days of Erasmus, or on -the banks of the Isis, in our day, cannot accent a syllable without -at the same time lengthening it, this happens merely because, as -the Bear says, they are “ADEO CRASSI;” their ears are gross, and -have lost—by the dust of the libraries, perhaps—the healthy power of -discerning differences of modulation in the living human voice. Not a -few persons have I met with among those who are, or would be scholars, -in this country, who in this way assert that it is impossible to put -the accent on the penult of a Greek word, and at the same time, as the -law of the language requires, make the last syllable long. But these -persons had got their ears confounded by the traditionary jargon of -teachers inculcating from dead books a doctrine of which they had no -living apprehension; and this, along with the utter neglect of musical -and elocutionary culture so common among our classical devotees, had -rendered them incapable of perceiving, without an act of special -attention, the commonest phenomena of spoken language appealing to -the ear. In the English words _echo_, _primrose_, and many other of -the same description, the accent and quantity stand in that exact -relation which is so characteristic of Greek, as in ἔχω, λόγῳ; while -in the English words _clód-pated_, _hoúsekeeper_, we have that precise -disposal of accent and quantity which occurs in the word ἄνθρωπος, and -which has been so often quoted as a proof that it is impossible to -give effect to accent without violating quantity.[35] A very slight -elocutionary culture would put a stop to such vain talk; but we have, -unfortunately, too many scholars who gather their crude notions on -such subjects from a few phrases current in the schools, without ever -questioning their own ears, the only proper witness of what is right or -wrong in the matter of enunciation. Hence the cumbrous mass of erudite -nonsense on accent and quantity under which our library shelves groan; -hence the host of imaginary difficulties and impossibilities that -birch-bearing men will raise when you tell them to perform the simplest -act of perception of which an unsophisticated human ear is capable. -“_Vel ab_ ASINIS _licebat hoc discrimen discere_,” continues the -learned Bear, “_qui rudentes corripiunt acutam vocem, imam producunt_.” -Very true; a really wise man may learn much from an ass; but they who -conceit themselves to be wise, when they are not, will learn from -nobody. And so I conclude with regard to this whole matter of QUANTITY, -that it is only an imaginary ghost after all; a white sheet which a -single touch of the finger will turn aside, or only a white mist, -perhaps, which, if a brave man will only march up to, he shall not know -that it is there. - -[35] When I was at the railway station, SKIPTON, in Yorkshire, -waiting for a train, I heard one of the men call out, “Any person for -_Mánchéster_” with a distinct and well-marked dwelling of the voice -on the second as well as the first syllable. This gave me a very vivid -idea of the manner in which the Greeks must have pronounced ἄνθρωπος, -accenting the first syllable, but dwelling on the second syllable with -a distinct prolongation of the voice. - -One thing, however, I will admit—by way of palliation for the enormous -blunders that have been committed in this matter—that in words of two, -three, or more syllables, where the accent is on a syllable naturally -short, while the long syllable is unaccented, a careless speaker may -readily slur over the long syllable so as to make it short, thus -converting an anapæst accented on the first syllable, as - - ˏ ˏ - _cĕlăndīne_, into a tribrach with the same accent _cĕlăndĭn_, - -a very common vulgarism, as we all know. The unaccented syllable, -indeed, is, in the very nature of things, placed in a position where -it is not so likely to get its fair mass of sound as its accented -neighbour. Thus, except in solemn speaking, the first syllable of -ŌBĒDĬĔNT seldom gets full weight, though it is equally long with its -accented sequent; and the second syllable of EDUCATION is vulgarized -into _edication_, purely from the want of the accent. But that such -vulgarisms should form any bar in the way of academical men doing -proper justice to the correct elocution of the Greeks is really too -bad. The modern Greeks, indeed, we know, go a step farther;[36] they -not only in their common conversation fail to give the due prolongation -to their long syllables, when unaccented—making no distinction between -ω and ο—but they actually give _extension_ as well as _intension_ -to all their accented syllables, and thus fall into the same sin as -respects quantity that our academicians daily commit against accent. -But there is not the slightest reason why we should imagine it -necessary to imitate them in this idiosyncrasy. To do so would be for -the sake of a superfluous compliment to the living, to cut off one -great necessary organ, whereby the beautiful wisdom of the dead being -made alive again becomes ours. The laws of accent are a most important -element of the oratory of Pericles and Demosthenes; but without -quantity the harmony of Homer’s numbers is unintelligible. There is no -reason why we should sacrifice either the one or the other of these two -great modulating principles of ancient Hellenic speech. The one, so far -from destroying, does, in fact, regulate to a certain extent,[37] and -beautifully vary the other. Quantity without accent were a monotonous -level of dreary sing-song; accent without quantity can be likened -only to a series of sharp parallel ridges, with steep narrow ravines -interposed, but without the amplitude of grassy slope, flowering mead, -and far-stretching fields of yellow-waving corn. - -[36] See the essay on this subject in the second volume of the Greek -works of Professor RANGABE of Athens. - -[37] Every practical teacher ought to know how much more easily the -doctrine of quantity may be taught with constant reference to accent -than without it; so that pronouncing a word like ἡμέρα, the accent on -the penult, is the easiest way to make the student remember that the -final syllable of that word is long. - -But some one will still press the question, _How am I to read Homer? -how Sophocles?_ Is it not manifest, that if I read according to the -spoken accent, and not according to the quantitative metre, though I -may preserve myself, by decent care, from grossly violating quantity, -I shall certainly fail to bring out anything that the ear of the most -harshly-modulated Hottentot or Cherokee could recognise as rhythm? -Now what has been said hitherto of the compatibility of accent and -quantity relates only to words taken separately, or as they occur in -the loose succession of unfettered speech—a purely elocutional matter: -of the musical element of rhythm nothing has been said. That this must -modify the singing or recitation of measured verses to a considerable -extent, so as to make it different from the oratorical declamation of -prose, is evident; but that there is no such incomprehensible mystery -in the matter, as some people imagine, I hope I shall be able to make -plain in a very few words. The poetry of the ancients differed from -the mass of that now written in nothing more than in this, that it was -considered as a living element of the existing music, and exercised in -subjection to the laws of that divine art. Now the singing of words in -music has the effect of bringing out more prominently the mass of vocal -sound in the words, or what the prosodians in their technical style -call quantity, while the spoken accent—unless it be identified with the -musical accent or rhythmical beat—is apt to be overwhelmed altogether -and superseded. That this must be the case the very nature of the thing -shows; but we have a distinct testimony of an ancient musical writer -to this effect, which will be useful to those who in all matters are -constitutionally apt to depend more on authority than on reason.[38] -This explains why, in the ancient treatises on poetical measures, we -find not a word said about the spoken accent. If the full musical value -of each foot, (or bar, as we call it,) in point of vowel-fulness, -according to an established sequence be given, the poet is considered -to have done his duty to the musician; the rhythmical beat, or musical -accent, accompanies the measured succession of bars, as with us, but -the spoken accent is disregarded. Of all this in our elocutional -poetry we do, and must, in the nature of things, do the very reverse. -Poetry composed primarily for recitation must follow the laws of -spoken speech; and the spoken accent being the most prominent element -in that speech, becomes of course the great regulator of poetical -rhythm. Quantity, as the secondary element of spoken speech, though -the principal thing in music, is not indeed neglected altogether, but -left to the free disposal of the poet, so that the technical structure -of his verse is in no wise bound by it. The musician then comes in, -and finding that he has no liberty in the matter of the spoken accent, -(the public ear being altogether formed on that,) exercises his large -discretion in the matter of quantity, drawing out, without ceremony, a -spoken quaver into a sung minim, or cutting short a spoken minim into -a sung quaver. Now this license, familiar as it is to us, would have -strangely startled, and appeared almost ludicrous to a Greek ear; and -by the same effect of mere custom, we have to explain the fact, that -the practice of composing poetry, without any reference to the spoken -accent, practised by the ancients, appears to us so extraordinary. In -our attempts to explain it, we have sometimes altogether lost out of -view the fact, that music and conversational speech, though kindred -arts, and arts in the ancient practice of poetry indissolubly wedded, -have each their own distinctive tendencies and laws, to which full -effect cannot easily be given while they act together; and every such -case of joint action must accordingly be, to a certain extent—like the -harmonious practice of connubial life—a compromise. My conclusion, -therefore, with regard to the reading of Homer and Sophocles is, in -the first place, that they were never intended to be read in our sense -of the word, that they are not constructed on reading principles, -and that, when we do recite them—as the ancients themselves no doubt -likewise did—we must read them in a manner that makes as near an -approach as possible to the musical principles on which they were -constructed. With regard to the strictly lyrical parts of poetry, as -Pindar and the tragic choruses, I have no hesitation in saying, that -the only proper way to obtain a full perception of their rhythmical -beauty, is to sing or chant them to any extemporized melody, (which -would be much more readily done were not music so unworthily neglected -in our higher schools;) while with regard to the dialogic parts of the -drama, which were declaimed and not sung by the ancients themselves, -the teacher must take care to accustom his pupils to a deep and mellow -fulness of vocalization, and a deliberate stateliness of verbal -procession, as much as possible the reverse of that hasty trip with -which we are accustomed to read the dialogue of our dramatic poetry. -The musical accent, or rhythmical beat, will, of course, in such a -method of recitation, receive a marked prominence; the long quantity -will never be slurred; and with regard to the spoken accent, what I -say is this, the ear of the student must first be trained in reading -prose never to omit the accent, and accustomed to feel, by the living -iteration of the ear, that both accent and quantity are an essential -part of the word. This many schoolmasters will not do, because it -requires science, and will take a little trouble; but let such pass. -Those who do so train the young classical ear, will find that in -turning to poetry, and keeping time with their foot as they read any -metre, the attentive scholar will not only readily follow the given -rhythm, and appreciate the position of the musical accent, (very few -human beings being altogether destitute of the rhythmical principle,) -but will be able also to preserve the spoken accent in those places -where the flow of the rhythm does not altogether overpower it. What I -mean is this. In the line, for instance, - - οὐλομένην ἣ μυρἴ Ἀχαιοῖς ἄλγε’ ἔθηκεν, - -the second of the Iliad, the boy who has been properly trained to put -the accent on the penult of οὔλομένην, preserving the long quantity -of the final syllable, will, even though he retains that accent in -the rhythmical declamation of the line, find no impediment to the -rhythmical progress of the verse, but rather an agreeable variety, and -an antidote against monotony; and though, on account of the strong -effect which the rhythm always exercises on the closing word of the -line, it will be difficult to give the full effect to the spoken accent -on the antepenultimate of ἔθηκεν, while the closing musical accent lies -on the penult, nevertheless, a person who has been accustomed always -to pronounce this word in prose with its proper accent and quantity, -will bring out the first syllable of the word much more distinctly -than is done in the sing-song of a merely rhythmical recitation, and -will not spoil the verse, but rather improve it. And if any person -asks me how I prove that the ancients read Homer this way, I might -content myself by giving a Scotch answer, and asking, _How do you prove -that they read it your way?_ But, in fact, there is no possibility -of their having read it otherwise; for having once introduced the -habit of reading compositions, constructed originally on musical, not -elocutional principles, with that habit they could not but bring in -as much of the element of their spoken language as was consistent with -the musical principle on which the very existence of the composition, -as a rhythmical work of art, depended; that is to say, they allowed -the musical principle of quantitative rhythm to prevail over the -elocutional principle of accent, so far only as to produce harmony, not -so far as to fatigue with monotony. - -[38] Δεῖ τὴν φωνὴν ἐν τῷ μελῳδεῖν τὰς μὲν ἐπιτάσεις τε καὶ ἀνέσεις -ἀφανεῖς ποίεισθαι—ARISTOXENUS, apud PENNINGTON, p. 226. - -The reader will observe that I am not theorizing in all this, but -speaking from experience; and therefore I speak with confidence. For -ten years I read the Latin poets in Aberdeen, and I found no difficulty -in reading them so as to combine the living effect of both accent and -quantity, and teaching the student both by the ear alone. The first -line of Virgil, to take an example, in respect of accent and quantity, -may be read three ways. Either - - ˏ ˏ - _Árma virúmque cānŏ Trōjæ qui prímus ab óris_ - - Or, - ˏ - ... _cănō Trōjáe_ ... - - Or, - ˏ ˏ - ... _căn-ō Trōjæ_ ... - -I take notice of these two words CANO and TROJǼ, only because they are -the only two in which the musical accent of this line clashes with the -spoken accent, the rules of which, though not marked in Latin books as -in Greek, were preserved by the living tradition of the Roman Catholic -Church, and the accentual Latin poetry of their Service, and are -observed by our schoolmasters as faithfully (without knowing it, many -of them) as they violate the accent of the Greek. Now, of these three -ways of reading a Latin hexameter, the second is the only one which -proceeds upon the principle of the quantitative rhythm exclusively, -observing the spoken accent only where it happens to coincide with it, -(as happens here in four bars of the six;) while the first, which is -the vulgar English way, asserts the dominancy of the spoken accent in -all the six cases; and yet, as the clash only takes place in two cases, -preserves, without effort, (as I have just said with regard to Homer,) -the flow of the musical rhythm. With that grossness of ear, however, -which Erasmus and his learned Bear noticed in the learned of his day, -they fall with respect to Latin, plump into the extreme error practised -by the modern Greeks, and cannot accentuate the first syllable of CANO, -without lengthening it, while the final syllable of the same word is -generally deprived of its natural amount of sound, a strange error for -a people to make with whom Latin verse making (I shall not say with -what propriety) forms so prominent a part of school-discipline; but -there is no end to their absurdities, no limit to their contradictions; -the fact being, as one of themselves has distinctly stated,[39] that -the “composition of classical verses with them is almost entirely -MECHANICAL;” and yet they have the assurance to hold up this scholastic -abortion to the admiration of the public as one of the indispensable -elements in the training of that improved edition of the ancient -Roman—John Bull. But to finish. The third method of recitation is, I -think, the correct one. It violates neither quantity nor accent, but -makes the one play with an agreeable variety over the other, as we -see the iridescent colours in a gown of shot silk. I think I have now -answered the question satisfactorily—_How is Homer to be read?_ If -anything remains unclear, I shall be happy to communicate personally -with any person who has an ear. - -[39] “Our composition of classical verses is almost entirely -mechanical. When a boy composes such a verse as _Insignemque canas -Neptunum vertice cano_, how is he guided to the proper collocation -of the words? Not by his ear, certainly, for that would be struck -precisely in the same manner if he wrote it _Insignemque cano Neptunum -vertice canas_; no, he learns from books that the first of _cano_ (I -sing) is short, and the first of _canus_ (hoary) is long. Having so -used them, their respective quantity is stored up as a fact in his -memory, and by degrees he remembers them so well, that when he sees -either of them used in a wrong place, he thinks it offends his ear, -while in truth it only offends his understanding. But I apprehend a -Roman boy’s process of composition would be quite different. Having -been used from his cradle to hear the first syllable of _canus_ -take up about twice as much time as that of _cano_, such a verse as -_Insignemque cano Neptunum vertice canas_, would really hurt his ear, -because in the second foot the thesis would be complete before the -syllable was expressed, and he would have a time or σημεῖον too much; -and in the sixth he could not fill up the time of the arsis without -giving to the syllable a drawling sound which would be both unusual -and offensive.”—PENNINGTON, p. 249. So long as such an absurd system -of writing verses, whether Latin or Greek—from the understanding and -not from the ear—is practised, the boys who refuse to have anything -to do with prosody shew a great deal more sense than the masters who -inculcate it. - -Before concluding these observations, I have one or two remarks to make -on MODERN GREEK, which have a vital connexion with the state of the -argument. The reader will observe that I have from the beginning spoken -of Greek as a living language, having had a continuous uninterrupted -existence, though under various and well-marked modifications, from -the days of Cadmus and his earth-sown brood to the present hour. Now -the vulgar notion is, that Romaic, as it used to be called, though -the present Greeks have with a just pride, I understand, rejected the -epithet, is not only a different dialect of the Greek, from that spoken -by Plato and Demosthenes, but a different language altogether, in the -same way that Italian and Spanish are languages formed on Latin indeed, -but with an organic type altogether their own. In this view Greek -becomes a dead language; and the mass of scholastic and academical men -who teach it habitually as such, without any regard to its existing -state, will receive a justification of which they are not slow to -make use. But this vulgar notion, like many others, has grown out of -pedantic prejudice, and is supported by sheer ignorance. How such a -notion should have got abroad is easy enough to explain. I mentioned -already, that the English scholars—who have been allowed to give the -law on such subjects—have so completely disfigured the classical -features of Greek speech, that when they happen to meet Greeks, or to -travel in Greece and attempt conversation, they can make no more of -the answer they receive, than they can of the twitter of swallows, or -the language of any other bird. Again, at Oxford and Cambridge, as is -well known, the majority confine themselves to a very limited range -even of strictly classical Greek, so that a man may well have received -high honours for working up his Æschylus and his Aristotle, and yet be -quite unfit to make out the meaning of a plain modern Greek book when -he sees it; but the fact is, I have good reason to believe, there is -not one among a hundred of their scholars that ever saw such a thing. -Thirdly, we must consider under what a system of prim classical prudery -these gentlemen are often brought up. They are taught to believe, and -have been taught here also in Scotland publicly, that after a certain -golden age of Attic or Atticizing purity, the limits of which are very -arbitrarily fixed, a race of Greek writers succeeded who “increased -immensely the vocabulary of the language, while they injured its -simplicity and debased its beauty;” and under the influence of this -salutary fear they regard with a strong jealousy whole centuries of -the most interesting and instructive authors who do not come under -their arbitrary definition of “classical.” Men who think that the -vocabulary of the Hellenic language should have been finally closed at -the time of Polybius, and who pass a philologic interdict against any -phrase or idiom introduced after that period, will not be very likely -to look with peculiar favour on the prose of Perrhæbus, or the poetry -of Soutzos. But by a large-minded philologist all this prudery is -disregarded. He knows that grammarians can as little cause a language -to be corrupted and to die, by any dainty squeamishness of theirs, as -they with their meagre art can create a single word, or manufacture -one verse of a poem. Looking at the language of Homer and Plato as a -real historical phenomenon, and not as a mere record in grammatical -books, he sees that it went on growing and putting forth fresh buds and -blossoms long after nice lexicographers had declared that it ceased -to possess vitality. A language lives as long as a people lives—a -distinct and tangible social totality—speaking it, nor has it the power -to die at any point, where grammarians may choose to draw a line, -and say that its authors are no longer classical. What “classical” -means is hard to say; but as a matter of fact many persons will read -the Byzantine historians with much more pleasure than Xenophon’s -Hellenics, and not be able to explain intelligibly why the Greek of -the one should not be considered as good as the Greek of the other. -Greek certainly was not a dead language in any sense at the taking -of Constantinople in the year 1453. If it is dead, it has died since -that date; but the facts to those who will examine them, prove that -it is not dead. No doubt, under the oppressive atmosphere of Turkish -and Venetian domination, the stout old tree began to droop visibly, -and became encrusted with leprous scabs, and to shew livid blotches, -which were not pleasant to behold; but such a strong central vitality -had God planted in that noble organism, that, with the returning -breeze of freedom, and the spread of intelligence since the great year -1789, the inward power of healthy life began again to act powerfully, -and the Turkish and Venetian disfigurement dropt off speedily like a -mere skin-disease as it was; and smooth Greek sounded glibly again, -not only in the pulpit, which was the strong refuge of its prolonged -vitality, but in the forum and from the throne. Those who doubt what I -say in this matter, had best go to Athens and see; meanwhile, for the -sake of those to whom the subject may be altogether new,—and from the -general pedantic narrowness of our academical Greek I fear there may be -many such—I shall set down a passage from Perrhæbus, and another from a -common Greek newspaper, from which the fact will be abundantly evident -that the language of Homer is not dead, but lives, and that in a state -of purity, to which, considering the extraordinary duration of its -literary existence—2500 years at least,—there is no parallel perhaps on -the face of the globe, in Europe certainly not. - - “Κατὰ τὸ 1820 διατρίβων εἰς τὴν Σπάρτην ὁ Πεῤῥαιβὸς - ἐπὶ ἡγεμονίας τοῦ Πέτρου Μαυρομιχάλη, διέβη εἰς - Κωνσταντινούπολιν, κἀκεῖθεν εἰς Δακίαν, Βασσαραβίαν - καὶ Ὀδησσὸν, ὅπου εὗρε τὸν Ἀλέξανδρον Ὑψηλάντην - καὶ Γεώργιον Καντακοζηνὸν, φέροντας τὰ πρῶτα - τῆς Ἑταιρείας, καὶ μὲ ἀπερίγραπτον ἔνθουσιασμὸν - ἐτοιμαζομένους διὰ νὰ κινηθῶσι κατὰ τοῦ Σουλτάνου. - Τὸν αὐτὸν σχεδὸν ἐνθουσιασμὸν ἔβλεπέ τις οὐ μόνον - κατ’ ἐκεῖνα τὰ μέρη, ἀλλὰ καθ’ ὅλην τὴν Ἑλλάδα, - τόσον εἰς σημαντικοὺς, ὅσον καὶ παντὸς ἐπαγγέλματος - Ἕλληνας κατοικοῦντας εἰς πόλεις, χώρας καὶ χωρία. - Δὲν συστέλλομαι νὰ ὁμολογήσω, ὅτι ἤμην ἐναντίος τοῦ - τοιούτου κινήματος κατὰ τοῦ Σουλτάνου· ὄχι διότι - δὲν ἐπεθύμουν τὴν ἐλευθερίαν τοῦ Ἔθνους μου, ἀλλὰ - διότι μ’ ἐφαίνετο ἄωρον τὸ κίνημα, μὲ τὸ νὰ ἦσαν - ἀπειροπόλεμοι οἱ Ἕλληνες, καὶ οἱ πλεῖστοι ἄοπλοι, ὁ - δὲ κίνδυνος μέγας.”[40] - - =Ο ΚΟΣΣΟΥΤ ΕΝ ΑΜΕΡΙΚΗ=. - - “Τήν 6 Δεκεμβρίου εἰσήλθεν ὁ ἀρχηγὸς τῆς Οὐγγαρικῆς - δημοκρατίας εἰς τὴν πρωτεύουσαν πόλιν τῶν ἡνωμένων - Πολιτειῶν. Ἀπὸ τῆς πρώτης στιγμῆς τῆς ἀφίξεως του - ὅλοι οἱ ζωγράφοι παρουσιάσθησαν διὰ νὰ λάβωσι τὴν - εἰκόνα τοῦ διὰ τῆς ἡλιοτυπίας, ἀλλ’ ὁ Κοσσοὺθ κατ’ - οὐδένα πρόπον δὲν ἠθέλησε νὰ δεχθῇ τοῦτο. Ἄλλος τις - εὐφυέστερος καλλιτέχνης ἐφεῦρε τὸ μέσον νὰ τὴν λάβῃ - ἄκοντος αὐτοῦ. Ἔθεσε τὴν μηχανήν του εἴς τι παράθυρον - κατα τὴν διάβασίν του καὶ ἐπροκάλεσε μίαν ἔριν ὲν τῇ - ὁδῷ διὰ νὰ σταματήσῃ τὴν τέθριππόν του. Τοιουτοτρόπως - δὲ κατώρθωσε νὰ λάβῃ λάθρα οὐχὶ μόνον τὴν εἰκόνα τοῦ - Μαγυάρου Ἥρωος, ἀλλὰ καὶ ἄλλων τεσσάρων εὑρισκομένων - μετ’ αὐτοῦ ἐν τῇ ἁμάξῃ. Ὁ Κοσσοὺθ εὕρισκετο ἐντὸς - ἁμάξης ὑπὸ ἕξ καστανοχρόων ἵππων συρομένης ἐφόρει - δὲ στολὴν Οὐγγρικὴν, καὶ ἐπὶ τοῦ πίλου τοῦ μέλαν - πτερόν.”[41] - -[40] “Ἀπομνημονεύματα Πολεμικὰ, διαφόρων μαχῶν συγκροτηθεισῶν μεταξὺ -Ἑλλήνων καὶ Ὀθωμάνων κατά τε τὸ Σούλιον καὶ Ἀνατολικὴν Ελλάδα ἀπὸ -τοῦ 1820 μέχρι τοῦ 1829 ἔτους. Συγγραφέντα παρὰ τοῦ Συνταγματαρχοῦ -Χριστοφόρου Πεῤῥαίβου τοῦ ἐξ Ὀλύμπου τῆς Θετταλίας, καὶ διῃρήμενκ εἰς -τόμους δύω. Ἐν Ἀθήναις, ἐκ τῆς Τυπογραφίας Ἀνδρέου Κορόμηλα, Ὁδός -Ἓρμου, Ἀριθ. 215. 1836.” - -[41] “Αθηνα, Decemb. 31, 1851.” - -These are as fair specimens of the current dialect of Greece as I can -produce. For it is manifest that while it would be quite easy on the -one hand to select a specimen of the living dialect written by mere -men of learning, (as from the works of ŒCONOMUS,) which should make -a much nearer approach to the idiom of Xenophon, it would be equally -open on the other to produce a brigand’s song from the mountains of -Acarnania containing a great deal more of the elements of what the -admirers of unmixed Atticism would be entitled to call corruption. But -it is evident that a specimen of the first kind would be no more a -fair specimen of the average Greek now spoken, than the polished style -of George Buchanan was of the average Latin current in his day; and -a brigand’s song were just as fair a specimen of the Greek spoken by -people of education in modern Athens, as a ballad in the Cumberland -or the Craven dialect is of the English of Macaulay’s History, or -Wordsworth’s White Doe. With this remark, by way of explanation, let -any person who can read common classical Greek without a dictionary, -tell me with what face it can be asserted that the above is a specimen -of a new language, in the same sense that Italian is a different -language from Latin, and Dutch from German. I find nothing in the -extracts given, but such slight variations in verbal form, and in -the use of one or two prepositions and pronouns, as the reader of -Xenophon will find in far greater abundance when he turns to Homer. The -principal syntactic difference observable is the use of νὰ (for ἵνα), -with the subjunctive mood, instead of the infinitive, which the modern -Greeks have allowed to drop; but this is a usage, borrowed from the -Latin I have often thought, of which very frequent examples occur in -the New Testament; and besides, a mere new fashion in the syntactical -form of a sentence was never dreamt of by any sane grammarian, as -the sufficient sign of a new language. In English, for instance, we -say, _I beg you will accept this_, and, _I beg you to accept this_. -Now suppose one of these forms of expression to become obsolete, by a -change which mere fashion may effect any day, and the other to become -all dominant, could, I ask, any such change as this, or a whole score -of such changes, be said to corrupt the English language in such a -degree as to constitute a new tongue? Much less could the introduction -of a few new words, formed according to the analogy of the language, -be said to achieve such a transformation, though an academic purist -might indeed refuse to put such words as ἡλιοτυπία (photography), -and ἀτμοπλoῖov (a steam-boat), into his lexicon. As little could a -philosophical classical scholar be offended by the loss of the optative -mood, (used in the New Testament so sparingly,) and the substitution -for it of the auxiliary verb θέλω, which, though it is of comparatively -rare occurrence, is just as much according to the genius of the Greek -language, as the frequent use of the other auxiliary verb _to be_, -both in classical Greek and Latin. Instead of fastening upon such -insignificant peculiarities, a catholic-minded scholar will rather be -astonished to find that _in three columns of a Greek newspaper of the -year 1852, there do not certainly occur three words that are not pure -native Greek_. In fact the language, so far from being corrupt, as its -ignorant detractors assert, is the most uncorrupt language in Europe, -perhaps in the world, at the present moment. The Germans boast of their -linguistic purity, and sing songs to Hermann who sent the legions of -Varus with their lingo so bravely out of the Westphalian swamps; but -let any man compare a column of a German newspaper with a column from -the =ΑΘΗΝΑ=, or any other ἐφημερίς issued within the girth of King -Otho’s dominions, and he will understand that while the Greek language -even now is as a perfectly pure vestment, the German in its familiar -use is defaced by the ingrained blots of many ages, which no philologic -sponge of Adelung or Jacob Grimm will ever prevail to wash out. There -are reasons for this remarkable phenomenon in the history of language, -which to a thoughtful student of the history of the Greek people will -readily suggest themselves. I content myself with stating the fact. - -These things being so, the natural observation that will occur to -every one, as bearing on our present inquiry, is, that as the Greek is -manifestly a living language, and never was dead, but only suffering -for a season under a cutaneous disease now thrown off, those who speak -that language are entitled to a decisive voice in the question how -their language is to be pronounced, _and this on the mere ground that -they are alive and speak it_; and to their decision we must bow on the -sole ground of living authority and possessory right. For every living -language exercises this despotic authority over those who learn it; -and it is not in the nature of things that one should escape from such -a sovereignty. No doubt there may be certain exceptions to which, for -certain special philological purposes, this general rule of obedience -is liable; but the rule remains. Such an exception, for instance, -in the literature of our existing English language, is the peculiar -accentuation of many words that occur in Shakspeare, and even in -Milton, different from that now used, whereby their rhythm limps to -our ear in the places where such words occur. Such exceptions, also, -are the dissyllabic words in Chaucer, that are now shortened into -monosyllables, and yet must be read as dissyllables by all those who -will enjoy the original harmony of the poet’s rhythm. In Greek, as I -have already observed, the whole quantitative value of the language has -had its poles inverted; in which practice we cannot possibly follow -the living users of the tongue, because we learn the language not to -speak with them, as a main object, (though this also has its uses -seldom thought of by schoolmasters,[42]) but to read the works of their -ancient poets, the rhythmical value of whose works their living speech -disowns. This is a sweeping exception to that dominancy of usage which -Horace recognises as supreme in language; but philological necessity -compels; and the modern Athenians must even submit in such points to -receive laws from learned foreigners. But with all this large exceptive -liberty, we dare not disown the rule. We must follow the authority of -their living dictation, so far as the object we have in view allows; -and if we are philosophical students of the language, our object never -can be resolutely to ignore all knowledge of the elocutional genius -and habits of the living people who speak it. It must be borne in mind -also, with how much greater ease a living language can be acquired than -a dead one; so that were it only for the sake of the speedy mastery of -the ancient dialect, a thorough practical familiarity with the spoken -tongue ought first to be cultivated. The present practice, indeed, -of teaching Greek in our schools and colleges, altogether as a dead -language, can be regarded only as a great scholastic mistake; and it -may be confidently affirmed by any person who has reflected on the -method of nature in teaching languages, that more Greek will be learned -by three months’ well-directed study at Athens, where it is spoken, -than by three years’ devotion to the language under the influence of -our common scholastic and academic appliances in this country. - -[42] Perhaps some classical young gentleman at Oxford or Cambridge -may be moved by the consideration brought forward in the following -passage:—“I was much delighted with this really Grecian ball, at which -I was the only foreigner. The Grecian fair I have ever found peculiarly -agreeable in society. They are not in the smallest degree tainted with -the artificial refinements and affectations of more civilised life, -while they have all its graces and fascinations; and I cannot help -thinking that as some one thought it worth while to learn ancient Greek -at the age of seventy, for the sole purpose of reading the Iliad, so it -is well worthy the pains of learning modern Greek at _any_ age, for the -pleasure of conversing, in her own tongue, with a young and cultivated -Greek beauty.”—_Wanderings in Greece_, by GEORGE COCHRAN, Esq. London, -1837. - -I am now led, in the last place, to observe, that whatever may be -thought of Itacism and of accents, as the dominant norm for the -teaching of Greek in this country, one thing is plain, that no scholar -of large and catholic views can, after what has been said and proved -in this paper, content himself with teaching Greek according to the -present arbitrary and anti-classical fashion _only_. The living dialect -also must be taught with all its peculiarities, not only because the -heroic exploits of a modern Admiral Miaulis are as well worthy of the -attention of a Hellenic student as those of an ancient Phormion; but -for strictly philological uses also, and that of more kinds than one. -The transcribers of the MSS., for one thing, in the Middle Ages, all -wrote with their ear under the habitual influence of the pronunciation -which now prevails; and were accordingly constantly liable to make -mistakes that reveal themselves at once to those who are acquainted -with that pronunciation, but will only slowly be gathered by those -whose ears have not been trained in the same way. But what is of more -consequence for Hellenic philologers to note accurately is, that the -spoken dialect of the Greek tongue, though modern in name and form, -is nowise altogether modern in substance: but like the conglomerate -strata of the geologists, contains imbedded very valuable fragments -of the oldest language of the country. Of this it were easy to adduce -proofs from so common a book as Passow’s Greek-German Dictionary, where -occasional reference is made to the modern dialect in illustration of -the ancient; from which source, I presume, with much else that is of -first-rate excellence in lexicography, such references have passed into -the English work of Liddell and Scott. But on this head I shall content -myself with simply directing the student’s attention to the fact, and -appending below the testimony of Professor Ross of Halle—a man who has -travelled much in Greece, can write the language with perfect fluency, -and is entitled, if any man in Europe is, to speak with the voice of -authority on such a point.[43] - -[43] In a paper on the Comparison of the Forms of the Nominative -Case in certain Latin and Greek Nouns, (_Zeitschrift für die -Alterthums-Wissenschaft. 9ͭͤͬ Jahrgang_, No. 49,) Professor Ross writes -to Professor BERGH of Marburg, as follows:—“My views are founded -chiefly on the observation of the dialect used by the common people of -Greece, among whom and with whom I lived so long. This dialect, indeed, -now spoken by the Greek shepherds and sailors, and which, of course, -is not to be learnt from books, but from actual intercourse with the -people, the majority of philologists are apt to hold cheap, but it -has been to me a mine of rich instruction, and I have no hesitation -in saying that, at all events, in reference to the non-Attic dialects -of the Greek tongue, to Latin, Oscan, and even Etruscan, more may be -got from this source than from the many bulky commentaries of the -grammarians of the Middle Ages. See what I have said on this point in -my _Reisen auf den Griechischen Inseln_, iii. p. 155.” - -I have now finished all that I had to say on this subject, which has -proved perhaps more fertile of speculative suggestion and of practical -direction than the title at first promised. What I have said will at -least serve the purpose for which it was immediately intended, that -of justifying my conduct should I find it expedient to introduce -any decided innovations in the practice of teaching Greek in our -metropolitan University. And if it should further have the effect -of inducing any thoughtful teacher to inquire into a curious branch -of philology which he may have hitherto overlooked, and to question -the soundness of the established routine of classical inculcation in -some points, whatever disagreeable labour I may have gone through in -clearing the learned rubbish from so perplexed a path will not have -been without its reward. Any sympathizing reader who may communicate -with me, wishing that I should explain, reconsider, or modify any -statement here made, will find me, I hope, as willing to listen as to -speak, and not more zealous for victory than for truth. - -EDINBURGH: T. CONSTABLE, PRINTER TO HER MAJESTY. - -*** END OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK THE PRONUNCIATION OF -GREEK *** - -Updated editions will replace the previous one--the old editions will -be renamed. - -Creating the works from print editions not protected by U.S. copyright -law means that no one owns a United States copyright in these works, -so the Foundation (and you!) can copy and distribute it in the -United States without permission and without paying copyright -royalties. Special rules, set forth in the General Terms of Use part -of this license, apply to copying and distributing Project -Gutenberg™ electronic works to protect the PROJECT GUTENBERG™ -concept and trademark. Project Gutenberg is a registered trademark, -and may not be used if you charge for an eBook, except by following -the terms of the trademark license, including paying royalties for use -of the Project Gutenberg trademark. If you do not charge anything for -copies of this eBook, complying with the trademark license is very -easy. You may use this eBook for nearly any purpose such as creation -of derivative works, reports, performances and research. Project -Gutenberg eBooks may be modified and printed and given away--you may -do practically ANYTHING in the United States with eBooks not protected -by U.S. copyright law. Redistribution is subject to the trademark -license, especially commercial redistribution. - -START: FULL LICENSE - -THE FULL PROJECT GUTENBERG LICENSE -PLEASE READ THIS BEFORE YOU DISTRIBUTE OR USE THIS WORK - -To protect the Project Gutenberg™ mission of promoting the free -distribution of electronic works, by using or distributing this work -(or any other work associated in any way with the phrase “Project -Gutenberg”), you agree to comply with all the terms of the Full -Project Gutenberg™ License available with this file or online at -www.gutenberg.org/license. - -Section 1. General Terms of Use and Redistributing Project -Gutenberg™ electronic works - -1.A. By reading or using any part of this Project Gutenberg™ -electronic work, you indicate that you have read, understand, agree to -and accept all the terms of this license and intellectual property -(trademark/copyright) agreement. If you do not agree to abide by all -the terms of this agreement, you must cease using and return or -destroy all copies of Project Gutenberg™ electronic works in your -possession. If you paid a fee for obtaining a copy of or access to a -Project Gutenberg™ electronic work and you do not agree to be bound -by the terms of this agreement, you may obtain a refund from the -person or entity to whom you paid the fee as set forth in paragraph -1.E.8. - -1.B. “Project Gutenberg” is a registered trademark. It may only be -used on or associated in any way with an electronic work by people who -agree to be bound by the terms of this agreement. There are a few -things that you can do with most Project Gutenberg™ electronic works -even without complying with the full terms of this agreement. See -paragraph 1.C below. There are a lot of things you can do with Project -Gutenberg™ electronic works if you follow the terms of this -agreement and help preserve free future access to Project Gutenberg™ -electronic works. See paragraph 1.E below. - -1.C. The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation (“the -Foundation” or PGLAF), owns a compilation copyright in the collection -of Project Gutenberg™ electronic works. Nearly all the individual -works in the collection are in the public domain in the United -States. If an individual work is unprotected by copyright law in the -United States and you are located in the United States, we do not -claim a right to prevent you from copying, distributing, performing, -displaying or creating derivative works based on the work as long as -all references to Project Gutenberg are removed. Of course, we hope -that you will support the Project Gutenberg™ mission of promoting -free access to electronic works by freely sharing Project Gutenberg™ -works in compliance with the terms of this agreement for keeping the -Project Gutenberg™ name associated with the work. You can easily -comply with the terms of this agreement by keeping this work in the -same format with its attached full Project Gutenberg™ License when -you share it without charge with others. - -1.D. The copyright laws of the place where you are located also govern -what you can do with this work. Copyright laws in most countries are -in a constant state of change. If you are outside the United States, -check the laws of your country in addition to the terms of this -agreement before downloading, copying, displaying, performing, -distributing or creating derivative works based on this work or any -other Project Gutenberg™ work. The Foundation makes no -representations concerning the copyright status of any work in any -country other than the United States. - -1.E. Unless you have removed all references to Project Gutenberg: - -1.E.1. The following sentence, with active links to, or other -immediate access to, the full Project Gutenberg™ License must appear -prominently whenever any copy of a Project Gutenberg™ work (any work -on which the phrase “Project Gutenberg” appears, or with which the -phrase “Project Gutenberg” is associated) is accessed, displayed, -performed, viewed, copied or distributed: - - This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States and - most other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no - restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it - under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included with this - eBook or online at www.gutenberg.org. If you are not located in the - United States, you will have to check the laws of the country where - you are located before using this eBook. - -1.E.2. If an individual Project Gutenberg™ electronic work is -derived from texts not protected by U.S. copyright law (does not -contain a notice indicating that it is posted with permission of the -copyright holder), the work can be copied and distributed to anyone in -the United States without paying any fees or charges. If you are -redistributing or providing access to a work with the phrase “Project -Gutenberg” associated with or appearing on the work, you must comply -either with the requirements of paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 or -obtain permission for the use of the work and the Project Gutenberg™ -trademark as set forth in paragraphs 1.E.8 or 1.E.9. - -1.E.3. If an individual Project Gutenberg™ electronic work is posted -with the permission of the copyright holder, your use and distribution -must comply with both paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 and any -additional terms imposed by the copyright holder. Additional terms -will be linked to the Project Gutenberg™ License for all works -posted with the permission of the copyright holder found at the -beginning of this work. - -1.E.4. Do not unlink or detach or remove the full Project Gutenberg™ -License terms from this work, or any files containing a part of this -work or any other work associated with Project Gutenberg™. - -1.E.5. Do not copy, display, perform, distribute or redistribute this -electronic work, or any part of this electronic work, without -prominently displaying the sentence set forth in paragraph 1.E.1 with -active links or immediate access to the full terms of the Project -Gutenberg™ License. - -1.E.6. You may convert to and distribute this work in any binary, -compressed, marked up, nonproprietary or proprietary form, including -any word processing or hypertext form. However, if you provide access -to or distribute copies of a Project Gutenberg™ work in a format -other than “Plain Vanilla ASCII” or other format used in the official -version posted on the official Project Gutenberg™ website -(www.gutenberg.org), you must, at no additional cost, fee or expense -to the user, provide a copy, a means of exporting a copy, or a means -of obtaining a copy upon request, of the work in its original “Plain -Vanilla ASCII” or other form. Any alternate format must include the -full Project Gutenberg™ License as specified in paragraph 1.E.1. - -1.E.7. Do not charge a fee for access to, viewing, displaying, -performing, copying or distributing any Project Gutenberg™ works -unless you comply with paragraph 1.E.8 or 1.E.9. - -1.E.8. You may charge a reasonable fee for copies of or providing -access to or distributing Project Gutenberg™ electronic works -provided that: - -• You pay a royalty fee of 20% of the gross profits you derive from - the use of Project Gutenberg™ works calculated using the method - you already use to calculate your applicable taxes. The fee is owed - to the owner of the Project Gutenberg™ trademark, but he has - agreed to donate royalties under this paragraph to the Project - Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation. Royalty payments must be paid - within 60 days following each date on which you prepare (or are - legally required to prepare) your periodic tax returns. Royalty - payments should be clearly marked as such and sent to the Project - Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation at the address specified in - Section 4, “Information about donations to the Project Gutenberg - Literary Archive Foundation.” - -• You provide a full refund of any money paid by a user who notifies - you in writing (or by e-mail) within 30 days of receipt that s/he - does not agree to the terms of the full Project Gutenberg™ - License. You must require such a user to return or destroy all - copies of the works possessed in a physical medium and discontinue - all use of and all access to other copies of Project Gutenberg™ - works. - -• You provide, in accordance with paragraph 1.F.3, a full refund of - any money paid for a work or a replacement copy, if a defect in the - electronic work is discovered and reported to you within 90 days of - receipt of the work. - -• You comply with all other terms of this agreement for free - distribution of Project Gutenberg™ works. - -1.E.9. If you wish to charge a fee or distribute a Project -Gutenberg™ electronic work or group of works on different terms than -are set forth in this agreement, you must obtain permission in writing -from the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the manager of -the Project Gutenberg™ trademark. Contact the Foundation as set -forth in Section 3 below. - -1.F. - -1.F.1. Project Gutenberg volunteers and employees expend considerable -effort to identify, do copyright research on, transcribe and proofread -works not protected by U.S. copyright law in creating the Project -Gutenberg™ collection. Despite these efforts, Project Gutenberg™ -electronic works, and the medium on which they may be stored, may -contain “Defects,” such as, but not limited to, incomplete, inaccurate -or corrupt data, transcription errors, a copyright or other -intellectual property infringement, a defective or damaged disk or -other medium, a computer virus, or computer codes that damage or -cannot be read by your equipment. - -1.F.2. LIMITED WARRANTY, DISCLAIMER OF DAMAGES - Except for the “Right -of Replacement or Refund” described in paragraph 1.F.3, the Project -Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the owner of the Project -Gutenberg™ trademark, and any other party distributing a Project -Gutenberg™ electronic work under this agreement, disclaim all -liability to you for damages, costs and expenses, including legal -fees. YOU AGREE THAT YOU HAVE NO REMEDIES FOR NEGLIGENCE, STRICT -LIABILITY, BREACH OF WARRANTY OR BREACH OF CONTRACT EXCEPT THOSE -PROVIDED IN PARAGRAPH 1.F.3. YOU AGREE THAT THE FOUNDATION, THE -TRADEMARK OWNER, AND ANY DISTRIBUTOR UNDER THIS AGREEMENT WILL NOT BE -LIABLE TO YOU FOR ACTUAL, DIRECT, INDIRECT, CONSEQUENTIAL, PUNITIVE OR -INCIDENTAL DAMAGES EVEN IF YOU GIVE NOTICE OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH -DAMAGE. - -1.F.3. LIMITED RIGHT OF REPLACEMENT OR REFUND - If you discover a -defect in this electronic work within 90 days of receiving it, you can -receive a refund of the money (if any) you paid for it by sending a -written explanation to the person you received the work from. If you -received the work on a physical medium, you must return the medium -with your written explanation. The person or entity that provided you -with the defective work may elect to provide a replacement copy in -lieu of a refund. If you received the work electronically, the person -or entity providing it to you may choose to give you a second -opportunity to receive the work electronically in lieu of a refund. If -the second copy is also defective, you may demand a refund in writing -without further opportunities to fix the problem. - -1.F.4. Except for the limited right of replacement or refund set forth -in paragraph 1.F.3, this work is provided to you “AS-IS”, WITH NO -OTHER WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT -LIMITED TO WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR ANY PURPOSE. - -1.F.5. Some states do not allow disclaimers of certain implied -warranties or the exclusion or limitation of certain types of -damages. If any disclaimer or limitation set forth in this agreement -violates the law of the state applicable to this agreement, the -agreement shall be interpreted to make the maximum disclaimer or -limitation permitted by the applicable state law. The invalidity or -unenforceability of any provision of this agreement shall not void the -remaining provisions. - -1.F.6. INDEMNITY - You agree to indemnify and hold the Foundation, the -trademark owner, any agent or employee of the Foundation, anyone -providing copies of Project Gutenberg™ electronic works in -accordance with this agreement, and any volunteers associated with the -production, promotion and distribution of Project Gutenberg™ -electronic works, harmless from all liability, costs and expenses, -including legal fees, that arise directly or indirectly from any of -the following which you do or cause to occur: (a) distribution of this -or any Project Gutenberg™ work, (b) alteration, modification, or -additions or deletions to any Project Gutenberg™ work, and (c) any -Defect you cause. - -Section 2. Information about the Mission of Project Gutenberg™ - -Project Gutenberg™ is synonymous with the free distribution of -electronic works in formats readable by the widest variety of -computers including obsolete, old, middle-aged and new computers. It -exists because of the efforts of hundreds of volunteers and donations -from people in all walks of life. - -Volunteers and financial support to provide volunteers with the -assistance they need are critical to reaching Project Gutenberg™'s -goals and ensuring that the Project Gutenberg™ collection will -remain freely available for generations to come. In 2001, the Project -Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation was created to provide a secure -and permanent future for Project Gutenberg™ and future -generations. To learn more about the Project Gutenberg Literary -Archive Foundation and how your efforts and donations can help, see -Sections 3 and 4 and the Foundation information page at -www.gutenberg.org - -Section 3. Information about the Project Gutenberg Literary -Archive Foundation - -The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation is a non-profit -501(c)(3) educational corporation organized under the laws of the -state of Mississippi and granted tax exempt status by the Internal -Revenue Service. The Foundation's EIN or federal tax identification -number is 64-6221541. Contributions to the Project Gutenberg Literary -Archive Foundation are tax deductible to the full extent permitted by -U.S. federal laws and your state's laws. - -The Foundation's business office is located at 809 North 1500 West, -Salt Lake City, UT 84116, (801) 596-1887. Email contact links and up -to date contact information can be found at the Foundation's website -and official page at www.gutenberg.org/contact - -Section 4. Information about Donations to the Project Gutenberg -Literary Archive Foundation - -Project Gutenberg™ depends upon and cannot survive without -widespread public support and donations to carry out its mission of -increasing the number of public domain and licensed works that can be -freely distributed in machine-readable form accessible by the widest -array of equipment including outdated equipment. Many small donations -($1 to $5,000) are particularly important to maintaining tax exempt -status with the IRS. - -The Foundation is committed to complying with the laws regulating -charities and charitable donations in all 50 states of the United -States. Compliance requirements are not uniform and it takes a -considerable effort, much paperwork and many fees to meet and keep up -with these requirements. We do not solicit donations in locations -where we have not received written confirmation of compliance. To SEND -DONATIONS or determine the status of compliance for any particular -state visit www.gutenberg.org/donate - -While we cannot and do not solicit contributions from states where we -have not met the solicitation requirements, we know of no prohibition -against accepting unsolicited donations from donors in such states who -approach us with offers to donate. - -International donations are gratefully accepted, but we cannot make -any statements concerning tax treatment of donations received from -outside the United States. U.S. laws alone swamp our small staff. - -Please check the Project Gutenberg web pages for current donation -methods and addresses. Donations are accepted in a number of other -ways including checks, online payments and credit card donations. To -donate, please visit: www.gutenberg.org/donate - -Section 5. General Information About Project Gutenberg™ electronic works - -Professor Michael S. Hart was the originator of the Project -Gutenberg™ concept of a library of electronic works that could be -freely shared with anyone. For forty years, he produced and -distributed Project Gutenberg™ eBooks with only a loose network of -volunteer support. - -Project Gutenberg™ eBooks are often created from several printed -editions, all of which are confirmed as not protected by copyright in -the U.S. unless a copyright notice is included. Thus, we do not -necessarily keep eBooks in compliance with any particular paper -edition. - -Most people start at our website which has the main PG search -facility: www.gutenberg.org - -This website includes information about Project Gutenberg™, -including how to make donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary -Archive Foundation, how to help produce our new eBooks, and how to -subscribe to our email newsletter to hear about new eBooks. |