Part 8

In respect to the cæsura of the Greek tragic senarius, the rules, as laid down by Porson in the Supplement to his Preface to the Hecuba, and as recognised, more or less, by the English school of critics, seem capable of a more general expression, and, at the same time, liable to certain limitations in regard to fact. This becomes apparent when we investigate the principle that serves as the foundation to these rules; in other words, when we exhibit the _rationale_, or doctrine, of the cæsura in question. At this we can arrive by taking cognizance of a second element of metre beyond that of quantity.

It is assumed that the element in metre which goes, in works of different writers, under the name of ictus metricus, or of arsis, is the same as accent _in the sense of that word in English_. It is this that constitutes the difference between words like _týrant_ and _resúme_, or _súrvey_ and _survéy_; or (to take more convenient examples) between the word _Aúgust_, used as the name of a month, and _augúst_ used as an adjective. Without inquiring how far this coincides with the accent and accentuation of the classical grammarians, it may be stated that, in the forthcoming pages, arsis, ictus metricus, and accent (_in the English sense of the word_), mean one and the same thing. With this view of the arsis, or ictus, we may ask how far, in each particular foot of the senarius, it coincides with the quantity.

_First Foot._--In the first place of a tragic senarius it is a matter of indifference whether the arsis fall on the first or second syllable, that is, it is a matter of indifference whether the foot be sounded as _týrant_ or as _resúme_, as _Aúgust_ or as _augúst_. In the following lines the words ἡκω, παλαι, εἰπερ, τινας, may be pronounced either as ἥκω, πάλαι, εἴπερ, τίνας, or as ἡκώ, παλαί, εἰπέρ, τινάς, without any detriment to the character of the line wherein they occur.

Ἥκω νεκρον κευθμωνα και σκοτου ρυλας. Πάλαι κυνηγετουντα και μετρουμενον. Είπερ δικαιος εστ' εμος τα πατροθεν. Τίνας ποθ' ἑδρας τασδε μοι θοαζετε.

or,

Ἡκώ νεκρον κευθμωνα και σκοτου ρυλας. Παλαί κυνηγετουντα και μετρουμενον. Ειπέρ δικαιος εστ' εμος τα πατροθεν. Τινάς ποθ' ἑδρας τασδε μοι θοαζετε.

_Second Foot._--In the second place, it is also matter of indifference whether the foot be sounded as _Aúgust_ or as _augúst_. In the first of the four lines quoted above we may say either νέκρων or νεκρών, without violating rhythm of the verse.

_Third Foot._--In this part of the senarius it is no longer a matter of indifference whether the foot be sounded as _Aúgust_ or as _augúst_; that is, it is no longer a matter of indifference whether the arsis and the quantity coincide. In the circumstance that the last syllable of the third foot _must_ be accented (in the English sense of the word), taken along with a second fact, soon about to be exhibited, lies the doctrine of the penthimimer and hephthimimer cæsuras.

The proof of the coincidence between the arsis and the quantity in the third foot is derived partly from _à posteriori_, partly from _à priori_ evidence.

1. In the Supplices of Æschylus, the Persæ, and the Bacchæ, three dramas where licences in regard to metre are pre-eminently common, the number of lines wherein the sixth syllable (_i. e._ the last half of the third foot) is without an arsis, is at the highest sixteen, at the lowest five; whilst in the remainder of the extant dramas the proportion is undoubtedly smaller.

2. In all lines where the sixth syllable is destitute of ictus, the iambic character is violated: as--

Θρηκην περαράντες μογις πολλῳ πονῳ. Δυοιν γεροντοίν δε στρατηγειται φυγη.

These are facts which may be verified either by referring to the tragedians, or by constructing senarii like the lines last quoted. The only difficulty that occurs arises in determining, in a dead language like the Greek, the absence or presence of the arsis. In this matter the writer has satisfied himself of the truth of the two following propositions:--1. That the accentuation of the grammarians denotes some modification of pronunciation other than that which constitutes the difference between _Aúgust_ and _augúst_; since, if it were not so, the word ἅγγελον would be sounded like _mérrily_, and the word ἁγγέλων like _disáble_; which is improbable. 2. That the arsis lies upon radical rather than inflectional syllables, and out of two inflectional syllables upon the first rather than the second; as βλέπ-ω, βλεψ-άσ-α, not βλεπ-ώ, βλεψ-ασ-ά. The evidence upon these points is derived from the structure of language in general. The _onus probandi_ lies with the author who presumes an arsis (accent in the English sense) on a _non_-radical syllable.

Doubts, however, as to the pronunciation of certain words, leave the precise number of lines violating the rule given above undetermined. It is considered sufficient to show that, wherever they occur, the iambic character is violated.

The circumstance, however, of the last half of the third foot requiring an arsis, brings us only half way towards the doctrine of the cæsura. With this must be combined a second fact arising out of the constitution of the Greek language in respect to its accent. In accordance with the views just exhibited, the author conceives that no Greek word has an arsis upon the last syllable, except in the three following cases:--

1. Monosyllables, not enclitic; as σφών, πάς, χθών, δμώς, νών, νύν, &c.

2. Circumflex futures; as νεμώ, τεμώ, &c.

3. Words abbreviated by apocope; in which case the penultimate is converted into a final syllable; δώμ', φειδέσθ', κεντείτ', εγώγ', &c.

Now the fact of a syllable with an arsis being, in Greek, rarely final, taken along with that of the sixth syllable requiring an arsis, gives, as a matter of necessity, the circumstance that, in the Greek drama, the sixth syllable shall occur anywhere rather than at the end of a word; and this is only another way of saying, that, in a tragic senarius, the syllable in question shall generally be followed by other syllables in the same word. All this the author considers as so truly a matter of necessity, that the objection to his view of the Greek cæsura must lie either against his idea of the nature of the accents, or nowhere; since, that being admitted, the rest follows of course.

As the sixth syllable must not be final, it must be followed in the same word by one syllable, or by more than one.

1. _The sixth syllable followed by one syllable in the same word._--This is only another name for the seventh syllable occurring at the end of a word, and it gives at once the hephthimimer cæsura: as--

Ἡκω νεκρων κευθμώνα και σκοτου πυλας. Ἱκτηριοις κλαδοίσιν εξεστεμμενοι. Ὁμου τε παιανών τε και στεναγματων.

2. _The sixth syllable followed by two (or more) syllables in the same word._--This is only another name for the eighth (or some syllable after the eighth) syllable occurring at the end of a word; as--

Οδμη βροτειων ἅιματων με προσγελα. Λαμπρους δυναστας έμπρεποντας αιθερι.

Now this arrangement of syllables, taken by itself, gives anything rather than a hephthimimer; so that if it were at this point that our investigations terminated, little would be done towards the evolution of the _rationale_ of the cæsura. It will appear, however, that in those cases where the circumstance of the sixth syllable being followed by two others in the same words, causes the eighth (or some syllable after the eighth) to be final, either a penthimimer cæsura, or an equivalent, will, with but few exceptions, be the result. This we may prove by taking the eighth syllable and counting back from it. What _follows_ this syllable is immaterial: it is the number of syllables in the same word that _precedes_ it that demands attention.

1. _The eighth syllable preceded in the same word by nothing._--This is equivalent to the seventh syllable at the end of the preceding word: a state of things which, as noticed above, gives the hephthimimer cæsura.

Ανηριθμον γελάσμα παμ|μητορ δε γη.

2. _The eighth syllable preceded in the same word by one syllable._--This is equivalent to the sixth syllable at the end of the word preceding; a state of things which, as noticed above, rarely occurs. When, however, it does occur, one of the three conditions under which a final syllable can take an arsis must accompany it. Each of these conditions requires notice.

α). With a non-enclitic _mono_-syllable the result is a penthimimer cæsura; since the syllable preceding a monosyllable is necessarily final.

Ἡκω σεβίζων σόν Κλύται|μνηστρα κρατος.

No remark has been made by critics upon lines constructed in this manner, since the cæsura is a penthimimer, and consequently their rules are undisturbed.

β). With _poly_-syllabic circumflex futures constituting the third foot, there would be a violation of the current rules respecting the cæsura. Notwithstanding this, if the views of the present paper be true, there would be no violation of the iambic character of the senarius. Against such a line as

Κα'γω το σον νεμώ ποθει|νον αυλιον

there is no argument _à priori_ on the score of the iambic character being violated; whilst, in respect to objections derived from evidence _à posteriori_, there is sufficient reason for such lines being rare.

γ). With _poly_-syllables abbreviated by apocope, we have the state of things which the metrists have recognised under the name of quasi-cæsura; as--

Κεντειτε μη φειδέσθ' εγω | 'τεκον Παριν.

3.--_The eighth syllable preceded in the same word by two syllables._--This is equivalent to the fifth syllable occurring at the end of the word preceding: a state of things which gives the penthimimer cæsura; as--

Οδμη βροτειων αἵματῶν | με προσγελα. Λαμπρους δυναστας εμ'πρεπον|τας αιθερι. Απσυχον εικω πρόσγελω|σα σωματος.

4. _The eighth syllable preceded in the same word by three or more than three syllables._--This is equivalent to the fourth (or some syllable preceding the fourth) syllable occurring at the end of the word preceding; a state of things which would include the third and fourth feet in one and the same word. This concurrence is denounced in the Supplement to the Preface to the Hecuba, where, however, the rule, as in the case of the quasi-cæsura, from being based upon merely empirical evidence, requires limitation. In lines like--

Και τἁλλα πολλ' επέικασαι | δικαιον ην,

or (an imaginary example),

Τοις σοισιν ασπιδήστροφοισ|ιν ανδρασι,

there is no violation of the iambic character, and consequently no reason against similar lines having been written; although from the average proportion of Greek words like επεικασαι and ασπιδηστροποισιν, there is every reason for their being rare.

After the details just given the recapitulation is brief.

1. It was essential to the character of the senarius that the sixth syllable, or latter half of the third foot, should have an arsis, ictus metricus, or accent in the English sense. To this condition of the iambic rhythm the Greek tragedians, either consciously or unconsciously, adhered.

2. It was the character of the Greek language to admit an arsis on the last syllable of a word only under circumstances comparatively rare.

3. These two facts, taken together, caused the sixth syllable of a line to be anywhere rather than at the end of a word.

4. If followed by a single syllable in the same word, the result was a hephthimimer cæsura.

5. If followed by more syllables than one, some syllable in an earlier part of the line ended the word preceding, and so caused either a penthimìmer, a quasi-cæsura, or the occurrence of the third and fourth foot in the same word.

6. As these two last-mentioned circumstances were rare, the general phenomenon presented in the Greek senarius was the occurrence of either the penthimimer or hephthimimer.

7. Respecting these two sorts of cæsura, the rules, instead of being exhibited in detail, may be replaced by the simple assertion that there should be an arsis on the sixth syllable. From this the rest follows.

8. Respecting the non-occurrence of the third and fourth feet in the same word, the assertion may be withdrawn entirely.

9. Respecting the quasi-cæsura, the rules, if not altogether withdrawn, may be extended to the admission of the last syllable of circumflex futures (or to any other polysyllables with an equal claim to be considered accented on the last syllable) in the latter half of the third foot.

REMARKS ON THE USE OF THE SIGNS OF ACCENT AND QUANTITY AS GUIDES TO THE PRONUNCIATION OF WORDS DERIVED FROM THE CLASSICAL LANGUAGES, WITH PARTICULAR REFERENCE TO ZOOLOGICAL AND BOTANICAL TERMS.

FROM THE ANNALS AND MAGAZINE OF NATURAL HISTORY, JUNE, 1859.

The text upon which the following remarks have suggested themselves is the Accentuated List of the British Lepidoptera, with Hints on the Derivation of the Names, published by the Entomological Societies of Oxford and Cambridge; a useful contribution to scientific terminology--useful, and satisfied with being so. It admits that naturalists may be unlearned, and provides for those who, with a love for botany or zoology, may have been denied the advantage of a classical education. That there are many such is well known; and it is also well known that they have no love for committing themselves to the utterance of Latin and Greek names in the presence of investigators who are more erudite (though, perhaps, less scientific) than themselves. As a rule, their pronunciation is inaccurate. It is inaccurate without being uniform--- for the ways of going wrong are many. Meanwhile, any directions toward the right are welcome.

In the realities of educational life there is no such thing as a book for unlearned men--at least no such thing as a good one. There are make-shifts and make-believes _ad_ _infinitum_; but there is no such an entity as an actual book. Some are written down to the supposed level of the reader--all that are so written being useless and offensive. Others are encumbered with extraneous matter, and, so encumbered, err on the side of bulk and superfluity. Very rarely is there anything like consistency in the supply of information.

The work under notice supposes a certain amount of ignorance--ignorance of certain accents and certain quantities. It meets this; and it meets it well. That the work is both a safe and reliable guide, is neither more nor less than what we expect from the places and persons whence it has proceeded.

It is likely, from its very merits, to be the model on which a long line of successors may be formed. For this reason the principles of its notation (for thus we may generalize our expression of the principle upon which we use the signs of accent and quantity as guides to pronunciation) may be criticised.

In the mind of the present writer, the distinction between accent and quantity has neither been sufficiently attended to nor sufficiently neglected. This is because, in many respects, they are decidedly contrasted with, and opposed to, each other; whilst, at the same time--paradoxical as it may appear--they are, for the majority of practical purposes, convertible. That inadvertence on these points should occur, is not to be wondered at. Professional grammarians--men who deal with the purely philological questions of metre and syllabification--with few exceptions, confound them.

In English Latin (by which I mean Latin as pronounced by Englishmen) there is, in practice, no such a thing as quantity; so that the sign by which it is denoted is, in nine cases out of ten, superfluous. _Mark the accent, and the quantity will take care of itself._

I say that there is no such a thing in English Latin as quantity. I ought rather to have said that

_English quantities are not Latin quantities._

In Latin, the length of the syllable is determined by the length of the _vowels and consonants combined_. A long vowel, if followed in the same word by another (_i. e._ if followed by no consonant), is short. A short vowel, if followed by two consonants, is long. In English, on the other hand, long vowels make long, whilst short vowels make short, syllables; so that the quantity of a syllable in English is determined by the quantity of the vowel. The _i_ in _pius_ is short in Latin. In English it is long. The _e_ in _mend_ is short in English, long in Latin.

This, however, is not all. There is, besides, the following metrical paradox. A syllable may be made long by the very fact of its being short. It is the practice of the English language to signify the shortness of a vowel by doubling the consonant that follows. Hence we get such words as _pitted_, _knotty_, _massive_, &c.--words in which no one considers that the consonant is actually doubled. For do we not pronounce _pitted_ and _pitied_ alike? Consonants that appear double to the _eye_ are common enough. Really double consonants--consonants that sound double to the ear--are rarities, occurring in one class of words only--viz. in compounds whereof the first element ends with the same sound with which the second begins, as _soul-less_, _book-case_, &c.

The doubling, then, of the consonant is a conventional mode of expressing the shortness of the vowel that precedes, and it addresses itself to the eye rather than the ear.

But does it address itself to the _eye_ only? If it did, _pitied_ and _pitted_, being sounded alike, would also be of the same quantity. We know, however, that to the English writer of Latin verses they are not so. We know that the first is short (_pĭtied_), the latter long (_pītted_). For all this, they are sounded alike: so that the difference in quantity (which, as a metrical fact, really exists) is, to a great degree, conventional. At any rate, we arrive at it by a secondary process. We know how the word is spelt; and we know that certain modes of spelling give certain rules of metre. Our senses here are regulated by our experience.

Let a classical scholar hear the first line of the Eclogues read--

Patulæ tu Tityre, &c.,

and he will be shocked. He will also believe that the shock fell on his ear. Yet his ear was unhurt. No sense was offended. The thing which was shocked was his knowledge of the rules of prosody--nothing more. To English ears there is no such a thing as quantity--not even in hexameters and pentameters. There is no such thing as quantity except so far as it is accentual also. Hence come the following phænomena--no less true than strange,--viz. (1) that any classical metre written according to the rules of quantity gives (within certain narrow limits) a regular recurrence of accents; and (2) that, setting aside such shocks as affect our knowledge of the rules of prosody, verses written according to their accents only give metrical results. English hexameters (such as they are) are thus written.

In the inferences from these remarks there are two assumptions: 1st, that the old-fashioned mode of pronunciation be adhered to; 2nd, that when we pronounce Greek and Latin words as they are pronounced in the recitation of Greek and Latin poetry, we are as accurate as we need be. It is by means of these two assumptions that we pronounce _Tityre_ and _patulæ_ alike; and I argue that we are free to do so. As far as the ear is concerned, the _a_ is as long as the _i_, on the strength of the double _t_ which is supposed to come after it. It _does_ not indeed so come; but if it did, the sound would be the same, the quantity different (for is not _patulæ_ pronounced _pattule_?). It would be a quantity, however, to the eye only.

This pronunciation, however, may be said to be exploded; for do not most men under fifty draw the distinction which is here said to be neglected? Do not the majority make, or fancy they make, a distinction between the two words just quoted? They may or they may not. It is only certain that, subject to the test just indicated, it is immaterial what they do. Nine-tenths of the best modern Latin verses were written under the old system--a system based not upon our ear, but on our knowledge of certain rules.

Now it is assumed that the accuracy sufficient for English Latin is all the accuracy required. Ask for more, and you get into complex and difficult questions respecting the pronunciation of a dead language. Do what we will, we cannot, on one side, pronounce the Latin like the ancient Romans. Do what we will, so long as we keep our accents right, we cannot (speaking Latin after the fashion of Englishmen) err in the way of quantity--at least, not to the ear. A short vowel still gives a long syllable; for the consonant which follows it is supposed to be doubled.

Let it be admitted, then, that, for practical purposes, _Tityre_ and _patulæ_ may be pronounced alike, and the necessity of a large class of marks is avoided. Why write, as the first word in the book is written, _Papiliō´nidæ_? Whether the initial syllable be sounded _papp-_ or _pape-_ is indifferent. So it is whether the fourth be uttered as _-own-_, or _-onn-_. _As far as the ear is concerned_, they are both long, because the consonant is doubled. In Greek,πᾰππιλλιόννιδαι is as long as πᾱππιλλιόννιδαι.

Then comes _Machā´on_, where the sign of quantity is again useless, the accent alone being sufficient to prevent us saying either _Mákkaon_ or _Makaón_. The _a_ is the _a_ in _fate_. We could not sound it as the _a_ in _fat_ if we would.

_Pīeridæ._--What does the quantity tell us here? That the _i_ is pronounced as the _i_ in the Greek πίονος, rather than as the _i_ in the Latin _pius_. But, in English Latin, we pronounce both alike. Surely _Pī´eris_ and _Pie´ridæ_ tell us all that is needed.

_Cratæ´gī._--Whether long or short, the _i_ is pronounced the same.

_Sinā´pis_, _Rā´pæ_, and _Nā´pi_.--The (̄) here prevents us from saying _Ráppæ_ and _Náppi_. It would certainly be inelegant and unusual to do so. Tested, however, by the ear, the words _ráppæ_ and _náppi_ take just the same place in an English Latin verse as _rápe-æ_ and _nápe-i_. Is any one likely to say _sináppis_? Perhaps. There are those who say _Dianna_ for _Diana_. It is very wrong to do so--wrong, not to say vulgar. For the purposes of metre, however, one is as good as the other; and herein (as aforesaid) lies the test. The real false quantities would be _Diana_ and _sinnapis_; but against these the accent protects us. Nor is the danger of saying _sináppis_ considerable. Those who say _Diánna_ are those who connect it with _Anna_ and would, probably, spell it with two _n's_.

_Cardamī´nēs._--All that the first (̄) does here is to prevent us saying _cardami´nnes_. The real false quantity would be _carda´mmines_. The accent, however, guards against this.

The second (̄) is useful. It is certainly better to say _cardamín-ees_ than _cardamín-ess_, because the _e_ is from the Greek η. And this gives us a rule. Let the (̄) be used to distinguish η from ε, and ω from ο, and in no other case. I would not say that it is necessary to use it even here. It is better, however, to say _Macháōn_ than _Macháŏn_. By a parity of reasoning, the (̆), rejected in the work before us, is sometimes useful. Let it be used in those derivatives where ε replaces η, and ο replaces ω; _e. g._ having written _Machaōn_, write, as its derivative, _Machaŏnidæ_--_i. e._ if the word be wanted.

This is the utmost for which the signs of quantity are wanted for English Latin. I do not say that they are wanted even for this.