though without the accent, and the short quantity of the initial and accented syllable. 24. As to the long quantity arising from the succession of two consonants, which the ancients are uniformn in asserting, if it did not mean that the preceding vowel was to lengthen its sound, as we should do by pronouncing the a in scatter as we do in skater, (one who skates) I have no conception of what it meant; for if it meant that only the time of the syllable was prolonged, the vowel retaining the same sound, I must confess as utter an inability of comprehending this source of quantity in the Greek and Latin as in English. Banish, banner, and banter, have to our ears the first syllable equally short: the same may be observed of senate, seminary, sentence, and sentiment; and if, as an ingenious critict has asserted, the ancients pronounced both the consonants in callidus, fallo, &c. that is finishing one / by separating the tongue from the palate before the other is begun, such a pronunciation must necessarily augment the number of sylla bles, nearly as if written calelidus, falelo, &c. and is therefore contrary to all the rules of ancient prosody; nor would this pronunciation to our ears give the least length to the preceding vowel, any more than the succeeding mute does in sentence and sentiment. * If the double consonants naturally made a syllable long, I should be glad to know how there could be exceptions to this rule? How could Ammonius say, that the second syllable of xáтayua was long, when the word was used in one particular sense, and short in another? And how could Cicero say, that the first letter of inclytus was short, and the first of insanus and infelix long, if two succeeding consonants naturally lengthened the syllable? Dr. Forster, indeed, attempts to reconcile this contradiction, by observing that Cicero does not say, the first syllable of inclytus is short, but the first letter; but it may be demanded, what is it that makes the syllable long or short, but the length or shortness of the vowel? If the double consonants necessarily retard the sound of the vowel, the second syllable of xárayıca, and the first of inclytus, conld not possibly be pronounced short; and particularly the latter word could not be so pronounced, as it has the accent on the first syllable. See sect. 16, in the note. ↑ Essay upon the Harmony of Language, page 228. 233. ROBSON, 1774. 25. When these observations on the accent and quantity of the ancients are all put together, shall we wonder that the learned and ingenious author of Elements of Criticism* should go so far as to assert that the dactyls and spondees of hexameter verse, with respect to pronunciation, are merely ideal, not only with us, but that they were so with the ancients themselves? few, however, will adopt an opinion which will necessarily imply that the Greek and Latin critics were utterly ignorant of the nature of their own language: and every admirer of those excellent writers will rather embrace any explanation of accent and quantity, than give up Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Cicero, Quintilian, and Longinus. Suppose then, as a last refuge, we were to try to read a Greek or Latin verse, both by accent and quantity in the manner they have prescribed, and see what such a trial will produce. 26. By quantity, let us suppose the vowel lengthened to express the long quantity; and by the acute accent, the rising inflexion as explained above. Títyrè, tú pátula récubans súb tégmine fági, Tityrě, tu pătulæ recubāns sub tēgmĭně fāgī, Teétyre too pátulee récubanes soób teêgmine fági, Μήνιν άειδε Θεὰ Πηληϊάδεω ̓Αχιλῆος Μήνιν άειδε Θέα Πηληϊάδεω Αχιλήος Mêan-in á-eye-de The-ày Pea-lea-e-á-dyo A-kil-lêa-ose * Elements of Criticism, vol. II. page 106. See also the Essay upon the Har mony of Language, page 234. 27. Now there are but four possible ways of pronouncing these verses without going into a perfect song*: one is, to pronounce the accented syllable with the falling inflexion, and the unaccented syllable with the same inflexion in a lower tone, which is the way we pronounce our own words when we give them the accent with the falling inflexion: the second is, to pronounce the accented syllable with the rising inflexion, and the unaccented syllables with the same inflexion in a lower tone, which we never hear in our own language: the third is, to pronounce the accented syllable with the falling inflexion, and the unaccented syllables with the rising, in a lower tone: and the fourth, to pronounce the accented syllable with the rising inflexion, and the unaccented with the falling, in a lower tone. None of these modes but the first and last do we ever hear in our own language: the second and third seem too difficult to permit us to suppose that they could be the natural current of the human voice in any language. The first leaves us no possible means of explaining the circumflex, but the last, by doing this, gives us the strongest reason to suppose that the Greek and Latin acute accent was the rising inflexion, and the grave accent the falling inflexion, in a lower tone. *This, I may be bold to say, is coming to the point at once, without hiding our ignorance, by supposing that the ancients had some mysterious way of pronouncing which we are utterly incapable of conceiving. Mr. Sheridan tells us, that," the ancients did observe the distinction of accents by an elevation "and depression of voice; but the manner in which they did it must remain "for ever a secret to us; for, with the living tongue, perished the tones also ; “which we in vain endeavour to seek for in their visible marks.”---Lectures on Elocution, 4to edition, page 39.—From these and similar observations in many of our writers, one would be tempted to imagine, that the organs of speaking in ancient Greece and Rome were totally different from those of the present race of men in Europe. T 28. But if the reader were sufficiently acquainted with these inflexions of voice, or could be present while I exemplified them to him, I doubt not that he would immediately say, it was impossible so monotonous a pronunciation, could be that of the Greeks and Romans*: but when we consider the monotony of the Scotch, Welsh, and Irish, why should we wonder that other nations should be as monotonous? Let us view the Greek and Latin pronunciation on which side we will, we must, to be consistent with their own rules, feel them to be extremely monotonous. According to the laws of ancient prosody, every unaccented syllable must be lower than that which is accented; and if so, a most disagreeable monotony must necessarily ensue: for as every word in Latin, and almost every word in Greek, of more than one syllable, ended with the grave accent, that is, in a lower tone than the preceding syllables, almost every word in those languages ended with the same tone, let that tone have been what it would+. 29. I am supported in this conjecture, notwithstanding all Dr. Burney tells us, that Meibomius, the great and learned Meibomius, when prevailed upon at Stockholm to sing Greek strophes, set the whole court of Christina in a roar; as Naudé did in executing a Roman dance. And Scaliger observes, that if the nice tonical pronunciation of the ancients could be expressed by a modern, it would be disagreeable to our ears. This is certainly too general an assertion, if we consider the real pronunciation of the Greek language according to accent; as it must be allowed that a great number of Greek words were accented with the acute or circumflex on the last syllable; but when we consider the modern pronunciation of Greek which confounds it with the atin, we shall not have occasion to recall the assertion. To which we may add, that those words in Greek that were circumflexed on the last syllable may very properly be said to end with the grave accent; and that those which had a grave upon the final syllable altered the grave to an acute only when they were pronounced alone, when they came before an enclitic, or when they were at the end of the sentence. the fine things the ancients, and many of the moderns, say of the variety and harmony of the Greek and Latin languages, by the definition which they give of the circumflex accent; which is, that it was a combination of the acute and grave upon the same syllable. This is so incomprehensible to modern ears, that scarcely any one but the author of the present Observations has attempted to explain it by experiment. It stands for nothing but long quantity in all our schools; and, contrary to the clearest testimonies of antiquity, it has, by Dr. Gally+ and a late respectable writer on the Greek and Latin Prosodies, been explained away into nothing more than the acute accent. But if it means a raising and falling of the voice upon the same syllable, which is the definition the ancients uniformly give of it, it is just as easy to conceive as raising and falling the voice. upon successive syllables; or, in other words, as going from a lower tone to a higher upon one syllable, and from a higher to a lower upon the next and this consideration leads me to conjecture, that the acute accent of the ancients was really the rising The Grecian sage, (says Dr. Burney,) according to Gravína, was at once a philosopher, a poet, and a musician. "In separating these characters,” says he," they have all been weakened; the system of philosophy has been con"tracted; ideas have failed in poetry, and force and energy in song. Truth no "longer subsists among mankind: the philosopher speaks not at present through "the medium of poetry; nor is poetry heard any more through the vehicle of "melody."" Now to my apprehension," says Dr. Burney," the reverse of "all this is exactly true: for, by being separated, each of these professions "receives a degree of cultivation, which fortifies and renders it more powerful, "if not more illustrious. The music of ancient philosophers, and the philo"sophy of modern musicians, I, take to be pretty equal in excellence. History of Music, vol. I. page 162.-Here we see good sense and sound philosophy con trasted with the blind admiration and empty flourish of an overgrown school-boy concluding his theme + Dissertation against Greek Accents, page 53. Ꭲ . |
