[1] Seelmann, Die Aussprache des Latein, p. 175 sqq.

[2] Quint. I. 4, 14.

[3] Carm. LXXXIV.

'Chommoda' dicebat, si quando 'commoda' vellet
  Dicere et 'insidias' Arrius 'hinsidias'.
Et tum mirifice sperabat se esse locutum,
  Cum, quantum poterat, dixerat 'hinsidias'.
  *   *   *   *   *   *
Hoc misso in Syriam, requierant omnibus aures,
  Audibant eadem haec leniter et leviter.
Nec sibi postilla metuebant talia verba;
  Cum subito adfertur nuntius horribilis:
Ionios fluctus, postquam illuc Arrius isset,
  Iam non 'Ionios' esse sed 'Hionios'!

Which Martin has very cleverly translated:

"Whenever Arrius wished to name
'Commodious,' out 'chommodious' came:
And when of his intrigues he blabbed,
With his 'hintrigues' our ears he stabbed;
And thought moreover, he displayed
A rare refinement when he made
His h's thus at random fall
With emphasis most guttural.
When suddenly came news one day
Which smote the city with dismay,
That the Ionian seas a change
Had undergone, most sad and strange;
For since by Arrius crossed, the wild
'Hionian Hocean' they were styled!"

[4] Gellius (II. 3) gives a number of words formerly written with h but in his time no longer aspirated. Between two vowels, h was silent. Hence nil for nihil, etc.

[5] Quint, ix. 4, 40; Prise. 1, p. 29 (Keil).

[6] Velius Lougus, p. 80 (Keil).

[7] Don. in Serv. p. 445.

[8] Cf. for instance Quint. 1, 7, 26; Marius Victorinus, p. 13 (Keil); Velius Longus, pp. 50, 58, 67 (Keil); Consentius, p. 395 (Keil). The position of the vocal organs in pronouncing v is described by Terentianus Maurus, p. 319 (Keil); Marius Victorinus, p. 33 (Keil); and Martianus Capella, III. 261.

[9] Cf. Horace, Odes, I. 23, 4.

[10] De Div. II. 40. 84.

[11] Quoted by Gellius, X. 44.

[12] The statistics on this point will be found in the introduction to Roby's Latin Grammar, pp. XXXVII-XLI. Plutarch, who oftenest uses β for v, expressly states in his life of Demosthenes his own deficiency as a Latin scholar, and this fact impairs the value of his testimony in general except as corroborating better witnesses. Prof. F. D. Allen (Class. Review, Feb. 1891) regards the use of β as characteristic only of the later Greeks.

V.

SOUNDS OF THE DIPTHONGS.—SUMMARY.

IT must be remembered that the Latin diphthongs Æ, AU, EI, EU, Œ), were originally true diphthongs (double sounds), in the full sense of the word. That is, in pronouncing a diphthong the sound of each of its elements was distinctly heard, though pronounced in the time of one syllable. (Terent. Maur. p. 2392 P; Prisc, p. 561 P.) Knowing, then, the true sounds of the individual letters which compose the diphthongs, it is a simple matter to determine the general pronunciation of the diphthongs themselves. At the same time, it is undoubtedly true that in the latter part of the classical period, a tendency to give only one elemental sound to the combination finally made its way from the pronunciation of the vulgar into that of the cultivated.

With this preliminary observation we may proceed to the discussion of the several diphthongs.

Æ had originally the double sound ah-ê pronounced quickly; later, the simple sound of Latin E, i.e. of English a in "fate".

(a) Ae represents an early ai which appears in the oldest Latin. Thus, praifecius, quaistor, aulai; and so Vergil to give an antique coloring to his language has pictai, vestis, aquai, aulai, etc. (Quint. I. 7.18). About the year B.C. 175, the ai sound began to give way to the ae sound, as can be shown from the testimony of inscriptions. The ai sound of the diphthong (that of the English affirmative ay) may have lingered in the pronunciation of purists, for at the time when the Emperor Claudius instituted his reforms, we find a temporary revival of the spelling ai.

(b) As early as the beginning of the classical period ae ceased to be sounded as a diphthong by the rustics and by the provincials generally. This is expressly stated by Varro in his treatise on the Latin language (iv. 9, and vii. 96 and 97), in which he gives Mesius and hedus as rustic sounds for Maesius and haedus.

(c) This rustic neglect of the first element of the diphthong gradually prevailed until at last ae had only the force of a long e and is very generally so written, e.g. seculum for saeculum, femine for feminae, and even que for quae. But this is as late as the third and fourth centuries A.D. The classical sound was undoubtedly ăé.

AU had the sound of ow in English "now".

(a) Au remained a true diphthong down through the classical period at least in the pronunciation of the educated. The Greeks represent it by αυ, as in Κλαύδιος for Claudius.

(b) In vulgar and provincial circles, au had sometimes the sound of u, the first element of the diphthong being neglected as was the case with ae. Hence we find occasionally in inscriptions such forms as frudavi for fraudavi, cludo for claudo, etc. But the vulgar generally gave to au the sound of ō, as in modern French. Thus, some branches of the Claudian family called themselves Clodii, and we find in provincial inscriptions even at an early period Pola for Paulla, Plotus for Plautus, etc. Suetonius in his life of the Emperor Vespasian tells a story bearing on this, which has been often repeated and is important as showing that even in the Silver Age, au was still pronounced as a diphthong. The anecdote runs as follows: "Having been admonished by one Mestrius Floras, a man of consular rank, that he ought to say 'plaustra' rather than 'plostra,' he greeted Floras the next day as 'Flaurus'"--the point of which is that Flaurus suggests the Greek φλαῦρος, "good for nothing."

EI had the sound of ei in English "feint".

Ei remained a true diphthong in keeping the sound of both its elements; but the combination ei is often found merely as an equivalent for ī. Gorssen remarks that in the root-syllables of the words deiva, leiber, deicere, ceivis; in locative forms; and in the dative and ablative plural of -a stems and -o stems, ei is a true diphthong, but is elsewhere a transition vowel between ī and ē. Cf. Aussprache, I. 719, 788; Ritschl, Opuscula, II. 626; Roby, §§ 267, 268.

EU had (nearly) the sound of eu in English "feud".

Eu remained a true diphthong with more stress upon the second element than upon the first. This is seen by the fact that (rarely) it has passed into ū^[1] but never into ē. The combination eu is not often found in Latin except in transliterating Greek words, and in the exclamations heu, heus, and eheu, and in the contractions neu (neve), seu (sive), and neuter (ne + uter). In neutiquam the antepenult is short.

OE had the sound of oi in English "toil" (nearly), or of ōē.

Oe represents an original oi and remained a diphthong in those words in which it continued to be written. When the first element predominates over the second, oe passes into u, as in plura for ploera, punio from the root of poena, cura for coera. When the second element predominates, oe passes into ae (by a confusion) and ē, as in obscaonus and obscenus for obscaenus. But in words where oe is regularly written, it is to be pronounced as a true diphthong.

UI as a diphthong occurs only in a few interjections, as hui, fui, and in huic and cui. In both huic and cui it represents an earlier oi (hoic, quoi). In other words (e.g. exercitui, gradui, etc.) ui is not a diphthong, but each vowel is pronounced separately.

The Romans were the first people to call the letters of the alphabet by their sounds rather than by names, as was done in Greek and in the Semitic languages. Thus the Latin vowels were named by simply uttering their sounds; the mute consonants and h by uttering a vowel after them, and the so-called nasal and fricative consonants by uttering a vowel before them. This vowel was e except in the case of k, h, q, and x. Hence, a Roman boy saying over his alphabet, would have given it thus:

ah, bé, ké, dé, ê, ef, ghé, ha, î (ee), ka, el, em, en, ô, pé, qu (coo), er, es, té, oo, ix, (ü, zeta). (Prise, p. 540 P.)

In pronouncing Latin words, too much care can not be taken in distinguishing between long vowels and those that are short. Cicero says: Omnium longitudinum et brevitatum in sonis sicut acutarum graviumque vocum indicium, natura in auribus nostris collocavit; and student and teacher alike will find that if from the outset a correct and careful pronunciation of Latin be required, those bugbears of the learner--the rules of prosody--will almost teach themselves, because they will have a consistency and meaning that can never be obvious to the unfortunate victim of the "English system." Professor Richardson, who deserves honor as being one of the first American scholars to advocate and adopt the true method of pronouncing Latin, has well summed up the whole matter in a single paragraph:

"To teach the student, from his first entrance upon the study of Latin, the English system of pronunciation; to get him thoroughly habituated to this false method, and then by lodging in his brain some verbal rules of quantity and prosody, at war often with each other and commonly with his pronunciation, to attempt to make him appreciate and observe the rhythm of Latin poetry, is like keeping a child in a rude society where all the laws of a pure and finished language are habitually violated, and then expecting him, by virtue of committing to memory the common rules of grammar and rhetoric, to talk at once with grammatical and rhetorical correctness and elegance."

And this little treatise may be closed by citing the most obvious of the reasons for adopting the Roman System.

(1) Because it is approximately the system used by the Romans themselves.

(2) Because it is more musical and harmonious in sound, and makes the structure of Latin verse clear even to the beginner.

(3) Because it is simpler than the English system, giving as it does but one sound to each alphabetical character, and thus always distinguishing words of different orthography and meaning by their sounds, while the English system often confuses them; e.g. census and sensus; caedo, cedo, and sedo; circulus and surculus; cervus and servus; amici and amisi.

(4) Because it makes the connection of Latin words with their Greek cognates plain at once, and renders easier the study of Greek, of the modern Romance language, and of the science of Comparative Philology.^[2]

[1] In the Carmen Saliare we find Leucesie, a vocative of the later Lucelius from the root of lux. Cf. Paull. ex Fest. p. 114 (Müller).

[2] See Richardson's Roman Orthoëpy, pp. 83-106. This little book, which is unfortunately out of print, contains some exceedingly good points very cleverly put, though the view that it takes of certain phonetic questions is one that more recent scholarship does not accept.

VI.

A SHORT BIBLIOGRAPHY OF THE SUBJECT.

ALLEN, F. Remnants of Early Latin. Boston, 1884.
BLAIR, W. Latin Pronunciation. New York and Chicago, 1874.
BLASS, F. Ueber die Aussprache des Griechischen. Berlin, 1882. Eng. trans, by Purton, Cambridge, 1890.
BRAMBACH, W. Die Neugestaltung der Lateinischen Orthographie, etc. Leipzig, 1868.
CORSSEN, W. Ueber Aussprache, Vokalismus, und Betonung der Lateinischen Sprache. Leipzig, 1868-70.
EDON, G. Écriture et Prononciation du Latin. Paris, 1882.
ELLIS, A. J. Practical Hints on the Quantitative Pronunciation of Latin. London, 1874.
HALDEMAN, S. S. Elements of Latin Pronunciation for the Use of Students in Language, etc. Philadelphia, 1851.
KEIL, H. Grammatici Latini. 7 vols. Leipzig, 1856-80.
KENNEDY, B. H. The Public School Latin Grammar. London, 1874.
KING, D. B. Latin Pronunciation. New York and Boston, 1880.
KING, J., and COOKSON, C. Principles of Sound and Inflexion in Greek and Latin. London, 1888.
MUNRO, H. A. J. Remarks on the Pronunciation of Latin. Cambridge, 1871.
MUNRO, H. A. J., and PALMER, E. A Syllabus of Latin Pronunciation. Oxford and Cambridge, 1872.
RICHARDSON, J. F. Roman Orthoëpy: a Plea for the Restoration of the True System of Latin Pronunciation. New York, 1859.
RITSCHL, F. Zur Geschichte des Lateinischen Alphabets in the Rheinisches Museum, 1869.
ROBY, H, J. A Grammar of the Latin Language from Plautus to Suetonius. London, 1881.
SCHUCHARDT, H. Der Vokalismus des Vulgärlateins. Leipzig, 1866-68.
SEELMANN, E. Die Aussprache des Latein nach physiologisch-historischen Grundsätzen. Heilbronn, 1885.
SIEVERS, E. Grundzüge der Phonetik. Leipzig, 1885.
SWEET, H. A Handbook of Phonetics. Oxford, 1877.
TAFEL, L., and TAFEL, R. Latin Pronunciation and the Latin Alphabet. New York and Philadelphia, 1860.
TAYLOR, ISAAC. The Alphabet. London, 1883.
WEIL, H., and BENLOEW, L. Théoric Gënérale de l'Accentuation Latine. Paris, 1855.
WORDSWORTH, J. Fragments and Specimens of Early Latin. Oxford, 1874.

[See also articles by Prof. Max Müller and Mr. Munro in the Academy, Feb. 15, 1871; Dec. 15, 1871; and Jan. 11, 1872; and by Prof. J. C. Jones in the Classical Review, Feb. 1893.]