« ПредыдущаяПродолжить »
which has been before the public upwards of forty years,—and this statement is “accompanied by illustrations and proofs. But while Professor Richardson thus disclaims all originality of investigation in regard to the fundamental questions which pertain to this subject, the Plea as such, the general considerations by which scholars and teachers are urged to adopt the results of the labors of others, would naturally be his own. Nor is there anything to the contrary said by the author of the Plea. There is no reference, that we can find, to a valuable and interesting article on this subject, which appeared in the year 1849, , in the sixty-eighth volume of the North American Review, pp. 436-465; and yet the Plea contains substantially, page after page of this article, only varied a little in its phraseology, which, for want of reference or quotation-marks, the casual reader would have attributed to the mind and pen of Professor Richardson himself. We give our readers a specimen from the Plea and the Review in parallel columns, and we think that they will be struck both with the discrepancies and with the agreements of the phraseology of the two books.
Thus on page 11, Professor And the N. A. Review, p. Richardson says:
436:“Although the English is now the “The English alphabet is the most most irregular and confused of all the confused and disordered of all. Yet alphabets of Europe, yet no modern no modern tongue began its career as a tongue entered upon its career as a written language under better auspices written language, with better prospects than the Anglo-Saxon. The Roman alof securing a harmonious system of phabet was adapted to this language orthoëpy than the Anglo-Saxon. To with excellent judgment. The characthis language the Roman alphabet was ters of this alphabet were employed to very skillfully adapted. All the sounds denute the sounds, which the two lanwhich the two languages had in com- guages had in common; while to repmon were represented by characters resent those which were wanting in the taken from the Roman alphabet, while Latin, characters were invented or were those which were wanting in the Latin borrowed from other alphabets. The were indicated by characters newly in- disorder which prevails in the notation vented or borrowed from other alpha- of our language is not to be attributed bets. . . . The unequaled irregu- to our Anglo-Saxon ancestors. It is to larities of English orthoëpy are attrib- be ascribed chiefly to the Norman asutable not to the lack of sagacity and cendancy in England and to the influgood judgment on the part of our Anglo-ence which the superior civilization of Saxon ancestors, but to the undue influ- | the French gave them over the higher horts the teachers to use great dili“ In like manner, the learned men of gence,” &c. the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries endeavored to maintain the pure
ence of the Norman conquerors of England over its language as well as over its laws and customs.”
classes in that country, who not only imitated their more refined neighbors in matters in which they were worthy to give example, but
followed them in their errors with equal zeal."
Again, on page 13 :
Page 443 : “At this period of English history “These citations are from Lily's very great attention was paid to the Grammar, first published in the reign study of the Latin. The elementary of Henry the Eighth, a period when the works employed in the schools abound study of Latin was highly cultivated in warnings, not only against grave er- in England. Great attention was at rors of pronunciation, but also against that time paid to the pronunciation of minor faults of articulation.
this language. In the elementary works, Philology, it its true, was not then un- not only is the pupil warned against derstood or cultivated as a science and
palpable errors of the kind above reno special value was set on the im- ferred to, but slight faults of enunciaportance of preserving the sounds of tion are pointed out. . Philolothe language unchanged; but the supe- gy, as a science, had not then even an riority of euphony to cacophany, of existence, and the importance of preharmony to discord, was fully appre- serving the sound of root letters was ciated, and thus on principles of good a thing unknown. But the value of taste, though not of philological science, pure and harmonious sounds was fully the scholars of that and of the two suc- appreciated; and, in all that regarded ceeding centuries sought to preserve the euphony of the Latin language, the unimpaired the purity and beauty of scholars of that day were careful guardLatin orthoëpy. The most distinguish | ians of its purity. The most eminent ed men of those times took a lively in
men of that time did not disdain to interterest in the preservation of this sys- est themselves in its preservation. We tem. In a letter addressed by Cardinal have proof of this in a letter addressed Wolsey to the masters of his school at by Cardinal Wolsey to the masters of Ipswich, he exhorts the teachers to give his school at Ipswich, in which he exgreat diligence," &c.
Page 460:sounds of the language, and remon- “We find scattered through the writ. strated against the growing corruption ings of men of letters of the seventeenth of Latin pronunciation, urging, among and eighteenth centuries, complaints of other considerations, that unless this the deterioration of the pronunciation process of deterioration was arrested, of Latin, and the inconveniences resultthe language would no longer serve ing from it, this language no longer as a medium of oral communication be- serving as a medium of oral communi. tween English and continental scholars, cation between English scholars and Prominent among those who thus cen- those of the continent of Europe. sured the increasing barbarity of the “From among those who have cen
English mode of pronouncing Latin, stands the majestic and classical Milton."
sured the barbarous pronunciation of Latin
among their countrymen, and have desired to reform it, we cannot select a higher authority than that of Milton."
We will not continue these extracts, although pages more might be added, which exhibit similar resemblances of thought and language. With regard to this mode of appropriating this Article of the Review, it must be true, either that Professor Richardson undesignedly omitted to give due credit to the learned authoress whose thoughts he uses, or he was willing to have it supposed they were his own. If he admits the latter, he admits an impropriety, for which he would probably discipline the pupils of his University, if they were detected in it. If he claims the former, and urges that it was an oversight, then we say, that a scholar who proposes to the whole world of classical men so great a reform as his book aims at, weakens the force of his plea, if he shows that his own mind is barren of such general considerations of the subject as form the proper substance of his part of the argument.
But the merits of Latin pronunciation do not depend on these questions. They may, it is true, diminish the scholarly authority of the individual who proposes a reform, or they may not. But the proposal itself must stand on its own merits.
Professor Richardson sets forth the following scheme of the vowel sounds: “x like the English åh, as in dă-bam. Ā like the English āh, as in nā-bam. Ě like a in English fåte, as in vě-nio. Ē like a in English fāne, as in vē-ni. I like ee in English fleet, as in vặ-deo. i like ee in English flee, as in vī-di. o like o in English note, as in fð-veo. õ like o in English tone, as in fò-vi. ŭ like oo in English boot, as fü-gio.
ū like oo in English moon, as in fū-gi.” The diphthongs he gives as follows :“Æ (=AI) like ay, the English adv. of affirmation. '
Au like on in English now.
oe in English co-equal, if pronounced rapidly, the former as a monosyllable, the latter as a dissyllable. It is nearly, but not quite, equivalent to oi in the English coil."
The only consonants, he says, respecting which there is any difference of opinion, are c, g, qu, j, s, and t. He therefore discusses no other. To c he would give invariably the sound of k, to g the hard sound, as in the English get, to qu the sound of k, to j the sound of the English y, thus jam=yam, to s always the sound it has in the English sin, and to t invariably the simple t sound, as in the English to. The degree of change which this scheme would make in the ordinary pronunciation of Latin, will be partially illustrated by presenting some familiar sentence in a form which will give the sounds which the scheme requires. And we do it not by any means for the sake of ridicule, for we believe that it comes nearer to the ancient pronunciation than our own, but only to exhibit the greatness of the change. We will take the first sentence of the
Oratio M. T. Ciceronis pro A. L. Archia. Si quid est in me ingenii, judices, quod sentio quam sit exiguum, aut si qua exercitatio dicendi, in qua me non infitior mediocriter esse versatum, aut si hujusce rei ratio aliqua, &c.
These words are to be pronounced as they are given below, ah representing the sound of a in father, and a simply the sound of a in maker, the sound being prolonged or shortened, in time only, according to quantity. The other sounds will be obvious. We omit the indications of accent and quantity.
Orahteeo M. T. Keekaronees pro Oulo Leekeeneeo Arkeeah.
See keed ast een ma eenganecee, yoodeekas, kod (o as in note) santeeo kahm seet axeegoooom, out see kah axarkeetahteeo deekandee, een kah ma non (o as in tone) een feetecor madeeokreetar varsahtoom, out see, hooyooska raee rahteeo ahleekah, &c.
It is manifest from this example that a great change is proposed,—it may almost be called an entire change of the language as uttered by the living voice,-a change so great that a scholar accustomed only to the ordinary English method of pronoun
cing Latin would probably not recognize the language at all. Nor would a German, or French, or Italian scholar fare much better. In practice it is a new language under the sun; for, except Rochester University and a few schools perhaps which have been convinced by Professor Richardson's Plea, no Institutions on earth, high or low, so far as we know, have adopted this restored “true system of Latin Pronunciation.”
And ought we not to consider long and thoroughly, and be sure that this restored system is the true system, well-founded in all its parts, before we adopt it? We think so; and not only because of the great confusion which it would at first occasion among students of Latin, but because it involves, as we think, a gradual revolution in the pronunciation of our own language. For, to speak first of Latin words which we have adopted, how long will Cicero maintain his place in English pronunciation after the rod shall have banished him from the lips of all Anglo-Saxon boys and girls who thumb the little Latin histories of the men of Rome, and shall have substituted the classical Keekaro in his place? How long will Cæsar stand against Kaisar, Scipio against Skeepeeo, Fabricius against Fahbreekecoos, Cyrus against Keeroos, Tacitus against Takeetoos, and so on through a long list of proper names which make a familiar part of our English language? We have also quite a group of Latin phrases domesticated in our language, which will have to be transformed. Prima facie evidence will become preemah fahkeea evidence, the quid pro quo, keed pro ko; the genius loci, a ganeeoos lokee; the mens conscia, a mans conskoeah, (o as in cone); scilicet, skeeleekat; vice versa, vecka varsah; et cetera, et katarah. Observe also the changes that must be made in the following every-day expressions :- Anglice, viva voce, per centum, ex officio, concio, ecce homo, ne quid nimis, principia, quantum sufficit, &c.
But all these proper names and Latin phrases are very few, when compared with the English words which preserve in their composition one or more whole syllables taken from the Latin. Can such words long retain their present pronunciation against the united, though perhaps unconscious and involuntary inclination of all the educated men who speak Eng