Full text of "An essay on the different nature of accent and quantity, with their use and application in the English, Latin, and Greek languages: containing remarks on the metre of the English; on the origin and aeolism of the Roman; on the general history of the Greek; with an account of its ancient tones, and a defense of their present accentual marks. With some additions from the papers of Dr. Taylor and Mr. Markland. To which is subjoined, the Greek elegiac poem of M. Musurus, addressed to Leo X, with a Latin version and notes"

See other formats

Sate

alate!

Heals ἐδ
ist ἐς

eee
ae aera i

}

f
Ἶ

reste
itis
qty

ΠΣ ΗΟ γε τε

ἢ
pied: THT a
Henne ἐρεῖν aaiat

june:

ἐν
sepia

STs τς τ
set

2
Ξ

QAELIBRARY. Oe

r=)

ONV.SOF

aQtLIBRARY.Oe

=
Ξ
Θ
in
φΦΘ

as”
assaninnays

Θ
Ξ
oe

HEUNIVERS 7p

Ων

MWR

HEUMIVERD

γε-

Εὶ
Ξ
Ξ

eae
Froamn-19

ye
Ξ
15:
ξ

F-CALIFORy,

<AELIBRARY.O¢
ἤμραπν9.0

τς
εἶ
ΞΞ
=
Y

E-LIBRARY Qe

Hagaiva-s0

OF: me,
2

SANNA

sOSANEES
avanwnays

ων,
Us

sey
$7139

δὰ
itt et

JOAN: aA

ragavy4o”

Ἢ
Ξ
=
Θ

OF CALF
FORMA

AELIBRARY Oe Ἃ

os
Φ
SG

<iEUNIVERS >.
-cTRONWSOY

aanay>

$
=

be
Ξ
ξ

ge
Ξ
Ὁ

KAELIBRARY Qe

“Aoattvs0
ΩΣ

ἔπ

ΑΜ απ»

POAT

τ
δ,

OF CALIFORY,
en 7
Ξ =
%

YONWHAN: a

SUEUNIVERS/

“Hyg4 Πν}:Ὁ

Wes,
Zenmavsors
aahanhipinn

= So

Ξξ ΞΕ Ξ
Ets

<“S71BONV-SOLS*

OF-CALI ag

iene
sor

Pe,

onavuane ΣῊΝ

peti ὦ

F-CALI \%

«ἢ

USHINNNIDY

IE UNIVERS,
of
et i)
Ξ
S
=x
so

«ἢ

ἔπει

LOS: ae

OF NS
AUVHGITEAS”

a
%;

Osanna

ἘΠῚ

40518 if “Ὁ

or FORy,
Jonna

OT STAT Tet \c

Ομ eegam ἃ δυο δ

SHEUNIVERS/

OAMVESAS

My
8
Ξ
Ἢ

<x 0F-CALIFORy,
“oLaVEAN®

% §
ww

OF-CALIFORy,
ὌΠΙΝ

5 =
aganv-40
OF-CAUFC

AMEUNVERS Zp,

STIJINV-SO}

SELIBRARY Oe

AN
WON)

<gXtUBRARY.Qe

7 Ξ
ΚΣ
ΟΡ CALIFORY

Ξ ξ

“OABVHATAYY

ane
ςΞ

ἸΣ ' Ξ

<QEUBRARYOs,
ἘΞ

OF-CALIFO

ES
=
a
Ὧν

%
5
Ξ

-3.0F-CALIFOR
Φ
ONVHENIY

Re
7

%
δ

OF-CALIFORY
ὍΛΑ 4Π3

AMECUNEVERS/Zy

“ST 1IONY-SO1

LIBRARY-Gs

ἕ
ΠΔ0111Ν}2.0

χὰ
4

<AE-LIBRARY' Oe

3
; $
MA0sIVI.I0™*
OF CALIFORY,

WR:
=
?

ORIVHANAS

\OSANGELES.»

ays

EUNIVERS 2

«ἢ

SMEDNIVERSy,

δ: 2
= 3
φ =

= :
5

S :

SQSWYANUILESD.

ιν

Af) UU,

SAINI

4403 T1VI-30°
OF-CALIFOR,
εις

Ε |

“OxUAT

Torna nw’

rina ΟΔΊ

gen

Ὁ « X¢
ASIN

ax liSMeley

ΝΛ ΩΝ ἮΝ
ὍΝ δ λιν, δ τ τ ἮΝ

Ἢ ἐλ ΓΝ ἡ γὼ ΚΩ͂, ‘i f

pee? nl Pe ma Oy ae \

ΑΝ

ὈΒΡΑΥ

DIFFERENT NATURE
ACCENT AND QUANTITY,

&e. Se.

ΑΝ

ESSAY

ON THE DIFFERENT NATURE

- ser

“ACCENT AND QUANTITY, ~~

WITH THEIR USE AND APPLICATION

”

IN THE

ENGLISH, LATIN, AND GREEK LANGUAGES:

CONTAINING

Remarks on the Metre of the English; on the Origin and Holism of the Roman; on the
General History of the Greek; with an Account of its Ancient Tones, and a
Defence of their present Accentual Marks.

WITH SOME ADDITIONS FROM THE PAPERS OF
DR. TAYLOR AND MR. MARKLAND.

TO WHICH 15 SUBJOINED,

THE GREEK ELEGIAC POEM OF M. MUSURUS,
ADDRESSED TO LEO X.

WITH A LATIN VERSION AND NOTES.

By JOHN FOSTER, M.A.

Late Fellow of King’s College, Cambridge.
ee

THE THIRD EDITION, CORRECTED AND MUCH ENLARGED,

CONTAINING

Dr. G&.’s Two Dissertations

Against pronouncing the Greek Language according to Accents.

WITH A REPLY TO Dr. G.’s SECOND DISSERTATION
IN ANSWER TO THE ESSAY.

LONDON :

PRINTED BY J. F. DOVE, ST. JOHN’S SQUARE,
FOR RICHARD PRIESTLEY, 145, HIGH HOLBORN.

1820.

ὯΨ..

ἷ f αος Pits

iily ohh ; si its ite a

ary

pore ae οἷν

aol Ἢ jie γῇ
; sna hy Oy τὰν ; ;

i hex Vie κἢν“ ὟΝ ἣ ‘ahi Wi
ὃ ? " nN
{ MO TA ΠΑΝῚ. ay , ; aA ia }
i ee ἢ ᾿ ᾿ δὺο ΟΝ
ἡ Ἂ ἢ" “ἊΝ pre i f wraytes yn Reto coehhllint 5 ie ἰὰ ὶ
2 = ν "
u , at Mas 4 '
ν᾽ , ᾿ ot vane oe f
i a gts : A SPs Ohh i
ye lca ἐν 9 τι : : τι
er IS Ἀπ τ ΝΜ Rind wi CRC y ea er a
bk ἱ , ΤΑΝ : - ay
I eb ar, me {Say tks) Oe RES ae ee
St ΤΣ t ΤῊΝ ἷ h J
i ohn wid =
. i 4 u , BS ΛΕ,
n Ψ 4
‘ a |

THE RIGHT HONOURABLE

JAMES GRENVILLE,

ONE OF HJS MaJESTY’S MOST HONOURABLE

PRIVY¥-COUNCIL,

WHOSE KNOWLEDGE, AND REGARD FOR
ANCIENT LITERATURE,
INDUCE HIM TO FAVOUR EVERY ATTEMPT

TO ILLUSTRATE ANY PART OF IT;

THIS ESSAY,

UNDERTAKEN WITH HIS ENCOURAGEMENT,

IS, WITH THE UTMOST RESPECT,
INSCRIBED BY
HIS MUCH OBLIGED,

AND MOST OBEDIENT SERVANT,

J. FOSTER.

' es ΗΒ Set eG ἡ
Ἂς δ ἢ δὴ πη, sil a

de
meh’ ἝΝ ὯΝ πα

PREFACE | 62!

TO THE SECOND EDITION.

IN order to illustrate ina clearer manner some incidental
points, which are connected with my main question, a few
corrections and many additions have, since the first pub-
lication of this Essay, appeared necessary. Of this kind
the reader will find, in the following pages, some farther
observations on the harmony and verse of our own lan-
guage ; on certain peculiarities in the origination of the
Roman; and on the long continued purity of the Greek.
Particularly the ratio of the falling times in the doctrine
of accents, as they differ in the Roman and Greek lan-
guages, and the distinction between the accentual and
metrical arsis, the confusion of which hath frequently
perplexed this subject, and which I did not sufficiently
point out, are here more accurately stated. Many posi-
tive proofs of the authenticity of our present Greek ac-
centuation, from the ancient grammarians, are likewise
now added: which, although more easily produced than
those general proofs of presumption and inference before
alleged, and in themselves, and their own nature, less
cogent (because they are often confined to single words,
whereas the general proofs of induction extend to the
system of a whole language), are yet to some readers
more persuasive, and are therefore not here omitted.

My particular acknowledgments are onthis occasion

Vill PREFACE.

due to Dr. Taylor and Mr. Markland, for what they have
kindly communicated to me for my use in this edition:
to the former, for directing me to some passages in an-
cient authors relating to my question, which had not
occurred to me in the course of my own reading ; to the
latter, for confirming my opinion by the authority of his
own general sentiments on the same subject, and for his
correction and illustration of several passages in the
Elegy of Musurus: to both, for their favourable conde-
scension in shewing an attention to my imperfect endea-
vours towards explaining a part of those languages of
which they are the great and perfect masters.

INTRODUCTION:

ON THE

HISTORY AND STATE OF THE CONTROVERSY CON-
CERNING THE GREEK ACCENTUAL MARKS.

I AM not able to discover that the faithfulness and pro-
priety of the Greek accentual marks was ever much
doubted before the time of Isaac Vossius. The dispute
between Mr. Cheke, the famous Greek professor of Cam-
bridge, and his opponents, about the middle of the six-
teenth century, turned upon examining and determining
the sound of the Greek letters, taken singly ; not on the
sound of syllables, considered relatively* to each other
in their combined modulation, which is the subject be-
fore us at present, and very distinct therefore from that
which was then discussed with so much spirit, genius,
and learning, by Bishop Gardiner and Mr. Cheke. Ac-
cents had no share in this dispute. That laborious and
ingenious reformer of the Greek pronunciation left the
marks as he found them, looking on them as the genuine
signs of the ancient tones, and as authentic remains of
antiquity. But about ninety years ago an opinion was

* Thus Lipsius distinguishes be- frustra elementa mihi recte efferas, nisi
tween pronuntiatio elementaris andac- ex iis efficere possis junctim voces. At
centualis (de rect. pronunt. ling. lect. has non potes, sine justo legitimoque ac-
ce. 4.) Elementaris illa qui sufficiat?— centu. c. 17,

x ‘ INTRODUCTION.

started by the younger * Vossius, among others equally
whimsical, in his book de cantu Poematum et viribus
Rhythmi, concerning the impropriety and barbarism of
the marks. This hypothesis, though hastily and incon-
siderately formed, yet coming from a man of genius,
and falling in with the prejudices ofmany northern ears,
was favourably received by several of the learned, par-
ticularly in Holland and} Germany. And being further
explained, and enforced in a particular treatise, a few
years after, by { Henr. Christianus Henninius, it hath
since that time much prevailed in other parts of Eu-
rope: and produced lately two other treatises, writ-
ten with the same view, the one by Mirtisbus Sarpedo-
nius, published at Rome in 1750, the other a few years

* He was nota man from whom any
thing accurate was to be expected,
novelty being his great object, astruth
was his father Gerard’s. His charac-
is well drawn by Dr. Thirlby in Dedi-
cat. ad Just. Martyr: Erant in Vossio
mull@ litere, ingenium excellens, judi-
cium etiam, si non maximum, at tantum
quantum ei satis superque fuit: qui, nisi
omnia me fallunt, quid in quavis re ve-
rum esset, leviter curavit perspicere. Sa-
tis habuwit nova, devia, mirabilia, in cri-
tica, in philosophia, in theologia querere
et excogilare: vera anne falsa essent, id
vero aliis exquirendum reliquit, qui sua
isthuc interesse existimarent.

+ “Id quoque Henninius et Major
effecerunt, ut mulli eruditorum, ma-
xime in Saxonia inferiore, accentus in
scriplis suis omittant.” Joh. Simon in
Tntroduct. Grammatico-Critica in Ling.
Grecam, sect. ii. 22.

+ He published it under the title of
Ἑλληνισμὸς ᾿Ορϑωδός. Traject. ad Rhen.
Ann. 1684. <A treatise on the same
subject was written in support of Hen-
ninius’ doctrine by Joh. Dan. Major,
Professor Kiluniensis, in Epistola de
An-

nummis Grece inscriptis, &e.

other defence of Henninius was drawn
up by Ὁ. G. Hoffmannus in Comment.
de lingue Grece modulatione sine ac-
centibus. But the arguments of these
two authors being drawn from the omis-
sion of accentual marks on coins, and
other inscribed monuments of anti-
It is well
centuries,

quity, amount to nothing.
known that, for several
none but capital letters were used in
public monuments and records, and
MSS. in general: and with capitals these
marks could not well be joined. But
even if they could, those who dispute
the existence of old accents from the
non-appearance of their marks, may,
with as good reason, question the exis-
tence of ancient quanlity ; for the
marks of that do not appear either in
old or modern writings. Some other
authors of inferior note and conse-
quence have writlen against our ac-
cents : Drusius, de recta lectione lin-
gue δ. c. 4. Joh. Heyliusin Dissert. de
Accentibus Grec. Herm. Hardtius in
Studioso Graco. p. 146, seq. Hedericus
in Manuduct. ad scient. Philolog. p.
129.

INTRODUCTION. xi

after by Dr. G. at London; who seems to think he hath
put the finishing stroke to the project of Vossius, and
completed the judicious work of subverting the Greek
marks of accentuation.

This opinion appears to spread daily, and to have
already operated so far, as to induce the present edi-
tors of Greek in a great University to join openly in
this declaration against the marks, by discarding them
entirely from some of their printed copies. This inno-
vation in the manner of printing Greek, lately seen in
some Oxford * editions, and expected in others, led
me to consider with myself the reasons of this alter-
ation. The novelty of the thing, though agreeable to
my own sentiments at that time, yet engaged my par-
ticular notice, and drew me insensibly to examine
with more care, than I had ever done before, the na-
ture and use of these marks, and the motives for this
suppression of them; not without some hopes, that
such an inquiry, if conducted with caution and diligence,
might perhaps in the end repay the trouble of it, by
affording me the satisfaction of finding out those rea-
sons, which determined the University editors to this new
method; and of confirming likewise my own pre-con-
ceived opinion concerning them, as well by my own
rational conviction, as by the authority of an academical
press. With this view, I began to consider with all the
accuracy and attention of which I was capable, the sub-
ject of accent and quantity ; examining first their general
nature, and then their particular use in the pronunciation
of those languages with which I was most acquainted.
This I did, with many old prejudices, on my first en-

* Tt has been said that these edi- And in that book the marks .of accent

tions are to be considered as coming
from private persons, not from the Uni-
versity. However this may be, it is
certain that a book of verses, pub-
lished and presented to his Majesty by
the University as a body, must be un-
derstood as theirs in a peculiar sense.

are omitted. Whether, therefore, there
was any intention, or not, of recom-
mending such an omission, it does
and will appear to every indifferent
stranger, that it is at least counte-
nanced by this mode of printing used
by them on so public an occasion.

xti INTRODUCTION.

gaging in the inquiry against accent and its marks, as
inconsistent with genuine quantity, which undoubtedly
is to be duly observed ;* and which many persons have
been taught to consider as the only thing to be regarded
in the pronunciation of Greek and Latin. But notwith-
standing these prepossessions, and some secret wishes
that I might upon examination find my old notions to be
right; the result of my research was very different from
what I expected, and gave a determination to my opinion
contrary to my former sentiments, and even to my hopes;
leaving me to the disagreeable conviction of having been
for several years in a mistake, and having often too in-
considerately asserted, upon weak and treacherous au-
thority, what I now find to be erroneous.

It soon appeared to me, on reading what some others
had written on this subject, that it had been much
puzzled, as many other points have in like manner been,
by the use of undefined terms in an indeterminate vague
sense. 'The word accent I have found used by the same
writer in four very wide and different senses ; expressing
sometimes elevation, sometimes prolongation of sound,
sometimes a stress of voice compounded of the other
two, and sometimes the artificial accentual mark. In
this case, whether several distinct ideas are confounded
in the writer’s mind, or whether he only uses the same
word as applicable to them all, though distinct; the
consequence is the same to the reader, who is often led
by this into great perplexity. This ambiguity of terms
I determined carefully to guard against, as well on ac-
count of convenience to myself in the course of my in-
quiry, as of perspicuity to the reader.

As the true nature of the acute accent (which by way

* Some writers, who have occasion-
ally mentioned the Greek accents, as
Mr. Dawes, Mr. Gilbert West, and
others, have commended the Eton me-
thod of teaching Greek, for prescribing
the strictest regard to quantity: which

is indeed true, bul nol in a manner ex-

clusive of accents: which are still con-
tinued in all the printed copies used in
that school. The rules likewise for
avcenting are retained in the grammars,
and the observation of them always re-

commended.

INTRODUCTION. xiil
of eminence is often called the accent) had never, that I
could find, in this controversy been satisfactorily stated,
it seemed a proper and necessary part of this disquisi-
tion to explain its true power. Without such an expla-
nation, how its consistency or inconsistency with quan-
tity could ever be determined, I cannot see. For how
can the agreement or disagreement of any two things be
ascertained, while one of them is unknown? And yet
in this dispute the nature and essence of the acute seems
to have been not only unknown, but entirely overlooked
and disregarded. The want of this explication makes
Mr. Wetstein’s defence of the Greek accents so defec-
tive.* This person, who was professor of Greek at
Basil, published a small dissertation, in which, with
much learning and good reasoning, as far as his argu-
ment went, he answered Henninius. But it could not
be in general satisfactory, as it clears not any difficulty
with which the Greek accent to many northern readers
seems to be embarrassed. In the question he + argues
from books only; he appeals not to sense, nor endea-
vours to reconcile the Greek acute, according to its
position in our modern copies, to the nature of human
sound, depending as it does on our organs of speech
and hearing. And till the way could be opened for the
admission of the acute on the general principles of
sound, the futile objections of Henninius were likely
to be more forcible with most of his readers, than
the severest reasoning of Mr. Wetstein, built on the
testimony of authors, Henninius had the advantage

* His, however, is far better than
that of Franc. Woergerus in Biblioth.
Lubec. vol. vii. p. 414. seq. who wrote
chiefly in answer to Major : or that of
Wedelius in Exercit. Medico-Philolog.
Cent. II. Dec. 2. or of Stockius in
Literatore Greco, p. 21. The anony-
mous author of a short piece on this
subject in “ the present State of the
Republic of Letters, Ann.1728.” speaks
of a treatise of Jos. Barnes, either writ-

ten or promised by him in answer to
Henninius : but of this I can gain no
intelligence.

+ Mr. Wetstein had not a clear idea
of accent, as distinct from quantity. In
many parts of his dissertation he con-
founds them (p. 66, &c.) and puzzles
himself exceedingly by referring ac-
cent to metre. This involves hii in
great difficulties, p. 131, 152, Se:

χὶν INTRODUCTION.

of addressing his arguments to the gross sense and ver-
nacular practice of his followers; who, by a partial
way of thinking (into which even scholars are too apt to
fall), judged of all possible pronunciation by their own,
and had no idea of the harmonious flexibility of a Gre-
cian voice, while they referred all vocal utterance to the
rigid and untuneable nature of their own.

Some others, who have written on this subject, give
us no opinion whatever of their own concerning the
acute. ‘They argue often, as if they thought it partook
of the nature of a long quantity, and yet are ashamed to
own it. Dr. G. I must acknowledge, does speak out,
and by the account he gives of it, plainly shews that he
looks on its real power as little differing from that of
a long time. To whom therefore an answer is more
readily and easily given.

Quinctilian very justly observes, “ that mere litera-
ture without a knowledge of sounds will not enable a
man to treat properly of metre and rhythm.”* And ac-
cordingly our present subject, which tums on the qua-
lity and measures of sounds, doth certainly as much fall
under the judgment of sense, as of mere erudition.
But although it is undoubtedly in its nature scientific
as well as literary, it has hitherto been little considered
as such. Many persons in discussing it, talk very
learnedly of the late introduction of accents (by which
can be meant only the accentual marks), settle the dates
of the oldest manuscripts, observe in some of them the
omission of these marks, and then call them the barba-

* «Tum nec citra Musicen Gramma-
tive potest esse perfecta, cum ei de
rhythmis metrisque dicendum sit.” lib.
i.c. 4. LTwish 1 had that knowledge
of music, which Quinctilian seems here
fo require. I have however without it
done every thing thal was in iny power,
towards securing myself from error in
this question, by drawing from the

ancient writers on music a defimition

or explication of those terms, which
grammarians have borrowed from them
and used on this subject. And the ex-
planation of those terms I found there
so distinct and clear, thatI could have
no doubt of the true meaning of φθόγ-
γος, τόνος, τάσις, χρόνος, ἐπίτασις, ἄνεσις,
ἐπιτείνομιαι, ἀνίημοι, ὀξὺς, ὀξύτης, βαρύτης,

διάστημα, Ke.

INTRODUCTION, KV

rous characters of an ignorant and illiterate age; by a
blunder of their own mistaking the power and true use
of these signs, and then in a decisive manner pronounc-
ing them repugnant to metre, rhythm, and all true har-
mony. And all this they conclude without attending in
the least to the deductions of sense and reason, or con-
sidering that, as vocal sounds are formed by organs of
speech which are essential and immutable parts of our
nature, they must have been in all ages substantially and
formally the same, though variously modified in their
application: and that if height and length are different
and distinct qualities of human sound at present, they
must have been soin the time of Homer or Aristotle.
I have therefore drawn an argument from the nature of
speech itself, in proof of the existence of ancient tones
distinct from quantity.

Such an argument, deduced from the nature and ne-
cessity of the human voice itself, is not likely (I am well
aware), to have much weight with many of my oppo-
nents, who, without a just discernment of ear, have
knowledge enough of Greek to understand its common
quantity and metre, and, under the influence of many
old prejudices, will listen to nothing in this case, but to
testimonies of antiquity, and learned authority. Ihave
therefore not only considered accent as founded in na-
ture, but proceeded to argue with them on their own
principles. The decision then of the question withthem
turns merely on matter of fact; first, ““ whether the an-
cients did, in their general pronunciation, regularly use
certain tones on certain syllables, very distinct from,
though consistent with, quantity” (for quantity we are
sure they did strictly observe), and then ‘‘ whether the
accentual virgule, as they are now settled in Greek books,
do faithfully mark those tones: whether the sounds, of
which they are the signs, were given to those syllables,
over which we now see the signs placed.”

In regard to the former of these points, it being con-
sidered as a fact of antiquity, and the ancients them-
selves being therefore the proper evidence of it, I care-

XVi INTRODUCTION.

fully consulted those authors, who are acknowledged to
be men of the greatest sagacity and accuracy in philo-
logical subjects; I mean Dionysius of Halicarnassus
among the Greeks, and Quinctilian among the Romans.
From them I soon learned, that their countrymen indis-
putably used regular tones or accents in ordinary pro-
nunciation, notwithstanding it has often been affirmed,
they were only of a musical nature. In Dionysius there
occurred not only express accounts of high and low
tones regularly assigned to certain syllables; but, what
is more, the very degree of elevation and depression, to
which tones were carried in ordinary and oratorical
speaking, most exactly ascertained.

As to the second point, concerning the virgule ; as
_they are acknowledged not to have been known to the
ancients, till two hundred years before Christ, the only
lights that could in this case be expected from them,
were some inferences to be collected from their accounts
of tones in general, by which we might on presumption
judge of the conformity or disagreement of the present
marks with them. And here much could not be gathered
from Dionysius, though he lived after the introduction
of the marks, except the assurance, that some passages
frequently cited from him to disprove their propriety,
had been either misunderstood, or wilfully misrepre-
sented, and did in effect conclude nothing against the
ancient tones themselves, or the faithfulness of their
present signs and characters, but on the other hand
strongly asserted the former, and much favoured the lat-
ter. But from Quinctilian I received much greater in-
formation, and indeed the fullest satisfaction: who, by
his very explicit account of the Roman accents; of the
conformity of his own language with a particular dia-
lect of the Greeks; of the general difference which sub-
sisted between the Latin tones, and those of the other
Greeks, in point of regularity and uniformity; easily
suggested to me such deductions, as tended greatly (so
far as presumptive proof can go) to vindicate our pre-
sent system of accentual marks, and convince me of the

INTRODUCTION. xVil
errors of many, who have carelessly treated this subject,
not excepting * Vossius himself. It moreover appeared,
on farther inquiry, that what could be proved by in-
ference from Quinctilian, was confirmed in several in-
stances by the positive assertions of the oldest and best
Greek grammarians ; those very writers, to whose au-
thority in this point an appeal is frequently made by my
opponents themselves.

i am not ignorant, that to many persons this subject
will appear more trifling than curious, and rather to ad-
mit than deserve adispute. But if the greatest philo-
sopher of Greece, and orator and statesman of Rome,
thought a nice examination of syllabic numbers not
unworthy their peculiar attention; if Messala+ could
condescend to write a whole book on the powers of sin-
gle letters; if Juba Ὁ could write on metre, and even
J. Cesar publish a treatise de Analogia ; if the great
Bishop of Winchester, Stephen Gardiner, could, con-
sistently with his high character and dignity, engage in
a like controversy with an University professor ; a sub-
ject of this kind cannot certainly be considered as be-
neath the regard of any ordinary scholar, who ought
not to look upon any thing connected with literature as
foreign to his own studies; especially of one, whose
profession and situation in a place of public instruction
makes some degree of accuracy, in any point relating to
the purity of the learned languages, at least excusable,
if not requisite. “Sed hec quoque vereor ne modum
tam parve questionis excesserint. Non vero obstant
hee discipline per illas euntibus, sed circa illas heeren-
tibus.”

* That part of his book, which re-
lates to the Greek accents, is from p.
15 to p. 31. A large extract from
thence is published by Henninius, at
the end of his own “EAAnuzpts “OS.
And to the pages of it, as printed there,
I shall refer, whenever I shall have
occasion to cite Vossius,

F Quinct. lib. i. c. 7.

¢ His eighth book is cited by Pris
cian, p. 1322. and his fourth by Rufi-
nus, p. 2711. In quoting, for the fu-
ture, the old Latin grammarians, I shall
refer, as I do here, to that edition of

them which Putschius gave.

XVilk INTRODUCTION.

But whatever judgment the public may form of these
my humble labours, I cannot lose the secret satisfaction
of having honestly endeavoured, in opposition to a
spreading opinion, to vindicate from the imputation of
ignorance, absurdity, and barbarism, the characters of
those learned Greeks of the lower empire, to whom Eu-
rope is greatly indebted for much of that sound know-
ledge it now has: whose exile and misfortunes are to be
pitied, whose abilities and genius to be honoured, whose
industry to be respected, whose labours to be thankfully
received, and of whom every true lover of Greek learn-
ing should with pleasure and gratitude acknowledge
himself a follower, and admirer,

E tenebris tantis tam clarum extollere lumen

Qui primi potuistis, et huic affulgere terre,
Ismario profugas ducentes litore Musas,

Vos sequor, o Grai@é gentis decora, inque verendis
Fixa pedum pono pressis vestigia signis.

Modern scholars are certainly very glad to enjoy the
benefit of the labours of these great men, though at the
same time they depreciate and vilify their characters:
they themselves disturbing and corrupting the stream of
Greek literature, and then imputing this foulness to that
channel, through which it continued to flow with its ori-
ginal purity.

On this head I beg leave of that right honourable and
learned person, under the protection of whose name
this Essay hath ventured publicly to contradict many
received opinions, to transcribe a sensible and spirited
passage from a letter, with which he honoured me on the
subject :—‘‘ I am a great admirer of that contrivance of
accentuation; and look upon it as a remarkable inven-
tion, framed by the most ingenious people that ever ap-
peared in the world, for adorning their language to the
utmost degree of refinement; and for settling, as far as
human wit and wisdom can fix, a lasting standard of
tone for pronouncing every word, and almost every syl-

INTRODUCTION. ΧΙΧ

lable in it. Tama friend to the cause, and think an
advocate wanting; since that, which calls itself the
learned world, is much inclined to blot out this ancient
character from the book of learning, and had rather lose
it entirely, than be at the pains of understanding it at
all. For my part, I am for preserving what we have
got; and do not think the inventive talents are so re-
dundant at present, as to render the diminution of the
present stock of human knowledge a matter of indif-
ference.”

The reader is indebted to my good friend Dr. Barnard
for a very judicious remark in the 1015 page of this
treatise, concerning the improbability of Aristophanes’
marks referring to quantity; which he with his usual
quickness of discernment readily suggested to me, when
I was opening to him my thoughts on the historical part
of this subject.

On the whole; if I have detected a single error, have
unravelled a single perplexity, and thrown the least
light on a subject, that has been hitherto much obscured,
I cannot think my pains misemployed. For I have no
reason to set such a value on my labour, as not to think
it amply repaid, if it be so successful as to illustrate any
one truth. “ Nec obsit, quod sit in tenui labor: neque
enim nisi ex minimis fiunt magna. Et ex judicii con-
suetudine in rebus minutis adhibita, pendet szpissime
etiam in maximis vera atque accurata scientia.”

Eton, Dec. 1761.

Ἶ τ ἐὰν

Pai :

¥e + a

CONTENTS

ESSAY ON ACCENT AND QUANTITY.

CHAP. I.

On accent and quantity in general, their difference
marked, their natural dependence on each other, their
necessary connexion and consistency. Emphasis, spirit,
or aspiration, distinguished from accent. Oratorical
accent different from syllabic - - - - - Pagel

CHAP. II.

On the quantity of the English language. The nature
of along time. The long and short times of the Greeks
and Romans: the case of doubtful vowels. The coin-
cidence of the acute tone and long time on the same
syllables in our language. On what foundation and
authority quantity is established - - - - - p.14

CHAP. III.

The metre of the English language. The kinds of it.
Why no hexameters, Mere metre not sufficient to
constitute good verse. In what the pronunciation of
the English, Scotch, Welch, and Irish, differs - p 29

CHAP. IV.

On the accent of the Romans. The agreement of the
Latin accent and dialect with the Holic. Some ac-

ΧΧΙΡ ἃ CONTENTS OF ESSAY.

count of the Axolism of the Roman language. Homer's
fiolism. An argument drawn from thence in favour
of our present Greek accentuation. The difference
between the Roman apex and accentual mark. On
the AXolic letter in the ancient Greek and Roman al-
phabets- - - - - - - - - - τ - - p.4l

CHAP. V.

On the accent of the old Greeks. Some passages of Dio-
nysius of Halicarnassus and Plutarch considered. The
tones as well as times regarded by the ancients in their
compositions. Importance of accent to harmony. A
brief account of those ancient Greek grammarians who
have left remarks on accent -Ἕ - - - + - p.79

CHAP. VI.

On the introduction, use, and accidental abuse of the
Greek accentual marks. Vindication of the charac-
ter of Aristophanes Byzantinus. Accentual metre of
Tzetzes. Character of the learned Greeks of the lower
empire: and of some of their scholars. A review of
the history of the Greek a to the taking of
Constantinople - - - - - + + πὶ p97

CHAP. VII.

The popular objection considered against the present ac-
centual marks, on account of their inconsistency with
true quantity. Some errors of Dr. G. noted. The true

nature of the acute tone stated and explained - p. 139

CHAP. VIII.

The hypothesis of Isaac Vossius, Henninius, Sarpedonius,
and others, erroneous. The Greek accent different in
its position from the Roman. Dr. Bentley’s and Scali-
ger’s remarks on the Latin accent. Difference between
the accentwal and: metrical arsis - - - - yp. 49

CONTENTS OF ESSAY. Xxill

CHAP. IX.

Objections to the irregularity of the present Greek accents
considered, and answered. An argument drawn from
at in their favour. The doctrine of enclitics and atonics
vindicated. The position of the present marks con-
Sormable to the ancient accounts of the tones themselves.
The variation of accent in some words at different times
considered. Accent dependent commonly on the quan-
tity of subsequent syllables. The consistency of the
acute with a short time demonstrated. The general
doctrine of human sounds, from the old Greek writers
on music. The three general cases of exception to our

present marks considered - - - - - - - p. 168
CHAP. X.

How far ancient quantity is observed by those who dis-

regard the accentual marks - - - - - - p.191
CHAP. XI.

That there are no sufficient reasons yet assigned for re-
jecting the present system of accentual marks. An ex-
postulation with modern editors on suppressing them,

p. 198

Remarks of Mr. Markland on our present Greek aceen-
tuation: on the accented Greek inscription lately
found at Herculaneum. Remarks of Dr. Taylor on
thesame - - - - - = - τς - = =) p. 206

CONTENTS

OF THE

FIRST DISSERTATION.

Page
INTRODUCTION - - - - - - - = - - - - 279
The original use of accents was musical - - - - ib.
The most ancient manuscripts and inscriptions have
no accents - - - - - - - - - = - - - @.
The modern system of accents is arbitrary and un-
CEPT = eee
Contrary to analogy, reason, and quantity - - - 290
Contradictory to itself - - - - - - - - - 296
A due regard cannot be had at the same time to
quantity and accents, as they are now placed - - 304
Accents, though placed, are not read in poetry - - 306
Great accuracy of the ancients as to the different
length and shortness of syliables - - - - - - 3807
Accents inconsistent with the rhythm arising from
quantity - - - - - - - - - - - - - 308
What rhythn is - - - - - - - - τ πὸ - 310
Two uses of accents - - - - - - - - - -38sll
This no argument for a general use of accents - - 313
Disadvantages of accents - - - - - - - - 914

Accents are of less usein the Greek language, to lead
us to the knowledge of quantity, than in any other 315
The placing of accents not arbitrary, when a lan-
guage is founded in a natural quantity - - - tb.
Men are led to accent their words partly by the con-
stitution of their language, and partly by their
own temper - - - - - - - - - - = = 316

CONTENTS OF DISSERT. f. XXV

Page
Barbarity of accents in the modern Greek language 317
The reason why words of the same form were ac-

cented differently - - - - - - - - - - 818
Hence the present manner of accenting probably

arose = - - - - 3 4 ue - =~ pis = = 819
Origin of accents more particularly deduced - - 320
Accents were introduced to preserve the ancient pro-

munciation - - - - - - - - - - = = - 322
An argument to prove the antiquity of accents from

Demosthenes not conclusive - - - - - - - 824
What Suidas seemeth to say on this subject - - - 327
Corrupt manner of accenting probabty occasioned

by Alexander's expedition into Asia - - - - - 828
System of accents not formed at once - - - - 332
Cases in which thesame word was accented differently 333
Conclusion - - - - - τ + = © = = = = 884

CONTENTS

OF THE

SECOND DISSERTATION.

Page
Design of the former Dissertation, and of this- - - 345
Inpropriety of the Greek accents not an opinion
started by Is. Vossius - - - -.- - - - - 346
A passage of Dionysius Halicarnassensis considered 349
Another passage of Dionysius considered - - - - 352
A third passage of Dionysius considered, aud an
emendation of it offered- - - - - - - - - 9δ4
A passage of Quinctilian considered, and shewn not
to answer Mr. Foster’s purpose - - - - - ~ 307
_ An essential difference between vocal utterance and
singing - - - -°- τ - ττ τ τ τ = 860
A farther reason arising hence, why the above-men-
tioned second passage of eed, cannot be taken
in Mr. Foster's sense - - - - - - - - 361
The ear is the proper judge of quantity, and of the
power and force of accents- - - - - - 362

Many degrees of quantity besides dene ‘inl long - i.
A paradigm, exhibiting a progression of quantity

from the shortest to the longest syllable- - - - 363
First observation upon it - - - - - - - - - ἐν.
Second observation - - - - - - - - τ - - Ο 20.
Third observation - - - - - - - - - - - 864
Fourth observation - - - - - - - - - =: - 868

The ancient Greek grammarians, from whom we
have received the doctrine of accents, did not
think that the acute accent was a mere elevation of
the voice; = - 2 = eee ee eH = ee

CONTENTS OF DISSERT. II. XXVil

Page

The sense in which I had taken a passage of Diony-

sius Thrax, shewn to be agreeable to what those

grammarians taught - - - - τ - - - - - 868
The hard or rough breathing, as well as the acute

accent, has the power of making a short syllable

long - - - = - τ -i-.- > - = - - - 8720
In pursuance of this doctrine, some Latin poets, when

they made use of Greek words, followed a quantity

which was directed by the Greek accents, and not

by the nature of the syllables - - - - - - - 371
Mr. Foster, in calling this an abuse, does, in reality,

say nothing against those who are against pro-

nouncing the Greek language according to accents 373
A true state of the debate between those who are

against pronouncing the Greek language accord-

ing to accents, and those who are for it. Whence

it follows, that, so far as the argument of the

former is intended to go, there is no difference be-

tween them and Mr. Foster- - - - - - - - db.
Mr. Foster’s argument founded upon the acute accent

taken in a sense different from that in which it was —

taken by those whom he opposes. His description

of the accent which ie proposes considered, and

shewn to be very obscure, if not contradictory or

unintelligible - - - - - - - - = - = -.375
Unhandsome expressions made use of by Mr. Foster

and other disputants- - - - - - - - - - 9377
Grammatical disquisitions not trivial or trifling- - 378

Ἐπ δῦ = = = τὸς a a 979

Gaudentii Philosoph. in ᾿Αρμονικῇ εἰσαγωγῇ.

>]
ὋΣ οὐδὲ φθόγγου κατακούων, οὐδὲ τὴν ἀκοὴν γεγυμνασ-
- 5 Ἷ 5»
μένος, ἥκει τῶν λόγων ἀκουσόμενοξ, οὗτος ἀπίτω τὰς σύραξ
» Q - ’ - > 4 Ν Pitts $ ἊΝ Ν - A
ἐπιθεὶς ταῖς ἀκοαῖς. ἐμφράξει yap τὰ ὦτα καὶ παρὼν, τῷ μὴ
προγινώσκειν ταῦτα αἰσθήσει, περὶ ὧν οἱ λόγοι.

NOTE.—The references in Mr. Foster’s Essay to Dr. G.’s Dissertations-relate to
the pages of the original editions ; the numbers of which, for the conyeniénce of
the reader, have been marked throughout the present one.

ΑΝ

[Re i RE μι κα

ACCENT AND QUANTITY.

CHAP: "3:

On accent and quantity in general, their difference marked, their natural de-
pendence on each other, their necessary connexion and Naess Em-
phasis, spirit, or aspiration distinguished from accent. Oratorial accent dif-
ferent from syllabic.

Wauen the distinct natures and principles of those
things, which are the subject of any controversy, are
clearly defined and explained; and the question is by
that means at first properly stated, the dispute is at
once half determined. The want of this precision, at
first setting out, has drawn many inquiries to an unne-
cessary length, and unsatisfactory conclusion. This
consequence of discussing a point without ascertaining
the terms of it at first, and keeping them distinct after-
wards, I will endeavour to avoid: and accordingly, be-
fore we consider the application of the voice, in the for-
mation and modulation of syllables, to any particular
language, it will be proper to consider its power, and
use in general.

§. First, then, It is evident that nature hath given it a
variety of tones, that gradually rise or fall above or be-
low each other: this is the first and grand division of

2 ESSAY ON

sounds into high and low. In singing many of these are
used ; in common discourse and reading, fewer.

This perfectly agrees with what Dionysius of Hali-
carnassus observes on the difference between music and
ordinary speech: which is said by him to consist, not
in the quality, but number only of tones.* And, indeed,
if the reader in attending to this subject will but con-
sider the tones of his voice as like a few notes of an or-
gan or flute, he will, I am persuaded, be thereby ena-
bled to form much clearer conceptions, and a much bet-

ter judgment on the whole.

§. Secondly, It is evident, likewise, that the human

* Kal οὐκ ἀλλοτρίᾳ κέχρημαι τοῦ medy-
ματος εἰκόνι" μουσικὴ γάρ τις ἦν καὶ ἣ τῶν
πολιτικῶν λόγων ἐπιστήμη, τῷ ΠΟΣΩΠῚ
διαλλάττουσα τῆς ἐν ὠδαῖς καὶ ὀργάνοις,
οὐχὶ τῷ ΠΟΙΩ͂ {περὶ συνθεσ. cap. 11.)

A learned author, who ina late treatise ©

hath maintained a system opposite to
that, which I shall propose to the reader
in the following pages, hath explained
this passage of Dionysius in a different
manner, on the supposition that he is
not in this place comparing music with
oratory or common discourse, but poe-
try with prose. The context clearly
enough points out the former sense.
But even without the context it may be
evidently seen that music is meant by
Not that I am led to this
explanalionby the word μουσικὴ, which

Dionysius.

I know is used in a very open sense,
relating to every thing thal has rbythm,
but by τῆς ἐν ὠδαῖς καὶ ὀργάνοις. which
words express vocal and instrumental
music, as perspicuously and directly
as any terms can do, which the Greek
Πόσος here hath the
sense, not of quantus, but of quotus,

language affords,

i. 6. expresses number, or arithmetical
quantity ; that quantity, which (in the
words of H. Stephens) Dialectici dis-
cretam appellant. The word ποσῶ in

the passage before us, is, I find, trans-

lated by the Latin interpreter quanti-
tate; but that I believe was owing to
the poverty of the Roman language,
not having a substantive quotitas be-
longing to quotus, as it has quantitas to
quantus. The Greek word πόσος cer-
tainly signifies quantity and number
too: which the reader may see con-
firmed by passages from the best Greek
writers in H. Stephen’s Thes. ling.
Gree. in the word πόσος, which ‘ ex-
ponilor etiam quotus” with its deriva-
tives: as ποσσῆμιαρ signifies not how
long a day, but how many days: and
many more instances there are to the
same purpose. I have therefore the
greatest reason to think, as well from
the words themselves, as from the con-
text, that Dionysius means in this sen-
tence to say, “ that oratorical or com-
mon discourse differs from music not
in the quality, but number only of
sounds.” A person may speak with
grace and harmony, and pertiaps not
exceed, all the time, the compass of
four or five notes; while a strain or
air in music may take in the compass
Dio-

nysius in a few lines immediately fol-

of twelve, or fourteen, or more.

lowing this passage fixes the number
of them used incommon speech at five,
ὡς ἔγγιστα.

ACCENT AND QUANTITY. 3

voice, like every wind instrument, has a power of short-
ening or lengthening any of those sounds it utters.

1. On the former division of these sounds is founded
what grammarians have called accent, relating merely
to the particular elevation or depression of them on cer-
tain syllables: the marks * of which are [’ ] for the ele-
vation; [‘] for the depression; and [ or4 | for the ele-
vation and depression joined together on the same syl-
lable, forming what is called a circumflex; as the two
when separate are called the acute and grave.

As the word accentus comes from t accino, and the cor-
responding Greek word προσῳδία from oc), cantus ; the very
derivation of these words marks out their particular re-
lation to music, which depends more on the variety and
combination of notes, considered as high and low, than
as long and short. By the enemies of accents the ety-
mology of these two words is supposed to imply, a re-
gard to music only, and not to ordinary pronunciation
at all. But that is a limitation, for which they have no
good and reasonable anthority: and in order to esta-
blish it, they deal very unfairly in producing only part
of the old Greek definition of προσῳδία ; προσῳδία (say they)
is defined ὁ τόνος πρὸς ὃν ἄδομεν, disingenuously leaving’
out the other part of the definition, which extends it to
reading and speaking, καὶ rode λόγους ποιούμεϑα : Which the
reader may see in { Placentinus, and in Alexander A ph-
rodisiensis himself, whom Dr. G. cites, omitting the lat-
ter part of the sentence. Lascaris, indeed, from whom
perhaps Dr. G. took it, gives it imperfect. But if the
Dr. had attended to the whole of what Lascaris says on
the Greek accents, he would never have produced any
thing from that learned Greek to prove they were con-
fined to music, or musical pronunciation only. Lascaris

* Accentus acuti nola’, ita per obli- + Accentus dictus est ab uccinendo,
quum ascendens in dexteram partem. quod sit quasi quidam cujusque sylla-
Gravis nota ila’, a summo in obliquum bz cantus. Apud Greeos ideo προ-
quasi in dexteram partem descendens. cwdia dicitur, quod προσάδεται ταῖς
Circumflexus nota de acuto et gravi συλλαξαῖς, Idem ibid.
facta, vel ὁ deorsum stans,’. Diomed. ¢ Epitom. Grec. Palazograph. c. 11,
lib. ii.

4 ESSAY ON

himself seems not to have had the least thought of their
being ever restrained to singing: in the very beginning
of his Octo Partes, he says, προσῳδία ἐστὶ τόνος φωνῆς ἐγ-
yeapparov.* And this excellent grammarian’s remarks on
the Greek language are not to be looked on, as grounded
merely on the principles and practice of his own times,
but as conformable to the rules of antiquity: for he de-
clares in his preface to his third book, that he drew his
materials from the ancient grammarians,
λείψανα τῶν παλαιῶν Γραμματικῶν, and then mentions parti-
cularly + Apollonius Dyscolus, a Greek writer of great
note under Antoninus Pius.

2. On the latter division of sounds is founded, what
is termed Quantity, regarding only the quantity of time
taken up in expressing any of them. The delay of the
Voice in pronouncing them forms the long time { marked

\ LZ ‘
εξιὼν πάντα τὰ

* Accentus est intensio vocis literis
adjuncte.

+ This author, and his son Herodian
are considered by Priscian as ‘ prin-
cipatum inter Graecos scriptores artis
grammatice possidentes” (Putsch. p.
534.) whom he accordingly professes
principally to follow: as Lascaris did
afterwards. And what is here said of
Liascaris, may be applied likewise to
Gaza, Chrysoloras, Moschopulus, Chal-
condyles (from whom our late teachers
of Greek have compiled their gram-
mars) whose observations on their own
language agree with those of the best
ancients, Aristarchus, Dionysius Thrax,
Trypho, Abro, A‘lius Dionysius, Am-
monius, Meeris, Apollonius, Herodian,
and others, as far as can be collected
from their remains, either published
separately, or scattered up and down
in the best scholia, Suidas, Eustathi-
us, Thomas Magister, Varinus, the
great etymologist, &c.’ Apollonius
tells us himself in his Syntax, p. 135.
that he wrote περὶ τόνων, which work
ofhis is probably referred to by the
scholiast on the Plat. of Aristoph.v. 103.

on the word mifov. And in the life of
Apollonius, prefixed to his works, his
son Herodian is said likewise, at the
desire of M. Antoninus, to have com-
posed τὴν Μερικὴν καὶ τὴν Καθολικὴν προ-
σωδίαν. That work of Herodian is lost.
But in parts of his παρεκξολαὶ τοῦ με-
γάλου ῥήματος and two other pieces of
his in Aldus’ Kégag ᾿Αμαλθείας, there are
several remarks on the Greek accen-
tuation, that agree with our modern
practice.

¢ The reason of these marks the cu-
rious reader may see in Scaliger de
causis ling. Lat. lib. 11. cap. 55.

Longus est linea ἃ sinistra in dexte-
ram partem equaliter ducta,—. Ht bre-
vis, virgula similiter jacens, sed panda
et contractior, quasi ¢ sursum spec-
tans’. Sed in illis [accentus notis]
tonos: in his tempora dignosci vide-
mus. Diomed.
of the marks of Accent and Quantity is
in Priscian; and in the editio prima of

The same descriplion

fflius Donatus almost in the very
same words, Putsch. p.1742. See also
Maxim. Victor. p. 1945.

ACCENT AND QUANTITY. ὅ

thus [-]; the quickness of the voice in hastening over
them forms the short one marked thus [*~ ].

From hence it appears, that both accent and quan-
tity are equally founded in the very nature of the human
voice, are necessary and inseparable from it; that con-
sequently no language can, or ever could, be pronounced
without them, except you suppose a monotony and equa-
bility in the voice, the existence of which it is difficult
to conceive.

Aristoxenus accordingly says, ‘‘ There is a kind of
music in discourse, arising from the accents in words.
For it is natural to raise and sink the tones of voice in
ordinary speech.”* This Aristoxenus was a scholar of
Aristotle, long before the time of Aristophanes Byzan-
tinus, who first introduced accentual marks. And I am
inclined to lay the greater stress on his authority, since
he is considered by Quinctilian as a musician and gram-
marian too. That his words ἐπιτείνειν and ἀνιέναι are to be
understood as relating to the rise and fall of the voice,
will appear by H. Stephen’s explanation of ἐπίτασις and
ἄνεσις. ““ Ἐπίτασις (says he) est vocis commotio ἃ loco
graviore in acutum locum: ἄνεσις vero contra. Nam
ab acuminis culmine in grave quiddam descendit. Est
autem soni gravitas, quum ex + intimo quidam spiritus
trahitur; acumen vero ex superficie oris emittitur .”{
And indeed Aristoxenus himself explains them in the
same manner in another part of his work.§ ‘ The éz-

* Λέγεται γὰρ δὴ καὶ λογῶδές τι μέλος,
τὸ συγκείμενον EX τῶν προσωδιῶν, τὸ ἐν
τοῖς ὁνόμιασι. φυσικὸν γὰρ τὸ ἐπιτείνειν
καὶ ἀνιέναι ἐν τῷ διαλέγεσθαι. Though
the word λέγεται is here used, and not
ἐστὶ, yet the assertion is as fuil and
clear, as ifit had been ἐστὶ: “for λέγεται
is so far from being a token of want of
evidence, that it is principally used
upon the contrary account, when the
generality of writers are agreed. So
that λέγεται does not imply a defect of
proof, but rather a superfluity of it.”
Bentl. Dissert. on Phal. p. 121, 2.

+ When Virgil therefore translates
Homer’s βαρυστενάχων by “‘ graviter ge-
mitus imo ‘de pectore ducens,” his de-
scription of the sound is strictly and
physically true.

1. Steph. Thes. ling. Grac. in voce
τείγω.

§ Ἡ μὲν οὖν ἐπίτασίς ἔστι κίνησις τῆς
φωνῆς συνεχὴς ἐκ βαρυτέρου τόπου εἰς
ὀξύτερον. ἡ δὲ ἄνεσις, ἐξ ὀξυτέρου τόπου εἰς
βαρύτερον. ὀξύτης δὲ, τὸ γενόμενον διὰ τῆς
ἐπιτάσεως" βαρύτης δὲ τὸ γενόμενον διὰ
τῆς ἀγέσεως. Harmon. lib, i, 10.

0 ESSAY ΟΝ

τάσις is the movement of the voice from ἃ lower pitch
to a higher: the ἄνεσις, from a higher to a lower.
Ὀξύτης then is what is formed by the ἐπίτασις ; βαρύτης.
that which is formed by the avec.”

There unavoidably must be accent, if the voice has
only two notes (and fewer:than two or three are hardly
ever, I believe, used even in ordinary discourse). There
must in short be a comparative * highness and lowness
of sound, except the voice has the use of only a single
note, like a drum or drone-base. As the rise and fall of
sound prevents monotony, which would give ἃ deadness
to the human speech, accent is not improperly called in
Diomedes, anima vocis.

There must be likewise quantity, except you sup-
pose the voice to dwell, with a measure of time so ex-
actly equal, on all its syllables, as would be exceed-
ingly tiresome and offensive to every ear, and contrary to
that variety, which nature seems so much pleased with,
and the ear constantly requires. And accordingly Quinc-
tilian very truly observes, that we cannot avoid speak-
ing in long and short time. ‘‘ Neque enim loqui pos-
sumus, nisi é syllabis brevibus ac longis, ex quibus
pedes fiunt.”-+ The consequence of which is, what he
remarks in another place, ‘‘ metrici quidem pedes adeo
reperiuntur in oratione, ut in ea frequenter non sen-
tientibus nobis omnium generum excidant versus. Et
contra nihil est prosa scriptum, quod non redigi pos-
sit in quaedam versiculorum genera.”}

To this division of the measure of sounds may be
easily referred that distinction of them, which Cicero||

* Tpsa enim natura, quasi modula-
relur hominum orationem, in omni
verbo posuit acutam vocem: nec una
plus, nec ἃ postrema syllaba citra ter-
tiam. Cic. ad Brut. Orat. 18.

In like manner Quinctilian. Est au-
tem in omni voce ulique acula. Inst.
Orat, lib. i. cap. v.

And after them Diomedes. Utnulla
vox sine vocali, ita sine accentu nulla

est. lib. ii.

t Lib. ix. c. 4.

+ Idem, p. 480. edit. Gibs.

|| Mira est enim natura vocis: cujus
quidem ὃ tribus omnino sonis, inflexo,
acuto, gravi, tanta sit et tam suavis
varietas perfecta in cantibus: est au-
tem in dicendo etiam quidam cantus
obscurior. Cic. Orat. 17.

This cantus in dicendo vbscurior is the
same with λογῶδες τι μέλος of Aristox~

enus, and is exactly conformable like-

ACCENT AND QUANTITY. 7

has made, and which holds good, not only in the Ro-
man language, which he had chiefly in view, but in
every language, that is in the human voice itself.

It may be remarked, that accent, though closely
united with quantity, is not only distinct from it, but
in the formation of the voice really antecedent to it.
The pitch, or height of the note is taken first, and then
the continuance of it is settled: by the former of these
the accent is determined, by the latter the quantity. So
closely combined and inseparable are these two things,
which have sometimes been represented as utterly in-
compatible with each other: so distinct likewise are
these, which at other times have occasioned much per-
plexity by being confounded together.

The inconsistence of accents with the harmony aris-
ing from quantity, is urged by the learned author of “a
“ treatise against the Greek accents,” lately published :
wherein he endeavours to prove this point in the foilow-
ing manner: “ Metre ariseth necessarily from syllables;
but rhythm may arise from mere sounds. Metre there-
fore must produce one rhythm, and accents, if they
differ from quantity, must produce another. — Take
now the first example, which Longinus mentioneth,
that of smiths striking their hammers upon their an-
vils (from whence music is said to have taken its rise)
and suppose now two sets of them (consisting either

το οο.-ςυ--.-------ο-.--.---.-.-..-.-

wise with what Dionysius says above Voces ut chord sunt inlentz, que

on this subject : which willreceive yet ad quemque tactum respondeant, acuta,

farther light from another remarkable
passage of Aristoxenus, to this pur-
pose ; where he having been speaking
of men, as διαλεγόμενοι and μελωδοῦντες,
Says, ὀξὺ καὶ βαρὺ δῆλον ὡς ἐν ἀμφοτέροις
τούτοις ἐστίν. Element. Harmonic. lib.
i. p. 3. So ill-grounded is that opi-
nion concerning the old accents or
tones, maintained by certain persons,
that they were merely of a musical na-
ture, and areto be considered by us as
not relating to ordinary discourse.

gravis; cita, tarda; magna, parva,
quas tamen inter omnes est suo queque
in genere mediocris. Atque etiam illa
sunt ab his delapsa plura genera, leave,
asperum 3 contractum, diffusum; con-
tinenti spirilu, imtermisso; fractum;
scissum, flexo tono; attennatum, in-
flatum. Cic. de Orat. 3. 57.

Omnium longitudinum et brevitatum
in sonis, sicut acutarum graviumque
vocum judicium natura in auribus nos-
tris collocavit. Idem. Orat. 51.

8 ESSAY ON

of different numbers, or of the same number, but pro-
vided with hammers of different natures) to be strik-
ing on their anvils at the same time, and you will
clearly see that, though each set will produce a rhythm,
yet both sets striking at the same time must produce
discords.” Ihave several objections to this illustra-
tion drawn from the two sets of different hammers,
which I shall not trouble the reader with, observing
only this, inanswer to it, that the author, as far as I un-
derstand the application of his simile to the case of ac-
cent and quantity, plainly seems to think, that these
two, if used together in uttering the same syllable, do of
course, because they are two things, require therefore
two exertions, two operations of the voice to express
them, which in the same syllable seems impossible :
whereas they depend but on one operation, belong but
to one sound; which sound, though a single one, is ca-
pable of mensuration two ways, in quality of elevation,
and degree of continuance. Height and length, though two
relative things, do always subsist together in one subject.

These two things in sound are very clearly distin-
guished and marked by Plutarch in his miscellaneous
works, where he says, “ Three very minute things do
necessarily strike the ear at once, the tone or sound
itself φθόγγος; the duration of it ypévoc; and the third
thing, to which they belong, the formation and artica-
Jation of the letter or syllable.”* And, having thus
shewn their distinction and connexion, he then declares
those persons to be incompetent judges of sound and
speech, who cannot perceive the difference between
them,+ The word φθόγγος in its proper sense signifies

* Αἰεὶ γὰρ ᾿ἀναγκαῖον τρία ἐλάχιστα
εἶναι τὰ πίπτοντα εἰς τὴν ἀκοὴν, φθόγγον
τε καὶ χρόνον, καὶ συλλαδὴν ἢ γράμμα
υἱεῖ. itu ὁμοῦ δὲ προξαινόντων ὥμκα
τὴν τῆς αἰσθήσεως ἐπιφορὰν ἀναγκαῖον
ποιεῖσθαι. Plut. tom. ii. p. 1444. Xy-
land,

+ ᾿Αλλὰ μὴν κὠκχεῖνο φανερὸν, oa οὐκ

ἐνδέχεται, jax δυναμένης τῆς αἰσθήσεως

χωρίζειν ἕκαστον τῶν εἰρημένων, πάρακο-
λουθεῖν τε δύνασθαι τοῖς καθ᾿ ἕκαστα, καὶ
oY

συνορῶν τό δ᾽ ἁμαρτανόμενον ἐν ἑκάσπτω

αὐτῶν καὶ τὸ μή. ““ 566 οἱ hoc constat,
quod, nisi possit sensus ἀΙΒοθυποῦο βῖπ-
gula predictorum, nequit fieri ut:com-
prehendat, quod ad singula attinet, ne-
que judicet quidiin singulis aut pravom

aut rectum sit.” The φθόγγοι, 4 χρόνοι»

ACCENT AND QUANTITY. 9

simply any sound or note of the human voice, ab-
stracted from the consideration of any particular mode.
In this sense φθόγγος is used, through all the old Greek
writers on music published by Meibomius, as a single
independent tone, whether high or low. *®wvijc πτῶσις
ἐπὶ μίαν τάσιν, ὁ φθόγγος, Says Aristoxenus. Almost the
same words are repeated by the other writers in Meibo-
mius’ collection.

The perception of sound arises from a certain im-
pulse of air on the drum of the ear; on the first impres-
sion of the air depends the accent: if it be a quick
piercing stroke, it forms the ὀξὺς, acutus, sharp or high
sound : if it be a duller impression, it forms the βαρὺς,
gravis, flat or low sound. The physical cause of these
different impulses, which experience hath discovered,
and philosophy hath now well settled and explained, is
not part of our present business. But whatever be the
cause, or kind of the impulse, whether it be quick or
dull, it certainly may be varied in point of + duration,
according to the continuance of the vibration, which it
is in the power of our organs of speech either to shorten
or lengthen. And on the measure of its duration de-
pends prosodical time or quantity.

As spirit, or emphasis, hath been sometimes con-
founded with accent and quantity, I will endeavour
to point out its distinction from the other two; that
these three things may be kept as separate in the mind
of the reader, as they are in their own natures. This
spirit is in truth another measure of the voice, and is so
marked out by Scaliger, and added as a third by him to
the foregoing two. Cicero likewise has done it, though

ἢ γράμματα are distinguished in like
manner by this author in some other
lines immediately following this pas-
sage.

* Harmon. lib. i. p. 15.

+ On the formation and duration of
sounds Czlius Rhodiginus writes thus:
** Aerem porro sonum deferentem un-
dam vocalem appellat Avicenna, siqui-

dem sphzrice movetur aér, sicuti unda
ex Japilli projectu ; quod sentit secun-
do de anima Averrois, et primo de mu-
sica Boéthius. Unde et princeps in
ratione pulsuum, quos cum musica ra-
tione simile quiddam habere prodit,
circulos temporum nominavit, sicut et
casus, Arsin intelligi volens et Thesin.”
Lect. Antig. 11. 27.

10 ESSAY ON

not so methodically, in the passage above cited, where
he considers the voice as lenis or aspera, attenuata or
inflata. This distinction cannot possibly be more clearly
stated than in Scaliger’s own words. “Cum vocem
quantitate metiamur, et syllaba in voce sit ut in sub-
jecta materia, et quantitas triplici dimensione consti-
tuatur, longa, lata, alta: necessario quoque iisdem
rationibus syllaba afiecta erit, ut levatio aut pressio
in altitudine; afflatio aut attenuatio in latitudine ; trac-
tus in longitudine sit.” * The reader will here first ob-
serve, that Scaliger uses the word quantitas not as we
commonly use it in the limited sense, as relating merely
to time or the length of a syllable, but applies it to the
height and spirit too: the whole quantity including all
three. However, when I shall have occasion in the fol-
lowing pages to use the word quantity, ἃ would have it
understood in the popular sense, as referring to time only.

In regard to the nature of spirit, that, which Scaliger
means by the afflatio in latitudine, constitutes what we
commonly call emphasis; a mode of sound requiring
a greater profusion of breath, giving either an aspira-
tion to a single letter, or marking with peculiar earnest-
ness some particular sentence in a discourse, or some
single word in a sentence; which yet is very distinct
from accent and quantity, though occasionally joined
with them. This may appear by attending to the follow-
ing case: two men with different voices, or with dif-
ferent exertions of nearly the same voice, may pronounce
the words of the same sentence with the same accent and
quantity, observing the like proportion in the elevation
and prolongation of the same syllables, and yet use a
different spirit; the one speaking with emphasis, the

* Decausis ling. Lat. lib. ii. cap. 52.

This is Priscian’s doctrine, “Ὁ Vox
(says he) dum tangit audilum, tripar-
tite dividitur, scilicet altitudine, latitu-
dine, longitudine: habet quidem litera
altitudinem in tempore.” And then he
proceeds, ‘‘ Accentus est certa lex et
regula ad elevandam et deprimendam

syllabam,—qui tripartite dividitur acu-
to, gravi, circumflexo. Accentus nam-
que acutus ideo insertus est, quod acuat
sive elevet syllabam ; gravis ideo, quod
deprimat aut deponat: circumflexus eo,
quod deprimat atque acuat.”’ Priscian,
apud Putschium, p. 1286.”

ACCENT AND QUANTITY. 11

other without it. An instance of two persons blowing
the same notes on a flute, the one with more, the other
with less breath, will perhaps set this distinction in a
clearer light.

The part of Scaliger’s book De Causis, which I have
here made use of, was considered by the author himself
as a part of his writings, that he had laboured with
great subtlety, and finished with particular accuracy.
For thus he speaks of it in a subsequent work. ‘ Alter
est soni potius modus, de quo in libris de Causis acu-
tissime disputatum est. Accentum dixerunt veteres
soni moderationem in tollenda premendaque voce.” *

If however this threefold division of Scaliger should
be considered by some persons, as founded rather in
the refining imagination of that great modern, than in
fact and the nature of things, which may induce them
not to admit it on his authority; it may perhaps have
greater weight, when it is shewn to be the very same
which Aristotle gives in the 20th chapter of his Poetics
where he is treating of the powers and letters of speech.
Tatra δὲ διαφέρει σχήμασί τε τῶν στόματος, Kai τόποις [perhaps
it should be read τύποις] καὶ δασύτητι καὶ ψιλότητι, καὶ μήκει καὶ
βραχύτητι, ἔτι δὲ καὶ ὀξύτητι καὶ βαρύτητι καὶ τῷ μέσῳ. + ““ 860
vero differunt formationibus oris, et locis (vel formis
et characteribus) densitate aspirationis et tenuitate;
longitudine et brevitate; insuper etiam acumine et gra-
vitate, et medio. 7. 6. inflexione, que accentum circum-
-flexum format.” We may now then call this Aristotle’s
division, as well as Scaliger’s.

As there are accents naturally on particular syllables
of single words, which must be rightly placed to make

* Poet. lib. iv. c. 47.

t By μέσον here, Theod. Goulstonus,
whose interpretation I cite, understands
the circumflex: so does Dacier: and
1 believe too, Castelvetro, who translates
it by ripiegato, which signifies among
other things, bent, crooked, winding.
Μέσον may indeed mean the middle, not
compounded of the two ὀξὺ and ξαρὺ,

but a tone between them, 1. 6. the com-
mon pitch of voice: and then βαρὺ,
must be somewhat below that. But as
βαρὺ is itself most commonly supposed
to belong to the common pitch as well
as to any depression below it, Μέσον
here scems to have that sense, which

is given by Aristotle’s interpreters.

12 ESSAY ON

pronunciation simply proper ; so there are accentual
variations of the voice on the particular parts of whole
sentences, and on particular sentences of whole para-
graphs, the right inflexion of which constitutes good,
graceful, and harmonious pronunciation. ‘The con-
nexion of this, which may be called the oratorial ac-
cent, with the syllabic, and the subordination of them
to each other, however difficult it may appear, is, yet
easy in practice. This it is that forms the difference
which we observe in the manner of speech between any
two persons, that use the same language. Let a good
speaker and a bad one pronounce the same sentence,
which they both equally understand, they will in the
single words agree in placing the acute and long time
on the same syllables, and yet in the utterance of the
whole differ very widely. Whence arises this differ-
ence? Not from the syllabic accent, which respects
the modulation of one syllable of a word in regard to
another; but from the oratorial, which respects the mo-
dulation of whole words and parts of sentences in re-
gard to the rest. And this oratorial accent may have
aspiration or not, according as the general manner, or
particular intention of the speaker may happen to be.
This latter kind of accent is what Quinctilian means
in that part of his book, where he speaks of reading :
“« * superest Lectio; in qua puer ut sciat, ubi suspen-
dere spiritum debeat, quo loco versum distinguere,
ubi claudatur sensus, unde incipiat, quando attollenda
vel summittenda sit vox; quid quoque flexu, quid
lentius, celerius, concitatius, lenius dicendum, de-
monstrari nisi in opere ipso non potest.” This accent
of sentences has not yet had marks assigned it, and per-
haps could not easily be ascertained by grammatical
characters: which makes Quinctilian say, that, “ de-
monstrari nisi in opere ipso non potest.” But this
kind of accent belongs not immediately to my present
subject, which relates merely to the tone of syllables in

* Lib. i. c. 18.

ACCENT AND QUANTITY. 13

single words. Not that I would preclude myself from
touching on the oratorial accent,* when I may be oc-

casionally led to it.

* Herman Vanderhardt, the anthor
of a small treatise entitled ‘ Arcanum
Accentuum Grecorum,” published at
Helmstad, 1715, considers the marks
of Greek accentualion as referring not
to syllabic, but oratorial accent. If
this supposition were true, we should
not meet with the same word constantly
accented in the same manner, as we see

it at present. A word’s oratorial ac-
cent will vary according to the general
sentiment of the passage wherein it
occurs. But ils syllabic accent will be
invariably the same independent of its
connexion with other words in the sen-
tence: except in the case of enclitics,
and a few others, which will be shewn

hereafter.

14 ESSAY ON

CHA Pa ill:

On the quantity of the English language. The nature of a long time. The long
and short times of the Greeks and Romans: the case of doubtful vowels.
The coincidence of the acute tone and long time on the same syllables in our
language. On what foundation and authority quantity is established.

ΣΥμβέβηκε δὲ τῷ φθόγγῳ [χροία *] τόπος, χρόνος. χρόνος
μὲν οὖν ἐστι, καθ᾽ ὃν μακροτέρους ἐν πλείονι χρόνῳ, καὶ βρα-
χυτέρους ἐν ἐλάττονι φθεγγόμεθα. τόπος δέ ἐστι φθόγγου,
καθ᾽ ὃν τοὺς μὲν βαρυτέρους, τοὺς δὲ ὀξυτέρους προϊέμεθα.
“16 adjuncts of human sound are place and time.
Time is that, in regard to which we utter longer sounds
with a greater measure of it, and shorter with a less.
The place is that, according to which we utter some of
them lower, and some higher.” Thus says Gaudentius
in his εἰσαγωγὴ ἁρμονικὴ With equal perspicuity and truth.
But, it seems, since his time the nature of the human
voice is changed. The northern nations, according to
the representations of some people, have utterly lost the
χρόνος, retain no quantity at all, having nothing but the
τόπος, the place, tone, or accent left. But surely the
foregoing division of sounds, as applied to syllables,
founded in the very nature of the voice itself, suflici-
ently shews the absurdity of those assertions, which we
so frequently hear from the mouth sometimes of scholars,
“ that the true pronunciation of Latin and Greek is di-
rected by quantity, and that of English by accent:”
intimating, that the former depends not at all on accent,
nor the latter on quantity. Whereas both accent and
quantity do inseparably belong to every language.

* T take no notice here of the χροία, some other things relating to φθόγγος
not that it is against, but beside my will be more fully shewn in another
present purpose. By the τόπος of place, where I shall have occasion to
sound, the Greeks meant the degree of | speak more particularly of the old wri-
ils elevation or depression, This with ters on music,

ACCENT AND QUANTITY. 15

The accent of the Greek and Latin shall be considered
afterwards. At present I shall take notice of the popu-
lar error in regard to the English language having no
quantity. Not only the authors of our commen spell-
ing books, but even a man of great learning, in an ela-
borate * treatise on the Greek accents, has declared,
that ‘‘ In the modern languages the pronunciation doth
not depend upon a natural quantity; and therefore a
greater liberty may be allowed in the placing of ac-
cents.” In another place the same author, speaking
of the northern languages of Europe, says, that “ It was
made impossible to think of establishing quantity for
a foundation of harmony in pronunciation. Hence it
became necessary to lay aside the consideration of
quantity, and to have recourse to accents.” In these
and some other passages that writer seems to look upon
accents as alone regulating the pronunciation of Eng-
lish, and quantity as + excluded from it.

But does the author of that treatise, or any person in
England, usually pronounce an English disyllable or
polysyllable without making the voice rest longer on
some one syllable than on the other; in which thing the
very nature of quantity consists? For (as this same
writer himself says) ‘‘ How can a syllable be consi-
dered as short or long, but by the actual pronuncia-

* The abovementioned one, p. 97.

+ A French author ina dissertation
(in the Hist. of the Acad. vol. xii.)
concerning the comparative merit of the
moderns and ancients in point of ge-
nius and learning, doth not only abso-
lutely exclude quantity from all the
modern languages, but carries the ab-
surdity so far, as from thence io deny
the very existence of modern poetry.
‘““The language of the Romans was
(says he) like the Greek, wholly com-
posed of words, of which the syllables
were either long or short: it thereby
became susceptible of the same num-
bers, and by consequence, of the same
kinds of poetry with the Greek.-+++-->

It is quite otherwise with us. The mo
dern languages, ynite different from
the Greek and Latin, are wholly com-
posed of words, the syllables of which,
to judge of them properly, are neither
long nor short: that is to say, their
pronunciation is not restrained to any
fixed time. Itis therefore impossible
that our prose, still more so that our
verse, should have the same measure,
numbers, cadence, and harmony with
theirs. To speak properly, we have
not in our language either epic poem,
ode, elegy, or comedy. For our verses
differ from each other only in the num-
ber of syllables.”

10 ESSAY ΟΝ

tion of it, or giving it one measure in the former case,
and two measures in the latter?” Well then: does he
not employ more time in uttering the first syllable of
heavily, hastily, quickly, slowly, conqueror, than in the
second or third syllable? Does he not spend more
time in pronouncing the second syllable of solicit, mis-
taking, researches, delusive, than in the others? Or is
he not longer in expressing the last of deny, compose,
revenge, than in the first? If he is (as he certainly is,
and necessarily must, if he speaks them properly) he
then uses a long quantity. And by this the English
metre is regulated (notwithstanding what is vulgarly
said of accent excluding quantity) as much as the Greek
or Latin. This quantity is not indeed settled by the
same rules, by which the Latin and Greek is, as “ that
one vowel preceding another should be pronounced
with a short time, or preceding two consonants with a
long one.” But still, if the voice is retarded in some
syllables, and quickened in others, by what cause so-
ever that delay or rapidity be occasioned or directed,
there is truly and formally long and short quantity.
When in the words honestly, character, 1 dwell longer
on the first syllable, than on either of the two last, which
1 hurry over swiftly, the two last are the short ones, not-
withstanding the consonants, with which to the eye they
appear to be clogged: and had there been six conso-
nants instead of three in those two last syllables, if my
voice should in practice hasten over each of them in less
time than it does over the first, which is disencumbered
with consonants, the latter syllables would certainly
have a short quantity, and the first a long one. And
thus it must appear to every one, who will not suffer
his eyes to judge for his ears.

Whether the measure of the long time be exactly in
the same proportion to the short one, as two to one
(which is supposed by grammarians to have been the
proportion in the pronunciation of the ancients) or only
as one and a half to one, or more as two and a half, or
three to one, makes no material difference in regard to

ACCENT AND QUANTITY. 17

what [here say. I do not believe the rule of Prosody,
Syllaba brevis unius est temporis, longa vero duorum, to
be in all cases strictly true : that proportion of two to one
not* invariably holding between long and short sylla-
bles. The second syllable of maximos may have been
pronounced shorter than the second of tentbre. And
for this I have Dionysius’ authority, who (in.a passage
cited by Dr. G. and well explained by him) says that
* one short syllable differs from another short, and one
long from another long.” διαλλάττει βραχεῖα συλλαβὴ Bea-
xelac, καὶ μακρὰ μακρᾶς. Certain I am, that in English
the quantity of the first syllable of folly though long, is
yet not so long, as the first in dowry. So the first syl-
lable of follit among the Romans was probably not so
long, in proportion to its second, as the first of dit.

The principles, on which I suppose the o to be
shorter in ¢olfit than odit, may explain what Ammo-
nius+ says of the quantity of a in the second syllable of
Κάταγμα, being long when the word is used in one sense,
and short in another: and what{ Meeris Atticista ob-
serves on the Attics pronouncing the second a of ayo-
pacw long, implying that the common Greeks used it
short: and in the same manner, what§ Draco Stratoni-
ceus says of dissyllable barytone verbs in aZw having the
a Short, as in στάζω, σφάζω, [βαζω, and polysyllables in
like manner, except they have εἰ subjoined, as ματαΐζω,
σφαδαίΐζω. In these cases, where the a is said to be

* There is to this purpose a passage
in the Scholia on Hephestion. Ἰστέον
δὲ, ὅτι ἄλλως λαμβάνουσι τὸν Χρόγον of
Μετρικοὶ ἤγουν οἱ Τραμιματικοὶ, καὶ ἄλλως
οἱ Ρυθμικοί" of Γραμιματικοὶ ἐκεῖνον pect
ρὸν χρόνον ἐπίστανται, τὸν ἔχοντα δύο χρό-
μεῖζόν

εἶναι

vous, καὶ οὐ καταγίνονται εἰς

τι" οἱ δὲ Ρυθμικοὶ λέγουσι σόνδε
μακρότερον τοῦδε, φάσκοντες τὴν μὲν τῶν
συλλαθῶν Elves δύο ἡμίσεως χρόνων, τὴν δὲ
πειῶν, τὴν δὲ πλειόνων. p. 78. edit. Pauw.
““ Βοϊοπάππι, quod aliter accipiunt Tem -
pus Metrici vel Grammatici, aliter
Rhythmici. Grammatici illud Tempus

Longum intelligunt, quod habet duo
tempora, neque quicquam ultra respi-
ciunt. Rhythmici vero dicunt aliad
alio esse longius, aiuntque hanc quidem
syllabam habere duo tempora cum di-
inidio, illam tria, istam plura.” He-
phestion himself distinguishes between
a letter μακρὸν, and μεηκυγνόμκενον.

f Ammon. in #arayua. p. 78. Valck.

ἐξ ᾿Αγοράζειν, ἐκτείνοντες το δ᾽ a, οἱ ᾿Ατο
αικοί.

§ In the note of J. Pierson on the pre-
ceding word in Meeris, p. 70,

13 ESSAY ΟΝ

short, the syllable we know is long: but being long only
by the position of a short letter before two consonants,
it is shorter than one long by its own nature. This may
serve likewise to account for what Cicero mentions in
regard to the different length of certain letters, which
we now call long, and see used as such in the best Ro-
man poets. In his * Orator he says, that the first letter
of inclytus is short, the first of insanus and infelix long :
he does not say the first syllable of inclytus is short, but
the first letter; the letter may be short, though the syl-
lable be long by the position of the short vowel: as it is
in inclytus, which hath its first syllable used long in the
Roman verse. But yet it sounded not so long as in the
two latter words. So Maximus Victorinus says that
the prepositions 7 and con are sometimes short: but
followed by 5 and f are long, as 7mstare, tnfidus: in all
other cases are short, as inconstans, imprudens. Which
observation of Victorinus well agrees with Cicero’s in-
stances above, and with what} Gellius likewise cites
from Cicero. The same Gellius in another} place says,
that in the frequentative verbs ésitéo and unctito the first
vowel was pronounced long, but in dictito the first short:
that the first of actito should be pronounced long, though
some learned men in his time expressed it short. In an-
other ὃ chapter he inquires, whether in quiesco the e should
be pronounced long or short. Of the same nature is
what he|| says on the vowels of sub, ob, and con, being
short in compound even before words beginning with a
consonant. Donatus on the{] Andria of Terence, “ fili-
um perduxere ut una essef,” says, “ si producta legatur
esset, significat cibum caperet, sive ederit.”. And on
the** Eunuch “ ut de symbolis éssemus,” he observes,
“4 melius essemus producta e litera.” The true power of

* © Inclytus dicimus brevi prima li- t A. Gell. lib. ii. cap. 17.
tera, insanus producta : inhumanus bre- $ Lib. ix. cap. 6.
vi, infelic longa: et ne multis, quibus § Lib. vi. ο. 15.
in verbis ex prime liter sunt, quein _ || Lib. iv. ο. 17.
sapiente atque felice, producte dicitur ; 4« Act. 1. sc. 1.

in ceteris omnibus breviter.” Orat, 48. ** Act. ili, 56. 4.

ACCENT AND QUANTITY.

this long e Cratinus and Varro said might be perceived
in the * bleating of sheep. +Charisius says, “‘ Plinius
ds dris producta efferendum censuit, 0s dssis correpta.”
Corinthius in his treatise on the Greek dialects, speak-
ing of the AZolians, says they are fond of shortening syl-
lables, and accordingly change φθείρω into φθέῤρω" ἡ ἢ
yap θέσει μακρὰ ἐλάττων ἐστὶ τῆς φύσει μακρᾶς. Evel καὶ τὸ
α τὸ φύσει μακρὸν μεῖζόν ἐστι τῆς αι διφθόγγου.

We ought not to forget, that of the three Greek du-

* E Jongum, cujus sonus in ovium
balatu sentilur, ut Cratinus et Varro
tradiderunt. Canin. Hellen. p. 26.

And after them Eustathius upon the
499th ν. of Iliad. I. remarks that the
word Brot, ἐστὶν ὁ τῆς χλεψύδρας ἦχος
ἐιμητικῶς κατὰ τοὺς παλαιούς" βὴ, ἔχει
μίμησιν προξάτων φωνῆς. Κρατῖνος. βλόψ,
est clepsydre sonus ex imitatione secun-
dum veteres: et Giimitatur vocem ovium.
Cratinus. On the 452d [verse A,7A
dein’, οὐ setv—having said, that ἃ & δα-
συνθὲν γέλωτα δηλοῖ, he writes thus, εἰσί
πινες μιμητικαὶ φωναὶ αὐταὶ κατὰ αὐτοὺς
TOUS φωνοῦντας" τὸ ὦ mr, γαυτικόν. ποιξκενι-
κὸν δὲ τὸ βή" καὶ τὸ χύῤῥε συξοτικόν" ἃ
ἃ aspiratum risum exprimit. sunt que-
dam imitatrices voces per se ipse juata
ipsos qui efferunt. ὦ om nautica est, pas-
toralis Si, et χύῤῥε subulcorum propria.
Our Sailors O-up, or Ho-up is, we see,
the old Greek call on shipbeard. Thus
when Bacchus in the Βάτραχοι of Arist.
(at the end of act. i. sc. 4.) bids
Charon give the water call, AIO κατα-
XA. "Qin, wir or. But
that such observations as these, made
fo ascertain pronunciation, may not
appear ridiculous, I will propose to
the reader’s

χέλευη δή.

consideration the fol-
lowing words of Sir John Cheke on
this subject to the Bishop of Winches-
ter. ““ Sed ridiculum putas hic ad
oves et boves confugere, ut a brutis ra-
tione defectis quicquam. cognoscamus.

Non est ridiculum ἃ natura quicquam
petere, et a brutorum constantia ad dis-
cendum aliquid haurire. Et cum mul-
tarum virtutum exempla ab illis peti-
mus, cur ridiculum erit quasdam sono-
rum controversias ex illorum constantia
potius, quam ex hominum quorundam
Sed

nequaquam Demostheni turpe videba-

intemperantium levitate discere.

tur, ne oplimis quidem relictis magis-
tris ad canes se conferre, et ab illis,
literze vim et naturam petere, illorum-
que in sonando, quod satis esset, mo-
At nos Demosthene elo-
quentiores pudet eandem viam discendi

rum imitari,

persequi, et quod certum est ab ovibus
haurire, ne videlicet nimis stolidi oves
Quo tandem
illa apud Platonem sententia evanuit,

imitando esse ducamur.

que precipit, ut doceayus citra invi-
diam, discamus citra pudorem? Modo
enim id, quod discitur, sit honestum,
Non tam
enim auctoritas docentis querilur, quam
discendorum verilas ; et si hoc, quod
discitur, cum auctorilale utilitatem con-

quid refert ἃ quo discas?

junctam habet, non tam laborandum, ἃ
quo proficiscatur, quam in quantam viro-
rum utilitatem desinat.—Epist. prim.
ad Episc. Vinton. p. 124,

+ Lib. i.

¢ ““ Litera enim longa positione mi-
nor est quam ea, que longa natura est.
Cum etiam @ longa natura major sit
quam dipthongus as,

20 : ESSAY ON

bious vowels, as they are called, and the five Latin ones
each single character doth virtually contain the powers
of * two vowels at least, a long and a short one: which
two powers under one letter do as distinctly exist, as+
o and w did in o, before the addition of the mark w to
the Attic alphabet, and as ε and ἡ did in ς, before the
additional character ἡ. And indeed Quinctilian says,
that these two powers had been formerly expressed in
his own language by two characters; for that, before
Accius’s time, and even after it, the ancients used to
write their long syllables with two vowels: ‘ usque ad
Accium, et ultra, porrectas syllabas geminis vocalibus
scripserunt.”—Lib. 1.7. What we now write cOgo was
then coago, cogito, coagito, captivi captivei, libo leibo from
λείβω, dico deico from δείκω, which certainly sounded
differently from dica of δίκη: so the preterits with the
temporal augment emi éemi, egi aégi, edi δα. Instances
of this kind may be seen in every line of the Leges Re-
giz et Xvirales, collected by Lipsius.{ The Greeks
seem not ever to have used two short vowels in like

* Sextus Empiricus therefore, with
good reason, (though Dr. G. thinks
otherwise, p. 28.) concludes, that there
are ten Greek vowels.—Adv. Gram.
0 Ὁ: 112.

t The reader may see some very
sound and ingenious criticism, ground-
ed on the different powers of Homer’s
o (which indeed were three, of 0, w, and
ov) in Dr. Taylor’s Elements of Civil
Law, p. 553. 4.5. See also p. 561.
on the Roman vowels. On the Greek
vowels, see likewise his Commentary
on Marmor Sandvicense, p.7, 8, 9.

$ They are given also by Sylburgius
at the end of his first vol. of Dionys.
Halic. Scaurus (de Orthograph. p.
2255.) cites some lines of Lucillius on
this subject.
wbi 1 exile est, per se jubet seribi, at ubi

““ Ttem quod Lucillius,

plenum est, preponendum esse E credit,
Ats versibus ;

MEILteE hominum, duo MrILttiA, item
huic utroque opus MEILEs,

Merrirram, tenues I. Prtam qua lu-
dimus, P1Lum

Quo pinso, tenues I. plura hee feceris,

PEIra
Quz jacimus, addes E, Pera, ut ple-

nius fiat.”

The ei instead of the long ὃ we find
several times in every page of Varro,
as published by Jos. Scaliger. The ez
was likewise used in many plurals of
nouns, where we now have the long e:
our omnes was omneis: in the Augustan
age it was omnis. Not that the two
vowels in these places were then quite
out of use: for inscriptions even of that
wera give us Civinus SenvaTeis. The
final us of the genitive singular, nomi-
native, and accusative plural of the
fourth declension, is a contraction from

Uis, WES; Manis, Manwes, Mans. f

ACCENT AND QUANTITY. 91

manner for a long one: but one character served both
purposes. Ov yao ἡ ἐχρώμεθα, ἀλλὰ ε τὸ παλαιὸν, Says
Plato in his Cratylus: and again, τὸ γὰρ ο ἀντὶ rov ὦ
ἐχρώμεθα. We say now that i or τ is doubtful: and so
it is to us, on account of our ignorance of the ancient
pronunciation: but in that there was no ambiguity ; the
two powers long, and short, of ὁ or u, were then as easily
discernible as a and o are now. In general as the pow-
ers of all the letters existed in the human voice before
the invention and formation of the letters themselves, so
there are many distinct sounds and powers at present,

that have no different character yet assigned them. +

And the long ἡ of the fourth conjugation
is, 1 believe, a contraction of the like
kind. Audt-tsfrom Audi-o is like Legis
from Leg-o: from Audi-%s, Audis. And so
perhaps docé-o, doct-is, doces. Scaliger
with good reason supposes, that the
loug ὁ in the penultima of illius, wnius,
alius, ““ quasi dipthongus Greca re-
mansit, ac longa fuit, illeius 9 + + + « «
Secundus hic casus possessivus dictus
est: possessivorum autem multa sic in-
venias, Petreius, Luceius, Locutuleius,
a petra, luce, locutione « . « » « Ὁ
Ergo vir doctissimus Terentianus non
fuit veritus producere in alterius, quum
tamen czteri corriperent.” De Caus.
Ling. Lat. c. 43. The verse of Teren-
tianus, to which Scaliger here refers,
is the following Trochaic, tetrameter
catalectic ;

Sescupla vel una vincet alterius singu-

lum. Putsch. p. 2412.

* This double use of the same cha-
racter is taken notice of by the Scho-
liast on the Pheenissz of Euripides. v.
668.
the words σοὶ ἔκγονοι not in the nomina-
tive plural, bul dative singular, saying
“it may be written σῷ γιν éxyovw κτίσαν,

In that passage he understands

not as it is mow σοὶ ἔκγονοι + -
» The occasion of the mis-

SO Je, 8 ὦ

take was this. Before the addition of
long vowels, when Euclides was Ar-
chon of Athens, they used short ones
instead of long, é instead of 4, and 6 in-
stead of &. δήμω was then wrilten
with the é added thus Agua. Those
therefore, who did not think of turning
here the ὁ into the ὦ have confounded
the meaning of the verse.” It was in
the Arconship of Euclides that these
long letters, (after having been invent-
ed by Simonides, from him received
into common use among the Ionians
about 50 years before Christ, and set-
tled afterwards in the alphabet by Cal-
listratus the Samian) were admitted
into public writings and inscriptions by
the Athenians. See Suidas in Σιμωνίδης :
in ᾿Αττικισμός: and in Σαμίων ὁ δῆμος.
This magistracy of Euclides is there-
fore a remarkable era in literature, and
gaye occasion to that expression, τῆς
μετ᾽ Εὐκλείδην Γραμματικῆς. Euripides
lived before Euclides: Plato twenty
years after him. Callistratus was the
person, who settled the Greek alphabet
in the form wherein we now have it.—
See Valcken, ad Pheniss. p. 260. 668.

+ “ Quibusdam literis deficimus,
quas tamen sonus enunciationis arces-
sit.”—Velius Long. apud Putschium. p.
2219. As the ancient alphabets, like

22 ESSAY ON

In regard to the Romans, what is said above will be
more clearly seen in Latin words, which are either de-
rived from the Greek, or from which Greek ones were
afterwards derived: as in venter (from ἔντερα with the
initial Holic digamma) the first syllable, though long,
was shorter on account of the short e, than the first of
Census, Féstus, (in Greek κῆνσος, φῆστος) where not only
the syllable, but the vowel too was long.

In general, the difference between the long and longer
time is this: in the former case the vowel derives its
length from being joined close in articulation with the
following consonant, as in fal-lit: in the latter case, the
vowel commonly stands alone disjoined from the next
consonant, as in falle-bat. Thus in English the first syl-
lable of mé-tre is longer than the first of bct-ter. The
longest time of all is when the long vowel comes before
two consonants, as in Φῆστος, essemus, finder, mind.
Very often in English the vowel before a consonant
seems to derive its length from the vowel following it,
as in bite, write: which without the final vowel is short,
bit, writ. But this is never the case among the Greeks
or Latins, who in no single syllable have a consonant
between two vowels. But this exactness is of no great
significance towards establishing quantity. That sub-
sists, whenever in comparing two times there is an* ex-

our own, were defective, so were they
redundant likewise in having two cha-
racters sometimes for the same sound.
“ Grecos (says Gellius. xix. 14.) non
tantz inscitize arcesso, qui ov ex o et
u scripserunt, quante qui εἰ ex ε ets.
Illud enim inopia fecerunt, hoc nulla
And Diomede
says in plain terms, the Roman alpha-
bet was redundant: ‘ Ex viginti et tri-
bus [literis] du supervacue K et Q.”
lib.ii. And after them the best Latin
grammarian since Priscian: ‘‘ Romani

necessitate subacti.”

partim pronunciabant literas, quas non
seribebant, et quarum characteribus
deficiebantur; parlim eas, quas scri-

bebant, non pronunciabant.”—Gasp.
Sciopp. Gram. Philosoph. p. 216.

* Musici non omnes inter se longas
aut breves pari mensura consistere, siqui-
dem et hrevi breviorem, et longa longio-
rem dicant posse syllabam fieri. + + « +
Sed hee scrupulositas
Musicis et Rythmicis relinquatur« + «
* + © © + cum metris nihil majus mi-
nusve afferat hujusmodi ratio, Musicis
potius quam metricis id auscultandum
esse dicemus.-—Mar. Victorini. Art.
Gram. lib. 1. p. 2482. Putsch. As the
nicer subdivision of times into longer
and longest, shorter and shortest, does
not much concern metre, we may there-

ACCENT AND QUANTITY. 23

cess on one side, whatever the cause or degree of that
excess may happen to be.

The power of two consonants, among the Greeks and
Romans, in retarding the voice during the pronunciation
of a vowel preceding them, suspends not only the vowel
coming before them in the same word, but acts back-
wards also on a short vowel at the end of the preceding
word; particularly when the former of the consonants
is an S; which, according to * Terentianus Maurus,

—Quanquam capite alterius verbi teneantur,
Sufficiant retro vires et tempus oportet,
Consona quod debet geminata referre priori.

This after the time of Lucretius is almost universally
observed among the good Latin poets, except in such
writings of a looser metre, as are Sermoni propiora: and
therefore in Horace we have Sepé stylum vertas. But
in the good Greek poets} it is always observed: in-
stances of which may be seen in almost any page of
Homer or Sophocles.

This rule of Terentianus, confirmed by Victorinus
(though little attended to at present) is enforced by the
ingenious Mr. Dawes, as far as itregards + the Latin me-
tre. I cannot here omit observing, that the same rule is
particularly remarked in respect to the Greek by the
Scholiast on Callimachus; in one of whose hymns is
the following verse:

Ve
Κτήνεά pw λοιμὸς καταβύσκεται, ἔργα δὲ πάχνη.

In Dian. ν. 125.

Some persons have thought that qv in this line, being
an uncommon word, should be altered to σφιν : but that
EPA ESE Seen 2 Seis Fe en ae eee Ὁ

fore on the whole admit what Longinus 485. Gibs.

lays down: Ἐν δὲ τοῖς Ἱμετρικοῖς εἰδέναι * Pusch. p. 9406.

δεῖ ὅτι πᾶσα βεαχεῖα ἴση, καὶ πᾶσα μακρὰ + The initial p among the Attics had
ἴση. In re metrica illud tenendum, om- the same power with two consonants.
nes breves inter se esse aequales, item Dawes. Misc. Critic. Ρ. 159. 160.
omnes longas.—Fragm., Proiegom. in $ Misc. Crit. sec. 1.

Hephst. See a!so Quinctil. ix. 4. Ρ

24 ESSAY ON

it cannot be σφιν, the scholiast observes, gw χωρὶς τοῦ
σ, διὰ τὸ μέτρον, because if σφιν is placed there, it will
lengthen the final vowel of the preceding word κτήνεα
σφιν. The reader cannot but take notice that the obser-
vation of Terentianus and Victorinus on the power of s,
retro vires ac tempus sufficientis, is very conformable with
what Cicero says above on the short syllable im being
long before s, though short before some other conso-
nants. *Jac. Ceporinus allows this in the Greek metre.
But he is mistaken in denying that the same takes place
in the Latin. He takes notice very properly of one
thing on the subject of metre, which is often overlooked,
that μν, xr, 77, in regard to the preceding vowel, are each
of them considered as a mute and liquid in conjunction; +
Αἰγυπτίους Odys. ὃ. 83. Ἠλεκτρυώνης Hes. Scut. Here. v.
16. 35. Τέμνει Iliad. N.v. 707. Thus verbs beginning
with those two consonants repeat the former of them in
the reduplication of the preterit tense; which syllable
of reduplication with the consonant is in general short,
but without the consonant the additional ε is long, as in
the first of ἔζηκα.

When we see so very frequently Greek vowels made
short before two consonants, (of which a hundred { in-
stances might be given) and on the other hand, made
long before other vowels, as in ἄλγιον, δάκρυε and num-
berless other words; why should we be surprised at
finding the same in our own language, asin really, cru-
élty, &c? There is indeed no good reason in the nature
of our sound, why the voice should not dwell long on a
single vowel, and in a short time hurry over more than
one consonant. But arguments of general reason, ina
case relating to speech, I do not so much regard, as

* Si sequens dictio substruat binas vel
duplices consonantes, precedentis dictio-
nis vocalem finalem brevem Gracis sufful-
cunt. Cum tamen apud Latinos bine
consonantes dictionis postere principales
nihil juvent positu vocalem brevem nude
finalem dictionis prioris. in Hesiod. de-
claratiuncula.

+See a remark of Herodian, pub-
lished from a MS, lately by Mr. Vale-
kenaer on Pheenis. v. 1508.

1 See Mr. Heath’s notes on Alsch,
Agam. y. 120. Soph. Elect. 122. 128.
Eurip, Hec, 685, and Mr, Dawes, p.
196,

ACCENT AND QUANTITY. 25

fact. And fact, I am sure, allows of what is said above.
The first syllable of the word strength-en, where the
vowel appears to the sight to be clogged with six con-
Sonants and an aspirate, hath as quick and easy a pro-
nunciation, as the first syllable of oo-zy, where two vow-
els stand alone.

This brings me again to the consideration of English
quantity : in regard to which, it will be said, that those
syllables, which I call long, receive a peculiar stress of
voice from their acute accent, as in réally, crielty. 1 al-
low it; and by that means they are elevated: but they
are lengthened too. The case is, we English cannot rea-
dily elevate a syllable without lengthening it, by which
our acute accent and long quantity generally coincide,
and fall together on the * same syllable. If we pronounce
the word majésty, we utter the first syllable with an
acute higher tone and long, the two last with a grave
lower sound and short, majésty. Here, because the
same syllable is pronounced with a higher note, i. 6.
acuted, and with a protracted one, i. e. lengthened at
the same time; we are apt not to distinguish between
these two different modes of the same syllable, between
its accent and quantity. But let one brought up in
Scotland, pronounce this word, and we may soon mark
the difference between them; by his pronouncing the
first syllable long with an acute : as, majesty’.

But the coincidence of the acute and long quantity
on the same syllable is certainly most + usual with us in
the pronunciation of our own language, (which will be
admitted by any one, who with this view attends to the
sound of an English voice.) And this has probably been
the occasion, that accent and quantity have been con-

* This is confirmed by the decisive

authority of Mr. Saml. Johnson, whose
very great abilities and extensive eru-

acting together.
ΤΙ say most usual, not universal.
The accent is on a short syllable in

dition have done an honour to his age
and country. He, in the rules of his
prosody prefixed to his dictionary,
considers the acute tone and long quan-
tity, in English verse, as equivalent by

privy, though on a long one in private.
On the other hand, though the acuted
syllable is generally long, yet every
long one is not acuted. -

26 ESSAY ON

founded together by numberless persons, not only in dis-
course, but in writing on this subject ; and quantity been
frequently considered, as excluded from our language.
There are several propositions of the following kind
in many parts of Dr. G.’s treatise, which, with all my at-
tention, it is not in my power to comprehend. A man,
(says he) of a phlegmatic temper will love long syllables,
and will be pleased with the majesty of quantity and ac-
cent. Ifthe use of accent and quantity be a sign of
phlegm and solemnity, every nation of the earth, from
the creation down to the present times, must come within
this description; and the Hottentots, Iroquois, and Sa~-
mceids, are as majestic and solemn in their manner of
specch, as the βαρυντικοὶ Aolians. For all these barba-
rous people have, I make not the least doubt, a voice
with at least two tones, and those varied in length; andif
they have, they must have accent and quantity the same
in quality though not degree with Cicero and Demos-
thenes. Again, he says, that the great disproportion be-
tween long and short syllables in the northern languages
made it impossible to think of establishing quantity, &c.
He here writes as if language and its pronunciation were
established, like civil institutions, by public laws and
decrees. Pronunciation is originally established in all
places accidentally by the ear, to which the organs of
speech, without men’s thought or attention, modulate
and adapt their sounds. We are apt indeed to say, that
the authority of such or such an ancient writer estab-
lishes the quantity of such a word: and so it does to us,
who cannot perhaps go further back for it. But this au-
thority did not really settle it at the time he wrote : the
actual pronunciation of his countrymen had before
determined it and familiarized it to the writer’s ear;
from whence he adopted it; and accordingly used the
syllable with that measure of sound, which he found as-
signed to it in common speech. If, when Virgil used the
first syllable of borus short, his countrymen at the same
time had lengthened the sound of it, he would not only
have not succeeded in establishing his own quantity,

ACCENT AND QUANTITY. 27

but by refusing to conform to the public ear in this and
the like instances, would have raised a disgust against
his writings, which must probably have stifled them in
their birth, For, as Scaliger well observes, “‘ Quis nes-
cit ἃ pueris sermonem ortum, sui usum agrestibus pre-
buisse ? quem ad eum modum acceptum, in alias distor-
quere leges, etiam sapientibus religio fuit. Quare his ita
positis ad pedum naturam et genera accedendum est.*”
Quantity therefore depends on nothing but the common
actual pronunciation; not on the authority of a writer,
not on rules: for it is antecedent to them. “ Ante enim
carmen ortum est, quam observatio carminis. +” It may
be indeed afterwards, as it has been, reduced to rules;
but those rules again relate not to the general pronun-
ciation of all languages. Many of these may have a
different manner of their own, on which difierence par-
ticular rules may be formed for them, as particular ones
had been formed for others. This is the state of the case
between the quantity of ancient and modern languages,
and the rules respecting it; which rules must always be
considered as following, not prescribing the pronuncia-
tion of any language. For, after all, let the rule be ever
so rational, the practice, which is conformable to it, is
not right on account of the rule, but the rule is right on
account of its conformity to the preceding practice. But
scholars often talk of speech, as if it were formed by
scholars ; whereas it was formed in every country long
before scholars remarked it. And when they do make
their remarks on it, they must take it as they find it.
The question always in this case is, not what could or
should be, but whatis. And thus inregard to quantity ;
when a German can ¢ precipitate his voice over four or

* Scalig. de pedum gener. in poet. brevia producunt, ut debauché, impie.
lib. ii. Germani, Belge, Angli dipthongos et
+ Quinct. lib. ix. c. 4, positiones etiam difficiles subinde ne-
ὁ This Henninius complains of, not — gligunt: v. gr. ¢mmerdoer, éverdracht,
only as perverting quantity, but as de- _Kéttinghen ;_ Hémilton, Canterbury.”
stroying the very nature and essence Ἕλλην, Ὄρθ. p. 87. §. cxi.
of it. ‘ Galli longa subinde corripiunt,

28 ESSAY ON

five consonants without lengthening the sound of the
preceding vowel, where a Greek or Roman voice would
be retarded by only two; itis absurd to say, this Ger-
man has not a natural quantity. It is natural, formed as
much by the nature of his organs and senses, as that of
the Greeks and Romans by theirs. But many men call
that only natural and rational, * which is agreeable
to their own nature and partial way of thinking. Thus
an African thinks a white complexion unnatural, and
millions of Europeans think a black one so: whereas
both are natural, in a limited peculiar sense. A thing
may be natural without being universal. A Chinese or
Muscovite has the same right to call his particular pro-
nunciation a natiral one, as Dr. G. has to call the Greek
and Roman by thatname. When therefore he says that
“natural quantity” is excluded from the northern lan-
guages, he can mean only a particular kind of quantity
reducible to his own Greek and Latin rules of it. But
every language doth, beyond all doubt, establish a dif-
ference between syllables, making some long and others
short, and consequently hath a natural quantity, which
is one source of whatever harmony it hath.

I will not deny, that where there is a greater number
of vowels in a language, there will be more harmony.
Homer's ἠελίοιο, or Herodotus’s ἑωὐτέου, where out of
seven letters there are five syllables and six vowels, is
certainly infinitely superior in sweetness to Chrultznitz,
where in a greater number of letters there are but two
vowels and two syllables. But yet there is quantity in
Chrultzniiz: there may be quantity with little harmony,
and indeed with scarcely any at all: for mere quantity,
consisting in general of only two measures, hath not in
itself sufficient variety to be the foundation of much
harmony, as will be fully shewn in another place.

* Thus Henninius calls that pronun- languages, the Arabic, Latin, and old
ation alone rational, which is directed Greek upon his plan. The pronuncia-
by a regard to the penultima. This tion of all other languages, particularly
takes in, according to him, only three the modern, is irrational. See p. 87. 88.

ACCENT AND QUANTITY. 29

CHAP. III.

The metre of the English language. The kinds of it. Why no hexameters.
Mere metre not sufficient to constitute good verse. In what the pronunciation
of the English, Scotch, Welch, and Irish, differs.

IF then quantity is not excluded from our language,
and the English, as well as Greek and Latin, metre is
regulated by it; a question may arise, why cannot our
language be adapted to the old heroic measure, consist-
ing of dactyls and spondees, as itis shewn by Dr, Bentley
to admit the iambic, trochaic, and some others. Our
common epic verse consisting of five feet, is trimeter
iambic brachycatalectic :

And so far the common English iambic is in the qua-
lity of its feet, though not in number, like that of the
Greeks and Romans, admitting likewise, as they do,
dactyls, spondees, anapests, and tribrachs. The dactyl
isnot very common, but may be found in every place of
the verse, except the fifth: the rapidity of it on particu-
lar occasions in the second place, where it is unusual,
has great force, especially when joined with other quick
feet, the trochee or Pyrrhic: as in these,

The anapest is common in every place, and it would
appear much oftener, with propriety and grace, if abbre-

“0 ESSAY ON

viations weremore avoided. The tribrach too is often
seen, as in

Yet beauty, tho’ injurious, hath strange power.

But thereis one particularity in our zambic, in which
it differs very much from that of the ancients. They, it
is well known, never admitted a trochee into their iam-
bics ; according to them ὁ Τροχαῖος ἀντιπαθεῖ τῷ “Tau By.
But in the English, a ¢rochee placed at the beginning of
an iambic verse gives it a peculiar beauty and vigour, as
in this:

Die of | a rose in aromatic pain.

This pleasing effect of the trochee Mr. Pope, beyond
all other English poets, seems to have felt, and has ac-
cordingly used it oftener than any of them. He has like-
wise introduced it on particular occasions with great
success, in the middle, as wellas the beginning of his
verse, and even at the end of a sentence:

On all sides round the forest hurls her oaks
Headlong.

In general, that nervous springiness (if I may so ex-
press it) so very observable in Mr. Pope’s metre, is often
owing chiefly to a ¢rochee beginning his line. And the
weakest lines among his, in point of versification, are
those which begin with a pure iambic. The trochee is
admitted in every place of our verse, except the last.
It is sometimes followed by an iambic, and so forms the
choriambic, as in the foregoing, die of a rose: sometimes
by a spondee, and so forms the second epitrite, as

Lives through ali life, extends through all extent.
It must be so: Cato, thou reason’st well.

ACCENT AND QUANTITY. 31

The second epitrite, and choriambic, appear, both in
this:

Bow’d théir stiff necks | loadén with stormy blasts.

The choriambic in the first and second places, or third
and fourth, is better than in the second and third, or
fourth and fifth; asin

Where were yé, nymphs | when the remorseless deep —
itis more harmonious, than in this,

In their triple degrées, regions to which —
Fierce rain with lightning mixt, water with f ire.

The pyrrhic too is as frequently admitted into our
verse, as the trochee, and very greatly contributes to the
variety of the modulation. It is chiefly excluded from
_ the last place in rhymed verses, by the mere force of
the rhime: it is however sometimes admitted there, and
in blank verse very often, especially in dramatic poetry,
where it gives a more natural air and kind of ease to
the dialogue :

In the calm lights of mild Philosophy.

It is sometimes followed by a spondee, and so forms
the minor ionic, as here,

Eternity, thou pleasing, dreadful thought.
Each pray’r accepted, and each wish resign’d

Sometimes it is followed by an zambic, and so forms the
fourth peon:

As full as perfect in a hair, as heart.
Jael, who with inhospitable guile.

32 ESSAY ON

Though the measure formed by the pyrrhic and spon-
dee, is very agreeable to an English ear, and probably
was so to an Ionian, yet to a Roman it seems to have
been not so pleasing, if we may judge in this case from
the omission of Horace, who among the Latin writers
is distinguished by the name of numerosus, and has left
but one instance of this* Ionic measure, of which he
seems to have been soon tired,

Miserarum est | neque amori | daré ludium.

Though he hardly gave it a fair trial, as he used it
unmixed. I wish we had the whole of that ode of Sap-
pho, which began with one of these verses :

Τί we Πανδι- | ovie’ dpa- | va χελιδών.

This Ionic movement we have in some of our songs.

The admission of so many different measures into our
common verse, gives it a variety (which in all modula-
tion is of the greatest consequence, and in Milton most
remarkable) not to be exceeded, if equalled, in any of
the ancient kinds of metre, at least not in their epic and
dramatic. That, which makes our verse fall short of
the excellence of the ancient, is the want of that dignity
aiid solemnity, which distinguishes their heroic measure.

The compass of our long heroic verse is but narrow.
A Latin or Greek epic line does, in the language of
prosody, consist of twenty four times. A Latin or

* Terentianus Maurus has taken notice of this, in two Ionic lines :

Tonic from the two Phrynichi, the tra-
gic and comic poets. Pag. 39. edit.

Hephestion mentions an ode of Alc-
man, and one of Sappho in this metre,
Pauw.

and gives a verse from each; as like-
wise from Alczeus, who is said by him
to have written several odes in the
same measure. He cites also some

tretrameter catalectic lines of the minor

Dr. Bentley says in primis
dulce est metrum (not. ad Hor. carm.
lib. iii. 12.) and thinks the difficulty of
il alone prevented Horace from making
a second attempt.

ACCENT AND QUANTITY. 33

Greek iambic, if pure, of eighteen times. But the long
English heroic, if it consists of pure iambics, has but
fifteen times. So that it is, for this reason among
others, difficult for an English poet to translate any
number of Latin or Greek iambics or hexameters into a
like number of English epic lines.

But to resume our question. If the English admits
the iambic, why not the dactylic and spondeic metre?
The reason seems to be this: there are not many dactyls
in our language, and hardly any spondees, I mean, scarce
ever two syllables, next to each other in the same word,
both long alike, as they frequently are in Greek and
Latin. In general our language is iambic and trochaic,
our dissyllable nouns being for the most part trochaic,
and our verbs tambic, as in the

NOUNS. VERBS.
Frequent Frequent
converse converse
concert concert
process proceed

- premise premise
refuse refuse, or refund
produce produce
present present
object object
project project
absent absent
contest contest
conduct conduct
descant descant.

Some polysyllables are indeed dactylic: but in most
words of more than two syllables, the long syllable is
so placed, as to make the word, when divided, resolve
itself into an iambic or trochaic foot, as réf?- | ner, or
ré- | finer. Thus for the most part the long and short
syllables of our language are alternate. And accord-

94 ESSAY ON

ingly in many words derived from Latin, those letters
which form two short syllables together in their original
tongue, in English form but one, by which the long and
short times succeed each other alternately. This is
seen particularly in substantives ending in ion, as nation,
mention, which sound and are scanned in metre thus,
menshon, nashon, where our last short syllable makes
two in Latin, mentio, natio. ‘This tendency of our lan-
guage to zambic and trechaic measure hath insensibly
made it run so much into verses of that kind, and ren-
dered it incapable of bending to the ancient heroic me-
tre ; which was the reason of Sir Philip Sydney’s mis-
carriage in attempting to introduce English hexameters
on the Greek and Latin plan,

And Sydney’s verse halts ill on Roman feet.

This is confirmed by Dr. Bentley, who speaks of the
metra dactylica in relation to our own language, as a
kind, quod patria lingua non recipit. By this means
our language is deprived of that kind of metre, which is
of all others the most noble and solemn, according to
what Longinus truly says of the dactylic measures,
Ἐεὐγενέστατοι οὗτοι καὶ μεγεθοποιοί: and Aristotle likewise,
+O μὲν ἡρῷος σεμνὸς, καὶ οὐ λεκτικός : Whereas the zambic
more nearly approaches to common discourse, ὁ δὲ ἴαμ-
βος αὐτή ἐστιν ἡ λέξις τῶν πολλῶν" Clo μάλιστα πάντων τῶν
μέτρων ἰαμβεῖα φθέγγονται λέγοντες. But in whatever
metre the long and short syllables are alternate, to that
our language is easily adapted: as to this, where the
amphibrachys is used,

With honour | and glory | through trouble | and dangér

* Nobilissimi hi sunt, et ad sublimi- $ Iambus est ipsa dictio vulgi. quare
tatem facientes. Sect. 39. Aristides maxime omnium metrorum Iambica effe-
Quintilianus accounts for this, de Mu- — runt vulgo loquentes. Rhet. iii. 8. See
sie. lib. i, p. 51. also Poet. c. 4.

+ Pes Herous solennis, nec sermoni aptus.

ACCENT AND QUANTITY. 90
or where the cretic,

O thé sweet | country life | blést with héalth | peace and
(éase.

(As this foot is called the fescennine, it probably was
chiefly used in the old poetic ribaldry, that has the same
name.) But to none more happily than the trechaic, to
express alacrity, and exultation:

Vital | spark of | héav’nly | flame:
Quit, oh quit this mortal frame :
Hark! they whisper ; Angels say,
Sister spirit, come away.

So Milton in describing his rustic jollity,

When thé | merry | bells ring | round,
And thé jocund rebecks sound,

To many a youth and many a maid
Dancing in the chéquer’d shade.

There is indeed no kind or degree of harmony, of
which our language is capable, which may not be found
in numberless instances through Milton’s writings: the
excellency of whose ear seems to have been equal to
that of his imagination and learning.

Notwithstanding the confidence, with which it is often
affirmed, that English metre depends on accent and not
on quantity, which I have endeavoured to refute ; and
though Ihave allowed that accent jointly with quantity
doth direct it; yet I cannot help thinking, that the es-
sence of it is founded in quantity alone. And to this I
am induced by the following fact: let aScotchman take
some verses of any of our poets, as these,

All human things are subject to decay,
And when fate simmons, monarchs must obey.

He will pronounce them with the accent transposed thus,
D2

36 ESSAY ON

All human things are subjéct to decay,
And when Fate summons, mondrchs must obey.

Now, though he alters the tones, and transfers the
acute from the beginning to the end of words, yet in this
pronunciation the metre still essentially subsists, because
founded in quantity, which is not violated by him. Did
the metre depend on accent, it would be necessarily
disturbed and destroyed by his transposition of that
accent.

Metre depends on quantity alone. Rhythm is in its
nature more complex, and seems to comprehend accent
with quantity. The difference between mere metre, and
rhythm, considered in this light, will be readily seen by
any one upon reading the two following lines :

The metre here in both is the same, accurate and
good: but the rhythm, by which I mean the result of the
whole, is different, being in the former verse very bad:
because, though the times in each foot of it are right,
the tones, in regard to the modulation of the whole, are
wrong and placed improperly. ‘‘ Neque vero tam sunt
intuendi pedes, quam universa comprehensio.”* Scali-
ger+, I know, accounts for the bad rhythm of such verses
as the preceding (where single words complete single
feet, and both are closed together) by saying, that the
words in scanning should run into each other, as stones
and pieces of timber do in buildings, where the joints
are carefully diversified. But this is only a rhetorical
illustration of the fact (i. 6. the c@sura) in Greek and
Roman verse, not an explanation of the cause in gene-
ral. If this principle of his operated universally, it
would in our language, and the following verse would
accordingly be faulty in rhythm,

* Quinct. ix, 4. + Poetic. I. 3. et iv. 49.

ACCENT AND QUANTITY. 37

Heroes, repel attacks, command success.

Here the single feet are each separately complete in
single words, as in the Latin line above: and yet in this
English verse there is no want of poetical rhythm and
harmony. The case seems to be this: since with us the
long times and acute tones coincide, if these times are
right, the tones cannot be wrong; and therefore what-
ever makes true metre, will always make tolerable
rhythm. But in another language, where the long quan-
tity and accent are frequently separate, the times and
metre may be perfectly right, and yet, by a particular
position of the tones, the rhythm may be very defective.
This thing however is of a subtile nature, and admits
perhaps of a different and better explanation. I can at
present see no other reason, except that assigned above,
why the Latin and Greek verse should require the*
ceésura any more than the English. We may be assured,
that the harmony of ancient verse was somehow affected
by accent, even if the c@sura was not at all connected
with it, because Quinctilian says, (lib. xii. c. 10.) that
the difference between the Greek and Latin accent occa-
sioned the difference in point of sweetness between the

therefore perhaps no cesura. Athe-
nzus mentions a poem of Castorion
Solensis, as a very particular one,

* On the application of the cesura
in ancient metre, see Beda de metr. ra-
tion. p. 2368. Dr. Bentley, de metr.

Terent. p. 2. et seq. and more fully Mr.
D’orville, Crit. Van. p. 323. et seq.
The only kind of verse, wherein it was
not required, was the anapestic. Be-
cause, as that consisted of no particu-
lar number of feet, but was capable of
being either extended to a great length,
or cul short after any foct; it had not
any one foot written with a regard to
another, (except in the quantity of its
final syllable,) but each was independ-
ent of the other, being detached and
complete in itself: and thus there was
uorhythm ofawhole set of feet, asin other
measures required or observed, aud

wherein the single feet were completed
in single words. Τὸ δὲ Καστορίωνος τοῦ
Σολέως, ὡς ὁ Κλέαρχός φησιν, εἰς τὸν Πᾶνα
ποίημα τοιοῦτόν ἔστι. Τῶν ππτοδῶν ἕκαστος
ὅλοις ὀνόματι περιειλημι μένος πάντας ὁμοίως
ἡγεμκονικοὺς καὶ ἀκολουθητικοὺς ἔχει τοὺς
πέδας... .. τούτων δὲ ἕκαστος τῶν ποδῶν,
ὡς ἂς τὴ τάξει Ons, τὸ αὐτὸ μέτρον ἀπο-
Castorion Solensis, ut Clearchus
dicit, in Panu hujusmodi poema condidit,
Singuli pedes integris vocabulis compre-
hensi, et untecedentes et Sequentes omnes
pedes similes habent....... Horum pe-
dum quisque, quocunque modo dispona-
tur, idem metrum reddet. lib. x. p. 455.

δώσει.

38 ESSAY ON

Greek and Roman verse, and gave so great a superiority
to the former. ᾿ ;

There are many accounts of the poetical Ῥυθμὸς or
numerus to be met with among the grammarians, both
ancient and modern; some of which I do not clearly
understand. Of those which are intelligible to me, I
know not any one more full and satisfactory, than this
which Scaliger gives. ‘ Oritur [Ῥυθμὸς vel numerus]
ex partium quantitate, qualitate, dispositione. Quan-
titas duplex, in corpore et in fempore: corpus appello
dictionis. extensionem, tempus tractum pronunciationis.
Qualitas in tenore etin sono: tenorem intelligo elationem
vocis aut depressionem, sonum aeris verberationem qua-
lemcunqgue. Dispositio comprehendit locum, situm,
ordinem. Quod ambigua voce dixerunt numerum ve-
teres (nobis liceat) canorem appellemus. Est quippe
numerus in oratione concentus quidam*.” ‘The reader
may see this further explained by Scaliger, with great
discernment and subtlety, in another passge, wherein he
shews, how rhythm comprebends metre, and ought to di-
rect it. Aristotle, with his usual brevity, says the same
in his poetics, where having mentioned the difference of
letters in δασύτητι καὶ ψιλότητι, Kai μήκει καὶ βραχύτητι, ἔτι
δὲ καὶ ὀξύτητι καὶ βαρύτητι καὶ τῷ μέσῳ, he observes, that
each of these particulars is to be regarded, where metre
is concerned, περὶ ὧν καθ᾽ ἕκαστον ἐν τοῖς μετρικοῖς προσή-
κει θεωρεῖν.

In regard to the difference of manner in the pronun-
ciation of our own language among those different, na-
tions which use it, it may be stated thus:

The English join the acute and long time together, as
in liberty.

The Scotch observe our quantity, and alter our ac-
cent: liberty’. When L say they observe our quantity,
Ἐ mean they pronounce the same syllabie long which
we do, but they make it longer. In respect to the cir-
cumflex with which their pronunciation abounds, it may

* Poetic. iv. 44. td pli 2.

ACCENT AND QUANTITY. 39

be remarked that it is not formed, as the Greek, Latin,
and English, of an acute and grave, but of a grave and
acute. ναὺς. rds. round, Engl. round, Scot.

The Irish observe our quantity and accent too, but
with a greater degree of spirit or emphasis, which Sca-
liger calls afflatio in laiitudine, giving to most syllables
an aspiration: li be'rty.

The Welch keep our quantity, and alter the accent,
with a manner of voice, which Cicero calls aspera, frac-
fa, scissa, flexo sono: liberty’.

Nor need we wonder, that in the different provinces and
kingdoms where our language is used, there should bea
variation in the tones, though there be none in the syl-
lables themselves, or their quantity. The same exactly
was the case of the Greek tongue in different countries.
The Asiatic Greeks in using the very same word and
quantity with the Attics, pronounced it with a different
spirit* and accent: What an Attic called ἱερεὺς, an ALo-
lian did igpevc, what the former did ἐγὼ, the latter ἔγω.
The same general adherence to words and quantity, and
particular variation of tone and spirit are certainly ob-
servable in the use of our own language now; the man-
ner of pronunciation among the Scotch, and Welch,
being oxytone, that of the English and Irish barytone;
the former carrying the accent forward to the end of

(tom. IL. p. 189) has turned from To-
nic into Attic Greek, the difference be-
iween the two, which is first observa-
ble, is the frequent aspiration in the
latter, not seen in the former. The At-

* The particular accent of the Altics,
distinguished from that of the other
Greeks, is shewn at large, from the
best grammarians of antiquity, by H.
Steph. App. de Dial. Attic. p. 192!

193. 194. Eustat. 341. 12. 21. Their
particular aspiration is remarked by
Tzetzes on Hesiod. τὸ ἕλιξ ᾿Αττικοὶ
δασύνουσι" of δὲ λοιτσοὶ πάντες ψιλοῦσι"
Οἱ γὰρ ᾿Αττικὸς δασυνταί εἶσι, λέγον-
wes λίσφοι, ὡς καὶ τὸ ἅμαξα" ἣ δὲ
ποινὴ διάλεκτος καὶ τὸ ἄμαξα ψιλοῖ, κα-
θὼς Δωρὶς καὶ Αἰολὶς, καὶ Ἰωνίς. p. 108.
See also Piersonad Meerid. p. 179. In
the speech of Xerxes, in the Polyhym-
bin of Herodotus, whieh Dionysius Hal.

tics aspirated the middle or final, as
well as initial syllables, as τάωῶς men-
tioned by Athenzeus (p. 397. Casanb.)
out of Trypho. A final aspiration is ob-
served by Priscian, in the Roman, Sy-
rian, and Algyptian languages. Putsch.
p. 548. 9, Caninius from Athenzeus and
Eustathius takes notice of several :mid-
dle syllables being aspirated, that have
no mark of it at present.

40 ESSAY ON

words, and the latter drawing it backwards towards the
beginning. Jn this method of considering pronunciation
T have followed Sir John Cheke’s direction : whose words
on this head are remarkable, declaring, “ that the na-
ture of ancient pronunciation is not so abstruse, as not
to be capable of being explained, and even illustrated
in writing: nor by any means so difficult and intricate,
as not to lie open and obvious, if a scholar would apply
itto his own language: nor yet at the same time so un-
serviceable and fruitless, as not to afford him the means
of easily discovering and marking out the traces of an-
cient eloquence.” *

The learned and judicious J. Pierson makes the same
application of the Greek language to his own. ‘“ The
Attics,” says he,+- “uttered several words with a particu-
‘lar accent and spirit, as we are taught by all the gram-
marians. And I would not have such cbservations as
these rejected as the imaginary and trifiing conceits of
teachers. For is not the same variation observable in
the use of our own language, in different provinces ?”
Aldus has made a like remark on the Italian.

The consequences drawn from the peculiarity of join-
ing the acute with a long time, in pronouncing our own
language, shall be considered by me afterwards, as they
affect our pronunciation of Latin and Greek, and have

not, as far as I know, been hitherto observed.

* « Pronunciationis ratio non tam ab-
pita et recondita est, guin oratione non
modo doceri, sed illustrari possit : ne-
que tam difficilis aut aspera, quin faci-
lem ingressum et facilem viam habeat,
si quis eruditus eam primo ad Latinam,
deinde ad vernaculain linguam transfe-
rat : neque tam inutilis aut infructuosa,
quin magnum antique eloquentiz in ea
et gravilatis vestigium facile cernat,”
Epist. ad Steph. Epise. Vinton. p. 158.

t ** Attici multa vocabula accentu
mutato proferebaot, et multa a vocali
incipientia aspirabant. Nollem hee tan-

quam magistrorum nugas et mera deli-
ramenta a quibusdam explodi. In lin-
gua vernacula quis ignorat Zelandos
multa cum spiritu aspero proferre,
quz cxteri Bel gw leniter pronuncianl?”
Pref. ad Merid. Atticist. p. 34.

Ὁ“ Imitamur tamen hance Jinguarum
varietatem et copiam lingua vulgari.
Non enim eadem est Romanis lingua,
que Parthenopzis, que Calabris, qu
Siculis. Aliter Florentini loquuntur.
aliter Genuenses. Veneti a Mediolanen-
sibus lingua et pronunciatione multum

differunt.” Pref. ad Hort. Adon.

ACCENT AND QUANTITY. 6d

CHAP EVs

On the accent of the Romans. The agreement of the Latin accent and dialect
with the ZZolic. Some account of the olism of the Roman language. Ho-
mer’s Holism. An argument drawn from thence in favour of our present Greek
accentuation. The difference between the Roman apex and accentual mark.

THAT the Romans had a regular accent, that is, used
a particular elevation and depression of voice on cer-
tain syllables, distinct from the prolongation of it, is
evident, not only from the nature of things and neces-
sity of the human voice, but likewise as a fact, is clear
from what will have greater weight with many persons;
I mean, from the fullest and most undoubted authority.
Not to trouble the reader with numberless and needless
testimonies, I shall insist chiefly on Cicero and Quinc-
tilian, who will doubtless be allowed to have been ac-
curately acquainted with the niceties of their own lan-
guage, which in their writings they had frequently occa-
sion to discuss. Cicero in several passages, some of
which are cited above, expressly speaks of this thing,
as well known and observed by his countrymen. The
word accentus was not perhaps known in his time: but
I am here speaking of the * thing; and that certainly

*« Quzcunque syllaba, simpliciter in
pronunciando paulum intendebatur, illa
dicebatur ucui et acutum habere accen-

Jationibus distinxerunt.” — Perizonius
ad Sanctii Minerv. lib. i. cap. 3.
The reader will, I doubt not, be

tam, cnjus nota fuit lineola ab sinistra pleased with what Scaliger says on this

parte, unde scribimus, sese evigens.
Reliquz syllabz, quze remissius pronun-
ciabantur, credebantur habere gravem
accentum, quasi in guttur subsidentem,
et proinde ejus nota fuit lineola ab si-
nistra parte sese demittens. otis qui-
dem istis veteres non reperiuntur usi,
sed tamen sonos ipsos, prout vel inten-
debantur, vel remittebantar, islis appel-

head. ‘‘ Gravem appellarunt, ab instru-
mentis scilicet vocis: propterea quod
in guttur aut pecltus eam demitteremus.
Alteram autem priorem illam ab affec-
tu potius nominarunt acutum : ferit enim
aures, quarum viribus objecta est... .
... Evenit autem ut duz syllabz inter
se concurrerent, quarum prior haberet
acutum, altera gravem: quare ex cum

42 ESSAY ON

was; as the word was afterwards used in the time of
Quinctilian.

This author not only mentions the Roman accents oc-
casionally, but treats particularily of them, and lays
down those rules, to which they might be reduced in the
pronunciation of his countrymen. As I shall hereafter
refer to these rules, when I come to consider our mo-
dern pronunciation of the Latin language, I will extract
the principal ones from his book of institutions, and set
them before the reader. That author having said that
the accent was never carried back beyond the third syl-
lable, then shews in what manner it was placed on those
three, to which it was confined.

In PoLySyLLABLES, the penultimate, if it be long,
will have either an acute or circumflex: as contémnit,
orator. Wf the penultimate be short, the antepenulti-
mate will have an acute: as mdximus, animus, légeres,
perlégeres. “" 'Trium porro [syllabarum] de quibus lo-
quor, media longa, aut acuta aut flexa erit : eodem loco
brevis utique gravem habebit sonum, ideoque positam
ante se, id est ab ultima tertiam, acuet.”

In DISSYLLABLES, the penultimate will be always ac-
cuted :* as magnus, bonis, légas, amas. (This does not

eoaleseerent, concreverunt in unum

etiam ipsi apices sic, * : quem Greci
cum περισητώμενον dixerunt, abusi sunt
licentiainventionis: neque enim circum-
tractus fuit, sed συσπώμενον rectius no-
ninassent. Nostri quaque circumfiexum
eum appellarunt, ad celeritatem potius
pingentis manus respexere, que unico
motu virgulam arcuatam fecit, angulo
dempto, sic. ~ .”—De causis ling. Lat.
lib. ii. cap. 53. There is much to this
purpose, and of the same nature, in Just.
Lipsius de pronunt. rect. Lat. ling.
c. 18.

* Quinctiliansaysalways. The other

old grammarians attei him say the same:

but mention a few exceptions. As /E-
lius Donatus in his editio prima, after
having said ““ Aculus, cum in Grevis
dictionibus tria Joea teneat, ultimum,
penultimum el antepenultimum ; teneat
apud Latinos penultimum et anlepe-
nultimum, ullimum nunguam :” Yet
presently afler subjoins; ‘‘ In Latinis
nunquam accentus in ultima syllaba
poni potest, nisi discretionis causa, ut
in adyerbio pone, ideo, ne verbum pu-
tetur imperativi modi: neque cireum-
flexus, nisi in ea particula que est, er-
go.” These two exceptions are men-
lioned in like manner by Max. Victori-

nus. Putsch.p. 1943.

ACCENT AND QUANTITY. 43

exclude the cireumflex, which always contains an acute,
and seems to have fallen on penultimates long by na-
ture, with the last short: as péma, pira) “ Est in omni
voce acuta, sed nunquam plus una: nec ultima unquam:
ideoque in dissyllabis prior. Praeterea nunquam in ea-
dem fiexa et acuta, quoniam eadem flexa ex acuta;
itaque neutra claudet vocem Latinam.”

In MONOSYLLABLES, the single syllable will be aeuted
or circumflexed: as qudd, quis, (probably acuted, if
short, or long only by position; and circumflexed, if
long by nature, as déns, més) ““ Ea vero quee sunt sylla-
bee unius, eraunt acuta aut flexa, ne sit aliqua vox sine
acuta.”* These rules of Quinctilian are comprised in a
clear and concise manner within four hexameters by
Franciscus Sanctius :

Accentum ir se ipsa monosyllaba dictio penit.
Exacuit sedem dissyllabon omne priorein.
Ex tribus, extollit primam penuliima curta:
Extollit setpsam quando est penultuna longa.

My exposition of Quinctilian is confirmed by Diome-
des in his second book, and by Priscian in his treatise
on the Latin accent: both of whom comment very fully
and distinctly on these rules of Quinctilian, making but
very few exceptions. There are indeed a few deviations
(much fewer than might naturally be expected in the
compass of so extensive and copious a language) to be
met with in the Latin grammarians: as in Festus on the
word adeo, and in + Gellius from Annianus; where some
Latin critics refine so much, that Scioppius confesses
hecan not, and Scaliger declares he will not follow them.

* Quinct. lib. 1. c. 5.
+ Lib. vii. c. 7. Bat what Gellius

as cited above; c. 21,22. But more

largely by Despauterius in his chapter

says on the whole in that chapter, is
reducible to Quinctilian’s doctrine.—
There are other exceptions collected by
Carolns from Priscian, &c. in bis Ant-

And by Lipsus,

madp, lib. yii. c. 7.

de Accentibus et punctis: where the
reader may see what has been said on
the Latin accent by grammarians since
Priscian’s time. See. also Scaliger de
Caus. c. 62, 63.

“44 ESSAY ON

I cannot here omit taking notice of a great impropriety
in the use of circumflex and acute marks in modern
editions of Latin authors, in which we continually meet
with these marks on the last syllables of words, as in
adverbs, docte, feré, (this final grave mark being under-
stood, according to grammarians, to have the power of
an acute,) and oblique cases of substantives, as musa,
gradis, in direct opposition to Quinctilian’s declaration
here, that neither the acute nor circumflex ever falls on
the last syllable. There were some persons in his time
who affected to depart from his rule, and would place
the accent on the last syllable of some words, such as
the preposition circum, to distinguish the sense of them
from that of homonymous words. But this practice he
seems to think unnecessary,* and contrary to the genius
of the Roman language, derived from the Molian.+
The A®olians drew the accent back in many cases, where
the other Greeks did not. Thus they altered the com-
mon futures of the fifth conjugation, as ὀρῶ, τελῶ, which
they made ὄρσω, τέλσω ; the circumflexed terminations
of the genitive cases in ὧν of the first and second de-

* If to modern readers some mark
of distinction should appear necessary
(as perhaps it may) on such occasions,
to prevent ambiguity, I can see no rea-
son why the mark of time, (the old Ro-
man aper, of which more will be said
in another place,) mentioned and au-
thorized by Quiuctilian, should not be
adopted by us. The apea was like our
mark of a long quantity, and its use
thus shewn by Quinct. ‘‘ necessarium,
quum eadem litera alium atque alium
intellectum, prout correpta vel pro-
ducta est, facit; ut malus utrum arbo-
rem significet, an hominem non bonum,
apice distinguitur. Palus aliud priore
syllaba longa, aliud sequenti significat :
el cum eadem litera nominativo casu

brevis, aulativo longa est, ulrum sequa-

mur, plerumque hac nota monendi su-
mus.” Lib. i. c.7. Why then should not
we print and write fama, maniis, plane,
instead of fama, mantis, pluné ? Lipsius
was sensible of this common misappli-
cation of circumflex and acute marks,
and apologizes for using the former, by
saying, ‘‘ do me et permitlo sive Lypo-
graphis sive vulgo” (de pronunt. Lat.
ling. c. 20.) “ Ego ejus [Apicis] loco
accentu flexo utor, vel abutor in meis
libellis: quia typographis ila yisum.
At priscum illud reduci velim.” ὁ. 5.

+ Continet autem (Etymologia) in se
mullam eruditionem, sive illa ex Grecis
orla tractemus, que sunt plurima, pre-
cipueque olica ratione, cui est sermo
noster simillimus, declinata: sive, &c.
Quinct. lib. i. c. 6.

ACCENT AND QUANTITY. 45

clension they turned into éwv: the circumflexed εἴν in
the infinitive of futures or second aorists, into ἕειν.

This difference of the Aolic pronunciation from that
of the rest of Greece is remarked not only by late gram-
marians, but by those of a higher date and character.
Joannes Grammaticus* in his treatise περὶ διαλέκτων
gives instances of it in almost every page of his book.
According to him, to avoid a final circumflex or acute,
the Afolians would divide a monosyllable in two, to gain
a penultima for the acute, making πάϊς and δάϊς from
παῖς and δαῖς. Corinthus also in his book on the same
subject observes the same; and then mentions particu-
larly their not having a dual number, which peculiarity,
he says, passed from them to the Romans: + τοῖς δυϊκοῖς
ἀριθμοῖς οὗτοι κέχρηνται οὐδαμῶς, καθὰ δὴ Kat of Ῥωμαῖοι,

,
τούτων ὄντες ἄποικοι.

But that which is the clearest tes-

timony of this Holic peculiarity, and which even Vos-

* Joannes Grammaticus, called like-
wise Philoponus, and Corinthus περὶ
διαλέκτων published at the end of Las-
caris’ grammar. ἴδιον δὲ αὐτῆς ἐστι τὰς
ὀξυτόνους λέξεις ἀντιστρέφειν" μονοσύλλαβα
ὀνόματα διαιρεῖ, πάϊς, Sais, ἀπσὸ τοῦ παῖς,
δαῖς" ἰδίως δὲ οὗτοι, Coa παρ᾿ ἡμῖν δασύνεται
ἢ ὀξυτονεῖται, ψιλῶς λέγουσι καὶ βαρυτόνως"
βαρυτονοῦσι δὲ οὐ μεόνον τὰ ὀνόματα, ἀλλὰ
καὶ τὰ ἄρθρα. τὰ δὲ δισύλλαϑα, ὀξυτόνως
παρ᾿ ἡμῖν λεγόμενα, αὐτοὶ βαρυτονοῦσι" ἔθος
δὲ ἔχουσι καὶ τὰ πεοτηγορικὰ βαρύνειν.
Ta δὲ ἀπαρέμφατα καταλήγοντα εἰς εἶν,

ἜΑ : ἘΣ
αὐτοὶ εἰς εἰς κεταβάλλουει. νοεῖν νόεις, φρο-
νεῖν φρόνεις, καλεῖν κάλεις" so likewise ye-
~ ‘ ~ ’ 2 ~ ”
λῶν γέλαις, πεινῶν πείναις, ὀρθοῦν ὄρθοις,
χρυσοῦν χρύσοις.
lecti est ovytonas dictiones invertere. Mo-

Proprium hujus dia-

nosylluba nomina dividit, πάϊς, δάϊς, ab
παῖς, δαῖς. Peculiariter hi, quecunque
apud nos aspirantur vel acutum in ulti-
ma syllaba habent, cum spiritu leni et
accentu in penultimadicunt. Barytona
faciunt non solum nomina, sed et articu-
los. Dissyllaba, apud nos oxytona, ipsi

barytona efferunt. Solent etiam et ap-

pellativa gravare. Infinitiva verba in
εἶν desinentia illi in εἰς mutant, νοεῖν νόεις,
φρονεῖν φρόνεις, γελᾷν γέλαις, ὀρθοῦν ὄρθα;ς.
So oxytone participles become bary-
tones εἰρηκὼς εἰρήκων, γενοηκὼς vevonnay.
These instances of the transposition
of the Aiolic tones are collected from
different parts of Joannes Grammaticus.
+t Dualibus numeris hi nequaquam
utebantur, sicut etiam et Romani, coloni
ab his deducti. Quinclilian speaks of
some persons, who were of opinion that
the Roman language had a dual in the
third person of verbs ending in re, as
scripsére, legére. But this usage of the
final re he will rot by any means allow
to bea dual, but only applied to soften
the pronunciation, evitande asperitatis
causa. ideoque quod vocant duale, in illo
solo genere consistit. Whereas, had there
been a dual here inthe verbs, there
would probably have been onein nouns:
as the Greeks had in both. He there-
fore concludes, there certainly is no
ἀπ] in his language. Lib.i. c. 5.

46 ESSAY ON

sius himself would admit, is, what Apollonius Dyscolus
hath observed in regard to that dialect, as it appears in
some fragwents of his published by Reitsius. ἐν τῷ rept
τῆς ἐγὼ Kai ἔγωγε; Says he, Αἰολεῖς Baptwe. So again
Αἰολεῖς ἔμοι βαρέως. In another place for ὑμεῖς ὑμέες or
ὕμμες Αἰόλιον ; and for ἡμεῖς, Αἰολεῖς ἄμμες. SO ὑμέων for
ὑμῶν. for * σφῶν τῇ σφείων καὶ Αἰολεῖς χρῶνται καὶ Δωριεῖς.
There are, I believe, fifty other instances of the like
kind in about sixteen pages of this Apollonius; who is
mentioned by Suidas, as having written on the dialects
and accents. This eminent grammarian, whose autho-
rity is very great with Vossius (who did indeed him-
self transcribe those fragments cited above, which Reit-
zius afterwards published from his manuscripts) speaks
expressly in another place of this very thing: (Synt. p.
304.) ἡ Αἰολὶς, μετατιθεῖσα τοὺς τόνους τοὺς κατὰ τὸ τέλος.
“The ZAolic, + which transposes the final tones.” Vos-
sius allows that from the time of Aristophanes of Byzan-
tium down to the age of Antoninus and Commodus, the
accentuation used by the Greek grammarians was right
as applied by Dionysius Thrax, Apoilonius Alexan-
drinus, and others: “ usque ad tempora Antonini et
Commodi perstitit antiqua et fere integra loquendi ra-

* Tfsuch amanas Apolloniusthought the Scholiast on Theocrilus Idyll. vii.

not these minute parts of language un- —v. 4. on the word λυμωπέος : Γράφεται

worthy his observation, a modern gram-
marian need not, I think, regafd or
fear the application of the old lines of
Herodius, on the Γραμικατισταί.

καὶ Λυκώπεως διὰ τοῦ ὦ μεγάλου, Saree
Αἰολικῶς πιροηπταροξύνεται" ἐπειδὴ of Alo-
Χεῖς ᾿Αχίλλευς, καὶ Ἰτήλευς, καὶ βαδίλευς
βαρυτόνως λέγουσι. ὁμοίως καὶ τὸ Λυκώ-

Γωνιοβόμεβυκες, μονοσύλλαβοι, οἷσι μέ- ἥτευς᾽ διὰ τοῦτο ἡ τῶν εἰς ὡς γενικὴ wag

panne αὐτοῖς προπαρὀξύνεται. Scribitur etiam
τὸ Σφὶν καὶ Σφῶϊν, καὶ τὸ Mv, ἠδὲ ΔΛυκώπεωξς per ὦ, quod olice in antepe-
τὸ Νίν.

nultima acuitur. Quoniam Moles *Axtr-
evs, Πήλευς et βασίλευς barytona effe-
runt : similiter etiam Λυκώπευς. Ideirco
genitivus in ὡς apud illcs in antepenulti-

Athene. lib. v. p. 222.
+ It is almost needless after this to
mention other writers ; as Stephanus

de Urb. in Δαυλὶς. ὀξύνεται τὸ Δαυλὶς,
τὸ δὲ Αὖλις Αἰσλικῶς βαρύνεται, And Eu-
stathinus, p. 518. λτεες εὐθεῖα cage
᾿Αλκαίῳ εὑρέθη, καὶ βεβαρυτόνηται, ὡς Alo-
λικόγ- Αἰολέων γὰρ ἴδιον τὸ βαρυτονεῖν. So

ma acuitur. See also what Sylburgius
has observed in his Anomalie Grammat.
at the end of his Apollonius, p. 446.
and H. Steph. de Dial. Attic. p. 193,
Eustath. 265. 1. 16.

ACCENT AND QUANTITY. Ay

tio.”"* Now we see this very Apollonius tells us that
the Aiolic pronunciation was barytone. When therefore
I find Caninius, and all the other modern teachers of
Greek, making the same remark, I am not only certain
that their doctrine, as far as it respects the Alolic dia-
lect, is right, but am by presumption strengly induced to
think that their other observations on accents are true
likewise.

Dr. G. seems to be aware of the tendency of this argu-
ment, drawn from the conformity of the Roman with the
folic dialect, and the agreement of both with the pre-
sent system of accents; and endeavours strangely to
evade it by supposing this method among’ the olians of
drawing back the accent was confined to the vulgar only
among them. But what private reason he has for this
singular supposition, lies not within the compass of my
knowledge or conjecture.

I have consulted many good authors who treat of the
Holic dialect, and not a single one takes the least notice
of this barytone pronunciation being restrained to the
meaner sort. And indeed it can hardly be supposed,
there should be this difference in placing the acute tone
among natives of the same country, whatever distinction
there may be in their rank and situation in life. The
lower people do certainly in all places corrupt the true
pronunciation of their language, but very seldom in the
tones or times ; the mistake most commonly lying in the
formation and articulation of their syllables ; which isa
very different thing from their modulation. When an
illiterate servant says twilight for toilette, she hath caught
and pronounces the tone and time right, but mistakes in
the letters and composition of the syllables. There is
therefore no reason from Dr. G.’s supposition to imagine
that the old Latins did not derive the Molic in all its pu-
rity from Greece.

The conformity of the Holic (which was undoubtedly
different from the Attic) with the Roman, will furnish us

* P. 144.

48 ESSAY ON

with another strong argument, besides that mentioned
above, in favour of our present system, which will be
explained and enforced in another place.

The history of the first introduction of the Greek
tongue into Italy, may be collected from the following
lines of Dionysius Periegetes:

* Tuppnvol μὲν πρῶτ᾽, ἐπὶ δέ σφισι φῦλα Πελασγῶν,
Ot ποτε Κυλλήνηθεν ἐφ᾽ Ἑσπερίην ἅλα βάντες,
Αὐτόθι νῃήσαντο σὺν ἀνδράσι Τυῤῥηνοῖσι.

Eustathius, in his commentary on this passage of Dio-
nysius, v. 347. gives a short history of these old Greek
settlements in Italy. “ These people are called Tyr-
rheni, from Tyrrhenus a Lydian, the son of Atys, whom
his father sent out with a great number of followers in
atime of extreme scarcity. From him the country was
called Tuppnvia. Afterwards the Pelasgi, removing from
their own country for the same reason, came into Italy
from Cyllene in Arcadia, under the conduct of one
Evander, who, when Agamedes was ruler of Arcadia,
complying with the suggestions of his prophetic mother,
and collecting a large number of attendants, set sail and
arrived on the coast of Italy ; where he built a fortress
which he called Παλλάντιον, from his own son Pallas ;
from whence to this day the Romans call all places that
are the seats of princes, Παλάτια, suppressing the two
liquids A and y.}” Herodotus says that, ““ before these
Lydians reached Etruria, the inhabitants of that country
were called Ὀμβρικοί ; which name was afterwards
confined to a neighbouring tract, called Umbria. There

* Tyrrheni quidem primum, post vero
illos gentes Pelasgorum,
Qui quondam a Cyllene per Hesperium
mare vecti
Ibi habitarunt cum viris Tyrrhenis.
+ The same is related of Tyrrhenus
by Vell. Paterc. lib. i.c. 1. Peter Vic-
torinus thought that in the modern

Tuscan language many traces of the
old Greek might be found, and that not
intermediately from the Romans. See
his Var. Lect. xiv. 22. Caninius has
many observations of the like kind.
Concerning this settlement, see also
Vet. Schol. ad Horat. Serm. I. 6. v. 1.
and Servius ad Virg. Aen. II. 781.

ACCENT AND QUANTITY. 49

were besides other colonies of Pelasgi settled in Italy.
Pliny says “ *in Latiwn eas [literas| Pelasgi attulerunt,”
whichis very consistent with what is said of the Lydians
first introducing them into Etruria. The Lydians and
Eolians+ seem to have carried their language into the
country te the west of the Tiber, and the Pelasgians into
Latium to the east of it. A further mixture of Greek
was infused into the Roman tongue from those Dorians,
who settled in the south-east part of Italy, and differed
not much in dialect from the {olians. <‘‘ Italy was
called μεγάλη ἑλλὰς (Says Servius§) because from Ta-
rentum to Cumz all the cities were built by Greeks.”
Dionysius has pursued this subject to a great length
through the whole first book of his Roman antiquities.
He begins his work with declaring, that he means to
prove the Grecian origin of the Romans. ov ἧς γραφῆς
Ἕλληνάς τε αὐτοὺς ἐπιδείξειν ὑπισχνοῦμαι. He then enu-
merates the several migrations of Greeks in the early
ages; and among them mentions that of the Lydians
under Tyrrhenus; part of which story however he sup-
poses to be mixed withfable. But the history of Evan-
der’s settlement he, on several accounts, believes to be
true; and mentions particularly Evander’s introducing
the Greek lettersinto Italy, γραμμάτων Ἑλληνικῶν χρῆσιν,
νεωστὶ φανεῖσαν ᾿Αρκάσι. The word Palatium is taken
notice of by him, as derived from Παλάντιον. The Tro-
jans themselves, who came into Italy under Aineas, he
says, were of Greek extraction. And having thus gone

* Lib. 7. c. 56. see also c. 58. Ve-
teres Gracas fuisse easdem pene, que
nune sunt Latine, indicio erit Delphica
tabula antiqui eris, que est hodie in Pa-
latio.

+ See Chishull Inscrip. Sig. 24,

+ Pindar, who wrote in the broadest
Doric, calls his ode Αἰοληΐδα μολπήν.
Strabo reduces the four dialects to two,
the Ionic and old Attic he calls the
same, and the Doric and A®%olic. lib.

viii. Thus above p. 89. the Dorians

and AXolians are joined by Apollonius:
and so they are by Eustath. 8.1. 41.

ὁ In Ma. I. ν. 569. and so Athenzus.
lib. xii. p. 523. The Greek language
in those lower parts of Italy was not
quite worn ont in the time of Augustus.
Horace speaks of the people of Canu-
sium as using it mixed with the Ro-
man. ‘ Canusini more Bilinguis.” Serm.
1. 10. v. 80. The Greca testa of Ho-
race (Carm. 1. 20. v. 2.) is explained
by Turnebus, Cumana. Advers. xvii. 5.

ESSAY ON

through many historical discussions, he concludes his
first book with saying, that he has proved his point,
ἑλλάδα πόλιν αὐτὴν ἀποδεικνύμενος.

What Quinctilian hath observed of his own language
respecting the AXolic, is remarked by other good Latin*
erammarians: and indeed was observed long before

* Priscian in his first book says, “ὁ
transit in e, ut bonus bene, γόνυ genu,
ποῦς pes, antiqui compes quasi compos,
in quo Holes sequimur.” Yn another
place, “" δ ponitur proa, ut Aisculapius
pro’Acxarnmse, in quo Holes sequimur ;
illi enim νύμφαις pro νύμφας, et φαίσιν
pro paowdicunt.” Again: ‘oi locwm du-
plicis obtinet consonantis, ut Troja pro
Τροῖα ; in hoc quoque Moles sequimur ;
sic enim illi dividentes dipththongum
χόϊλον pro κοῖλον dicunt.” In another
place, “Εἰ dipthonga nunc non utimur;
sed loco ejus in Grecis nominibus e vel i
productas ponimus : et in priore sequimur
Moles: illi enim +a Δημοσθένη pro Δη-
μοσθένει, et var pro εἶτσον." In like
manner in another part; ‘‘ bos bovis,
quod ideo assumit genitivo v loco digam-
ma, quia Moles quoque solent inter duas
vocales ejusdem dictionis digamma pone-
re, quos in multis nos sequimur, oF%s ovis,
δά Ἐὸς Davus, ®Févovum. Unde in n0-
minativo quoque hujus nominis illos se-
quimur. Nam et oles et Dores Bais di-
cunt pro βοῦς, ov dipthongon in o longam
vertentes : et quod huc verum est ostendunt
epigrammata vetustissima, que literis an-
tiquissimis scripta in multis tripodibus
legi, et maxime in tripode Apollinis qui
est Constantinopoli, in loco quem ξερόλο-
doy vocant. Sunt autem scripta sic An-
μοφόξων, Λαοκόξων pro AcBkowy.’” Prise.
lib. vi. p. 710. The same writer hav-
ing mentioned a peculiar deviation in
the Roman accent from the general
rules, says, “ necnon Aoles, contra con-
suetudinem suam, idem facere.” It has

been asked, why the short τ of Numaisin
Greek by Plutarch, though not by Dio-
nysius, turned into ov Νουμᾶς. This may
admit an A<olic solution from Priscian,
who speaking of the Roman w says,
“modo pro v longa, ut pro μῦς mus : modo
pro correpta, wogpuea purpura. In ple-
risque tamen Boles secuti hoe facimus.
Illi enim θουγάτηρ dicunt pro θυγάτηρ,
ov corripientes: vel mugis v sono ἃ soliti
sunt pronunciare, ideoque ascribunt ο,
non ut dipthongum faciant ibi, sed ut
sonum vu. /Eolicum ostendant; ut Calli-
machus, Karrrydeou χθονὸς οὐρίας θουγάτηρ.
Putse. p. 554. I have given this pas-
sage concerning θουγάτηρ from Pris-
cian, because it throws, I think, some
light on the metre of a line in Homer,
that is apparently irregular, Odyss. IT.
387. Εἰ δ᾽ ὑμῖν ὅδε μῦθος ἀφανδάνει, ἀλ-
λὰ βούλεσθε. Where Dr. Clarke says,
“‘ nulla ratione excusari potest, that Bou
should be short.” But if Homer’s lan-
guage was AKolic as well as Tonic, itis
accounted for at once by Priscian’s re-
mark on θουγάτηρ. Thus swus by the
old Romans was written sowus: (Syl-
burg. on Dionys. Halic. vol. 1. p. 784.)
So the very learned and accurate Mr.
D’orville says ““ Bocotorum dialecto di-
ci θουγάτηρ, et tamen corripi syllabam
νων ν νιν νιν bine suo jure Greei pos-
tumus potuerunt vertere Πόστουμος,
nec tamen producere syllabam.” Crit.
Vann. 491. The Beeotian and Doric
dialects are known to have been very
nearly allied.

ACCENT AND QUANTITY. ol
even Quinctilian’s time, by aman, who certainly under-
stood both the Greek and Latin languages very well,
who says, ‘‘ The Romans use a language not quite bar-
barous, nor yet purely Grecian, but mixed and com-
pounded of both, ἧς ἐστιν ἡ πλείων Aioric*.

But even if the agreement of the Aiclic and Roman
dialect had not been so expressly mentioned by Diony-
sius, Quinctilian, Priscian, and others ; and they had only
said in general, that the Latin was of Greek original ;
we yet might have been certain, that the AZolic was the
mother language, from some other peculiarities in the
Roman tongue, beside that of the accent. In the Latin
alphabet there are two letters, F and the consonant V,
which are not in the Attic, and yet are in the old Pe-
lasgic and Atolic. That letter V of the Romans (the
power of which is the same with that of our W) resem-
bles in nature, though not in form, the tZolic digamma;
which having a soft open sound could not be expressed
by the other Greeks; who, when they attempted it,
either changed it into a simple aspiration, or sounded it
like ¢, and destroyed its true nature. The Roman F
was the ¢ without the aspirate: and this letter too the
common Greeks could not pronounce; concerning
which { Quinctilian mentions a particular fact of Cicero,
who, in pleading for Fundanius, laughed at a Greek,
who was brought into court as a witness, for not being
able to pronounce the word Fundanius, and using a @
instead of the initial F. The Molians, we are told by
the oldest and best§ grammarians, did in general avoid

del.

* Dionys. Halic. Antiq. Roman. lib. Sylb. Again, "Addos μὲν Ἕλληνες δασύ-

i. ad finem.

+ Concerning this letter,
postscript to this chapter.

¢ Contra Graeci aspirare solent ¢:
at pro Fundanio Cicero testem, qui pri-
mam ejusliteram dicere non possit, ir-
ridet. lib. i. ο. 4.

§ Οἱ μὲν ἄλλοι Ἕλληνες δασύνουσι τὰ
ἐν τῇ λέξει φωνήεντα. Αἰολεῖς δὲ μόνοι
ψιλοῦσι. Apollon. de Synt. p. 44. edit.

see the

γουσι τὰ φωνήεντα. Αἰολεῖς δὲ οὐδαμῶς.
ibid, Ψιλωτικοὶ οἱ Αἰολεῖς. Ἐλιδέαξϊι. p.
47.1. 88. Alii quidem Greci eum as-
piratione efferwnt in dictione vocales:
fEoles vero soli cum spiritu leni. Hero-
dian in his wagex®. περὶ prey’ pny. says:
κανὼν γάρ ἔστιν ὁ λέγων, ὅτι Edy εὑρεθῶσι
δύο pp, τὸ μὲν πρῶτον ψιλοῦται, τὸ δὲ δεύ-
τερον δασύνεται" οἷον, πόῤῥω, ἄῤῥωστος" χωρὶς
τῶν Αἰολικῶν" οἱ γὰρ Αἰολεῖς ψιλωταὶ ὄντες

“«

52 ESSAY ON

aspiration, and used in many cases the digamma, where
the other Greeks did an aspirate. This is observed by
Terentianus Maurus in the following trochaics,

Nominum multa inchoata literis vocalibus
Usus Atolicus reformat et digammon preficit.

He then exemplifies this in particular words. What an
Attic called ‘EXévn, they did ελένη ; ἕσπερος they called
Ἐέσπερος, from whence the Roman vesperus; and the
same in many other instances. And thus, among the an-
cient Latins, they * used Fostia, not Hostia, Fostis, not
Hostis: and like the Aolians, according to Quinctilian,
to avoid aspiration, hordeum they called fordeum. In
regard to the letter H, he says in general, ‘ parcissime
ea veteres usi etiam in vocalibus, cum @dos [non hedos]
ircosque [non hircos] dicebant. Diu deinde servatum,
ne + consonantibus aspiretur, ut in Graccis et triumpis.”
Thus in many Latin words of Greek derivation, either
the aspiration is entirely left out, as in cano from

καὶ τὰ δύο pp ψιλοῦσιν' οἷον κέῤῥω, φθέῤῥω,
σπέῤῥω, in Aldi Thes. p. 199. Regula
est que dicit, quod, si reperiantur duo
pp» prius lenem spiritum, posterius as-
perum habet: wt πόῤῥω, ἄῤῥωστος, ex-
ceptis Aolicis.
tum amanies, etiam duo pp leniter effe-

oles enim, lenem spiri-

runt: ut κέῤῥω, φθέῤῥω, σπέῤῥω. So
Priscian, speaking of the Molic di-
gamma, says ‘‘ sciendum tamen, quod
hoe ipsum ‘oles quidem ubique loco as-
pirationis ponebant, eflugientes spiritus
Asperitatem. Putsch. p. 547. “ Spi-
ritum tenuem voco Aolicum, quod eo
delectentur Aloles, &c.” H. Steph.
Dial. Attic. p. 155. and Turneb. Ad-
vers. 11}. c. 10. on pilare and compilare.
* See Lipsii Antiquz Lect. I. c. 2.
+ Cicero observes the same: “ cum
scirem ita majores loculos esse, ut nus-
quam, nisi in vocali, aspiratione ute-

rentur, loquebar sic, ul puleros Cetegos,
triumpos, Cartaginem dicerem ... . «
. « - Burrum semper Ennius,
non Pyrrhum. Vi patefecerunt Bruges,
non Phryges ; ipsius antiqui declarant
libri.” Orat. 48. SoCharisius: “ Pul-
crum Varro aspirari debere negat, ne
duabus consonantibus media intercedat
aspiratio, quod minime rectum antiquis
videbatur.” Putsch. p. 56. et 2256.
See also Taylor’s Civil Law, p. 567.
¢ In the Latin language, as it stands
at present, there appear many words
of a Greek derivation, some of which
are without the Greek aspirate, as fra-
ter, fur, fui, from poariip, pap, pie ; and
others retain it, as Philosophus, Rhetor,
from φιλόσοφος, ῥήτωρ. From whence
may this difference be supposed to pro-
ceed? Perhaps from hence. The words
without aspiration were derived in the

ACCENT AND QUANTITY.

xaivw ; fama from φήμη; Deus θεός : fagus φηγός; fuga
φυγή; or turned into a V, as veneti from ἕνετοι, vesta

very early ages immediately trom the
Pelasgic and Molic, being in general
such words as were in most common
use among people at all times, even in
a rude state. The aspirated words seem
to have been introduced in the lower
ages of Rome, when there was a com-
munication between Italy and the Attic
Greeks, who then became the masters
of literature to the Romans; and the
words, which I here suppose to have
been derived in those latter ages from
the Attics, are of such a kind, as might
be expected to have been then added,
being expressive of things relating to
arts, sciences, and general improve-
ments of life. A view of some words,
in both these kinds, may set this in a
clearer light.

Of those, that have not the aspirate of
the Greek, are the following:

χἅτερα cetera

στύφω stipo

ῥόος, V. ῥεῖος rivus

ῥιγέω ν. φρικέω Srigeo

ἀχέω vagio

σφὴξ vespa

ἀμφίβιον vibium

ἄμφω ambo and its
compounds.

σφάλλω fallo

φρασύω farcio

μορφὴ forma

φλέγμα, Mol. φλέμμκα flamma

φλάω flo

φύλλον folium

φάω ον. fart

φάλαινα Balena.

The following retain the Greek aspirate.
χέλυς chelys

χεὶρ γράφω chirographum,
chironomia
chirurgia, &c.
χρονικὸς chronicus
χρυσὸς in all its deri-
vatives
φάλαγξ phalanx
φάλαρα phalere
φαντασία phantasia
φαρμακοτσώλης pharmacopola
φίλος in many derivatives,
as philologus, &c.
φιάλα phiala
φλέγμα phlegmona
φρένησις phrenesis
φθίσις phthisis
φυσικὴ physica
ῥαψωδία, rhapsodia
ῥεῦμα rheuma
ῥύμβος rhombus
ῥυθμὸς rhythmus
χορὸς chorus.

See also the collection of Greek words
Latinized by Cicero, in Budzus. Com-
ment. Ling. Greece. p. 1011.

That the Attic and common Hellenic
language had much more aspiration than
the Aiolic and old Pelasgic, is certain
from the authority of the most ancient
grammarians, who often point out this
particular difference between the pro-
nunciation of the early and later Greeks.
That of the early Greeks was followed
by the old Latins. Scaliger, speaking
of the aspiration of R, says, “ Latini
autem sprevere illam asperitatem . . .
- » Quidam minus sapienter Romam
aspirant: cum tamen Romani ipsi de
suo R. omnem exemerint usum aspira-
tionis.” de ling. Lat. I. ¢. 45.

54 ESSAY ON

from ἑστία; or changed into an *S, as ὕλη, sylva; ὑπὲρ;
super ; ov, sui; ἕξ, sex; ἑπτὰ, septem. Sometimes this
digamma was prefixed to vowels not aspirated; some
are mentioned in Dionysius’s first book of Roman Anti-
quities: as Favaé, καὶ Fotcoc, καὶ Favno, καὶ πολλὰ τοιαῦτα.
Sometimes, as is observed above by Priscian, it was
used in the middle of words, as ὠξὸν, dF ic, δά ος : and
by this interposition of the digamma (or Tonic aspira-
tion, as he calls it) Mr. Dawes solves many difficulties
in Homer’s metre, by inserting it in such words as λύω,

aloo, daFiZw, δία, dAoFoc, and +many others.

In this

manner it passed into the Latin language:

*® See Taylor’s Civil Law. p. 411.
on Odyss. ©. 527. Concerning the
fAolic letter, see also his Commentary
on the Marmor Sandvicense, p. 43, et
seq.

+ Mr. Dawes hath considered the
digamma in regard to the Greek metre,
which he has very well corrected by
the application of this letter. Not sa-
tisfied with Dr. Clarke’s account of
the vowels in τίω, λύω, and such words,
he gives his own explication: Nos is-
tiusmodi vocales natura breves esse sta-
tuimus, tis autem subjici oportere conso-
nantem V. Hee utique inter duas vo-
cales intercedens in diversis pro arbitrio
syllabis enunciari potest. Verbi utique
Avww priorem pro libitu constituere lice-
bit vel Av, vel AUW: si a vocali clauda-
tur Av-wa, non poterit non corripi: sin
α consonante λυνν-ο), eam simul ac pronun-
ciaris, ea erit oris figuratio, ut ante se-
quentem vocalem w necessario sit effer-
enda. Futitrum vero Avwew in sylla-
bas ita secari nequit ut priorem corripiat.
p. 165. This doctrine of Mr. Dawes
Τ am much inclined to believe, because
it agrees so well with Priscian’s ac-
count of V, being inserted in the mid-
dle of the perfect tenses of the third
and fourth Latin conjugation, and
making the preceding vowel long,

which would otherwise be short, as
cupivi, cupti; audiveram, audieram.
Putsch. p. 855. So likewise Servius
on Virgil. Ain. I. p. 451. ““ Quartz
conjugationis tempus preteritum per-
fectum vel in vi junctum exit; vel sub-
lata digammo in ii pro nostro arbitrio:
ut lenivi lenii. Sane cum in vi exit,
penultima longa est, et ipsa accentum
retinet ; cum vero in ii, penultima bre-
vis est, et perdit accentum.” And in
this manner we must, I suppose, un-
derstand the following observation of
Varro on the words pluit et luit. Qui-
dam reprehendunt, quod pluit et luit
dicamus in preterito et presenti tem-
pore, cum analogie sui cujusque temporis
verba debent discriminare. Falluntur:
nam est, ac putant, aliter: quod in pre-
teriteis dicimus V longum, in presenti
breve. (de ling. Lat. lib. viii. p. 122.
edit. Scalig.) So that it was probably
pronounced as pluit in the present, as
pluvit in the preterit. Thus in Ennius:
“« Nune sumw’ Romani, qui fuimus ante
Rudini.” i. 6. fuvimus. And again, lib.
vii. Annal.

Comiter impertit; magna cum lassu’
diet

Parti fuvisset, de summeis rebu’ gerun=
deis.

ACCENT AND QUANTITY. δῦ

AiFoc, divus.
᾿Αρχεῖον, Archivum.
"AcFwv, ABvum.
Figoc, viscus.

Foixoe, vicus.
Fotvoc, vinum.
Ἐείδω, video.
FéSne, vestis.

Fo, ver. NaF uc, navis.
Fiov, viola. "AoFw, arvum.
Fic, vis. ΣκαιΕὸς, sevus.

FéyXoc, vulgus.

The termination of the first declension in @ passed
from the Atolic to the Roman tongue: as ἵπποτα, ποιητά;
from whence poeta, athleta, cometa, planeta, ἕο. We
are sometimes told that this nominative in Homer is
Macedonic; they might as well say it was Persic.
Homer uses it not merely for the convenience of his
verse, as in ἵπποτα Νέστωρ, but likewise in other places,
where the termination ree would stand as well, μητίετα
Ζεύς, vepeAnyéoera Ζεύς. If Homer was an * Molian (as
there is the greatest reason to think he was) and spent a
great part of his life in his own country, though he did
travel indeed and visit many parts of Greece; why
should we not suppose that in his writings he used prin-

cipally the language of AZolia?

Those A®olic varia-

See Lips. Antiq. Lect. 11. c. 22. et
V.c. 2. Fluyida in Lucretius: Luvit
in Lucilius.

* “Ὅτι δὲ ἦν Αἰολεὺς “Ὅμηρος δη-
λοῖ δὲ καὶ ἐν τοῖσδε τοῖς ἔπεσιν, ὅτι Αἰολεὺς

ὧν τοῖς νόμοις τοῖς τούτων ἐχρῆτο.

Καῖε δ᾽ ἐπὶ σχίζης ὁ γέρων, ἐπὶ δ᾽ αἴθοπα
οἶνον

Λεῖβε" νέοι δὲ παρ᾿ αὐτὸν ἔχον πεικπώβολα
χερσίν.

Αἰολέες γὰρ μόνοι τὰ σπλάγχνα ἐπὶ πέντε

ὀβελῶν ὀπτῶσιν, οἱ δὲ ἄλλοι Ἕλληνες ἐπὶ

~ χ See? , e Al λεῖος τὰ
τειων" καὶ γαρ ονομκᾶζουσιν οἱ ἰολεις τὰ

πίντε πέμπε. Herod. vit. Hom. sub "

finem. Quod vero Holensis fusrit Ho-

merus, indicat etiam in his versibus, quod
Lolensis ipse sue gentis ritibus usus sit,

tum segmina car-
nium
Ipse focis multo crepitantibus admovet

igni

Crada senex, el vina super niyrantia
fundit :

Quem yerubus quinis juvenes onerata
tenentes

Brachia circumstant.

Holenses enim soli intestina quingue ve-
rubus fixw torrebant, reliqui Greci tri-
bus: pro πέντε enim dicunt olenses
πέμπε.

56 ESSAY ON

tions, which are mentioned by Apollonius and other
good grammarians, such as the* resolution of circum-
flexed vowels to bring the acute backwards, and others
remarked above, are found in every page, and almost
every line, of his writings. In them there is certainly a
mixture of other Greek, which it is natural to imagine
he insensibly transfused into his original ASolic by his
travels. But the principles and stamina (if I may so
call them) of his language are, I make but little doubt,+
AKolic. And that lonico-poetic dialect, which is so fre-
quently attributed to him, is probably nothing but the
common language of his own native land. It may per-
haps be a question, whether the [onic rejection of the
augment in verbs is not ἢ AXolic too; and from thence
passed to the Romans; who, in the formation of tenses,
make no alteration at the beginning of verbs, discrimi-
nating them only by their different terminations: except
in those verbs, that have the syllabic reduplication, as
mordeo momordi, disco didici, &c. and the temporal aug-
ment in a few preterits, as ago egi. Like those abbre-
viations in Homer, of Spt for βριαρὸς, λίπα for λιπαρὸς,
xpi for κριθὴ, &c. there are in Ennius, gau for gaudium,
coel for ceelum, Fabric for Fabricius; and in the carmen
Saliare, according to Festus, Pa for Parte, Po for § Po-

* /Folis amat per circuitum verba
protendere. Diomed. lib. II. p. 435.

+ This was the opinion of Philel-
phus, one of the most diligent inquir-
ers into every part of Greek literature
that latter ages have produced. Ina
letter to Perleo he says ‘“ Lingua Aio-
lica, quam Homerus et Callimachus in
“* suisoperibus potissimum sunt secuti.”
Apud Hodium de Gree. Illustr. p. 188.

Ὁ Scaliger speaks of this, as Aolic.
“ Canere Latini ab Hiatu dixere, Greca
voce ἔχανον : nam Atoles, ab eo quod
est χαίνειν, non apponunt incrementa
preteritis, sed dicunt χάνον, demuntque
aspirationes, ut rem barbaram.” de
caus. ling. Lat. c. 52.

§ Lips. Epist. Quest. 1.19. Magadety-
μασι δὲ χρῶνται τοῦ Atv ποιητοῦ, τῷ Kot,

καὶ Aa καὶ Μάψ' Ἡσιόδου δὲ, ὅτε τὸ Βριθὺ

καὶ τὸ Βριαρὸν Βρῖ λέγει. Εὐφορίων δὲ καὶ
τὸν ὅλιον λέγει HA. Strabo. VIII. “Ἐχ-
emplis utuntur Homeri, voce Κρῖ, et Ad,
et Ma; et Hesiodi, quod vocabulum
Βριθὺ, et Βριωαρὸν dicit Bot... ... Eu-
phorion vero etiam ἥλιον dicit 4A.” Sal-
masius (de re Hellenist.) has a particu-
lar remark on monosyllables: “ cer-
tum est, linguas omnes, que monosyl-
labis constant, cateris esse antiqui-
ores.” And then mentions, as an in-
stance of this, the number of them in
ancient Greek, as appears in the old
poets, and later imitators of them.

ACCENT AND QUANTITY. 97

pulo. Thus are cited by Victorinus,* do for domo,
Jamul for famulus, guberna for gubernacula.

Some of the Romans, jealous of the honour of their
language, which they were desirous of having considered
as primitive, seemed unwilling to acknowledge its Greek
original. On this principle it probably was, that Varro,
the great antiquary,+ etymologist, and general scholar
of the Romans, often acquiesced in a far-fetched, absurd,
Latin derivation, rather than accept the Greek one that
could not but readily offer itself, and was not less true
than obvious.{ And perhaps Virgil felt some of this
national bias in favour of the Latin origination of his
own language, when he makes Jupiter, on determining
the important point of the Trojan settlement in Italy, at
the close of the Aineid, say (XII. 834. 837.)

“ SERMONEM Ausonii patrium moresque tenebunt
faciamque omnes uno ore Latinos.”

Uno ore, that is ὁμογλώσσους, not as some explain it,
uno nomine ; for that had been promised just before,
“ Utque est, NOMEN erit.” What Jupiter here declares,
is in answer to a most earnest request of Juno,

“ Pro Latio obtestor, pro majestate Tuorum,
Ne vetus indigenas nomen mutare Latinos,
Neu Troas fieri jubeas, Teucrosque vocari,
Aut VocEM mutare viros.”—

It is not unlikely that § Tyrannio, when he was at

* Mar. Vict. Art. Gram. lib. I. p. _ nostris, ominoque Latinis literis lumi-

2499.

+ This was considered by his coun-
trymen as no inconsiderable part of his
character. ‘‘ Tu ztatem patriz,” says
Cicero to him Academ. Quest. lib. I. 3.
“tn omnium divinarum humanarum-
que rerum NOMINA, genera, offlicia,

eausas aperuisti: plurimumque poelis

nis attulisti, et vERBIs.

¢ “ Aliqui autem, inter quos Varro,
etiam maligne eruerunt omnia ὃ Lati-
nis, Greecisque suas origines invidere.”
Scalig. de caus. ling. L. c. 29.

§ This was Tyrannio, jun. who was
author ofa piece περὶ τῆς Ῥομιαϊκῆς δια-
λέκτου ὅτι ἐστὶν ἐκ τῆς Ἑλληνικῆς, Suid.

δϑ ESSAY ON

Rome in Cicero’s family, wrote his treatise, mentioned
by Suidas, concerning the Roman tongue, in order to
correct those wrong notions, which seem to have been
popular there at that time. I wish that work of ἜΚΕΒΕ
nio had come down to us.

As for the Latin accent derived from the Eolic,
Quinctilian we have seen above is very explicit in his
account of it. He does not indeed expressly say, that
the accent, but only in general the Romani sermonis ratio,
is deduced from the Molic. But Athenzeus, who well
knew the Roman language, mentions the derivation of
the very accent, saying “‘'The Romans follow the Aio-
lians in every thing, even in the tones of their voice.” *

After Quinctilian, it may appear unnecessary to trou-
ble the reader with accounts of the same given by sub-
sequent old grammarians, who all copy from him with-
out any considerable variation. But although what
they say cannot much confirm an authority better than
their own, yet it will serve to shew, that the Latin ac-
cents, which are now little thought of, were considered
by the + Romans themselves as essential a part of their
language as the quantity of it.

γῆς. lib. X. c. 6.
fEoles imitantes, ut et in tonis Voeis.

in V. Τυραννίων. This learned Greek Romani in omnibus

was carried prisoner to Rome, and

there presented to Terentia, Cicero’s
He was a scholar of the elder
Tyrannio; who, after having been pre-
ceptor of the famous Strabo, had been
carried to Rome by Lucullus, where
he was much esteemed in general for
his learning, and honoured particu-
larly with the intimacy of Cicero, who
speaks of him often. (Hpist. ad Altic.
11. 6. 1V. 4. XID 2 et 6. ad Quinct.
Fratr. 11. 4.) The elder Tyrannio is
said to have made a collection of above
30,000 volumes.

* Ῥωμαῖοι πάντα τοὺς Αἰολεῖς μιμού-

wife.

μένοι ὡς καὶ κατὰ τοὺς TO'NOYS τῆς pw-

See also the observations of Palmerius
on this passage of Athenzus. Ezercit.
in Auct. Gr. p. 514.

+ In the contents of Charisius’s Trea-
tise, addressed to his son, there ap-
pears the title of a chapter de accentu,
though it is notin that part of his work
which we now have in Putschius’s edi-
tion, which is the only one I could ever
see. There are remarks however on
accent m those remains, which we have
of him; as on the word ne. “ Ne acuto
accentu recipit imperativa, ut ne fac:
quoties vero gravi accentu, pro eo quod
est apud Gre@cos ἵνα μὴ uccipitur, opta-

ACCENT AND QUANTITY. 29

We, whose ears are accustomed to receive the sound
of an acute and a long quantity as nearly the same,
when we find the acute joined with a short syllable, as
in boénis, are apt to startle, and think the accent here in-
consistent with quantity. The reason of this apparent
inconsistency will be considered afterwards: its real
consistency, as a fact, is clear and certain beyond the

possibility of cavil.

The Romans did very seldom, if ever, use tonical or ac-
centual * marks, as the Greeks did. Which Melancthon

tiva recipit : ut apud Horatium nefacias,
quod Numidius. Nonnunquam zutem,
etiamsi acuto accentu efferatur, optativa
quoque recipit, ut ne facias, ne scribas.”
Putsch. p. 202. Diomedes, in his se-
cond book, has a long chapter de accen-
tibus, agreeable to Quinctilian’s doc-
trine. Grillius ad Virgilium de accen-
tibus is cited by Priscian, lib. I. p. 560.
Priscian himself has a whole book on
the Roman accent; and his subject he
there opens with this general remark :
“« Sed nos locuturi de partibus, ad accen-
tum, qui in dictionibus est necessarius,
transeamus. Accentusest certa leu et re-
gulaad elevandam et deprimendam sylla-
bam uniuscujusque particule orationis,
&c.” And then proceeds to lay down
those rules, which are referred to above.
Donatus in his editio prima has a chap-
ter de tonis. Sergius in his commen-
jary on the editio prima of Donatus, has
given us a long chapter de Accentibus.
Cledonius, in his exposition of Dona-
tus, has one chapter de accentibus, an-
other de ratione accentuum. Maximus
Victorinus in his Ars Grammatica has
a chapter likewise on the same subject.
Alciunus in his Grammatical Dialogues
omits not this: F. Syllabe quot acci-
dunt? S, Quatuor: tenor, spiritus, tem-

pus, numerus, D. in quot species divi-
ditur Grammatica? M. in χαυὶ. in υο-
cem, in literas, in syllabas, pedes, accen-
tus, ὅδ. So constantly and uniformly
do the oldest and best Latin gramma-
rians consider accent as an essential
part oftheir language. Macrobius has
mixed his remarks on the Latin accent
with some on the Greek ; among which
are the following : “’Amapéupara,que in
σθαι exeunt, aut tertium a Sine acutum
sortiuntur accentum, ut λέγεσθαι, γρά-
φεσθαι; aut secundum, ut τετίλθαι, κε-
κάρθαι : aut circumflectunt penultimam,
ut ποιεῖσθαι, νοεῖσθαι. ᾿Απαρέμφατον,
quod in σθαι exit, si habeat in penultima
υ, modo presentis temporis est, modo pre-
teriti perfecti, et hune diversitatem dis-
cernit accentus. Nam si tertius a fine
sit, presens tempus ostendit, ut ὄλλυσθαι,
ῥήγνυσθαι, ζεύγνυσθαι: at si secundus,
prateritum perfectwm, ut λελύσθαι, ἐξύσ-
θαι. Unde ἔρυσθαι si in capite habeat
accentum, cnpratyer ἕλκεσθαι, quod est
prasentis ; si in penultina sit, σημιαίγει
εἱλκύσθαι, quod est preteriti, via κατει-
pucbas.” De different Grac. Lat. Q.
verbi. p. 2762. Putsch.

* « Modum [pronunciationis | diver-
sum accentu expresso Latini Grammatici
nonindicaverunt, Greci indicaverunt.

60 ESSAY ON

however laments as a defect, and wishes, for the sake
of preserving the genuine Latin pronunciation, that
such had been used.* ‘The most ancient Greeks,”
says he, “ affixed no apices in writing, as may be seen
in some ancient inscriptions, and is confirmed by Poli-
tian. The following age of scholars, having more prac-
tice and artificial skill in literature, added these marks
to the tops of letters, as directions in pronunciation.
And whoever at that time disregarded them, was looked
upon as illiterate. I should have been glad, had the
like attention been paid by the Romans to the observ-
ance and settlement of their tones; and I make no
doubt, but, had that been properly done, the Latin pro-
nunciation through former ages would have retained a
much greater degree of purity.”

We know, however, that the Romans, though they
applied not the marks of tone, did occasionally use
those of time, and placed a horizontal line, called an
apex, over some long syllables to distinguish them from
short ones with the same letters; as in solum the ad-
jective, to distinguish it from solum the substantive; in
aret of areo, as different from aret of aro; which use of

Res Latinis Greecisque communis: rei
signum apud Grecos solos invenitur.”
Drorvill. Crit. Vann. p. 332. See also
Lipsius de pronunt. ling. Lat. c. 19.
* «« Vetustissimi Greci nullos apices
scripserunt, ut est in antiquis quibus-
dam inscriptionibus cernere, et con-
firmat Politianus. Postera wtas Gram-
maticorum, artibus exercita, hec literis
adjunxit ἐπιστύλια, quasi notas pronun-
ciationis: habitusque tum, qui ea con-
Vellem et
Latinis par diligentia in observandis

temneret, non sat politus.

tonis fuisset ; nec dubito quin mansis-
set integrior superioribus swculis ratio
loquendi.” Melancth. Grummat. cap.

de Tonis.

Aldus, in his edition of Statius in
the year 1502, has prefixed a vocabu-
lary of near fifty pages, which he en-
titles, Orthographia et flecus Dictionum
Grecarum omnium apud Statium, cwm
Accentibus et Generibus ex variis utrius-
que lingue Autorilus. And Robert
Stephens in his Latin. ling. Thesaurus
hath generally marked the cireumflexed
syllables, though seldom the acuted
ones. Those marks, that are used by
Dr. Bentley in his Terence, Phedrus,
and P. Syrus, regard only the Ictus
{I never saw but one Latin
that is,

metrict.
book accented throughout:
Grammatice Quadrilinguis Partitiones,
by Johan. Droszeus. Paris, 1544.

ACCENT AND QUANTITY. ΟἹ

the apex is remarked by * Quinctilian, afterwards by
Scaurus, in the end of his Orthographia, and likewise
by Caninius, who says, “ Latini in longis vocalibus
utebantur apicibus, palus, malus.” These always de-
noted quantity. But in some ancient Latin inscriptions,
mentioned by Dr. G. instead of this horizontal line over
long vowels, an oblique ascending one, like the com-
‘mon acute mark mentioned and described by Diomede,
is placed: as PATRO‘'NO’, CU’RIONE, PE’DANIO; which,
as he says, “ sheweth, that in the sense of those who
engraved these inscriptions, a syllable was long, when
it had such an elevation given to it, as is preper to an
acute accent.” But does it shew that any syllable was
ever by this acute mark denoted long in the sense of any
scholar, or of any person except the blundering carvers
or engravers, who did not know the different applica-
tion of the apex of time, and accentual character of tone?
For want of attending to this distinction, Cardinal Noris
hath sadly perplexed himself in the last part of his Ceno-
taphia Pisana, where he confounds these two things;
and misquotes Quinctilian, in saying that “ apicem, seu
accentum addi solitum,” where Quinctilian says only
““ apice distinguitur.” We are sure the oblique marks
were not applied by any scholar in the foregoing in-
scriptions, as the true marks of the real acute sound,
because he would never have placed them over a pre-
antepenultima, as in PE’_DANIO, CU’RIONE, nor two of
them in one word, as in PATRO’NO’; for he must have
known, that one acute was never carried back beyond
the antepenultima, and that two could not take place in
one word. ‘This mistaken use of these marks in some
Latin inscriptions made the judicious Gerard Vossius
say, “‘ they were cut by such illiterate persons as to
deserve not the least regard.”+ I cannot therefore see

δ᾽. lam eorum rationem haberi oportere.” de
+ He is speaking of some Latin ac- Δτί. Gram. lib. ii.c. 8. And Muretus,
centual marks, and says “ Japides ali- ἴῃ the dialogue with Lipsius, on these
quos objectant, ubi reperiuntur ; sed im- inscriplions, says, ‘ Imperita aliqua

perite adeo scalptos, ut satis liqueat nul- sculptoris manus hee scripsit, sed et

62 ESSAY ON

how Dr. G. could allege any of them in favour of his
system. If he means that the acute mark did properly
denote, or the acute tone imply, a long quantity, he is
much mistaken, as will be shewn fully afterwards. And
yet if he meant neither of these, he could mean nothing
to his purpose. What says Melancthon to this?+ ‘Time
and tone are by no means the same qualities of a syl-
lable. And accordingly the terms of one are not appli-
cable to the other. You are deceived, if you say that
acute and long, or grave and short, are the same. I
must enlarge a little on this, because the generality of
grammarians are apt to blunder wretchedly in this affair.
All long syllables are not acuted; in Virgilius, vir is
long, but not acuted. Nor are all acuted ones long; in
Virgilius, σέ is acuted, though short. We often in Latin
pronounce the words philosophia, theologia, prosodia,
with the ὁ acuted; not that we imagine the ὁ to be long,
but because it is acuted in Greek: and the words them-
selves, being Greek, have not been so familiarized to a

id solitum isto pronunciari modo, non
Latino sed Greco. Grecz sunt dic-
tiones, nec adeo Romanis attritee Jin-

male curiosa . . . . hee inepta, stulta,
et a bardis. isi si id tamen voluerunt,

apices eos esse, quis insignirent (ita sus-

picor ) vocales.” de Pronunt. ling. Lat.
c. 19.

+ “Non idem syllabe accidens est
fempus, quod tonus. Deinde et que
cuique appellationes conveniunt, inter
se dissident. Erraveris si idem dix-
eris longum et acutum, grave ac breve.
Longius hee oportet agam, quod vul-
gus Grammaticorum inepte in hdc re
versetur. Non omnes longe acute
sunt; in Virgilius vir longa est non
acuta. Non omnes acute sunt longe ;
in Virgilius gi acuitur etiamsi brevis
syllaba. Plerumque Latini homines
philosophia i acuta dicimus, ita theolo-
σία, prosodia, non quod censeamus ὁ
Jongum esse, sed quod acuatur, atque

guis, ut exuerint genuinum tonum.”

Despauterius remarks the same mis-
take.
crediderunt, ut apud Latinos fit, ac-
centum quantitatibus [longis] ferme
concordem etiam esse apud Grezcos,
Itaque audientes accentum a Grzcis
locari in harum dictionum penultimis,
Theologia Aristotéles, &c. (in quibus pe-
nultimam corripi docuimus) ob eam
rem crediderunt penultimam produci.
Contra, quia in anthropos, zdolon, &c.
Greci antepenultime dant accentum,
crediderunt indocti penultimam cor-
ripi; in qua miserabiliter deceptisunt,”
p- 580.

“ Grece lingue parum periti

ACCENT AND QUANTITY. ' 63

Roman tongue, as entirely to lose their original and na-
tive tone.”

A like caution against confounding accent with quan-
tity is given by Erasmus,* Beza,+ and Ger. Vossius.t

The consistency of the acute with a short time, is not
only indisputable as a fact, but will be demonstrated af-
terwards (as it hath been partly already) to flow na-
turally from the essential powers of all vocal sounds.

* Dialog. de pronunc. ling. Grec. + Alphabet. Gree. p. 72. seq.
et Lat. p. 124. + Aristarch. II: c, 10,

04 ESSAY ON

POSTCRIPT TO CHAP. IV.

On the Molic Letter, in the ancient Greek and Roman Alphabets.

In the old Pelasgic and olic alphabets, as given by
Chishull, Monfaucon, and others, there appears a letter,
commonly called the digamma, omitted afterwards in
the Attic and common Hellenic» The best and oldest
grammarians speak of this letter. Besides the authors
cited by Mr. Dawes, the famous Apollonius Dyscolus, in
some fragments of his published by Reitzius at the end
of the Dutch edition of Maittaire’s Dialecti Greece, men-
tions it by name, in his remarks on ἔθεν" Σαφὲς ὅτι καὶ τὸ
Αἰολικὸν δίγαμμα ταῖς κατὰ τὸ τρίτον πρόσωπον προσενέμησαν,
καθὸ καὶ αἱ ἀπὸ φωνήεντος ἀρχόμεναι δασύνονται. ᾿Αλκαῖοο.
ὥστε θεῶν μηδὲν ᾿Ολυμπίων λῦσε ἄτερ γέθεν. p.425. Mani-
festum est quod et Atolicum digamma tertie persone
pronominibus addiderunt, sicut a vocali incipientia spi-
ritum asperum habent. <Alceus, ἄτερ Γέθεν: The same
eminent grammarian again on Ὅς" Αἰολεῖς μετὰ τοῦ F
πλεονοσυλλα[θδεῖν κατὰ πᾶσαν πτῶσιν καὶ γένος. Τὸν ἐὸν
παῖδα καλεῖ Σαπφώ᾽ καὶ ᾿Αλκμὰν δὲ συνεχῶς αἰολίζων φησὶν
τὰ ἑὰ κάδεα. Ὁμοίως καὶ Βοιωτοί. Ῥ. 432. Aloles cum F
syllabam addunt in omni casu et genere. Τὸν ἑὸν [lege
Fiov] παῖδα dicit Sappho. Et Aleman, Alolismi servan-
tissimus, dicit ra éa [lege Féa] κάδεα. similiter etiam Beoti.
Again, on ἐμοὶ, σοὶ, of Οἱ συνήθης ᾿Αττικοῖς καὶ Ἴωσιν"
Πεζολόγοι ἐχρήσαντο Πλατῶν καὶ Ξενοφῶν" εἴρηται, ὡς ὀρθο-
τονουμένη περισπᾶται. Αἰολεῖς σὺν τῷ F- φαίνεται Fou κῆνος"
Σαπφώ. Ρ. 497. Οἱ usitatur Atticis et Ionibus. Prose
scriptores ust sunt Plato et Xenophon. Dicitur, quod
rectum accentum habens circumflectitur. Afoles cum F.
Φαίνεται ἔοι κῆνος. Sappho. Thus we are certain this
digamma was used by the Avolians and some others of
the old Greeks, and considered by them as a letter of

ACCENT AND QUANTITY. 65

their alphabet. When the ancient Greek language was
carried into Italy, both the character and power of the
digamma passed thither with it. From the Pelasgic F
very probably came the old Latin and afterwards Ro-
man Εἰ: from the Molic F or Ἢ came the Etruscan
Ἢ, (which the reader may see ina plate p. 24 of Mr.
Chishull’s Inscriptio Sigea.) As the Roman language
was compounded out of the old Latin and Etruscan, it
took the power and character too of the Pelasgic F, in
its own Εἰ : it took likewise the power, but not the cha-
racter, of the Aolic or Tuscan Ἢ, in its V. Some in-
deed think (Montfauc. Paleog. Gr. p. 562.) that the
Roman language had originally the character as well as
sound of the Aol, digamma. However, if it had, it
certainly lost it afterwards; and for many ages the V
was used till the time of Claudius both as a vowel and
consonant; as a consonant, having the power of the
“.0]. digamma, as a vowel of the common w. Diomede
and Priscian speak both of this. But I rather give it in
the words of Cassiodorus, as the fullest to this purpose.
Est quedam litera in F litere speciem figurata, que di-
gamma nominatur, qué duos apices ex gamma habere vi-
detur. Ad hujus similitudinem soni nostri conjunctas vo-
cales digammon appellare voluerunt, ut est, votum, virgo.
itaque in prima syllaba digamma et vocalem oportuit
poni, Fotum, Firgo: quod et Aolii fecerunt, et antiqui
nostri, sicut scriptura in quibusdam libellis declarat.
Hance literam Terentius Varro dum vult demonstrare, ita
perscribit, VA: qui ergo in hac syllaba sonus est, idem
litere erit. Nos hodie V literam in duarum literarum
potestatem coegimus: nam modo pro Digamma scribitur,
modo pro Vocalt. Vocalis est, cum ipsa per se est; hoc
enim cum ceteris quoque vocalibus patitur. si cum alia vo-
cali, digamma est, que est consonans. de Orthogr. cap. xi.
there is more to the same purpose in his 4th chapter.
Thus the Roman V answered two purposes, until the
time of Claudius, who, disliking this double use of V,
endeavoured to introduce the old Holic or Tuscan cha-
racter of the digamma, and so leave V a yowel only.
F

66 ESSAY ON

Nec inutiliter Claudius Htolicam illam ad hos usus F li-
teram adjecerat. Quinct.i. 7. This institution of Clau-
dius was certainly a good and useful one, though his
authority could not establish it: for his new letter was
not used long, but gave way to the consonant V,
which again resumed its double power of digamma and
u. Cesar (says Priscian, p. 545.) hanc figuram ἢ scri-
bere voluit: quod quamvis illi recte visum est, tamen con-
sueiudo antiqua superavit. We, in English, have the
sound of the W where we use no character at all: the
word one we pronounce as if it were wone. The Ro-
mans continued after the time of Claudius to use the V
for the digamma, as they had done before it. Quinc-
tilian, in another place, speaks of their retaining the
power, after having rejected the character of this Avolic
letter: MHolice quoque litere, qua servum cervumque
dicimus, etiamsi forma a nobis repudiata est, vis tamen
nos persequitur. Lib. xii. c. 10.

The figure of the Roman F being like the Molic F,
and a mistaken passage of Priscian (cited by Dr. Mid-
dleton in his little treatise de Latin. liter. pronunc.)
have betrayed some persons into an erroneous opinion,
that the powers of these two characters were alike:
which was by no means the case. It is the Roman V,
and not the F, that corresponds with the Holic di-
gamma. V loco consonantis posita (says Priscian, lib. i.)
eandem prorsus in omnibus vim habuit apud Latinos,
quam apud Atoles digamma F. The Roman Εἰ was a
different letter, approaching nearer in its nature to the
Greek ®, nor yet altogether like that (as some persons
have imagined, and among them Salmasius) being itself
with very little or no aspiration. When the Romans
expressed the Greek ©, they did it by PH. H quoque
interdum consonans, interdum aspirations creditur nota,
hec st C mute subjuncta fuerit, x notat Grecam: si P
preposita fuerit aspirationi, φ significat. Diomed. lib. i.
sub init. And though we sound the initial consonants
of forum and philosophia alike, the Romans did not,
phi having a strong aspiration, and fo scarce any. Hoc

ACCENT AND QUANTITY. 67

tamen scire debemus (says Priscian, having mentioned
ph, », and f) quod non tam fixis labris est pronuncianda
f, quomodo Ph. Putsch. p. 543. see also p. 548. This
difference is clearly expressed by Terentianus Maurus:
““ we,” (says he, speaking of the Roman F)

St quando Grecam > necesse exprimi,
P et H simul solemus, non Latinam hanc [ 1] ponere ;
Cujus a Greca recedit lenis atque hebes sonus.

The Roman F seems to have sounded more like our
V; certainly Terentianus’ description of the manner in
which the sound of his f was formed, nearly suits our V:

Imum superis dentibus adprimens labellum,
Spiramine lent (velut hirta Graia vites )
Hane ore sonabis.—Putsch. p. 2388.

So does the description, which Martianus Capella has
given of it: F, per dentes labrum inserius deprimentes,
lingua palatoque dulcescit. Though Capella here ap-
plies the word dulcescit, and Terentianus the epithet
lenis to the F, to Quinctilian it appears to have been
more offensive than any in the alphabet: gue sexta est
nostrarum, pene non humana voce, vel omnino non voce
potius, per discrimina dentium effianda est. xii. 19. But
which of our letters are we to suppose like the Roman
V and AXolic digamma? most probably our W. This is
doubted indeed by some persons (see Middleton de
Latin. lt. in V) but affirmed by others, and those of
the best authority, as Erasmus, Lipsius, Dr. Bentley,
Mr. Dawes, and some others. The formation of the
sound of the Latin consonant V, as described by Teren-
tianus, corresponds in the exactest manner with that of
our W, both being uttered, according to his words, pro-
ductius coeuntibus labellis. (Putsch. p. 2386.) Now this
would not be true of the Roman VY, if sounded like our
V; but is strictly so, if like our W. Thus Martian.
Capella: V ore constricto labrisque prenulis exhibetur.
So Victorinus Afer in almost the same words with Te-

ΌΒ ESSAY ΟΝ

rentian: V literam quoties enunciamus, productis et ca-
untibus labris efferemus. Asthe formation, so the sound
of our W is well described by the Roman grammarians
when they speak of their consonant V. The fullness of
ii, though without aspiration, is expressed by the words
pinguis and crassus. Digamma (says Sergius) inventum
est, ut adhibito sermonibus impinguesceret sonus. Again:
Preterea et hoc proprium V habet, ut digammon sonet, id
est, pingue quiddam, quum sibi ipsa preponitur, ut servus,
vulgus. And so Terentianus on the same letter, v.
161, 2.

Ut vade, veni, vota refer, teneto vultum,
Crevisse sonum perspicis et cotsse crassum.

Dionysius Halicarn. when he turns the Latin word
Velia into Greek, calls it OY Aca: in which Mr. Dawes
thinks Dionysius is mistaken. By which mistake must
be meant, either that Dionysius did not know the sound
of the Latin consonant V, or if he did, that he applied
to it improper letters from his own alphabet. But
Dionysius could not be ignorant of the true sound and
real power of this V, which he must have heard a hun-
dred times every day during his long residence at Rome:
and the word Velia itself, being the name of a well
known place in Italy, he probably had very often heard
pronounced by the Romans. Neither on the other hand
is it likely, that this great critic, so well skilled in both
languages, should not choose out from his own Greek
alphabet those letters, whose nature approached the
nearest. to the Roman V; the sound of which he .in-
tended to convey to his Greek reader. It is evident
from his book περὶ συνθ. that he had studied the minutest
parts of his own language in the most accurate manner:
and therefore, if he thought the sound of ov was the
nearest to that of the Latin consonant V, we may, ἢ
think, presume that it was so, notwithstanding any mo-
dern authority to the contrary. —

The propriety of Dionysius in assigning ov as the

ACCENT AND QUANTITY. 69

nearest in sound to this V, is confirmed (if what he says
needs confirmation) by the first words in a public me-
morial drawn up near 200 years before the time of Dio-
nysius, and sent by the Romans to the Teians. It is
given at length by Chishull, (Antiq. Asiat. p. 102.) with
the name of Marcus Valerius (then Preetor for foreign
affairs, in the year of Rome, 559) thus addressing the
Teians in their own language: Μάρκος Οὐαλάριος, Map-
κου, στρατηγὸς, κ' τ. A. Marcus Valerius, Marci F. Pretor

Concilio, Populoque Teiorum salutem, &c. There
can be no doubt of there being the greatest care taken
on such an occasion to write the principal magistrate’s
name in proper Greek. There is, therefore, from the
foregoing testimonies, the greatest reason to think that
the sound of ov was from among all the Greek letters
the nearest to that of the Roman V. What then was
the sound of this ov? Most are agreed, it was like that of
the Latin* u, these two appearing as convertible be-
tween the two languages: ovpavia becoming Urania, and
custodia Kovorwoia. Now both the ov and τ aré gene-
rally thought to resemble our 00, or the French+ ou:
and both these latter dipthongs nearly agree with our
W ; the French owt sounding like our we, Cornowaille,
Cornwall; and indeed our own W is analyzed by the
eminent author of a late “ Introduction to English Gram-
mar,” into oo. (p. 33. in the note.) Certainly many
words beginning with V in Latin, that have passed into
our own language, are by us used with the W: vinum,
wine; vasto, to waste; via, way; vicus, wick (a termina-

* Priscian, p. 554. ““ Quod nos se-
cuti [Aolicam scilicet rationem] ἃ
modo correptam, modo productam habe-
mus, quumvis videatur ov dipthongi so-
num habere.

+ Dipthongus ob profertur veluti ou
in dictionibus Gallicis nous, vous. Scot.
And the like sound of the
Latin τι is clear froma passage in Plau-
tus (Menech. p. 622, edit. Lambin.
fol.)

Gramm. 3.

Men. Egon’ dedi? Pern. Tu, tu istie,
inquam, vin’ afferri Noctuam,

Que tu, tu, usque dicat tibi? nam nos
jum nos defessi sumus,

It here appears an owl’s cry was tu
tu to a Roman ear, as it is too too to
an English. Lambin, who was a French-
man, observes on the passage, ‘ Allu-
dit ad noctuze vocem seu cantum, ti,
tu, seu tou, tou.”

70 ESSAY ON

tion to several names of places) ventus, wind ; vespa,
wasp, &c. Aspiration seems every way excluded from
this V: which had, as Scaliger says twice in one page,
sonum mollissimum (de ling. Lat. c. 10.) The Greek
writers in general, after Dionysius, as well as before him,
when they have occasion in Roman names to turn this
V into Greek, most commonly do it by οὐ, as Dionysius
above: Severus becomes Σεουῆρος, Verus οὐῆρος, Varro
οὐάρων, Virgilius οὐεργίλιος, Vespasianus οὐεσπασιανός.
And, on the other hand, the Latins have turned the οὐ
into V, as from ova: ve. Sometimes indeed their V be-
comes in Greek B. Dionysius writing Varro Bappwv, and
Plutarch making Servius Σερόνιος, and Σέρβιος. And
Gaza, one of the most learned of the latter Greeks, in
his translation of Cicero’s treatise de sSenectute, for
Turpione Ambivio magis delectatur writes ἐπὶ Τυρπίωνι
᾿Αμβιβίῳ ἥδεται: and for vidi etiam senem Livium εἶδον ἔτι
καὶ Λίβιον γέροντα. ‘There certainly was some relation
between the AXolic digamma and B, which seems to
have been a favourite letter of the Zolians. In B etiam
solet apud AXoles transire F digamma, quoties ab p inct-
pit dictio que solet aspirari, ut ῥήτωρ βρήτωρ dicunt.
Priscian. cap. de lit. The same is mentioned by Joan.
Grammaticus and Corinthus, who say that, ““ to words
beginning with p they prefix β, and avoid the aspirate,
as ῥόδα Bodda, ‘PadauavOve Βραδάμανθυς, ῥάκος βράκος."
So Caninius: “ Lacones, Cretenses, et Pamphylii
pro digamma utuntar B, ὠεὸν ὠβεὸν ovum, φάος φάος
lumen. Hesychius citat θάβακος sedes, et δάβαλος lam-
pas, pro θᾶκος, δαλός." And as among the Greeks them-
selves there was some aflinity between β and the Aol.
digamma, so there was between the 6 and Latin V, as
appears in Greek words passing into Latin, βιῶ vivo ;
βιοτὴ viota, vita; Badifw, Badw vado; βῆναι, βαίνω venio ;
βόσκω vescor; βόρος vorax. Lipsius on the affinity,
which he says there was among the ancients between B
and V, both in writing and pronunciation, grounds a
pretty emendation of a fragment of Afranius preserved
by Gellius, where it stands thus :—

ACCENT AND QUANTITY. “1

** Hem iste parentum est vitabilis liberis,
““ Ubi malunt metui, quam vereri se a suis.”

There is neither sense nor metre in the former line, as
we here read it. Muretus was sensible of it, and altered
it thus: “‘ Horumce parentum est vita bilis liberis.” i. e.
amara, odiosa. A correction this not unworthy of Mu-
retus. But Lipsius thinks he proposes a better in

““ Horumce parentum est vita vilis liberis.”

By the change of V into B, he would restore a line of
Pacuvius, which appears in Nonius thus:

*“* Non potest hic, Melanippe, sine tua opera exantlari
clavos.”

For clavos he reads labos. (Lips. Var. Lect.ii. 28.) He
speaks there of the treatise of Adamantius Martyr “ de
affinitate V et B,” which he says he had seen in manu-
script: of which we have only some short extracts in the
fifth and eighth chapters of Mag. Aurel. Cassiodorus de
Orthogr. Salmasius thinks, that even “ cum linguam
Romanam puriorem usurparent, bitulum pro vitulo dix-
isse, et vellum pro bello, cajus hodieque pronunciationis
vestigia expressa remansere in Glossariis Latino-Grecis
ante mille annos scriptis” (de Hellenist. p. 62. and more
to the same purpose in Prefat.ad Philox. Gloss. a La-
beo.) The like remark is in Peter Victorius. Var.
Lect. xxvii. 2. The Latin B in many words passes with
usinto V: habeo, have; taberna, tavern; libero, deliver.
But though the B is sometimes used in Greek versions as
corresponding with the Roman consonant V, yet it is not
so often as ov; Σεουῆρος being met with more than twelve
times in Goltzius’ medals, where Σεβῆρος is but thrice.
Dionysius, when he writes Οὐέλια to express Velia,
says, ‘‘ The old Greeks (7.¢. the Zolians and Pelasgians)
used frequently to prefix to words beginning with a vowel,
this οὐ expressed by a single character. And that single

72 ESSAY ON

character wasasa I’, with two transverse lines joined to
a perpendicular one.” Srévdovrai γε δὴ πρὸς τοὺς Πελασ-
γοὺς, καὶ διδόασιν αὐτοῖς χωρία, τῆς ἑαυτῶν ἀποδασάμενοι, τὰ
περὶ τὴν ἱερὰν λίμνην, ἐν οἷς ἦν τὰ πολλὰ ἑλώδη, ἃ νῦν κατὰ
Ν 5 - - ὃ λέ , Or aN > AC, , θ
τὸν ἀρχαῖον τῆς διαλέκτου τρύπον, Οὐέλια ὀνομάζεται. σύνηθες
‘ > - > , ¢ ς x Ν , ~
γὰρ ἦν τοῖς ἀρχαίοις “Ἕλλησιν, we τὰ πολλὰ, προτίθεναι τῶν
ὀνομάτων, ὁπόσων αἱ ἀρχὰι ἀπὸ φωνηέντων ἐγίνοντο, τὴν ΟΥ̓́
συλλαβὴν ἑνὶ στοιχείῳ γραφομένην. τοῦτο δ᾽ ἦν ὥσπερ γάμμα
διτταῖς ἐπὶ μίαν ὀρθὴν ἐπιζευγνύμενον ταῖς πλαγίαις, ὡς Fe-
λένη, καὶ Πάναξ, καὶ Ποῖκος, καὶ Εανὴρ, καὶ πολλὰ τοιαῦτα.
Ή» ? a

(Antiquit. Rom. p. 16. edit. Sylb.)

Thus much concerning the character and power of the
digamma. Its application to the correction of some im-
perfect Greek metre, particularly that of Homer, in
many places, has been pointed out in general by Dr.
Bentley, and made more fully, with a different name
given it, by Mr. Dawes. This proposed use of the di-
gamma hath been thought whimsical by some persons,
and ridiculed by others; by one especially, who in learn-
ing and knowledge was as much inferior to Dr. Bentley,
as in taste and genius he was superior to most of his age.
The critic is introduced by the poet as saying,

Roman and Greek grammarians! know your better :
Author of something yet more great than letter ;
While tow’ring o’er your alphabet, like Saul,
Stands our digamma, and o’ertops them all.

Mr. Pope here intended to expose Dr. Bentley’s in-
solence, not his ignorance: but through a mistake of his
own he has made the Doctor speak like an illiterate, as
well as vain man. Would he ever call himself greater
than the Roman and Greek grammarians for being the
author of a letter, which he meant to introduce solely on
the authority of those very grammarians? Or would he
speak of the digamma as in figure o’ertopping the rest of
the alphabet, when he must so well understand the fore-
going passage of Dionysius; who says not a word of its

ACCENT AND QUANTITY. 73

extraordinary size, only that it was like a gamma, with
this difference, that it had two transverse lines joined to
a perpendicular one, F, the common gamma having only
one, I‘? That great critic’s application of this ancient
Greek letter, notwithstanding the sneer of the satyrist,
is an extraordinary instance of that sagacity, which
was almost peculiar to him; and is now confirmed by
the express testimony of one of the greatest gramma-
rians of antiquity, Apollonius, who in parts of his writ-
ings lately published, and not known to Dr. Bentley at
the time of his first proposing the introduction of the di-
gamma, mentions it by name as used by the old poets
in those very words, to which the Doctor added it by con-
jecture. I cannot help mentioning another particular
confirmation, which one of his conjectures has received
since his first offering of it. The epigram of Philodemus,
which he said would throw light on Hor. Serm. i. 3. v.
120, 121. if it were found, has lately been published in
an Anthologia of Greek epigrams by Reiskius at Lipsic, ©
1754, and illustrates the sense of the passage according
to the Doctor’s explanation of it. This epigram of Phi-
lodemus, a famous Epicurean Greek in the time of Cicero

( Fin. ii. 35.) is addressed by him to the celebrated Piso,
his scholar.

Eivt μυχοῖς κραδίας δοιοὺς περιθάλπω ἔρωτας
Τὸν μὲν 'Ρωμαΐδος, τὸν δὲ Κορινθιάδος,

‘H μὲν ματρώνας τε τρόπους καί ἤθεα στέργειν
Οἶδ᾽ ἀπὸ κεκρυφάλου μέχρι περισκελίδων.

«ς ‘ ’ , ’ , ~

H δὲ χύδην παρέχει πάσῃ φιλότητι προσηνῶς
Πλαστουργοῦσα τύπους τοὺς ᾿Ελεφαντιάδος.

*Av δὲ μίαν τάυταιν, Πεῖσον, μ᾽ αἴρειν ἐπιτέλλεις,

Eiv ᾿Εφύρῃ μίμνω, ΤΗΝ Δ᾽ ἌΡΑ ΓΑΓΛΛΟΣ ἜΧΟΙ.
We from hence see the propriety of his reading,

Illam, post paulo, sed pluris, si exierit vir,
Gallis: Hanc Philodemus ait, sibi, que neque magno, kc

74 ESSAY ON

But to return to his digamma. When a hint of this
kind is once given, it is apt to be so much improved by
others, as perhaps sometimes to be extended too far.
Whether some critics, proceeding on the Doctor's plan,
have not inserted this letter in some words, to which it
did not originally belong, I presume not to say. There
is, I think, one circumstance in this case of the digamma,
which may be a safe guide to conjecture: I mean, when
there is a Roman word, derived from the Greek, with the
digamma, we may fairly conclude that the Greek word
itself had formerly the same: that ὃς therefore had it,
from whence vis, οἶκος vicus, οἶνος vinum, cow ἴδον video,
&c. especially as these and many other such words in
their position through Homer require, in order to per-
fect the metre, the addition of a consonant. This seems
an application of it on sure principles. Beyond this
there is room fer more ingenuity than certainty.

This digamma bearing some resemblance in figure to
the other Greek letters Γ΄, T, 1, Π, hath occasioned many
mistakes in Hesychius, as is observed by Dr. Taylor in
his Lectiones Lysiace, c. 9. and in his commentary on
Marmor Sandvicense, p. 44. and by Albertius on Hesy-
chius. Thus Dr. Taylor has well explained Homer's
σιγαλόεις out of Hesychius by ποικίλος τῇ γραφῇ, and sup-
posed it should be read oFayéFuc, as σιαλῶσαι is ex-
plained in Hesych. by ποικίλαι: in the latter word, σια-
λῶσαι, the digamma being entirely omitted; and in the
former, σιγαλόεις, changed intoaT’. Mr. Dawes, in his
Miscel. Crit. p. 181, 182. hath collected some words into
which the [ hath crept instead of F; and adds to them
ἀγάζεσθαι, which he supposes should be al’aZeo8a, from
whence Homer’s ἀϊάσσατο, commonly read ἀάσσατο. I
am strongly induced to believe that Homer’s Γέντο may
be added to that list, and was originally written Févro.
The common account of Eustathius, of y being prefixed,
is very unsatisfactory. “Edw, from whence is ἕλτο, ἕντο,
probably had the digamma, as the Latin vello, or volo
seems deduced from it. Hesychius explains γέντο by
ἔλαβεν. And the very next word to it in Hesychius,

ACCENT AND QUANTITY. 73

Tyra, (explained κρέα, σπλάγχνα) is evidently for Févra,
from whence Venter. And, just after that, Γέντινοι (for
Ἐέντινοι) οἰκεῖοι, which Guietus explains of ἐντὸς ὄντες.
Then Γέντερ (for Févrep) κοιλία : pro βέντερ, says Salma-
sius. So Γιτέα (for Firéa) ἰτέα, the same with ἴτη and
ἴταξ, Lat. vitex: with us, withy. With the help of the
digamma, and no otherwise, it is easy to conceive how
ἴδον came to be used, contrary to the apparent form of
all other aorists beginning with a vowel; since it not
only takes no augment, but even loses one of the times
it had in cidw. But this difficulty vanishes at once, if we
suppose it was originally Feidw, whose second aorist was
then regularly ¢Fidov, as ἔλιπον is of λείπω: and that,
when this character was dropped, without any other letter
in this word being substituted in its room, it was left from -
the Tonic Fidev, ἴδον. The supposition that Homer’s
γέντο is for ἕντο, with the digamma prefixed, is much fa-
voured by a passage in Herodian περὶ μεγάλου ῥήματος
(in Aldi Thesaur. p. 205.) where he inquires πόθεν τὸ
γέντο, and says it is ἐκ τοῦ ἕλω τὸ λαμβάνω, ov 6 παθητικὸς
ἐνεστὼς τὸ ἕλομαι, καὶ ὃ παρατατικὸς ἑλόμην, τὸ Ὑ ἕλετο καὶ
κατὰ συγκοπὴν αἰολικὴν ἕλτο, καὶ κατὰ μετάθεσιν τοῦ X εἰς
ν δωρικῶς ἕντο, καὶ πλεονασμῷ τοῦ Τ' AIOAIKQS γέντο.
From the manner in which the T' is here mentioned, it
is probable the Molic digamma is meant by Hero-
dian.

In regard to the T appearing sometimes instead of F,
Mr. Bowyer (Postsc. ad Kust. de Verb. Med. 143.)
thinks this is not always a corrupt reading arising from
the error of its transcriber, but sometimes proceeded
from some affinity between the gamma, as pronounced
by some nations, and the digamma: as from ἀγορὰ
comes forum, from γαλῆ felis ; and what the French call
Galles, we do Wales ; guerre, war.* This may have
been the case sometimes. But, undoubtedly, in a pas-

* So Lipsius, ‘‘ Digammos a figura _ plex, G rescriptum reperies: ut Wil-
dicta, nona sono: quamquametinparte helmus Guilhelmus, Waltherus Gual-
inclusus 116. Nam sepe ubi W do- _ therus, de pronunc. ὦ. xii.

76 ESSAY ON

sage cited above from Apollonius, the y is by a mistake
of the copyist inserted for F, in γέθεν; for Apollonius
not two lines before says the digamma was uscd in this
word, mentioning it by name, Αἰολικὸν Δίγαμμα, and then
gives an instance of it from Alceus in ἄτερ γέθεν : where
we can have no doubt but it should be Fé0ev.

The similar forms of letters (though the lines that
compose them, considering their smallness, seem vari-~
ously modified to as great a degree of diversity, as
human wit and sagacity could possibly carry them)
have yet, as is well known, miserably corrupted the
text of ancient books. ‘Thus the likeness between the
small Roman r and ¢ hath, I believe, corrupted the
following passage of Virgil in his naval games: Ain.
v. 190.

Hic viridem Aineas frondenti ex ilice metam
Constituit, signum nautis, pater, unde revertt
Scirent, et longos ubi circumflectere cursus.

By the insertion of pater here in the second line, the
construction is embarrassed in a manner unknown to
Virgil: the word itself is unnecessary, if not absurd.
When it is joined in construction with A®neas in the
other parts of the poem, it is generally close in position
likewise: Tum pater Aineas; at pater Aineas; το.
Thus it is used in seventeen places: I can find but one
where they are disjoined, Amn. viii. 28.

Cum pater in ripa, gelidique sub etheris axe
Jineas, tristi turbatus pectora bello,
Procubuit.

Here, however, though pater is separated, it yet stands
first as in pater Aineas: and the sense of the word here
is very emphatical. In like manner pater is closely join-
ed with Anchises in nine places, and separate but once,

ACCENT AND QUANTITY. 77

where the construction is however perfectly easy, Ain.
ili. 610.

Ipse pater dextram Anchises, haud multa moratus,
Dat juveni.

On which account I suspect our common reading not to
be Virgil’s, and that he wrote it thus:

Hic viridem AEneas frondenti ex ilice metam
Constituit ; signum nautis patet, unde reverti
Scirent, et longos ubi circumflectere cursus.

The changing of two letters in ἐναντίον for two others
of a form somewhat similar, will perhaps give the true
sense of a passage in (Ἰαΐρ. Col. of Sophocles. Cidipus
towards the close of that defence, which he makes for
himself against Creon before Theseus, says, ‘‘ My hands
have indeed been guilty of my father’s murther, but they
were guided in this by accident, perhaps by the Gods.
Yet you upbraid me with the whole of this, before these
people.”

Τοιαῦτ᾽ ὀνειδίζεις με τῶνδ᾽ "ENANTYION. ν. 1057.
Thus he speaks, according to the present reading.
But would not the conclusion here be much fuller, and
more agreeable to the manner and spirit of Sophocles,
were we to read

Τοιαῦτ᾽ ὀνειδίζεις με τῶνδ᾽ ᾿ΑΝΑΙΤΙΟΝ.

“« And yet you injuriously charge me with the whole of
this, innocent as I am.”

In the same play, v. 1585.

ZTPEWANTA χειρὸς τῆς ἀνικήτου βέλη.

78 ESSAY ON

What if instead of στρέψαντα here, which seems too weak
a word applied to thunder, it were read

ΣΚΗΎΨΑΝΤΑ χειρὸς τῆς ἀνικήτου βέλη.

Σκηπτὸς is often used, particularly by the tragic poets, to
express thunder, lightning, or storm; and by the best
authors in general: see D’orville ad Chariton. p. 692.
and H. Steph. Thes. Gr. in V.

ACCENT AND QUANTITY. 79

CHAP. V.

On the accent of the old Greeks. Some passages of Dionysius of Halicarnassus
and Plutarch considered. The tones as well as times regarded by the ancients
in their compositions. Importance of accent Lo harmony.

IN regard to the accents among the old Greeks, (I do
not here mean the marks or virgule, which we now see
in the editions of their books, the introduction and use
of which I shall consider in another place) that they did
regularly raise and sink their voice on certain syllables,
I cannot help thinking as needless to prove from pas-
sages of their own authors, as it would be to prove la-
boriously from Plato, Aristotle, and Plutarch, that they
walked with their two legs, or saw with their two eyes.
If they had a voice, with two or three different notes
belonging to it in use, they could not avoid having
accent.*

But in order to comply in some measure with the
common expectation of readers on this subject, I shall
just mention, that the present names of accents, though
used more frequently by later Greek critics and gram-
marians, were by no means first invented by them to
express a thing of their own discovery, but were well
known to the Greeks of the earlier and purer ages.
Aristotle, we have seen above, uses ὀξύτης in the accen-
tual sense. He uses likewise the word προσῳδία, as we
do, in his Poetics and Elenchi. Plato, in his + Cratylus,

* « Quando has [accentuum Gra- μκεν.

coruin] notas ceperint apponere, non
inquiro : res ipsa semper fuit.” D’or-
vill. Crit. Vann. p. 333.

+ Speaking of the etymology of some
eompounded words, he says, πολλάκις
ἐπεμιβάλλομεν γράμματα, τὰ δ᾽ ἐξαιροῦ-
μεν

καὶ τὰς ὀξύτητας μεταβάλλο-

Sepe inserimus literas, aliasque
eximimus——et acumina mutamus. He
then gives an instance of this in Ad
φίλος" τό, τε ἕτερον αὐτόθεν ἰῶτα ἐξείλομεν,
καὶ ἀντὶ ὀξείας τῆς μέσης συλλαβῆς, βα-
εεῖαν ἐφθεγξάμεθα. In Διὰ φίλος, alterum
iota exemimus, et pro acuta media syllaba

Instead of dit

gravem pronunciavimus.

80 ESSAY ΟΝ

mentions the very words ὀξεῖα and βαρεῖα as regarding
merely the accent of the voice. Dionysius of Halicar-
nassus, speaks as distinctly of these tones by the names
we now have of them, as he does of long and short
quantity. ‘‘ Every word,” says he, “ that is placed in
a sentence, is not pronounced with the same intension
of voice: one is expressed with an acute [on its last
syllable] one with a grave, and one with a tone com-
pounded of the other two. Of those that have these
two tones, some have the acute and grave in close con-
junction on the same syllable, which we then call cir-
cumflex : some have them separate, each with its dis-
tinct proper power on different syllables. In dissyllables
there is no middle place for acute or grave: in polysyl-
lables of all kinds, there is a single syllable that has

the acute, and all the others have graves.”*

φίλος it was pronounced Δίφιλος, by
leaving out one iota of διῖ, and giving
the φι a grave instead of an acute. He
then proceeds and gives an example in
the word ἄνθρωπος of an opposite case,
where some letters were added, and the
tones likewise changed. ἄλλων δὲ τοὺ-
γαντίον ἐμβάλλομεν γράμματα, τὰ δὲ
ὀξέως βαρύτερα φθεγγόμεθα. Τοῦτο τοίνυν
ἕν καὶ τὸ τῶν ᾿Ανθρώπων ὄνομα πέπονθεν.
x. τ. Δ. In aliis contra vocabulis addi-
mus literas: et que erant acute, gravio-
res pronunciamus, &c. T. 1. p. 399.
edit. Serr.

* Οὐ μὴν ἅπασά ye h λέξις, ἣ καθ᾽ ἕν
μόριον λόγου ταττομένη τῆς αὐτῆς λέγεται
πάσεως" ἀλλ᾽ h μὲν ἐπὶ τῆς ὀξείας, ἣ δὲ
ἐπὶ τῆς βαρείας, ἡ δὲ ἐπ᾿ ἀμφοῖν. τῶν δὲ
ἀμφοτέρας τὰς τάσεις ἐχουσῶν, αἱ μὲν
κατὰ μίαν συλλαβὴν συνεφθαρμένον ἔχουσι
τῷ ὀξεῖ τὸ βαρὺ, ἃς δὴ περισπωμένας κα-
Aovpev αἱ δὲ ἐν ἑτέρω τε καὶ ἑτέρω χωρὶς
ἑκάτερον, ἐφ᾽ ἑαυτοῦ τὴν οἰκείαν φυλώττον
φύσιν. Καὶ ταῖς μὲν δισυλλάβεις οὐδὲν τὸ

Ν , ͵ S 397
διὰ μέσου χωρίον βαρύτητος καὶ ὀξύτητος"

ταῖς δὲ πολυσυλλάβοις, οἷαί wor ἂν ὥσιν,
ε x te cA v 7 > ~
ἡ τὸν ὀξὺν τόνον ἔχουσα μία ἐν πολλαῖς
Dionys.

, wv Ν
βαρείαις ἔνεστιν. περὶ συνθ.

τμῆμ. τά.

The word τείνω, though in its general
primary signification it expresses ex-
tension every way, in length as well as
height, yet when used in a prosodical
sense, is restrained to the signification
of height alone ; and so are its deriva-
tives τάσις, τόνος, from whence the Latin
It is
constantly used in this sense through

toni, or tenores, and our tones.

the old musical writers. Scaliger gives
an explanation of these words being
used thus. Hos omnes Greci τόνους vo-
cavere, translaia ratione ἃ fidibus, qua-
rum intentione aut remissione acutior
graviorve redderetur vox. de caus. ling.
Lat. ii. 53.
reason of this word's particular appli-
cation to the height of sound, it cer-
tainly is so applied in fact. “Evrovov is
explained in Hesychius by ὀξύ. ᾿Ανατείνω
in Stephens, by sursum extollo, erigo,

But whatever was the

ACCENT AND QUANTITY.

I know he speaks in the same chapter of the contra-
riety of accents to metre on some occasions ; and that

sustollo, attollo; as likewise ἐπιτείνω
and ἐντείνω, metaphorice ab intentione
arcus vel lyre. Every one knows that
the usnal difference between a man’s
voice and a woman’s consists in this,
that the former uses lower, or deeper
notes than the latter: what difference
there is, is in the comparative height
of the notes, not in the length. When,
therefore, I find τόνος Bagis used to
distinguish a man’s voice from a wo-
man’s, I am certain that those two
words refer only to high and low. This
then I find in Lucian, in his εἰκόνες" he
is there describing a fine voice, and
Says, πᾶς δὲ ὁ τόνος τοῦ φθέγματος, οἷος
ἁπαλώτατος, οὔτε βαρὺς, ὡς εἰς τὸ ἀνδρεῖον
ἥρμοσται, οὔτε πάνυ λεπτὸς ὡς ϑηλύτατος
εἶναι. Omnis vero tonus vocis mollissimus,
neque gravis, ut qui virilis, neque valde
Thus
Aristotle applies ὀξὺ and βαρύ : διὸ καὶ

tenuis ut prorsus muliebris esset.

᾿Οξὺ, δυνάμεως σημεῖον. καὶ ἔργον τὰ
"ANG ἄδειν. τὰ δὲ Βαρέα ΚΑΊ Ω. Probl.
sect. xix. et Physiog.c. 2. As Cagis
in Greek, so gravis in Latin, when ap-
plied to sound, signifies lowness: thus

Lucretius uses il, iv. 549.

Quum tuba depresso graviler sub
murmure mugit.

and Virgil, Tum sonus auditur gravior,
tractimque susurrant, where he is ex-
pressing the low humming of bees. So
Cicero de Orat. iii. 6. Est item contra
quiddam remissione gravissimum, quo-
que tanquam sonorum gradibus descen-
ditur.
manner ἄρσις as opposed to ϑέσις" on
which Scaliger speaks thus; Syllabe
igitur modus, quo tollitur in ea vor acu-
tior, dictus est a Grecis ἄρσις, recte sane:

From αἴρω tollo, comes in like

in alteram autem subeuntem cum demit-
tatur vor, Sécw appellarunt, minus com-
mode :—que melius κατάθεσις dicta fu-
isset :—vel wzquabilitatem vocis potius
appellassent. unde etiam in musicis ὅμιο-
τενεῖς quidam dicuntur tractus, in quibus
ἄρσις est nulla. See likewise the ac-
count of ἐπίτασις and ἄνεσις above in
ch. i. So in Priscian. in wnaquaque
parte orationis arsis et thesis sunt, velut
in hac parte natura: ut quando dico
natu, elevatur vox et est arsis in tu;
quando vero ra, deprimitur vox, et est
thesis. Nigidius, (in Gellius xiii. 25.)
speaking of the accent of the word
Valeri in the genitive case, says, ‘ se-
cunda syllaba superiore tono est, quam
prima ; deinde novissima dejicitur. at
in casu vocandi summo tono est prima ;
The re-

mark of Gellius himself upon this is,

deinde gradatim descendunt.”

*“summumn autem tonum προσωδίαν acu-
tam dicit.” Quinctilian, when he speaks
of a syllable being acuted, says, acuta
exvcitatur. And the old Roman philolo-
gist, Martianus Capella, calls the te-
nores or tonos, fastigia et cacumini,
which perhaps should be read acumina,
as being the word more often used—
Accentus (says Diomedes) quidem Fas-
tigia vocaverunt, quod capitibus litera-
rum apponerentur ; Alii tenores vel to-
Nonnulli acumina defi-
nire maluerunt. Thus Herodian applies
Ἐκ δὲ
ἀντωνυμιῶν, αἱ prev ἐγείρουσαι τὴν ὀξεῖαν

nos appellant.
the word ἐγείρω to the acute.

‘ ‘ > ~ > ‘\ ~
THY πρὸ αὐτῶν, ἐγκλιματίικαὶ καλουνται"
ε - a2 f 2 ,
αἱ δὲ μὴ ἐγείρουσαι, ὀρθοτονούμεναι. Herod.
περὶ ἐγκλιτ. Ex pronominibus, ea que
acutum excitant ante se, enclitica vo-
cantur: que vero non illum excitant,

ὀρθοτονούμιεγα, 1. 6, rectum accentum hu-

passage hath been urged as affording an invincible and
conclusive argument against the use of accents in ge-
neral among the old Greeks. But if we consider this
passage a little, we shall see how very unfairly it has
been represented in relation to this subject. I allow
then, that Dionysius doth complain of accents as sub-
versive of quantity, on some occasions: but on what
occasions? Why, when some unskilful composers of
music (for in this place he is comparing the modulation
of τῆς ὀργανικῆς τε Kal ᾧδικῆς μούσης With that of common
discourse, the διαλέκτου μέλος), when they, 1 say, who set
the Greek odes to music, did sometimes join a long
syllable to a short note, an acuted one to a grave note,
and vice versa ; who made (as he there * says) the words
bend to the musical notes, and not the notes to the

ESSAY ON

bentia.. And so Apollonius in fifty places
calls the acute dieynyeguévoy τόνον.

It should be remembered, that besides
the arsis of accent, mentioned here by
Scaliger and Priscian, there is another
that morefrequently occurs in grammati«
cal writers, the arsis of metre, relating to
the elevation of the foot or hand at the
beginning of feet, in order to mark the
division of their times in scanning.
“ Arsisigitur ac Thesis (says Mar. Victo-
rinus) quas Greci dicunt, id est sublatio
ac positio, significant pedis motum. Est
enim arsis sublatio pedis sine sono:
Thesis positio pedis cum sono.” Putsch.
p- 2482. This raising of the foot, in
dividing the times, should not be con-
founded with the arsis of accent, which
The
metrical arsis often takes place on a

signifies the elevation of voice.

grave syllable, that has the accentual
thesis. More will be said on this in
another place.

«Ὁ “H δὲ ὀργανική τε καὶ ὠδικὴ rovoa—
πὰς λέξεις τοῖς μέλεσιν ὑποτάττειν ἀξιοῖ,
καὶ οὗ τὰ μέλη τοῖς λέξεσιν, ὡς ἐξ ἄλλων

τε πολλῶν δῆλον, καὶ μάλιστα τῶν Εὐρι-
πίδου μελῶν, ἃ πεποίηκε τὴν Ἠλέκτραν
λέγουσαν ἐν ᾽Ορέστη πρὸς Tov χορόν"

Σῖγα, cya, λευκὸν ἔχνος ἀρθδύλης
τιθεῖτε, μὴ κτυπεῖτε.

3 19 3°? ~ 2 ἊΣ / ,
Amomedcar’ ἐκεῖσ᾽, ἀπόπροθι κοίτας,

᾿ rhe Ἐπ .
Ἔν yap δὴ τούτοις, τὸ σῖγα σῖγα λευκὸν,
yee Wor yan ’ - ͵ =A
ἐφ᾽ ἑνὸς φθόγγου μελωδεῖται, καίτοι “τῶν
πριῶν λέξεων ἑκάστη (αρείας τε τάσεις
ἔχει καὶ ὀξείας. Καὶ πὸ ᾿Αρβύλης ἔτι μέσῃ
Ὁ Ν , ε va ” > A
συλλαβῇ τὴν τρίτην ὁμότονον ἔχει, ἀμκηχά-
vou ὄντος ἕν ὕνοκκω δύο λαβεῖν ὀξείας. καὶ
es . ΠΗ͂Σ
τοῦ τιθεῖτε, Cupurégn μὲν ἡ πρῶτη γίνεται,
δύο δὲ μετ᾽ αὐτὴν ὀξύτονοί τε καὶ ὁμιόφωνοι"
τοῦ Καυπεῖτε, 6 περισπασμὸς ἠφάγνισπαι"
μιᾷ γὰρ αἱ δύο συλλαβαὶ λέγονται τάσει.
Καὶ τὸ ᾿Αποπρόβατε, ob λαμβάνει τὴν τῆς
μέσης συλλαβῆς προσωδίαν ὀξεῖαν, ἀλλ᾽
2 Ν led / Ν ΄
ἐπὶ τῆν τετάρτην συλλαβὴν καταβέβηκεν

i τάσις τῆς τείτης. Que vero instrumen-

tis cantuique aptatur Musa dicti-
ones concentui subinittendas postulat, nun
vero concentum dictionibus : ut ex multis

aliis patet, et precipue ex hoc Euripidis

ACCENT AND QUANTITY. 83

words. This he instances in some lines out of the
Orestes of Euripides :

Riya, oiya, λευκὸν ἴχνος ἀρβύλης
Τιθεῖτε, μὴ κτυπεῖτε.

> - ΜΈΣ te ΟΝ ’

Αποπρόβατ᾽ ἐκεῖσ᾽ ἀπόπροθι κοίτας.

Now, says he, “ though it is impossible there should
be more than one acute in one word, yet the word do/3é-
Ane here is made to have two, by having the same tone
on the middle and third syllable.” Where are these
two? not on the word, according to any pronunciation.
that would be assigned it by the patrons of accents, or
by the common rules of them: by them it has but one,
as Dionysius himself limits it. Where then were the
two, which he objects to? why, in the musical notes of
those composers, who set these lines of Euripides to
music; and, in doing that, gave as high a note to the
last syllable of ἀρβύλης, as to the second: so that, ac-
cording to these musicians, the word was accented thus,
apBirhe. So in κτυπεῖτε (says he) “ the circumflex is by
them quite destroyed: for, by their setting the long
syllable πεῖ to a note like that, which they assigned to
the short syllable next to it, these two syllables, of

ceuntico, quo in Oreste fecit Electram ad tum eundem habent. Vocabuli, Καυπεῖτε,
chorum uti: circumplenus penitus obscuratur: una
enim due syllabe intensione efferun-
tur. Et vox, ᾿Αποπρόθατε, non habet in
media syllaba accentum acutum, sed us-
que ad quartam syllabam trunsfertur
Nam in his σῖγα, ciya, λευκὸν, uno Vocis —intensio tertie.- I have here corrected
sono decantantur, etiamsi trium harum the common Latin version, which in
dictionum unaqueque suos habeat tam some places is faulty. In many other
graves quam auctos accentus. Et vor translations of passages from the Greek
᾿Αρβύλης quoque in tertia syllaba eundem _ authors, which I have occasion to cite
quem in media tonum habet, etsi nequit throughout this Essay, I have not
fieri, ut una dictio duos habeat acutos. thought it necessary to adhere to the
Ac vocabuli, τιθεῖτε, gravior quidem pri- common versions, but-have often given

ma fit syllaba, due vere sequentes acu- a new one.

Tacite, tacite, candidwm solee vestigium
Ponite, strepitum ne edite.
Abscedite hinc procul a lecto.

ἑῷ

84 ESSAY ΟΝ

different accent and quantity, are by them reduced to an
equality. And in ἀποπρόβατε the. middle syllable hath
not the acute, which is carried to the fourth syllable.”
But it surely is not carried to the fourth now; nor can
be according to our modern accentuation. By that,
ἀποπρόβατε is acuted onthe middle syllable, in the very
manner which Dionysius here prescribes. The method
then of accenting these lines in Euripides, remarked here
by Dionysius, is as follows :

Σίγά otya λεύκόν ἴχνος ἀρβύλής
eae. A 022
Τιθείτέ, μὴ κτυπείτέ,
2 -
Αποπροβάτ᾽ ἐκεῖσ᾽ ἀπόπροθι κοίτας.

Whether the giving of such tones to these syllables in
music be really a fault, I pretend not to say: let musi-
cians* themselves settle that with Dionysius. I only

* However the common accent of
syllables might be regarded by the
Greek composers of music, it seems to
be acknowledged that the quantity was
duly observed. Probabilior eorum est
opinio, qui dicunt, toni sew vocis prola-
tionem, syllabe quantitatem semper sequi.
Thus writes the learned author of a
piece de Antiqua Musica Greca, printed
al the end of the Oxford Aratus: and
this he grounds on good authority, par-
ticularly on that of Martianus Capella.
I know not any writer, that expresses
the quality of lowness and height in
sound, with more perspicuity and ele-
gance, than Capella. Constat omnis mo-
dulatio ex gravitate soni et acumine.
Gravitas dicitur, que modi quadam de-
misstone moilescit : acumen vero, quod in
aciem tenuatam gracilis et erecte modu-
lationis extenditur.—Satyr. lib. ix.

The author ofa letter to Mr. Avison,
concerning the musie of the ancients,
speaks thus of their observation of
quantity. ‘ The tunes which were
played to odes, like those of Horace,
must have been plain and simple, be-

cause of the speedy return of the same
stanza, and because of the quantity of
the syllables, which was not Lo be vio-
lated, or at least, not greatly, by the
music. The modern musicians, who
have attempted to set such Latin or
Greek odes to music, have often too
much neglected this rule of suiting the
tune to the metre, and have made long
syllables short, and short syllables long,
and run divisions upon single ones, and
In mo-
dern vocal music we regard not this law,
but perpetually sacrifice the quantity
to the modulation ; which yet surely is
a fault. If we had the old musical
notes which were set to any particular
ode or hymn, that is extant, I should
not despair of finding out the length of
each note; for the quantity of the syl-
lable would probably be a tolerable
guide: and I would consent to track
the works of Seignior Alberti for the
tune that was set to Pindar’s

repeated some of the words.

Χρυσέα φόρμιγξ ᾿Απόλλωνος.᾽"

ACCENT AND QUANTITY. 8d

mention the thing as a fact, which he censures, for being
not only contrary to quantity, but the true accent of the
language too. I have. taken this particular notice of
that passage in his works, because I know it hath, either
with inconsiderate haste or wilful misconstruction, been
alleged to shew that he objected to the use of accents
in general pronunciation, whereas he there objects to
the abuse of particular accents among musicians, who,
in setting their words, neglected the ordinary quantity
and accent.

After he has exemplified his assertion by particular
instances, then follows the favourite passage of the ene-
mies of accents ; ἡ μὲν yao πεζὴ λέξις οὐδενὸς οὔτε ὀνόμα-
τος οὔτε ῥήματος βιάζεται τοὺς χρόνους, οὐδὲ μετατίθησιν"
ἀλλ᾽ οἵας παρείληφε τῇ φύσει τὰς συλλαβὰς, τάς τε μακρὰς
καὶ τὰς βοαχείας, τοιαύτας φυλάσσει.---““ Now prose, [which
is not subject to this perversion of musical composers]
never violates nor transposes the quantity of any noun
or verb; but preserves the natural quality of syllables
both long and short.” These lines Dr. G. hath inadvert-
ently twice quoted, without attending in the least to the
context, as a proof against accents, and advanced them
in the title of his book, as the bulwark of quantity; of
which he is very tender and tenacious, though not so
much as I am myself, as will appear in the following
pages. Accordingly I should most readily reject the
present accentual system in Greek, if it were really con-
trary to quantity, as hath been ajleged. Whether it truly
be so or no, will be further matter of inquiry in another
place.

In regard to the point before us, can they, who have
supposed the foregoing passage as a declaration against
accents, imagine that sucha very sensible man as Diony-
sius, could object to the accents of general pronunciation
in one part of his treatise, and then contradict himself
in another, where, in the clearest terms, he speaks of
these very tones as contributing greatly to the harmony
of language? Among the constituent parts of perfect
writing or speaking, which he recites in his xixth chap-

80 ESSAY ON

ter, he mentions these accents as such: σχήματα παντοῖα
kat TA’SEIS φωνῆς, ai καλούμεναι ΠΡΟΣΩΙΔΙ AL, διάφοροι,
κλέπτουσαι τῇ ποικιλίᾳ τὸν κόρον. ** All kinds of rhetori-
cal figures, and different tones of voice, that are called
accents, which by their variety insensibly beguile us,
and prevent our being sated and fatigued by an irksome
repetition of the same sound.”

The same excellent author in another part of his rhe-
torical treatise, where he is giving some general direc-
tions for harmonious composition, says it must be diver-
sified, and particular care be taken to avoid repetitions
of words of the same number of syllables, of the same
tones, or same quantity, placed near each other, *yhre
ὀλιγοσύλλαβα πολλὰ ἑξῆς λαμβάνειν" (κόπτεται γὰρ ἡ ἀκρόα-
σις) μήτε πολυσύλλαβα πλείω τῶν ἱκανῶν, μηδὲ δὴ ‘OMOIO’-
TONA παρ᾽ ὁμοιοτόνοις, μηδὲ ὁμοιόχρονα παρ᾽ ὁμοιοχρόνοις.
Now if the Greek tones and times had been the same,
had there been no difference between the ὁμοιότονα and
ὑμοιόχρονα, Dionysius would never have mentioned them
as distinct, in a part of his book that required any
precision. The two things are therefore certainly
distinct: λόγος and πόντος are ὁμοιότονα, though not
ὁμοιόχρονα.

But farther : these words of Dionysius shew not only
that the tones and times were really distinct things, but
likewise that the former were attended to as well as the
latter in the σύνθεσις even of + prose: a thing, of which

* Περὶ συνθ. ιβ΄.
syllabarum dictiones multas ordine assu-

tione vetat esse, numerum jubet. Orator.
§. 51. Not but that well-turned prose

Neque paucarum

mamus (nam inde offenduntur aures )
neque plures ex polysyllabis quam necesse
sit, neque qué eundem accentum, neque
que eadem tempora habent, prope inter
56 componamus.

+ Aristotle, speaking of oratorical
expression, says, διὸ puSpecy δεῖ ἔχειν τὸν
λόγον, μέτρον δὲ μιή. Ποίημια γὰρ ἔσται.
Which Cicero (after having said, Quis
in rebus judicundis acrior Aristotele fu-
it ?) translates, is igitur versum in ora-

will insensibly slide into a variety of
metre. Quinctilian says, it will do so
unavoidably: and Cicero from Theo-
phrastus says, that in most orations you
may easily trace out pieces of dithy-
rambic measure. Longinus, in his frag-
ments, §.iii. has given instances of epic
and Ionic metre in Demosthenes. Ma-
ny iambic and choriambic verses found
in Demosthenes and Isocrates, are seen
in the Schol. on Hermogenes, p. 586.

ACCENT AND QUANTITY.

many persons at present seem not to have the least

idea.

Nor yet need we wonder at Aristotle, Dionysius, and
the best rhetorical writers laying so great a stress, as

Hexameters have been observed in the
Gr. Test. Matt. xiv. 14. Luc, xxi. 18.
Jo. xiii. 5. xvi. 28. xix. 39. Tit. iii. 2.
Jac. i. 17. Heb. xii. 15. Pentameters
in Luc. xiy. 30. Heb. xii. 26. Tim. vi.
16. It is well known that Sallust bas
begun his Jugurthine war, and Tacitus
his annals with an hexameter; and
Ryckius is so trifling as to think that
Tacitus did it designedly, because Sal-
lust had before him ; which no doubt was
accidental in them both: as it will some-
limes be in every prose writer. In all,
regular and apparent verse is jadged
faulty byCicero. Butihere certainly is
a rhythm in prose, as wellas in metrical
writing. And this rhythm will present
itself, without being sought, to a good
ear. Among ourselves, in English com-
position, it seems to be industriously
sought chiefly in epitaphs, and other
inscriptions. However, the attention
to it should be in some degree con-
cealed. It is perhaps too evident in
parts of Mr. Addison’s works. It
should be perceived, but not stand
forth too much, and offer itself as it
were to view. Aristotle, inthe chapter
of his Rhetoric, from whence I gave
the passage above, stales this briefly,
precisely, and clearly, (lib. iii. ὁ. 8.)
70 δὲ σχῆμα τῆς λέξεως δεῖ μήτε ἔμμε-
“ρὸν εἶναι, μήτε appucprov’ τὸ μὲν γὰρ ἀπί-
τὸ δὲ

Savoy, πεπλάσξϑαι γὰρ δοκεῖ:

woe 6 y 3 Zz ov ε Ὧν ΔΩ
ἄῤῥυθμον, ἀπέραντον. (ῥυπ μός ἐστιν,

= x ~
οὗ καὶ τὰ μέτρα Tanta) διὸ pudprdy δεῖ

ἔχειν τὸν λόγον ῥυσιμὸν δὲ μὴ ἀκρι-
βῶς: τοῦτο δὲ ἔσται ἐὰν μέχρι τοῦ 7.
Formam orationis decet neque metrwmn

habere, neque rhythmo prorsus carere.

Quod enim metrum habet, fidem non fa-
Quod

cit : elaboratum enim videtur.
vero rhythmo caret, infinitum est.
(Rhythmus est, cujus et metra sunt seg-
menta) Quare Rhythmum habere oportet
orationem, rhythinum vero non nimis ac-
curate; hoc autem fiet, si sit ad certum
modum. Prose here is to have rhythm,
but rhythm not elaborate and apparent.
And on the same principles, since some

kinds of metre will slip into prose, that
is best which is the least conspicuous
there: for this reason the Peon foot is
recommended to orators by Aristotle in
ihe same chapter, on account of its
being the least observable, ὥστε μά-
Mora λανθάνειν; the first Peon---+y fora
beginning, the second (now commonly
called the fourth) -+»- for a close. The
whole of this subject is opened by Ci-
cero, in his Orator. The annotations of
Majoragius on this passage of Aristo-
tle, throw much light on ihe subject of
prosaic metre and rhythm ; but more
particularly has Quinctilian illustrated
every part of it, with a view to what
had been written by Aristotle, Cicero,
and all the celebrated rhetoricians be-
fore him, in his excellent chapter de
Compositione. Lib. ix. 4. The Abbé
Colin, in his remarks added to his trans-
lation of Cicero’s Orator, has wrilten
judiciously on the same subject.. The
deficiency of the moderns, and great
accuracy of the ancients, in oratorical
numbers, is well touched on by the ele-
gant Mr. Melmoth, in Fitzosborne’s
Lett. xxiy. But more particularly and
fully has Mr. Mason considered this sub-
ject, in regard to English compositions.

88 ESSAY ON

they do, on accent, as essential to the perfection of com-
position. The importance of itis grounded in the very
nature of things. For mere quantity, as hath been re-
marked above, containing in general only two measures,
hath not variety enough to constitute much harmony ;
but when we take accent into our account, that is, the
compass of four or five notes, each of which is capable
of two modifications in point of length, we have then
eight or ten different modes of sound, to form harmony
out of their various combinations. The materials thus
multiplied, enlarge the foundation of harmony, and make
it sufficient for any poetical or oratorical rhythm, which
the human ear can require.

Those, therefore, who, in considering the numerosity of
writings, attend to quantity alone, regard only the infe-
rior part of the subject before them. If they add to that
the consideration of accent, they will by those means,
and no other, be proper judges of the whole, and (to use
the words of one who had a quick sense of the powers of
rhythm )

Pleas’d shall they hear and learn the secret pow’r

Of harmony in TONES and numbers hit

By voice or hand, and various-measur'd verse.
MILTON.

The ears of the ancients were nice to the highest de-
gree of sensibility ; and were truly, as they are often
called by the old writers themselves, teretes et religiose,
difficiles et morose, quarum est superbissimum judicium.
Nor is there in these and the like expressions implied
any censure, but rather commendation of this extreme
accuracy. Cicero himself, in his rhetorical works, de-
scends to several very minute discussions on the nu-
merous construction of sentences, proceeding on such
principles of refinement, as in some cases exceed almost
the comprehension of our grosser sense. The Roman
ear was exactly and scrupulously fine, but more particu-
larly so was that of the Greeks; whose great attention

ACCENT AND QUANTITY. 89

to the nice harmony of their language’is well observed
and expressed by Terentianus Maurus ;

Artium parens et altrix Greca diligentia est:
Laterarum porro curam nulla gens attentius
Repperit: * polivit usque finem ad unguis extimum.

If a fuller testimony in regard to the Greek accent is
required from Dionysius, the following will probably
appear so. Ta γράμματα ὅταν παιδευώμεϑα, πρῶτον μὲν τὰ
ὀνόματα αὐτῶν ἐκμανϑάνομεν, ἔπειτα τοὺς τύπους καὶ τὰς
δυνάμεις, εἶθ᾽ οὕτω τὰς συλλαβὰς καὶ τὰ ἐν ταύταις πάθη. καὶ
μετὰ τοῦτο ἤδη τὰς λέξεις, καὶ τὰ συμβεβηκότα αὑταῖς, ἐκτάσεις
τε λέγω Kal συστολὰς, καὶ ΠΡΟΣΩΙΔΙΑΣ, καὶ τὰ παραπλήσια
τούτοις. ‘* When we are taught our letters, we first
learn their names, then their forms and powers ; and thus
we proceed to syllables, and their affections or proper-
ties: after this to whole words, with their particular
modes and qualities; I mean, the length and shortness
of them, and their accents, with other things of the like
nature.” If this passage does not prove the existence
of tones, their difference from quantity, their use and
application in ordinary pronunciation and discourse, no
passage of an historian can prove the existence of Julius
Cesar. The reader will see, by a foregoing passage
cited from this author, that he probably here uses the
word προσῳδία to signify the tone itself, not the mark.
He will see, likewise, that the word ἔκτασις here is ap-
plied to the length of sound, not the height; as ἐκτείνω

* Plato, in his etymology of words,
which he gives in his Cratylus, where
he accounts for the changes made by
derivation or composition, frequently
takes notice of the great regard which
his countrymen had to elegance in
every thing respecting language. In
the word Ποσειδῶν, a change is said
there to be made ΕὝΠΡΕΠΕΙΑΣ ἕνεκα.
p- 402. Nearly the same remark is
made on ᾿Αθηνᾶν, p. 407. and on ἱἙρμῆς,

Ρ. 408. on ἀστραπὴ, p. 409. on δικαιο-
σύνη, p. 412. On the word Φεῤῥέφαττα
he goes so far as to say: νῦν δὲ αὐτῆς
ἐκκλίνουσι τὸ ὄνομα, E'YETOMI'AN weet
«πλείονος ποιούμενοι τῆς ἀληϑείας. Nune
vero illius deflectunt nomen, elegantis et
venusteé pronunciationis privrem habentes
curam quam veritatis. T. i. p. 404. Ser-
ran.

t περὶ συνθ. c. 95.

90 ESSAY ON

likewise, when it refers to sound, signifies extension in
length, though τείνω, ἐντείνω, ἀνατείνω, and ἐπιτείνω relate
to height, as hath been shewn above.

From this passage it may likewise be inferred, that
the system of Greek accents was not so simple and ob-
vious, as that of the Roman. The latter was so plain,
as to be easily learnt without much instruction, or ex-
ercise in reading. Butin Greek, the case was different.
Novices in that language, whether children or strangers,
were obliged to pay a more particular attention to the
accent of it, as we may conclude from what is here said
by Dionysius Halic. and by Dionysius Thrax, as cited
by * Sextus, ‘ [dem Thrax sex facit partes Grammati-
ce: exercitatam in accentu lectionem, expositionem per
tropos,” &c.

An argument has been drawn in favour of our accents,
from a passage + of Plutarch’s lives of the ten orators,
wherein it is said that Demosthenes was censured ‘by
some Athenians, for certain peculiarities in his speech,
among the rest προπαροξύνων the word ᾿Ασκληπιόν. This
word προπαροξύνων has been generally understood, be-
fore Dr. G. undertook to explain it otherwise, to signify
“acuting the antepenultima.” He rejects that sense as
“too strict a one forced upon the word ;” and is there-
fore for taking off this restraint, saying it means “ laying
an uncommon stress upon the antepenultimate.” Now
this expositor in other parts of his treatise, by a parti-
cular stress of voice, means the power of an acute. And
if he means any thing else here, I wish he had made it
known by some other word; and at the same ‘time had
produced some authority for this new interpretation of
προπαροξύνω. Τί. Stephens gives no other signification
of it whatever, but the common accentual one. He cites

Ὁ 0. 16. vero per ὐβουϊαρίππι, ᾿Ασκλήπιον in an-
+ Θόρυβον ἐκίνησεν, ὥμνυς δὲ καὶ τὸν tepenullima acuens, atque ostendit se
᾿Ασκληπιὸν, προπἀροξύνων AcKAnmoy, καὶ recteitavocem efferre, Deum enim ἤσγιον
σπαρεδείκνυεν αὑτὸν ὀρθῶς λέγοντα. εἶναι. γὰρ mikem esse. Et ob hoc sepe tumultum
τὸν θεὸν ἤπιον" καὶ ἐπὶ τούτῳ πολλάκις 00- excitavit.”
ευβήθη. ““Ταιπα! πὶ commoyit, jurabat

ACCENT AND QUANTITY. 91

no passage, indeed, as authority for it; I suppose, be-
cause it had that sense only. But I could bring a hun-
dred passages from Greek writers of good note, where
the word is undoubtedly used with that meaning, and can
have no other. One of the best grammarians who ever
wrote uses it thus, I mean Apollonius, who, in his syntax,
p. 27. says, τὸ ᾿Αρίσταρχοι προπαροξύνεται. Again, the same
author, τὰ παροξυνόμενα ἢ προπερισπώμενα, σύνϑεσιν ἀναδε-
ἕάμενα, προπαροξύνονται" κοῦρος, ἄκουρος, ἐπίκουρος" δόλος,
ἄδολος" πλησίος, παραπλήσιος. And indeed, Dr. G.ad-
mits the word in this sense, in many parts of his own
book. Certainly Eustathius understood it so, in this
very case of Demosthenes; for, as it happens, he has
taken + notice of the same. ἡ ὀξυτόνησις τοῦ ὀνόματος
[᾿Ασκληπιὸς] ἔχει ἀπορίαν καλῶς ἐποίει Δημοσθένης, ὡς
ἱστορεῖται, προπαροξύνων τὴν λέξιν, καὶ ἀναγινώσκων ᾿Ασ-
κλήπιος.

But if the foregoing passage of Plutarch should still
appear questionable, in regard to our present system of
accents, the following must be admitted as indisputably

488. edit. Taylor) is rejected by Dr. G.
It is however certainly confirmed by

* Dictiones in penultima acute vel
circumflere, in compositione antepenulti-
mam acuunt: κοῦρος, ἄκουρος, ἐπίκουρος. the Aldine, and some other editions,
δόλος, ἄδολος" πλησίος, παραπλήσιος. p. and some MSS. of good authority, as

60. may be scen in Dr. Taylor’s note on

t+ Ad Il. p. 353. Edit. Basil. Vocis
> A . . . .
AcxzAnmiog acumen in ultima aliquam um
se difficultatem habet.
Demosthenes, cum, ut refert historia,

Recte faciebat

acumen in antepenultimam rejiceret, di-
ceretque ᾿Ασκλήπιος. See also H. Steph.
App. de Dial. Attic. p. 259. There is
a passage in Photii Myrioibl. where
this story of Demosthenes is related in
the same manner: To δήμκω θόρυβον ἔνε-
ποίησεν, ὥσπερ καὶ ἐπὶ τῷ ὑμνῦναι τὸν
᾿Ασκληπιὸν, χρώμενος TH φωνῇ προπαρεξυ-
πόνγως. Ulpian’s remark on the artful
mistake of Demosthenes in pronounc-
ing the word μισθωτὸς wrong, in his fa-
mous oration weet Στεφάνου (tom. ii. p.

the passage, (p. 679.) who there says,
that some were of opinion, that Quinc-
tilian might allude to this very case in
lib. v. 13.
recepta et non inhumana conquestio, st

Ita vero adversus omnes et

callide quid tacuisse, breviasse, obscurus-
Where, instead
of tacuisse, Dr. Taylor gives from the

se, distulisse dicuntur.
old copies acuisse. I mention this ra-
ther for the sake of this laiter reading
in that passage of Quinctilian, than that
I think Ulpian’s observation of any con-
sequence. On thecontrary, I am very
ready to say with Dr. Taylor, ‘ Ego
profecto Ulpiani istud commentum non
valde probo.”

92 ESSAY ON

confirming it. καὶ σὺν αὐτοῖς “Ἕρμον, ἄνδρα τῶν ᾿Αθήνῃσιν
» - ἄν εἶθ τ s ’ € ~ - ΓΙ ἂν
εὐπατριδῶν" ἀφ᾽ οὗ καὶ τόπον ᾿Ἑρμοῦ καλεῖν οἰκίαν τοὺς Πυ-
θοπολίτας" οὐκ ὀρθῶς τὴν δευτέραν συλλαβὴν περισπῶντας,
καὶ τὴν δόξαν ἐπὶ Θεὸν ἀπὸ Ἥρωος μετατιθέντας.ἢ

How the Greek tones are in their nature consistent,
and in their modern application often inconsistent with
quantity, will be seen in another place.

* Et cum illis Hérmam nobilem Athe-
niensem; a quo locum Herméu-oeciam
dicere Pythopolitas, qui parum recte cir-
eumflectant secundum syllabam, hono-
remque ad Deum Mercurium ab Heroe
Hérmo traducant. Vit. Thes. p. 12. edit.

Xyland. Yam obliged to the excellent
editor of Lysias and Demosthenes for
directing me to this passage of Plu-
tarch, together with that above from
Photius.

ACCENT AND QUANTITY. 93

POSTSCRIPT TO CHAP. V.

Amone those ancients, who wrote on the Greek tones,
are found the names of the most considerable scholars
of antiquity. Zenodotus, the first librarian of Alexan-
dria under Ptolemy Philadelphus, is quoted by Apol-
lonius Alexandr. (Synt. p. 167.) on the subject of
accent.

Aristophanes Byzantinus (of whom more will be said
in the next chapter) is referred to by Apollonius, and
the scholiast on Aristophanes, in a case of accent.

The famous Aristarchus, scholar of Aristophanes
above (as appears from some scholia published lately
by Mr. Valckenaer with Ammonius, on Iliad. E. 656.
and from other scholia), either published his edition
of Homer with accentual marks, or wrote upon accents.
A. particular remark of his on the tone of ἀμυγδάλη is in
Athenzeus, lib.ii. p.53. and many others elsewhere.

Dionysius Thrax, scholar of Aristarchus, appears
from Sextus, as cited above, to have considered this
subject: even if what Heboems hath published as his,
be spurious.

Tyrannio, who taught at Rome, and was some time
in Cicero’s family, wrote περὶ Ὁμηρικῆς Προσῳδίας. Suid.
in V.

Trypho, a man of great character in the time of Au-
gustus, wrote his ᾿Αττικὴ Προσῳδία, so frequently cited
by the following writers, Apollonius, Athenzeus, Ammo-
nius, and others.

Abro, a scholar of Trypho, according to Fabricius,
is cited on this subject by Apollon. Syntax. p. 130.

Herennius Philo (who lived under Domitian, accord-
ing to Fabricius, though placed after the age of Ammo-
nius by Valckenaer) has left remarks on the same.

94 ESSAY ON

Heraclides (who lived under Nero) wrote Καθολικὴν
Προσῳδίαν, which is quoted by Ammonius on the word
νῦν, and by Apollonius. Synt. p. 326.

Seleucus, called Homericus, is quoted on the same
subject by Apollon. Synt. p. 167.

Ptolemzus Ascalonita, before the time of Ammonius,
by whom he is often cited on accent, wrote περὶ Προσῳ-
διῶν of the Iliad and Odyssey. Ammon. in σταφυλή.

AAlius Dionysius, (who lived under Hadrian accord-
ing to Pierson in pref. Meer.) hath a tract still extant
περὶ ἐγκλινομένων λέξεων, in the κέρας ᾿Αμαλθείας of Aldus.
Remarks of his on accent are cited by Eustath. and
Etymol. M.

Ammonius, who lived in the time of Hadrian, and
Meeris Atticista his contemporary, often explain words
with remarks on their accents.

Nicanor of Alexandria, under Hadrian likewise,
(Suid. in V.) is quoted in the scholia, mentioned above
as published by Valckenaer, in a case of accent, on
Thad. T. v. 230.

Apolionius Alexand. Dyscolus, under Hadrian and
Antoninus, wrote, according to Suidas in V. περὶ τόνων
κατηναγκασμένων, two books; περὶ τόνων σκολιῶν, One ;
περὶ προσῳδιῶν, in general, five. His work περὶ τόνων is
referred to by himself in Synt. p. 185.

His son Herodian, as hath been mentioned before,
wrote very largely on this subject. The 20th book of
his προσῳδία is cited by Steph. Byzant. in V. aa. This
great work of Herodian was epitomized by Aristodemus,
according to Suidas. Another epitome of it is still
extant among the Bodleian MSS.179. by Theodosius,
who is known likewise to have commented on Dionysius
Thrax. Dr. Bentley, in his E’pist.ad Millium, p. 37. says
he had read this Epitome. Besides his Καθολικὴ Προσῳ-
dia, he wrote ἀνόμαλος προσῳδία (see Etymol. M. in V.
ἀρχαῖος) ᾿Αττικὴ προσῳδία (see Schol. ad Aristoph. Aves
v. 485, and Hiymol. M. in V. φωριαμός) likewise ‘Opnpuch
Tpocwota (see Suidas in v. μεμνῆτο. Hitymol. ΜΙ. in v.

ACCENT AND QUANTITY. 95

ἦδος. and Schol. Aristoph. Aves, v. 862). And Fabricius
lib. v. c. 7. mentions another still extant, unpublished,
de tonis adverbiorum. in cod. Barocc. 125.

Concerning the καθολικὴ προσῳδία, Dr. Taylor in a
letter of June 22, 1762, writes to me thus: “ Something
of this kind [7. 6. visible accentuation] I think I discover
in the Anthologia. Lib. i. Tit. 17.

Εὐπιθίου ᾿Αθηναίου στίξαντος
τὴν καθόλου.

Ταυτολόγων κανόνων φεῦ πληθύος, ἠδ᾽ ἀϊδήλων
Zvopawy, λεπτὸς τὰς ἐχάραξε δόναξ.
>

“Oppard pv κέκμηκε, τένων, ῥάχις, ἰνίον, μοι"
Τῆς Καθόλου δὲ φέρω τὴν ὀδύνην καϑόλου.

“41 need not acquaint you that this regards the gram-
matical work of Herodian, so often quoted by the an-
cients, and distinguished by the emphatical name of
‘H καθόλου, without the name of the author. So it is in
the Schol. of Apollon. Rhod. i. 54. ᾿Αμφρύσοιο] γράφεται
kat διὰ τοῦ 3. ὡς Διονύσιος. ἔστι δὲ ποταμὸς Θεσσαλίας.
προπαροξύνεται δὲ, ὡς ἐν τῇ ἢ τῆς καθόλου, 1. 6. in the 8th
book of Herodian’s Universal Prosody. Now Eupithius,
the scribe or critic, was employed ἐν τῷ στίζειν τὴν
καθόλου. As the grammatical books more particularly
had accents, and στιγμὴ is any point or mark in generai,
why should not the employment of Eupithius be that of
accenting Herodian’s book? The business of mere
punctuation could hardly have occasioned that extreme
labour and fatigue complained of in the epigram.
Herodian’s book, as it appears to have been written
near the reign of Hadrian confessedly upon the subject
of accents, clearly shews they had been settled and
digested for some time. Indeed every thing shews the
antiquity of them, and the authority of the present sys-
tem.”

Pamphilus and Philoxenus are quoted by Atheneus
on the accent of a particular word, lib. ii. p. 52, 53.

90 ESSAY ON

Phrynichus, who lived in the time of Antoninus, in
his Ecloge@ has left observations on accents.

Orus, of Alexandria, and nearly of the same age,
wrote, according to Suidas in vy. περὶ διχρόνων, καὶ περὶ
᾿Εγκλιτικῶν μορίων.

Athenzus, who lived about the same time, has many
remarks on the same subject.

Of Charax, who is placed by Is. Vossius among the
Alexandrine grammarians in order before Herodian,
we have a piece, in the collection of Aldus, to this
purpose.

Alexander Aphrodisiensis, of the same age, has left
occasional observations on accents.

Julius Pollux, who addressed his ὀνομαστικὸν to Com-
modus Imp. has left the like. See lib. ix.c.2. Inthe
following ages several authors wrote either professedly
or occasionally on this subject, as Porphyry, whose
work περὶ προσῳδίας is cited by Dr.G. and mentioned
by Fabricius. Α MS. treatise of Arcadius Antiochenus
περὶ τόνων is commended by Salmasius de modo usura-
rum, Ὁ. 256. Cheroboscus, of the fourth or fifth cen-
tury, has some pieces, published by Aldus in his κῆποι
᾿Αδώνιδος, on this subject, and another, not published,
περὶ προσῳδιῶν mentioned by Fabricius (lib. v. c. 7.) in
Cod. Barocc. 116.

Olympiodorus, of the fifth century, may be added to
this list. I must not here descend any lower through
the later ages to Stephanus Byzant. Hesychius, Photius,
Stobzeus, Theodorus Prodromus, Is. and Joh. Tzetzes,
&c. for I shall be told by some persons that I am here
carrying my reader Inter inhumane nomina barbarie,
and plunging him in the very sink of barbarism, from
whence nothing but corruption is to be drawn. How-
ever, the preceding names, that are found in the purer
ages, sufficiently shew the attention that was constantly
paid to the tones of their language by the most cele-
brated scholars of Greece.

ACCENT AND QUANTITY. 97

A, Vil

On the introduction, use, and accidental abuse of the Greek accentual marks.
Vindication of the character of Aristophanes Byzantinus. Accentual metre of
Tzetzes. Character of the learned Greeks of the lower empire: and of some
of their scholars. A review of the history of the Greek language.

“VETERES quidem Greeci (says * Caninius) accentus
pronunciabant, non scribebant. Quod ex Elenchis Ari-
stotelis potest intelligi.” The passage of Aristotle,
which Caninius means, is in his third chapter Elenchwn,
where he is considering the several kinds of sophistry
used by disputants; and says, that “ those ambiguities,
which are occasioned by the use of homonymous words,
cannot be so easily applied to perplex a controversy,
which is carried on between two persons debating and
conversing together: because the accent there deter-
mines the sense of the word. But when the dispute is
managed by writing on each side, there the accent hav-
ing no visible mark to fix the sense, leaves an ambiguity
and room for cavil, which would be avoided in ordinary
discourse.”

Alexander Aphrodisiensis comments very largely on
this passage in his exposition of the Hlenchi,; from
whence [ will transcribe a few lines, because they con-
tain a definition of προσῳδία, part of which was, perhaps,
copied from him by Lascaris, and from Lascaris hath
been given by disingenuous or ignorant writers, as

* Hellenism. p. 98.

+ παρὰ δὲ τὴν πεοσωδίαν ἐν prey τοῖς
ἄνευ γεαφῆς διαλεκτικοῖς οὗ ῥάδιον ποιῆσαι
λόγον, ἐν δὲ τοῖς γεγραμιμένοις ἢ ποιήμασι
μᾶλλον. Per accentum in iis, que voce
sine scripto fiunt, disceptationibus non
facile est dialecticis sophisticum sermo-
nem facere: in scriptis autem vel poe-

mate magis.—Sophist. Elench. lib. i.
c. 3. see also c. 21 and 23. In the
seventh chapter where he speaks of
προσωδία, he uses the terms ἀνιέμκενος
καὶ ἐπιτεινόμενος ὃ λόγος, as they are ap-
plied to accent and explained in the
former part of this Essay.

98 ESSAY ON

the complete and perfect one of Alexander himself.
Alexander’s words are these: * πέμπτος τρόπος τῶν περὶ
τὴν λέξιν σοφισμάτων, ὃ περὶ τὴν προσῳδίαν ἐστίν. ὃς τις
μὲν ἐν τοῖς διαλεκτικοῖς λόγοις τοῖς μὴ γεγραμμένοις, ἀλλὰ
λεγομένοις, οὐ ῥᾳδίως γίνεται" ἐν δὲ τοῖς γεγραμμένοις διαλεκ-
τικοῖς λόγοις καὶ τοῖς ὋὉμηρικοῖς ποιήμασι δύναται γενέσθαι.
ὀνομάζεται δὲ περὶ τὴν προσῳδίαν, ὅτι Ὃ ΤΟΝΟΣ ΠΡΟΣ ΞῸΝ
ΓἌΙΔΟΜΕΝ ΚΑΙ ΤΟΥΣ AO’TOYS ΠΟΙΟΥΜΕΘΑ, ποιεῖ
τὸν παραλογισμόν' νῦν μὲν οὕτως, ἄλλοτε δ᾽ ἄλλως ἢ καὶ
ἀλλαχοῦ τιθέμενος .---ἐν μὲν ὁμιλίᾳ καὶ διαλέξει, οὐκ ἀπατήσεις
ποτὲ ὁ λέγων, ETAI'PA XPYSI’A ΕἾ ΦΟΡΟΙΉ AHMOSIA
ἜΣΤΩ. εἴληπται γὰρ ὃ λέγων παροξυτόνως τὸν λόγον ἐξε-
νέγκων, ἢ τυχὸν καὶ προπαροξυτόνως. καὶ οὐκ ἂν σοφίσαιτό
ποτε τὸν ἠκροημένον, νῦν μὲν παροξυτόνως λέγων, νῦν δὲ εἰς
προπαροξύτονα μεταλαμβάνων" ἅπαξ γὰρ εἰρηκὼς, ἐσήμανε
τὸ ἑαυτοῦ βούλημα. εἰ δὲ ἐν γραφῇ εἴη κείμενον τὸ δημοσια,
οὐδένα τόνον ἔχον, τότε δῆτα καὶ τὸν παραλογισμὸν ἵ ἀπέκη.
From the foregoing passage in Aristotle (on which
Alexander hath fully commented) it appears there was

* Quintus cavillationis per verbum
Qui qui-
dem in sermonibus, non scripto sed voce

modus ad accentum pertinet.

factis, haud facile contingit : in scriptis
vero sermonibus, et Homericis carminibus
Fieri potest.
pertinere, quia tonus ille, ad quem cani-

Dicitur vero ad accentum

mus et verba facimus, captiosam ambi-
guitatem facit ; nunc in hoc, deinde
mM
sermone mutuo coram habito, nunquam

illo, aliasque alio loco positus.

falles si dicas ‘‘ amica si aurum gerat,
δημοσία sit.” Deprehenditur enim qui-
vis loquens, cum accentu vocem proferens
vel in penultima syllaba, vel etiam for-
tasse in antepenultima: neque fallat
unquam audientem, nunc in penultima
eum ponens, deinde in antepenultimam
transponens: semel enim cum dizerit,
ostendit plane quod sensit. Quod si in
scripto sit vow hee δημόσια, nullum to-
mum palam habens, tum quidem capti-

uneulam facit.—See also Ammonius
Herm. F. de interpretatione, p. 10. 43.
50. 52. Dr. Taylor has pointed out to
me a passage in Hermogenes like the
preceding in Alex. Aphrod. Ἡ μέντοι
ἀμφιξολία καὶ ἀπὸ τοῦ ὀνόματός ἔστι
φανερά. Ἔστι γὰρ ἀμφιξολία, ἀμφισξή-
τησις περὶ ῥητὸν, ἐκ προσωδίας ἢ διαστά-
σεως συλλαξῶν γινομένη. Ἐκ μὲν προσω-
δίας, οἷον, ETAIPA XPYSIA EI ΦΟΡΟΙΗ
ΔΗΜΟΣΙΑ͂ ἘΣΤΩΏ.
ροὔσα" καὶ h μὲν τὰ χρυσία φησὶν εἶναι
ΔΗΜΟΊΣΙΑ, προπαροξυτόνως
κουσα “τὸν νόμον. οἱ δὲ οὐ τὰ χρυσία, ἀλλ᾽
αὐτὴν δημοσίαν [86. ΔΗΜΟΣΙΑ] εἶναι,
σαροξυτόνως ἀναγινώσκοντες. --- Hermog.
p. 59. edit. Crisp.

Πεφώραταί τις φο-

ἀναγινώσ--

+ There is a corruption in this pas-
sage, as it stands at present : perhaps
it should be read thus, τότε δῆτα καὶ ὃ
παραλογισμὺς ἀπέξη.

ACCENT AND QUANTITY. 99

a dispute in his time among scholars about the meaning
of these two lines in Iliad ψ'.

¢ , [ἡ e rey LE "
Ἑστηκε ξύλον αὖον, ὁσον τ OPYyUL UTEP αἰης,

Ἃ ὃ Ν x 7 Δ: Ν > 60 ” :
H ρυὸς ἢ πεύκης; TO μὲν OV KaTaTTUUETAL ὄμβρῳ.

The sense of the second verse would be very different,
according as it should be read with οὐ or ov, the former
signifying non, the latter whi or cujus; in which case
there could have been no doubt, if the same marks had
then been used, which we now have. Aristotle * says,
that Hippias’ determination in favour of the negative
ov was at length agreed to.

In this manner many diligent persons have with learn-
ing and industry laboured to prove from passages of
ancient authors and other strong testimonies, that these
marks of accentuation were not known to the old
Greeks.j; And they have, I think, proved it satisfac-

* Καὶ τὸν “Opancoy ἔνιοι διορθοῦνται πρὸς
Ν 3 Ld e 3 ΄ » /, “ce ‘
τοὺς ἐλέγχοντας, ὡς ἀτόπως εἰρηκότα, ““ τὸ
‘ Ed , ” ᾽ν , Ν
μὲν οὗ κωαταπύθεται ὄμθρω,᾽ λύουτι γὰς
, ‘ ~ ᾿ Z Ἂς Ἵ ne 1
αὐτὸ τῇ προσωδία, λέγοντες τὸ od ὀξύτερον.
Καὶ τὸ περὶ τὸ ἐνύπνιον τοῦ ᾿Αγαμέμνονος,
ὅτι οὐκ αὐτὸς ὁ Ζεὺς εἶπεν, ““ δίδομκεν δέ οἱ
εὖχος ἀρέσθαι," ἀλλὰ τῷ ἐνυπνίω ἐνετέλ-
λετο διδόναι. τὰ μὲν οὖν τοιαῦτα παρὰ τὴν
rporwdiay errty.—Elench. 1. These two
cases are mentioned by him in another
place: Κατὰ δὲ προσωδίαν, ὥσπερ Ἱππίας
ἔλυεν ὁ Θάσιος τὸ “διδόμεν δέ of” καὶ,
« Ν ν > 1] w ς ”
το μεν OU HATATUVETAL Ofe po. se
Poetic. c.25. This Hippias, we see,
by the difference of accent inthe word
didoxev, solved an objection, that was
made by some of the ancients against
Homer’s representation of the supreme
Deity.
piter gave the dream in order to de-

In the commands, which Ju-

ceive Agamemnon, there were these
words, διδομεν δέ of εὖχος ἀρέσθαι (which
by the by do not appear in our present
copies of Homer). These, if we un-
H

derstand δίδομεν in the sense of damus
or spondemus, make the god guilty of a
lie. Many of Homer’s readers were
much offended at it, and Plato in his
second book de Repub. makes it matter
of reproach against the poet. But Hip-
pias cleared up the difficulty, by say-
ing, that d&douev was not to be taken in
the indicative sense with the accent on
the antepenullima, but in the infinitive,
for διδόμκεναι, acuted on the penullima
And then the god says, im-
peratively, ‘‘ give or promise him suc-

διδόμκεν.

cess.” This proves two things: both
the non-existence of visible accentu-
ation in the time of this Hippias, and
the propriety of our present accenting
the Tonie infinitives in «ev on the pe-
nultima.

+ Hennin. from sect. 38 to 58. See
also Gul. Canter. Syntagm, de rat.
emend. Gr. Auct. c. 6.—Politian. Mis-
cell. c. 58 et 60.

100 ESSAY ON
torily: which yet, perhaps, they might have done as
clearly by a shorter way,* I mean by this plain argu-
ment: that such helps and directions in the pronun-
ciation of a language of any country are not +} requisite
in writings, drawn up in the vernacular tongue of that
nation for the use of its natives ; who must be supposed
not to want instruction in that respect. An author in
general, when he writes in the language of his country-
men, and for their perusal, need not any more affix such
marks for the regulation of their voice, than a poet in
particular need mark the quantity of his syllables: be-
cause in both cases such a practice would be altogether
needless. When a language is to be taught and ex-
plained to persons ignorant of it, either children or
foreigners, then indeed such helps become necessary.
And such we see now used in grammars and dictionaries
of modern languages, but not uniformly in the ordinary
writings of them. Such exactly was the case with the
Greeks. When their language became, what it was for
several ages, the favourite one of foreigners, then those
persons who particularly studied it with a view of illus-
trating and making it more generally known, did, in
order to facilitate the instruction of others, wisely and
properly enough apply marks of direction for that pur-
pose. Whether these marks were invented by a gram-
marian, or only borrowed by him from those of musi-
cians (as is supposed by 1 Vossius) is of little conse-
quence in the present question. It is not the derivation,
but the application of them solely, in which we are con-
cemed. As, likewise, whether they were then used by
grammarians in the same form§ with those we now

* This might have saved Henninius
the pains of writing many pages.—Sect.
2—8.

+ Hennin. acknowledges this.—Sect.
16—19.

1 P. 140. and Hennin. p. 26.

§ If that MS. of Dionysius Thrax,
which is cited by Dr. G. (p. 67.) is
authentic, we there have a description

of the marks from a scholar of Aristar-
chus (for so this Dionysius was) which
appear from thence to have been nearly
the same with those used at present.
See Append. ad Dissert. Westen. con-
taining a few observations on this MS.
of Dionysius, communicated by Mag-
liabechi.

ACCENT AND QUANTITY. 101

have, is equally insignificant. Marks themselves are
quite arbitrary: and if they are but faithful, are good.
But whatever signs or characters grammarians either
borrowed or devised on that occasion, the thing signi-
fied by them, i.e. the particular rise and fall of the
voice, was the same, not invented by them, but existing
always before them (as much as speech was* before
any characters were formed) and only pointed out by
them in a certain determinate manner.

This then was done to ascertain to foreigners the due
elevation and depression of their voice on certain sylla-
bles. But it will be asked perhaps, why was not the
same method of some visible mark requisite to direct
them likewise in the continuance of it, that is, to fix and
settle the quantity as wellas accent? The reason, I sup-
pose, is, that the quantity of syllables did in a manner
point out itself even to strangers, who did but know the
power of the Greek letters. Their long and short vowels,
and diphthongs, and the position even of dubious ones
before consonants, would readily enough, with but little
direction, mark the quantity of syllables. Had these
accentual notations been introduced before the addition
of H and Q to the Attic alphabet, and the use of diph-
thongs; such a circumstance might perhaps have given
some reason to think that these signs were intended to
mark quantity. But since the distinct characters of H
and © were added by Simonides near CCC years before
the time of Aristophanes, the inventor of the accentual
virgule, and the quantity of the Greek language was for
that and other reasons more obvious perhaps than the
quantity of any other language whatever, it is aimost
absurd to suppose, that these virgui@ were applied to so
needless an office. The same kind of direction, therefore,
which accent required, was not wanted to teach quantity.

* The Spaniards, when they firstbe- They had a regular civil establishment,
came acquainted with America, could and were in many respects a very sa-
not find that the inhabitants ever had gacious people. One of the royal
any letters among them. And yet no family of Peru became afterwards a
one will suppose they hadnolanguage. good writer in Spain.

102 ESSAY ON

Agreeably to what is here said, we are told that the
person who introduced the signs of accentuation, was
* Aristophanes of Byzantium, a grammarian, and super-
intendant of the Alexandrine library, who flourished
under the Ptolemys, Philopator, and Epiphanes, and
devised them for the use of his scholars: “ not (says the
learned Montfaucon+) that the Greek language before
his time was without accent or spirit; for no language
can be pronounced without them: but that he brought
under certain rules those sounds, which practice had
before introduced; that he invented signs and charac-
ters for them, and shewed where they were to be placed.”
This man was not the first that observed the accents of
the Greeks, or gave them their name, προσῳδίαι, though

he first gave the visible notation. t

* See Sulmasii Epist. ad Sarravium.
This Aristophanes is placed by Suidas
in the 145th olympiad, about 200
years before Christ. Vitruvius in pref.
lib. vii. places him under Ptol. Phila-
delphus.

+ ““ Aristophanes Byzantinus sgo-
cwdiay sive accenlus excogitavit. Non
quod ad illam usque etatem Greeca
lingua accentibus et spiritibus carue-
ril: nulla enim potest lingua sine ac-
centu et spirita pronunciari. Sed quod
ille ea, que usus magister invexerat,
ad certas normas et regulas deduxerit,
signa et formas invenerit, quo loco es-
sent constituendi accentus, docuerit.”
Montf. Paleog. Grec. p. 33. I make
this Aristophanes the introducer of
accentual marks, on the authority of
Salmasius, Huetius, and Montfaucon.
They say not, whence they learnt this.
Their authority is however great : espe-
cially as their account well agrees with
the time, when we might naturally look
for their introduction. The conjecture
of Baillius is not an improbable one,
who supposed they were first used

The same tones

somewhat before Cicero’s time. (Baill.
apud Scot. p. 791. See to the same
purpose Muncherus de origin. Accent.
and J. C. Albrecht de constitut. ling.
Grec.) But this matter would proba-
bly be cleared up, upon consulting
Arcadii Grammatica (mentioned among
the unpublished Greek grammarians,
by Fabricius, lib. v. ο. 7.) ᾿Αρκαδίου περὶ
πόνου τῶν ὑκτὼ μερῶν τοῦ λόγου, καὶ περὶ
εὑρέσεως τῶν προσῳδιῶν, καὶ περὶ ἐγκλι-
γόγτων, ἐν ᾧ καὶ περὶ πνευμάτων, καὶ
χρόνων. in Cod. Colbert. 3123. I take
the word προσωδιῶν here to mean the
mark, not the tone: otherwise I cannot
see how it can be joined with εὕρεσις.
For you can no more say εὕρεσις τῶν
Tovey, than you can εὕρεσις τῆς φωνῆς,
or ‘‘ the invention of seeing, and breath-
ing, or Sancho Panga’s invention of
sleeping.”

+ Herm. Hugo says that Pherecydes,
master of Pythagoras, did DC years
before Christ give the first marks, and
thinks he has authority for this from
Diog. Laertius. (c. 27. de prima seri-
bendi origine.)

ACCENT AND QUANTITY. 103

with the same stale προσῳδίαι are mentioned, as hath
been seen before, by Aristoxenus, who lived at least a
hundred years, and by Plato, who lived not less than
one hundred and fifty before him.

This Aristophanes, who, by Vossius, is contemp-
tuously called iterator, an insignificant petty teacher, is,
by Suidas, termed Τραμματικός ; which Vessius very well
knew was an honourable appellation ameng the an-
cients: not being then restrained in its sense, and im-
plying, as it does at present, a person employed in con-
sidering, or teaching, the inflexions and construction of
words, and attending merely to the minutie of language,
but one comprehending within the compass of his stu-
dies every thing relating to polite literature. “ Litera-
tum a literaiore distinguunt, ut Greci Grammaticum a
Grammnatista, et illum quidem absolute, hunc mediocri-
ter doctum existimant.”* We are not, therefore, to
wonder at the best Greek writers, Aratus, Apollonius
Rhodius, and Callimachus, being called, as they were,
Τραμματικοί.

Other circumstances related of him by Suidas, make
it very unlikely, that he should have been such a mean
inconsiderable man as Vossius represents him: he is
said by Suidas to have been the son of Apelles, ἡγούμε-
νος στρατιωτῶν, a military officer of rank; and to have
been the scholar likewise of three eminent men, Callima-
chus, Zenodotus, and Eratosthenes.+ This very ill agrees
with the appellation of iterator. Such misrepresentations
of one scholar are very unworthy of another. Especially
since this person, by Vossius’ own account, introduced no-

* Sueton. de illustrib. Gram. And ται καὶ τὰ συγγράμματα καὶ τὰ ἀπομνη-

thus Quinctilian understands the word
grammatice; ‘‘ Cum preter ralionem
recte loquendi, non parum alioqui co-
piosam prope omnium maximarum ar-
tium scientiam amplexa sit.” lib. ii. c.
1. ᾿Αντόδωρος δέ τις Τραμρμωτικὸς Peape-
(atin αὐτὴν ὠνόμασεν παρὰ τὴν γνῶσιν

τῶν γραμμάτων. Τράμματα δὲ καλοῦν-

μονεύματα πάντα καὶ λογικὰ ἐπιτηδεύμα-
τα.---δοποίϊαδί. Dionys. Thracis apud
Valcken. Animadv. ad Ammon. i. ὁ.
19:

+ Eratosthenes is said by Snidas to
have left, when he died, μαϑητὴν ἜΠΙ -
ΣΗΜΟΝ, "Agioropayny τὸν Βυζάντιον. in v.
"Fearoc bens.

104 ESSAY ON

thing inconsistent with quantity and true rhythm, which
he supposes was not injured by accentuation till the age
of Antoninus, or Commodus; that is, till near four hun-
dred years after the time of Aristophanes. This man,
by contributing to the establishment and perpetuation
of the genuine Greek pronunciation (which he did ac-
cording to the concessions of Vossius himself), did, by
this general convenience and direction of tone, which
extended itself to every part of the language, do more
real service to the cause of rhythm and harmony, than if
he had written fifty treatises “de Poematum cantu, et
viribus Rhythmi.”

But farther, this same literator, Aristophanes, was
the person who invented and first made use of punc-
tuation: which every one will acknowledge to be a
thing of extreme utility. Before his time the words
were written uno ac perpetuo ductu, the letters of the
same and of different words at exactly the same dis-
tance, without any mark of a pause to distinguish either
sentences, or members of sentences, or words from one
another. This would be even at present very inconve-
nient to a common reader: but much more must it have
been so then, when writers made use of but one set of
letters, all large capital ones: for small* ones were not
invented, according to Montfaucon’s account, until
some hundred years after. The merit, therefore, of this
Single invention} of punctuation, I should not scruple

* ἐς Litere unciales observantur in

quivat. Alter situs ad medium litere,

libris omnibus ad nonum usque sacu-
lum.”—Paleog. Recens. p. 12.

+ Hnuetius, in a passage where he is
mentioning the punctuation in old co-
pies with capitals, speaks of it thus :
“‘Triplici punctorum situ orationis
distinctio omnis absolvitur, collocato
puncto vel ad summum liter, vel ad
medium, vel ad imum. Positura prior,
quze est ad summum litera, sententiam
perfecte claudit, ut nihil praterea ad
ejus absolutionem lectoris animus re-

sententiam quidem claudit, sed non
perfecte; ut ad explendum lectoris
animum et absolvendam penitus sen-
{enliam aliquid preterea desideretur,
et ejusdem fere sententiz commata di-
vidit.
interponit quandam, dum lector spiri-

Infima vero positura morulam

tum ducat, et diversas ejusdem sen-
tentia partes una connexione aplas in-
ter se et conclusas distinguit. Prioris
generis punclum, τελεία στιγμὴ appel-
latur ab antiquis grammaticis ; secundi

ACCENT AND QUANTITY. 105
to prefer to that of the best critical or grammatical trea-
tise that was ever written, not excepting even Aristotle’s
and Quinctilian’s great rhetorical works: which, though
admirable performances, are not of that general conve-
nience, and extensive utility, as the simple marks of
punctuation, And, indeed, in most cases, even a slight
invention of something new, is of more service and im-
portance to the world, than a considerable improve-
ment of what is old. ‘This Aristophanes is, I believe,
the person meant by Thomas Magister, in his life of
Pindar, prefixed to that poet’s works in the Roman edi-
tion of Calliergus; where it is said, that the ode begin-
ning with ἄριστον μὲν ὕδωρ, was placed the first in order,
ὑπὸ ᾿Αριστοφάνους, τοῦ suvtagavroc™* τὰ Πινδαρικά. Varro+-
speaks of him as a person of very great erudition. By
Cicero, he, in conjunction with Callimachus, is consi-

μέση ; tertii ὑσποστιγμή. Atque id Thesame account ofthe use of the first

inventum ad orationis nitorem excogitu-
tum, Aristophani Grammatico acceptum
refertur. Quod cum ipse hoc tempore
reperisset, quo literis quadratis et ma-
jusculis vulgo scribebatar, aptissimus
fuit et utilissimus στιγμῶν illarum usus,
quod literarum amplitudo intercapedi-
nem observatu perfacilem tres inter
punctorum sedes constitueret.”—Dan.
Huet. pref. ad Orig. comment. See
also Montf. Paleog. Gr. p. 31, 32.
The same thing is related of Aristo-
phanes by Salmasius, and explained at
length by him in his Epistle to Sarra-
vius. Both he and Huetius take no-
tice of the change that was made in the
form of these στιγμαὶ afterwards;
when, instead of the great square capi-
tal letters, the smallerround ones were
introduced. But this occasioned only
a different modification in the charac-
ters of punctuation; the thing itself,
with its application to the division of
sentences, which we have at present, is
the same, derived from Aristophanes.

στιγμαὶ is given by Diomedes, who
wrote before the introduction of small
letters. Butas he had no occasion in
that place, where he mentions them, to
speak of the inventor of them, I rather
chose to give the whole in the words
of Huetius.

* This circumstance, mentioned by
Thomas Magister, joined to what is
said of him by Dionysius in his twen-
ty-second and twenty-sixth chapters
περὶ cud. gives reason to think, that
the disposition of Pindar’s poems, and
adjustment of his verses, was'settled by
this Aristophanes. Dionysius, speak-
ing of the κῶλα, divisions of sentences
in prose, says, κῶλα δέ με δέξαι νυνὶ χέ-
γειν, οὐχ, οἷς ᾿Αριστοφάνης ἢ τῶν ἄλλωντις
μετρικῶν διεκόσμησε τὰς ὡδάς. and in his
last chapter on that fine elegiac frag-
ment of Simonides : γέγεαπται δὲ κατὰ
διαστολὰς, οὐχ, ὧν ᾿Αριστοφάγης ἢ ἄλλος
τὶς κατεσκεύασε χώλων.

+ De ling. Lat. lib. v. sub init.
lib, viii. p. 105, ix. p. 140. edit. Scal.

106

ESSAY ON

dered as holding the same high rank in general litera-
ture which Hippocrates did in physic, Euclid and Ar-
chimedes in geometry, Damon and Aristoxenus in mu-
sic.* So very different was the opinion which Cicero

# « An tu existimas, cum esset Hip-
pocrates ille Cous, fuisse tum alios me-
dicos, quimorbis, alios qui vulneribus,
alios qui oculis mederentur ? Num geo-
metriam Euclide aut Archimede, num
musicam Damone aut Aristoxeno, nam
ipsasliteras Aristophane aut Callimacho
tractante, tam discerptas fuisse, ut ne-
mo genus universum complecteretur,
atque utalius aliam 5101 partem, in qua
elaboraret, seponeret?”’ De Orat. lib.
iii. 88. On which passage Strebzeus
remarks, ‘* Aristophanes Byzantius,
discipulas Callimachi et Zenodoti et
Dionysii cujusdam, adeo profecit in li-
teris, id est, in arte grammatica que
nomen habet a literis, ut nihil artis
ejus ignoraret.” He is mentioned by
several writers,after Cicero, as aman of
great note. Pliny calls him celeberri-
mus in arte grammatica. Hist. lib, vill.
c. 6. Atheneus speaks of him asa
celebrated person. In Charisius de
Analogia he is mentioned as the mas-
ter of the great Aristarcsus, as he is
likewise by Suidas in V. ᾿Αρίσταρχος.
He is by Quinctilian joined with Aris-
darchus. ‘ Aristarchus et Aristo-
phaaes poetarum judices,” lib, x. c. 1.
And so he is in the scholia ψευδώνυμα
of Didymus on Homer : χατὰ τὴν “Agt-
στάρχου καὶ ᾿Αριστοφάγους δύξαν. 1]. A. ὃ.
See also Sch. Odyss. ¥. 296. Β. 190.
To him, in a case of accent, we are
referred by the scholiast on Aristo-
phanes, Nub. v. 1149, on the word
ἀπαιόλη, where it is said, ᾿Αριστοφάνης
ὀξύνεσϑαιί φησι τὴν ἐσχάτην, ἀπαιολή.
and by Apvllonius, in his Syntax, lib.
iv. cap.2. p. 304. διὰ τοῦτο οὐδ᾽ of περὶ
τὸν ᾿Αριστοφάνην ἠξίωσαν βαξύνεσσαι τὰ

μόρια κατὰ τὴν Αἰολίδα διάλεκτον. Am-

monius cites him in V. ΓΑῤῥωστος, and
Γέρων (see Valcken. Animady. lib. i. c.
12. and Athen. lib. ix. p. 375). A
piece of his I find mentioned by Dr.
Taylor (Lect. Lys. c. 2.), by the name
of παραλλήλοιν Μενάνδρου τε καὶ ἀφ᾽ ὧν
Another of his, called
ἐξήγησις Λακωνικῶν, is mentioned by
Hesychius in V. sovptaxcg. He is
cited by Harpocration in V. ἔργα véwy.
«πσροκώνια. He is called ὁ βέλτιστος
᾿Αριστοφάνης by Porphyry, in Quest.
Hom. c. 8. In the schol. on Hermo-
genes (p. 38.) there is a pretty com-
pliment of his to Menander,

ἔκλεψεν ἐκλογαί,

ὦ Μένανδρε καὶ Βίε,

Πότερος ἄῤ ὑμῶν πότερον ἀπεμιμήσατο;

The scholiast on Apollonius Rhod.
iv. v. 973. V. ὀρειχάλκοιο. καὶ ᾿Αρίστο-
φάνης δὲ OT pamparinds σεσημείωται τοῦ-
το. He is quoted by the schol. on Eu-
rip. Orest. v. 713. 1043. 1292 (edit.
King), in such a manner as would in-
duce one to think that he gave an edi-
tion of Euripides, as he probably did
of Homer. See likewise the schol. on
Hippol. 172. 612. Eustathius very
often cites him, with the name of his
particular works : περὶ ὀνομασίας Ἧλι-
κιῶν, p. 772, 1790, 1752. περὶ συγγενι-
xiv ὑνομκάτων, p. 648. περὶ καινοτέρων λέ-
ξεων, 279. γλῶσσαι, 150, 217. edit. Ro-
His διόρθωσις ᾿Ομηρικὴ seems to
have been much esteemed, The little
pieces of his writing, now extant, are
an argument, in iambic verse, to the
CEdipus Tyran. one in prose to the
Antigone of Sophocles, and Medea of
Euripides ; and anotherin verse to the
Plutus of Aristophanes. His epi-
tome of Aristut. de Animalibus, and

man.

ACCENT AND QUANTITY. 107

had conceived of this eminent scholar from that which
Vossius expresses, when he applies to him the degrading
name of literator. On the whole, in regard to this man’s
real character and merit, I cannot help repeating what
is said above, and declaring even more, that posterity
hath been more.truly and essentially benefited by the
ingenuity of this learned Greek, than by the writings of
any one profane author of antiquity.

These marks were used by his successors at* Alexan-
dria for the same purpose to which they were applied
by the inventor ; but in general were omitted by writers
and transcribers (the grammarians only excepted, for
which the reason is assigned above) down to the} se-
venth century after Christ.

Even the grammarians in those ages seem not univer-
sally to have used them. In the gradual compilation of
Hesychius’ lexicon (as it is generally now imagined to
be the work not of any one man, but to have grown to
its present size by the detached collections of many,
from time to time added to it), the accentual marks seem
not to have been constantly used. Many homonymous
words are explained there in their different senses under
one article : as ἐλω is explained by κατέχω, ἐλασω. Had
accentual signs been then attended to, that word would
probably have made two articles, thus: ἕλω, κατέχω, ἐλῶ
zAdow, and so in several words. Thoughin others, again,
the senses are distinguished according to the accent, as
βρότος, αἷμα. Bpordc, φθαρτός. βιὸς, τόξον᾽ βίος, ζώη, πε-

remarks on τσίναπκας of Callimachus, Comment. ad

arementioned by Fabric. Bib. Gr. lib.
111. c. 6, 19. Meursius, in Bibl. Greece.

Jonsius de script. Hist. Philosoph.

regi czpit. Taylori

Marm. Sandy. p. 9.
+t Montf. Paleogr. Gree. p. 33. In

pag. 219, he produces a Gr. MS. of St.

Valckenaer. ad Schol. Phen. p. 691.
and Kuster on Suidas, mention some
other works of his.

* Emicuit schola Alexandrina, cui
cure fuit Grece loquele nitor et ele-
gantia : tum primum fortasse tonus vo-
cis etinflexio apicum et signorum usu

Paul’s Epistles, of the seventh century,
with accents, and those coeval with
the text. This is, perhaps, the oldest
book of that sort. He just before pro-
duced one somewhat older, with the
accents added by a later hand, though
not much later.

108 ESSAY ON

ριουσία. Hesychius himself is supposed to have lived
at the latter end of the fifth, or the beginning of the sixth
century. But though the use of these marks was not
universal in the centuries immediately before and after
Christ, yet it was general enough to be known by all
scholars ; and, therefore, we cannot be surprised to find
one so early as Gellius speaking of them as mentioned
by the ancients, the veteres docti before him. ‘ Quas
Greci προσῳδίας dicunt, eas veteres docti tum notas vo-
cum, tum moderamenta, tum accentiunculas, tum vocu-
lationes appellabant.”* By veteres docti, Gellius means
those grammarians, some of whom we at present know
to have written on this subject. After Aristophanes
himself (who probably used the marks in his editions of
Greek authors, as that of Alczus, which} Hepheestion
ascribes to him), after him Trypho, who, in the time of
Augustus, wrote his ᾿Ατσικὴ προσῳδία, does, in that work,
speak of the accents of certain words in such a manner
as is unintelligible, but on the supposition that the co-
pies of those authors, to whom he refers, had the ac-
centual marks. When he says, that ταῶς had its last
syllable circumflexed and aspirated, and quotes Eupolis
and Aristophanes for it; when he cites Aristophanes for

* Lib. xiii. cap. 6. Gellius lived
about thirty years after Quinctilian.
In Quinctilian, I know not that the
Greek marks of accentuation are men-
tioned, though the accents themselves
are, ““ Tenores (quos quidem ab anti-
quis dictos tonores comperi, ut videli-
cet declinato Gracis verbo, qui τόνους
dicunt) vel accentus, quas Greeci προσ-
wdiag vocant.” lib. i. cap. 5.

+ P.74, Edit. Pauw. In the chapter
περὶ Σημείων, he mentions τοῦ ᾿Αλκαίου
στὴν ᾿Αριστοφάνειον ἔκδοσιν : and to this
edition of Alceus, by Aristophanes, it
is probable that Eustathius appeals, in
a passage cited above (p. 90, in the
note) on the accent of “Arpevs. ΓΑτρευς

εὐθεῖα παρὰ ᾿Αλκαίῳ εὑρέϑη, καὶ βεβαρυ-
τόνηται, ὡς Αἰολικόν.

+ Atheneus, p. 397, edit. Casaub.
It isremarkable that Athenzus, speak-
ing of the accent of ταῶς, from Try-
pho, uses the word ἀναγινώσκουσι,
“ they read it thus in Eupolis.” Read,
what? a thing not visible nor legible ?
a character not existing? For ταῶς,
see Aristoph, Aves. v. 102, where il
stands at present circumflexed ; and
the scholiast on it observes: Tade,
ὀξύνεται, καὶ περισπσᾶται" τὸ δὲ Gvopece πε-
ρισπῶσιν οἱ ᾿Αττικοί. Thus the several
scholiasis in such remarks frequently
agree with the best grammarians of an-
tiquily.

ACCENT AND QUANTITY. 109

λαγὼν, Sophocles for λαγοὶ, Eupolis for Aaya, having an
acute, and* Xenophon for Aayw, having a circumflex on
the last; when he} quotes Euripides for the accent of
τρόχοι ; he must, in these cases, mean not only the tone
itself, but the mark : for without the mark the citation
of the bare word proves nothing to his purpose. How
could 'Trypho’s reader be sure that Euripides used τρό-
χὼν as a barytone, if in the copy of that poet it stood
thus, τροχων ? If it should be said, it might be collected
from the metre, how will this be where he quotes authors
of prose, as well as of verse? Athenzus,} when he
speaks of the tone of ἀμυγδάλη, says, that according to
Pamphilus, when the word signified not the fruit but
the tree itself, it was circumflexed on the last, as pody
was ina poem of Antilochus: and then brings passages
from Eupolis, Aristophanes, and Phrynichus, for its
accent in both senses. So Ammonius, in many places,
not only remarks the particular accent of words, but
brings authorities from passages in writers : on ἀμυγδα-
An, as differing from ἀμυγδάλη, he quotes the Taxiarchi
of Eupolis ; Menander on the word ἁρπάγη ; Homer on
ἀσφόδελος 3 Thucydides on μοχθηρός ; Aristophanes on
παρειαὶ and παρεῖαι; Menander and Demosthenes on
πότος and ποτός; Homer, as cited by Ptolemzus Asca-
lonita, in his second book of accents, in the Iliad, on
σταφυλή; Aristophanes on χύας and χοᾶς. The same
proof of the existence of accentual marks in the ancient
copies may be drawn from the manner in which Morris,
in several words, remarks the difference between the At-
tic and Hellenic accent. Solon, in some§ scholia, men-
tioned above, says, Ὁ μὲν ᾿Αρίσταρχος τὸ ἁμαρτῇ χωρὶς
τοῦ ᾿ ΓΡΑΦΕΙῚ καὶ ὈΞΎ NEI. οἱ δὲ περὶ Ἡρωδιανὸν περισπώ-
σι, καὶ προσγράφουσι. What can be here understood but
the actual mark in Aristarchus’ edition of Homer? So

* Td. lib. ix. p. 400. ¢ Lib. ii. p. 52, 53.

+ In Ammonius,on the word τρόχοι, § Published by Mr. Valckenaer,
p- 137, edit. Valcken. on which see with his Ammonius. Animady. p. 244.
Valckenaer’s Animadvers. lib. iii, c. [ad Iliad. E.v. 656.]

15. also lib. iii. c, 6. and 12.

110 ESSAY ON

Charax, the old grammarian, published by Aldus, with
/Elius Dionysius, Herodian, and others, περὶ τῶν ἐγκλινο-
μένων, says, that “ Aristarchus, at the beginning of the
Odyssey, would not give two acutes to ἄνδρα μοι [οὐκ
ἐβουλήθη δοῦναι εἰς τὸν, ἄνδρα μοι, δύο ὀξεῖας, ἀλλὰ μίαν εἰς
τὸ ἄν] but only one to the av.” In the same tract, he
says, ‘‘ the second person of the verb εἰμὶ is an enclitic,
as in Homer, αἵματός εἰς ἀγαθοΐο. How could Charax
know this himself, or prove it to others, except the
marks of accent were in the copy of Homer, to which
he appeals 1 The frequent mention made of accents in
the syntax and fragments of Apollonius, who brings in-
stances from Homer, Sophron, Alcman, Alczeus, Aris-
tarchus, Trypho, Heraclides, and other ancient authors,
of some peculiarity in the tone of certain words, must
likewise assure us of there being a visible notation of
accent on those words. Strong deductions of this kind
might be likewise made from some passages of Herodian
and Cheroboscus: which, however, I omit as unneces-
sary. From them, and later grammarians, particularly
from Eustathius, it would be easy to produce numberless
passages of the foregoing kind; if, after having con-
sulted the great grammarians of the first centuries, it
were requisite to pursue the same subject through those
of the following ages, as Hesychius, the several scho-
liasts, Thomas Magister, &c. through whose remains the
history of our present accentual system might, if it were
necessary, be easily traced down to Lascaris and
Gaza.

To the time of these Greek exiles, from the age of
Aristophanes himself, the signs of accentuation appear
to have been well known, though not perhaps constant-
ly applied. Accordingly, we find Demetrius Triclinius
speaking of them, their nature, use, and invention, in the
following manner.* ‘Those ancients, who wrote on

* Ol πάλαι τὰ περὶ γραμκματικὴς cove συλλαβῶν ual τὴν ποροφορὰν διαγινώσκειν
-ὔ - ᾿ ᾿ — μ᾿ , ΟΦ ΠΣ ,

ταξάμενοι, σημεῖά τινὰ σοφῶς ἐπινοήσαν- ἐχϑθιμεν. συλλαξῶν δέ μοι καὶ οὐ στοιχείων
,᾽ 3:05 , ΄ 3 δὴ ὡδὶ \ a θ᾽ ε

τες παραδεδώκασιν, ἐξ ὧν τὴν τε δύναμιν εἴρηται, ἐπειδὴ τὰ μὲν στοιχεῖα, καθ᾽ αὗ-

καὶ τὴν, ὡς ἂν εἴποι τις, ποιότητα τῶν τὰ κείμενα, οὐδεμκιᾶς τίνος. μετέχει δυνά-

ACCENT AND QUANTITY. 111

grammatical subjects, wisely invented and delivered
down certain marks, by which we might know the
power and quality of syllables, and distinguish the true
pronunciation of them. I mean syllables, not letters ;
for letters, taken singly, partake not of this peculiar qua-
lity : but compounded, and united with each other, and
thus constituting syllables, they have certain powers
and properties. Scholars, therefore, invented various
signs: I mean accents, spirits, and the like; which they
called προσῳδίαι, as conducive to the establishment of
musical and common pronunciation.” Montfaucon, in
his Palzographia,* says, there is no appearance of these
marks in MSS. earlier than the seventh century ; and
that in MSS. of the seventh and eighth, they are fre-
quently misplaced, and often omitted. In some MSS.
of the eighth and ninth centuries, they are accurately and
properly placed. The use of them seems to have been
universal, not only among grammarians, but Greek wri-
ters in general, after the ninth century. Baillius de-
clares, that he had carefully himself examined above
eight hundred old MSS. in the library of the queen mo-
ther of France, Catherine de Medicis, written by Greeks
some ages before the taking of Constantinople, and ob-
served the omission of these marks scarce inone. And
those were the very times in which one might naturally
expect more particular care would be taken by the

μεως" συλληφϑέντα δὲ καὶ οἷον EvwSévre
πρὸς ἄλληλα καὶ τὰς συλλαβὰς ἀποτελέ-
σαντα, δυνάμεις τέ τινας καὶ ποιότητας
»” 3 ta \ ~ 4

ἔχει. ἐπενόησαν δὲ ἄλλα TE σημεῖα, τόνους
φημὶ καὶ πνεύματα καὶ τὰ λοιπὰ, ἃ δὴ

Ν ΄ Chas ε Ν Ν 385
καὶ Προσωδίας ὠνόμασαν, ὡς πρὸς τὴν ὠδὴν
καὶ τὴν ἐκφώνησιν τῶν συλλαβῶν συντελού-
σας" in Preefat. ad Aristoph.

* Ante septimum seculum in solis
grammaticorum libris observata fuisse vi-
dentur. Que vero dicimus [sc. de Codd.
vetustissimis quinti sextique sec.| de visis
tantum. p. 35. Consuetudinem descri-

bendi accentus et spiritus in septimum
cireiter ἃ Christo nato seculum confer-
γὲ posse videtur.

cum semel corwm
usus invectus est, alii accuratius, alii neg-
ligentius, pro cujusque arbitrio, accen-
tus perscribebant. p. 223, 4. Iam not
myself very solicitous about their ap-
pearance or omission in the very oldest
and best copies, thinking that even if
they had never appeared before the
fifteenth or sixteenth century, they
would be equally defensible.

119 ESSAY ON

learned Greeks to fix the pronunciation of their lan-
guage. Barbarism from the south-east was making
daily inroads upon the Greek provinces, and threaten-
ing them continually with more : then, according to the
testimony of Demetrius Triclinius (who lived at the be-
ginning of the fourteenth century) then it was, that these
marks were more punctually observed and applied.
“ Pronuntiationis Grace suavitas, teste Demetrio Tri-
clinio, omnino periisset, nisi eo tempore, quo Grecia
barbarie feedari coepta est, notz aliquze, que etiam po-
steritati integram tradidissent, wswm familiarem sibi vin-
dicassent.’*

After the ninth century, the use of these marks is
however supposed to have been sometimes mistaken
and perverted. Inthe rambling poems of John Tzetzes,
written in the twelfth century, they are by some persons
imagined to have regulated his metre. On this suppo-
sition, most of his} versus politict are tetrameter iambic
catalectic; as the following} lines taken out of the first
Chiliad :—

* Baillius, p. 783. apud Scot. And
this agrees with what Henninius sup-
poses in sect. 52. “" Accentus, seu
Apices, in usum publicum venire cx-
perunt, invalescente nimium barba-
rie.”

+ These versus politict are little
more than plain unadorned narratives
put into verse; a species of poetry not
unknown in the time of Dionysius of
Halicarnassus, who speaks of such
prosaic pieces of poetry under the title
of λογοειδεῖς. By his account they were
metrical lines composed on unpoetical
subjects, in very unpoetical expres-
sion, with loose metre, and, accord-
ing to their name, sermoni propiora.
The scholiast on Hephzstion, speak-
ing of this λογοειδὴς poetry, says, ἔστιν
ὃ πεζότερος τῇ cuvSéce: (what Horace
calls, musa pedestris). The versus poli-
tict did not differ much from the Acyoes-

δεῖς, both being wrilten ἄνευ maSous ἢ
The scholiast brings the fol-
lowing line as an instance of the λογοει-

τρόπου.

δὴς,
ἭἽππους δὲ ξανθὰς ἑκατὸν καὶ πεντήκοντα.

Hephest. edit. Pauw. p. 93.

t The intended metre of these lines
is supposed to be the same with that
of the following :

Ως ἡδὺ και- | volo πράγμασιν | καὶ de-
ξιοῖς | ὅμιι- | λεῖν,

Καὶ τῶν καϑεστσώτων γόμων ὑπερφρονεῖν
δύνασαι. Aristoph.
Nam si remittent quippiam Philumene

dolores.

Quot commodas res attuli ? quot autem
Ter.

I'll climb the frosty mountains high,
and there I’ll coin the weather,

ΤΊΙ tear the rainbow from the sky, and
tie both ends together.

ademi curas?

ACCENT AND QUANTITY.

113

ὋὉπόσον δύ- | vairo λαβεῖν | ἐκέλευε | χρυσί- | ov.
Κροῖσον κινεῖ πρὸς γέλωτα βαδίσει καὶ τῇ θέᾳ.

‘O ᾿Αρτακάμας βασιλεὺς Φρυγίας τῆς μεγάλης.

- Ν , Ν , Ν ᾽ ,
Ηρόδοτος τὸν Γύγην δὲ ποιμένα μὲν οὐ λέγει.

Ἢ ᾿Ερεχθέως Πρόκρις τε καὶ Πραξιθέας κόρη.
᾿Αννίβας, ὡς Διόδωρος γράφει καὶ Δίων ἅμα.

The quantity of these iambics the reader must perceive
is miserably corrupt: several short syllables are made
long where an acute is joined to them, asif that directed

the quantity, and was a mark belonging to it.

A blun-

der this (if it really be one in Tzetzes) exactly the same
with that committed in many of our schools, where the
sign of an acute, on whatever syllable it appears, is
considered as denoting* the stress of a long quantity to

be given to that syllable.

There is extant a poem(if it may be so
called) by Michael Psellus, of a like
kind with that of Tzetzes, entitled
Σύνοψις τῶν νόμων, διὰ στίχων Ἰάμξων καὶ
πολιτικῶν, addressed πρὸς τὸν βασιλέα
This Mi-
chael Duca was the Greek emperor of
the east M.LXXI. The verses gene-
rally consist of fifteen syllables, there
being seldom more than two syllables
to each foot.

Καίσαρα Μιχαὴλ τὸν Δοῦκαν.

Johannes Damascenus
wrote in the same metre before the
Fabricius (Bibl.
Gree. V.7.) mentions another piece

lime of Tzetzes.

of this Psellus of the foregoing kind,
de Grammatica, ad Constantinum Mo-
nomachum, among the MSS. of the
French king. I have here allowed the
metre ofthe versus politici to be accen-
tual, as it is generally acknowledged
to be; and so willingly give my op-
ponents all the advantage of this argu-
ment in their favour (Hennin. sect.
66). But Ido myself strongly suspect
that those verses are not iambics regu-
lated by accent, but loose trochaics,
as independent of it as any in Euri-

pides. Vossius himself says, (p. 144.)
maxime similes sunt Archilochiis catalec-
And Eustathius, as cited by
him, speaking of these verses, says,
σώζεται ὁ προχαϊκὸς ῥυδμός. Whether
the metre of them be considered as ac-

ticis,

centual, or as common temporal metre,
it is faulty and corrupt each way. Bat,
on the whole, Ido not think it accen-
tual.

* The misapplication of the Greek
accentual mark seems to have followed
words into the Latin language, and
corrupted their pronunciation there in
the time of Ausonius, who makes idola
from εἴδωλα, and eremus from ἔρημος,
dactyls. We likewise pronounce St.
Heléna from Ἑλένη, and idéa from ἰδέα :
these two words are probably of alike
kind with philosophia, prosodia, men-
tioned in a former chapter by Melane-
thon; that is, words which, in passing
into the Roman language, carried their
acute with them, and retained it on
the penultima, though the Latin me-
thod of accentuation would naturally
have carried it back to the antepenul-

114 ESSAY ON

It is, however, certain, that if Tzetzes regulated his
metre in those verses bya vicious quantity, yet he did it
wilfully and knowingly : he was at the same time well
acquainted with the true ancient quantity, from what-
ever cause his corruption of it might proceed. This
clearly appears in those iambies of his at the end of the
eleventh Chiliad, written according to the old rules of
good metre, beginning thus :

Tove τῆς ἄνω νῦν Μυσίας ὅρους μάθε,
and ending
Λέγων yao ἕν τι μυρία [γε] παρατρέχει.

The same regard for due quantity is seen in a long
poem of iambics by the same author at the end of his
thirteenth Chilad, περὶ παίδων ἀγωγῆς : in ἃ short poem
of hexameters, and that followed by another of iambics.
What is very particular, and at the same time a strong
proof of what f have said above of Tzetzes’ being ac-
quainted with true quantity, is, that in some introductory
verses prefixed to his poem de liberis instituendis, he
speaks with disapprobation and contempt of that bar-
barous metre which then prevailed. Such he calls the
metre of a mean, strolling, vulgar muse,* μούσης ἀγυρ-
τίδος,

tima. Several of this sort are men- Quid vero quispiam artificioso seriberet

tioned by Aldus, in the vocabulary
prefixed to Statius ; and by Servius, in
many parts of his notes on Virgil.
Now, wherever we find a Latin acute,
to that in our English pronunciation we
commonly annex a long time, as will
be considered more fully in another
place.
nounce the words, Heléna, idéa.

And thus we come to pro-

* Muse circulatricis,
Que pedwn concinnum non servat gres-
suns

metro,

Pedesque servaret ubique, et ancipites
literas,

Et omnia subtiliter, prout decet, lima-
ret, ὶ

Cum equali in honore sint artificiosa et
barbara,

Et indocta velut docta dominentur 2

Et hee quibus? iis qui videntur sapien=
tissimi.

Sic quod honestum est evanuit ex vita;

Stic ubique valuit vulgaris inscitias

ACCENT AND QUANTITY. 115

Ἣ τὴν ποδῶν εὔρυϑμον ov τηρεῖ βάσιν.
Καὶ ἢ τί γὰρ ἂν τὶς τεχνικῷ γράφοι μέτρῳ,
Πόδας τε τηροῖ πανταχοῦ, καὶ διχρόνους,
Καὶ πάντα λεπτῶς, ὡς χρεὼν, ἀποξέοι,
Ἴσων δοκούντων τεχνικῶν καὶ βαρβάρων,
Καὶ τῶν ἀτέχνων ὡς σοφῶν κρατουμένων ;
Καὶ ταῦτα ποίοις ; τοῖς δοκοῦσι πανσύφοις.
Οὕτω τὸ καλὸν ἐξαπέπτη τοῦ βίου,

Οὕτω κατεκράτησεν ἡ χυδαιότης.

The vulgar corruption, which he} here laments, and
the sense which the intelligent and learned had of it in
the twelfth century, agrees nearly with the account of
the Greek tongue three hundred years afterwards, given
by Philelphus, who, in the fifteenth century, was at Con-
stantinople, and seems to have made very particular in-
quiries into the state of the language and pronunciation
there. Ina letter to Peter Perleo, in 1441, twelve years
before the taking of that city by the Turks, he says,
“« that though he took pains to get what information he
could, in regard to their language, from the schoolmas-
ters there, he could meet with nothing satisfactory from
them.” But though he describes the depraved state of
the Greek tongue among the commont{ inhabitants of that
city, he tells his friend, that it still retained its ancient
purity among persons§ of higher rank and learning, who

* Ti or ti, is always short. He t In a letter written about two
might have written, Διὰ tiyapx.7..M. years before the taking of Constantino-

+ There is mentioned by Fabricius, ple, he speaks of linguam vulgarem
Bibl. Gree. lib. v. c. 7. p. 48, ama- eam, que et ἃ plebe erat depravata atque
nuscript piece of this Tzetzes, entitled corrupta ob peregrinorum mercatorum=-
Versus Politici de pedibus et metris poe- que multitudinem, qui quotidie Constan-
ticis. in Bibl. Vindob. et Cod. Baroce. —tinopolim confluebant, in urbemque re-
131. Fabric. in the same book, p.17, _cepti incole, Grecisque udmixti, locutio-
18, mentions likewise a MS. of his, de — nem optimam infuscarunt inquinarunt-

omni versuum genere, et de versibus poli- que. Apud Hodium de Grec. illustr.
ticis MS. Reg. 84, A sightofthislast ρ. 188.

piece would probably clear up this ᾧ Greci, quibus lingua depravata non
matter at once, Sit, et quos ipsi tum sequimur, tum imita-

110

ESSAY

use (says he) the same language, and speak in the same
manner at this very time, as the Greeks did eighteen

hundred years ago.

As it is plain that Tzetzes was well acquainted with
the true nature and use of accent, so it is evident, that
those learned Greeks, who, both before and after the
taking of Constantinople, came into the west, and there
taught their own language (some of whom had the care
of the* first editions of the old Greek authors that were

mur, ita loquuntur vulgo hae etiam tem-
pestate, ut Aristophanes comicus, ut Eu-
ripides tragicus, ut oratores omnes, ut
historiographi, ut philosophi etiam ipsi,
et Plato, et Aristoteles. Viri Aulici ve-
terem sermonis dignitatem atque elegan-
tiam retinebant : in primisque ipse no-
biles mulieres, quibus cum nullum esset
omnino cum viris peregrinis commer=
cium, merus ille ac purus Grecorum
sermo servabatur
epist. ann. 1451. A pleasing and af-
fecting picture this of the Greek court
a year or two before its destruction.
The same person, in a letter to
Saxolus Pratensis, in 1441, after dis-
suading him from going into Pelopo-
nese, where there was nothing that de-
served his regard, except Georgius

intactus. Idem in

Gemistus, advises him rather to visit
Constantinople: illic enim et viri eruditi
sunt nonnulli, et culti mores, et sermo
etiam nitidus.

The particular mention made above
by Philelphus, of the women in the By-
zantine court keeping the purity of the
Greek language, agrees well with an
observation of Cicero, in his third
book de Oratore, ‘‘ Facilius mulieres
incorruptam antiquitatem conservant,
quod multorum sermonis expertes, ea
tenent semper quz prima didicerunt.”

* Demetrius Chalcondyles pub-

lished Suidas, at Milan, 1499. John
Lascaris was employed in editions at
Rome. But more particularly Marcus
Musurus, of Crete, under Leo X. in-
spected the editions of many Greek
books printed by Aldus and Blastus,
particularly of Aristophanes, with the
excellent scholia, Athenzus, Plato,
Hesychius (the last of which was
printed from a single MS. copy, being
the only one then found). Aldus often
gratefully acknowledges the services
of these Greeks. In a dedication of his
to Musurus, prefixed to his Statius, he
says, “ Non est moris nostri fraudare
quenquam sua laude : imo decrevimus
omnes, quicunque mihi vel opera, vel
inveniendis novis libris, vel commo-
dandis raris et emendalis codicibus,
vel quocunque modo adjumento fuerint,
notos facere studiosis, ut et illis de-
beant, si mihi debent.—Altque utinam
plurimos id genus haberemus reipubli-
ez literariz benefactores, quanquam
plurimos speramus futuros, non in Ita-
lia solum, sed et in Germania et Gal-
liis, atque apud toto orbe divisos Bri-
tannos, in quibus habemus Grocinum
sacerdotem, et Thomam Linacrum vi-
ros undecunque doctissimos ; qui olim
Florentiz sub Demetrio Chalcondyle,
viro clarissimo et grece facundie in-
stauratore magnoque decore, gracis li-

ACCENT AND QUANTITY. 117

printed, and in them placed their accentual marks as we
now find them) that they, I say, considered accent, of
which in all their books they published the characters,
as distinct from true quantity, and not inconsistent with
it. For it is certain at that time, when they used these
accentual virgule, they perfectly knew, and duly re-
garded, the old pure quantity. This appears not only in
their editions of the ancient Greek poets, the metre of
which they were undoubtedly well acquainted with, but
likewise in some of their own metrical compositions,
in which the metre, regulated by true quantity, is as ac-
curate as in the poems of their ancestors two thousand
years before them. Of this the reader may see a proof
in some* iambics of Theodore Gaza: in an epitaph on
the famous cardinal+ Bessarion, archbishop of Nice,
written by himself; likewise in that of John Lascaris,
composed by himself :

Λάσκαρις ἀλλοδαπῇ γαίῃ ἐνικάτθετο, yainv
Οὔτε λίην ξείνην, ὦ ξένε, μεμφόμενος"

Evpero μειλιχίην. ἀλλ᾽ ἄχθεται, εἴπερ ᾿Αχαιοῖς
Οὐκ ἔτι χοῦν χεύει πατρὶς ἐλευθέριον.

Lascaris externa terra jacet, haud tamen ipsi,
De genie externa quod quereretur, erat :

Nec piget hospitii. dolet hoc, quod Grecia natis
Amplius haud prestat libera busta suis.

I have produced these lines of Lascaris particularly,
as they appear to me pathetically expressive of those
tender emotions, naturally arising in the author’s mind,
from reflecting on the situation of himself (who was of

teris incubuerunt,—Gaudeant igitur teras bonasque arles propagari nostra
bonarum literarum studiosi. nam D. tate desiderant, omnia suppeditabi-
O. M. annuente, assiduisque laboribus mus, quibus in summos viros queant
nostris, atque academicorum nostro- _eyadere.”

rum auxilio, et ceterorum bonorum * Hodius in vita Gaze. p. 58.

doctorumque hominum, qui bonas li- t Id. p. 151.

118 ESSAY ON

the Greek imperial family) and of his country at the
time of his death:

Hic tibi mortis erant mete: domus alta sub Ida,
Lyrnesi domus alta ; solo Laurente sepulchrum.

But to return to our argument. This pure quantity is
seen also in some verses of his prefixed to the first edi-
tion of the Scholia on Sophocles, at Rome [1518] (where
he was appointed by Leo X. president of a Greek aca-
demy, instituted chiefly with a view of giving accurate
editions of the Greck authors,) and many other epi-
grams of his now extant.

The elegiac poem of Musurus, prefixed to Aldus’ edi-
tion of Plato, and addressed to * Leo X., for which that
prince made him an archbishop, will likewise prove

* This great pontiff (whose charac-
ter, as far as it respects learning, may
be thus briefly given in the words of
his celebrated historian Paulus Jovius :
“ αὐ beneficentiam, ornandamque vir-
tutem natus educatusque”), by his own
polite taste and liberality, repaired ina
great measure that loss which the arts
had sustained from his famous prede-
cessor Pope Gregory; exciting among
the scholars of that age a most won-
derful spirit of recovering ancient, and
improving modern literature; which,
by opening the old treasures of sound
knowledge, and giving a freedom and
vigour to men’s thoughts, did eventu-
ally, though not intentionally, contri-
bute much to that great work, the re-
formation of the western church.

Thus Leo’s encouragement of Jearn-
ing was in its consequence not more
fortunate to that,than to the religious
and intellectual liberties of Europe,
and tended, in the end, to shake that
throne, which lie had adorned with a
spirit of urbanity, polite and judicious
munificence, and general humanity, be-

yond the example of any of his prede-
cessors.

The labours of Aldus, favoured by
the patronage of this prince, and con-
nected with the learned Greeks of his
age, are astonishing: in a preface to
Euripides, addressed by him to Deme-
trius Chalcondyles, he says, ‘ mille et
amplius boni alicujus autoris volumina
singulo quoque mense emittimus ex
academia nostra.”” We must not here
understand the word volumen, as Sir
William Temple did, in his writings
on ancient learning, to signify what we
call a volume, but only a part, in asingle
roll, of a larger work. There were not
600,000 books in the Ptolemezanlibrary
(as Sir William states the number), be-
cause there were 600,000 volumes.

The Greek Academy of Leo’s insti-
tution well answered the purposes of
its excellent founder; butas it flourish-
ed under him, so it sunk with him,
Upon his death, in 1521, it fell into a
gradual decay; from which Gregory
XIII. did afterwards in vain endea~
vour to recover it,

ACCENT AND QUANTITY.

119

“that the admission of the accentual marks, as they stand
at present in our books, was not considered by those
Grecian teachers of Greek, as inconsistent with the
quantity and rhythm of their language: for they strictly
observed the quantity, and yet retained those marks.

That these Greeks did not look upon προσῳδία and its
notations as affecting quantity, I am certain likewise
from the manner in which these things are treated by
them in their grammars, * wherein they are constantly

kept distinct.

* They generally distinguish them,
as Theodore Gaza has done in the fol-
lowing parts of his third book : at the
beginning of which he recounts the se-
veral particulars, in which a person
might speak or wrile improperly: βαρ-
(ξαρίζων τις ἐλέγχεται, ἢ ἐνδεία, ἢ πλεονασ-
μῶ, ἢ ἐναλλαγῆ, ἢ χρόνω, ἢ προσωδίᾳ, ἢ
γραφῇ.

Ὅρος προσωδίας" ΠΡΟΣΩΙΔΙΑ μὲν οὖν
ἔστι τάσις ποιά τις φωνῆς ἐγγραμμιμάτου
πρὸς εὐφωνίαν τοῦ ὅλου λόγους Afterwards
he says, ἔστι δὲ τόνος, ἐπίτασις ἢ ἄνεσις,
fi μεσότης, συλλαξῶν εὐφωνίαν ἔχουσα. ἣ
μὲν γὰρ ὀξεῖα τὸ ἐπιτεταμιένον ἔχει τοῦ
φθόγγου, ἣ δὲ βαρεῖα τὸ ἀνειμένον, ἡ δὲ πε-
ρισπω μένη τὸ μέσον.

XPO'NOS δὲ ἔκτασις ἢ συστολὴ φωνήεν-
FOG. ἐκτείνεται (LEV γὰρ τῇ μακρᾷ" συστέλ-
λεται δὲ τῇ βραχεία.

These words of Gaza are the very
same that Aristotle and Aristoxenus
used 1800, and Dionysius of Halicar-
nassus, 1500 years before him. The
first sentence of Gaza, here cited,
agrees with Diomedes’ account of So-
Jeecismus ; “ qui fit modis generalibus
decem et quatuor; immutatione gene-
rum, casuum, numerorum, personarum,
per geminationem ab-

temporum
nuendi, per accentus, Xc.
fatio accentus; ut si, Post, adverbiam
eam gravi pronuncietur accenlu, erit
Prepositio; si aculo, erit adverbium,

immu-

ut longo post tempore veni.” — And,
shortly after, in the same page; ‘‘ Te-
nor, quem Greci τάσιν aut πεοσωδίαν
dicunt, in flexibus vocis servandus est.
Nam quedam acuto tenore, pleraque
gravi, alia flexu desiderant enunciari.”
Diomed. lib. ii. Nearly the same is in
Charisius. lib. iv. c. 1. 2. and Donatus
de Barbarismo. p. 1767.
count of Βαρξαρισμὸς is expressed al-
most in the same words with those of
an οἷά grammarian, published by Mr.
Valckenaer, on the same subject, in
some pieces subjoined to Ammonius, p.
191. 2.4. One passage there on ac-
cent is as follows: Κατὰ δὲ Ὑόνον Cag-
(αρίζουσιν of λέγοντες, ἐὰν ξουλῶμαι, καὶ
ἐὰν ἀρχῶμαι. δεῖ γὰρ λέγειν, ἐὰν ξούλωμαι
Ὁμοίως καὶ περὶ τοὺς

Gaza’s ac-

καὶ ἐὰν ἄρχωμεαι.
τόνους Θαρξαρίζουσιν, οἱ λέγοντες, ἀκρῶτον
προπερισπωμένως" δεῖ γὰρ λέγειν ἄκρατον
ππροπαροξυτόνως" ἡ γὰρ τοῦ ὦ στέρησις
πεοτιθεμένη τῶν δισυλλάξων ὀνομάτων εἰς
ὃς ληγόντων, ἀναξιξάζει τὸν τόνον" οἷον κακὸς
ἄκακος" φθαρτὸς ἄφθαρτος" οὐκοῦν καὶ κρατὸς
ἄκρωῳτος. ἢ. 196. ‘ Those are guilty of a
barbarism in tone, who say, ἐὰν CovAdi-
peat, and ἐὰν ἀρχῶμαι : for they ought to
say, CovAwuas and ἄρχωμαι. In the
same manner they who say, ἀκρᾶτον,
with a circumflex on the penultima:
for they ought to say ἄκρατον, acuting
it on the antepenultima, for the priva-
tive @ prefixed to dissyllable nouns

190 ESSAY -ON

Those great and deserving men, who came out of
Greece into Italy in the fourteenth, * fifteenth, and the
beginning of the sixteenth centuries, and restored the
Grecian language which had been lost in the west for
several ages; whose names and meniories ought to be
dear to every Ingenuous admirer of that excellent lan-
guage, have strangely been represented by some dispu-
tants (merely to support a favourite system) as low, ig-
norant persons, unacquainted with the purity of that
tongue which they professed to teach, using themselves
a barbarous language and pronunciation, and put, in
short, on a level with the illiterate priests of the Archi-
pelago, or those strolling Greeks, of whom + Rutgersius
has given so ridiculous a description. At other times
they are represented as men of some knowledge indeed,
but of great pride, avarice, and dishonesty, who knew
better perhaps than they taught; but, in order to raise
their character and stipends, wilfully perverted the real
propriety of their language, in order to make the attain-
ment of it more {tedious and difficult to their scholars ;
who might thereby think more highly of their masters’
sagacity in explaining so intricate a thing to them, and
be more ready to reward their great learning and trouble
with extraordinary liberality. The former of these re-

ending in os, draws back the accent:
as κακὸς ἄκακος, φθαρτὸς ἄφθαρτος, and,
therefore, κρατὸς ἄκρατος." This obser-
vation agrees with what is cited above
from Apollonius, at the end of the fifth
chapter. See also p. 203. of Valcken.
on the accent of εὐγενής.

* T say the fourteenth century, for it
was so early that Leontius Pilatus of
Thessalonica taught in Italy, where he
was the master of Boceace, and lived
some time with Petrarch. Petrarch
himself learnt Greek from Barlaamus,
a Calabrian monk. In Calabria, which
is part of the old Magna Gracia, there
remained even then some knowledge

of the ancient language, which was
used in the liturgies of many churches
there: as the liturgies of St. Basil and
St. Chrysostom are to this day used in »
the churches of Greece. But although
in Calabria there might be then some
remains of the language, yet a general
ignorance of it was spread over every
other part of the west. Many instances
of which are related in Zwinger. “ Orat.
de barbarie superiorum sacul.” and in
Chr. Beeman. on the same subject.

+ Varie Lect. lib. ii. ὁ. 11.

$ Vid. Adolph. Mekerchi tract. de
veteri et recta pronun. ling, Gr. p.

21.

ACCENT AND QUANTITY. 121

presentations is at present clearly contradicted by fact :
itis by no means certain that they all used, even in com-
mon discourse, that barbarous language, the modern
Greek, which is objected to them. From Philelphus’
account of the learned men in Constantinople, just be-
fore the taking of that city, we have good reason to
think the language of scholars was far from being cor-
rupt. But whatever might be the vernacular tongue,
especially of those who were natives of the southern
provinces of the Greck empire, they indisputably knew
what was ancient Greek. How were they otherwise
enabled to write such good grammars, prefaces to edi-
tions of Greek authors, occasionally good verses, and
many other literary pieces, some of which, in point of
propriety of language, would not have disgraced their
ancestors sixteen hundred or two thousand years before
them? They may be invidiously called Graeculi, Greeca-
nici, Semi-Barbari, Greeco-Turce, Romano-Hellenistz,
to vilify and sink their characters. But these are only
words against facts. Their industry, their knowledge,
and in many of them their taste and genius, entitle them
to far different appellations. They were, indeed, sur-
rounded and persecuted by barbarism, but seem not to
have been tainted with a mixture of it. Their literature,
notwithstanding the pollution with which it was threat-
ened, escaped with purity:

Doris amara suam non intermiscuit undam.

As for the latter representation of their manners and
general character, there is something so uncharitable, so
illiberal and unworthy a scholar in this imputation, at
the same time so base and ungrateful towards these
Greek teachers, that it must raise some indignation in a
good mind, to find learned men, in arguing against what
they think corruptions of pure Greek, attribute them to
these unfortunate scholars, and so turn that little Greek
knowledge they have against those very persons from
whom alone they originally derived it.*

* A brief account of these illustrious his Polyhistor. lib. iv. c. 6. ““ Nimi-
Greeks is thus given by Morhofius in rum erant novem inter exules ὃ Grecia

122

ESSAY ON

The only thing in which some of these Greeks seemed
to want a truly judicious discernment, is, that they

Romam profugos, qui precipue Gre-
cas literas in occidentem et septentrio-
nem intulerunt. Sunt vero illi, Bessario
Cardinalis, Emanuel Chrysoloras, De-
metrius Chalcond las (tot egregiis dis-
cipulis clarus, Leon. Aretino, Franc.
Barbaro, Fr. Philelpho, Bapt. Guarino,
et Poggio Florentino) Theod. Gaza, Joh.
Argyropulus, Georgius Trapezuntius,
Marc. Musurus, Michael Marullus, et
J. Lascaris: qui postremus ex illustri
Lascarina Imperatorum familia oriun-
dus, Mediczam Bibliothecam insigni
Grezcorum codicum thesauro ditavit ;
cum Legatus a Laurentio Mediczeo Con-
stantinopolin ad Bajazetem missus om-
nes Gracie bibliothecas scrutaretur.
Eodem Lascare auctore Leo X. Ponti-
fex Romanus(Laurentii Mediczi filius)
ipsam propemodum Greciam in Italiam
quasi in novam coloniam deduxit. Pue-
ros enim ex tota Grecia, in quibus vis
ingenii et bona indoles inesse videba-
tur, cum suis preceptoribus, Romam
evocavit, ut linguam Romani suam
ipsis commodius traderent, vicissim-
que suamilli Romanis. Addendus vero
his novem Grecis Antonius Eparchus
est, Corcyrensis, qui superiore seculo
per aliquot annos Venetiis Grzcas lite-
ras docuit, prosecutusque est Elegiacis
versibus ruinam Constantinopolis: de-
mum Corcyram regressus, inter suo-
rum literatos consenuit; is quoque
centum codices Gracos secum attalit
venum Imperatori Carolo V. et Fran-

cisco I. Galliarum regi oblatos. Pra-.

terea ὃ Greccis, quibus Greea eruditio
mullum debet, Hieronymus Spartiata,
necnon Franciscus Portus, Cretensis, et
fimilius Francisci filius, memorandi
sunt, omnes laboriosissimi: ut et Nico-
Jaus et Zacharias Calliergi, Cretenses

itidem, quorum utrique curam impressi
primo Magni Etymologici, posteriori
insuper collectionem Scholiorum Thea-
criti debemus.” Morhoff might have
mentioned several other editions of
Zachary Calliergus, as the Pindar with
scholia in 1515, and Phavorinus’ Lexi-
con in 1523, with other books. Ema-
nuel Chrysoloras, before he taught in
Italy, was at London in the reign af
Richard II. on an embassy from the
emperor Joannes Palxologus, to desire
his assistance, with that of other Christ-
ian princes, against Bajazet. This he
mentions himself in a letter, which he
wrote from Rome to the Emperor. Pa-
lwologus did afterwards himself, in per-
son, come into England, on the same
occasion, in the time of Henry 1V: as
appears from a MS. (cited by Dr.
Hody) in the Lambeth library, entitled
§* Speculum Parvulorum,” lib. y. 6. 30.

On the subversion of the Greek em-
pire, there were several mean illiterate
Greeks scattered over the west and
north of Europe. These being some-
times accidentally met with by the
scholars of Germany and our own coun-
try, and eppearing, as they really were,
low ignorant persons, raised in stran-
gers an unfavourable opinion of the
Greek refugees ingeneral. Accordingly
we find some writers of Germany and
England speaking of the exiled Greeks
with great contempt: while those of
France and Italy, who by their situa-
tion were acquainted with the real cha-
racters of those illustrious men, men-
tioned above by Morhoff, hold them in
the highest estimation.

Several wrilers have given the his-
tory of the revival of Greek learning :
Christ, Rosa “ de Turcismi fuga, et Gr.

ACCENT AND QUANTITY. 123
* affected to depreciate Cicero’s writings (though + others
among them illustrated parts of them with comments,
paraphrases, and translations). But this, perhaps, did
not proceed from want of taste for such excellent com-
positions, and may not improbably be accounted for by
a general national prejudice, which there seems to have
been through all ages among the Greeks against that
great Roman. Dr. Middleton observes, that Dio Cas-
sius’s spleen and malignity against him might arise from
a Grecian’s envy to a man, who for arts and eloquence
was thought to { eclipse the fame of Greece. Cicero is
known likewise to have provoked this enmity of the

ling. incremento.” C.F. Boerner “ de
altera migratione lit. Grec. &c.” Sam.
Battier. ““ Orat. de lit. Grzec. post in-
ductam barbariem, &c.”

* Particularly Joan. Argyropulus.

+t Theod. Gaza; Georg. Trapezunti-
us, &c.
. ᾧ Among the Romans themselves
Cicero’s character was not at first pro-
perlytreated. He is never mentioned
by Horace or Virgil: though the latter
had an opportunity of doing it with ho-
nour in a part of his poem, that could
hardly fail of bringing Cicero to his
mind, where he is describing the shin-
ing qualities of his countrymen, com-
pared with those of other nations:

Tu regere imperio populos, Romane,
memento :

He tibi erunt artes: pacique imponere
morem,

Parcere subjectis et debellare superbos.

Here was a fair occasion of asserting
the literary character of his country:
but he gives it up, and rather than do
justice to Cicero’s character, which he
could not but hold in the highest esti-
mation, he chooses to do an injustice
to Rome itself by yielding the superi-
ority of eloquence to others :

Eacudent alii spirantia mollius era:
Orabunt causas melius, celique meatus
Describent radio, &c.

This silence, which itself is a great in-
justice to so extraordinary a man, Dr.
Middleton well accounts for, by shew-
ing that his name could not but be ob-
noxious to the court of Augustus, and
the very mention of it bea satire on a
prince who was so infamously concern-
ed in his destruction. As this court
prejudice subsided, his character rose :
and following Roman writers seem to
pride themselves in their illustrious
countryman, and to be fond of consi-
dering him in a comparative view with
the Greeks.

Paterculus, “" ut vita clarus ita ingenio

“ Marcus Cicero,” says

maximus, qui effecit, ne quorum arma
viceramus, eorum ingenio vinceremur.”
And Pliny, “ Facundie Latiarumque
literaram parens—omnium triumpho-
rum lauream adepte majorem, quanto
plus est ingenii Romani terminos in
tantum promovisse, quam imperii.”
Hist. 7.30. Another says, “ Demos-
thenes tibi preripuit, ne esses primus
orator; ta illi, ne 50105. Apud
Hieronym.

194 ESSAY ON

Greeks against him, by taking every opportunity through-
out his* works of drawing a comparison between the
abilities and genius of his own countrymen and of the
Greeks: the latter of whom he allows to have quicker
inventive talents than the Romans, but to be inferior to
them in solidity and real strength of parts. In answer
to these comparisons of Cicero, it has been remarked,
that. Plutarch seems to have written his Lives partly
with a view to confute what Tully has endeavoured to
prove in almost all his prefaces, the superiority of the
Romans over the Greeks; and, for this end, to have

* In many parts of his writings he
speaks with some contempt of the
Greeks. ““ Greecorum doctrina perridi-
cula.” de Orat. ““ Greeci fallaces et le-
ves, et diuturna servitute ad nimiam
assentationem eruditi. Graci omnes
vias pecuniz norunt, omnia pecuniz
causa faciunt. Graecorum familiaritates
parum fideles sunt. ad Qu. fratr. Homo
levitate Gracus, crudelitate Barbarus.
pro Flac. Greecorum luxuria et levi-
tas.” ibid. And even their language he
will not allow to be so full and copious
as the Roman: “ ita sentio, et spe
disserui, Lalinam linguam non modo
non inopem, ut vulgo putarent, sed lo-
cupletiorem etiam esse, quam Gre-
cam,” de Fin. Το init. Which is con-
trary to the general acknowledgment of
the other good Roman writers them-
selves, from Lucretius, who complains
of egestas lingue and patrii sermonis
more than once, down to Muretus, who
says, ‘‘ in Greco sermone, qui Roma-
no immensum quantum copiosior est.”
Var. Lect. xv. 20. (See more to this
purpose in that elegant and judicious
writer, v. i. xix. 4. and P. Petit. Mis-
cell. Observ. iv. 5.) Many other expres-
sions of ihe foregoing kind are scat-
tered up and down in Cicero’s works :
who yet, probably, did not mean always
to reflect on the Greeks in general, but

those of a particular profession or cha-
raclter, whom his subject brought to
his thoughts. In his orations, re-
flections of this kind might be thrown
out to invalidate the credit of an evi-
dence. In his rhetorical and philoso-
phical dialogues, the person who speaks
introduces several things to serve his
own purpose, very foreign from Cice-
ro’s own sentiments. But, perhaps,
his Greek readers did not always make
these distinctions, and applied to them-
selves, what was not intended as a na-
tional censure when it came from Cice-~
ro’s pen. Certain it is, that in many
parts of his works, particularly in his
Epistles to Atticus, he discovers aslrong
passion for Greek literature ; in order
to yratify which, he seems very desir-
ous, with the assistance of Atticus and
his Greek correspondents, to make a
good collection of kooks in that lan-
guage; which, if he could complete,
supero Crassum divitiis (says he) atque
omnium lucos et prata contemno. Ad
Attic. i. 4. He speaks likewise, in
many places, impartially and honour-
ably of the Greeks, as men from whom
the Romans received “ philosophiam
et omnes ingenuas disciplinas.” de Fin.
But a single censure will by some per-
sons be remembered long after a hun-
dred complimentsare forgotten.

ACCENT AND QUANTITY. 125

chosen out the most artful parallels. Some such national
spirit might operate in Argyropulus against Cicero’s
works. It can hardly be any other way explained, how
some of these latter Greeks, who had a relish, in com-
mon with all other men of taste and discernment, for the
other good * Roman writers, should yet so particularly
except to Cicero. But so the fact was. And the same
spirit was transfused into some of their scholars ; among’
whom was our learned countryman, Linacer, physician
to Henry VIII., who was for some time a student in
Greek at Florence, and appeared afterwards among the
foremost of the Anti-Ciceroniani. And yet, whatis very
particular in Linacer, though his professions were
against Cicero, his practice was with him; and his
books de Latini sermonis structura have more examples
of proper and beautiful diction from Cicero than from
any other Roman writer.

As many parts of the literary history of these times
serve to illustrate some characters, the vindication of
which is much connected with my argument; the reader
will, I hope, on that account consider, what has been
here introduced on that subject, as less foreign and di-
gressive.

What has been said of those Greek exiles retaining
and using the accentual marks, may be said likewise of
those very learned and eminent men of Italy, France,
Germany, Holland, and our own country, the successors
of those Greeks above-mentioned, in spreading the
knowledge of that incomparable language over the
west; who, from the time of Gregory of Tifernum to the
present, have, by their lexicons, commentaries, and
editions of ancient authors, been smoothing the rugged-
ness of the road to ancient literature, and done posterity
a service, which is ill repaid by some persons at pre-
sent in disputing their authority, and questioning the
propriety of the means made use of by them to convey
to the world the knowledge of that language in all its

* Leontius Pilatus, though a man of a saturnine disposition, was extrava-
gantly fond of Terence,

196 ESSAY ON

purity. But let us not hastily and inconsiderately re-
ject, what they, our superiors in Greek knowledge, have
carefully and faithfully adjusted for us:

tu ne studio disposta fidelt,
Intellecta prius quam sint, cotempta relinquas.

They certainly were thoroughly convinced of the ex-
pediency and even necessity of these marks. If they,
and the first printers of Greek, had not been satisfied of
this, they would not have clogged an infant art, as print-
ing then was, with needless impediments, when it was
encumbered with so many other unavoidable difliculties
of its own.

The destruction of the Greek empire in the fifteenth
century, which involved the Greek language in its fall,
naturally raises in our minds some reflections on the par-
ticular circumstances observable in the history of it:
those, [ mean, which regard its extent and duration.

First, when we consider its extent, we see it, under
the successors of Alexander, spread far beyond the
bounds of the Greck provinces, particularly about the
time when visible accentuation was first introduced. It
was then the Romans began to pay great attention to
it, when literature made* its first appearance among
them in Greek. Q. Fabius, and L. Cincius, two of the
early Roman historians, quoted so often by Dionysius,

wrote in+ that. language.

* « Antiquissimi doctorum, qui iidem
et Poet et Oratores semi-greci erant
(Liyium et Ennium dico: quos utraque
lingaa domi forisque docuisse adno-
tum est) nihil amplius quam Grace
interpretabantur.” Sueton. de illustr.
Gram,

+ Dionys. Halic. Antiq. Rom. lib. i.
Ρ- 5. Sylb. Ὅσοι τὰ τσαλαὶα ἔργα τῆς
«σόλεως Ἑλληνικῇ διαλέκτω συνέγραψαν" ὧν
εἰσι πρεσθύτατοι, Κοΐντος Φάβιος, Λεύκιος
Κίγκιος. These two are cited afterwards
very frequently,

$ Corn. Nep. in vila. c. 15, Hem-

Hannibal { himself wrote

sterhuis, therefore, properly censures
Lucian for representing Hannibal as
learning Greek for the first time in the
shades below. not. ad Luc. tom. i. p.
381. Hannibal’s knowledge, however,
of that language was contrary to the
laws of his country; for some years
before his time the Carthaginians had
enacted a law, ‘“‘ne quis postea Car-
thaginiensis aut literis Graecis aut ser-
moni studeret ; ne aut loqui cum hoste
aut scribere sine interprete posset.”
Just. xx. 5. Alex. ab Alexand. tom, i. p-
529,

ACCENT AND QUANTITY. 127
what he composed, in Greek ; as did afterwards Juba,*
his countryman, who is recorded to have been a very
voluminous writer, and by what we know of his charac-
ter and abilities, probably a very good one. All the
ages of Rome, down to the time of Cicero, produced
hardly one Latin + historian. He himself wrote in Greek
the history of his own consulate, with several other {
pieces: some for his private exercise and improvement
in composition, and some for publication. The Greek
Epistles of Brutus, and history written by Lucullus, are
well known from ὃ Plutarch. About a hundred and
fifty years after the invention of accentual signs, the
language became almost general. ‘‘ Graeca (says || Ci-
cero in his defence of his Greek friend) leguntur in om-
nibus fere gentibus; Latina suis finibus, exiguis sane,
continentur.” And, therefore, several 4 Roman authors,
in order to make their writings more public, composed
them in Greek, even while they belonged to the imperial
court at Rome. In like manner Josephus and Philo
preferred Greek to their own language, not only as more
beautiful, but, probably, as more general too. This com-
mon use of Greek must be owing principally to the ex-
cellence of the Janguage itself. We have seen, indeed,
a modern language so very widely extended, as to seem
almost to promise itself an universality in Europe: I
mean the French. But this has been owing, not only to
its own intrinsic merit, to its delicacy and perspicuity,
which it undoubtedly possesses in a high degree ; but to
the extent likewise of the power and political influence
of its nation. This was far from being the case with the
Greek tongue, which had none of these advantages.

Ἔ “Ἑλλήνων τοῖς πολυμαθεστάτοις ἐνά- § Vit. Lucull. p. 492.

ξιθμος συγγραφεῦσιν. Plut. in Cesar. p. || Pro Archia. v.

733. Xyland. See also in Sertor. p,
Sew

+ Cic. de Leg. i. 2.

$ Epist. ad Attic. ii. 1. ix, 4, andin
many other places. ‘‘ Cicero ad Pree-
turam usyue Greve declamavit.” Sue-
ton. de Rhet. i.

4 << Quum multi ex Romanis, etiam
Consularis dignitatis viri, res Romanas
Greco peregrinoque sermone in histo-
riam contulissent.” Justin. pref. Many
of these writers are enumerated by
Carteromachus in Orat. de lit. Gra.
apud H. Steph. Thes. G. tom. i.

1928 ESSAY ON

At the very time, which Cicero mentions, the Greeks,
in their civil capacity as a people, were in the most hum-
ble condition: while the Romans were in the height of
their power, being, as Athenzeus* calls them, Δῆμος τῆς
οἰκουμένης. And yet the language of this conquered
people recommended itself universally in preference to
that of their conquerors; who yet had brought their own
tongue to great perfection, having added much grace
and elegance to its natural strength and vigour. They
had likewise not only carefully improved their own lan-
guage, but, through a nice regard for the dignity of it,
did in many public cases} discourage the Greek. But
nothing could stop its general reception and progress.
It was continually enlarging its own bounds, with those
of the Roman empire. So that Juvenal says, “ nunc
totus Graias habet orbis Athenas.” In Rome itself, it
was the principal language both of science and polite

literature.{

al Era ee

+ Cicero himself was reprimanded
for addressing the council of Syracuse
in a Greek oration. (Verrin. Act. ii.
lib. iv. towards the end.) Tiberius was
fond of Greek, and well skilled in it:
but. never used it in the senate. He
carried this punctilio so far, as to apo-
logize to them for being forced to use
the word Monopolium; and ordered
the word Ἔμβλημα to be struck out of
a decree, with a strong injunction that
a Latin one should be inserted in its
stead, or if ene could not be found
adequate to it, that it should be ex-
pressed by a periphrasis. (Sueton. in
Tiber. 71.) Claudius afterwards was
equally jealous of the honour of his
own language; of which he gave two
remarkable instances, in degrading two
very considerable Greek nobles for not
understanding Latin; one of them, af-
ter having for some time enjoyed the
privileges of a Roman citizen, and

being likewise at that very time a pub-
lic character. (Suet. in Claud. xvi. Dion.
Cass. 1x. 17. Dr. Taylor’s Civil Law,
p- 513.) But yet Claudius wrote him-
self in Greek twenty-eight books of
history. Suet. xii.

+ Dan. Heinsius, in one of his Ora-
tions (p. 356, &c.) gives us a pretty
view of its general nse at Rome, where
it was properly looked on as “ποῦ
tam unius populi, quam ernditionis ani-
verse, et ipsius sapientiz sermo—et
inter mulieres, ut queque vel prudentia
vel generis splendore excellebat, ita
expeditius ac elegantius sermone hoc
utebatur.” Dr. Bentley goes farther,
in saying, ‘‘ Neque enim eximia qua-
dam Mecenatis Jaus erat Grace Lati-
néque scire, cum Rome ea tempestate
quivis Senatoris Equitisve filius, imo
et de plebe innumeri, libertini etiam et
servi, Grace loquerentur.” Ad Horvat.
Carm. iti. 8. v. ὅ.

ACCENT AND QUANTITY. 129

The wide extent of it was without doubt owing to
other causes, besides its native excellence; to the com-
mercial genius* of the people that spoke it ; to the num-
ber of colonies, which Grecian cities at different times}
sent out. One city alone, Miletus, according tot Seneca
and ||Pliny, sent forth, at different times, no less than
seventy colonies. The great numbers that came into
Italy, have been mentioned in a foregoing chapter. Mar-
seilles is well known to have been founded in this man-
ner, which, in §Cicero’s time, seems to have been hardly
inferior to Athens itself in the cultivation and improve-
ment of the civil and polite arts; and by {Strabo is
considered as the great seat of learning in the west.
The Gauls in general, according to **Casar, made use
of Greek letters. We learn from ++Pliny, that the
Greeks settled likewise in Spain. No one is ignorant
how numerous they became in several parts of Africa,
and over the {feast, under the successors of Alexander.
And from the intercourse between the people of Mar-
seilles and Britain, as mentioned by Strabo, and between
the British and Gallic Druids, as related by Czesar, we
have some reason to think that our own island was not
ignorant of the Greek tongue, and that what Camden,
Meric Casaubon, and others, have said on this subject,
is not altogether without foundation. Erasmus |l|de-
clares, “‘ veterem Britannice gentis linguam, quee nunc
Vallica est, satis indicare eam aut profectam a Grecis,
aut certe mixtam fuisse.”§§ Camden accounts for this

* See Dr. Taylor’s Elements of Civil |||| In Adag. Ῥόδιοι τὴν ϑυσίαν.

Law, p. 510. et seq. where much light §$ And thus Conrad Heresbachius :

is thrown on this subject. ““ Britannorum pars, que Cornubia di-
+ Lipsiusde rect. pronunt. ling. Lat. οἰΐαγ, reliquias Grecw linguz profite-

δ: 3. tnr.’ And immediately after: “ Quid
¢ Consolat. ad Helv. c. 6. dicam de Germania nostra, in cujus
| Lib. v. c. 29. lingua innumera vestigia Grace linguz
§ Orat. pro Flacco. remanent? et nos observavimus ali-
{| Lib. iv. quando aliquot centurias vocabulorum,
** Bell. Gall. lib. vi. c. 18. que mere Greca sunt.” Ex Orat. apud
tt Lib. iv. ο. 20. Η. Steph. Th. Gr. i. p. 15.

tt Senec. ad Helviam. c. 6.

130 ESSAY ON

from the immediate commercial connexion ‘between
some Greeks and the Britons; Meric Casaubon, from
those people who, in the early ages, came over hither
from the north-east parts of Europe, connected remotely
with the Greeks and their language, and by their settle-
ment here transmitted itto us. Which two suppositions
are consistent with each other, and may in part be both
equally true.

As the Greek tongue was so extensive at the time of
the introduction of Christianity into the world, the first
promulgers of the gospel did perhaps, for this reason,
publish it in Greek as the best human means to facilitate
the propagation of if.

This extent of that language cannot fail of raising it
somewhat in our estimation; but much more must it
claim our regard, when we add to that the consideration
of its surprising stability and permanency.

To reckon only from Homer’s* time to the taking of
Constantinople, it had subsisted 2350 years. But we
may fairly, in our account, carry it much higher. For
though sucha writer as Homer most probably improved
it, yet we may suppose, that he found it in no very rude
state. A fine language does not grow up to any tolera-
ble degree of perfection in one generation: its improve-
ments must be successive and gradual. And therefore
we may believe the Greek was no contemptible language
before Homer’s time. But its continuation-only from
his age for 2350 years is an eminent proof that there was
something intrinsically good and vital in the principles
of it, which could support itself for such a length of
time, through such various revolutions in the political
state of its nation.

Ergo non hyemes illam, non flabra, neque imbres
Convellunt: immota manet, multosque per annos
Multa virum volvens durando secula vincit.

* This is placing Homer’s age a hundred years lower than Petayius has
done. Doctrin. Temp. ix. c. 30.

ACCENT AND QUANTITY. 131

Tum fortes late ramos, et brachia tendens
Huc illuc, media ipsa ingentem sustinet umbram.*

Some persons have argued from these revolutions to
prove, that the language, through a course of them,
must have been greatly corrupted. But matter of fact,
in this case, is more powerful than the most refined spe-
culations. And the actual corruption of it has not yet
been proved. It undoubtedly, in such a course of
years, underwent many alterations. But every altera-
tion is not a corruption. An addition is an alteration:
and additions to it were necessarily made, through a
“series of ages, as they are continually to all languages,
from new ideas, which must have new terms, in laws,
arts, and sciences, and the general improvements in
civil life. Many single words are by this means used in
writers of the lower empire, which were unknown to
their predecessors. After Hadrian, when the Roman
language began to droop, there were several Greek
translations of Latin authors; and from those versions
probably many Roman words became Greek. Some of
these appear in Hesychius: what can ABac be, which
he explains ἔχεις, but Habes; and Αβιν, which he ex-
plains ἐλάτην, but Abietem? Mr. Wetstein+ has observed
that the Greeks took many words, not used by their
heathen ancestors, from the septuagint and Greek Tes-
tament; and the Byzantine lawyers, as appears in
the Basilica,{ introduced many’ from the Roman insti-
tutes. But though the vocabularies of the tongue were
by this means enlarged, yet the language itself was not
so properly changed (much less corrupted) as ren-
dered more copious, its genius in the mean time continu-

* Those however, who have called
it the most durable of all languages,
are certainly mistaken: it is in this re-
spect inferior to the Hebrew and Syriac.
Dr. Bentl.on Phal. 404.

+ Orat. i. de Gree. ling.

¢ Called likewise Jus Graco-Roma-

num, composed in the ninth and tenth
centuries, in emulation of Justinian,
by Basilius Macedo, Imp. and hissons,
Leo and Constantine, for the use of
the eastern empire, out of the several
Greek versions of Justinian’s corpus,
and other books of law.

K 2

199 ESSAY ON

ing the same. 'The same terminations, same inflexions,
same syntaxis, and nearly the same general synthesis,
are seen in the Greeks of the lower empire, as in those
who long preceded the Christian era. And a person
from reading Xenophon, may turn to Eustathius, who
wrote in the twelfth century, that is, fifteen hundred years
after him, without being shocked with any corrupt alte-
ration in the general manner of the language. Nay,
much later, in Georgius Gemistus, the Byzantine Plato-
nic, commonly called Pletho (who attended the council
of Florence in 1439) the language need not raise any
great disgust, except in a very fastidious reader. No
one, who is at all acquainted with the Byzantine history,
can be ignorant of the great number of learned and
good writers on various subjects, some of whom adorned
every age of the Greek empire.* Dr. Taylor} observes,
** that there’ is less disagreement between the Greek of
the first ages and of the last, than there is between two
Roman authors of the same century: and that we now
have many authors in Greek, who wrote with great purity
and elegance, after the Roman language became ina
manner barbarous.” Whether this purity continued in
civil and popular use, or only in the writings of the
learned (as Dr. Bentley{ thinks) who maintained it by
imitating the old authors, does not much affect our
agreement; if it did continue, that is all which concerns
this question. τ

They who take it for granted that the language of the
lower empire was corrupt, and say it necessarily must
have been so from the incursions of barbarians, as the
Roman tongue suffered and was destroyed by the north-
ern invaders, argue from one case to another that is
very different. The language of the Romans ceased to

* « An dicemus, florente virisdoctis | co-Romanum, Synodica, et Nomoca-
Constantinopoli periisselinguam? Quot ποπᾶ Grecorum, et similia scripta de-
in re historica, in doctrina canonica, cantata turpiterignoret.” Westen. Orat.
in variis scientiis claros auctores 4646-ὀ Ρ. 17.
rit illa etas, nemo est qui ignoret, nisi + Elem. of Civil Law, p. 500.
corpus Historiz Byzantine, Jus Gra- ¢ Dissert. on Phal. p. 405, 406. °

ACCENT AND QUANTITY. 133
subsist as a living one, because their metropolis itself
was taken, their civil polity subverted, and the empire
itself destroyed. In this general ruin the language
could not well survive. But this was not the case with
the Greeks. Their European enemies indeed from the
north-west, and those of Asia from the south-east, did
certainly, for several ages, exceedingly harass them, and
sometimes threaten their capital. But though they were
victorious in several attempts on the Greek provinces
(where they probably infected the language) yet the
empire, however weakened, still* upheld itself, the
capital was considerable, having a regular and magnifi-
cent court, and a succession of learned persons, who
maintained the language in its ancient state. Though
Zonaras may perhaps be suspected of court flattery in
saying that Anna Comnena, who wrote this history of
her father Alexius Comnenus, used a language ἀκριβῶς
ἀττικίζουσαν, yet Vossius, Dufresne, Peter Possin, and
others, who highly commend her style and eloquence,
cannot be supposed to speak of her in so favourable a
manner from any such motive. But though the style of
this learned princess, and of some other Byzantine
writers, may not deserve all the commendations that
have been bestowed upon it by certain critics, yet cer-
tainly itis far from barbarous or contemptible. And thus
it continued, till the Turks made a complete and final}
conquest of that empire, by the reduction of Constanti-

* Three of the principal causes,
which Henninius assigns as destructive
of a language, did not at this time
affect the Greek. Corrumpuntur et mu-
tantur lingue, aut defectu eruditorum,
qui istam linguam excolant, atque per
Philosophie Literatureque traditionem
perennt memorie consecrent: aut in-
ducta lingua dominatrice apud Gentem
devictam: aut excisa gente, cui hec vel
illa lingua est familiaris, interiisse quo-
que linguas est observatum. Sect. 143.

+ The language could not suffer

much alteration from the removal of
the Greek court and seat of empire,
from Constantinople to Nice, and then
to Adrianople, that is from one part
of the empire to another not far dis-
tant: this happened in the thirteenth
century, during part of which the
French or Latin emperors were in
possession of Constantinople, continu-
ing there for about sixty years, till the
return of the Greek court under Mi-
chael Palzologus.

134 ' ESSAY ON

nople: then the language, as a living one, sunk with it,
but not before. Nor is there any circumstance in the
reason of things to make us imagine it should be greatly
depraved before that, though somewhat altered. At
least, the pronunciation of it seems to have been hardly
changed at all among the learned, since the rules of it,
as far as it regards tone, given by the latest Greeks, do
well agree with those that are given by writers of the
earlier ages. ‘ For what we have upon the subject of
Greek accents, according to the present system, is con-
veyed to us py the Greek scholiasts and grammarians,
who — copy one another; and all seem plainly
to derive their doctrine from the grammarians of the
schools of Alexandria; many of whom lived before the
times of Antoninus and Commodus;’* those very gram-
marians, to whom Vossius refers us for pure pronuncia-
tion.

But Dr. G. is of opinion that the pronunciation not
only of the latter ages, which we have been considering,
was corrupt, but even of those which are generally
reckoned pure. And he looks for the origin of this
corruption in an age very remote, even that of Alexan-
der, and opens it with saying,+ ‘it is no improbable
conjecture, to suppose, that a corrupt manner of pro-
nouncing some words in the Greek language was occa-
sioned by Alexander’s expedition into Asia. His army
might have learned to accent some words according to
the manner of the Asiatics.”

But whatever weight of probability this hypothesis may
have with Dr. G., to me I must acknowledge it appears
one of the most improbable conjectures I ever met with.
Alexander is supposed to have carried about 35,000 Gre-
cians with him on his Asiatic expedition. Now itis well
known, that an army in a foreign country mix very little
in converse with the natives of it, and keep up only a
more close intercourse among one another. And accord-
ingly the Macedonian army probably attended little to

* Trealise against Accents, p. 138. t Ibid. p. 128.

ACCENT AND QUANTITY. 135
any thing respecting the Asiatics, but what was of a
military nature: and least of all to their language. And
even, if they had attended to that, the tone is the last
thing of a foreign language that is caught. We find that
persons, who are long resident in a strange place, and
have there leisure, inclination, and patience, diligently
to pursue the study of its language, do seldom attain the
right pronunciation of it; applying frequently the tone
of their own language to the foreign one, but very sel-
dom the tone of the foreign one to their own. Alexan-
der’s men therefore, circumstanced as they were, were
surely not likely to transfer much of the Asiatic tone
into their own Greek. But even suppose they did, out
of these 35,000, it is hardly probable that 10,000 ever
reached Europe again. And could 10,000 men, scat-
tered over Macedonia, and the northern parts of Greece,
with a few corrupt tones, influence the pronunciation of
Greece in general, especially of the southern parts,
where the purity of the language was principally con-
cerned? Did we find; upon the return of our army out
of Flanders at the end of the last war, that our national
tongue received any tincture of the French, German, or
Flemish? Or are we likely, at the end of this war, to
perceive any alteration in the English accent, though we
have sent out, during the course of it, three times the
number of Alexander’s army on different services, to
countries more various and remote? We shall not, I
dare engage, be able to mark the least trace of corrup-
tion in that respect, imported from the Iroquois, Chero-
kees, West or East Indians, or Germans.

But if the Greek language did “ receive a wound” by
Alexander’s* expedition, it certainly pretty well reco-

* If the Greek tongue had been
much affected by Alexander’s con-
quests, it must have been in a manner
different from that supposed by Dr. G.
«Tf he had returned out of Asia, and
placed the seat of his empire in some
city of Greece, and transmitted it en-

tire to posterity, the vast crowds of
those that would have come to court
from the furthest parts of the monar-
chy, would have made the same alte-
ration of the language there, as after~
wards happened at Rome.” (Dr. Bentl.
Dissert. on Phal. p. 403.) The altera-

136 ESSAY ON

vered from it soon afterwards. For under his succes-
sors, particularly at Alexandria, some of the best Greek
writers, whose remains we now have, are known to have
flourished. But although their language be pure, Dr. G.
thinks the pronunciation of it ““ must* have been greatly
corrupted. And that upon P. Atmilius’ conquering
Greece, the genuine pronunciation and accentuation of
the Greek language must have been farther corrupted.”
How miserably then must it have been vitiated, when
Dionysius of Halicarnassus, wrote a hundred and fifty
years after this; whose notice however it escaped, as
it has indeed the knowledge of most of his readers?
But if it was so depraved at that time, by a parity of
reason, it must have been perfectly barbarous even in
the first ages after Christ, before it “ received an addi-
tional wound by the irruption of the Goths into Greece
in the third century.”+ How sore that, and some fol-
lowing wounds were, I leave to others, with the help of
Wolfang, Lazius, to explain; remarking only this, that
after “ its last wound, under Heraclius, at the begin-
ning of the seventh century,”{it appears to have lived in
a tolerably sound state, at least in Constantinople, for
above eight hundred years.

I cannot leave these lower ages of the Greek em-
pire, to which we are now brought, without remarking
the injustice of several reflections that have been thrown
on the state of their literature. Some persons, who
have formed an imperfect notion of the dark ages (as
they are called) conclude that no remains of taste,
genius, and sound erudition, could possibly be found in
a Byzantine court, much less in Thracian and Bithy-
nian monasteries. Concerning the learning, however,

tion in the language at Rome, which provement.

Dr. Bentley here means, was within * Treatise against Accents, p. 129,
the space of about a hundred years 130.
from Duilius to Terence; and which + Treatise against Acc. p. 130.

therefore was not a corruption, but im- + Ibid. 132.

ACCENT AND QUANTITY.

137

and real merit of some even among the Greek monks
(which is now become a term of contempt) I am not
ashamed to own myself of the same opinion with*
Vavassor, who appears to me to have defended their

cause with judgment as well as eloquence.

But if their

literary abilities be still disputed, or despised, let them
at least not be deprived of the merit of having preserved
with some care and fidelity the most valuable writings of
antiquity. For certainly to these monks it is principally

* Lib. de Epigr. xvi. Equidem facere
non possum, quin indigner, siquando in
scripta incido, aut sermonihus et querelis
intersum eorum, qui in ceetus hosce homi-
num piorum simul ac doctorum invehan-
tur, tanquam in perditores elegantiorum
artium et liberalium stwdiorwm: quibus
tamen, si verum querimus, artes et studia
et optimum quodque literarum, incolumi-
tatem, salutem, ac vitam quodammodo
debeant, &c. See also Fabric. Bibl.
Gree. lib. ili. c. 28. Mr. Hame has
shewn us, that the general reproach of
ignorance, with which the monks of
those ages in our own island have been
loaded, hath as little foundation in
truth. ‘‘ The clergy of those times
(he says) preserved the precious lite-
rature of antiquity from a total extinc-
tion. Their writers are full of
allusions to the Latin classics, espe-
cially the poets.

There seems also in
those middle ages to have remained
many ancient books, that are now lost.
Malmesbury, who flourished in the
reign of Henry I. and King Stephen,
quotes Livy’s Description of Cex-
sar’s Passage over the Rubicon. Fitz-
Stephen, who lived in the reign of
Henry II., allades to a passage in the
larger History of Sallust. In the ool-
leclion of letters, which passes under
the name of Thomas a Becket, we
see how familiar all the ancient history
and ancient books were to the more

ingenious and dignified churchmen of
that time.” History of England, vol.
ii. p. 440. Morhoff, in his Polyhist.
lib. iv. 7, says, that Robert Grosthead
(or Capito, as he is otherwise called)
Bishop of Lincoln, did in the thirteenth
century translate all Suidas into Latin,
that is within two centuries after Sui-
das himself wrote. Bale mentions
this, from Matt. Paris, de Script. Angl.
Cent. iv. p. 506, and speaks of an-
other unpublished work of the same
Bishop, by the name of Animadversiones
in Suidam. It would perhaps be pay-
ing too great a compliment to the old
Bishop to suppose there was in his
book the same knowledge and skill in
Greek, which we find in one lately pub-
lished with a like title: but certainly
a man, quite ignorant of the language,
would hardly think of translating or
commenting on that author. Conrad
Heresbach says (I know not, indeed,
on what authority) that Charlemagne
gave audience to Greek ambassadors,
and answered them in their own lan-
guage: and that the Emperor Otho II.
in his Apulian expedition against the
Saracens and Greeks, being surprised
and taken by the enemy, escaped out
of their hands, imposing on them by
his readiness and fluency in the use of
Greek. (Orat. apud H. Steph. Th. Gr.
tom. i. p. 13.)

138 ESSAY ON

owing, that we now have any good Greek author extant.
It was their piety, not their ignorance, which induced
them to burn most of the old Lyric Poems, on account
of their impurity. This loss a Christian scholar will
hardly object to them. If, however, he does, he should
still remember to thank them rather for what they saved,
than reproach them for what they destroyed.

ACCENT AND QUANTITY. 139

CHAP. VII.

The popular objection considered against the present acceniual marks, on account
of their inconsistency with true quantity. Some errors of Dr. G. noted. The
true nature of the acute tone stated and explained.

I HAVE above allowed the use of our marks, accord-
ing to the modern system (as it is invidiously called) as
not being injurious to quantity. But a heavy charge is
brought on this head against them for corrupting it; the
acute causing any short syllable on which it falls, to be
pronounced long by those who attend to these apices,
and regulate their reading by them. I acknowledge the
fact, and am sorry for this misapplication of the mark;
but think it unreasonable that an imputation brought
against the abuse of any thing should be fixed on the
thing itself, and the proper use of it. This abuse is en-
tirely our own, owing to the nature of our common Eng-
lish pronunciation. But Dr. G. goes further, and says,
that the acute, not only in our practice and application
of it, but in its own nature and universal practice gives
length to a sound. He here speaks out plainly, and
freely declares (what [ find to be the real* ground of
many persons’ objections to accentual marks) that he
looks upon the power of an acute tone and long time
to be the same; that he has in short confounded in his
mind the ideas of these two very distinct things. Which

* When they complain of accent all their instances singly and distinctly,

contradicting quantity, and give an in-
stance of it, it is always in a word, that
has an acute joined with a short sylla-
ble. And when they say, that the ac-
cent of the ancients was agreeable to
quantity, they exemplify it in words,
wherein they suppose the acute was

joined with a long time. ‘To answer

would be not only tedious, but altoge-
ther unnecessary : for if the doctrine of
this chapter be true, it is a fall and
satisfactory answer to what is con-
tained in two hundred pages of the
writings of those who object to our
present system.

140 ESSAY ON

confusion hath occasioned numberless errors, both in his
writings and those of others, on this subject. He asserts
then, “‘ that* it cannot be said, that accents only denote
an elevation of the voice. For no such elevation can
subsist and be made sensible in pronouncing, whatever
may be done otherwise in singing, without some stress
or pause, which is always able to make a short syllable
long.” In answer to this, I will allow that such an ele-
vation doth not commonly subsist in the English pronun-
ciation without a prolongation too. But 1 affirm, that
it hath subsisted; and doth subsist at present in the
voice of the Scots, and of many persons in England. It
did most indisputably subsist in the Roman pronuncia-
tion, except Dr. G.’s authority is to supersede Quincti-
lian’s. Let us try this case in some particular word be-
tween these two grammarians. We will take the word
amas. Quinctilian tells me, in as clear a manner as pos-
sible, that the penultima is here acuted: Dr. G. says,
that an acute lengthens as well as elevates ; consequently,
that the former syllable of amas is long. But that it
was really short and always pronounced so by the Ro-
mans, I have the strongest evidence such a thing is ca-
pable of, from the concurrent usage of the best Roman
authors who wrote in metre.

Again; let us try this in a Greek instance, λέγε, λε-
γέτε, Aeyoueva. We are assured that each of these syl-
lables was a short one, pronounced by the old Greeks
with a measure of time less than that of long syllables
in words joined with these in a sentence. We are as-
sured likewise by Cicero, Quinctilian, and Dr. G. that
one of the syllables in each of these words is, and must
be, elevated. Place this necessary acute on what sylla-
ble you please, you must join it with a short one. Con-
sequently, an acute accent is as consistent with a short
time, as with a long one. That this is not readily con-
sistent in our practice, Lallow. But what is that to the
real existence and nature of the thing itself? An argu-

* Treatise against Greek Accents, p. 68.

ACCENT AND QUANTITY. 141

ment drawn from our own practical inexperience of a
thing against its possible existence, is almost too trifling
to be refuted. A West Indian’s argument against
frost and snow, as impossible and unnatural, is of this
kind.

But let us see on what reasoning and authority this
extraordinary position of Dr. G. concerning the nature
of an acute is grounded. ‘ Every accent (says he* ), if
it is any thing, must give some stress to the syllable
upon which it is placed: and every stress that is laid
upon a syllable, must necessarily give some} extent to
it. For every elevation of the voice implieth time, and

*® Treatise against Accents, p. 67. alludes to this verse of Homer, and
+In a bad translation of Lascaris’ translates it so as to give the same in-
Grammar, τόνος φωνῆς, is interpreted stance in Latin: ©
*< ertensio vocis” instead of intensio.

Whether this hath misled some of his Versus Homericus Ausonio resonans

Ξ ἢ ὃ , ita modo :
readers in their notion of τόνος, they ς

best know. I find likewise that the Quem μείουρον Achaica gens vociture

- re : ly ;
scholiast on Hephestion (p. 77. edit. Solita est

Pauw) supposes that the acute is capa- Attoniti Troés viso serpente pavi-

ble of lengthening a vowel, otherwise tant.
short, and gives an instance of it in this

verse,

He describes the miwrus thus,

Dactylici finem versus si claudat iam-
Τρῶες δ᾽ ἐῤῥίγησαν, ἐπεὶ ἴδον αἰόλον ὄφιν. bus.

And then lifies it,
Here the ὁ of ὄφιν, he says, is long, on en exemplifies i

account of the acute. An admirable Auribus acciderit novitas inopina,
expositor this of a writer on metre! meltus

But he is as little consistent with him- Versus ut hic resonare potest, ita si
self, as with truth: for this very verse cecinéris :

he cites afterwards (p. 92.) as an in- Ite domum satura, venit Hesperus,
stance of the μείουρος, i. e. of an hexa- ite satire, &c.

meter ending with an iambic, and then
the first vowel of ὄφιν is to be short.
It is not my business here to solve the
difficulty which appears in the metre

It seems that one of the oldest Roman
writers, Livias Andronicus, used this
kind of metre.

of this line. It certainly was under- Liviusille vetus, Graio cognomine, sie
stood asa miurus by Athenzus (lib. xix. Inserit Inonis versu puto tale docimen:
p- 632.) and by Terentianus Maurus, Premisso Heroo subjungit namque
whose authority in a case of this kind (αίουρον,

is superior to that of most, if not all, Hymnum quando chorus festo canit

writers. He, speaking of the miurus, ore Trivia. Putsch. p. 2425.

142 ESSAY ON
time is quantity.” And these propositions he strengthens
by a passage from a Greek MS.* οὔτε χρόνος χωρὶς τόνου
εὑρίσκεται, οὔτε τόνος χωρὶς χρόνου. Now, in answer to
this, it may be asked, Is every time a long time, and
every quantity a long quantity? or does χρόνος signify
a long time any more than a short one? if it does not,
this far-fetched testimony proves nothing for our au-
thor’s purpose. And, indeed, χρόνος signifies no parti-
cular measure of time, but expresses the general abstract
idea of it, and will signify either a long or short measure,
according to the qualifying word with which it is joined.
Thus much for his application of the latter part of this
sentence. Let us examine now the former, οὔτε χρόνος
χωρὶς τόνου εὑρίσκεται, which he, according to his own
sense of χρόνος, must understand thus, “ that no long
time is found without an accent.” We will allow here
his construction; and see what will be the consequence.
In the word ἀνθρώπων, we have three long times, and,
according to our author’s exposition, they are all three
to be accented. And Dionysius, therefore, Cicero, and
Quinctilian, are mistaken, when they say, as they do very
expressly, ‘‘ that no one word can have more than one
acute.” But, not to trouble the reader any further with
a criticism on this sentence, the meaning of it is no more
than simply this, “ that accent and quantity go toge-
ther.” Which [ readily allow, and which in truth is
the very thing I have endeavoured fully to explain, and
have largely insisted on in the beginning of this essay.
But Dr. G. has another passage, from Dionysius
Thrax, which he thinks declares that “‘ a tone or accent
giveth a greater extent or quantity. Τόνος πρὸς ὃν ἀδο-
μεν, καὶ THY φωνὴν εὐρυτέραν ποιοῦμεν. ἡ If Dionysius

* « Neque Tempus sine Tono repe-
rilur, neque Tonus sine Tempore.”
Porphyr. περὶ πεοσῳδίας. MS. Bib. Reg.
Ang. p. 2.

+ “ Tonus ad quem canimus, et vo-~
cem latiorem facimns.”

+ This Dionysius, a few lines after,

in the same MS. speaks the language of
all the other good grammarians on this
subject. Ἔστι τόνος (says he) ἐσίτασις
ἢ ἄνεσις ἢ μεσότης συλλαβῶν εὐφωνίαν
ἔχουσα" Est tonus intensio, vel remissio,
vel medietas vocis, syllabarum aptam mo-
dulationem continens. These words are,

ACCENT AND QUANTITY. 143

had here said φωνὴν μακροτέραν instead of εὐρυτέραν, it
might have been some confirmation of the Dr.’s asser-
tion. But till it can be shewn, that εὐρὺς wide or broad,
and μακρὸς long, are the same, the citation proves no-
thing in favour of his argument. The truth is, εὐρύτης
relates to a measure of the voice, totally distinct from
the height and length of it, though joined with them
both, as hath been shewn above in my first chapter, and
may be seen explained more fully in Scaliger’s book
there referred to. This, therefore, by no means dis-
proves the consistency of an acute tone with a short
time.

The possibility and real existence of an acute and
short quantity together, is remarked in the Welch lan-
guage, as may be seen in some annotations relating to
the pronunciation of it, in Bishop Gibson’s edition of
Camden’s Britannia, communicated to him by Mr.
Lhyyd: they are there prefixed to the account of South
~ Wales; among which is a mark given, shewing the ac-
cent only on a short vowel.*

When Quinctilian} says, that the words Olympus and
Tyrannus, had the middle syllable acuted, because the
Roman language did not here admit the accent on the
first short syllables, when the long ones immediately

without any variation, transcribed by suspect and am almost certain that the

Gaza, in a passage before cited. ‘The negation is omitted in the former part

whole of this passage of Dionysius, for _ of the latter sentence, and that it should

which Dr. G. refers us to the MSS. in
the Medicean library, may be seen at
the end of Mr. Wetstein’s dissertation.

* There is a passage in Diomedes on
this head, which is, I believe, cor-
rupted. Not that 1 desire to alter it,
in order to bring it to my purpose, for
it equally fayours that, whether it is
altered or stands as it does at present.
‘© Sunt vero tres, acutus, gravis, et qui
ex duobus factus est, circumflexus.
Ex his acutus in correptis semper, in-
terdum productis syllabis versatur.” I

be read ‘‘ acutus in correplis non sem-
per.”

+ Lib. i. 6. 5. in that part of the
chapter, where he is considering the
Roman language as derived from ithe
Greek, or otherwise connected with it.
See Lipsius on this passage, de pro-
nunt. ling. Lat.c.20. Servius on Zn,
i. v. 104, says that Siméis is acuted
on the middle syllable, because it is a
Greek word : and the same on Periphas,
fin, ii, ν. 476.

144 ESSAY ON

followed ; does not this imply, that the Greeks did place
their accent on the first short syllable, as we now see it
in ὄλυμπος, τύραννος 7

I am certain, from the testimony of Terentianus
Maurus, that the word Σωκράτην was accented by the
Greeks in the same manner in which it appears at pre-
sent in our common Greek copies. For how otherwise
can be explained the difference which he mentions be-
tween the times in the thesis of A’ppulos and Σωκράτην,
but on the supposition that the second syllable of the
latter was acuted ?

Romilos si nominemus, appilos aut Doricos:
Sesquiplo metimur istum, quinque nam sunt tempora:
* Nunc duo ante, tria sequuntur ; nunc tribus reddes duo,

Tialum si quando mutat Graius accentus sonum:
‘Appulos nam quando dico, tunc in ἄρσει sunt duo,
Σωκράτην Graius loquendo reddet in θέσει duo.t

Part of Terentianus’ plan, in his Metrical Essay on -
Metre, was, according to his own words,

—— quo probarem planius,
Et simul quam multa Grecis nostra non respondeant,
Queque respondent, ab ipsis nobis esse tradita.

In regard to the acute, even when it is joined with a
long syllable, as in conté’mnit, though the duration of
the sound be long, the power and effect of the acute is

short and{ quick to the sense.

* Appulos and Σωκράτην do both form
a Cretic foot consisting of five times:
these five are divided into two and
three, between the metrical arsis and
thesis, according as the word is ac-
cented. In Cretico nune sublatio lon-
gam et brevem occupat, positio longam :
vel contra positio longam et brevem,
Sublatio wnam longam: prout syllaba
se obtulerit, id fiet. Mar. Victorin. p.
2483. Putsch.

When a high note suc-

+ Apud Putschiwm, p. 2414.

¢ The word ὀξὺς, throughout the
Greek language, implies quickness, as
acutus does likewise through the Latin.
᾿οξὺ καὶ Βαρὺ (says Suidas) κατὰ μετα-
φορὰν ἐπὶ τῆς ἀκουστικῆς ὀξὺ γὰρ λέ-
γεται, ἐπὶ τῆς ἁφῆς, τὸ ΤΑΧΕΊΩΣ ἐνεργοῦν.

οἷον: τὸ μαχαίριον "OEY, ὅτι TAXE'QE
χεντεῖ- ἀμβλὺ δὲ, τὸ βραδέως ἐνεργοῦν, καὶ
οἷον οὗ κεντοῦν, ἀλλ᾽ ὠθοῦν, ὡς τὸ ὕπερον
οὕτως οὖν καὶ ἐπὶ τῶν ψόφων, "OE YN

ACCENT AND QUANTITY.

145

ceeds a low one, or rises above the grave tone of voice,
the perception of it is sudden and instantaneous, before

λέγομεν τὸν ΤΑΧΕΊΩΣ «παραγινόμενον ἐπσὶ
τὴν αἴσθησιν, καὶ ταχέως ἀπποπαυόμενον.
βαρὺν δὲ, τὸν ἀνάλογον τῷ ἀμβλεῖ -------
ὥσπερ αἱ τεταμέναι μᾶλλον νευραὶ, οἷον ἣ
Νεάτη, τῶν ἐπ᾽ ἔλαττον τεταμκένων, οἷον
τῆς Ὑπάτης, τοὺς φθόγγους ὀξυτέρους ἀπο-
διδοῦσιν" ἡ γὰρ νεάτη τῶν ἄλλων μᾶλλον ἐν
τῷ κρούεσθαι διὰ τὴν τάσιν ταχέως πλήτ-
Toure τὸν ἀέρα, ὀξύτατον ποιεῖ τὸν φϑόγγον
καὶ ἐν ὈΛΙΓΩΙι μὲν ΧΡΟΝΩΙ ἐποίησε τοῦ-
vo ἐπὶ πολὺ δὲ ἐφύλαξε. Acutum et
grave dicta sunt per translationem ad
auditum ducta In tactu dicitur
acutum id, quod celeriter agit : ut gla-
diolus acutus, quia cito pungit. Hebes
vero, qued tarde agit, ut non pungens,
sed trudens, sicut pistillum——sic etiam
in sonis, acutum vocumus eum qui cele-
riter ad sensum pervenit, et celeriter de-
Sinit : gravem vero analogia similem
hebeti—— Ut chorde magis tense, qua-
lis nete, sonos acutiores edunt quam ille,
que minus sunt tense, qualis est hypate.
Nete enim, cum pulsatur, celerius quam
alig propter intensionem percutiens aérem,
acutissimum facit sonum: et quidem brevi
tempore hoc facit, sed plurimum vim
suam tenet. V. ὀξύ, Nothing ean be
more clear and satisfactory than this
account, given here by Suidas, of ὀξὺς
applied to sound. But we shall find
that in its general signification the idea
of quickness is conveyed. Eustathius
on ὀξὺν ἄρη (Iliad. β΄. ν. 440.) explains
Ib ὀξὺς ὁ τοιοῦτος dens, οὗ prdvoy διὰ τὸ τα-
χὺ θανατοῦν, ἔτι δὲ καὶ διὰ τὸ θυμικόν. So
on ὀξὺν ἄρηα (Il. λ΄. ν. 835.) ὀξὺς ἄρης ἢ

ε Ν ~ ~
ὃ παχὺς, ἢ ὁ τμητικός" Ex μεταφορᾶς τῶν

ὀξέων βελῶν. ἢ ὁ ἐκϑουσιώδης" ὀξεῖς re γὰρ
λέγονται οἱ θυμιικώτεροι [θυμιικ" what we
call passionate, hasty men] On λώβη,
(UL. ἐ. ν᾿ 180.) ὀξυλοβῶ ῥῆμα, ταχέως

ἀκούω. On ὑξὺς ἄρης, (Il. π΄. v. 330.) 6
ταχὺς πόλεμος nat σφοδρός. Most of
these explanations of Eustathius are
transcribed by Phavorinus into his
Lexicon. Plato uses ὀξὺς πρὸς αἴσϑη-
cw to express a person of quick sensi-
bility. Diphilus, as cited by Athenzus

(lib. ii. p. 47.)

τέρπομαι γυμινοὺς δρῶν
Τοὺς ὈΞΥΠΕΙΝΟΥΣ, καὶ πρὸ τῶν και-
ρῶν ἀεὶ

Πάντ᾽ εἰδέναι ΣΠΕΎΔΟΝΤΑΣ.
“Τὴ discendi desiderio more impa-
tientes.” Aristotle in his 2. Rhetor. ob-
serving that the desires and passions of
children are quick and violent, but not
lasting, says, καὶ σφόδρα μὲν ἐπιθυμοῦσι,
ταχὺ δὲ παύονται" αἱ γὰρ ἐπιϑυμίαι τῶν
“οιούτων ταχεῖαι. ὀξεῖαι γὰρ αἱ βουλήσεις
καὶ οὐ μεγάλαι, ὥσπερ αἱ τῶν καμνόντων
δίψαι καὶ weivar, Et vehementer quidem
appetunt, cito vero cessunt ; appetitiones
enim talium sunt celeres. Acute, i. e.
rapide sunt lubidines neque magne ac
diuturne, sicut laborantiwm sitis Εἰ esu-
ries. So in his Physiogn. c. 3. among
the ᾿Αναιδοῦς σημεῖα, he reckons ἐν ταῖς
κινήσεσιν ὀξύς : which Du-Val translates
“εἴπ motibus acutus.” i. 6. agilis, citus.
Thus a man is said to be ὀξὺς, who is
ready and nimble. Thucyd. lib. viii.
διάφοροι γὰρ πλεῖστον ὄντες τὲν τρόπον, of
μὲν ὀξεῖς, of δὲ βραδεῖς. Plutarch in Ca-
millus uses ὀξεῖς ἐσσιτελέσαι ; and in Ro-
mulus on one Celer, dar ἐκείνου τοὺς τα-
χεῖς οἱ Ῥωμαῖοι καὶ ὀξεῖς, κέλερας ὀνομκά-
ζουσι.
things together, when he says, “motus

Cicero likewise joins these two

animi celeres et acuti.” Acutusis con-
tinually applied to quickness of sight,

of understanding, and motion: ‘ tam

140

ESSAY. ON

the continuance of the note is determined one way or

the other, for long or short.

This I more clearly con-

cernis acutum.” ‘est enim homo valde
acutus et sagax.” Cic. Statius describ-
ing an active champion, says,

“* motu Spartanus acuto
«« Mille cavet lapsas circum sua tem-
pora mortes.”

᾿οξυμέριμνος in the Βάτρ. of Aristoph.
903. denotes quick invention. Plato,
at the beginning of his Theatetus, ἀλλ᾽
οἵτε ὀξεῖς, ὥσστερ οὗτος, καὶ ἀγχίνοοι καὶ
μνήμονες, ὡς ταπολλὰ, καὶ ππρὸς τὰς ὀργὰς
ὀξύτροποί εἰσι, καὶ ἄττοντες φέρονται, ὥσ-
περ τὰ ἀνερμάώτιστα πλοῖα. οἵτε οἱ ἔμ.-
Sed acuti,
sicut hic, et suguces ac memores, ut plu-
rimum affectibus etiam celeres sunt, et
instabiles feruntur, tanquam saburre
Graviores vero tardi
And, agreeably to
this, ὀξύτης is explained by Suidas τα-

βριθέστεροι, νωθροί πως, &e.

erpertiz navigia.

aliquo modo, Xc.

χύτης τῆς διανοίας. Critical cases in
physic are called ὀξέα πάθη: by the
Romans “‘ vitia precipitia.”” And thus,
in Sophocles, Philoctetes complains of
the anguish which he feels from his
wound,

- e
ὡς NOE cro
ὌΞΕΓΑ para καὶ ταχεῖ" ἀπέρχεται.

ὀξὺ used adverbizlly, signifies quickly,
as in Homer, ως ἔφατ᾽, ὈΞΎ, δ᾽ ἄκουσεν
᾽οἴλῆος ταχὺς Αἴας. And ὀξὺ is therefore
explained by Hesychius, ταχέως, τα-
χυδρόμως; by Phavorinus ταχέως, σφο-
This
sense of ogi¢ and ὀξύτης runs through
the third chap. of Jul. Pollux Onomast.
lib. i. wept ταχέως καὶ βραδέως εἰς ἔργα.

Spas; ὑξὺς by Suidas, ταχύς.

So Thomas Magister, in the word ὀξύς"
τὸ ὀξὺ ἐπὶ mév μαχαίρας καὶ ὀφθαλμῶν
λεγόμενον, ἐναντίον ἔχει τὸ ἀμθλύ" ἐπὶ δὲ
φωνῆς, τὸ βαρύ. τὸ δὲ ὀξέως ἐμηνύϑη, καὶ

ὀξέως ἀφῖκτο, ἐναντίον ἔχει τὸ βραδέως.
Thus the Great Etymologist: ὀξὺν ἄν-
Spur, τὸν ταχέως ϑυμούμενον. I find
that all these expositions of ὈΞῪΣ are
copied from Aristotle wep! ψυχῆς, c. 7.
almost in his words, which therefore
shall not be repeated here, Johan.
Stobeeus in his Ecloge Physice, cap. 44.
ev Plat. Timeo, on the subject of speech
and hearing, has these particular words
to our present purpose. ἄλλως μὲν οὖν
φωνὴν ϑῶμεν τὴν δι᾿ ὥτων ὑπ᾽ ἀέρος ἔγκε-
φάλου τε καὶ αἵμματος μέχρι ψυχῆς πσλη-
γὴν διαδιδομκένην, τελευτῶσαν δὲ «περὶ τὴν
τοῦ ἥπατος ἕδραν ἀκοήν ὅση δὲ αὐτῆς τα-
χεῖα ὀξεῖαν, ὅση δὲ βραδυτέρα βραδυτέραν,
(f. legend. βαρυτέραν) τὴν δὲ ὁμαλὴν
λεῖαν, τὴν δὲ ἐναντίαν τραχεῖαν, μεγάλην
δὲ τὴν πολλὴν, ὅση δὲ ἐναντία σμεικράν.
Ponamus etiam Vocem per aures ab aére
cerebrum ae sanguinem usque ad animam
ferientem, ac finem habentem circa je-
coris sedem auditum: Ictum vero illius
celerem esse acutum, tardiorem vero gra-
viorem, equabilem autem levem, contra-
riumque asperum, validum vero mag-
‘cc De
cursu et cursoribus hee dicuntur (says
Camerarius in Commentar. p. 469.)
ἀκὺς, ϑάσσων, κοῦφος, ὀξὺς, ἐλαφρὸς, σο-
δώκης, ταχύς. And in the Glossary of

num, contrariumque parvum.

Philoxenus, ὀξέως cito, raptim. ὀξὺς ὃ
ταχὺς, Pernix, velor, &e. ὀξύτατος ocis-
Peter Victorius, in his Varig
Lect. lib. vii. c. 3. where he is consi-

simus.

dering Quinctilian’s figure, μετάληψις
transumptio, says, ‘ tropus rarissimus,
etiam improprii usus: Greecis tamen
frequentior, qui νήσους θοὰς ὀξείας dicunt.
Homerus autem insulas Sod, cum
acute forme significare vellet, vocayit
hoc versu ex xy. libro Odyssezx,

ν cS > ~
Ἔνθεν δ᾽ αὖ νήσοισιν ἐπιπροέηκα θοῆσιν.

ACCENT AND QUANTITY. 147

ceive, than I can perhaps express. I can however en-
gage to make it perceptible to a common English ear in
any Greek word, according to its present accentual
mark.

The account, which I have here attempted to give, of
the true nature and power of the acute tone, is confirmed
by what Aristotle, de Anima, in his chapter περὶ ψόφου
καὶ ἀκοῆς, Says, τὸ μὲν Od κινεῖ τὴν αἴσθησιν ἐν ὀλίγῳ χρῦνῳ
ἐπὶ πολύ: τὸ δὲ Βαρὺ, ἐν πολλῷ ἐπ᾽ ὀλίγον. Acutus sonus
movet sensum in brevi tempore plurimum: gravis vero,
in multo paulum. Again, in another place: τοῦ ἐν φωνῇ
Ὀξέος ὄντος κατὰ τὸ ὀλίγον τὸ δὲ (OED Ov ὀλιγότητα,
ταχύ. Cum acutus in voce existat breviter Acutus,
propter brevitatem vel levitatem, velox. It may perhaps
receive further illustration from a passage of Plutarch,
in his Questiones Platonice, where he is treating of
sounds in general. That author, having mentioned the
harmony of sounds, says: ὀξὺς piv yap 6 ταχὺς γίνεται,
βαρὺς δὲ ὁ βραδύς" διὸ καὶ πρότερον κινοῦσι τὴν αἴσθησιν ot
ὀξεῖς" ὅταν δὲ τούτοις ἤδη μαραινομένοις καὶ ἀποληγομένοις οἱ
βραδεῖς ἐπιβάλωσιν ἀρχόμενοι, τὸ κραθὲν αὐτῶν Ol ὁμοιοπα-
θείαν ἡδονὴν τῇ ἀκοῇ παρέσχεν, ἣν συμφωνίαν καλοῦσιν.

Hane autem rationem secntus illeno- βαρὺς ἃ lower tone, without any consi-
mina immutavit, alterumque pro altero _—_deration of length, through the musical
ceapit, quod Sov et ὀξὺ sunt συνώνυμα. Writers.

ὀξὺ autem Grecis non tantam ostendit, * Cap. vii. p. 641. tom.i. edit. Val.
quod velox esl in motu, verum etiam + Probl. sect. xix. p. 767. tom. ii.
quod forma in tenuitatem acutumque So in p. 765, he joins the two, τὸ δὲ
porrectum est: quare, quod est huic ταχὺ καὶ ὑξύ.

συνώνυμον, tanquam et ipsum idem pe- $ Acutus enim celer fit, gravis vero
nitus significaret, loco alterius posuil.” tardus: quare et prius movent sensum
—~—- Strabo in viii. lib. γεωγραφουμμένων acuti soni. Cum vero his evanescentibus
“ ejusdem Homerici verbi eandem af- _—succedant graves incipientes, miatum
fertdeclarationem, positonamque versu quiddam ex his per nature convenien-
ilio, addidit, θοὰς δ᾽ εἴρηκεν τὰς ὑξείας. tiam voluptatem auditui prebet, quam
As it is certain that ὀξὺς, wilh its deri- | symphoniam vocant. Tom. ii. p. 1006.
vatives and compounds, implies some- Xyl. So Lipsius, when he distin-
thing quick, in its general application guishes between the circumflex and
throughout the Greek language, so in acute: ‘‘iste [acutus] celeri quadam
its peculiar musical sense, it is univer- _ sublatione yocis efferendus est, sine
sally used for a high tone, opposed to institione ulla aut mora. ille [flexus]

148 ESSAY ON

The explanation which * Macrobius gives of the acute
sound, is like the preceding. Diximus nunquam sonum
fieri, nist aere percusso. Ut autem sonus ipse aut acutior
aut sravior proferatur, ictus efficit: qui dum ingens et celer
incidit, acutum sonum prestat; si tardior leniorve, gravi-
orem. Indicio est virga; que, dum auras percutit, siim-
pulsu cito feriat, sonum acuit : si lentior, gravius ferit au-
ditum. In fidibus quoque idem videmus: que si tractu
arctiore tenduntur, acute sonant ; si laxiore, gravius.

On the whole, from every thing that I have been able
to collect, from writers, both ancient and modern, of the
best note, in regard either to the general sense of the
word ὀξὺς, and acutus, or to the particular meaning of
them applied to sound; I find, first, that the idea of quick-
ness is conveyed in them; and secondly, when referred to
sound, that extent in length is never implied, but in
height only, and a quickness in the manner and effect of
this elevation. Cicero has, in one sentence, expressed
both these qualities of height and quickness as belong-
ing to the acute. ‘Quam ob causam summus 1116 celi
stelliferi cursus, cujus conversio est concitatior, acuto et
excifato movetur sono.” +

* In somn. Scip. lib. ii.c. 4. This
was likewise Salmasius’s idea of it,
who, in his Pliniane evercitationes,
speaks of it thus: “ὀξεῖα vox aures et
auditum quasi sciudendo penetrat: ita

magis tractim et cum vocis longiore
ductu: sic ut syllaba, cui incumbit,
geminanda sit, eadem elata pariter et
depressa.” de pron. ling. Lat. c. 20.
Bishop Hare has conceived and ex-
pressed this very clearly. ‘‘ Hinc usu ὀξὺς color ocnlos visumque fulgore suo

venit, ut syllaba acute proxima pro quasi punctim ferit. Communicant in-

correpta habeatur, breviorque acuta vi- _ ter se sensus proprietates suas, et quod

deatur, etiam cum ipsa quoque brevis Unius proprium est, vocibus translatis

The alii tribuitur. similiter in voce, qua

est.” de Metr. Comic. pag. Iviii.

force of this is strongly seen in what he
gives aflerwards as an instance of it.
«« Que acuuntur in tertia ab extrema,
interdum acutam corripiunt, si posi-
tione sola longa sunt, ul dptime, sérvi-
tus, pérvelim, Pdmphilus, et pauca alia,
quo Cretici mutantur in Anapzstos.
Idem factum est in néutiquam, licet in-
eipiata diphthongo.” pag. Lxii.

proprium est αἰσθητὸν auditus, acutos
et graves sonos βαρεῖς καὶ ὀξεῖς appella-
mus, ducta metaphora ab iis rebus,
que circa tactum versantur. nam ὀξὺ
et acutum proprie est quod tactum
pungit et stimulat: grave quod con-
tundit et premit: itaet de voce acuta
Tom. i. p. 200.

¢ Somn. Scipion. §. 5.

et gravi.”

ACCENT AND QUANTITY. 149

CAL AP: YH.

The hypothesis of Isaac Vossius, Henninius, Sarpedonius, and others, erroneous.
The Greek accent different in its position from the Roman. Dr. Bentley’s
and Scaliger’s remarks on the Latin accent. Difference between the accen-

tual and metrical arsis.

BUT not only Dr. G. but Isaac Vossius conceived a
wrong idea of the acute, being misled into an opinion,
that it partook of the nature of a long quantity, at least
was not well consistent with a short one. This is plainly
seen in that passage of his book de Poematum cantu,*
where he complains, that the received method of accen-
tuation corrupts the harmony, and gives an instance of
it in some verses of Homer,

’"Hédtoc δ᾽ ἀνόρουσε, λιπὼν περικαλλέα λίμνην,
Οὐρανὸν ἐς πολύχαλκον, ἵν᾽ ἀθανάτοισι φανείη
Καὶ ϑνητοῖσι βροτοῖσιν ἐπὶ ζείδωρον ἄρουραν.

“« The accent placed in the foregoing manner, as we
now have it in our printed books,” says he, “ spoils the
yerse : the ancients themselves used the accent far other-
wise, and placed it thus,

Ἠελιὸς δ᾽ ἀνοροῦσε, λιπὼν περικάλλεα λίμνην,
Οὔρανον ἐς πολυχάλκον, ἵν᾿ ἀθανατοῖσι φανείη
Καὶ ϑνητοῖσι [βροτοῖσιν ἐπὶ ζειδῶρον apovpav.”

The reader, on comparing the former method of ac-
centing these verses here censured by him, with the lat-
ter, adopted and recommended by him as the genuine
method of the ancients, will find, that the difference be-

* Pag. 142, apud Hennin.

150 ESSAY ON

tween them consists in the transposition of the acute
from short to long syllables, as from

"Havoc su. HOS CHAE;
ἀνόρουσε. . 2... + +. « ἀνοροῦσε
περικαλλέα... . se «οὖ. περικάλλεα
ovpavoy ......... . ovpavoy
πολύχαλκον . .... .. + πολυχάλκον
ζείδωρον ἄρουραν . . . . - ζειδῶρον ἀροῦραν.

His objection was evidently to the acute, as incon-
sistent with short syllables, and he has accordingly re-
moved it from them and placed it on the long.

The reader will likewise observe, if he turns back to
the fourth chapter of this Essay, that Vossius, in altering
the accents of all the foregoing words, except ἠελιὸς,
hath regulated his method of replacing them exactly ac-
cording to the laws of Roman accents, (though I believe
he was not sensible of it at that time) those very laws
which I have in the foregoing chapter transcribed from
Quinctilian. Which circumstance alone, notwithstand-
ing* the confidence of Vossius that his manner of re-
adjusting them is agreeable to the pronunciation of the
ancients, is to me a strong proof, that he is wrong: be-
cause Quinctilian expressly mentions a particular dif-

* He says,that any one willbeconvinc- —révav λέξεων in Aldus’s Thesaurus, and
ed of this, who looks over the writings 885 quoted by later grammarians, (see
and fragments of the old grammarians, _ Eustath. Hiad. M. p. 867, on dparayn
Dionysius Thrax, Apojlonius Alexand. and ἁρπαγή. and Valcken. Animadv. ad
fflius Dionys, Aristarchus junior, &c. © Ammon. lib. i. c. 8.) furnishes us with
Now some of these writings are, as is several remarks, that tend to confirm
allowed by Dr. G,, totally lost, and the truth of our present system. No
some that remain contain nothing on one that is acquainted with the con-
the present subject. But of those that tents of Aldus’s Thesawrus, which Dr.
do remain, both the syntax and frag- G. mentions in the case of Al. Dionys.,
ments of Apollonius, will supply us could ever surely dispute the authenti-
with ample proofs of the falsehood of city of the Greek accents. Adefence of
Vossius’s doctrine : his assertions are them might be drawn from that collec-
as little favoured by what remains of tion alone, to part of which we are re-
félius Dionysius; who, in his tracts ferred by Vossius for the refutation of
φερὶ ἀκλίτων ρημάτων, and περὶ ἔγκλινο- them,

ACCENT AND QUANTITY. 15k

ference which there was between the Roman and Greek
practice in accenting their syllables; and complains of
the Latin manner as less harmonious and diversified than
the Greck. “Sed accentus quoque cum rigore quodam,
tum similitudine ipsa minus suaves habemus, quia ultima
syllaba nec acuta unquam excitatur, nec in flexa.cir-
cumducitur, sed in gravem vel duas graves cadit semper.
Itaque tanto est sermo Grecus Latino jucundior, ut
nostri Poete, quoties dulce carmen esse voluerunt, illo-
rum id nominibus exornent.”*

Quinctilian, by closing his sentence here with semper,
as he does another on the same occasion with nunquam,
an adverb, (which the best Roman writers never place
at the end of a period, but on particular occasions, where
some great stress is laid on the sense of the word;) by this,
I say, he seems to point out the very extraordinary in-
flexibility of the Roman accent; and this he remarks as
opposite to the nature of the Greek tones: for it is in
that part of his book where he draws a parallel between
the two languages in point of harmony, and shews the
inferiority of his own in several particulars. Here in the
accents, “ultima syllaba nec acuta unquam excitatur,
nec in flexa circumducitur,” as in Déus, Dei, Déo: this
being opposed by him to the Greek use of tones, gives
me reason to think, that by them the last syllables were
sometimes acuted and circumflexed, as in Θεός, Θεῷ; as

* Lib. ii. c. 10. Since the Roman Latina est: unde penultima habebit ac-

centum.

poets, by introducing into their verses
Greek words with their proper accent,
intended to give some peculiar grace
and sweetness to their lines; Aldus,
therefore, did very properly in publish-
ing Statius with a collection of all the
Greek words, used by that poet, ac-
cented. And accordingly remarks of
the following kind, in Servius on Vir-
gil, are not to be considered by us as
mere critical refinements of that fa-
mous commentator ; who, on the 549d
verse of the 10th A®neid, observes
upon the word trophaum, ‘ Declinatio

In numero vero plurali, quia
tropza dicimus, sicut Greci, nec aliquid
inde mutilamus [f. mutamus] erit
Grecus accentus sicut apud Grecos,
scilicet tertia syllaba a fine.” This
agrees with what Victorinus, in his
Grammat., says, “ Greca nomina, δὶ tts-
dem literis proferuntur, Grecos accentus
habebunt.” And AX]. Donatus, “" Sane
Greca verbu Grecis accentibus melius
efferimus.” The editors, therefore, of
Latin poets should pay some regard
to this circumstance in their authors.

152 ESSAY ON

we see them marked by our present virgule. Then he
says, ““ 564 in gravem, vel duas graves cadit semper ;”
as in dger, dgri, animus, dnimi: this being opposed by
him to the manner of the Greeks, gives room to suppose,
that their accent was otherwise varied, cither in different
words, or different inflexions of the same word, as in
ἀγρὸς ἀγροῦ, ἀγαθὸς ἀγαθοῦ, δεύτερος δευτέρου. This
variety, so different from the Roman method, we see
in the application of our accentual marks; and this
application of them perfectly corresponds with what
Quinctilian’s account of the Latin tones necessarily
implies.

The particular limitation of the Roman accent to the
penultima and antepenultima, and its difference in this
respect from the Greek, is taken notice of not only by
Quinctilian, but by the other old Roman grammarians
and critics after him. Diomedes, in his second book,
says, “In Grecis dictionibus cum acutus tria loca te-
neat, ultimum, penultimum, et antepenultimum.—apud
Latinos duo tantum loca tenet, penultimum et antepenul-
timum.” Priscian says, “‘ Acutus accentus apud Latinos
duo loca habet, penultimum et antepenultimum; apud
Greecos autem et ultimum.” Donatus in like manner:
«'Fonus acutus, cum in Greecis dictionibus tria loca te-
neat, ultimum, penultimum, et antepenultimum; tenet
apud Latinos penultimum et antepenultimum ; ultimum
nunquam.” So Maximus Victorinus, ‘“ Acutus, cum
apud Gracos tria loca teneat, apud nos duobus tantum
poni potest; aut in penultima, ut prelegistis, aut in ea
quze afine est tertia, ut prelégimus.” And in another
place: “ Greeca nomina, si iisdem literis proferuntur
[Latine versa] Grzecos accentus habebunt: nam cum di-
cimus, Thyas, Nais, acutum habebit posterior accentum;
et cum Themisto, Calypso, Theano, ultimam circum-
flecti videbimus. Quod utrumque Latinus sermo non
patitur, nisi admodum raro.” Sergius likewise on the
editio prima of Donatus, “‘ Acutus accentus in Latinis
non tenebit, nisi penultimum et antepenultimum.” And
after these Scaliger: “ Latini suis libris oMNES testati

ACCENT AND QUANTITY. 153

sunt, nullam apud nos supremam syllabam acui.” *
There is a particular remark of Olympiodorus on this
subject. Τότε μὲν Γραικοὶ ἐκλήϑησαν, νῦν δὲ Ἕλληνες.
τοῦτο δὲ τὸ ὄνομα οἱ μὲν Ῥωμαῖοι παροξύνουσι, Τραῖκοι λέ-
yourec. ἡ δὲ κοινὴ διάλεκτος ὀξύνει. Καϑόλου δὲ οἱ Ρωμαῖοι
πᾶν ὄνομα παροξύνουσι διὰ τὸν κόμπον᾽ ὅϑεν ὑπερηνορέοντες
ἐκλήθησαν ὑπὸ τῶν ποιητῶν. There seems to be some-
thing whimsical in the reason assigned here by Olympi-
odorus for the Romans drawing the accent back from
the last, that they did it διὰ τὸν κόμπον, to give a more
stately and solemn air to their pronunciation. “ Czte-
rum,” as Dr. Bentley well observes on this passage of
Olympiodorus, “ quod hic fastui tribuit, id dialecto
fiolice, unde lingua Latina partem.maximam profluxit,

rectius imputatur.

* Caus. ling. Lat. c. 58. see also c.
146. To the same purpose also Ser-
vius. ““ Notandum Bucolica vel Geor-
gica, cum apud Grzcos in fine habeant
accentum [Βουκολικὰ, Γεωργικὰ} apud
nos in tertia a fine habere: nam ut in
ultima sit, Latinitas vetat: ut in penul-
tima non sit, brevitatis efficit ratio.” in
Prom. ad Virg. Bucolica. So like-
wise on Ain, vi. v. 670. ““ Ergo est
sola particula, que habet in fine cir-
cumflexum. per accentus mutationem
in adyerbium transit.”

+ In Aristot. Meteora. p. 27. Tune
quidem Τραικοὶ vocati erant, nunc vero
“Ἕλληνες.

mani in penultima acuunt, Τραῖκοι di-

Hane autem dictionem Ro-

centes: sermo vero communis Grecorum

ultimam ejus acuit. R

In universum Ro-
mani. omnis vocis accentum retrahunt
propter fastum: unde ὑπερηνορέοντες su-
perbi ae magnifici vocati sunt ἃ Poetis.
If there really is more dignity in a ba-
rytone pronunciation, than in another,
the κόμπος, however, of the Romans,
which Olympiodorus here remarks,
could not be the cause, but the effect
and consequence of such a pronun-

JHolenses enim, ut notum est, Bapv-

ciation: the pronunciation itself was
owing to an accidental derivation from
some particular colonies of Grecians,
who insensibly established it among
the old Latins, at a time when there
was nothing in their civil state and cir-
cumstances to elevate their spirit, and
give them that air of grandeur, which
foreigners afterwards thought they dis-
covered in every thing belonging to
the Romans, even in the tone of their
language. This we find observed by
Gregory Thaumaturg. in laudatione
Origen. who, speaking of Justinian’s
Latin Collection of Laws, says, they
were drawn up and published τῇ ‘Pa
pala pow, καταταληκτικῇ μὲν καὶ AAA-
ZO'NI, καὶ συσχηματιζομένη αὐτῶν τῇ
ἐξουσίᾳ τῇ ξασιλικῆ, “in the language
of the Romans, which is awful and so-
lemn, and of a nature conformable to
the majesty of their empire.” Seneca
characterizes the two languages, and
distinguishes them thus: Latine lin-
gue POTENTIA, Grece GRATIA.
Consol. ad Polyb. ο. 21. On potentia
here Lipsius says, Bene. nam hee tm-
perabat.

154

ESSAY ON

τονοι erant; et Ofoc, avnp pronunciabant, cum alii Sec,

ἀνήρ." *

* As the Roman language is so in-
flexibly barytone, one observation
readily offers itself on a comparative
view of that with oar own, which is,
that the English, having a due and
equal mixture of barytone and oxytone
words, does, in this respect, appear to
have a great advantage and superiority
over the Roman. What debases the
English language is the want of diver-
sified terminations in verbs and nouns :
which is not only a great defect itself,
but, since it is unavoidably supplied
by articles and auxiliary verbs, leaves
room by that means for the admission
of other things equally destructive of
the beauty of Janguage. But no Jan-
guage admits of greater variety, as far
as mere tone is concerned, than our own.
Every Roman dissyllable, and every
Greek verb in w, has the accent on the
penullimate: the English verbs have it
in general on the last, the nouns and
adverbs on the penultimate, or ante-
penultimate :
tones are as much diversified in their

by which means our

position as the Greek, and more than
the Roman. We place the acute some-
times on the preantepenultimale, as
And so
do the Italians, as in séquitano, deside-
fano: and even on the fifth and sixth
syllable from the end, as portdndose-

in nécessary, favourably, &e.

nela, desideranovici. Caninius mentions
two words that have it on the eighth
syllable séminanovicisene, edificanovi-
cisene. The Hebrews, on the other
hand, do not admit the accent even on
the antepenultima, according to Joh.
Simon. [Introd. Gram. Crit. in ling.
Gree. sect. ii. p. 28.] There does, in-
deed, seem to be matter of just objec-
tion, when more than two graves in one
word follow an acute, especially when

they are joined with short times: for
then the latter sounds are not only low,
but rapid, and must be consequently
indistinct. We see, however, that
many negative rules, in a thing so ar-
bitrary and variable as language, are
very often found to be contradicted by
practice. That rule of Cicero, wherein
he says that nature limits the acute to
the three last syllables of every word,
is here evidently superseded. And
therefore the word Natura, which he
uses in that passage, must not be un-
derstood in‘ an universal, but partial
sense, as relating only to the particular
nature of the Greck and Roman lan-
guages: which, when he was writing
that sentence, were nearest to. his
thoughts. That a wider compass al-
lowed to the acute is not unnatural, is
certain, because it is found in the na-
tural and easy practice of so many
millions. Neither can Scaliger see any
reason against it. ‘‘ The Grecks,” says
he, ‘‘ did not choose to remove the ac-
ceul farther from the end: qnos etiam
Latini prisci secuti easdem posteris,
imitatione polius quam consilio ducti,
leges preescripsere. Nam quamobrem
non liceat mihi tollere yocem in quarta
a fine, nulla musica ratio possit per-
suadere: possunt enim eodem tenore
tam in voce, quamin tibia aut in fidibus,
deduci multz vel breves, vel longze.” It
may be so, as he says, and we are sure
it is. But the Greek and Latin method
is certainly better: though the mo-
dern deviation from it is commended
by Scaliger, as the rejection of an un-
‘* Sapienter a pos-
nullum hu-

reasonable yoke.
teris factum est, qui

jus putidi servitii jugum ferre volu-
erint.” Caus. ling. ο. 58.
1 mentioned above the great defect,

ACCENT AND QUANTITY.

155

Dr. Bentley, in his tract de metris Terentianis, from
whence the foregoing remark on Olympiodorus is taken,
gives the following verses of Virgil thus accented:

‘Arma virimque cano, Tréje qui primus ab oris
Italiam fato profugus, * Lavinaque véenit
Litora; miltum ille et térris jactatus et alto

Vi siperum, saéve mémorem Junonis ob tram.

“δ that reads these verses properly and tunefully,”
says he, “ will pronounce them according to these ac-
centual marks; not as schoolboys scanning them, and
placing the accent at the beginning of each foot, as,

'Ttaliam fato profugus, La—

but according to the rhythm of the whole verse, in
which not one word has the accent on the last syllable,
except virim; and that properly on account of the sub-

sequent enclitic que.”+

under which the English language la-
bours, in not having a variety of ter-
minations to nouns, instead of arli-
cles: and to verbs, instead of auxi-
liaries. The great importance of this
variety to a language perhaps no where
more clearly appears, than in the fol-
lowing five lines of the Odyssey, τ΄.
204, &c.
.
Τῆς δ᾽ ἄρ᾽ ἀκουούσης ῥέε δάκρυα, τήκετο δὲ
χρώς.
Ως δὲ χιὼν κατατήκετ᾽ ἐν ἀκροσύλοισιν
ὄρεσσιν,
“Hy τ᾽ Εὖρος κατέτηξεν, ἐσσὴν Ζέφυρος xa-
ταχεύοι"
Τηκομένης δ᾽ ἄρα τῆς ποταμοὶ τσλήξουσι
ῥξοντες"

“Ὡς τῆς τήκετο καλὰ τπαρήϊα δακρυχεούσης.

In these five lines some part of the
word τήκω occurs five times, and yet

by the advantage of its various termi-
nations the repetition is not disagree-
able. A word thus repeated in English
would be extremely offensive. Mr.
Pope has accordingly avoided it in
translating this passage: the word
melted he uses but once. Perrault has
literally translated the same passage,
and designedly repeated his liquefio
four times, to make it appear ridicu-
lous; and thereby exposed his own
ignorance in not discerning the great
difference between the inflexions of
the Greek language and his own.

* Lavinaque should be otherwise ac-
cented, thus, Lavindque, on account of
the enclitic joined with it.

t The Latin enclitic taken notice of
by Dr. Bentley, is explained by Dio-
medes, lib. ii. ““ Complexiva conjunctio
sive copulatio que, et disjunctiva ve,
et dubitaliva ne, adjuncts ipsze amit-

150 ESSAY ON

Exactly in the same manner, in which Dr. Bentley re-
gulates the accentual pronunciation of “ Arma virumque
cano,’ does Scaliger likewise declare it was practised
by the ancients. In his fourth book of Poetics he has
‘marked the elevation and depression of the ancient tones
in that line, and, in order to do it more clearly, hath set
them to musical notes. He says, indeed, that if the nice
tonical pronunciation of the ancients could be expressed
by a modern, it would be disagreeable to our ears. It
might have been so to his. But that is beside our pre-
sent question. Our inquiry here is only concerning the
fact, what the ancient pronunciation was. Scaliger,
however, certainly complains in that chapter of persons
in his time confounding accent and quantity together.
His words being applicable to the common mistake of
our own age, induce me to transcribe them. “ Quod a
nullo accepimus preeceptore, voluimus hie explicari, ne
alios quoeque vel lateret vel falleret, sicuti diu nos quo-
que fefellit. Casterum, cum fenorem a quantitate non
distinguant, atque barbare pzne omnia pronuncient
(omnia enim producunt Itali, omnia corripiunt ita Vas-
cones, ut devorare videantur) quibus temporibus, quoque
tenore antiqui pronunciarent, pictum dedimus:

Arma vi-rumque cano Trojx qui primus ab oris,”

Thus Scaliger has marked the tenores of this lines and
in the manner of it entirely agrees with Dr. Bentley.

tunt fastigium, et verbi antecedentis cule adjunguntur, accentus tribuitur,
ut musique, illéne, hujtisce:” the final
ce here being like the Greek ye. Thus
nam is often an enclitic, as in guinam:
and cum, in mécum, is called so by

longius positum acumen adducunt et
juxta se proxime collecant: sic ut, ἐπ
mindque lawrtisque Dei: item ve, ut
Hyrcanisve Avabisve parant, et cala-
thisvé Minervie. ne, ut hominésne fe- Scaliger. ling. Lat. c. 146. Me, Te, Se;
raéne.” Servius likewise upon Virgil and Rem, are reckoned such by Dr.
Ain. i. “ Pronunciationis causa, contra Bentley. See also Bp. Hare de metr.

usum Latinum, altimis, quibus parti- Comic. p. 58.

ACCENT AND QUANTITY. 157
The reader may, perhaps, on recollecting Quinctilian’s
rules of accenting, be at first surprised to find that both
these learned men have assigned a grave to qui and ab,
which, according to the general rule, ought to have had
a high acute tone given them. But this is a particular
case, and happens to be remarked by Quinctilian, who
considers qui so closely joined to primus, and ab to oris,
as to form, as it were, but one word.*

As Vossius was led into his mistake by supposing
that the accentual marks originally referred to quantity,
and were, as he says, “a grammaticis suis usibus ac-
commodatos, ad declaranda tempora et syllabarum quan-
titatem”+ (for which he has no authority from antiquity) ;
so Henninius likewise, supposing that they related to
metre, declares,{ “‘accentus Grecanicos esse receptos
primum pro re meérica in scholis privatis, deinde post
etiam publice, pro facilitate discendi Hellenismi.” He,
as well as Vossius, judging of the true nature of these
marks from the barbarous and perverted application of
them among their countrymen, is betrayed into many
inconsiderate assertions against them. With the same
inaccurate haste, of which Vossius was guilty, and with
more confidence (as if he had been a contemporary and
countryman of Plato and Xenophon, and was risen
from the dead to teach the world the pure pronunciation
of his fellow-citizens), he assures us,|| ‘“ that the pro-
nunciation of old Greece, as rational or regular, was re-
ducible to four rules of his own laying down, which four
rules are of an immutable nature and eternal truth among

* « Cum dico, circum litora, tan-
quam unum enuncio, dissimulata dis-
tinctione : ilaque tanquam in una voce,
una esLacula : quod idem accidit in illo,
Troj@ qui primus ab ovis.” Lib. i. ο. δ.

+ Pag. 140.

Ὁ Sect. 162. pag. 128. That he con-
founds tone and time, is plain from the
following words. ‘* Si una syllaba vo-
cis pre ceteris exaltetur, cwteris syl-
labis quali tono modulatis, illasyllaba

exaltata intelligetur acuta vel produsta,
ceeterie gravate.” P. 50. Acuta and
producta with him are synonymous.

|| Sect. 163. p. 129. This is his
grand conclusive proposition, which is
printed in large characters at the end
of his work, as containing the sam of
his doctrine, which he has been labour-
ing to prove through ἃ long series of
learned sections, by arguments which
he himself calls Herculean.

158

all nations that have a rational pronunciation.”

ESSAY ON

I have

so many objections to these propositions of his, that I
hardly know which to advance first. An answer to this
“ς natural and rational” pronunciation hath been already

given in the second chapter.

It may be sufficient here

farther to observe, that he proposes, what Vossius did,
an accommodation of the Greek pronunciation to the
Latin accents: his* rules for its regulation being the

* His four general canons of rational
and ancient pronunciation are these,

(p. 88, 89, 90.)

Ι. Omnis vow monosyllaba modulatio-
nem habet in sua vocali: ut φῶς,
mons, ὅτ.

II. Omnis vor dissyllaba modulatio-
nem habet in sylluba priori: ut
ὅδοι (quamovis ita notetur accentu
ὁδοὶ ) méntes, &c.

III. Omnis vox polysyllaba penulti-
mam longam modulatur ; ut ἀν-
θρῶπος, τυπτῶμαι, jucinda, &c.

IV. Omnis vow polysyllaba, penultima
brevi, modulatur antepenilti-
mam; ut déminus, ἄλογων.

He is not satisfied with introducing
these rules by the name of regule in-
fallibiles, but closes the recital of them
with the following words: Et he qui-
dem Quatuor regule sunt tam apud
Latins, quam Grecos, sine ulla excep-
tione aterne veritutis. In these four
rules we have a synopsis of his whole
book, all the arguments of which are at
once refuted by that single passage of
To answer
them all singly, would not be difficult,
but after this quite unnecessary.

Quinctilian, cited above.

I cannot, however, leave Henninius
without taking particular notice of one
argument, which he urges in the most
specious manner: it is this . (sect. 119.
p- 91.) ““ Since the verses of both lan-
guages are formed on the same rules of

metre, therefore the modulation of both
must be the same, and consequently
the accent.” The metre no doubt is
the same, the Romans having borrowed
all theirs from the Greeks: but the
modulation is not always the same,
where the metreis. For does not Quinc-
tilian say above, ‘‘ that the modulation
of the Latin verse was improved by
introdacing words with the Greek ac-
cent.”” Here then the metre continued
the same, while the modulation was
altered by the difference of tone. An
instance will best explain this. The
following line of Virgil, having a Greek
word in it, will serve for this purpose:

Castorea, Eliaduin pdlmas Epiros equa-

rum.

So we commonly read it: but Servius
here observes, ‘‘ Sane FEpiros Grece
profertur : unde etiam é habet accen-
tum. Nam si Latinum esset, Epirus,
Epiri, pi haberet, quia longa est.” Ac-
cording to this remark of Servius, com-
pared with the foregoing observation
of Quinctilian, the true and better mo-
dulation of that verse, as it is sounded
to the ear of the Author himself and
his Roman readers, was without the
least change in the metre, as follows:

Castorea, Eliadum pdélmas’ Epiros equa-
rum.

This, which we have on the best au-
thority of the Romans themselves, en-
tirely subverts the plausible reasoning

ACCENT AND QUANTITY. 159

very same which Quinctilian gives for the Roman lan-
guage. But Quinctilian tells me that the Roman accent
differed * from the Greek, and in harmony was much
inferior to it. What am I then to determine between
these two contradictory authorities? Am I to believe
Henninius, in opposition to Quinctilian? No: I will
adhere to the latter, though Henninius were patronized
by all the critics, grammarians, and universities, in
Christendom.

When the Ynca Garcillasso de la Vega was carried
into Spain, and there made one of the lords of the bed-
chamber to his catholic majesty, he had immediateo c-
casion to observe the difference between the Peruvian
language and the Spanish, which he naturally was in-
duced to learn for his convenience at that time, and,
as it appeared afterwards, for his farther use in writing.
His own remarks on the difference he has given us at
the beginning of his history; and one of the first that
seems to have occurred to him is, ‘‘ that the Peruvian
words never have any accent on the last syllable, but
almost always on the penultima, and very seldom on the
antepenultima: though there are some persons who main-
tain that the accent oughi to be on the last."+ These

of Henninius, drawn from the similarity
of Greek and Roman metre. The kinds

remarks worth ournotice. ‘‘ On ne doit
done pas trouver mauvais, que je tache

of verse were the same in both lan-
guages: but the degrees of sweetness
in the two were different, according lo
the difference of accent.

* And thus Servius on Virg. Ecl. x.
1. 18. Georg. I. 59. and in many other
places.

+ L have taken this from Badouin’s
translation : “ Les mots π᾿ ont jamais
@ accent sur la derniere syllabe, mais
presque toujours sur la penultiéme, et
fort rarement sur V antepenultiéme :
quoiqu’ il y ait plusieurs persons, qui
sontiennent mal-a-propos, que U’ accent
doit étre sur la derniere.” He has other

de conserver ma langue naturelle dans
toute sa pureté, et que 7 écrive les mots
Indiens de le méme maniere, que les gens
du Pays les prononce.—Je ne parle pas
de plusieurs autres choses, qu’ on pour-
roit observer sur cette langue, qui differre
beaucoup de V Espagnole, del’ Italienne,
et dela Latine. Les Metifset les Crioles,
qui ont tant soit peut de curiosité, y doi-
vent bien prendre garde; muis je leur
rends un bon service, de leur montrer
(pour ainsi dire ) avec le doigt, de la cour
d’ Espagne, ow je me trouve, quels sont
les principes de leur Langue, ufin qu’ ils
la conservent dans sa pureté. Quel dom-

160 ESSAY ON

persons were, I suppose, some Spanish missionaries,
and others concerned in American affairs, who thought
every language ought to fall under the rules of those
which they happened to know. They might as well
have said, that the climate ought to be the same in Peru
with that of their own country. But reason in both
cases is out of the question; the only inquiry is about
a fact.

Concerning the Greek accents, Sarpedonius has fol-
lowed the steps of Vossius and Henninius, and * left
the question, which he did not understand, rather more
puzzled than he found it. Mr. Dawes hath just touched
on this subject in his Miscellanea Critica, but seems not to
have employed much thought upon it, and to have fallen
therefore into the popular error of accents being incon-
sistent with quantity: though he does not expressly say,
the accents themselves are so, but the common use that is
made of them. I wish so able a man had thought this
subject more worthy of his notice. The trifling decla-
mation of a late editor of Callimachus, is too insignifi-
cant to be taken notice of. He proposes his question
thus, “‘ Whether the pronunciation of the Greek is better
conducted by accent or quantity ?” Which is a question

word ἄγροικος was circumflexed on the
iniddle syllable, or acuted on the first,
I will not here dispute with him. But

mage ne seroit-ce pas de souffrir, qu’ une
langue si belle, et si utile ἃ ceux, qui la
savent, se corrompit, et s’ alterat peu a-

peu?” The dogmatical position of the
absurd Spaniard, which the Peruvian
Jaughs at, is exactly in the style of
Henninius, who applies the words Ana-
logia, Ratio, debet, in the same manner
throughout his dissertation ; and of
Dr. G. who continually uses ought, and
should thus, particularly in p. 145.
“1 rather think and am persuaded that
ἄγροικος and ἀγόραιος, and all words of
the same form, had originally, as they
ought to have, a circumflex on the pe-
nullimate.” Now, whether that single

certain I am, that all words of the same
form had not a cireumflex on the pe-
nullima, because Apollonius assuresme,
p. 305. that σύνοικος, πάροικος, μκέτοικος,
with some other compounded words
having a long penullima, yet had the
accent on the antepenultima.

* He states the question thus: ‘* An
scripli fuerint accentus ab antiquis ὃ
2, deinde, si scripti non fuere, an inter
loquendum saltem fuerint observati ?
3, denique, si inter loguendum obser-
vati fuere, idne in prosa tantum, an si-

ACCENT AND QUANTITY. 161

of a like kind with the following, ‘“‘ Whether in walking
or running a man had better use his right, or his left

leg singly ?”

mul in versibus acciderit?” Dissert.
pars tert. cap. 1. Verwey, in his nova
via (Pref. p. 22. seq.) does nothing
more than copy the errors of Vossius.
This is true likewise of his friend and

correspondent Joh. Geor. Grevius,
part of whose letter on this subject is
published in the preface of Verwey
cited above.

162 ESSAY ON

POSTSCRIPT TO CHAP. VIII.
On the different "Agcts of Accent and. of Metre.

THEictus accentuum, of which: Dr. Bentley hath given,
us the marks in his Terence (and which have some-
times been confounded with the general accent of the
language), are purely metrical, falling on a particular
syllable of a foot, or dipodia, and marking the several
divisions of the verse, according to the manner of scan-
ning it. Dr. Bentley places them in iambics on the
latter syllable of the former foot in each dipodia; in
trochaics, on the first syllable of the dipodia. But they
. do by no means always fall on accented syllables. Ac-
cording to Dr. Bentley, they fall in the following iambics
thus :

Ducunt volentem fata nolentém trahunt.
Anis cum ludit, morti delicids facit.
AovAdv γεένεσθαι πάραφρονουντος δέσποτου.
“Hkw νεκρων κευθμώνα και σκοτού πυλας.

In the following trochaics thus :

‘Trritare est cdlamitatem, cium te felicém vocas.
Ela on, ξιφός προκωπον πάς τις εὐτρεπίζετω.

But the marks of accent will fall on the preceding lines
thus :

Dicunt voléntem fata, noléntem trahunt.
‘Anus cum lidit, morti delicias facit.

Δοῦλον γενέσθαι παραφρονοῦντος δεσπότου.
"Hw νεκρῶν κευθμῶνα καὶ σκότου πύλας.
Irritdre ést calamitdtem, cim te felicem voécas.
Ela δὴ; ξίφος πρόκωπον πᾶς τις εὐτρεπιζέτω.

To these ictus metrici (which by Dr. Bentley and Mr.
Dawes are called ictus accentuum, improperly, as I think,

ACCENT AND QUANTITY. 163

for two reasons) are most commonly to be referred the
words arsis and thesis in writers on metre. Arsis, as
hath been briefly observed before, does’in this sense re-
late to the raising of the hand or foot in marking the di-
vision of time. Pes dittus est (says' Mar. Victorinus)
sive quia pars mensure et modus quidam similiter Pes vo-
catur, sive quia in percussione metrica pedis pulsus ponitur
tolliturque, p. 2486. See also Diomed. p.471. The ar-
sis and thesis of metre are undoubtedly distinct from
those of accent: and accordingly the rules of these two
kinds are very different. In’ that of metre the rule ‘is,
that'the times of one in respéct to the other should be
either _

1. The same, ‘as in ἃ spondee 2 | %dactyl2 |. ὁ ὁ,
anapest ὁ ὁ | 2: or

2. In the proportion of two to oné, as in iambic
ὁ | %-trochee 2 | ὁ : or

3. In the proportion of three to two, as in ἃ cretic
2 ὁ 3; orthus? ὁ | 2% Πὶ simplicibus pedibus arsis
ac thesis aut simplici, aut duplici, aut sesquipli ratione
texatur neque enim syllabarum numero, sed ratione
Temporum arsis thesisque pensatur. Victor. p. 2488.
And so Terentianus, with his elegant precision, speak-
ing of the arsis and thesis, says,

Temporum momenta sane lege certa dividunt,

Seu duas pes quisque junget, sive plures syllabas.

Aut enim quantum est in doce, tantum erit tempus θέσει:
Altera aut simplo vicissim temporis duplum dabit :
Sescuplo vel una vincet alierius singulum. (p. 2412.)

The amphibrachys not being reducible to these rules, is
said by Victorinus to be on that account minus aptus
pes in metris: and by Terentianus is considered in the
same manner ;

Septimum pedem loquemur, quem vocant ἀμφίβραχυν,
Quum due breves utrinque, media longa ponitur :
M2

104 ESSAY ΟΝ

Quale si velis amzenus, aut amicus dicere.

"Ἄρσις hinc sumat necesse est tria priora tempora,

Et θέσει relinquat unum : vel licet vertas retro,

ἤΑρσις uno sublevetur, deprimant θέσιν tria,

Par pari figura non est, pugnat unum cum tribus ;

Nec modum dupli rependit, nec tenetur sesquiplo—
(p. 2414).

But now between the arsis and thesis of accent this
proportion of times is by no means observed. The
times in the thesis of the Greeks and Romans seem
never to have exceeded three (except in two or three
very particular words, as roicdecor) but then these three
often followed only one time in the arsis, as in légérés,
Aéyoust.

I have supposed that in the metrical arsis there was
an elevation of the foot or hand, but probably not of the
voice. Dr. Bentley, however, speaking of this arsis,
seems to think the voice was in some degree elevated
too: and there are passages, I own, in the old gram-
marians, that appear to favour this opinion. But if the
voice was elevated, it was not to such a degree as to
supersede the common syllabic accent. For if it did,
the accent of their verse and prose was different (which
itis difficult to suppose), the arsis in verse coming often
ona syllable that had the thesis in prose, and so vice
versa. Itdliam fato profugus is here acuted according
to Quinctilian’s direction: but according to the metrical
arsis thus ‘Italiam fat6é profugis La.—Dr. Bentley says
(as we have seen above), that this latter way of accent-
ing these words is vicious; and I believe him, because
Quinctilian would say the same. But in every thing,
which he says on this head, I cannot so readily follow
him.

He says the Roman comic writers took care to have
the metrical ἄρσις light as often as possible on the ac-
cented syllable, and consequently, as their language was
barytone, not on ultimates. But cast your eye on any
page of his Terence, and you will find his mark of ἄρσις

ACCENT AND QUANTITY. 165

not only on pree-antepenultimates, but on ultimates too
in every three or four lines ; as in the following,

Quis igitur relictus est objurgandt locus ?
Quam ut ébsequatur gnato. quaproptér ? rogas?

I know he limits his remark, by saying this was not
so much observed by writers in the first and third dipo-
die, but was strictly so in the second; i. e. it was ob-
served in two feet out of six. But even in the second

dipodia his metrical ἄρσις is found on an ultimate, as in

Persutsit nox, amor, vinum, adolescentia.

But indeed there is no occasion that the "Apoic of
metre and accent should coincide. In many cases it is
better they should not. Certainly in Latin measure,
where they meet together in the former part of the verse,
the rhythm of the whole suffers by it, as in

Separate now the two ἄρσεις, and let that of accent be
in the metrical θέσις, and the rhythm here will be good,

After all, I know not why Dr. Bentley assigns the
metrical ἄρσις to the latter syllable of an iambic foot.
Antiquity says otherwise, and speaks of the former syl-
lables of feet in general as in the ἄρσις. ‘ Pes est sub-
latio ac positio duarum aut trium ampliusve syllabarum
spatio comprehensa. Pes est poetice dictionis duarum
ampliusve syllabarum cum certa temporum observatione
modus recipiens ἄρσιν et θέσιν, id est, qui incipit a sub-
latione, et finitur positione.” Diomed. lib. iii. p. 471.
Again, Mar. Victorinus, treating of the metrical ἄρσις

100 ESSAY ON

and θέσις, says : ‘‘ In iambo- unius temporis arsis
ad *disemon thesin comparatur.” p. 2484. It is clear
from hence, that this ΓΑρσις belongs to the former sylla-
bles of feet. Itis as compatible with the first short sylla-
ble of aniambic, as with the first long of a trochee. The
long quantity, 1 believe, here misled Dr. Bentley. I am
sure itdid Mr. Dawes after him: for he, writing on the
same subject, says plainly; “In ipsis iambo et trochxo,
cum illum syllabe brevi longa, hunc longz breyis sub-
jecta constitueret; postulabat rei music necessitas,
ut acutum longe sedes determinaret.” p. 188. Which
assertion of his is evidently contradicted by the an-
cients themselves, and favoured by no reason in the na-
ture of sound, to the necessity of which he appeals.

If it be said, that although Dr. Bentley gives this
ἄρσις to the latter syllable ofa single foot, yet it is in the
former part of the dipodia; there yet seems an error of
his still behind. He considers this ἄρσις as marked by
the foot of the musical performer, or director striking
the ground; and therefore supposes the words, ictus,
percussio,” Aoorc, and elevatio, to. be synonymous. (p. 1, 2.
Metr. Terent.) Whereas it appears quite otherwise in
Victorinus. It is shewn above from him that Αρσις
was the raising of the musician’s foot, ‘ sublatio pedis
sine sono :” and Θέσις the dropping of it and striking
the ground, “ positio pedis cum sono.” The words ictus,
therefore, or percussiones, which Dr. Bentley joins with
the ἤΑρσις, do seem properly applicable to. the Θέσις only,
in closing the feet.

When I said above that the coincidence of the accen-
tual and metrical” Apae was so far from being requisite,
as to be sometimes even prejudicial in Latin measure, I

* Disemos, a metrical term, signifies
the same as duo tempora habens. ‘‘Tem-
porom incrementa a duobus ad duode-
cim procedunt, id est, a disemo ad duo-
decasemum.” Mar. 9485.

He says there were cnueie, musical

Victor. p.

marks of time set over syllables; from

whence the terms disemos, trisemos, &e.
that sometimes the letter B was set as
the mark of one time, and M the mark
of two. The word προσωδίαι used there
by him relates merely to time, not
even to the elevation of the metrical
arsis.

ACCENT AND QUANTITY.

167

meant most kinds of metre, as the epic, elegiac, and
common lyric; not all: for the anapestic admits it, and
indeed seems not affected any way by accent: metre
only being sufficient to that kind of verse; so broken
is its cadence, and so detached are its feet.*

* In the anapestic verse or system
{for every system of it on. account.of its
Συνάφεια, as Dr. Bentley hath shewn,
is to’be considered as one verse) the
number of δες 15 uncertain: they may
be long continued ; they may be soon
cut short by adding the catalectic Parc-
miac syllable. In every other verse,

the whole of which is limited and known
to the ear, there is a certain. general
rhythm, which is the result of that re-
gulated and circumscribed whole: .but
(as Aristotle says;Rhet.iii.8.)"A’P'PYO-
MO'N ἐστιν *ATIE'PANTON : Rhythmo ez-
pers est indefinitwm.

108 ESSAY ON

CHAP. IX.

Objections to the irregularity of the present Greek accents considered} and an-
swered. An argument drawn from it in their favour. The doctrine of encli-
tics and atonics vindicated. The position of the present marks conformable
to the ancient accounts of the tones themselves. The variation of accent in
some words at different times considered. Accent dependent often on the
quantity of subsequent syllables. The consistency of the acute with a short
time demonstrated. The general doctrine of human sounds, from the old

Greek writers on music. The three general cases of exception to our present

marks considered.

THE foregoing passage cited from that very intelli-
gent and accurate writer Quinctilian, concerning the
rigor et similitudo, the rigid inflexibility and uniformity
of the Roman accent compared with the Greek, will
supply me with a full and satisfactory answer to some
other objections brought against the present Greek sys-
tem. Dr. G. draws several arguments against our ac-
cents, ‘‘ from their irregular use and application, so re-
pugnant evidently not only to quantity, but to analogy
and reason, and on the whole quite arbitrary.” This
kind of reasoning runs through* a great part of his
Treatise, wherein he considers the canons of Greek
accentuation, and their strange contrariety to his notions
of analogy. Thus he complains of “ the accent in+
oblique cases varying often, and without reason, from
that of the nominative, both as to nature and place;” and
of the same kind of unaccountable ‘“‘ variations in the
several{ inflexions of verbs.” To these and the like
objections it may be answered, first, in general, that, in

* From p. 8 to 66: and in several
other parts of his book. These are
those new arguments produced by him
on the subject, which he means in his
preface, when he says there: “ If I
am not greatly mistaken, they [Hen-
ninius, and Mirtisbus Sarpedonius]

have uot gone to the bottom of this
subject. This I am certain of, that the
method, which I have pursued, is
quite different from any which I have
yet seen.” P. 3.
t Pag. 20. 38, 39. 43, 44.
t Pag. 40, seq.

ACCENT AND QUANTITY.

169

regard to speech, a thing depending originally in some
measure on* chance, it is rather matter of wonder there

* « Profecto tandem eo confugien-
dum fuerit, quo sese recepit Aristote-
lis divinum Judicium adversus Plato-
nem: loquentis arbitratu facta plera-
que: multa etiam temere orta.” Scalig.
Poet. lib. ii. c. 3. The part of Plato,
to which Scaliger here I believe chiefly
alludes, is the Cratylus, particularly
the latter part of it. There are un-
doubtedly many admirable things in that
piece concerning language, but there is
throughout a great mixture of whim,
and, on the whole, much more conceit
than truth. That rational zrammarian
Quinctilian speaks, as Scaliger does,
of language: who, in his first book,
says: “* Non, cum primum fingerentur
homines, Analogia demissa czlo for-
mam loquendi dedit, sed inventa est
postquam loquebantur, et notatum in
sermone, quid quo modo caderet : ita-
que non ratione nititur, sed exemplo:
nec lex est loquendi, sed observatio ;
ut ipsam Analogiam nulla res alia fece-
rit, quam Consuetudo.”

These general principles of language,
and its true authority, have been al-
ready briefly considered in the second
» chapter of this Essay. I cannot for-
bear adding to it, what Diomedes, from
Varro, has, with great good sense, ob-
served on the same subject.

“« Latinitas est incorrupta loquendi
observatio secundum Romanam lin-
guam. Conslat autem (ut asserit Var-
ro) his quatuor; Natura, Analogia,
Consuetudine, Auctoritate.

«« Natura verborum nominumque im-
mutabilis est, nec quicquam aut minus
aut plus tradidit nobis, quam quod ac-

cepit.
“« Analogiasermonis, a natura proditi,
est ordinatio secundum τεχνικούς. -------

“« Consuetudo non ratione analogie,
sed viribus par est: ideo solum re-
cepta, quod multorum consensione con-
valuit ; ita tamen, ut illi artis ratio non
accedat, sed indulgeat. Nam ea ὃ me-
dio loquendi usu placita assumere con-
suevit.

““ Auctoritas in regula loquendi no-
vissima est.

tantum opini-
one secundum veterum lectionem re-
cepla, nec ipsorum tamen, si interro-
gentur, cur id secuti sint, scientium:”
See also Varro de ling. Lat. lib. vii.
viii. ix. Thisis most strictly and phi-
losophically true, not only of the Ro-
man, bul of every language. “Τί is
so, because it is so,” is, after all, in
many grammatical points, the best and
only reason to be had: certainly, very
often the only one necessary. Ὀρθότητα
τῶν ὀνομάτων εἶναι τὴν ΣΎΝΘΗ ΚΗΝ : rec-
tam rationem verborum CONSENSI-
ONE sive Consuetudine contineri, we
may say in the words of Plato, though
it is not what he maintains. Cratyl.
sub. fin.

An analogy or rationale never thought
of, much less acknowledged, by the best
ancient writers themselves, and formed
since their time on the partial observa-
tion of some of their readers, is, by a
preposterous kind of reasoning, some-
times applied as a test to examine
the propriety of parts in those writings,
which are independent of such restrain-
ing principles. ΤῸ try by these every
thing respecting an ancient language,
is trying an old Athenian or Roman by
laws enacted in a following age and
country. That there are certain gene-
ral principles, which probably operated
in the formation and direction of every
language, must be admitted: and it is

170 ESSAY ON

are not more zrregularities, as they are called, than that
there are some. But we may frequently observe, that
grammarians often argue against obliquities in speech,
as if the practice of that was formed on grammar, and
not, which is most undoubtedly the case, grammar on
practice. Which consideration, had it been always
duly attended to, would have saved them much unne-
cessary and fruitless trouble in their laborious refine-
ments to reconcile these* irregularities to their own
general rules. But, what in the present case is parti-
cularly unfortunate for the Doctor’s reasoning, this de-
viation in the Greek accents, from a few general rules,
which he objects to, is the véry thing which Quinctilian,
in the passage above cited, seems to admire: wherein
he complains of the Roman method of accenting, which
‘was more simple and uniform than that of the Greeks,
and reducible to fewer rules, as giving a deadness and
flatness to the Latin pronunciation. The Greek method
was therefore certainly more varied, 7. 6. more irregular,
as Dr. G. calls it. And this account.of the Greek tones,
deduced from Quinctilian, perfectly agrees with what

pleasing to follow Mr. Harris through = quoque qui est usus causa constitotus,

his philosophical speculations, tracing

eanon repudianda.” Varro. ling, Lat.

language back to its original conslilu-
tion, and there view it in his excellent
analysis. When, on such a review,
we find the subsequent use of language
agreeable io antecedent reasons, we
cannot but be pleased to find practice
so well founded. But still, it is prac-
tice which confirms the antecedent prin-
ciples, and not so much those princi-
This

subject deserves to be considered dis-

ples which determine practice.

tinctly by itself, and will be more fully
examined in another place.

* « Cum in vyestitu, edificiis, sic in
supellectile, cibo, cetereis ommibus,
gue usa ad vitam sunt adsumpta, do-

minetur INASQUALITAS ; in sermone

lib. vii..p. 90. Again, presently after :
‘¢ Verborum DISSIMILITUDINEM,
quz sit in Consuetudine, nom esse vitan-
dam,” Analogy has but little weight
with him, if it contradicts practice.
“« Si apertam [orationem] efliciat Con-
suetudo, brevem temperantia loquentis ;
et utrumque fieri possit siné Analogia,
nibil ea opus est.” p. 89. Again, where
he speaks of the end of language, “ Si
id consequimur una Consuetudine, nihil
prodest Analogia,” ibid. All this and
much more that might be brought from
the best authority, is as justly applica-
ble to tone, as to apy other part of
language.

ACCENT AND QUANTITY. 17]

Dionysius Halicar. ina passage above-mentioned, says
of them, that τάσεις φωνῆς, ai κκαλρύμεναι προσῳδίαι, διά-
φοροι κλέπτουσι τῇ ΠΟΙΚΊΛΙΑι τὸν κόρον. This κύρος,
this tiresome satiety, which. Quinctilian imputes to the
sunilitudo of the Latin usage, was agreeably prevented,
according to the joint testimony of him and Dionysius,
by the ποικιλία of the Greek accents. The case then is,
Dr. G. dislikes* κύριος, κυρίου, κυρίῳ, for not being
acuted alike, as dominus, domini, démino.: Quinctilian
seems to dislike dominus, domini, domino, for being
acuted alike, and not varied as κύριος, κυρίου, κυρίῳ. On
which account, that which is the ground of the Doctor’s
objection against our present virgule, in this and the
like cases, is with me ἃ strong presumptive proof that
they are right.

In whatever sense we understand this Ποικιλία, it will
be very difficult, and I believe impossible, to reconcile
it with Dr. G.’s analogy in his doctrine of accents, by
which analogy } he means “ a conformity to those gene-
ral rules of accenting, which profess to have a regard to
quantity, and to keep, as much as possible, the accent of
the first word or words of the same form, in the same
place.” Sameness is the soul of hés doctrine, variety of
that of Dionysius and Quinctilian.

Not only many seeming irregularities may thus ‘be
presumed to be right by inference from Quinctilian, but
several of them may be proved so by the direct testimony
of the old grammarians themselves, whose authority, in
this case, is acknowledged by all. Nothing seems a
greater deviation from general analogy, than that the
penultima of the passive preterit participle should be
acuted, λελεγμένος. And yet this we have on no less
authority than that of Aristarchus and Herodian. t

* Page 45.
+ Page 6.
$+ The accent on the antepenultima ner.

ferent from that of common preterits,
and accounted for ina particular man-

Etymol. M. in V. οὐτάμενοι.

of οὐτώμενος, supposed to be a partici-
ple of the preterit tense, is remarked by
Aristarchus as a particular case, dif-

Herodian observes the same on ἐληλά-
Etymol. M. in V.

shee ἐν aus
FTECY OT τὸ Ακαχήκενος,

μενος and οὐτώμενος.

᾿Ακαχήμενος. ᾿

172 ESSAY ON

The ποικιλία of the Greek accents was more likely to
strike Dionysius than most other Greek writers, on ac-
count of his living so long at Rome, and having thereby
an opportunity of observing both languages, and mark-
ing the difference between them. The peculiarities of
any thing are always better remarked when considered
in a comparative view with another. It is well known,
from his own preface to his Roman antiquities, that he
was at Rome in the time of Augustus, and continued
there for two-and-twenty years; all which time he em-
ployed in studying the Latin language with great exact-
ness, and connecting himself with the most learned per-
sons there, that by their assistance and his own private
researches into the ancient literature of the Romans, he
might be able properly to execute that great work which
he had planned, of illustrating the Roman antiquities.
A remark, therefore, coming from him on the ποικιλία of
the Greek accent (which probably arose trom his com-
paring it with the sameness and stubbornness of the
Latin, and which, in Greece, might not have occurred to
Aristotle, who might not perhaps have an opportunity
of taking such particular notice of the difference in tones
between his own and a foreign language) has, on that
account, much greater weight with me than the testimony .
of any other Greek critic whatever, the circumstances of
whose life were different from those of Dionysius. That
he was not inattentive to the accent of the Romans, is

ἐπεὶ ὥφειλε wagokiverOar, ὡς τὸ Πεποιη- non est preteriti temporis quo-
μένος, οὐκ ἔστι παρακείμενος ----------- πῖδπι participium preteriti in penultima
ὅτι ἡ μετοχὴ τοῦ παρακειμένου wapofive- acuitur, cum alia omnia [in νος] acuan-
σαι, τῶν ἄλλων πασῶν προπαροξυνομένων tur in antepenultima ‘Voces vero

τὸ δὲ οὐτάμενος καὶ ἐληλώμενος, οὐτάμενος, et ἐληλάμενος, negal Herodia-
ὁ Ἡρωδιανὸς οὔ φησι κατὰ πάθος γίνεσϑαι nus per passionem fieri proparoxyto-
σροπαροξύτονα, ἀπὸ τοῦ οὐτασμένος καὶ nas, ab οὐτασμεένος et ἐληλασμένος, sed
ἐληλασμεένος, ἀλλ᾽ ἀπὸ τῶν εἰς fai, τοῦ τε ἃ Verbis in fxs, nempe οὔτημι et ἐλήλη-
οὔτημι καὶ ἐλήλημι. καὶ εἰσὶν ἐνεστῶτες, μι: et sunt presentis temporis, ‘ul
ὡς ἵστημι, ἴσταμαι, ἱστάμενος. ““ϑοῖθη- ἕἵστημι, ἵσταμαι, ἱστάμενος." Much the
dum quod vox ᾿Ακαχήμενος, quoniam —_ same is in Phavorinus, on the same au-
[si esset preter. particip.] deberet in thority. V. axdypatvo;.

penultima acui, ut Πεποιημένος, ideo

ACCENT AND QUANTITY. 173

evident from his observing, immediately after having
mentioned the name of Numa, “ that the second sylla-
ble of it is to be pronounced long and with a grave ac-
cent,” * Kar’ ὄνομα Νουμαν᾽ χρὴ δὲ τὴν δευτέραν αὐλὴ μβὴν
ἐκτείνοντας βαρυτονεῖν.

The doctrine of enclitics and atonics hath given as
much disgust to our new reformers of Greek as the other
parts of the accentual system. Enclitics and atonics are
certain words, which, if taken singly, have an accent, as
all others have, but by their construction in a sentence
either transfer or entirely lose it. To this two objec-
tions are made: the one is, that it contradicts that true
and universal rule, Est in omni voce acuta. Which rule
(Dr. G. + says) “ it is easy to observe, destroyeth all that
part of the doctrine of accents which relateth to ato-
nics.” Itis, however, very difficult for me to draw from
thence such an inference against them. For they, by
their close apposition, when pronounced, do, in effect,
become part of the word to which they are joined: and
the whole word, so compounded, has its proper accent.
How then is the great rule here violated? I wonder,
that in the same chapter of Quinctilian, from whence he
draws his conclusion against atonics, he could not see
an express assertion and direct instance of them in this
sentence: { “ Cum dico circum litora, tanquam unum
enuncio, dissimulata distinctione: itaque tanquam in
una voce, una est acuta: quod idem accidit in illo,
Troje@ qui primus ab oris.” Here circum, qui, and ab
are atonics: 7. 6. they are considered and pronounced
not as single independent words by themselves, but as
part only of that with which they are joined, circum-li-
tora, qui-primus, ab-6ris, ὑφ᾽ ἕν, with one acute regularly
for each of the words so combined. And thus the rule
is strictly observed, ‘‘ Non est aliqua vox sine acuta.”
This close apposition of words, by which the accent
of some is dropped, the reader, with the least atten-
tion, will find in almost every sentence of his own

* Antiquit. Rom. p. 120. Sylburg. + Page 54. Φ Lib.i. e. 5.

174. ESSAY ON
language, which’ he either hears, reads, writes, or
speaks.

But there is another objection, somewhat connected
with the foregoing, brought against atonics and enclitics.
For itis declared to be * “ a great absurdity, and’con+
trary to the nature of all languages; that the same word,
when pronounced separately, should be subject to a dif-
ferent modulation from what it must have when it makes
part of a continued discourse.” If this be true, the
whole doctrine of atonics and enclitics sinks at once.
For those words are said to have an accent when pro-
nounced singly, and often to have none when they make
part'of'a discourse. How far this is contrary to the na-
ture of all latiguages, I can by no means judge, because
Tam acqtiainted with but few. But sure Iam it is not
contrary to our’ own, in which we hardly ever utter
a sentence without omitting the accent of some words,
particularly pronouns and articles, and several mono-
syllables, which yet we accent, when we use them singly
or emphatically. Our verb is we make sometimes an
enclitic like the Greek ἐστι, and sometimes an‘ oxytone.
When I say, “ the mén'is virtuous,” the accent’ of is
sinks, as in ἀγαθός ἐστι. If in answer to a question Τὶ
say, “ heis,” the accent is preserved, as in ἔστι. So our
indefinite one is used in this respect like τις. should one
see a man: one here loses its accent, and transfers it to
shoild, as in ἤν τις ἴδῃ ἄνθρωπον. But you cannot use
the interrogative whé without an accent, and so τίς the
interrogative constantly and properly has it. Thus, like-
wise, our pronouns are enclitics or not, according to
their'sense. If I say, sénd me that book, me is here a
perfect enclitic, and is pronounced almost as if it were
joined with send, thus, séndme. But when I say, send

* Dr. G.’s Treatise, p. 52.

t The enclitic is not only in pronun-
ciation incorporated with the preced-
ing word, but sometimes in writing too
is so connected with it, as if it were in
actual composition. Those of the Ro-
man lauguage are génerally written so:

and some of the Greek, as δὲ in ofxavde=
it is likewise so with us, in homewards,
hedvenward, hitherward; where the
word ward, though it has an accent
when taken singly, yet loses it here by
throwing it back on the foregoing words,
of which it makes part by composition.

ACCENT AND QU-ANTITY.

175

mé the book, do'not'give it’ him’: here πιό hath its proper

accent, as‘in‘ contradistiiiction to him:

In the former

case the Greeks called it ἐγκλιτικὸν, in the latter ὀρθότο-

νούμενον.

They; indeed, with their usual-accuracy and

precision, made another difference between their enclitic
and: contra-distinctive pronouns; for the former,- they
used μου, por; με; for the latter, commonly, ἐμοῦ, ἐμοὶ;

ἐμέ...

Thus: they would say, δός μοι ἄρτον, where the’

sense of ior is not-opposed to any other thing or person3:
but ἐμσὶ dd¢ doroy,- οὐκ' ἐκείνῳ, when ἐμοὶ is opposed to
ἐκείνῳ. A's instances of this kind, where certain words’
either retain or lose their accentual mark according to
their sense and position, are frequent in our best printed’
copies of all Greek authors, their * editors are justified’
ineither giving or‘ omitting their‘ marks, by the authority:
of the best grammarianis of antiquity, + Apollonius, { He-
rodian, Aclius’ Dionysius;, Charax, Cheeroboscus, and

|| Priscian.

In considering the case of the ancient accents, I have’
mentioned chiefly the acute, because itis the use of’

that solely to which'exceptions have been made.

The:

grave being only the’ privation οὗ an‘acute; and the’

* Thus with good: reason and pro-
priety Σὲ is accented in St. Paul to the
Romans, xi. 18. Oded τὴν ῥίζαν βαστά-
ζεις, ἀλλ᾽ ἡ ῥίζα BE.“ You donot bear
the root, but the root bears Thee;’ So
in Homer, Iliad. I. v. 610.

5.7 f 7
οὐδὲ τί σε 'χρὴ
τὸν φιλέειν, ἵγα μὴ μοὶ ἀπέχθηαι φιλέοντι.

Onwhich the Schol. Victorian: well ob=
serves: Μοὶ ἐχρῆν ogSorovely, ἵγα ἀντιδὶ-
ἀστέλληται ᾿Αγαμέμνονι. For Achilles
here says to his friend and governor
Phoenix : ‘ You ought not to shew this
regard for hint [Agamemnon] by which
yon may lose that love and regard
which J have for you.”

+ Synt. lib. i. ο. 3. lib. ii. 13. 15,16,
17,18. lib. iv.c. 1, 2. et seq.

$ See the tracts σσερὶ τῶν ἐγκλινοῤῥένων

of Herodian, AX]. Dionysius, Charax,
and Cheroboscus, in the Thesaurus of
Aldus.

|| Apid Grecos alia sunt demonstra~
tivorum pronominum absolata, ulia dis-
eretiva. Absoluta dicuntur, que non
egent alterius adjuwnctione persone, que
ἐγκλιτικὰ, id est, inclinativa apud illos
Discre-
tiva ‘sunt, que egent adjunctione alia-
TUM —personarum, que oedorovodmeve vo-
Apud
nos autem pronomina eadem et absoluta
εἴ discretiva sunt. Putsch. p. 1062, 3.
See also the Hermes of Mr. Harris, to
whom we may justly apply his own ‘
words on Apollonius, declaring him

Suntyut εἶδέν poe, Ἐχώλη δ ἔν peor.

cant, ut, εἶδον ἐμὲ, οὐκ ἐκεῖνον.

* one of the acutest authors who ever
wrote on the subject of grammar.”
Bet? etd.

170 ESSAY ON

circumflex being only joined with long syllables, have
not met with the same objections, but peaceably enjoyed
the place assigned them by grammarians. On this head,
however, I cannot but add, that this circumstance of
the circumflex mark being affixed only to long syllables,
is a thing that much favours my opinion. Had this,
which consists of an acute and a grave, marking an ele-
vation and sinking of the voice on the same syllable,
and, consequently, requiring a double measure of time
for that purpose; had this, I say, been ever found placed
on ashort syllable, I should immediately renounce it as
inconsistent with quantity, and deny its right and claim
to antiquity. But as it always is joined with a long
time, its strict propriety and consistency in that respect
is at least one inducement to think well of the two other
parts of the accentual system, the acute and grave.

Again: as we are assured by Cicero, Quinctilian, and
other old writers, that the ancient acute tone did al-
ways lie within the compass of the three last syllables of
words ; had the modern marks ever exceeded that com-
pass, by being fixed on the fourth or fifth of polysyllables
from the end, that would have been an insuperable ob-
jection against them in such a place. But since they
are actually now seen in a position that is strictly con-
formable’to the oldest and best accounts of the tones
themselves, which they denote, they have from that cir-
cumstance in their favour a presumptive proof of their
propriety and faithfulness.

But it appears from some Greeks of later ages, that
the accents of some particular words have been different
at different times: and, therefore, we have no certainty
that the marks of any words at present are faithful.
But how is this inferred? Suidas and others say that
certain words were accented differently in their time
from the manner in which they were some ages before.
That is, the actual pronunciation of those words was
altered in a course of years, as it is in some words, I
believe, in all languages: the accentual marks, which
followed the actual pronunciation, consequently were

ACCENT AND QUANTITY. 1:77

altered with it: and in both positions were true and
proper. Among ourselves the word ally was four or
five years ago pronounced as an oxytone ally‘; and
any grammarian, who had then fixed the acute mark on
the last syllable would have done right: now, by many
persons of very good sense, the same word is pronounced
as a barytone, ally; and a grammarian who should
now place an acute mark on the first syllable would do
right too. The variation of the tonical apices does there-
fore no more disprove the existence of the varied tones
themselves, than the main stream of a river shifting
from one side of the channel to another disproves the
real existence of the current at different times on both
sides. Had the variation of the accentual signs ever
been such as to have fixed a circumflex mark on a short
syllable, or an acute on any syllable beyond the antepe-
nultimate, that being contrary to the nature of the Greek
tones themselves, as founded partly in reason, and de-
clared by Dionysius, such an alteration would have been
just matter of objection against our virgule: but the al-
teration, * circumstanced as it is, affords none at all.

The accent might vary not only at different times, but
at the same time in different places, as hath been men-
tioned in a foregoing chapter, and may be more fully
seen in H. Steph. Dialect. Attic. c. 15. de Orthographia
Attica.

I acknowledge that Eustathius and the author of
Etymologicum M. say, that polysyllables in ovoc and ovoy
were once circumflexed on the penultimate, though the

* The Latin accent varied in like without doubt, just and right when he
manner. In the word Valeri it was made it: nor does Gellius mean to
changed between the time of Nigidius dispute his authority, for he calls him
and A. Gellius. Nigidius said it was on this very occasion “ hominem in
acuted on the first syllable: Gellius disciplinis doctrinaram omnium pre-

afterwards says: “sic quidem Nigidi- _cellentem.’’ Noct. Att. xiii. 25. And
us dici pracipit: sed si quis nwnc Va- Dr. Bentley, on the same subject,
lerium appellans, in casu vocandi, se- speaks of him by the name of “ Ro-
cundam id preceptum Nigidii acuerit manorum ἃ Varrone doctissimus,” not.
primam, non aberit quin rideatur.” ad Ter. Andr, ii, 1. 20.

And yet the remark of Nigidius was,
N

78 _ ESSAY ON

later Attics acuted the antepenultimate: I know that the
same authors, with Suidas and the scholiast on Aristo-
phanes say, that the old Attics circumflexed the penulti-
mate of some words in aov, which others acuted on the
antepenuliimate. I will not dispute the truth of these
observations, and will agree with Dr. G., that the accent
was by those old Attics placed agreeable to quantity.
But then I must insist, that it was equally agreeable to
quantiiy, as used by later Attics on the antepenultimate,
and that this latter method was not a corrupt one. For
who are these μεταγενέστεροι and νεώτεροι τῶν ᾿Αττικῶν ? not
writers of a low age and baser note, but those of the
highest character ; and though posterior in age, yet equal
in authority with οἱ παλαιοὶ ᾿Αττικοί. Among the later
Attics are found the great names of Plato, Xenophon,
Aristotle, Isocrates, the Orators, Menander, and after
them Dionysius Halic., Josephus, Philo Judzus, Plu-
tarch, Diogenes Laertius, and others. We surely must not
call their Greek corrupt, though differing in some respect
from that of the old Aitics, Thucydides, the great tragic
writers, and some authors of the old comedy. Persons,
when they meet with the words οἱ νεώτεροι, μεταγενέστεροι,
or Ἕλληνες, are apt to annex some idea of barbarism to
them, especially when opposed to the οἱ παλαιοί. Thus
Dr. G. calls the μεταγενέστεροι ᾿Αττικοὶ * moderns. But
this is a mistaken notion: since some of the best writers,
whose works are now extant, belong to this class. Which
thing is clearly explained by J. Pierson, in his preface
to Moeris Atticista.+

I think it a matter of indifference to my argument,

* Page 145. Adde eundem in Διωπηνηκίσαι,. Moeri-

+ P. 26, 27, seq. Dr. Taylor also in dem in Πλύνω. Asivuct. Χολάδας. et schol.

Ind. Attic. ad Lysiam, speaking of the
style of his author, says, after Dionys.
Halicarn. “ non eo uti Attice seribendi
genere [Lysiam] quo Thucydides
verum dialecto recentiori

Atticam
novam memorat Laertius in Epimenide,
Suidas ἴῃ Απτεσθαι, utramque (novam
sc, et antiquiorem) idem in Τρόπαια.

Aristoph, Plut. 514.553. Ita Iadem
novam et antiquam meminit aliquoties
schol. Apollon. Rhodii ; Doricam dupli-
cem Prolegomena ad Theocritum.” See
also Valcken. ad Pheniss. ν. 1395. and
Bernard ad Thomam Mag. V- Λογίους.
Dr. Bentl. Dissert. on Phal. p. 401,
&e,

ACCENT AND QUANTITY. 178

whether the old Attics did circumflex those long penulti-
mates mentioned above, or no. But certainly it was not
universal. The word ἔρημος, though circumflexed in
Homer on the penultimate, was acuted on the antepe-
nultimate by the *Attics. Porphyry, as cited by Dr. + G.,
says the same of ὅμοιος. And one of much higher au-
thority, Meeris 1 says, Γέλοιον, βαρυτόνως, ᾿Αττικῶς. Te
λοῖον, προπερισπωμένως, “Ἑλληνικῶς.

A cannot dismiss this subject of the variation of ac-
cent in particular words, without observing, that the
very mention of it by the old grammarians as a peculi-
arity, is an implicit proof, that the main part of their
language both among the old Attics and the later Greeks
was intone the same. It is taken notice of as a singu-
larity, and therefore no argument can be drawn from it
to the variation of the tone in general.

To return to quantity: so far are the present marks
from being inconsistent with it, that their position is in
most cases regulated by the quantity of the subsequent
syllables, of the ultimate in Greek, as of the penultimate
in Latin (the veason of this difference I shall no more
inquire into, than why the Pallium difiered from the
Toga ): so that these marks are frequently of use in lead-
ing us to the knowledge of quantity, by tracing the cause
through the effect. That the accent of the Romans is
regulated by the quantity of the penultimate, hath been
shewn above. That among the Greeks it was directed
by the ultimate, I may affirm on the authority of Zlius
Dionysius, to whom Vossius refers us for information
in these points: who, in § Eustathius, says of nouns of
the second declension ending in a pure, of παλαιοὶ ᾿Αττικοὶ
ἐξέτεινον τὰς τῶν τοιούτων ὀνομάτων ληγούσας. ΔΙῸ καὶ
παρώξυναν αὐτά. ἀγνοία γὰρ ἔλεγον, καὶ “ἡ εὐκλεία, κ- τ΄ X.
“The ancient Attics made the final a of such words long;
Wherefore they acuted their penultima: and said dyvoia,
evkActa,’ &c. And it would be difficult to assign a rea-

* Etymolog. Mag. in the word éen- 1 Ed. Pierson. p. 109. _
μος. ' ᾧ Odyss. H. p. 284. See also ϑο]οὶ,
t Page 115. ad Eurip. Orest. ν. 261.

180 ESSAY ON

son, why the quantity of the ultimate should not be as
much regarded in this case, as that of the penultimate.
I offer not this use of our marks in discovering the
quantity of the following syllables as a thing of any
great utility, but only as a fact: neither do I choose to
mention another use of them, which has been sometimes
urged in their favour, that they serve to distinguish the
different senses of homonymous words; because it is
certain this difference may be discerned without any
such helps. Other languages have words, which ex-
press at different times, without any difference of ac-
cent, not only different, but sometimes opposite ideas:
and yet the particular meaning of them in a sentence
may with common attention be collected easily from the
context. The consideration therefore of accentual marks,
as being necessary * on such occasions, I readily wave,

* The best Greek grammarians
themselves do certainly distinguish
very often the different signification of
homonymous words by their different
accent. Ammonius has done this ina
great number, Meeris in some, and
Eustathius in many. H. Stephens has
printed in his Gr. Thes. Append. a large
collection of such words from Cyrillus,
In his tract “" de bene

instituendis Gr. ling. studiis,” p.53, he

or Philoponus.

gives a particular instance of amislake,
occasioned by not attending to accen-
tual marks, in confounding the three
words διαβαλὼν, διαβαλῶν, and διαβολῶν
in a passage οἵ the Euthyphron of
Plato: and observes upon it ““ tanti
refert discrimen, quod tales notulz hic
constituunt, novisse.”—See also p. 54,
55, of the same piece. The famous
Alberti in Peric. Crit. p. 57. has in-
geniously corrected Hesychius in V.
αἰνὸν, by pointing out the passage in
Odyss. Φ. 110,which the author quotes :
from whence it appears that the person,
who inserted that article in the lexicon,
was led into an error by not knowing

the different accent of αἶνος, and αἰνὸν,
and so confounded together two words
But still,
as Apollonius with his usual good sense

of a different signification.

observes, χρὴ μέντοι τὸν νοῦν ὑπερείσαν-
rac, μὴ διὰ τοῦ τόνου διδάσκεσθαι, διὰ δὲ
ποῦ παρεπομιένου λόγου. καθάπερ καὶ ἀπ᾽
ἄλλων ἀπείρων ἀμφιβόλων διακρίσεις σιαρέ-
movras ἐκ τῶν ἐπακολουθούντων τοῖς λόγοις,
οὐκ ἐξ ἐγκλίσεων, οὐδὲ ἐξ ὀρθῶν τάσεων.
“« Veruntamen oportet nos attentius ani-
mum advertentes, non tenore tantum,
sed oralione consequenti hoc dignoscere.
Nam alia quoque ambiguitates imnume-
rabiles, non tenore aut inclinatione, sed
oratione consequenti dignoscuntur.”—
Syntax. lib. it. c. 20.

The Chinese, we are told, have no
mark of accent, though they have ho-
monymous words, that signify five dif-
ferent things according to their differ-
ent pronunciation. ‘ Ya pro diverso
accentu (says an author speaking of
the Chinese language) quinque signi-
ficat: stwporem, excellentem, unserem,
mutum, dentem. Ba incolis regni Tan-
quin pro pronunciationis diversitate

ACCENT AND QUANTITY. 181

and rather confine myself here to this single point and
question, ‘‘ whether these marks are faithful notations
of the ancient tones.”

Notwithstanding the reluctance of Vossius, Henni-
nius, and thousands after them, to admit the acute as
compatible with a short time ; if I could have them near
me with a flute in my hand, or rather with an organ be-
fore us, I would engage to convince them of the con-
sistency of these two. I would take any two keys next
to each other, one of which would consequently give a
sound lower than the other: suppose the word ἀειδε be-
fore us, or apoveay; both which words Vossius would
circumflex on the penultimate, instead of giving an acute
to the first, according to our present marks: I would
conformably to these marks just touch the higher key
for the initial a, and take my finger off immediately, and
then touch the lower key, on which I would dwell
longer than I did on the higher, and that would give me
a grave with a long time for the syllable εἰ ; the same
lower key I would just touch again and instantly leave
it, which would give me a grave with a short time for
δὲ: ἄειδε. Now if this can be done ona wind instrument,
within the narrow compass of two notes, it may be done
by the organs of human speech, which are of the nature
of a wind instrument, in ordinary pronunciation. For the
sounds of our voice in common speech differ from those
of such musical instruments, not in quality, but in arith-
metical discrete quantity or number only, as hath been
observed before, and is confirmed by the decisive judg-
ment of that nice and discerning critic, Dionysius of
Halicarnassus. Here then is, to demonstration, an acute
tone consistent with a short time, and a grave tone with
a long one.

The notes used in ordinary discourse, are, according
to Dionysius, nearly as five, we ἔγγιστα, not insisting ri-

septuplicis est significationis.’—J. Si- ο. 27. Confer. Kircher. China illustr.

mon. introduct. Gramm. Crit. sect. ii. P.i. ce. 3.

182 ESSAY ON

gorously on musical exactness ; the acute not rising, nor
the grave sinking, more than three tones and a half.*
Certain it is, that with five notes of his voice, duly
varied and combined, a man may pronounce very har-
moniously; many, I believe, do it with four or three;
some, perhaps, with fewer. The words of Dionysius
are, + Διαλέκτου μὲν οὖν μέλος ἑνὶ μετρεῖται διαστήματι, τῷ
λεγομένῳ διὰ πέντε, ὡς ἔγγιστα, καὶ οὔτε ἐπιτείνεται πέρα τῶν
τριῶν τόνων καὶ ἡμιτονίου ἐπὶ τὸ ὀξύ" οὔτε ἀνίεται τοῦ χωρίου
τούτου πλεῖον ἐπὶ τὸ βαρύ. By διάστημα here is meant the
difference or distance between any number of sounds in
lowness and height. Aristoxenus | in his first book of
harmonics defines διάστημα as distinguished from φθόγ-
yoo: “φθόγγος, (says he,)is a simple sound or single

note; διάστημα 15 formed by two different tones.”

* The intent of the fistula eburneola
(as it is called by Cicero), or the τονό-
ριον (according to Quinctilian) applied
by Gracchus, in his pleadings and ha-
rangues, was lo confine the voice with-
in its proper degree of elevation and
(There is reason to think
that the Roman compass of tones was
somewhat less than the Greek.) And
what was the consequence of this nice
attention of Gracchus to the modula-
tion of his speech? What Quinctilian
relates in his eleventh book, where he

depression.

is shewing the eflicacy of pronuncia-
tion: ‘ Eadem [pronanciatione] C.
Gracchum, in deflenda fratris nece, to-
tius populi Romani lJacrymas conci-
tasse.”
its office, as regulating the tones or ac-
cent.—Cic. de Orat. lib. iii. 60. And
Quinct. lib. i, cap.10, ‘Sed ne hee
quidem prasumenda pars est: ut uno

The word τονόριον points out

interim contenti simus exemplo C,
Gracchi, precipui suorum temporum
oratoris, cui concionanti consistens post
eum musicus, fistula, quam τονόριον vo-
cant, modos, quibus deberet intevdi,

ministrabat. Hee οἱ cura inter turbi-

Φωνὴ

dissimas actiones, vel terrenti optima-
The word

intendo used here exactly answers the

tes, vel jam timenti fuit.”

word ἐπιτείνω of Aristoxenus and Dio-

nysius. Cicero, having mentioned the

fistula of Gracchus, in some following

lines observes, ‘* Est quiddam conten-
ticnis extremum, quod tamen interius
est quam acutissimus clamor, quo te
fistula progredi non sinet, et tamen ab
ipsa contenlione revocabit. Est item
contra quiddam in remissione gravissi-
mum, quoque tanquam sonorum gradi-
bus descenditur, Hee varietas, et bic
per omnes sonos vocis cursus, el se
tuebitur, et actioni afferet suavitatem.”
In a preceding part of the same book,
where he is speaking of the modes of
sound, he says, “ hi sunt actori, ut
pictori, expositi ad variandum colores.”

+ Περὶ cuvS. st. In communi sermone
vocis modulation wno ut plurimum mensu-
ratur intervallo, dicto Diapente : itu ut
neque plus tribus tonis cum dimidio in-
tendatur ad acutum, neque majore spa-
tio ad gravem deprimatur,

1 Page 15,

ACCENT AND QUANTITY. 183

διαστηματικὴ is therefore the voice varied and modulated
by elevation, depression, and inflexion. The same ex-
pression of διάστημα and διαστηματικὴ runs through the
other old musical writers, collected by Meibomius, in the
same sense. Euclides, the second in that collection,
defines it in the same manner with Aristoxenus; Φθόγγος
ἐστὶ φωνῆς πτῶσις ἐμμελὴς, ἐπὶ μίαν τάσιν. Διάστημα δὲ τὸ
περιεχόμενον ὑπὸ δύο φθόγγων ἀνομοίων ὀξύτητι καὶ [βαρύ-
tye: “ the διάστημα is comprehended within two sounds
unlike, and differing in height and lowness.” The very
same is in Bacchius. So Gaudentius; φωνῆς ἐστι τόπος,
ἐκ βαρύτητος ἐπὶ ὀξύτητα διάστημα, καὶ ἀνάπαλιν : he then
shews how this διάστημα takes place in ordinary dis-
course: οἱ μὲν ἐν τῇ λογικῇ, καθ᾽ ἣν. ἀλλήλοις διαλεγόμεϑα,
φθόγγοι συνεχεῖς ἑαυτοῖς τὸν τόπον τοῦτον διεξέρχονται, ρύσει
τινὶ πεπονθότα παραπλήσιον, ἐπὶ τὸ ὀξὺ, καὶ ἀνάπαλιν, οὐκ ἐπὶ
μιᾶς ἱστάμενοι τάσεως. ‘These sounds in our talking and
conversing together, pass through this διάστημα, in a
close and gentle manner, not unlike the continuity of a
stream, shifting from high to low, and not fixing on one
tone.” ‘There is much more in Gaudentius to the very
same purpose. Martianus Capella* says of diastema,
that it is “‘ Vocis spatium, quo acuta et gravior includi-
tur.” Wecannot but clearly see by this, what is the
διάστημα Of the διαλέκτου μέλος in Dionysius.

A musical reader may not be unwilling to see the ge-
neral doctrine of the Greek philosophical musicians, in
regard to the distinction of sounds, briefly stated. Their
first division is the natural one into high and low tones,
κατ᾽ ὀξύτητα καὶ apiryra, by their τόποι διαστηματικοὶ, their

* De Nupt. Philolog. lib. ix. p.185.
edit. Meibom. See also H. Steph.
Thes. ling, Greece. tom. i. c. 1757.
1796. on διάστημα. Virgil expresses
the διάστημα by discrimen. Ain. vi. 646.

“‘ Obloquitur numeris septem discri-
~
mina yocum.”
“ Discrimina (says Servius on the pas-
sage) quia omnes chord dissimiliter

sonant.” Intervallum and spatium are
the two terms which are most com-
monly used by the Romans as corres-
ponding with Atacrnua. Cicero thus
often applies intervalium: and St. Aus-
lin, on the subject of music; where,
with the exactest propriely he says,
Ω3 numerositatis, quee temporum atque
intervallorum dimensionibus movetur.”

De Music. lib. i.

184 ESSAY ON

situation according to their several degrees of elevation
and depression. Then comes in the χρόνος, the duration
of any one of these tones. Afterwards follows the di-
vision of them into organical and vocal sounds: the or-
ganical are discrete and separate, having all a sensible,
however small an interval between each other, so that
the end of one tone does not by continuation join the be-
ginning of another : wherefore they are said ἵστασθαι, con-
sistere,non profluere. 'The vocal sounds are in this respect
very different, not necessarily divided from each other
by intervals, but συνεχεῖς, continentes, connected so very
closely together, particularly in speaking, as to run one
into the other, like colours in a rainbow, being indeed
each of them infinitely divisible: and accordingly the
human voice can make a more minute subdivision of
tones, than any instrument could in the time of Aristoxe-
nus. He says this had been remarked by no one before
himself.* I do not know that he distinguishes between
No one

* πρῶτον μὲν οὖν ἁτσάντων τὴν τῆς pw- movement is of two kinds.

γῆς κίνησιν διοριστέον, τὴν κατὰ τόπον. οὐ

cs ‘ 7 ~ ~
γὰρ εἷς πρότσος αὐτῆς ὧν τυγχάνει. κινεῖται
μὲν γὰρ, καὶ διαλεγομένων ἡμῶν, καὶ με-

, Ν 7 ΄ , ΕΣ Ν Ν
λωδούντων, τὴν εἰρημένην κίγησιν. ὀξὺ γὰρ καὶ
βαρὺ δῆλον, ὡς ἐν ἀμφοτέροις τούτοις ἐστίν.

> x Ν᾽ « x , 2a oF
αὐτὴ δέ ἐστιν h κατὰ τόπον, καθ᾽ ἣν ὀξύ τε
καὶ βαρὺ γίνεται. ἀλλ᾽ ov ταυτὸ εἶδος τῆς
, ε , > ’ὕ > ~ > J

χιγήσεως ἑκατέρας ἐστίν. ἐπιμελῶς δ᾽ οὖ-
δενὶ πώποτε γεγένηται wept τοῦτο διορίσαι,
τίς ἑκατέρας αὐτῶν ἣ διαφορά. καί τοι τού-
σου μὴ διορισθέντος, οὐ πάνυ ῥάδιον εἰπεῖν
περὶ φθόγγου, τί πποτέ ἔστιν. Harmon.
lib. i. p. 3. First then we must deter-
mine the movement of the voice in re-
gard to place, or tone. The manner of
For it

shifts its place, as hath been said, both

it is not in all cases the same.

when we speak, and when we sing :
high and low evidently taking place in
both these cases. Now the place of
the voice is determined by its particu-
lar situation in regard to elevation and

depression. But the manner of its

hath yet with sufficient accuracy re-
marked the particular difference of
And yet except
this is distinguished, it will not be easy

these two motions.

to treat clearly of sounds.”

After Aristoxenus, the difference be-
tween the φωνὴ διαστηματικὴ and συνε-
χὴς is mentioned by many: by none
with more clearness and elegance, than

by Aristides Quintilianus. Τῆς δὲ κινή-

σεως ἡ μὲν συνεχὴς, ἣ δὲ διαστηματική"
συνεχὴς μμὲν οὖν ἐστι φωνὴ, h τάς τε ἀγέσεις
καὶ τὰς ἐπιτάσεις λεληθότως διὰ τὸ τάχος

ποιουμένη" διαστηματικὴ δὲ, h τὰς μὲν

Ν 3, c \ Lt τὶ
τάσεις φανερὰς ἔχουσα. ἡ μὲν οὖν συν-

εχής ἔστιν ἣ διαλεγόμεθα. ““ Motuum
vero, hic quidem continuus, ille vero
intervallis discretus. Continua igilur
vox est, qu et remissiones ad gravi-
tatem, et intensiones ad acumen laten-
ter ac celeriter facit: intervallis vero

discreta, qu tonorum distinctionem

manifestam habet Continua au-

ACCENT AND QUANTITY. 185

vocal tones used in singing and discourse in such a man-
ner, as to ascertain the particular number of them com-
monly used in speech, as Dionysius hath done. But this
exactness was certainly the business of the rhetorician
rather than of the musician. Aristoxenus, however, and
those who wrote on the same subject after him, speak
of the high and low tones used in common speech, by
the name of λογῶδες μέλος, λογικαὶ τάσεις. Διαλεγομένων
γὰρ ἡμῶν οὕτως ἡ φωνὴ κινεῖται κατὰ τόπον, ὥστε μηδαμοῦ
δοκεῖν ἵστασθαι. δ And in like manner the other musical
writers. The application of all this to our present pur-
pose is obvious, and hath been already made.

As there are but three ‘places in which the accentual
mark at present appears, so there may be three cases
put, to one of which every exception, that has ever been
made to our accents, may be referred. And if the po-
sition of the mark in these three cases can be explained
and justified, every objection to them is answered at
once.

I. It appears often on the last syllable, as in θεός.
This is disliked by many of my opponents. Henninius

tem ea est, qua loquimur.”— De Music.
lib, i. p. 7. And to the same purpose
Porphyry, Hypomn. ad Harm. Ptolem.
ο. 1. p. 194.

The flexibility of the voice, I am in-
clined to think, was meant by Virgilin
his expression of ‘ude vocis iter,” (Aun.
vii. 533.) and I therefore rather follow
Germanus on the passage, explaining
it flewilem et cirewmactilem, than Ser-
vius when he says, “‘ Hoc est udum
vocis iter.” In thus applying udus,
Virgil might intend to follow the Greeks
in their sense of ὑγρὸς, which signifies
flexible as well as moist. Ὑγρὸν, μιαλακόν.
Heysch.Tryphiod. v.79. calls the back
of the wooden horse ὑγρὴν, flexilem,
where his learned editor observes that
Pindar thus uses ὑγρὸν γῶτον, Pyth. 1.17.

and Theocritus πέρας ὑγρόν. xxv. 206.
It is certain Virgil understood ὑγρὸν
ἄκανθον of Theocritus thus, for he trans-
lates it, ‘“ flexi vimen acanthi.” The
flexile ingenium of Hyperides is cha-
racterized in Longinus by the words
ὑγρὸν πνεῦμα. Kal γὰρ μαλακίζεται
καὶ ov ππώντα ἑξῆς καὶ MONOTO-
ΝΩΣ λέγει καὶ ἐν ὝΓΡΩΣι πνεύ-
ματι διεξοδεῦσαι ἔτι ΕὟ ΚΑΜΠῊΣ ἄκρως.
“« Etenim mollis est, neque omnia uno
ac simili tenore dicit—et cum facili
versutilique spiritu ad digrediendum
maxime flexilis.” Sect. xxxiy. See also
Mr. Heath on Soph, Antig. 1250. Eurip.
Phen. 1448.

* Lib. i. p. 9. ““ Loquentibus enim
nobis ita vow movetur secundum locum,
ut nullibi videatur consistere.”

186 ESSAY ΟΝ

roundly declares it wrong, and says it should be ac-
cented thus, θέος, according to his (2. 6. the Roman) rule,
“that dissyllables should be accented on the former
syllable.” |

But let us now consider the position of the Greek ac-
cent on the last, either simply as a fact, or as grounded
in reason. As a fact, itis necessarily implied by Quinc-
tilian, and expressly declared by other writers of the best
note, Athenzus,* Trypho, Ammonius, Meeris, +Apollo-
nius, Herodianus, and others. And to judge of it by
reason or the nature of vocal sound, do we ourselves
perceive any reason { against it in our own language,
where oxytones are very numerous, or in the French,
where they are almost general? But though we are sure,
we do now pronounce a great number of words with
the accent on the last, yet perhaps a thousand years
hence, when our language may be read and studied as a
dead one, some Henninius of those later ages, who shall
form rules of general pronunciation on those of a parti-
cular language, may say, “it is impossible the old Eng-
lish should pronounce the word regréé with an acute on
the last, when it is so much more natural, for obvious
reasons, they should have pronounced it as a barytone,

* See what is cited from him above
inc. vi. Again in lib. xiv. p. 644. we
have, περισπαστέον δὲ λέγοντας πλακοῦς
σὴν ὀνομιαστικήν. Posterior vocis TAaxovs
syllaba, nominandi casu, accentu circum-
Jlewa notatur.

+ He tells us (Synt. p. 105. ο. 5.
lib. ii.) that pronouns used demrnds
with the final : added, as οὑτοσὶ, ἐκεινοσὶ,
have the Jast syllable acuted. So p.329.
he says, adverbs ending in εἰ are cir-
cumflexed, as mov πεῖ, αὐτοῦ avret.
Herodian περὶ μεγώλου ῥήματος (p. 191.
Ald, Thes.) inquires, διατί τὸ pace με-
τοχὴ βαρύνεται, τὸ δὲ ῥῆμα φασὶν ὀξύνεται.
x... I can never believe that Ho-
mer (Iliad. X. 57.) would write Teadas

καὶ Τρώας : but Tpaag καὶ Τρωὰς, as

it stands now, has variety and har-
mony.

1 ““ Ulud tamen miror, quid ita Fa-
bius et Romani omnes acui vocem fu-
gerint in fine. Greeci aliter, ut scimus;
sed et natura. Que eniin res, aut ratio
me vetat vocem tollere finientem, zque
ac ordientem? Nulla. nec illi ipsi prae-
tores nostri causam interdicti sui aliam
attulerint, praeter noluisse.” Lipsius de
pronunt. ling. Lat. c. 20. The reasoning
of Scaliger (ling. Lat. c. 58.) against
a final syllable being acuted, on the sup-
position that the rising of the voice re-
quired a fall in the same word, is con-
tradicted strongly both by the nature
of vocal sound, and by practice.

ACCENT AND QUANTITY. 187
régret.” This is the style of reasoning among many
persons on the Greek language.

Il. The acute appears often on the short penultima
of a polysylable, as in δευτέρου, Σωκράτην. And our
reformers would in all these cases bring it back to the
antepenultima, δεύτερου, ΣΣώκρατην, as in Latin médximos,
déminos, Socratem.* But its former position is attested,
not to mention numberless other authorities, by Teren-
tianus Maurus above, and by + Apollonius, who says
πλησίος is acuted on the penultima.

But is there then any reason against it? Dr. G. says,
that as there are allowed to be three times in the thesis
after the arsis, ‘‘ two of these three may be either in the
penultimate or the last.”"{ Agreed. But though there
should be no more than three times in the fall, must
there be no less? There surely may be only one, as in
defend. If there must be three, wherever there can, and
two of these three may be either in the ultimate or penul-
timate, then I may as well say to him, in objection to’
his Latin accent, “ why should not defende be acuted
thus, défende ? there are but three times in the thesis
here, and according to your own account, two of these
three may be in the penultimate.” Thus I might use his
reasoning : but Γ willnot, being convinced, that to argue
from one language to another is in many cases a most

* Not but even in Latin we have wrote.— Noct. Atlic. xiii. 25. and

instances of the short penullima being
in this case accented. So Servius says,
and he well knew. “ Merciri, Domiti,
Ovidi: tertia a fine debuit habere ac-
eenlum, quia, penultima brevis est:
sed constat hac nomina apocopen per-
tulisse: nam apud majores erat idem
vocativus gui et nominalivus; ut hic
Merctrius, ὃ Merctirius. unde cit licet
brevis sit, etiam post apocopen, suum
servataccentum.” ad Ain. I. 451. Thus
we learn from A. Gellius that the se-
cond syllable of the vocative case,
Valéri, was acated in his time, though
the first was acuted when Nigidius

Bentl. not. ad Terent. Andr. 11. 20.

t Synt. p. 60. edit. Sylburg. And
Athenzus, lib. ix. p. 388.0n the word
᾿Ατταγᾶς. Περισπῶσι δ᾽ οἱ ᾿Αττικοὶ παρὰ
τὸν ὀρθὸν λόγον τοὔνομα. τὰ γὰρ εἰς ἃς
λήγοντα ἐκτεταμένον, ὑπὲρ δύο συλλαβὰς,
ὅτε ἔχει τὸ ἃ παραλῆγον, βαρύτονά ἐστιν,
οἷον, ἀκάδας, ἀδάμας, ἀκάμας. Circum=
Jiectunt in ultima hance voeem Alticipre-
ter justum rationem. ‘Nam polysyllaba
in ὡς longum desinentia, cum hubent ain
penultima, barytona sunt, ut anddas,
ἀδάμας, ἀκέμας.

+ Dissert. p. 43.

188 ESSAY ON

fallacious method. At present we pronounce the words
contriver, sollicit, as paroxytones. <A future reformer
may say, “it is absurd to suppose, that the ancient
English placed the accent on the penultimate of these
words. Do not céntriver, sédllicitt sound as harmonious ?
Certainly they do. And besides, the accent in the ante-
penultimate here is more agreeable to quantity. The
accenting therefore of these and other such words on
the penultimate cannot be founded in the rules of reason,
harmony, analogy, or quantity.”

IIL. The Greek acute is frequently seen on the ante-
penultimate, when the penultimate is long, as in ἄειδε,
τύραννος, ἄρουρα, ὅμοιος. In all such cases our oppo-
nents would (in order to make the accent agree with
quantity, as they call it) remove it, according to Quinc-
tilian’s rule for the Roman tones, to the penultimate,
aide, apovpa, τυράννος, ὁμοῖος. But what occasion is
there for this? Its position on the antepenultimate,
though followed immediately by a long syllable, is cer-
tain as a fact from Apollonius, * who says ἄκουρος was
acuted on the antepenultima. And if we consider it
according to Dr. G.’s rules of reason or harmony, we
may justify it even by them. Since he appeals to these
rules, Lam very ready to try the case by them.

é
Καὶ δὴ ταλάντῳ μουσικὴ σταθμήσεται.

He says “ that two times of three in the thesis may be
either in the penultimate, or in the last ;” 1 admit it. And
if he will abide by his own effatum, he must acknowledge
_ there is nothing in the ratio of harmony against the acute
in the first of ἄειδε, τύραννος, &e. The arsis here has but
three falling times following it, and two of them are in
the penuliimate, as allowed by himself. Why then so
much pains taken through the latter pages of his book

* Apollon. Syat. p. 60. as cited be- —_ gives instances of it in κάθηται, ἀνάώκει-
- . , ͵
fore, and likewise p. 323, where hav- ται, σύνειμει, σύνφημειι, σύνοιδα, κώτελθε,
ing said that 10 is usual for compound πκατάβαλλε, καὶ ἄλλα πλεῖστα.

words to draw back their accent, he

ACCENT AND QUANTITY. 189

to remove the accent from the first to the second sylla-
ble of such words as γέλοιος, ἄγροικος, ἕτοιμος, &e.? They
have nothing more than he has before admitted.

At present we pronounce crielty, honesty, sépulchre,
as pro-paroxytones. Some future reformer of the Eng-
lish old tones may say, ‘‘ it is hardly possible to con-
ceive the old English should accent the first syllables of
these and many other such werds. Is it not more har-
monious to place the accent on the second syllables,
cruélty, honésty, sepilchre ? it certainly is; and there is
no doubt, but if we could recover, what the gramma-
rians under George the Third wrote on this subject, we
should find that all such words were accented on the
penultimate.” ‘This is exactly the language of Vossius
and his followers.

To argue against the present position of the Greek
accent from its want of harmony at first to our ears,
which have been accustomed to the Latin accent, is in-
deed a plausible and popular, but very treacherous kind
of reasoning. ‘The harmony of all pronunciation is a
relative thing, depending much on habit. What is habi-
tual and therefore harmonious to a French, will often be
unharmonious, because unusual, to an English ear. It
may be so at first with the Greek accents in respect to
us. I well know, that Scaliger, who admits them, ac-
cording to their present marks, as genuine, yet thinks
that in some cases their position is absurd. But the
proper way of examining this thing is, not to consider
what it should be, but to find out, if possible, what the
pronunciation of the Greeks was: if we can find that,
we may be sure it was harmonious to them, and will be
so to us after some practice. I say, to us, though fo-
reigners: for the Romans were so; and to them we are
sure, not only that it was agreeable, but even more
pleasing than the accent of their own language, accord-
ing to the testimony of Quinctilian himself.

Some have endeavoured to prove it unharmonious by
reasoning on the proportion of times in the arsis and
thesis. Itis known there are allowed three measures of

190 ESSAY ΟΝ

time in the thesis after the arsis. In Greek, according
to present appearances, two measures out of these three
are not admitted in the ultimate (except in a few parti-
cular cases, as in φιλόγελως and some Attic words), in
Latin the two are there admitted, as in dnimd. Dr. G.
can see noreason, why the two falling measures should
be any more excluded from the ultimate of the Greek,
than of the Latin.* [can only say, they are excluded,
and am satisfied with it without a reason. But if he
insists on having a reason, I will engage to give him one,
when he will assign one to me, why λίθος and not ame
is Greek fora stone. If the languages are two, they
must differ somehow. And accordingly wherever I find
a difference, I acquiesce in it as a thing expected.

Στρεπτὴ yao γλῶσσ᾽ ἐστὶ βροτῶν, πολέες δ᾽ Eve puSor
Παντοῖοι᾽ ἐπέων δὲ πολὺς νομὸς EvSa καὶ ἔνϑα.--- Hom.

His reasoning on the two falling times in the penul-
timate has been shewn above to turn against himself,
and to support that system, which he endeavours to
overthrow.

Lt τ BET Ν ἰδέ = € , ae 4
Ao εὖ τὰν LOEAY TAG αρμονίας ἐμέτρησεν 5

The general sources of the numerous errors in the
writings of my opponents do, on the whole, appear to
be these two: first, an opinion, that the acute is more
agreeable to a long, than to a short time: the second,
an indistinct notion, that the place of the Greek accent
should agree with that of the Roman. For all the alte-
rations proposed by them to reform the present Greek
system, are either in order to transfer the accent from
short syllables, or to accommodate the Greek to the
Latin tones.

* Dissert. p. 43.

ACCENT AND QUANTITY. 191

CPAP X.

How far ancient quantity is observed by those who disregard the accentual marks.

ONE cannot but smile on finding persons, engaged in
the defence of a favourite point, insensibly depart from
those very principles, for which they contend. This is
done by the disputants in the case before us. Quantity
is the thing, to which the enemies of the present system
of accents declare the most inviolable attachment. And
yet this very quantity they do all (most of them with-
out knowing it) most grossly corrupt. This assertion, I
am aware, is very repugnant to the prejudices of many
persons, who have long flattered themselves with an
opinion, that in their pronunciation of Greek and Latin,
they strictly adhere to right quantity, and will therefore
startle at the very mention of their violation of it. Yet
this, { am persuaded, will appear to an attentive English
reader, who shall make trial of a few lines, either in
verse or prose, in any ancient author, with this view. He
will find, I believe, that he pronounceth as long, every
shoré penultima of all dissyllables, and every short ante-
penultima of all polysyllables that have their penultima
short too. Domus, τῦπος will sound either as domus or
dommus, τῶπος OY toTTo¢ : imperium, ῥητὕρικος Will sound
either as impnrium or imperrium, ῥητῶρικος OF ῥητόρρικος.
And thus in all words of a like form, which are very
numerous in both languages, the short vowel, as placed
above, is pronounced, either as if it were long in its
own nature, or as if followed by two consonants. Let
me ask the reader, whether he does not pronounce the
first syllables of the following words, though they have
different quantities, alike, at least with a long time ?

Supeoe, operculum, as κυριος, dominus.
βροτος, mortalis, cruor Ppwroc, comedendus.
Bodog, jactus, —— βῶλος, gleba.

Διὸς, Jovis, “—— wc, divinus.

192 ESSAY ON

latus, adj.
latus, particip.
nota, particip.
velis, subst.
viri, of virus.

latus, subst.

nota, subst.
velis, verb,
viri, of vir,

θυμος, cepa, as θύυμος, animus.
tov, viola, ᾽) ‘
tov, particip. ghee jaculum.
λυκος, lupus, —— λευκος, candidus.
populus, people, —— jpopulus,a tree.
alia, adj. —— alea, subst.
oculi, subst. —— occuli, verb.
calidus, — callidus.
edat, may eat — edat, may utter.
plaga, climate, 2 plaga, a blow.
plage, nets, 4
lego, 2s, — lego, as.
dicam, subst. —— dicam, verb.
caro, subst. —- caro, adj.

In these and a hundred other instances that might be
brought for this purpose, the reader must perceive, that
the long and short penultimates of dissyllables, and an-
tepenultimates of polysyllables, are pronounced alike,
both as long syllables.

On the likeness of sound to a modern ear between
the first syllable of mare, and the second of amdre, is
grounded a piece of criticism of the famous Muretus.
In the miles gloriosus of Plautus, a young Athenian is
introduced, disguised in a sailor’s habit, with a bandage
about one of his eyes, in order to cheat the captain, and
steal his mistress. Being met and asked by the captain,
why he had muiiled up his eye, he says, “1 met with an
accident at sea; had I not been there, I should have
had this eye as sound as the other.”

Maris causa hercle ego hoc utor oculo minus ;
Nam st abstinuissem a mari, tanquam hoc uterer.

ACCENT AND QUANTITY. 193

This is the obvious sense of the passage,and a very
natural one itis. But Muretus is not satisfied with it,
and thinks he sees something moreinit. He supposes
a mari (which he would read a mare) to have been pro-
nounced as amédre, and that there was intended an am-
biguity in the word: “ had I kept clear of love ; or of the
sea.” But this is supposing that the short vowel in
mdre, because it was acuted, sounded to the Romans
like the long circumflexed one in amdre: which I can
never believe; and accordingly look on this refinement
of Muretus asill-grounded. If, however, in this quib-
ble proposed by him, an exact similarity of sound, be-
tween the two syllables ma’ and md, between the long ὦ
and the short initial @ of amare, be not insisted on, his
conjecture may be right, as it is certainly ingenious.*

As an heroic verse consists of six feet, and each of
these feet, whether dacty!s or spondees, contains four
times, in every such verse the times are, grammatically
speaking, twenty-four. Let us see how many, according
to our pronunciation, are in the following line :

Ut jubar eximium ! ut superum nitet ethérius sol !

Here, by our making no less than five false quantities,
we make the times amount to twenty-nine, and by not cut-
ting off um of eximium, to thirty-one. And this we call
reading by ancient quantity. But we certainly corrupt
it exceedingly. Andif a person should now write a
Latin or Greek verse, and for the metre consult his ear
alone, he would almost in every line be deceived by it.
And if this were not the case, if the ear did really receive
as long every long syllable, and as short every short
one, what occasion would there be for the assistance of

* Lect. Var. lib. iii. c. 17. It is ‘ Hoe quoque pro suo nuper edidit
plain that Muretus was himself pleased Czlius: sed secundus. Egoenim ab-
with his correction and explanation of hine quindecim annos primus edide-
this passage, since he disputes the ram.”
claim which Czlius made to the same.

194 ESSAY ΟΝ

books, composed for our direction in the prosody of
both languages, even after we have been long practised
in reading them? Would not the ear be able to direct
itself? How could there be a doubt now about the
quantity of so many syllables, if we pronounced them
as the ancients did; whose actual pronunciation of them
did alone constitute and determine their quantity? The
truth is, even those scholars, whose practice and ob-
servation render books of prosody unnecessary to them,
do not in their Latin or Greek compositions regulate
their metre by their ear, but their judgment ; which,
aided by experience and memory, imperceptibly corrects
the ear, and the wrong impressions really made on 1.
This is not unlike that well-known case in optics. As
there, several objects at different distances, though by
being painted on the same plain of the retina they truly
and physically strike the sense as equally distant, do
notwithstanding appear at different distances : so here,
syllables of different quantity, though in our pronuncia-
tion they really affect the ear with the same protracted
sound, do yet, in a manner insensible to us, appear dif-
ferently lengthened. In both cases, judgment and ex-
perience correct the informations of sense.

We shall find, upon a little examination, what is
worth observing, that all those short syllables, which we
viciously pronounce long, are the very syllables, on
which the accent falls according to the Roman method,
as given above from Quinctilian. It seems the accent is
readily carried by an English voice to the same syllables
which the Romans acuted, as in déminus, bénis. And so
far is our pronunciation of Latin right. But then, why
do we pronounce all these acuted syllables as long too?
Here lies the difficulty. The reason of which however
may, I think, be collected from what is said in the
second chapter above, concerning our common pronun-
ciation of English; according to which an elevated
sound is generally a protracted one, ἢ. 6. our acute and
long quantity coincide on the same syllable: and as
they are so closely connected in our own language, we

ACCENT AND QUANTITY. 195
cannot, without attention and some practice, separate
them in our pronunciation of another.

I allow then, that the place which we now give to the
accent in Latin, is right; though it often spoils the
quantity by our connecting the Roman acute with our
own long time. But as Quinctilian assures us, that the
method of Greek accents is diiferent from the Roman,
is less uniform and regular; the manner of accommo-
dating the pronunciation of Greek to the Roman tones
(which is proposed by our modern reformers) must cer-
tainly be faulty, not only in quantity but accent too ;
neither of which therefore is by those persons properly
observed in Greek.

On this view of the matter, the Roman accent being
confounded with our long time; the Greek either disre-
garded and rejected by its enemies, or misapplied and
perverted by many of its adherents; the quantity in both
languages most wretchedly corrupted by most of us in
our ordinary practice ; how little of the ancient pronun-
ciation do we now retain?* And how wonderfully does
it likewise shew the excellent harmony of the Greek and
Latin composition, particularly in their verse, that it
should still be agreeable to our ear; still be able to re-
commend itself so powerfully to us, and, under all its
present losses and disadvantages, be superior to that of
any modern language ?

In the mean time, as the ancient accents do certainly
upbraid us with our northern hardness of voice, editors
may perhaps, on that account, choose to remove the

* This gave occasion to the excel-
lent Scioppius to say, that he was well
assured, if Cicero was alive, he would
not understand a word of a modern
scholar speaking Latin, nor would a
modern understand Cicero’s Latin any
better than he would Arabic. ‘ Itaque
pro exploratissimo habeo, si Cicero in
terris hodie exsistat, et non modo Gal-
los, Germanos, aut Hispanos, sed et
illum ipsum florem illibatam Italie, He-

oO 8

truscam dico Sirena Johanuem Ciampo-
lum Latine loquentem audiat, fore, ut
ne unum quidem verbum satis perci-
piat: sicut neque nostrum quenquam
declamante Cicerone plus, quam si
Arabice peroraret, intellectaurum arbi-
γον. Among the sources of modern
corruption in pronunciation, that very
judicious and discerning scholar reck~-
Gasp.

Ons accent as a principal one.
Sciopp. de Orthoepia libell.

100 ESSAY ON

marks of them, as disagreeable monitors, reminding
them of their barbarous pronunciation. But let not the
suppression of these marks be misconstrued into an
implication, that the pronunciation, which is left disen-
gaged from them, is, of course, the right one.

Many modern teachers of Greek, who are tenacious
(as they ought to be) of quantity, find the use of these
marks is very apt to be perverted, and applied to the
notation of quantity: according to which ἀμφοτέρῳ
sounds as appornow, Or dupoteppy ; at this they are justly
offended. Their scholars are then ordered to disregard
the accentual mark; and to prevent effectually the mis-
application of it, it is to be totally neglected. ‘Thus
they remove a vicious pronunciation: but do they sub-
stitute a pure one in its room? Their scholars follow
this direction in regard to the virgule, and then pro-
nounce the word ἀμφόττερῳ: that is, they avoid one |
false quantity, and incur another. The false quantity
certainly may be avoided in both places, because it has
been. I can myself more easily, and more agreeably to
my own ear, shorten the acuted penultima of ἀμφοτέρῳ,
than the acuted antepenultima of ἀμφότερος, and of
κυρίου than of domini.

If these teachers mean to regulate and reform the
Greek pronunciation on that maxim of Sir John Cheke,
** 8, quorum temporibus petuntur verba, ab eorum etate
discantur* soni,” their reformation is certainly very im-

* These sound principles of reforma-
tion, in pronouncing the ancient lan-
guages, were enforced likewise by Mr.
Cheke’s industrious and learned friend,
Mr. Thomas Smith, Greek professor
likewise in Cambridge. ‘‘ Quod archi-
tecti principes linguz illius, de qua
agitur, probabant et in consuetudine
ponebant ac usu, verum illud et since-
‘Tum, purumque ac germanum habeatur;
Quodque aliunde per obreptionem et
calumniam ingressum est, et ita diu
ebtinuit, ut jam prescriptione velit
niti : nihilo tamen minus uf spurium et

adullerinum notandum est; omnesque
sonorum rationes ad eam normam ex-
plorentur, ad quam et voces; nihilque
sit recte prolatum, quod non eo modo,
quo antiqni solebant, sonuerimus. Quod
si difficile factu est, nihilo tamén secius
faciendum est: Nam ut stipulationem
non extinguit difficultas przestationis,
ita nec veritatem. Neque enim ideo

quod fieri de-
bet, quia non fit, neque ideo quia non
facile fit. χαλεπὰ τὰ καλά." De Grec.
Ling. Pronune. lib. i, p. 13. Lutet.
apud Ἐς Steph.

minus rectum est,

ACCENT AND QUANTITY. 197

perfect ; the pronunciation of ἀμφοττερῳ being as remote
from that of the ancients, as aug¢ornpy. And we may
even now truly say of that, which many scholars call
the purest pronunciation of Greek, what Sir John Cheke
did two hundred and twenty years ago of what he then
found: that* “should any of the old Greeks return to
life, and hear our unharmonious pronunciation, so very
different from the sweet and distinct elocution of the
ancients, it would give him uneasiness to find, that
what he had left so perfect and excellent, was now re-
duced to a wretched state of corruption and barbarism.”

* « Si aliquis ex priscis Grecis jam ram alque illustrem tunc reliquisset,
excitaretur, et ista tam absonaet ab- nunc tam incultam atque agrestem
surda audiret, que toto cxlo ab anti- invenisse.” Epist. ad Episc. Vinton.
quoruin suavilate et claritate distant, op. 64.
nz ille doleret, se eam, quam precla-

195 ESSAY ON

CHAP. ΧΙ.

That there are no sufficient reasons yet assigned for rejecting the present system
of accentual marks. An expostulation with modern editors on suppressing
them.

AS it is evident from what has been alleged above, that
we have not the true ancient pronunciation at present, so
are we never likely to recover it, if we reject the most
essential means left that can restore it to us, I mean the
accentual marks. 'Though we have not the certainty of
mathematical demonstration, that these virgule are faith-
ful marks of the elevation and depression of the voice
among the Greeks, yet there are no sufficient arguments
to prove the contrary: the common objections to them
have been considered and refuted. But though we
have but few positive proofs, except in the case of
the Holic accent, to evince the genuineness of them in
particular words, the presumptive proofs in favour of
them, as generally used, are various and cogent. Some
of our present canons, relating to them, are expressly
declared by those very writers of antiquity, to whose
authority and decision an appeal has been made by my
adversaries. Andif, by the misapplication of the inju-
dicious, which yet the discerning may easily avoid,
these old marks have been perverted, and, in practice,
rendered inconsistent with quantity, let not that acci-
dental abuse be urged as an argument against their pro-
per use, and end in their total abolition. If a thing,
that is capable of being misapplied, is to be destroyed
for fear of such misapplication, on this principle of cau-
tion and prevention we should be obliged to discard the
means of every convenience we now enjoy.

We all know that, in the best literary institution what-
ever, it is impossible totally to guard against the perver-
sions of ignorance and indolence. But surely it ds

ACCENT AND QUANTITY. 199

beneath the care of a great university to make such pro-
visions against the misapprehension of ἃ blundering
schoolmaster, as to leave out of their copies a genuine
mark authorized by antiquity, and its own general uti-
lity towards preserving the purity of an admirable lan-
guage, for fear such a person should mistake and mis-
apply it. There does not appear any reason why such
an expensive compliment should be paid to ignorance.
Demetrius Triclinius, with more spirit and sense, pre-
scribes the manner in which such persons should be
treated on this occasion. “The ancients (says he) in
their ingenious and excellent invention, did not design
or publish them for such men, but for the intelligent,
paying little regard to the absurd and illiterate. And I
should think that man guilty of an injury to the learned
and discerning, who should conceal and suppress a wise
contrivance, because he apprehended, perhaps, the cen-
sure or mistakes of the injudicious; of those who, hav-
ing but little experience in letters, can take a book in
their hands, and see, indeed, the characters, but know
nothing of their real powers.”*

Nor let it here be said, that if we should retain these
marks, we can never apply them to their proper use in
practice. Who can aflirm that with certainty? An
English voice was capable of doing this in the time of
Henry VIII. and why not now? Sir John Cheke declares
it is not only practicable, but was actually} practised;

* Οὐδὲ γὰρ οὐδ᾽ of πάλαι τὰ κάλλιστ᾽
ἐπινενοηκότες, ταῦτα τοῖς τοιούτοις ἐκδεδώ-
κασιν, ἀλλὰ τοῖς συνετοῖς, βραχὺν λόγον
τῶν μὴ συνετῶν ἔχοντες. ὡς καί πού τις
ἔφη, ᾿Αείδω ξυνετοῖσι, θύρας δ᾽ ἐπίθεσϑε
βέξηλοι. ᾿Εγὼ δὲ καὶ ἀδικεῖν ἂν φαίην
“ποὺς συνετοὺς, ὃς ἂν ἐπσινοήσας σοφόν τι,
τοῦτο λήϑης δυϑοῖς κατακρύψειε, δεδιὼς
ἴσως τὴν ἔκ τῶν ἀσυνέτων μεέμψιν---οἵτινες
μὴ γραμμάτων ἔχοντες πσεῖραν, καὶ βιβ-
λίον ἀνὰ χεῖρας ἀράμενοι, δλέπουσι μκὲν
τύπους γραμμάτων, οὐδὲν δὲ τῶν ἐγκειμέ-
νων ἴσασιν. Anunr. τοῦ Τρικλινίου περὶ

σημείων. in pref. Avistoph.

+ Non est autem tam difficilis pro-
nuncialionis nostre susceptio, quam tu
arbitraris; et multi alii docti antehac
judicaverunt, qui primo quoque tem-
pore rem laboriosissimam et difficulta-
tis plenissimam eam esse putabant :
postea libata tantum re et lustrata, fa-
cilem et jucundam et utilem esse per-
spiciebant. Ego vero non de me ipso
(nam id quidem fortasse arrogans vi-
deri posset) sed de multis, qui hodie
hujus linguz studiosi sunt, asseverare
possum, illos omnem hane pronuntia-

fionis formam ita tenere, ut rerem ii-

200

ESSAY

that he knew many persons who could express these
sounds, consistently with quantity, perfectly well. I
know one person, who, after a few trials, is now able to

do the same.

But even if an English voice could not

at present express these tones, yet persons of another
age, or country, into whose hands our printed copies of
Greek may come, may be able to apply them.

In regard to novelty, which is frequently urged against

terarum sonum, quantitatem, uaccen-
tum, summa cum facilitate ac suavitate
eloqui possint. Nam Tongi et Billi et
Aschami si {101 noti essent, ut alios
preteream, ita sentires eos Greece loqui
ac sonare, ut melius et perfectius ali-
quid non requireres. [pist. ad Epise.
Vinton, p. 284. This, which Mr.
Cheke mentions as a fact within his
own knowledge, Dr. (Ὁ. declares to be
impossible, p. 67. ** No man can read
prose or verse according to both ac-
cent and quantity.” Again, in p. 71.
“ΤΕ is as impossible to read prose ac-
cording to accents, and, at the same
time, maintain a due regard to quan-
lity, as itis to read poetry according
to quantity and metre, and, at the
same time, maintain a due regard to
accents.
tempted. Neither can the other any
more be done.” Thus half the physical
truths in the world have at different
times been termed impossibilities. This
impossibility of Dr. G. I will call a
physical truth. If he doubts it on my
authority, will he deny Mr. Cheke’s ?
Will he deny that of Michaelis, who
appeals to a whole nation in proof of
accent and quantity being distinct, and
yet consistent with each other? It
could not but give me great satisfac-
tion to find, after I had published my
own thoughts on this subject, the idea
of two learned men to agree so exactly
with my own. “ As to the principal

This hath never been at-

objection, that accents do not coincide
with the prosody of the Greek poets,
and are therefore to be considered as a
modern corruption of the Greek lan-
guage, it is to be hoped, that Profes-
sor Gesner will soon communicate to
the learned world what he has col-
lected on that head. The papers of
this learned gentleman relating to the
subject are at present in iy hands;
and I find, upon perusing them, that
his opinion amounts to this: that the
accents do not at all determine which
syllable is to be pronounced longest ;
that the accent, for instance, of dySpw-
πος, being placed on the first syllable,
doth not oblige us to pronounce the
word as a dactyle; that as the Greeks
spoke somewhat more musically than
we, they pronounced some syllables
more distinctly than others; they
raised their tone, and dropped it; and
the accents are evidences of this. His
opinion seems to me very probable;
and we need only hear a native of
Hungary speak his own, or the Ger-
man language distinctly, and we shall
find, that he pronounces the syllables
strictly according to prosodical quan-
tity, and yet raises some syllables
which are not the longest in the word.
I cannot express myself so clearly to
the reader, as I might if my paper
could speak.”—Translat. from Intro-
duct. Lectures of Michaelis to the New
Test. sect. xlil. p. 95.

ACCENT AND QUANTITY. 201

the virgule, marks of a late invention, relating to an-
cient things, are not immediately to be discarded for
being modern. If they are but conformable to the
practice of the ancients, though not actually in use
among them; if they faithfully and clearly denote
things which existed among them, though not marked
by them with certain characters, and may be useful at
the same time to us, they certainly have a right to our
acceptance.

The marks of punctuation are exactly of this kind.
Salmasius,* in his epistle to Sarravius, and Huetius, in
his preface to Origen, have already shewn, that these
marks, στιγμαὶ, were equally unknown to the ancients
{that is, till about two hundred years before Christ)
as those of accents, and were invented by the same
person to whom we owe the first accentual signs, Aris-
tophanes of Byzantium. But yet an editor would be
reckoned mad, if he should at present reject these στιγ-
pat On account of novelty: and justly too; for the only
question in this case is, not when the thing was invented,
but what it is; whether the modern mark be agreeable
to the use and manner of the ancients (not whether it
was used itself by them), and may be likewise service-
able tous. Ifit be so, its mere possible utility, not-
withstanding its novelty, is sufficient to recommend it
to any reasonable. person.

If it be an objection to the present use of a character
in a modern edition of a Greek writer, that it was not
known or used by the writer himself; this will hold not
only against accentual signs, but likewise against the
admission of several letters of the Attic alphabet into
the printed copies of Homer; for it is certain that the
letters H, Z, V, Q, were invented after his time, though

* «Quod ad Graca exemplaria at- ductu sine ullo intlerstitio voces om-
tinet, ante Aristophanem, qui primus nes exarari solebant et sententix
@weorodiay excogilavit et accentus in- etiam continuari.” Salas. ad Surra-

venil, nulla fuit literarum distinctio vinm.
neque subdistinctio. Uno ac perpetuo

202 ESSAY ON

the powers of them existed long before. Nay, it may.
be equally urged against the use of all small letters
whatever; since, according to Montfaucon, they were
not introduced till several ages after the introduction of
accentual marks. But who would so absurdly attach
himself to antiquity, as in every respect religiously to
adhere to it in its simple form, and by that means volun-
tarily deprive himself of those helps and conveniences,
which later times have introduced for the readier con-
veyance of ancient knowledge? Who would choose to
read a copy of an old author written or printed in capi-
tals only, without any punctuation, or different inter-
vals between the letters of the same and different words?
No one, except through curiosity, or with a view of
examining it for a critical purpose. As novelty, in this
case, is no objection to our modern characters: neither
is it really so in the case of accentual marks. But they
have been falsely supposed by some persons to be in-
consistent with quantity, and then different reasons are
found out for discarding them, and among many others,
more particularly this of novelty has been advanced.

it will be asked, perhaps, why these marks, though
they may truly denote ancient tones, should be used in
Greek copies any more than they are in Latin or Eng-
lish? My answer is, that one of these is a living lan-
guage, and therefore stands notin need of them, except
in grammars and dictionaries, in which they are pre-
served. And in the Latin, though the accent of that lan-
guage is far more simple and uniform, and consequently
more easy to be retained than the Greek, yet even in
that, I cannot help wishing with Melancthon, that accen-
tual signs were used, at least constantly in all vocabu-
laries of that language. The case, however, of these
three languages is by no means alike: and Greek may
and does require them, even though they should be
utterly excluded from the Latin and English.

On the whole, if I might express my private wishes
for the convenience and advancement of Greek learning,
they are, that editors of old Greek authors, instead of

ACCENT AND QUANTITY. 203

depriving us of the present marks of speech, merely for
being of an invention later than some of the authors
themselves, would rather add to them, by recovering
and restoring to us those characters, which certainly
were known and used in the early ages; and, in an edi-
tion of Homer insert the Molic digamma, which proba-
bly was as much a letter of Homer’s own alphabet, as
B, T, or A: and without which his metre is in a thou-
sand places irregular, imperfect, and languid, accord-
ing to present appearances. But sucha restoration of
ancient characters is, I fear, rather to be the object of
our wishes than hopes; for to effect it would require
pains and industry: whereas the rejection of them, un-
luckily for us, favours both idleness and ignorance.

But however agreeable this rejection may be to some
modern principles, it is very contrary to those of Mr.
Cheke, who, in express terms, condemns such an inno-
vation.* ‘* He cannot see what scholars have. to alter,
either in the words themselves, their sound, their spirits,
or accents, in short, in any the least part of the lan-
guage: a language, that neither can nor ought to be
changed by times, places, or persons: in which those
are the best skilled, who can best imitate the ancients
themselves in their use of it; and all are the less so, the
more they depart from the prescribed mode of antiquity.
They should not therefore think themselves empowered
to displace any thing that hath been so long established,
but should rather carefully maintain it in its ancient
state.”

So sacred and inviolable did that great professor hold
every part of the Greek language in that form, wherein

* <¢ Non video quid doctis relinquatur

quos in dicendo possunt. Indoctiores

wt mutent, non in verbis, non in sonis,
non in spiritibus, non in accentibus,
denique in nulla ne minima quidem
linguz parte.—

Neque tempori-
bus, neque locis, neque hominibus, mu-
tari potest, autdebet. ΠῚ Grace doc-
tissimi sunt, qui optime imitari anti-

autem sunt, quo magis ab illorum pre-
scripta formula discedunt. Non igitur
in istorum potestate hoc situm et collo-
catum esl, ut quicquam a loco, in quo
olim fuit, dimoveant; sed potius ut in
antiquo gradu conservent.” Epiat. p.
258, 9,

204 ESSAY ON

it hath been transmitted to us through more than nine-
teen centuries: and so particularly is the visible accen-
tuation of it mentioned by him as a part not to be
touched or altered. Those objections to it, which have
been raised since his time, I have, in the foregoing
pages, endeavoured to answer, as far as I have been able
to collect. The reasons that have engaged the Oxford
editors to omit the marks, are not yet published: and,
till they are, we must suppose, that to this deviation from
the practice of the Aldi, Calliergi, Stephani, Turnebi,
and our own Bentleys, Taylors, and Marklands, they
were induced by those reasons which have been pub-
licly urged by the writers mentioned above in this
Essay. The only notice, which they have hitherto taken,
of this new method, is in ashort preface to some elegiac
and lyric fragments published at Oxford, 1759, where
we find these words: “Sine accentibus denique cuncta
dedimus impressa, partim rei ratione adducti, partim
auctoritate Academie, que 'Theocritum suUM ita im-
primi voLUIT.”

The Academie auctoritas 1 shall not presume to call
in question in the present case, taking leave only to ob-
serve, that although the name of an university be weighty
and venerable, yet when it is considered as consisting of
fallible individuals, and those perhaps but few, who on
such occasions call themselves the university, it greatly
abates of that awe which its name otherwise inspires.
But although I must not, perhaps, think of combating
the Academie auctoritas, yet in regard to the rez ratio, I
may say, that, until it is better explained than it hitherto
has been, the rejection of our Greek characters doth in
the mean time subject the editors to the imputation of
unfaithfulness. An essential part of an admirable lan-
guage, ascertained by the contrivance of an eminent
grammarian, of the greatest knowledge, judgment, and in-
genuity, in an age of sound and pure Grecism, in a court
very highly distinguished by its munificent and successful
encouragement of learning and genius; adopted by his
successors in literature, and confirmed by the authority

ACCENT AND QUANTITY.

205

and practice of near two * thousand years; this, which
an academical editor should with a particular care pre-
serve and look on as a deposit in his hands, is by a kind
of breach of trust given up and destroyed by him. And
a Greek author might, in expostulating with him, and
remonstrating against this unwarrantable defalcation,
not improperly use the words of Philomela, in the Greek
epigram, complaining to her sister of the perfidious and
cruel treatment she had met with from Tereus,

Πλῶσσαν ἐμὴν ἔϑέρισσε, καὶ ἔσβεσεν Ἑλλάδα φωνήν.

* The very exact and truly learned
Mr. D’Orville allows the marks may
perhaps be not so old, but yet can see
no reason why we should part with
them. His words, | am persuaded,
must have great weight with all real
scholars, and to such I here propose
them : “ Possem forle accedere Isaaco
Vossio, in libro de Poematum canta,
_p. 19. ante mille annos mazxime inva-
Inisse accentus adpingendi usum fre-
quentem. Al tum amissam fuisse vete-
rem rationem pronunciandi; gramma-
ticosque istam penitus corruptam ra-
tionem accentibus expressisse, minime
mihi adhue persuasum est. Accentus
non quantitatis indicande causa ad-
positos: sed ad pronunciationem et
rhythmum regendam reor.—— Stul-
tum satis ab usu etiam per miile annos
recepto temere recedere.” Crit. Vann.
p- 333.

If Mr. D’Orville does here by rhyth-
mus understand (as he probably Joes)
that harmony, which results from the
sound of a WHOLE, it perfectly agrees
with what is said in the third chapter
above on rhythm being dependent on
accent: as likewise with what is cited
afterwards in the eighth chapter from
Quinctilian, and from Dr. Bentley on

the rhythm of [tdliam futo préfugus,
&e. And all is very consistent with
whiat is given in the sixth chapter from
Theod. Gaza on προσωδία, which is,”
he says, ‘‘ a certain intension of the
voice in speaking, for the harmonious
utterance of the WHOLE, τορὸς εὐφωνίαν
τοῦ ὍΛΟΥ AO'TOY.” λέξις is a single
word, Λόγος a connected series of
Λέξεις, forming either a sentence or dis-
course, according to the definition of
these two terms by the same Gaza.—
Introd. Gramm. I. 4. after Aristotle in
Poet. c. 20, and Plato in Cratylus, p.
385. Serran.

The word rhythm, which is often
used by me in the foregoing pages, I
would have understood, as it is here,
in the enlarged grammatical and ora-
torical sense, in which it is used by
Scaliger (ciled above, p. 38.) and by
Aristotle and Cicero, who often apply
In its
sticlly musical and metrical significa-

it to prose as well as to verse,

tion it relates merely to the division of
time in verse alone, by the metrical
arsis and thesis: and there takes place
in any two regular feet properly com-
bined. The rhetorical sense of the
word includes much more.

LETTER

FROM

Με. MARKLAND

THE AUTHOR.

DEAR SIR, July 4, 1762.

I RECEIVED and have read your Essay, and as-,
sure you, that my sentiments concur with those of every
person, who has mentioned it to me, that you have proved
your point as fully as it need be proved. And 1 hope
your endeavours will do service to the Greek language,
which from many signs, and not least from the omission
of accents, I have long thought was leaving us. In this
cause ὦ think you need not regard or fear the censures
of any adherents to the Oxford press, as far as I am
able to judge. 1 rather hope, that what you have written
will restore accents to that press, that it may not be
said of Greek learning,

—— timuitque mortem
Hinc, unde vitam sumeret aptius.

I am very glad that Dr. Taylor will look over his pa-
pers for you before you reprint your book. For my own
part, I have been so long satisfied of the antiquity of
the Greek accents, that I have not taken the pains in the

A LETTER, &c. ᾿ 207

course of reading, to note down any passages to that
purpose; though I remember to have met with several
things in Athenzus and elsewhere, which long ago I
thought much to the purpose. But, indeed, I did not
think that any real scholar would ever doubt of it. For
though Isaac Vossius was unquestionably a very learned
man, yet his whimsicalness and love of paradox scarce
leave room for him to be considered as a reasonable one
in many points. The present common way of quoting
Greek without accents, I always took for nothing more
than a subterfuge for ignorance, except in a few persons.
At the best it was to me a sure mark, that the Greek
language was going out of England; and I was as sure
that the Latin would soon follow it. But I never ima-
gined till lately, that accents were omitted out of a prin-
ciple of erudition.

When Dr. Taylor gave me notice of your publication,
and at the same time sent the Italian inscription of the
verse of Euripides,and desired my opinion of them;
long before I had received the Essay, I wrote to him the
following letter, which upon second thoughts I deferred
sending, until I had seen what you had said on the sub-
ject, who I was sure had examined it more than I had
done. ‘The letter is as follows:

“As to the design of the Greek accents, I am per-
suaded, that though they are very ancient, and were
formed by Greeks, yet they were not formed for Greece:
because persons, who were bred up from their infancy
in only that language, could have no need of marks to
know upon what syllable of each word the accent was
to be laid: as we in England need not be taught to pro-
nounce conventicle or righteousness ; because we learn
it of course. But had any of us been brought up in
France, Spain, or Germany, and had a mind to speak
English, it would then have been necessary to be di-
rected in the true pronunciation of those words. Some-
thing like this I imagine may have happened with regard
to the Greek accent. Persons who left Greece to settle
in a nation of a different tongue, if they were desirous

208 A LETTER, &c.

that their children or successors should continue in the
knowledve or use of speaking the Greek language, would
probably leave them some marks, whereby they might
know how each word was rightly pronounced in the
country from whence they came. ‘This, or something
like it, possibly might be the original of accents, which
seem to be valuable remains of antiquity, as they partly
teach us how Greek was pronounced, probably in con-
versation and reading. If this be so, it is no wonder —
that a verse of Euripides should be found with accents
in a foreign country, in a part of Italy, which abounded
with people in the Greek taste: but it would have been
seemingly more unaccountable, kad it been found with
the accents in Attica or Thessaly, in the midst of Greece,
where Greek was the native language at the time this
city was destroyed by the earthquake; and whither, one
would think, accents could not have come, unless by
some accident.”

This I had put down, chiefly relating to the accented
Italian inscription, before I had seen your Essay: and
I was pleased to find that it was not contrary to, nor
contradicted by, your observations; of the truth of
which I have a thorough conviction.

Our friend, Mr. Hall, in an answer to a letter of mine,
wherein at his desire | had given him my thoughts in
general on the subject of accentuation, writes to me as
follows: “To confirm your observation, I take the
liberty of giving you the remark of a learned Italian
commentator, Girolamo Ruscelli, written in his own
country upon his own living language. As you possibly
may not have at hand Ariosto’s Orlando Furioso, with
Ruscelli’s annotations, I will send you his note upon
the following line,

Corro la fresca e matutina rosa.
La parola sha qui, &c. Weare here to pronounce the

first ο in corro large or open, and lay the accent on the
latter. The word is abbreviated from cogliero, like many

A LETTER, &c. 209

others, as porro from ponerd, verro from veniro. In
such words as these we see how much our language stands
in need of the letters, added by Trissino and Tolomei,
and chiefly of the accents. Without the aid of the accent,
we should not know how to distinguish corro, ““ I will
gather,” from corro “ I run,” both words being written
with the same letters. We pronounce the first 0 in corre
large or open, because it comes from cogliere, in Latin col-
ligere, whereas the first 0 in corro is pronounced strait or
close, as partaking of the letter u in the Latin curro, from
which it is formed. Now though the laying down the
rule of pronunciation be not altogether necessary for us
Italians (some of us however are of that opinion) who,
by skilfully distinguishing the signification of words,
know how to accommodate the pronunciation of them to
their proper meaning, yet, to say no more of tt, ἐξ is abso-
lutely necessary to other nations, and to posterity, that
the true pronunciation of our tongue may be known by
the mere writing of it.

“This, you see, is a quia timet argument, and is an
instance of precaution, similar to that which Mr. Foster
has given in Garcillasso de la Vega; though I think
somewhat stronger ; inasmuch as at that time the Italian
language was lifting up its head, and beginning to make
a figure in matters of learning. While half the scholars
of Italy were busying themselves in polishing and per-
fecting their language, the danger of its falling into cor-
ruption and decay must be seen at a very remote dis-
tance.

«This Ruscelli addressed his book of criticisms (en-
titled Tre Discorsi) to L. Dolce, and in truth handled
him most roughly: I mention it for the sake of a story,
which makes the introduction to his second discourse ;
where there is a very humorous description of an igno-
rant foreigner, pretending to much learning, and blun-
dering wretchedly in mistaking the Latin Galea, as he
found it in his Calepin, for the Italian Galea; into
which mistake he could not have fallen, had he known

910 A LETTER, &c.

that the former was accented on the antepenultima, the
latter on the penultima.
oe eee Py an Yours, S&C.
JER. MARKLAND.

The Italian accented inscription, to which Mr. Mark-
land refers in the foregoing letter, appears in p. 94. of
the last volume of Herculanean Antiquities presented
lately by his Sicilian Majesty to our Universities : where
it is introduced thus :—

Negli scavi di Resina a 6 Marzo, 1743. 5᾽ incontro su
una parete, che formava U angolo di una strada, che con-
ducea al theatro, scritto con lettere nere e rosse il sequente
verso nella maniera appunto, come que si vede inciso :

ὡς ἕνσο pov βούλευμα τας πολλὰς Χεῖρας νικᾶ.
che dovrebbe cost leggersi :
ὡς ἕν σοφὸν βούλευμᾳ τὰς πολλὰς χεῖρας νικᾷ.
Questo ὃ un verso di Euripide citato da Polibio I. 35.
E ne frammenti dell’ Antiope, v.77. nel Barnes.

Σοφὸν γὰρ ἕν βούλευμα τὰς πολλὰς χέρας

Νικᾷ.

Concerning this inscription, Dr. Taylor, ina letter of
June, 1762, writes to me thus :—

‘* The inscription at Herculaneum, I hear, is going to
be disputed, on account of the small characters. That
will be difficult : because under the statues of the Muses
found there, we read TPATwAIAN. EPATw, &c. &c. in
the same manner as we do in the following inscription
at Rome, the age of which is high and cannot be dis-
puted; on a marble monument there,

In front,

ATIMETVS PAMPHILI
TI. CAESARIS. AVG. L. L.
ANTEROCIANVS. SIBI. ET.
CLAVDIAE. HOMONEAE
CONLIBERATAE. ET,
CONTVBERNALLI.

ITALIAN INSCRIPTION. 211

Ἦ ΠΟΛῪ CEIPHNoN AIPYPwTEPH H ΠΑΡᾺ BAKXoal
KAI @OINAIC AYTHC XPYCOTEPH KYIIPIAOG

H AAAIH PAIAPH TE XEAEIAONIC EN© OMONOIA
KEIMAI ATIMHTol AEITIOMENH AAKPYA

Tol TIEAON ACTACIH BAIHC ATIO THN AE TOCAYTHN
AAIM@N ATIPOISHC ECKEAACEN ΦΙΛΙΗΝ.

On the left side,

Ty QUI SECV’RA’ PROCE’DIS MENTE PARVMPER
SISTE GRADVM QUAESO VERBAQVE PAVCA LEGE

ILLA EGO QVAE CLARIS FVERAM PRAELATA PVELLIS
NOC HOMONOEA BREVI CONDITA SVM TVMVLO

CVI FORMAM PAPHIE CHARITES TRIBVERE DECO/REM
QVAM PALLAS CVNCTIS ARTIEVS ERVIDIIT

NONDVM BIS DENOS A’ETAS MEA VIDERAT ANNO’S
INIE CERE MANVS INVIDA FATA MIHI

NEC PRO ME QVEROR HOC MORTE EST MIHI TRISTIOR IPS&
MAEROR ATIMETI CONIVGIS ILLE MEI.

SIT TIBI TERRA LEVIS MVLIER DIGNISSIMA VITA
QVAEQVE TvIs OLIM PERFRVEARE BONIs.

On the right side,

Sr PENSA’RE ANIMAS SINERENT CRV DELIA FATA
ET POSSET REDIMI MORTE ALIENA SALVS

QVANTVLACVNQVE MEAE DEBENTVR TEMPORA VITAE
PENSAREM PRO TE CARA HOMONOEA LIBENS

AT NVNC QUOD POSSVM FVGIAM LV CEMQVE DEOSQVE
VT TE MATVRA PER STIGA MORTE SEQVAR

PARCE TVAM CONIVNX FLETV QVASSARE IVVENTAM
FATAQVE MAERENDO SOLICITARE MEA

NIL PRO‘'sVNT LACRIMAE NEC POSSVNT FATA MOVERL
vIxIMvs HnIC OMNIs EXITVS VNVS HABET

PARCE ITA NON VNQVAM SIMILEM EXPERIARE DOLO’ REM
ET FAVEANT voTlIs NVMINA CVvNCTA TVIs

QVODQVE MIHI E’RIPVIT MORS IMMATVRA IVVENTAE
ID TIBI vIcTV RO PROROGET VLTERIVS.

“Τὴ the Greek, according to Manutius, though neg:
lected by Gruter, the little lambda X, the ¢, the 6, the w,
are all remarkable. The small characters were then,
we see, known at that time, but reserved for private
use, and rarely mixed with their public monuments.
See Gruter pcevi. Manutii Orthograph. V. Mazreo.
Mazochius.” Thus Dr. Taylor.

The inscription is of the age of Tiberius: and, cer-
tainly, the inference, from the appearance of small

P22

212 ITALIAN INSCRIPTION.

Greek characters in it, in favour of the authenticity of
the Herculanean inscription, is very just and strong.
As for the accents observable in the Latin lines, they
are the same with those which I have considered above
in the fourth chapter* of this Essay, falling contrary, to
the nature of the Latin tones, on ultimates and pra-ante-
penultimates, and sometimes two of them on one word.

* See Essay, p. 60—63. where is elder Vossius, concerning the accen-
given the opinion of Lipsius and the — tuation of such Roman inscriptions.

MARCI MUSURI

CRETENSIS

AD LEONEM xX.

ΕΙΉΈΘΟΘΤΑ,
PLATONIS OPERIBUS

AB IPSO RECOGNITIS,
ET AB ALDO PRIMUM IMPRESSIs, PRAFIXA,
RECENSUIT,

ET VERSIONE LATINA, NOTISQUE ILLUSTRAVIT,

J. F.

1, ES CeO Beak atti eh

Du& me potissimum cause ad hoc carmen libro meo
subjiciendum adduxerunt: altera, quia a Ficino et Ser-
rano in editt. Platonis, que fere sole jam doctorum
manibus teruntur, nescio quam ob rationem omissum
est, ideoque multo minus, ac debet, innotuit ; altera, ut
ex hoc Musuri opusculo cognosceretur, quales demum
ii essent viri, quibus Barbarorum nomen ab eruditis
quibusdam summa cum obtrectatione atque vitupera-
tione inustum est.

Ei γὰρ γενοίμην kK αὐτὸς ὧδε Βάρβαρος!

Doctissimus D’orvillius (ad Charit. p. 348.) notat in
quibusdam locis magnijicam hanc Elegiam emendatione
indigere. Eam emendationem aliquoties preestitit Cl.
MARKLANDUS; qui cum carmen hoc nuper a me edi-
tum legeret, et ἀκριβείαν in eo aliquando desideraret,
istud partim ex principe editione Aldina integritati re-
stituit, partim ex conjectura sua tentavit, et alioqui ex-
plicuit; et per literas compellatus, humanissime mecum
heec communicavit.

Cum anno proximo hoc Poema imprimendum cura-
rem, nulla mihi istius, preter Aldinam et Basileensem
una cum Platonis operibus, editio, nec ulla omnino
versio nota est. Postea vero ab amico quodam moni-
tus, hanc Elegiam separatim esse editam a Philippo
MUNCHERO, cum versione Latina et elegantissima Zeno-
bii Acciaioli Metaphrasi Poetica Amstelod. MDCLXXVI.
libellum eum sedulo, sed frustra quesivi, donec copia

210

ejus benigne mihi facta esset ab viro eruditissimo ANT.
Askew, M.D. ex ipsius bibliotheca optimis Codd. om-
nibus, preesertim Grecis, instructissima. Cum Mun-
cheri librum, mihi inde allatum, pervolverem, ut, quod
ex usu esset in illustrando Musuro, excerperem, plura
in versione ista corrigenda, quam mutuanda inveni;
observationes vero paucas, qua ad explicandas quas-
dam voces facerent, ex preefatione exscriptas notis meis
interserul.

ARGUMENTUM.

Exordio a Platone variisque ejus scriptis sumpto, que quidem diversa
genere, Physica, Metaphysica, Moralia ac Politica, laudatione per-
quam poetica recensentur; et facta deinde Dionysii Syracusani
(apud quem Platonem olim aliquandiu diversatum esse testatur
Historia) mentione, ejusque cum Leone X. instituta comparatione ;
Musurus per artificiosam materiz continuationem, ad Pontificis
illius, doctorumque comitum laudes deflectitur. Quem versibus
non eleganter minus quam yehementer προτρεπτικοῖς, gravissima Pla-
tonis inducta persona, ad bellum adversus 'Turcas suscipiendum, ad
Greciam servitute liberandam, ad instaurandas excolendasque
Grecas literas hortatur.

Audiit, et voti Phoebus succedere partem
Mente dedit, partem celeres dispersit in auras.
Ut profugee hospitio fruerentur et urbe Camene,
Annuit oranti: ut reduces patria alta videret,
Non dedit, inque notos yocem vertere procelle.

ΜΟΊ ΜΟΥ Σ kd RC A 1

ΘΕΙΈ Πλάτων, ξυνοτσαδὲ Θεοῖς καὶ δαίμοσιν ἥρως
Πασσυδίῃ μεγάλῳ “Ζηνὶ παρεσιπομένοις,

“Agua κατ᾽ οὐρανὸν εὐρὺν ἀελλοπόδων OTE πώλων
Κεῖνος ἐλᾷ; πτηνῷ δίφρῳ ἐφεζόμενος,

Ei δ᾽ ἄγε νῦν κατάξζηϑι, λιπσὼν χορὸν οὐρανιώνων, 5
"Es γᾶν ψυχοφυῶν εἰρεσίῃ πτερύγων"

Καὶ λάζευ τόδε τεῦχος, ὃ Σωκρατικὴν ὀαριστὺν
᾿Αμφὶς ἔχει, καὶ σῆς κεδνὸ γένεϑλα φρενός"

"Qu ἔνι Κοσμοτέχνης ὀκτὼ πτύχας οὐλύμποιο,
Ἔξ ἰδίων ἕλκων ἀρχέτυπον πραπίδων, 10

Δεΐίματο καρτσαλίμως" ὑπάτην σελάεσσιν ἀπείροις
Δαιδάλλων, τήν περ κλείομεν ἀπλανέα"

Τὰς δ᾽ ἄρ᾽ ὑφεξείης μονοφεγγέας ἐξετόρευσεν

ν. 4. Πτηνῷ δίφρω ἐφεζόμενος. Totus
hic locus adumbratur ex Platonis Phee-
dro, p.m. 275. ὋὉ μὲν δὴ μέγας ἡγεὲ-
μὼν ἐν οὐρανῷ Ζεὺς, πτηνὸν ἅρμα ἐλαύνων,
πυρῶτος πορεύεται, διακοσμῶν πσάντα καὶ
ἐπιμελούμενος" τῷ δ᾽ ἕπεται στρατιὰ
Θεῶν τε καὶ Δαιμόνων, κατὰ ἕνδεκα μέρη
κεκοσμημένη. Vide Maximum Tyrium
Dissert. x. 4. et doctiss. Davisium ad
locum. Faciles jam intellectu sunt hi
quatuor versus, et πτηνὸν &eua versu

ultimo. Opera vero particularia Pla-

tonis, ad que a Musuro in hoe exordio
alluditur, sunt, Timeus, Phzedrus,
Phedon, de Republica, et forte de Le-
gibus.— Markland.

v. 9. ὀκτὼ] Hee dicunturde Plato-
nis Physicis, que coelorum formationem
per multiplicem spherarum concava-
rum, aliarum aliis interiorum, ordinem
explicant : quorum dogmatum partem
Ptolemzus in systema suum poslea
transtulit.— Fost.

v. 10. "EZ ἰδίων ἕλκων] Hie versus

MARCI MUSURI

Bde, BE

Gel Ὁ

DIVINE Plato, comes Deis et Semideis prestans
Magno agmine summum Jovem stipantibus,

Cum ille per coelum amplum equos concitatissimos
Agitat, alato currui insidens :

Age nunc descende, choro ccelicolarum relicto, 5
Ad terram spiritualium remigio alarum,

Et accipe hoc volumen, quod Socraticos sermones
Continet, tuzeque honestos foetus mentis.

In quo Mundi fabricator octo spheericos sinus cceli,
Ex suis trahens exemplar preecordiis, 10

Condidit celeriter: summum luminibus infinitis

Distinguens, quem quidem perhibemus Fixum ;
Reliquos autem ordine subjectos uno lumine splendentes

celavit,

ex illo Praxitelis epigrammate desump-
tus videtur, quod apud Atheneum ex-
tat. Statuarius iste ad exemplar Phry-
nes, quam amavit, Cnidiz Veneris sie
mulachrum finxit, et in basi statue
Cupidinis, ad theatri scenam posite,
versus hos insculpsit :

Πραξιτέλης, ὃν ἔπασχε, διηκρίξωσεν ἔρωτα,

Ἐξ ἰδίης ἕλκων ἀρχέτυσσον κραδίης.

Athen. lib. xiii. p. 591.—Jdem.
v.13. bpsZeing] Rara vox. usitalior
ἐφεξείης.---- ΜΙ.

Thid. ἐξετόρευσεν] f. ἕπτ᾽ ἐτύρευσεν----
“‘ cui subjecti sunt septem, qui versan-
tur retro contrario motu atque coelum.”
Cic. somn. Scip. c. 4. Non vero ex toto
necessarium est ἕπτ ἐτόρευσεν, quia
voces τὰς ὑφεξείης, reliquos ordine, quem=
vis numerum expriment. sic illi, qui
octo πτύχας nominavit, et unam exce-
pit, ai ὑφεξείης per se erunt septem,
sine ulla numeri istius mentione. Sus-
picor vero hic Musurum confudisse
ἐξετόρευσεν et ἐξετόρνευσεν, et hoc ulti-

mum yoluisse, Distinctionem verbo- -

290)
Αὐτόν

MAPKOY MOYZOYPOY.

SEV ἀκροτάτης ἀντία κωυμένας,

Ἣ σφέας ἀρτσάξζουσα παλιμπλάγκτοιο κελεύϑου 15
Σύρει ἀνογκαίῃ, ταὶ δὲ βιηζόμενοι

Οὐκ ἀέκουσαι ἔσονται" ὅμως ἐὸν οἶμον ἑκάστη
Ἔμπαλιν ἐξανύει βαρδιον ἢ 1 τάχιον.

"Qu ἔνι κυδρὸς " τ ἀτσὸ γαίης ὑψόσ᾽ ἀείρων,
Ἱμέρῳ ἄμμε φλέγει κάλλεος οὐρανίου" 20

“Qu evs Σὺ ψυχᾶς φύσιν ap oper, οὐδ΄, ἀμενηνοῦ
Σκήνευς ὀλλυμένου, δείξας ἀπολλυμένην"

ἼΑλλοτε διογενῶν πόλιν οὐρανογείτονα φωτῶν
Κτίζεις, οἷς oe μέλει “πότνα δικαιοσύνη,

"Hee καὶ εὐνομίη κουροτρόφος" οὐδ᾽ ἀπ᾽ ἐκείνου

Νόσφιν ἀπετραπέτην ἄστεος ὄσσε wah

2h \

poe καὶ Νέμεσις. Tis ἕκαστά κε μυϑολογεύοι
Ὅσσα “εοπνεύστοις ταῖσδ᾽ ἐνέθου σελίσιν ; ᾽
Tes γε rAaEwy ἀφίκοιο πόλιν βασιληϊδα πασέων;

Ὅσσας οὐρανόθεν δέρκεται ἠέλιος,

Ῥώμην ἑπτάλοφον, γαίης κράτος αἰὲν ἔχουσαν"
"Hs due μεσσατίης Θύμβρις ἑλισσόμενος,

Κοίρανος Ἕσσερίων ΕΣ κερατηφύρος εἰσιν
Οὔὖθαρ πιαίνων βώλακος Αὐσονίης.

"Eada δ᾽, οὐ Σικελῶν ὀλούφρονα, κεῖθι ,Τύραννον, 90
᾿Ωμοφάγον Σκύλλης λευγαλέης τρόφιμον,

Ὑβριστὴν μουσέων Διονύσιον, ἀλλά γε δήεις

rum τορεύειν celare, sculpere, et τορνεύ-
sy votundare, tornare, notavit Salmas.
in Plin. Exercit. et postea Bentleius
in not. ad Horat. A.P. v. 444. Admo-
Nam He-
sychius habet τορνεύει, γλύφει ; et τορ-

dum vetustus est hic error.

γευταὶ, γλύπται, pro τορεύει, τορευταί,
sed multo magis verisimile est, ut hi
septem globi vel orbes dieantur τορνεύ-
todas, tornari, rotundari, quam τορεύ-
εσθαι, sculpi, celari. Quo enim sensu

hoe ultimum ? Lt ipse Plato in'Timeo,

p.m. 148. de figura mundi loquens,
dicit, quod Deus κυκλοτερὲς αὐτὸ ἔτορ-
νεύσατο (in Voce media) Cicerone in
fragmento Timez, ¢. 6, liberius ver-
tente, idque ita tornavit, ut nihil effici
possit rotundius. Globus vel orbis rop-
γεύεται, tornatur: poculum “τορεύεται,
celatur.—M.

v. 22. Σκήνευς] Vox hee ex Platone
desumpta est, qui itidem ea utitur,
Ἡμεῖς μὲν γὰς ἐσμιὲν ψυχὴ, ζωὸν ἀθάνα-
τοῦ ἐν θγητῶ καθειςγμιένον φρουξίω, τὸ δὲ

MARCI MUSURI ELEGIA.

22k

Protinus se contrario metu atque summmum moventes;

Qui illos rapiens per remeabilem viam

Trahit necessitate, illi vero quanquam compulsi
Non inviti sequuntur; veruntamen suum quisque cur-

sum

Contrario motu conficit, tardius vel citius.
in quo volumine honestissimus Amor, ἃ terris in sub-

lime attollens,

Desiderio nos urit pulchritudinis ccelestis.

in quo tu anime naturam perennem, et, cum fragile
Corpus pereat, ostendisti non perituram.
Alibi nobilium virorum civitatem ad ccelos accedentem

Condis, quibus cure est veneranda justitia,

Et bene ordinata institutio, juvenum nutrix: neque ab ea
Urbe seorsum averterunt oculos

Pudor et Jus vindex. Quisnam singula enarret
Qua a Deo instinctis hisce inseruisti paginis?

His sumtis, adeas urbem dominam omnium,

Quot ὁ ceelo sol aspicit,

Romam septicollem, terre: imperium semper habentem:
Per quam mediam Tybris labens,

Fluviorum Hesperiorum rex, it corniger
Uber pinguefaciens gleba Ansoniz.

Illuc cum veneris, non Siculorum immanem ibi Tyran-

num,

Sevissimum Scylle exitialis alamnum,
Injuriosum in Musas Dionysium, sed utique invenies

=KH NOS πρὸς καποῦ περιήρμοσεν ἣ φύσις.
Axioch. p. 365.—F.

ν. 27. Αἰδὼς καὶ Néiuscic] Ex He-
siod. “Egy. καὶ Ἥμερ. v. 198.—M.

V. 33. Κοίρανος κ. τ. λ.7 Vertit istud
Virgilii, Aun. viii. 77. « Corniger Hes-

peridam fluvius regnator Aquarum.’’—
M.

v.36. ᾽Ω μοφάγον] Queeri possit, quo
sensu Dionysius dici potuerit duspa-
yoy.
transferendum ad Σκύλλης. vid. Hom.
Odyss. M. 245. seqq. Si offendant duo
Epitheta (vid. infra, v. 43.) legi potest
λευγαλέον τρόφεμκον.---- M.

Scribendum puto ὠρκοφάγου, et

222

MAPKOY MOYSZOYPOY.

Qu ro¥ ὁμοῖον ἰδεῖν φῶτα μάτην ἐπόϑεις"
᾿Αμφότερον, σοφίης τε πρόμον, καὶ ποιμένα λαῶν
Ὁππόσοι Εὐρώπην ναιετάουσιν ὅλην" 40
/ 3 “ / ee ,
Λαυριάδην, ἐρωτῆς Φλωρεντίδος ἀστέρα WaT pS
Λαμπρόν" ardp Μεδίκων τῶν ὀνομαστοτάτων
Τηλεϑύον καλὸν ἔρνος, ἀειϑ)αλὲς, ἀγλαόκαρπον;

419

Τοπρὶν Ἰωάννην, νῦν δ᾽ ἂρ ἀπειρεσίων
Γαιάων econva, ΛΕΌΝΤΑ, κράτιστον ὀλύμπου 45
Κλειδοῦχον, τοῦ νεῦμ᾽ ὡς Διὸς Comedian”
Πᾶς ov ἄναξ σέβεται γουνούμενος, οὐδὲ τις αὐτῷ
Τολμὰ σκηπτούχων ἀντιφεριζέμεναι.
3 \ 3.9 / ας κα Ἄν a
EicCas ὃ ὀλξιόδαιμον ὠνῶώκτορον, evdus EPUT TAS
Σεῖο, Πλάτων, πολλοὺς ὄψεαι ἐν μεγάροις, 50
Παντοίαις ὠρεταῖσι μεμηλότας; ἠδ᾽ ὀαρισταὰς
Τερπνοὺς καὶ πινυτοὺς “Ζηνὸς ἐπιχθονίου,
7 « Fyne X fe \ / 7
Tlavrovey οὗς autos μετεπέμψατο, καὶ σφίσι χαίρει
/ \ \ / Py
Τιμηεντὰ διδοὺς καὶ “σολύολβα γέρα.
Ἔξοχα δ᾽ αὖ περὶ κῆρι φιλεῖ δύο, τὸν μὲν ἀφ᾽ bons ὅδ
Ἕλλαδος, οὐχ, ἕνα τῶν, OF πελόμεσϑα τανῦν,
Ῥωμαῖοι Γραικοΐ τε καλεύμενοι, ἀλλὰ παλαιοῖς
᾿Ατθίδος, ἢ Σπάρτης εἰκελον ἡμιϑέοις,
Λασκαρέων evens ἐρικυδέος ἄκρον ἄωτον,

\ n of la ~
Και τριπροσωποφανους ουνομ, εχοντῶ Seou.

«ἂν»

v.39. ᾿Αμφότερον, σοφίης τε πρόμον]
Allusum ad Homeri notum istud,

᾿Αμφότερον, βασιλεύς + ἀγαθὸς, κρα-

περός τ᾽ αἰχμιητής.---".

v. 43. Τηλεθόον] Munckerus habet
Θηλεθόον ; nescio unde: et interpreta-
tur, Longinquum.

v. 49. ἀνάκτορον)] Bene hic ἀνάκτο-
eov; cujus vocis notio duplex est, et
divinum et regium aliquod complec-
tens. ᾿Ανακτόρων, ναῶν ἢ οἴκων βασιλέων.
Hesych.—F.

v. 51. παντοίαις ἀρεταῖσι peumarcras. |

Vid. D’orvill. in Chariton. p. 580. qui
citat ex Nonno, παντοίαις ἀρετῆσι με-
penddres, et vertit, Omni virtute prediti.
Tbi Jocutionem explicat.— M.

v. 57. Ῥωμαῖοι Τραικοίτε] f. Ῥωμαῖο-
Τραικοί ye.—M.

v. 60. Τριπροσωποφανοῦς] f. δισροσω-
ποφανοῦς. Nam Janus biceps et bifrons
sepe occurril. etiam quadrifrons: Ser-
vius ad Ain. vii. 607. et Macrob. Sa-
turnal. 1.9. Quero, ubi trifrons. Facile
quidem fieri poluit, ut Musurus, Gree-
cus, non adev accurate versatus fuerit
in Historia fabulari Latina. Sed mirum

MARCI MUSURI ELEGIA.

223

Cui tunc similem videre virum frustra desiderabas ;
Utrumque, et doctrinz antistitem, et Pastorem popu-

lorum

Quotquot totam Europam incolunt ; 40
Laurentii filium, amoenz Florentiz stellam patric

Splendidam: Mediceorum autem celeberrimorum
Virescentem pulchrum surculum, semper-florentem, dul-

ces fructus edentem,

Nuper Joannem, nunc vero infinitarum 44

Gentium dominum, Leonem, qui prestantissimus ceeli
Claves habet, cujus nutum ut Dei veremur:

Quem rex quisq; veneratur supplex, neq; aliquis illi
Audet sceptra gestantium se conferre.

Ingressus vero faustum sanctumq; palatium, statim ama-

tores

Tui, Plato, multos cemes in edibus, 50

Omnigenis in virtutibus versatos, et sermonis socios
Amabiles ac sapientes terrestris Dei,

Quos ipse undecunque accivit, et ipsis gaudet
Honorifica donans et amplissima munera.

Przecipue vero ex animo diligit duos, hunc quidem ex

sacra

Grecia, non unum multorum, quales nunc sumus,
Romano-Greci vocati, sed antique
Atticze aut Spartz Semideis similem,
Lascarinez gentis illustris summum florem, 9
Et triplices vultus gerentis [Jani] nomen habentis Dei.

est Aldum Manutium hunc errorem (si
error sit) non correxisse. Quod et de
versu 152. dictum sit.—M.

Ibid.] Hoc unum est ex illis Musuri
vocabulis, in quibus satisfacere sibi se
posse negat Phil. Munckerus. ‘“‘ Quis
preeter Musurum trifrontem illum appel-
lavit? Apud Hesiod. Theog. v. 287.
per τρικάρηνον Γηρύονα quidam inter-
pretes Lunam intelligunt, ob triplicem

mensis divisionem in Nonas, Idus, et
Calendas: Alii etiam apud Pierium
Valerium de Hieroglyphicis, indigitari
pulant tempus presens, preteritum, et
faturum. An forte ob hoc triplex
tempus etiam Janus τριπροσωποφαγὴς
appellatur, et inde statue ei erecte
sunt tricipites, quales non raro se vi-
disse narrayit aliquando nobis Nob.
Heinsius >” Pref. p. 10.

224

MAPKOY MOYSOYPOY.

Ὅς μ᾽ ἔτι τυτϑὸν ε ἐόντα, πατὴρ ἅτε φίλτατον υἱὸν»,
Στεργόμενος, περὶ δὴ στέρξεν ἀ ἀπὸ κραδίης"
Καί μοι στεῖνος ὁδοῦ, πρὸς ᾿Αχαῖῖδα μοῦσαν ἀγούσης,
Δεῖξεν a ἀριγνώτως μοῦνος ἐπιστάμενος.
Τὸν δ᾽ ὁ ἕτερον τριπλαίσι, κεκασμένον vem ines, 65
Καὶ πλασϑέντα ape? χερσὶ σοφοῖς χαρίτων,
Βεμξιάδην 7 ἡρωῶ" ware δὲ συνίστορα πάντων
Θήκεν ἀτπσοῤῥήτων οὔατα τοῦδε μέγας,
Παντα οἱ ἐξαυδῶν μελεδήματα ταορφύροντος
Θυμοῦ, ἀναπτύσσων Τ᾽ ἦτορ ἔνερϑεν ὃ ὅλον. γα
Κεῖνοι δ σ᾽ ἐσιδόντες, ὦ ἀγινήσουσιν ἐς ὥσα
Πατρός" 0 δ᾽ ἀσπασίως δέξεται. ἀλλὰ σύ WE,
"Hi Semis, ἀχράντου δράξαι ποδὸς" ἵλαϑι, λέξας,
rie)! Πάτερ, ὡ προιμοὶν ἵλανι σαὶϊς ἀγέλαις"
Δέχνυσο O° εὐμενέως δῶρον τό, wep ᾿Αλδὸς of ἀμύμων 75
Δεψηταῖς ε ἐρίφων γραπτὸν ἐν ἀρνακίσι,
Πρόφρων σοὶ προΐησι, διοτρεφέρ᾽ αὐτὰρ ἀμοιβὴν
Tod εὐεργεσίης 1 ἥτεε eas ctv np,
Οὐχ ἵνα οἱ χρυσὸν τε καὶ ἄργυρον, oud ἵνα πέμψης
Ἐμπλείην βηγέων λαρνακα πορφυρέων" 90
"AAW WwW ᾿ὠποσξέσσῃς μαλερὸν ae ἀλλοτσροσάλλου

"AG06, τῷ ἡ πάντ ἀμαθυνόμενω
Ὄλλυται. οὐκ aieic, ὡς Εὐγανέαις ἐν ἀρούραις
Havre πλέω λύθρου. “σαντα πλέω νεκύων.
Παίδων δ᾽ οἰμωγὴν; καὶ ϑηλυτερῶν ὁλολυψὴν 85

v.65. τριπλαῖσι) sc. Greeca, Latina,
et Italica.— ἢ].

v. 68. ἀποῤῥήτων) Fecit eum a secre-
tis, 1. 6. secretarium.—M.
v. 81. μαλερὸν στοῦρ᾽
*Apnog] In δηΐπιο habuit Sophoclem
Qidip. Tyran. vy. 199. “Agee τε τὸν pra-
λερὸν, ὃς γῦν ἄχαλκος ἀσπίδων φλέγει με,
&e. ᾿Αλλοπρυσάλλου Αρηος est ex Iliad.

E. 831.—M.
v. 85. Εὐγαγέαις] Cum Masurus Pa-

ἀλλοπροσάλλου

tavii Gracos auclores prxlegeret, Β1Π|:
ma cum auditorum frequentia atque ad-
miralione, tum etiam tanta ipsius dili-
gentia, αἱ toto vix quatuor dies anno
intermitteret, quin publice profitere-
tur; afflicta demum bellis Venetorum
repubiica, Patavium deserere coactus
est, et Venetias se conferre: ubi eas-
dem literas magna cum laude docuit.
Annis post paucis, scilicetann. mpxyt,

Romam a Leone X. auctoribus Alberto

MARCI MUSURI ELEGIA. 225

Qui me, cum essem parvulus, ceu pater filium charis-
simum,
Dilectus, plurimum dilexit ex animo ;
Et mihi angustias vie, ad Greecam Musam ducentis,
Ostendit egregie solus sciens.

Alterum vero triplici instructum facundia, 65
Et formatum trium manibus solertibus Gratiarum,
Bembum prestantissimum. Magnus autem participes

omnium
Arcanorum fecit aures hujus Pater,
Omnia ei declarans consilia revolventis plurima
Animi, explicansque cor funditus totum. 70
Illi vero te conspicati, ducent in conspectum _
Patris: et ille amicissime excipiet: sed tu utiq;
Qua fas, sanctum apprehende pedem: “ fave propitius
(dicens)
O Pater, O Pastor, fave propitius tuis gregibus.
Et accipe benevolus donum, quod Aldus optimus, 70
Subactis heedorum inscriptum pellibus,
Libens tibi mittit, nobilissime : vicem autem
Huic beneficio petit ille vir,
Non ut sibi aurum et argentum, non ut mittas
Plenam palliis arcam purpureis : 80
Sed ut extinguas perniciosam flammam mutabilis
Martis, qué nunc omnia deperdita
Jacent. Nonne audis, ut Patavinis in arvis
Omnia sint plena cede, omnia plena cadaveribus ?
Puerorum lamenta et mulierum ululatus 85

Pio, Carporum principe, et Joanne Monovyasiensis, Manilio Rhallo jam
Lascare, accilus est, ibique benignis- nuper mortuo, factus creditur. Euga-
sime exceptus. Anno vero jam ante nei verosunt inter Alpes et mare positi,
tertio, quam Romam commigraverat, et seepe pro Veronensibus, Patavinis,
opera Platonis ab Aldo primum edita, | &c.memorantur. Liv. init. lib.i. Plin.
prestanti hoc carmine ad Leonempre- lib. iii. ο. 20. Juv. Sat. viii. 15. Mar-
muniverat. Cujus quidem poematis _ tial. xiv. epigr. 155, et alibi—F.
gratia Archiepiscopus Epidaurius, sive

226

MAPKOY MOYSOYPOY.

"Ourice μὲν Κύκλωψ, ὥκτισε δ᾽ ᾿Αντιφάτης.
Φλὸξ δ᾽ ὀλοὴ τεμένη τε ϑεῶν οἴκους τε πολιτῶν
Δαρδάπτει, μογερῶν τ᾽ ἀγρονόμων καμάτους.
Ὅσσων δ᾽ αὖθ᾽ " Ἥφαιστος ἐφείσατο, ταῦτ᾽ ἀλαπάξει
Βάρξαρος, οὐ στοργὴν. οὐδ᾽ ἐλεητυν ἔχων. 90
Παῦσον, ἄναξ, χάρμην ἐμφύλιον, ἔνθεο σοῖσιν
Υἱάσιν εἰρήνην καὶ φιλότητα, Πάτερ,
Σχέτλιος ἣ ἣν τεταγψων ἼΑρης πολυβενϑὲς ε ες ἄντρον
‘Qe, λίθοις φράξας πωμα κατωρύχεσιν.
᾿Αλλὰ σύ poy μοχλοῖσιν ἀνέλκυσον, mae λόψοιο 95
Δεῖξον ἰδεῖν ϑείου λάτρισιν ἀτρεμέα
Εἰρήνην πολύκαρπον, εὔφρονα. ξοτρυόδωρον,
Εἰρήνην κόσμῳ πᾶντι ποθεινοτάτην.
Αὐτὰρ cei Sumer ces ἐπιπροΐαψον ἅ αἀπαντας

᾿Τουρκογενῶν ἀνόμοις ἔθνεσιν αἰνολύκων.

100

Or χιϑόνα δουλώσαντες ᾿Αχαίΐδα, νῦν μεμάασι
Ναυσὶ διεκπεροαν ψῆν ἐς Ἰηπυγίην,
Ζεῦγλαν ἀπειλοῦντες δούλειον ε ἐσ αὐχένι ϑήσειν
Αμμων, αἰστώσειν δ᾽ οὔνομα Θειοτόκου.
᾿Αλλὰ σὺ δὴ πρότερος τεῦζον σφίσιν αἰπὺν ὄλεθρον, 105
Πέμψας εἰς ᾿Ασίης μυρία φῦλα πέδον᾽
Χαλκεοθωρήκων Κελτάων ϑοῦριν € EVUG),
Ἵππους κεντούντων πρώοσιν εἰδομένους.
Αἰθώνων μετέπειτα σακέσπαλον εὔνος Ἰβήρων,

Καὶ μέλαν Ἑλβετίης πεζομάχοιο νέφος.

110

Γερμανῶν τε φάλαγγας ἀπείρονας ἀνδρογιγάντων,

v. 86. "βκτισε μεν] f. "[Ὥκτισεν ἄν. M.

Vv. 95. μοχλοῖσιν avernucoy | Aristoph.
Εἰρήν" 306.

Πρὶν μοχλοῖς καὶ panavatow εἰς τὸ φῶς
ἀνελκύσαι

Τὴν θεῶν πασῶν μεγίστην καὶ φιλαμι-
πελωτάτην.

Distichon pracedens est ex eodem

dramate, v. 222, 225, 224. Ad eru-
ditionem Musuri probandam pertinet,
ut intelligatur, ex quibus auctoribus
antiquis ἐννοίας suas sumserit. Utinam
plures exhibere possemus !—M.

v. 99. deBundivrac] De militibus
dictum, numero vel sorte lectis. Hesy-
chius: ἀειθμεῖται, ἐξετάζεται : hoc est
quod nos dicimus, mustered. Enurip,

MARCI MUSURI ELEGIA. 227

Misereri potuisset Cyclops, misereri potuisset Anti-
phates.
[gnis autem exitialis et Deorum edes et civium domos
Devastat, et eerumnosorum agricolarum labores.
Quot vero pepercit flamma, hec perdit
Barbarus, non humanitatem neq; misericordiam ha-
bens. 90
Siste, Rex, bellum civile, infunde tuis
Filiis pacem et amorem, Pater:
Quam prehensam dirus Mars in profundissimum antrum
Compulit, lapidibus occluso ostio alte defossis.
Sed Tu ipsam vectibus extrahe, et verbi 95
Divini cultoribus exhibe videndam securam
Pacem, fertilem, benevolam, uvee-feracem,
Pacem mundo toti maxime desiderandam.
Sed numero instructos premitte omnes
In Turcarum barbaras gentes predatorum : 100
Qui, subdita servituti Greecia, nunc ardent
Navibus trajicere in terram Iapygiam,

Jugum minantes servile se cervicibus imposituros
Nobis, et penitus perdituros nomen Christi. .
Sed tu prior compara ipsis grave exitium, 105

Mittens in Asia campos innumeras manus: Ὁ
ére-loricatorum Celtarum bellicum impetum,

Equos adurgentium promontoriis similes :
Ardentium deinde clypeatam gentem Iberorum,

Et nigram Helvetici peditatus nubem : 110
Germanorumque phalangas innumeras ingentium,

Supplic. 391. Στρατὸς δὲ θάσσει, uaze- cas, erit Christus ipse Deo natus: si a

τάζεται παρὼν, &c.—M., Θειοτόκος, eril sacrosancta Virgo, Dei
Ibid. ἅπαντας} Quinam sunt hi om- _parens. Munckerus interpretatur, Dei-

mes? opinor ἀπαντᾷν, qui occurrant pare. Acciaiolus utramque significa-

Turcarum barbaris gentibus predato- _ tionem expressit,

rum. vid.v, 105, 106.—M. “Αἱ Christo, et Mariz nominis exi-
v. 104. Θειότόκου] Si a Θειότοκος du- tium.”

228

MAPKOY MOY ZOYPOY.

Τοῖς δ᾽ cmt Βρεττανῶν λαὸν ἀρηϊφίλων.
Πάσης δ᾽ Ἰταλίης ὅσ᾽ ἀλεύατο λείψανα πότμων,
Οὐδὲ διερραίσϑη δούρασιν ἀλλοθρόων.

ἴΑλλοι μὲν τραφερῆς δολιχὲς ἀναμετρήσαντες
7 /

115

32 a 9.39 9)
ATCATITOUS, ὧν θρή καὶ διὰ μεσσογεων,

\ i / 2 \ / e/
Και ποταμων διαβάντες ἀεὶ κελάδοντα ῥέεθρα,
Δυσμενέεσσι γένους κῆρα φέροιεν ἐμοῦ, .

΄ ~ >
Θωρηχϑέντες, ὁμοῦ σὺν Παίοσιν ὠγκυλοτόξοις,

Tos ϑαμὲὰ Τουρκάων αἵματι δευομένοις"

120

3 Ν / nr cou 3 /
Avra χιλιόναυς Βενετὼν arog ὠρχιμεδόντων
3 \ 3 / / /
Ovaamos, ὠκυάλοις ὁλκάσι μαρνῶμενος.
nN xe ς ~ / 32) >
Kes νέες Ισπανων μεγακητεες. οὐρεσιν TOLL,
“\ \ ς ΛΑ ΣΝ xt) 17) ~
At κορυφας στῶν ἐντὸς EXOT νεφων,
Sv 5. Ὁ / ΡΝ / δὲ a
Eudtus es Ἑλλήσποντον (ὑπὲρ καρχήσιω de TPEwy

Αἰὲν ἀειρέσω σταυρὸς ἀλεζίκακος)

125

Ὁρμάσϑων" ἢν γάρ τε πόλει Βυζαντίδι τσρώτῃ
Νόστιμον ἀστράψη φέγγος ἐλευερίης,

Αὐτήν κεν σλάσσειας ἀμαιμακέτοιο doctor Tog
Συντρίψας κεφαλήν" τἄλλα δὲ τοῖο μέλη

«ες a) 2 \ / Ν .« / Ldn
Pel ἀλαπαδνὲ YEVOIWTO. AEWS OTS ϑάρσος αείρας

190

Γραικὸς, ὃ δουλείᾳ νῦν κατατρυχόμενος,
᾿Αρχαίης ἀρετῆς. ἐν ἐλεύθερον ἥμαρ ἴδηται,
Μνήσεται, aural Oniov ἐνδομύχως.
Αὐταὶρ ἐπεὶ κτείνωσιν ἀλάστορας. ῆ πέραν Ἰνδῶν

Φεύγοντας κρωτερᾷ γ᾽ ἐξελάσωσι Gin,

185

Αὐτήμαρ ov ϑεοῖς ἐτσινίκιον ὕμνον ἀείδων,
Καὶ μεγάλης χαίρων εἵνεκα καμμονίης,
᾿Ανδρώσι VIKNT OG, στεφανηφόρα κράατ᾽ ἔχουσιν,
᾿Ασίδος ἀφνειῆς πλοῦτον ἀπειρέσιον,

v. 113. Πάσης δ᾽] f. Πάσης τ΄.---Μ.

Vv. 120. Τουρκάων αἵμκωτι δευομεένοις]
Hoc ad Alexandri ducis Epirotarum,
sive (ut a Turcis et vulgo vocatur)
Scanderbechires gestas videtur referri :
qui, cum ab Amurathe defecisset, pa-
terua ditione recepta, multa adversus

Turcas prelia secunda fecit. Inde
Crojam, precipuam Epiri (que nunc
Albania est) urbem, Amurathe oppug-
nante, parva manu defendens, mirabilia
virtutis exempla edidit ; per que Tur-
cis, alibi victoria elatis, magnum αποδὰ
vixit terrorem incussit.—F.

MARCI MUSURI ELEGIA. 229

Ad hos quoque Britannorum copias bellicosorum:
Et omnis Italie quot fugerunt reliquiz fatum,
Neque penitus fractz sunt hastis exterorum.
Alii terres longas emensi 115
Vias, per montes et per medium continentis telluris,
Et per fluviorum transmissi semper-resonantes rivos,
Hostibus mei generis cladem ferant,
Thoracibus muniti, simul cum Peeonibus curvos-arcus-
gestantibus,
Jam szepe Turcarum sanguine madefactis : 120
Sed mille navibus Venetorum mari imperantium
Densum agmen, velocibus navigiis pugnans,
Et naves Hispanorum pregrandes, montibus similes,
Quz cacumina malorum inter nubes habent,
Protinus ad Hellespontum (in summisq; ipsarum an-
tennis
Semper attollatur Crux salutifera) 125
Impetum faciant. Si enim urbi Byzantine principi
Redux affulgeat lux libertatis,
Ipsum frangas immanis Draconis
Contusum caput, aliaque ipsius membra 129
Facile dissipentur ; quoniam populus animos tollens
Grecus, servitute nunc attritus,
Antiquz virtutis, ut libertatis diem cernat,
Reminiscetur, vulnerans hostem usq; in viscera.
Cum vero interfecerint Furias hasce, vel ultra Indos
Fugientes valida abegerint vi, 135
Illo die tu Deis triumphale carmen canens,
Et magnam gaudens propter victoriam fortifer partam,
Viris victoribus, capita coronata habentibus,
Asiz opulent gazas immensas,

v. 121: Αὐτὰρ χιλιόνγαυς)] Connec- ν. 107. recensentur copie terrestres,
tuntar hec cum precedentibus ; ideo- quascontra Turcas mitti Musurus yo-
que non plene distingui oportuit post Juit: hic murine, nempe Venetz et

δευομένοις. y. 120. In superioribus, a Hispanz naves.—M.

“90

3 / Ne 7
Τουρκαων ἄφενός TE, ῥυηφενίην TE κῶὶ ὄλβον,

MAPKOY ΜΟΥΣΟΥΡΟΥ.

140

“Ἑξηκονταετὴς ὃν συνέλεξε χρόνος,
Χερσὶ τροπαιούχοις διαδάσσεαι ἀνδρακάς" οἱ δ᾽ αὖ
Σκυλοχαρεῖς πάτρης μνησάμενοι σφετέρης
, 2 «Ἀλ 7 \ / “ὍΣ
Μέλψονται καὶ odov -«σαιήηονα. Καὶ σρυλιν οσλοις

Ὀρχήσονται, ὅλᾳ ψυχᾷ ὠγωλλόμενοι.

145

\ / on \ ~ 3 “ 3 “δὶ

Καὶ τότε oy ποτι γαΐαν απ oupavou ευρυοθείῶν
7 9 7 4 , 7]
Πτήσετῶι Αστραιου πρέσβα Δίκη ϑυγατηρ;
tes / “- 3 \ 3 37. ee Ν

Μηκέτι μηνιουσαὰ βροτοῖς" EEL OUK ET ἄλιτρον:,

2 > 7 n nw J e /

AAA εσται χρύσουν way γένος ἡμεριῶν.

~ / cf \ \ 3.2]
Σεῖο ϑεμιστεύοντος orn χθονὶ, καὶ wer ὄλεθρον
7 2/ nn 2 /
Δυσσεξέων., οὐσης mavTaxou ηρεμίης.

150

N \ \ 37, / ~ \ 6
Καὶ τὰ μεν eile γένοιτο. μαθήμασι νῦν δὲ παλαιῶν
ς 7 5? 3} 3 7,
Ἑλλήνων, ὦ vag, ἄρκεσον οἰχομένοις.
/ 2¢ / / ς 7
Θαρσυνον δ᾽ Ἑκάτοιο φιλαγρύπνους uTopyTas,

7 7 Ἂν tA eee =
Δωροις μειλίσσων. καὶ γεραεσσι θεῶν
Brea ? γε

/ / / Ν ἯΙ αι ~
ΠΠαντοδαπούς τε, Πατερ, ξυναγείρας ἢ μὲν Αχαιων,
Ἂ \ 7 C7 ς /
H δὲ τσολυσπερέων υἱέας Ἐσπερίων;
/ \ ἴω > Vb 3 n
Πρωθηξας, καὶ μήτε φρενὼν ἐπιδευέας ἐσθλῶν,
/ ~ TALS: > cf 5 7
Myre φυης, μήτ οὖν αἰμῶᾶτος εὐγένεος.
> 7 / 3 / ἧς 3
Εν ‘Pawn κατανωσσον, ἐπιστήσας σφισιν ἄνδρας, 160
« / / / ? /
Os σώζουσι λόγων ζωπυρον ὠγυγίων.

v. 141. ἱΕξηκονταετὴς] Sexaginta anni
ἃ Constantinopoli capta jam elapsi fue-
rant.—F.

y. 144. πρύλιν] Callimachus Hymn.
in Jov. v. 52.

Οὖλα δὲ Κούρητές τε περὶ πρύλιν ὠρχή-
σαντο.

item in Dian. ν. 240.—M.

v. 147. ᾿Αστραίου--- Δίκη θυγάτηρ)
Quisnamsit hic Αβίγοθιβ pater Justitiz,
non inyenio. Astrzum patrem Vento-
rum video in Hesiod. 'Theog. ν. 518,

in quam rem citatur a Servio ad Ain.

1.136. gui, ut et Apollodorus Biblioth.
I. 2. facit eum unum ex Titanibus.
Notum istud Ovidii Metam. I. 149.—
terras Astrea reliquit. Hee alibi vo-
catur Justitia, Fast. 1. 249. Hunc lo-
cum Musnri non intelligo. Scripsisse
potuit—Acrreain πρέσβα Δίος θυγάτηρ:
nam Astrea seu Justitia erat Jovis et
Themidis filia. Sed probabilius puto,
Musurum memorize lapsnu ita scripsisse
ut editur. Idem vult, quod Virgilius in
isto, Jam redit et Virgo.—M.

v. 151. ἠρεμίης) ita legendum vide-
tur pro vulg. ἡμερίας. vid. D’orvill. ad
Chariton. 548,—M.

MARCI MUSURI ELEGIA.

Turcarum opesque, ac rerum copiam, et divitias,

234
140

Quas per sexaginta annos collegerunt,
Manibus tropza ferentibus divides viritim: at illi

Spoliis gaudentes patrize reminiscentes suz
Cantabunt per viam Peeana, et tripudium militare

Saltabunt, toto pectore exultantes.

145

Ac tum sane ad terram latam ἃ czlo
Devolabit Astrai veneranda filia Justitia,
Non amplius irata mortalibus: quoniam non amplius

scelestum,

Sed erit aureum totum genus Hominum,

Te imperante toti terra, et post cladem

150

Impiorum existente ubique tranquillitate.

Et hec quidem utinam fiant. Literis vero nunc Veterum
Grzcorum, o Domine, fautor adsis pereuntibus :

Et hortare Phoebi vigiles ministros,

Donis mulcens et muneribus sacris.

155

Omnesq; undecunq; Pater, collectos sive Graecorum,
Sive passim sparsorum filios Hesperiorum,

Puberes, et neque ingenii boni egentes,
Neq; speciei, neq; sanguinis nobilis,

In Roma inqguilinos constitue, cum preefeceris ipsis

viros,

160

Qui servant vocum quasi scintillam vetustarum.

v. 152. Kat τὰ μὲν] Leonem belli in
Turcas gerendi ralionem inslituisse,
patet ex Paul. Jov. p. 92.—F.

155. θεῶν] f. θεοῦ, sc. Ἕκάτοιο, nisi
malis καὶ γεράεσσι τίων. hee enim vox
penultimam interdum corripit, ut in
‘isto nescio cujus,

Πᾶς τις πλούσιον ἄνδρα τίει, aries δὲ πε-
νιχρόν.
et Hom. Odyss. N. 198. 142.—M.
ν. 158, 159. μήτε φρενῶν---(αήτε
φυῆς} Ex Hom. Iliad, Δ. 115, οὐδὲ

φυὴν, οὔτ᾽ ἂρ ppévag.—M.
v. 160.
quandam Grecam Rome inslituit Leo,

κπατάνασσον)] Academiam

auctoribus cum Musuro nostro, tum
Aldo, et J. Lascari ; quiquidem deinde
ipsi huic Gymnasio preerant: ubi pu-
eri ingeniosi ac nobiles, ὃ Grecia un-
decunque acciti, alebantur et Romana
simul lingua erudiebantur ; ne sermone
Greco scite loquentium soboles inte-
riret. Plurimum debent docti omnes
huic Academiz. Hod, de Gree. illustr.
p- 253. 501.—F.

232

MAPKOY MOYZOYPOY.

Ναίοιεν δ᾽ ἀπάνευθε πολυσκάρθμοιο κυδοιμοῦ
Nyiadev προχοωῖς γειτονέοντα δόμον.
To δ᾽ ἐκαδημείης 0 ὄνομ᾽ εἰη κυδιανείρης

Ζήλῳ τῷ προτέρης, ἣν ποτ᾽ ἐγὼ νεμόμην,

Κούροις εὐφυέεσσιν ἐπισταμένως ὀαρίζων,
Τούς ¥ ἀνωμιμνήσκων ὧν πάρος ς αὐτοὶ ἰσαν.
"AAA ἡ μὲν δὴ 0 ὄλωλε. σὺ δ᾽ ἢ ἣν καινὴν ἀναφήνης,
Ἔνθεν ἃ ἄρ᾽ εὐμαθίης πυρσὸς ἀναπτόμενος,

Βαιοῦ ἀπὸ > σπινθῆρος, ἀνωπλήσει μάλα “πολλῶν

170

ψυχὰς ηἰθέων, φωτὸς ἀκηρασίου.
"Ev Ρώμῃ δέ κεν αὖθις ἀνηξήσειαν ᾿Αθῆνα,

᾿Αντί τοι Ἰλισσοῦ Θύμέριν ἀμειψώμεναι..
Ταῦτά τοι ἐκτελέσαντι κλέος, Πάτερ," οὐρανόμηκες

᾿Ἐσχατιὰς ἥξει μέσφ᾽ ἐς Ὑπερδορέων.

175

Ποία γάρ ποτε γλώσσα, τεὴν ποῖον στόμα φήμην,
Ἢ ὠγορητάων, ἢ καὶ ἀοιδοτσόλων

Οὐκ ἂν ἐφυμνήσειεν 5 : ἀμαυρώσει. δὲ τίς αἰὼν
Τηλεφανῆ τοίης πρήξιος ἀγλαΐην;

Ταῦτα τεοῦ γενετῆρος ἀοίδιμον, noe προπάππων

180

Πάντας ἐπ ᾿ ἀνθρώπους οὔνομα ϑήκαν, ἄναζ᾽
Τῶν δὲ σέθεν προτέρων βαξις κακὴ ᾿Αρχιερήων
Κακκέχυται, ἅτε δὴ πάμπαν ὠρειμανέων,

vy. 164. ἐκαδημείης legitur, quod idem
est atque ᾿Ακαδημείας : quod loci nomen
ductum est ab antiquo quodam heroe
Ecademo, qui eum Tyndaridarum tem-
poribus tenuit. Cum is suburbanus
locus esset amoenior, publice erat ab
Atheniensibus emptus, luco, portici-
busque instructus, doctorumque pre-
cipue factus disputalionibus accommo-
dus ; quze cum ibia Socratis discipulis
sepissime haberentur, disciplina inde
Academica, quam post Socratem prin-
ceps illustravit Plato, nomen suum
deduxit, apud posteros celebratissi-
mum.—F,

v. 167. ἀναμιμνήσκων) Hee verba
ad illud Platonis dogma referuntur,
quod scientiam omnem rerumque cog-
nitionem monet tantum esse Reminis-
centiam. ““ Discere nihil aliud est,
quam recordari.” Cic.Tusc. I. 24. qui
et alibi:
tequam nati sint, quod jam pueri cum
artes difficiles discunt, ita celeriter res

““ Homines scire, pleraque an-

innumerabiles arripiunt, ut non tum
primum accipere videantur, sed re-
minisci et recordari.” de Senect. 91.
Loci vero Platonis, ad quos Cicero et
Musurus respexerunt, sunt in Menone.
p. 81,82. Phzdro, p. 249. et Phzedone,

MARCI MUSURI ELEGIA.

233

Habitentq; procul a multum trepidante tumultu
Naiadum fluentis vicinam domum.
Et huic Academiz nomen sit viros insignienti

AEmulatione veteris, quam.olim ipse ordinavi,

165

Pueris ingenuis docte confabulans,
Eos admonens illorum, quz ante ipsi sciebant.

Sed illa quidem nunc periit. Tu vero si novam exhibueris,
Inde doctrinz lampas accensa,

Parva ex scintilla, implebit plurimorum

170

Mentes juvenum lumine purissimo.
In Roma sic iterum reviviscant Athenz

Ilisso Tybrim mutantes.

Tibi hec si perfeceris gloria, Pater, czelum pertingens

Ad fines usque ibit Hyperboreorum.

175

Que enim unquam lingua, tuam quodnam os famam,
Vel oratorum, vel etiam poetarum,

Non celebraret ? quanam abolebit «tas
Late conspicuum talis facti splendorem ?

Talia tui genitoris celebre, et proavorum

180

Omnes apud homines nomen fecerunt, ο Domine.
Te vero qui antecesserunt, inhonesta fama Pontificum

summorum

Diffusa est, ut qui omnino marte insanirent,

ubi Cebes ita Socratem alloquitur :
κατ᾽ ἐκεῖνόν ye λόγον, ὦ Σώκρατες (εἶ ἀληθής
ἐστι) ὃν σὺ εἴωθας θαμὰ λέγειν, ὅτι ἡμῖν
ἡ ΜΑΌΗΣΙΣ οὐκ ἄλλο τι ἢ ᾿ΑΝΑΜΝΗΣΙΣ

τυγχάνει οὖσα. ᾧ. ιή. Vid. Max. Tyrii’

Diss. 16. et Davisium δα locum: item
ad Tuscul. Disp. 1.24. Hse veroa
Pythagoreis didicisse videtur Plato.
vid. Jamblich. c. 14.—F.

v. 168. ᾿Αλλ᾽ ἡ μὲν δὴ ὄλωλε] Νὺν δὲ τὸ
μὲν διόλωλεν---ἰῃὰ Epigram. Stratonis ci-
tati D’orvillio in Chariton, p.197.—M.

ν. 173. ἀντί τοι] To: hoc loco non
ponitur pro Dorico, Σοὶ, ut opinor, sicut
fit in versu, 174. sed, quemadmodum

de ea Budzus dicit, ornatus tantum
gralia, et explementi orationis; addi
potest, et versus.—M.

vy. 180. γενετῆρος] Laurentii Medicei;
cujus erat filius Joannes, postea Leo X.
Laurentius aulem, ut supra diximus,
Musarum amantissimus, per Joh. Las-
carim, Constantinopolim ad Bajazetem
a se legatum, bibliothecam suam Gre-
cis voluminibus referserat. Paul. Joy.
in vit. Leon, p. 35.—F.

ν. 182. βάξις κακὴ---κακκέχυται] Ex
Plutarch. in Lacen. Apopth. p. 241.

A. κακὰ φάμα τεῦ κακκέχυται.---- "Ί.

234

MAPKOY MOY ZOYPOY.

/ ve Ε] ͵ 3 ἀν
Καὶ τε φιληδούντων ἀνδροκτασίαις ΟῚ

Καὶ κεραϊ ζομένοις ot ATES τερπομένων.

185

TOIA ov wore peewevos πείσεις, TMEVOOVTCL παρορμέων,
Θεῖε Πλάτων" ἐπεί Ob ; πάτριόν ε ἐστιν ἔθος

Εἰρήνην φιλέειν, ἑκοὶς Αὔσονος ὠθέμεν αἴης
Ῥίμφα, ταλαύρινον βαρξαρόφωνον ἀ ἄρη,

"HO Ἑλιυκωνιάδων ἡ Ἑλλήνιον ἄλσος ὀφέλλειν

190

ὍὉρπήκεσσι φυτῶν ἄρτι κυϊσκομένων.

Ναὶ poly εὐμεγέθους σέο μορφῆς ἐκπρεπὲς εἶδος,
Καί τε θεοῖς 4 inerny ἀθανάτοισι φυὴν,

Καὶ γεραροὺς ὦμους, βαθυχαιτήεντά τε κόσμον

Παλλεύκου κορυφῆς κεῖνος ἀγασσάμενος,

195

Αἰδεσθείς τε σέξας πολιῶν; καὶ σεμνὸ γένεια;
Οὐ νηκουστήσει σῶν ὑποθημοσυνῶν,
Πειθοῖ ϑελξινόῳ κηλούμενος. ᾿ΑΛΛΑ' TOI ὥρα

Πτηνὸν ἐῶντι ϑεῶν ἅ ὥρμῶ καθιπτάμεναι.

v. 186. παρορμέων] Hoc ipsum quo-
mode vertere debeam, hactenus ignoro.
Musuro significare videtur, incitans.
Sed ego mallem pro eo πιαρορμκῶν, con-
tractum nempe ex rragogudwy. Παρορμιέω
enim est, eadem statione utor, ab ὅρμκος
statio navium ; sed gragogudw est incito
ab ogun, impetus. Si retineas παρορ-
(ῥέων, et sic metaphorice interpreteris,
in eadem statione sive aula cum Leone
degens ; id nimis, nisi fallor, erit puti-
dum. Musurum ipsum hic errasse
quis ausit credere? Proximum forct
et tolerabilius statuere,in editione Ve-
neta (licet ei corrigendze Musurus pre-
fuerit) remansisse hoc erratum typo-
graphicum, παρορμκέων pro σπαρορμεῶν :

nemo enim ad singulos apices ila est
Lynceus. Mancker. pref. p. 12.

ν. 190. Ἑλικωνιάδων ᾿Ἑλλήνιον ἄλσος
i.e. ᾿Ελικωγιάδων seu Μουσῶν “Ἑλληνίδων

ἄλσος, Musarum Grecarum nemus.

Ὃρπήκεσσι φυτῶν, &c. alludit ad Aca-

demiam Grzecam, quam Leo modo in-
vid. ad v. 165. Hesych.

Κυΐσκει, συλλαμβάνει.

stituerat.
Κυΐσκεται, ἔγκυος
γίνεται.----Μ.

v. 194. γεραροὺς &x0vg] Platonis no-
men erat primum Aristocles: quod
postea Platone mutavit Gymnasiarcha
ἀπὸ τῶν πλωτέων ὥμιων.--- ἘῚ.

* Miror sane, unde Erasmus in Ci-
ceroniano M. Musurum, cum “ virum
insigniter eradilum in omni disciplina-

MARCI MUSURI ELEGIA. 235
Et delectati essent czedibus horrendis, '
Et populatis urbibus gauderent.” 185

Talia tu admonens persuadebis, currentem incitans,
Divine Plato; quoniam ei patrius mos est

Pacem amare, procul ab Ausonia repellere terra
Celeriter durum barbaro cum strepitu Martem,

Et Heliconiadum Graecum nemus augere

190

Surculis plantarum jam fructus habentium.
Magne profecto tuz forme decoram speciem,

Et Diis similem immortalibus habitum,
Et augustos humeros, et demissis comis venustatem

Penitus albicantis capitis ille admiratus,

195

Reveritusque sanctam canitiem, et venerandam barbam,
Non respuet, que subjicias monita,

Suada flexanima delinitus——Sed tibi tempus est
Alatum linquenti Deorum currum devolare.

rum genere” dixisset, tamen “ in car-
mine subobscurum et affectatum” no-
taret. Hoc certe carmine nihil non
modo gravius elegantiusve, sed nec
distinctius dilucidiusve potest exquiri.
Tale Aldo, Leoni, Gyraldo, Jovio ac
ceteris omnibus fere doclis visum est :
et Jovius quidem non dubitat ‘ cum
antiquis elegantia comparandum esse,”
dicere. D’orvillius in Animadvers. ad
Charit. Aphrod. p. 348, carmen hoc
admirandum, si tempus spectes, et
Elegiam magnificam vocat. Ger. I.
Vossius in libello de poetis Grecis,
p. 84. ‘* sane preclarum Musuri Cre-
tensis ingenium testari (ait) pauca illa

Epigrammata : inter alia illud Platonis
operibus prefixum.” Magnis hoc lau-
dibus effert Munckerus in Preef. “ nihil
in hoc genere gravius, nihilque elegan-
ius uspiam se legere” affirmans. Nec
minoribus Dan. Heinsius in prefat.
Pep]. Gree. Epigram. Musurus dig-
nitalem Archiepiscopalem vix dum
adeptus, morte prereptus reliquit anno
1517. In honorem deinde ejus, Rome
sepulti, hoc sepulcro epitaphion in-
scriptum est :
Antonius Amiternus Marco Musuro
Cretensi,
Exacte diligentiz Grammatico,
Et rare felicitatis Poete, posuit.

Si
ᾧ inward

ee,

= baer

a os

°F

ἐδ οὐ ἐρρὶ Ἢ atin san ἢ ‘anes ἀνε μα {
an taf ‘ita ἐν ἢ ; by)
ae x ie ore ane we oe siti 4

ji ¢ Ley: Ἷ
an ead vo ὙΠῚῚ ΕΝ divas erates Oe Εἶτ! aca - ard ae i

Amis " ace ᾿ aR εἱ ss he sae “Raph δ᾿ ν᾿» ating : ene:
εὖ, “ET ' υ Ἵ "4 t 5 Gee
ΠΥ Ν “Had ΓΗ ΓΝ Gat wonteuuber oe ane a ‘4 ΕΝ ie
{ ’
τῷ ἀξῃ "tae ee ΠΌΡΩΝ ξὺν ral Ἶ ἌΝΟΥΣ ae νῶν τον iausiy ‘afin tat
| - ον fae at

; ᾿ ay , ΩΝ,

wae ake ened ae aaah: ἢ dopey
᾿ Ἷ i eee ie
᾿ ’ ued Naps or a ἀιφαύλιμ νίτον Ων
“ ι eel |
5 ΕΚ ὁ Bagel Θ ον At at oe! et

< We ΤῸΝ avg pare,
i stelle hth: oer oe voter pt

poe . . 1
ay ria

\ onl gre “ἂν "" a a
us ie ako ihe ἴα τ πον tn J
OVhe οι: baw dat Kat ἐπι i ΜΙ a ἔν ΟΣ Ἢ | a wey 2

ἐκ Ben

ἥ 5
" 4 Σ
woe
MIRO, SaaS PS ey
se eat Ab t
νὰ
β | ‘ w
Ἰ J ‘ 5
‘
"
ἢ
' j

REVIEW

OF
SOME PASSAGES IN THE PRECEDING ESSAY,

IN REPLY TO

Dr. G.’s SECOND DISSERTATION.

Tovydp τὰ μὲν δόξαντα δηλώσω" σὺ δὲ
Ὀ ξεῖαν ἀκοὴν τοῖς ἐμοῖς λόγοις διδοὺς,
Εἰ μή τι καιροῦ τυγχάνω, μεϑάρμοσον-
SOPH. ELECT.

Wuen 1 first submitted the foregoing Essay to the
public, I hoped, though not for a generai concurrence
with me in opinion, yet for the pardon of those from
whom I differed, and even for the favour of some lovers
of ancient learning, to whom I flattered myself that my
attempt would not be displeasing: one object of which
was, to prove their just right to some grammatical re-
mains of old Greece, of which they have long been pos-
sessed; and at the same time to shew, together with the
genuineness, the true nature and use of those marks,
which appeared to have been of late not properly un-
derstood.

Nor have my hopes on this occasion been altogether
disappointed: my endeavours having met with the favour-
able acceptance of some scholars, though they have
not escaped the censure of a few others from whom I
have dissented, particularly of Dr. G., who hath ex-
pressed his displeasure against me in a book published
a few weeks ago, when this second impression of my
Essay was nearly finished, entitled “Δ Second Dis-
sertation against pronouncing the Greek Language ac-
cording to Accents. {In Answer to Mr. FostTER’s Essay
on the different Nature of Accent and Quantity.” ‘This
title of his book immediately reminded me of the old
observation, that error is allied to ambiguity. Of this

240 REPLY TO DR. G.’s

Dr. G. hath here given us an instance, by involving
himself, and, as far as he could, the question, in the
obscurity and ambiguity of the word accents. This
word has been used in so many uncertain senses, that,
as I before remarked,* it was necessary to deter-
mine and fix its signification, before it could be satis-
factorily applied: and this I hoped I had done by con-
fining it to tone alone, distinct from the present visible
notation of it, and from quantity. Dr. G.+ acknow-
ledges that I did right in laying down this distinction.
But it is not agreeable to him at all times to observe it.
He therefore in his title has left it doubtful, whether by
“‘ pronouncing the Greek Language according to Accents,”
he means, according to the common perverted use of the
present accentual marks; or, according to that ancient
and true use of them, for which Icontend. If he means
the words in the latter sense, I dissent from him as widely
as he does from antiquity: if he intends the former, he
well knows that I agree with him, having expressly
condemned { the vulgar misapplication of the marks,
and carefully shewn that, as they did not and could not
originally belong to quantity, so neither should they be
referred to it now, or considered as the notations of a
long time. However, in both senses, he should have
said, ‘‘ according to the accentual marks,” not ‘‘ accord-
ing to accents.” But the words of the title, as they now
stand, are false in one sense, and true in another; and
therefore admirably suited to the purpose of again en-
tangling the question, which was unravelled.

᾿Αλλὰ σὺ ρῦσαι Um ἬΕ ΡΟΣ υἷας “AXAIQN,
Ποίησον δ᾽ APOPHN, δὸς δ᾽ ὀφθαλμοῖσιν ἰδέσθαι,
Ἔν δὲ PA’EI καὶ ὄλεσσον.

Let his positions and arguments be set in a clear light,

* Introd. to Essay. ¢ Essay, p. 139, and in many other
+ Second Diss. p. 81. places.

SECOND DISSERTATION. 241

that I may be sure I understand them; and to the force
of them (should it even be to my own confutation) I
will readily submit. Truth is my object in this inquiry,
not triumph: and truth I shall gladly embrace, whether
I am indebted for it to my adversary’s discovery or my
own.

And, indeed, when I published my thoughts on this
subject, it was with the hope, not that I should establish
every thing, which had occurred to me upon it, as right;
but that, after having cleared the question from some
intricacy with which it had been perplexed, and shewn
what was false, I might perhaps be more fully informed
by others in what was wholly true. I should therefore
have thankfully received any farther lights thrown on
those points which I had not rightly seen. But this ad-
vantage of better instruction in some articles, which I
hoped to derive from my opponents (if any should arise)
I have not yet received; having met indeed with some
censure, but very little information.

But this displeasure of Dr. G. is not, it seems, so
much on account of himself, as of the University, for
whose injured name he cannot help feeling much resent-
ment, though little for the confutation of his own opi-
nions. The name of the University is therefore the first
thing urged against me. In doing which, he hath endea-
voured to divert in some degree the public attention
from his own mistakes (most of which he hath prudently
by his silence acknowledged and renounced, though a
few he still maintains) and attempted therefore to blend
the cause of the University with his own: which how-
ever I know not that either the University itself, or the
public, doth conceive to be one and the same. But it
may be convenient for him, that the inquiry should now
be, not whether fis principles or mine are right, but
whether the authority of a great University should not
outweigh that of an humble individual. And so Dr. G.
steps aside, and in some measure evades the question
between himself and me, by leaving me to another with
the University.

242 REPLY TO DR. G.’S

This question with me he hath in another sense like-
wise evaded, as far as he can, by shifting it from one
point to another totally different. _ For let it be remem-
bered, that his original position was, “ that the present
system of accents is not founded on the genuine pronun-
ciation of the Greek language, which was agreeable to
quantity, but on a corrupt pronunciation, which began
and increased in later ages.”* My position, on the other
hand, was directly opposite: “ that the present system |
was fixed in an age of pure Grecism, was agreeable to
quantity then, and may be so now.” This was the main
point in dispute between us: and, not to mention se-
veral other articles wherein we widely differed, a very
material one this was; though any one now upon seeing
the state of the controversy, as lately represented by
him,}+ would imagine that our sentiments on this subject
had all along coincided, and therefore wonder why 1
should have been at the trouble of writing so many
pages in combating a shadow. But most οἵ those for-
mer points appearing to him at present no longer defen-
sible on his side, he now agrees with me, and would
have it likewise supposed that he agreed with me before.
However, his present agreement with me, or rather
renunciation of his former opinions concerning the genu-
imeness of our present system, I accept, with observing,
that he now turns the question from the faithfulness of
our marks to the modern wse of them, from the authen-
ticity of our system to the expediency of its practical
application in England: which are questions entirely
distinct from each other. I foresaw that an opponent,
when pressed hard on the article of their authenticity
and right position, would be very likely to give that
turn to the controversy, which Dr. G. has now given it:
and accordingly, that two different points might not be
confounded together, I carefully premised the limitation

* These are the words in which Dr. _ Dissertation, p. 145.
G. draws up his conclusion from the t Second Dissert. p. 77, 78.
premised arguments, in his former

SECOND DISSERTATION. 243

of my former subject of inquiry, by declaring that my
main object of discussion then was, to find out, ““ ἃ5 ἃ
Jact, what the ancient pronunciation was:* and whe-
ther our present marks were faithful notations of it.”+
But since that is nos settled, and by silence conceded
to me, I am not unwilling to follow the question in that
direction, which Dr. G. has now given to it; having
indeed already touched on this part of the subject in
the last chapter of my Essay, and being ready to ad-
vance much more, than will probably be required of me,
upon that or any of those points, on which he has in-
sisted in his Second Dissertation.

The first thing which there appears against me is the
name of the University, on which, however foreign from
the merits of the cause between us, Dr. G. has written
(and perhaps, because it is foreign) with more zeal than
on any thing respecting our question. To this part Ino
more decline an answer, than to any other of his book ;
acknowledging, that the authority of an University must,
in every literary case, be allowed to have great weight,
and is not wantonly to be disputed. But on this occa-
sion [ conceive the far weightiest authority to be on my
side. I say nothing of arguments and reasons: I mean
here authority of persons ; the authority of every emi-
nent scholar, except that visionary man Isaac Vossius,
from the age of Aristarchus down to the present time.
Particularly in respect to modern grammarians, I shall
not, I trust, justly give offence to any man, if I place
Budzeus, H. Stephens, Salmasius, Grotius, Casaubon,
Hemsterhuis, Wesseling, D’orville, Alberti, Valckenaer,
(not to mention some very respectable names at home)
in a rank of learning and judgment superior to those
modern teachers and editors of Greek, with whom Iam
now concerned. And if therefore they charge me with
rudeness for questioning themselves, I will retort the same
charge on them, for questioning their superiors. For, to

* Rssay, p. 156. + Ibid. p. 181.
R2

244 REPLY TO DR. G.’s

depart from the uniform and established practice of
those great scholars, is at least calling the propriety of
it in question. If they do not dispute it, nay, if they
do not disapprove it, why reject it?

The more weight is allowed to the authority of an
university, the more necessary it becomes to point out
any thing that is really defective in its practice: be-
cause the sanction of such a name may propagate and
establish the defect. Had maimed Greek copies come
from a press at Birmingham, at Norwich or Gloucester,
or even at London, it might not have been worth regard-
ing. And this, perhaps, was the reason, why Dr.
Twells took no notice* of the suppression of accentual
marks in that edition of the Greek Testament which
was inaccurately published at London, in the year 1729.
Such an omission, authorized only by a common press,
may be confined to those particular copies so printed :
the credit of the press is not sufficient to influence others
to follow such an example. But that of a great uni-
versity, (the credit of which is, at least ought to be, the
highest in ancient literature) if it adopts an error, is
sure to spread it; plus exemplo, quam errato nocet, its
influence is powerful and extensive: and on that ac-
count, whenever its example is not right, it more parti-
cularly requires reformation.

The charges, which I have drawn upon myself by
my manner of mentioning the university, of self-conceit,+-
opprobrious language,}. indecency,§ acrimony,|| and great
assurance,{ in falsifying a testimony, are what I should
be as unwilling to return as to deserve.

The four first of these being general charges, and
urged in the common language of controversy, I shall
leave to themselves ; especially as I perceive that I
share in them with a better man** than myself on a like

* Pref.to Second Dissert. p. v. || Ibid.
+ Ibid. p. v. and Dissert. p. 89. q Ibid. p. 18.
Ὁ Ibid. p. 11. ** Some of the terms of reproach,

§ Ibid. p. 14. in which Bp. Gardiner enforced his

SECOND DISSERTATION. 245

occasion: the last being particularized by a fact does,
on that account, better admit an answer, as on account
of its severity it certainly requires one.

Tam accused “ of citing Mr. Cheke’s declaration on
my side, which he not only did not make, but which
cannot even be* inferred from any thing which he has
said on this subject.” How is this gross charge
against me supported? Why thus: “ Accents came not
within that professor's proposed subject of inquiry in
his ‘ exposition of the forma totius rei,’ and I myself
acknowledged that they had no share in the dispute be-
tween him and Bishop Gardiner.” 1 did so: they could
not be disputed; forno scholar, that I know of, engaged
in that controversy, dreamt of their being wrong: but
though they werenota point in dispute, nor included with-
in the proposed subject of discussion, they yet occasion-
ally were mentioned in the course of it, as appears from
two passages cited by me,+ where Mr. Cheke’s declara-
tionis not inferred, but expressed, in favour of my cause. A
man of Dr.G.’s erudition is surely not to be told, that the
contents of almost all books exceed the outlines marked
by their authors at their entrance upon the subject; and
that it is impossible therefore to judge of what may occa-
sionally arise from what is professedly laid down as. the
general argument. This I have myself found to be the
case in every book which I have yet perused. Which
shews only, that a person, before he asserts whata treatise
doth, or doth not contain, should know somewhat more
than its title, introduction, or first chapter; which may,

edict, in answer to Mr. Cheke’s re-
monstrance, are these: arrogantia, p.
163; philautia, 165 ; inanis loquacitas,
ibid. ; irreverens illusio, ibid. ; lingue
virulentia, 213 ; arrogans licentia, ibid.;
superbia et petulantia, ibid. ; audacia,
214; temeritas, 217. Dr. G. in Se-
cond Dissert. p. 89, where he does

me the honour to join my name with
Mr. Cheke’s in the charge of unhand-
some and contemptuous expressions,
seems to think that the professor was
not only smartly, but justly repri-
manded by the bishop in that answer.

* Pref. to Second Diss. p. xv.

t Essay, p. 199. 203.

246 REPLY TO DR. G.’s

indeed, acquaint him with the forma totius rei, but not
with the tota res. Whatever Dr. G. may conceive of
the professor’s work, from the premised exposition of
it, certain I am, that, before I published my Essay, I did
read, and do read there now, the following words: WNe-
que video quid doctis relinquatur ut mutent, non in verbis,
non in sonis, non in spiritibus, non in ACCENTIBUS, deni-
que in nulla neminima quidem lingue parte.* In which
words, if I am capable of interpreting them rightly,
Mr. Cheke declares, that “‘ he sees not what is now left
for scholars to alter in the Greek language, either in the
words, the sounds, the spirits, the ACCENTS, or any
the minutest part of the language.” He speaks of that
artificial form of the language, in which he received it,
and of which our present visible accentuation made a
part.f And he not only here says, that this part is to
be kept inviolate, but in another passage aflirms, that it
was actually applied to its proper use in pronunciation,
consistently with quantity, by his friends ‘and scholars.
De multis, qui hodie hujus lingue studios: sunt, asseve-
rare possum, illos omnem hanc pronunciationis formam
ita tenere, ut verum literarum sonum, QUANTITATEM,
ACCENTUM, summa cum facilitate ac suavitate eloqui
possint.{ By these words I have supposed that Mr.
Cheke says: “1 can affirm of many Greek scholars at
present, that they are so far masters of my method of
pronunciation, as to be capable of expressing the true
sound of the letters, their QUANTITY, their ACCENT,
with the greatest ease and sweetness.” If, in this con-
struction, I have faithfully followed the sense of my
author, the reader will see, though Dr. G. cannot,§ upon

* De pronunc. ling. Gra. ad Steph. video quid doctis relinquatur ut mu-
Episc. Vinton. p. 258. edit. Basil. tent,” &c. id. ibid. He speaks of the

Ann. 1555. language here, as being no longer a
+ © Nunc autem linguahec ἃ popu- popular one, but subsisting only in

lari loquendi forma ad artificium quod- material characters, and therefore set-

dam deflexit, et certam habet formam, tled and invariable.

propriamque ideam suam, ad quam + Ibid. p. 284. edit. ead.

consequendam laborant docti. Neque § Pref. toSecond Dissert. p. xvii.

SECOND DISSERTATION. 247

what good foundation Mr. Foster could produce Pro-
fessor Cheke for an advocate in his cause: nor will he,
I presume, think that I have, by a too hasty inference,
and with a good degree of assurance, given this [testi-
mony ‘of Mr. Cheke] to my readers for a certain fact.*
I did give it as a fact, and a most ceriain one it is. If
those words, cited above, are not in Mr. Cheke’s book,
I am guilty of forging them; or, if they are retracted, or
contradicted by him in another part, I am inadvertent in
not comparing them with that part: but if they are
there, and not retracted in any other place, I am unjust-
ly accused, with more haste than a good and consi-
derate man ought to use in so heavy a charge, of impu-
dently asserting a false fact.

When Dr. Bentley wrote his famous epistle to Dr.
Mills, he did not formally propose to write upon the
Greek accents: but yet a sentence relating to them ac-
cidently came from his pen, which Dr. G. has given us
in his title. I will not say to him, ‘ that this declara-
tion about accents is not in Dr. Bentley’s epistle, be-
cause they are not comprised within the forma totius
epistole.” Lread it there, and accept it as Dr. Bent-
ley’s, with all the deference which is due to that great
master of ancient learning. But I doubt, whether by the
ratio hodie prepostera atque perversa Grecorum accen-
tuum, he did not mean the absurd and perverted modern -
method of using them: if that was his meaning, I am
entirely of the same opinion, my declaration of which I
have very often repeated. Butif he meant otherwise,
and really intended the present system of Greek accentual
marks, 1 should be glad to learn what his reasons were
for that opinion: if his reasons were the same with
those assigned by the common followers of Isaac Vos-
sius, and he had even published them, I should have
ventured, perhaps, to examine them; and, after exami-
nation, should certainly have rejected them. If, how-
ever, Dr. Bentley’s sentiments, concerning our system,

* Preface to Second Dissert. p. xviii.

248 REPLY TO DR. G.’S

did really, at the time of his writing to Dr. Mills, agree
with those of my adversaries, it is evident that he
changed them afterwards: for, in another piece, written
by him in his later years, professedly on a subject of
metre and rhythm, he considers the Greek accents as
certainly differing* from the Latin (the accommodation
of which two is the consequence of every alteration
proposed by the scholars of Isaac Vossius), without
hinting the least suspicion of their present visible sys-
tem being vicious or corrupted. Undoubtedly he did not
what my opponents have so frequently done, consider
the mark of an acute as at all concerned with the quan-
tity of the syllable on which it appears; and laughs at Le
Clerc, on the supposition that he had made a mistake
of this kind in placing ἕκαστος, as a Cretic foot, at the end
of a trimeter iambic.} Dr. Bentley’s authority, therefore,
in this cause will hardly be allowed to conclude any
thing against me.

But still less will the words of Scaliger, produced by
Dr. G.t be found to conclude against any thing which I
have advanced. He hath not, indeed, so much pro-
fited as he might have done by that admirable book, to
which he was directed by my Essay, and which he owns
he had not read when he published his former Disserta-
tion. For, observe now, what an use he makes of that
book. He finds in it a passage (of which he thinks I
was ignorant, though I referred to it in my Essay$)

* De metr. Terentian. p. 16, 17. is beside our present question.” On

+ “ Ohominem eruditum, qui sena-
rium claudi posse credidit vocabulo
ἕκαστος : mirum ni verba, non quanti-
tate syllabarum, sed accentuum ra-
tione metitur.” Emendat. in Philem, et
Menand. § \xiii.

$ In Second Dissert. p. 5—11.

§ First edit. p. 174. “ΗΔ (Scali-
ger) says, indeed, that if the nice to-
nical pronunciation of the ancients
could be expressed by a modern, it
would be disagreeable to our ears. It
might have been so to his. But that

the same passage, to which I then al-
luded, I have more freely remarked in
p- 358 of the 2d edition, which was
printed before the publication of Dr,
G.’s Second Dissertation. And when
I declare that I wrote those remarks
long ago, I appeal (if it should be ne-
cessary) for the truth of it, to the
learned Dr. Taylor and Dr. Barnard,
who kindly perused those papers of
mine, which contained them, in the
middle of the last summer.

SECOND DISSERTATION. 249

wherein Scaliger attempts to prove that the Greek ac-
cents are, in some of their places, improper; and from
thence he takes occasion to shew the falsity of an asser-
tion of mine, which I never made, viz. “ that the opi-
nion concerning the impropriety of the Greek accents
was first started by Isaac Vossius.” This was never in
my mind, nor on my paper. But Dr. G. often imputes
to both what never belonged to them: as in this case.
For I knew that Scaliger had long before (as I have
shewn) called in question the propriety of the accents
themselves in certain positions. And what 1 said of
Vossius was, that, “as far as I was able to discover, the
faithfulness and propriety of the* accentual marks was
never much doubted before his time.” Which is true,+
at least as far as Scaliger is concerned. For Scaliger
acknowledged the faithfulness and genuineness of the
marks (which Vossius afterwards disputed), and argued
against the tones themselves, on the very supposition
that they were truly denoted and represented to us by
their present marks. The difference here is this: Sca-
liger took it for granted, that the old Greeks did apply
their tones to those syllables on which the virgule now
appear; Vossius thought that they did not so apply
them, but to other syllables. Here then Dr. G. is guilty
of the old mistake of confounding the word accents with
their visible marks: into which he ought not to have
fallen, after having been so particularly cautionedt
against it; nor so soon to have forgotten that distinc-
tion, which he acknowledges [ made with a very good

* Introduct. to Essay. doubted before Isaac Vossius. And so

+ There may havebeen somelearned Henninius: ‘* Viderunt equidem viri
men of the same opinion with Isaac doctissimi, sed paucissimi, Grecismum
Vossius, before his time, whom I do male subinde pronunciari ; veruntamen
not know. But whoever they were, nemo unquameruditorum illud inquisi-
they had not sufficient credit and au- vit—solus Vossius V. Cl. ante annos
thority to recommend their opinions: hos forte decem mascule hane corrup-
and that made me say, that the authen- _telam notavit, sed strictim et paucis.”
ticity of our marks, as far as 1 was Pref. p. xii.
able to discover, was never much ¢ Introd. to Essay.

250 REPLY TO DR G.’S

design, viz. to guard against ambiguity.* But that am-
biguity doth here furnish him with the means of making
me, by the help of altering my written words, appear
ignorant of the history of my question. This method
of serving a controversial purpose, by changing an au-
thor’s words ina sentence quoted (as hath been done
here), or by suppressing that part of them which is not
convenient to an hypothesis (as hath been done by
the same person in a passage} from Alexander Aphro-
disiensis), [ must not, perhaps, call disingenuous ; for
the expression is unhandsome. May 1 be allowed to
say, that I think it wrong?

My foregoing words, concerning the younger Vossius,
have fared in a like manner with the next which Dr. G.
produces { from my Essay, and applies to himself and
his own arguments; neither of which did I mention in
those pages, or had in my mind: for I was there con-
sidering what had been inferred from Dionysius by an-
other objector. That passage of Dionysius did indeed
lead me to another || which Dr. G. had twice cited: and
which, as it now stands, explained in connexion with
the context, carries a sense very different from that
which it appeared to have, when given before in a de-
tached form.

Another passage of Dionysius, no less perspicuous
than curious, which Γ truly did §apply to him, he thinks {]
that L have mistaken. But to that interpretation of it
which I have given, and which to Dr. G. appears forced
and unnatural, 1 find myself obliged to adhere for the
following reasons, which readily present themselves
from the context. I before, indeed, in order to avoid
an unnecessary prolixity, omitted to produce them ;
which now, however, as they seem to be required by
Dr. G., I will explain. But first let it be observed, that

* Second Dissert. p. 81. || Essay, p. 85.
+ Essay, p. 6. 98. § Essay, p. 2. note.
+ Second Dissert. p. 13. cited from 4 Second Dissert. p. 20—27.

Essay, p. 82. 89.

SECOND DISSERTATION. 251

the two things, compared in it by Dionysius, are now
allowed to be, as I stated them, “ Oratorical or common
discourse with musical expression,” not as he before
stated them, “‘ Prose with poetry.” This correction then
he admits. Let us see whether he will not now find rea-
son to admit the other. Dionysius, inquiring into the par-
ticulars which constitute agreeable and sweet composi-
tion, says, * “ the consideration of oratorical or common
language hath been looked on as having somewhat of a
musical nature; differing from vocal and organical music,
not in quality, but degree. For even in discourse, the
words have melody, rhythm, variation, and grace.” Here
then they both agree τῷ Ποιῷ, in quality. How do they
differ in τῷ Ποσῷ, in degree? The particulars of their
difference in this respect, in degree of μέλος, he proceeds
to shew very distinctly. “The melody of discourse is
measured by one diastema or interval called the diapente,
ὡς ἔγγιστα, at a mean computation. But organical and

* Μουσικὴ γάρ τις ἦν καὶ ἡ τῶν πολιτικῶν
λόγων ἐπιστήμη, τῷ ποσῷ διαλλάττουσα

~ 2 2 -Ὁ oY > , > 7‘ ~ ~ -
τῆς Ey ὡδαῖς καὶ ὀργάνοις, οὐχὶ τῷ Tow.

Καὶ γὰρ ἐν ταύτη καὶ μέλος ἔχουσιν αἱ
λέξεις, καὶ ῥυθμὸν, καὶ μεταβολὴν, καὶ
σρέπον. ὥστε καὶ ἐπὶ ταύτης ἣ ἀκοὴ τέρ-
σεται μὲν τοῖς μέλεσιν, ἄγεται δὲ τοῖς
ῥυθμοῖς, ἀσπάζεται δὲ τὰς μεταβολὰς,
ποθεῖ δ᾽ ἐπὶ πάντων τὸ οἰκεῖον. Διαλέκτου
μεν οὖν μέλος ἑνὶ μετρεῖται διαστήματι τῷ
λεγομκένω AIA TIE'NTE, ὡς ἔγγιστα, καὶ
οὔτε ἐπιτείνεται πέρα τῶν τριῶν πόνων καὶ

ε ,ὕ > \ \ 398 ” 37 ~
iyasroviou ἐπὶ πὸ ὀξύ" οὔτε ἀνίεται τοῦ χω-

ρίου τούτου πλεῖον ἐπὶ τὸ βαρύ
Ἧ δὲ ὀργανική τε καὶ ὠδικὴ μοῦσα διαστή-
μασί τε χρῆται πλείοσιν, οὐ TH ATA’
TIENTE μόνον, ἀλλ᾽ ἀπὸ τοῦ AIA. ΠΑΣΩ͂Ν
ἀρξαμένη, καὶ τὸ AIA’ ΠΕΝΤΕ μελῳδεῖ,
καὶ τὸ AIA. ΤΕΣΣΑῬΩΝ, καὶ τὸ AIA‘ ΤΟ΄-
NON, καὶ τὸ Ἡ μκιτόνιον, ὡς δέ τινες οἴονται,
καὶ τὴν Δίεσιν αἰσθητῶς. Sect. xi. περὶ
Συνθ. Dr. G.’s friend, Isaac Vossius,
in his book de Poematum cantu, hath
explained this passage, concerning the

number of tones used in discourse,
which is in that respect different from
music, in the following manner: ‘* Vox
in communi sermone ut plurimum intra
diapente subsistit, ita ut neque plus tri-
bus tonis cum dimidio intendatur, ne-
que majore intervallo infra communem
loquendi modum deprimatur.” He says
in another place, ‘‘ in Cantu latius eva-
gari sonos, quam in recitatione aut com-
muni sermone, utpote in quo vitiosum
habeatur, si vox ultra diapente, seu
tres tonos et semitonium, acuatur.”
Mr. Upton hath quoted this on the fore-
going passage of Dionysius. Vossius
and Upton do both therefore interpret
it, as I have done, and refer the whole
to the wider compass of tones used
If how-
ever it should mean this, “ that music
uses more kinds of intervals, than com-
mon discourse ;” this sense would
equally suit my general purpose, and
favour my main argument.

in music than in discourse.

252 REPLY TO DR. G.'S
vocal melody [to which lyric pieces were set] uses more
diastemas, not confining itself to the diapente, but taking
in the diapason as well as the diapente, the diatessaron,
the diatonon, with the semitonion and diesis.” Whoever
understands the meaning of these technical terms (and
any one may understand them by looking into Dr. Wallis’s
Ptolemy, or the collection of Meibomius, and probably
a hundred other books) well knows that they relate to
tones considered numerically in their ascending or de-
scending, with their division of semitonion and subdivi-
sion of diesis. 'This is my reason for supposing that the
word Ποσῷ above signifies, in number. I well know that
Ποσότης doth signify any other, as well as a numerical,
degree: but I think not here; because the illustration
of our Ποσότης in this passage is made by words, which
belong to nwmber only. I therefore still imagine, that I
have the authority of Dionysius for saying, that oratorical
or common discourse differs from music, not in the quality,
but number of sounds. Every thing which Dr. G. in quar-
relling with my word number, says in opposition to it,
amounts only to this, “ that there is a greater quantity
of μέλος, ῥυθμὸς, &c. in music than in discourse.” I
never denied it; and now say the same. But the differ-
ence between us lies here: he stops short, and says not
in what this greater quantity of melody, this more con-
sists: whereas I try to shew from the following words of
our author, which he overlooked, that this more consists
in a greater number of tones, or in more kinds of intervals.
But in whatever manner, or degree, the Διαλέκτου μέλος
may differ from that of music ; whether it has five, fif-
teen, or only two tones ; the particular number is indiffer-
ent to me and my question. Let me be allowed but one
and a half, and that will admit elevation and depression
enough for all the purposes of my argument. ‘This was
all which I desired to deduce from the words of Diony-
sius; and this Dr. G. readily grants to me.* Why then

* <¢ Both sides allow that each ac- two modifications in point of time ; and
cent, considered of itself, is capable of | may be varied to the compass of four

SECOND DISSERTATION. 253

dispute with me the interpretation of the passage? He
is unwilling, that too much assistance should be “ bor-
rowed from music to explain the doctrine of accents ;*
because this will confound vocal utterance with singing.”
I will rid him of those fears; because I can engage to
explain my whole subject, on the scanty allowance,
which I mentioned above, of but one tone and a half,
for a Grecian voice, out of the διὰ πέντε of Dionysius:
and there cannot be much danger from thence of common
pronunciation being so modulated as to become a song.
But after all, what so great assistance hath been, or need.
be, derived from music on this occasion? The chief and
almost only help from musicians which I have had, or
required, is an explanation of those terms, which gram-
marians berrowed from them and used on this subject.
_ Yet this I ought to own has been an advantage. For if

I had not defined and fixed the sense of them on such
incontestable authority, my question, 1 am persuaded,
would have been still embarrassed, and many points still
disputed, which are now { given up. He is therefore
displeased with the very mention of a | musical term,

and five notes.” Second Dissert. p. 78.
This is one of the points in which he
now agrees wilh me, according to the
sense of the word agreement explained
above.

* Pref. to Second Diss. p. i.

+ Sec. Diss. p. 42—46. 84. Which
pages if I were to transcribe, many
sentences in them would make such
an appearance, as those concerning
metre and rhythm given from his former
Dissert. in my first chap.

$ Second Dissert. p. 77, 78.

|| As the word ὀξὺς, with its deriva-
tives, is invariably used by the best
Greek writers to express the acute tone
in common speech, it seemed highly
necessary in this question to détermine
very exactly the sense of it. When for

this purpose I have recourse to the
musical writers, and shew from them
that it signifies a high tone without
any consideration of length, I am then
told (Sec. Diss. p. 84.) that vocal utter-
ance is not singing, and every thing mu-
When then I shew,
that this word in its original and conse-

sical is not music.

quential, its common and rhetorical, its
ordinary and figurative sense,constantly
implies haste and quickness, I might then
have spared myself the trouble of proving
what nobody doth or will deny. Τί can-
not well be denied now, but the nega-
tion of it was implied before, and is so
still by those who annex length as ne-
cessarily joined with the acule. But
if the foregoing method of finding out
what ideas were by the ancients affixed

254 REPLY TO DR. G.’s

because the clear musical explication of such words as
φθόγγος, τόνος. τάσις, ἐπιτείνομαι, ἀνίεμαι, ὀξύτης, βαρύτης,
διάστημα, k. t. A. hath greatly tended to the confutation of
his doctrine.

But if I should go a little farther than the mere ex-
planation of these grammatical terms, why should I be
debarred the means of illustrating a few positions by
arguing from the power and use of a musical instrument
to that of the voice in speaking? Dr. G. seems to for-
get, that Scaliger, in that very passage which he cites,*
and much commends, has taken the same method. And
with good reason. For as all musical sounds within a
certain compass may be expressed by the voice,so there
is no common pronunciation, which may not be ex-
amined musically, and set to musical notes. Every sen-
tence uttered at the bar, on the stage, inthe pulpit, orin
conversation, is as capable of musical notations, as
that line of Virgil which Scaliger has represented by
them.t And yet, because all vocal utterance may be
set to notes of singing, it is not therefore a song, as
Dr. G. thinks.{ As long as the voice, in rising or sink-
ing from one syllable of a word to another, exceeds not
the diapente, which Dionysius assigns to discourse (or
whatever other compass may be assigned more exact),
it may rise and fall within that compass, without the
least appearance of chanting; and every word will at

to their words, is not the right one,
what other way will Dr. G. point out ?
Quid dem? Quid non dem? Are there
a set of authors still unexplored among
the Florentine MSS. by which we shall
find that magnus signifies little, paneds
wide, εὐρὺς and afi long ?

* ἐς Quamobrem non liceat mihi γον
cem tollere in quarta a fine, nulla ratio
musica potuit persuadere: possuant e-
nim eodem tenore tam in VOCE, quam
in TIBIA, aut FIpIBUS, deduci mul-
tz vel breves vel Jongxe.”—De caus.

ling. Lat, c. 58, apud Second Diss. p.8.

t Essay, p. 156.

+ ‘What may be expressed by mere
sounds, cannot equally be expressed in
the pronunciation of words and sylla-
bles. On this is founded the differ-
ence between vocal utterance and sing-
ing. When words are set to music,
then they are sung, and the modulation
is strictly musical. But when words
are only ultered, then the modulation
is only said to be musical.”—Second
Diss. p. 42.

SECOND DISSERTATION. 955

the same time admit a musical notation, its sound may
be considered in a musical light, and referred to a mu-
sical instrument, as well as the words of any song set
by the wildest Italian composer, to an air in the most
excursive strains.

Whether the Ποικιλία attributed to the Greek accents
by Dionysius, in a passage cited by me,* be understood
in that plain sense which I have given, or in Dr. G.’s
more comprehensive signification, which he with the help
of a conjectural alteration proposes, I must leave to the
judgment of the reader; who yet must perceive, how-
ever he may determine this point, that the Ποικιλία either
way will ultimately come to the same, and equally fa-
vourme. Forif “composition is to be diversified by
combining words together with various accents,” there
must be, I presume, a variety in the accent of words be-
fore they are combined, which consequently supposes,
in the general tones of the language, that Ποικιλία, which
I have imagined to be different from the Rigor et simili-
tudo of the Roman accent, as described by Quinctilian.
And this general variety will be a good reason, why
Dionysius should advise writers properly to avail them-
selves of it; which direction he would not perhaps have
given, had there been in his own language the same stiff-
ness and uniformity of tone, which Quinctilian per-
ceived in the Roman, confining the accent to two places
instead of three, and those two subject only to two or
three simple rules, while the Greek is hardly reducible
to twenty.

Be this Ποικιλία however accepted in whatever sense
any one shall prefer. I am not in the least solicitous
about the success of that word (whatever stress Dr. G.

* Essay, p. 86.

Ῥυθμοί τε ἄλ- atthe same time to disjoin it from its

Aore ἄλλοι, καὶ σχήματα παντοῖα, καὶ present subject τάσεις and Προσωδίαι

Τάσεις φωνῆς ab καλούμεναι Προσωδίαι
διάφοροι κλέπτουσαι τῇ Ποικιλίᾳ τὸν κόρον.
In the last clause of this sentence, Dr.
G. proposes from conjecture to read
κλέτστουσι instead of κλέπτουσαι, and

with which il now stands immediately
and solely connected, and to refer it
equally to all the preceding nomina-
tives. Second Diss. p. 34,

256 REPLY TO DR. G.’s

may imagine * that I lay upon it) in my application of
it to account for that arbitrary and preposterous irregu-
larity ‘‘in placing and changing the places of accents,
which the present system prescribes.” + For the whole
of this preposterous variation is detended by positive
proofs, some of which are produced in my Essay, from
the ancient grammarians, and admits of one general so-
lution, which 1 have likewise there given, and on which I
own 1 do lay great stress. For what is this ¢rregularity
objected tothem? Irregularity, if it means any thing,
signifies a deviation from rules. But from what rules
are the Greek accents said to deviate? From none,
that I have ever known alleged, except the Roman.
And from the Roman rules they must depart, if the ac-
cents are Greek. Because the testimony not only of
Quinctilian, but of the other old Latin grammarians, ex-
pressly asserts, ‘“‘'That the Greek accents differed in
their position from the Roman.”

What is to be done by my opponents with this ancient
testimony, which so straitens them? They will not ad-
mit it. The Latin grammarians, it seems, are not com-
petent judges of this difference, which they think they
observed in two languages, which they every day heard.
Dr. G. boldly { rejects the testimony of Quinctilian, as
cited by me.§ It is a pity he cannot entirely exclude
that distressing passage from Quinctilian’s book, on ae-
count of its not being included within that author’s
forma totius operis ; or shew the sentence is wanting in
some Medicean manuscript, or alter it by a conjectural
emendation. While it stands as it does, it is untoward,
stubborn, and utterly unmanageable by the followers of
Vossius and Henninius. Dr. G. is much out of humour
with it, and determined it shall not pass without some
stricture ; he therefore gives it an ugly name, and calls
it “very difficult,”’|| though it is as perspicuous a sen-

* Second Diss, p. 27. || ‘« This passage hath considerable
+ Ibid. p. 29. difficulties.’ Second Diss. p.36. But
+ Ibid. p. 38. yet how soon does Dr. G. himself clear

Essay, p. 151. up these difficulties, when he immedi-

SECOND DISSERTATION. 257

tencé as any in that author's works. It is not easy, it
seems, for Dr. G. to conceive, how the difference be-
tween the Greek accents having three places, and the
Latin having only one less by being limited to two,
could occasion a difference in the harmony and sweet-
ness of the two languages.* Now whether I could con-
ceive this orno, I should believe it as a fact (as I doa
thousand other facts on proper authority, though I form
not clear conceptions of them) upon Quinctilian’s word ;
because he certainly understood both languages better
than we do, and knew the sound of both from the mouth
of Greeks and Romans. But I not only believe it on
that account, but conceive it very clearly from my own
ear: because in our own language, which admits the ac-
cent on the last, as well as on the other syllables of
words, if in reading any well-turned sentence I remove
the final accent from all oxytones, and so make them
barytones, I perceive that I invert and confound the mo-
dulation of the whole sentence. ΤῸ say there is none,
or not much, difference between the Greek and Latin ac-
cent, is saying there is but little, if any, difference in
arithmetic between three and two. The real difference
of Greck and Roman modulation, agreeable to Quinc-
tilian’s remark, is briefly and strongly characterized in a
late work by a very celebrated prelate, where he distin-
guishes between “ the pure and flowing sweetness of the
Attic modulation, and the strength and grave severity
of the Roman tone.”+

Before Dr. G. had disputed the truth of Quinctilian’s
assertion, he should first have proved the falsehood of
that position of mine, “ that as the affair of the ancient

ately adds; “ {t would not be an easy never did, and that, upon this account,
matter to say what Quinctilian meant the Latin accents were not so sweet as
by a Similitudo of accents, if he had the Greek.” P. 56; 37:

proceeded no farther. But he hath ex- * Ibid. p. 37.

plained himself by saying, that the + The Doctrine of Grace, vol. i, p,
Greeks placed the acute and circumflex 74, first edit.

upon the last syllable, which the Latins

258 REPLY TO DR. G.’S

tones was a matter of fact of antiquity, the ancients
themselves were the proper evidence of it.”* I might
have added, too, the only evidence. I was aware, that
if my Essay should meet with opponents, they would
probably endeavour to evade the force of ancient testi-
monies, by confronting them with some modern, to which
they might appeal: and, therefore, I premised that
caveat above (the reasonableness and truth of which is
not as yet questioned) against all such appeals. Our |
‘+ Gataker was an admirable scholar, and, perhaps, the
best critic our country ever produced, before the great
Bentley. But he never heard a Greek or Roman pro-
nounce their own language any more than Dr. G. or my-
self. But Quinctilian heard both: for Rome, when he
lived and wrote there, was full of Greeks. And all tes-
timony in a case of sound depending on the sense of hear-
ing, he who delivers this testimony from his own sense,
must be allowed to have more weight than another who
has not that advantage; and this according to the ac-
knowledged principles of Mr. Locke. There are, in-
deed, some points in which a modern grammarian may
deserve more attention than an ancient, even in what
concerns that ancient’s own language. The modern
may compare the ancient grammarian with himself and
with other ancients, and by those means detect an error
even in Cicero or Quinctilian himself. And this, I
think, has been done, in some cases, by a few accurate
modern scholars. But then this detection depends on
the examination of one old authority opposed to an-
other. Let this method of confuting an ancient be tried
in the case before us. ‘“ Quinctilian was not infalli-
ble.”§ True; he was not. And, on that account, if
his testimony had on this occasion contradicted that of
the other Roman grammarians, I should by no means
have urged it as decisive. But when it is in this article
confirmed in the fullest manner by their universal con-

* Introd. to Essay. $ Human Under. b. iv. chap. 11. Ἢ
ἐ Dr. G. appeals to him against 5, and chap. 15, 16. :
Quinctilian.—Second Dissert. p. 40. § Second Dissert, p. 40.

SECOND DISSERTATION. 259

currence, I cannot but acquiesce in his authority on this
point, without acknowledging his infallibility in all.
Those who agree with him in affirming the Latin accent
to be different from the Greek, are Diomedes, Macro-
bius, Priscian, Donatus, Sergius, Maximus Victorinus,
Servius. Some of these I cited, * and more might
easily have been produced in confirmation of the differ-
ence of those two things, which every alteration of my
opponents, if it were to take place, would make the
same. 'This difference, which is universally asserted by
the ancients, is likewise acknowledged by the best mo-
derns. Does not Dr. G. see this is admitted by the
two Scaligers, in those very passages} which he cites
from them in his answer to me? If he overlooks it, I will
not, but will take their testimony, and add to it, if it
should be required, the suffrage of many other learned
modems. On this single point of difference I am willing
to rest my defence against all the objections of Henni-
nius, and most of Dr. G.’s: because those objections, if
they were valid, must end in abolishing this difference,
and leave the accents of both languages the same.

But Quinctilian, with all the train of Roman gram-
marians after him, was mistaken, in thinking there really
was that difference between the accented Greek, and un-
accented Roman, ultimate, which he suggests. For if
this point be accurately considered, ne such difference
will be found.t I shali be glad to join with Dr. ἃ. in
any accurate consideration which he shall propose.
Quinctilian then was not subtle enough to see that this
difference he speaks of is, after all, only nominal. Why ?
“‘ because Θεὸς is, in effect, a barytone, as well as Déus;
and so is Θεοῦ as well as Déi: in Θεὸς the grave mark no
doubt denotes a grave tone; and the circumflex of Θεοῦ,
when resolved into its constituent parts, 7. e. an acute
and a grave, makes the word end, as all Latin words do,
in agrave, thus, O<dv.” It does so: but still an acute is
on the last syllable of Θεόὺ (which never is on a Latin

* Essay, p. 152, seq. t Second Dissert. p. 5—11, and p. 71—73.
Ὁ Ibid. p. 38.
5 2

260 REPLY TO DR. G.’S

ultimate), though followed by a grave on the same sylla-
ble. (The word is indeed closed with a grave sound, yet
not with a whole grave syllable, for half the syllable
is acuted. And thus Quinctilian is justified in suppos-
ing that there is a real difference between the tone of
such words as Θεόὺ and Déi. The same essential dif-
ference subsists between Θεὸς and Déus. Those words,
whereon we now see a fina] grave mark, as Θεὸς, Χριστὸς»
ἀνὴρ, whatever Dr. G. may conceive of them as having
a final grave tone, had certainly their elevation on the
last syllable. Words of that form are called ὀξύτονα or
ὀξυτονούμενα by the Greek grammarians, from Aristo-
phanes of Byzantium down to Lascaris, who always
denominate words by the accent of their last syllable.
Thus λόγος (or more properly λόγὸς) is termed παροξύ-
rovoc ΟΥ̓ βαρύτονος : ἀνὴρ (or more properly avno) is
termed ὀξύτονος. Now in those which they call ὀξύ-
Tova, aS ἀνὴρ, if the acute tone was not on the last,
where was it? It must be somewhere; for “ nulla
vox sine acuto,” except enclitics and atonics. If
in ἀνὴρ it is said to be on the former syllable, what
distinction then between the old d&érova and βαρύτονα ?
For the βαρύτονα have it there. It therefore must be on
the last of oxytones; and that not only at the end of a
sentence, but in συνεπείᾳ too, in any part of it. It might
have a greater degree of elevation at the end of a period
than in the middle of it; but in every position through a
sentence, it undoubtedly had an elevation which raised
the tone of that final syllable above the tone of the other
syllables in the same word. And this is not my opinion
only, but that of many scholars.* Still, therefore, after
all Dr. G.’s refinement + in order to set aside the testi-
mony of Quinctilian, an essential difference between a
Roman barytone Déus and a Greek oxytone Θεὺς, or
Θεός, doth certainly subsist. And my argument, built

* Gumprecht in Floril. Gramm. Hoffmannusde modulatione ling. Gree.
Grec. p. 81. Auctor Gramm. Graec. ρ. 45. Nouv. Methode de lang. Gr.
Halensis. p. 15,16. Chr. Grineber- par Mess. de Port R. L. ix. ch. 6, &. 4.
gius in Gramm. Gree. P.I,c. 3, Cl. + Second Dissert. p. 38.

SECOND DISSERTATION. 261

on this difference, is therefore admissible, and if admis- |
sible, conclusive.

But the affair of the final circumflex and acute is not
the whole. The Greek method of leaving the acute on
short penultimates, as in Σωκράτης, and drawing it back
from long penultimates, as in τύραννος, so contrary to
the Roman method in Sécratem and tyrdnnus, must have
caused a farther difference between the tones of the two
languages: and from this difference must result a dif-
ference of modulation between the two. And since
Quinctilian * says, “ this difference of harmony engaged
the Roman poets to introduce Greek words into their
verse whenever they were desirous of giving it a pecu-
liar sweetness,” who shall now doubt it? especially since
the Latin grammarians + after him take notice of the
Romans having preserved the Greek accent in Greek
words Latinized. The remarks of Servius, therefore, on
+ Simois, Periphas, ‘Evandrus; and of Dr. Bentley ὃ on
the Greek terminations in Horace, are far from being idle.

See him on this passage, and on y. 100,
of the same book, and on An. iii. y.
108.

* ἐς Ttaqae [i.e. ex Accentuum di-
versitate] tanto est sermo Greecus La-

tino jucundior, ut nostri poets, quolies See Servius also on Eciog. x.

dulce carmen esse voluerunt,; illorum
id nominibus exornent.”’ Jib. xil. c. 10.

t See Essay, p. 152. 159.

Ὁ ““ Simois. nomen hoc integrum ad
nos translit, unde suo aecentu profer-
tur. Nam si esset Latinum, in ante-
penultima haberet accentum, quia se-
eunda a fine brevis.” ad Ain. i. ν. 100.
“« Periphas. Ultima accentum non ha-
bet, ne feemininum sit: nec tertia a fine,
quia novissima longa est: Ergo ri ha-
bebit accentum.” ad Amn. ii. v. 476.
ες Evandrus. Aut non servavit nominis
declinationem, nam Evander facil, si-
cutipse alibi, Pallas, Hvander in ipsis:
aut Greece declinavit, ὁ Εὔανδρος." ad
Mn. vill. v. 185. That Evandrus here
isthe true reading, is shewn by that
diligent and cxact scholar Pierius.

v. 1. and 18. and in other places.

ὁ Circa Epod. xvii. v. 17. “* Sane
observavi in Iambis, sermonibus, et
epistolis Latinas declinationes liben-
tius adhibere nostrum; in carminibus
Grecos. In illis Cretam, Helene, Pe-
nelopam habes ; in his Creten, Hele-
nes, Penelopen. Quippe in illis pu-
ram et nativam orationem sectatus
est; in his plus ἘΧΟΤΊΙΟΙ ΝΊΤΟΒΙΒ et
TRANSMARINE ELEGANTI£ affecta-
vit.” Dr. Bentley does not indeed ex-
pressly mention the accent, but termi-
nation only: but ithe accent is neces-
sarily implied as following the termi-
nation, according to that of Donatus ;
‘© Sane Greeca verba Grecis accenti-

bus melius efferimus,” Putsch. 1741.

22 REPLY TO DR. G.’S

Dr. G. defends his former explanation of a passage
from Dionysius Thrax (which I rejected) * by still sup-
posing the word εὐρυτέρα, when joined with φωνὴ, to sig-
nify the same as μακροτέρα: + and asks what else it can
there mean? I say, it can not mean length without the
greatest perversion of language. Itis the business of
the person who cites the passage, to ascertain what if
does mean: it is enough for me to shew what it does
not. And I cannot think that Dionysius intended by
those words to assign length, as necessarily annexed to
the acute tone (which is the thing that Dr. G. labours to
prove, and wants to deduce from those words), because
the same author, in the same MS. piece, applies to the
same Τόνος such words as express height and lowness
alone. Ἔστι Tévoe (he there ¢ says), ἘΠΙΤΑΣΙΣ 7)” ANE- |
LIX, ἢ μεσότης συλλαβῶν εὐφωνίαν ἔχουσα. That this ἐπί-
τασις and ἄνεσις express elevation and depression of
tone alone, without any reference to χρόνος; is clear from
Aristoxenus and others, cited in my Essay, who make
χρόνος a separate quality. I believe, therefore, that the
sense of long cannot any how be extorted from the words
of Dionysius.

The word εὐρύτης hath led Dr. G. into strange confu-
sion, from a supposition that Aristotle’s Sir rot Scali-
gers affatio in latitudine, and what I have called em-
phasis, spirit, or aspiration, do belong to different mea-
sures of the voice. Whereas they all express the same
thing, a greater exertion or profusion of breath, differing
only in its application. When this adjlatio, i. e. additio

* Essay, p. 142.

+ Second Dissert. p. G62—65.

ἃ This is in a MS. of the Medicean
library, communicated by Magliabechi

Dionysius, which I have given, are
the same with those used on the same
occasion by Moschopulus and Gaza,
And Urbanus (in tract. de accent.) says

to Mr. Wetstein, some parts of which
he published in his Appendix ad Dis-
sert. Dr. G.I suppose, took his sen-
tence of Dionysius from this Appen-
dix, in which I find it. The words of

they are by Cheeroboscus attributed
toHerodian, who, probably, transcribed
Such
a consistency there is in the doctrine
of the ancient and later Greeks.

them from Dionysius Thrax.

SECOND DISSERTATION. 263

spiritus is made to a single letter, as in ¢, x; 9, (on which
account Plato * reckons ¢ among those letters which he,
with the greatest propriety, calls πνευματώδη) it is gene-
rally termed aspiration ; when it is made to a whole
word, to part of a single sentence, or of a whole dis-
course, it is commonly called emphasis, or spirit: but
the adflatio, the additional profusion of breath, is of the
same nature in all these cases. For a fuller illustration
of which, I refer the reader to the latter part of my first
chapter.

Dr. G.’s interpretation of Dionysius Thrax, brings me
to the consideration of that point; ‘‘ which, indeed, is
the main foundation of the present controversy ;”+ the
true nature of the acute tone: which I think by no means
necessarily connected with a long time, though some-
times joined with it. Dr. G. on the other hand, is of
opinion, that a delay of the voice or addition of time
must attend that stress which belongs to the acute ac-
cent.{ I entirely agree with him in considering this as
the main point in the present disquisition: because, if
his hypothesis is true, our accentual system must fall at
once, since the acute mark appears over as many short
as long syllables, the true quantity of which must con-
sequently suffer by our expressing the lengthening acute.
On this head, those who have read my seventh chapter,
will not perhaps think it necessary for me to add much
here. But since Dr. G. supports his opinion by two
authorities (which are indeed much more in his favour
than those of Dionysius Thrax and Porphyry, unfortu-
nately alleged before), I will here examine what he now
farther advances in support of this strange doctrine, so
repugnant not only te antiquity in general, but to the
powers and practice of millions of voices at this day in

᾿ * In Cratyl. tom. i. p. 427. edit.
Serran.

+ Pref. to Second Dissert. p. 3.

Ὁ “ The pronunciation of a syllable
depends upon the body of the syllable
sounded. Now this body is made up,

not only by the letters in the syllable,
but also by the stress that is added to
it, or by the delay that is caused by
the acute accent. And every such de-
lay is βραδύτης τις τοῦ χρόνου. Second
Dissert. p. 55.

264 REPLY TO DR. G.’s

Europe, which not only can, but frequently do, elevate
the sound of a syllable without lengthening it.

The first author, whom he produces in defence of his
opinion, is the * scholiast on Hepheestion (whoever he
was), who says, “ that the acute lengthens a short vowel :”
and gives an instance of it in this line of Homer, __

Τρῶες δ᾽ ἐῤῥίγησαν, ἐπεὶ ἴδον αἰόλον ὄφιν.

Here then the first syllable of ὄφιν is lengthened by the
acute. Gut let me ask, if so, how comes the first of ἴδον
not to be lengthened too? How does that escape the
protracting power of the acute? Does the acute operate
by prolongation on ene short syllable and not on an-
other? This I cannot understand. Neither does the
scholiast, or collector of the scholia, himself; or if he
does, he thinks it not worth remembering; for a few
pages j after, he forgets the protraction of the acute,
and gives the foregoing line from Homer, as an instance
of the μείουρος, 2. 6. of an hexameter ending with an iam-
bic ; according to which the first syllable of ὄφιν be-
comes short again, and so the acute is soon deprived of
that retarding power, which it had a few pages before.
I was not ignorant of this passage in Hepheestion’s book,
nor have I dissembled it, but given it in the 141st page
of my Essay (which was printed long before I saw Dr.
G.’s Second Dissertation), to which place I beg leave
to refer my reader, who will from thence readily judge
what weight is to be allowed to such an eyidence so
grossly contradicting itself.

But Dr. G. has another witness of more authority, who
affirms the same with the scholiast above; saying,t “ that

* Second Dissert. p.58,59. Αὕτη οὖν φύσιν καὶ δύναμειν, ὡς μὴ μόνον ἐπσικειμκένη
h ὀξεῖα ἐπικειμένη τινὶ τῶν βραχέων ἢ βρα- ἐπάνω βραχείας, μηκύνειν αὐτὴν, ἀλλὰ καὶ
χυνομένων διχρόνων, μιηκύνει" ὡς ἐπὶ τοῦ, ππροχπει(κένη, καὶ μετακειμένη, δύνασθαι τῇ
βραχείᾳ χρόνον χαριεῖσθαι.

t Pag. 92. edit. Pauw.
————_—— ἢ οὖν ὀξεῖα τοιαύτην ἔχει $ Eustath. ad Odyss. K. v. 60. V. iii.

Τρῶες δ᾽ ἐῤῥίγησαν, eared ἴδον αἰόλον ὄφιν.

SECOND DISSERTATION. 265

the acute is capable of lengthening not only the short
vowel on which it lies, as in αἰόλον ὄφιν, but likewise
the short vowel preceding and following it.” A round
declaration this, extending the power of the acute very
wide indeed over the adjoining syllables! In conse-
quence of which, not only the second syllable of λεγό-
μενα ts or may be long, but likewise the first and third
too, and so the word, instead of being, as most scholars
imagine, a proceleusmatic foot, Azyouzva will become the
fourth epitrite λεγόμενά. Dr. G. I am persuaded, is too
well acquainted with ancient metre, to swallow doc-
trines, on the credit of the foregoing sentence, clogged
with such inconsistencies, and so utterly subversive of
all true quantity, for the preservation of which he is
justly solicitous. Such solutions of a difficulty will very
well serve such critics in metre as Joshua Barnes and
Ralph Winterton, who, to save themselves the trouble
of farther inquiry, hastily snap at them, and hurry on to
the next difficulty, which is to be. cleared up in a like
manner. but they are laughed at and despised by every
schoolboy, who has but looked into Dr. Clarke’s notes
on Homer. But how does Eustathius himself apply
these principles? the penultima of Αἰόλου, he says, is

fol. 1647. Edit. Rom. Second Dissert.
p. 60, 61.

Βῆν εἰς Αἰόλου κλυτὰ δώμωτα

, 2 ‘ ε ~ 57, > ‘
Aayapotng ἔστιν, ὡς Tou Αἰόλου ἀντὶ μᾶκ-
ρᾶς ἔχοντος τὴν παραλήγουσαν

θερα-
πεία δὲ τοῦ μετρικοῦ πάθους μάλιστα ἣ
ὀξεῖα, δυναμένη ἐκτείνειν, ὡς ἀλλαχοῦ
ἐῤῥέθη, οὗ μόνον βραχὺ φωνῆεν ᾧ ἐπίκειται,
ὡς ἐν τῷ αἰόλον ὄφιν, ἀλλὰ καὶ τὸ πρὸ
αὐτῆς, καὶ τὸ μετ᾽ αὐτήν. Thus Dr. G.
has cited it. But there 15. another
reason given by Eustathius, (in a part
of this comment omitted by Dr. G.)
to explain the irregularity of the metre
in Αἰόλου; and that is the ἀδιαφορία,

the indifference and licence, which was
more allowed in the quantity of proper
names than of other common words.
This should have been produced ; be-
cause it is at least as good an account of
the matter as the other: though neither
of them satisfactory and right. If Dr. G.
read to the end of this note of Eusta-
thius, he there found in the remark on
the circumflex of Biv, a very ancient
author quoted, Heraclides, (who wrote
before Apollonius Dyscolus ; for he is
cited in a case of accent, in Syutax.
Ρ. 326.) whose observation on the ac-
cent of éxeny, ἔβην, and such words, is
agreeable to the rule and practice of
modern accentuation.

266 REPLY TO DR. 6.8

lengthened by the acute in the following verse, ( Odyss.
K. v. 60.)

Βῆν εἰς Αἰόλου κλυτὰ δώματα" τὸν δ᾽ ἐκίχανον.

Now he here owns himself, that in this penultima there
is λαγαρότης and μετρικὸν πάθος, a violation and laxity of
metre, of which the acute is to be the θεραπεία, the resto-
rative medicine, such as it is. He calls the verse also,
in that part of the annotation which is omitted by Dr.
G. πρόκλαστος καὶ σφηκώδης, broken and pinched. These
words of Eustathius shew, I think, that he was himself
far from being satisfied with his own explanation: but
if he really was, he will hardly bring any accurate * per-
son into the same opinion. Barnes indeed in this book
of the Odyssey greedily catches at it, and applies it with
perfect assurance of its strengthening quality; for in a
few lines before (K. v. 36.) where the same word occurs
with the same quantity,

Δῶρα παρ᾽ Αἰόλου μεγαλήτοροες-------

““ Media τοῦ Αἰόλου (says he) producitur ante Liquidam,
vique font, quadam denique metri necessitate.” 'That is,
“the tone lengthens it, and it 7s long because it must be
so.” Let those accept this, who will. I will not, as long
as another explanation of it is te be had: and with that
Dr. Clarke, without going far, supplies me. ‘ Notatu
dignius (says he on the same passage) quod ait Athe-
neus: Οἱ ᾿Αχαιοὶ [f. Apyator] τῷ 6 ἀπεχρῶντο οὐ μόνον ἐφ᾽
ἧς νῦν τάττεται δυνάμεως" ἀλλὰ καὶ ὅτε τὴν δίφθογγον διαση-
νμαίνει, διὰ τοῦ ὁ γράφουσι. Ut adeo Αἰόλου hoc in loco

* His famous abridger, Hadrian. σπρόκμλαστος καὶ σφηκώδης : “ the verse
Junius, who is generally judicious in thus cireumstanced is not only loose,
his extractsfrom the Archbishop’s great but broken and pinched.”
work, seems to have been dissatisfied + ‘Greci veteres utebantur litera 6
with his master’s two solutions of the non solum in qua nunc ordinatur po-
knot before us: for he passes them testate ; sed etiam, cum diphihongus
over in silence, aud says only ὁ οὕτω [ov] denotatur, characterem solum 6

παθὼν στίχος οὐ μόνον λαγαρὸς, ἀλλὰ καὶ adhibent.” Athen. lib. xi. c. 5.

SECOND DISSERTATION. 267
pronuncietur AiotAov.” Those who may doubt of this
on Dr. Clarke’s authority, will, if they turn to Dr. Tay-
lor’s Elements of Civil Law,* not only find all their
doubts cleared up in regard to this passage, but great
light thrown on others of the same author, by a masterly
application of the most sound principles of criticism.
When Dr. G. cites the foregoing passages from He-
pheestion’s scholiast and Eustathius, he introduces them
by the name of testimonies of THE ancient Greek gram-
marians ; upon which I expected to see a creditable
list, containing the names of Aristarchus, the three Dio-
nysii, Trypho, Apollonius, Herodian, ἕο. Dr. G.is, I
believe, the first man who ever honoured that scholiast
above and Eustathius with this eminent title of THE
ANCIENT GREEK GRAMMARIANS. Whether this name
is given to these two as the most distinguished, κατ᾽
ἐξοχὴν, or, as the representatives of all the others, who
commonly bear the same name; I do strongly except to
their new title, thinking that Aristarchus, Dionysius,
Apollonius, &c. have at least an equal, if not superior,
claim to that appellation. And they all give instances
of the acute being joined with syllables which we are
sure were short. And, indeed, after all, so does Eusta-
thius himself in a hundred places, and our scholiast in

* P.553—556. “ There are pas-
sages in Homer, which generally are
passed over disregarded and without
being understood, by all such who are
strangers to the circumstances of Greek
literature at the time when Homer wrote.
—A scholar and a critic is bound to see
a language in its first principles, in
what I: think philosophers call the
naked form. For it is in criticism as
in physic. No medicine can be applied
successfully, without some knowledge
of the constitution. The O for a
while denoted the diphthong ΟΥ.---
Thus we need not be startled at δῶρα

mag Αἰόλου μεγαλήτορος. Biv εἰς Αἰόλου

aruta δώματα. For the wriling was

QO, the pronunciation was OY. Ho-
mer, a stranger to diphthongs, wrote
the following words, Οὐλομκένην. Νοῦσον,
&c. with the simple element thus, OAO-
ΜΈΝΗΝ. NOSON.—Upon the whole, a
man that sits down to Homer, must
read him in his own alphabet, and not
scrulinize his text by powers and cha-
racters, by those helps and conveniences
of language, which were introduced
after his age, and of which it is not
possible he should have any idea.” Dr,
G. 1 am convinced, will think this
worth his attention in the case before
us.—See also Dr. Taylor’s Comment.
ad Marmor Sandvic. p. 7. 9.

+ Second Dissert. p. 55.

268 REPLY TO DR.G.S

that quoted by Dr. G., wherein φίλος is acknowledged
to be * acuted on the first syllable, which is short.

In urging this point concerning the acute giving a
length as well as elevation to a syllable, I am surprised
he does not perceive that in consequence of this he must
prove the first syllables of all such words as dnimos,
légeres, légas to be long, and thus must lengthen near
half the short syllables of the Roman language. He
does and must allow the foregoing acuted syllables to
be short, ἡ. 6. to have been actually pronounced by the
Romans with one, or a short, measure of time. What
is to become here of the lengthening acute? Tam al-
most ashamed of dwelling so long on the proof of so
very clear a point. These Latin syllables then had the
acute, and yet were short: and why not the Greek have
it in like manner? But why should I labour to evince
by reason, what is granted to me by Dr. G.’s own con-
cession; or why allege any authority against him but
his own; which allows “ that each accent, considered
of itself, is capable of two modifications in point of
time,’+ i. e. if I interpret these words properly, “ ad-
mits two different measures of time, a greater and a
less?”

His singular doctrine concerning the lengthening power
of the acute is, I must own, introduced{ by him with
some diffidence and a seeming unwillingness to aflirm,
that it absolutely gives a long time to asyllable. He
says therefore it gives an addition of time, a βραδύτης
τις τοῦ χρόνου, a kind of delay in time, a προσθήκη
ἀκουστικὴ καὶ αἰσθητὴ, an addition of length perceptible to
the ear, such as consonants give to a short vowel, by
which means ozpo, though short, is longer than o. Be
itso. Yet this additional time of the rhythmici doth
after all leave the syllable στρῦ short with the metrict
and grammatici, to whom our question belongs.§ And

* Second Dissert. p. 58. rhythmici, and metrici or grammatici

P a Z ,
+ Ibid. p. 78. in this respect, see what I have given
+ Ibid. p. 49—55. in the foregoing Essay, p. 17. from

§ On the difference between the Hepbeestion, and from Victorinus, in

269

let the acute then be allowed to give the same additional
length to a short syllable, as in the penultima of Swxpé-
την, it yet, according to these principles, will leave it
short in a metrical sense; and that is all I require: for
the quantity will be still unhurt: and in the following
lines the antepenultima φά, of στροφάλιγγι, with all the
retarding quality of its acute, will be to all the pur-

poses of prosody at least as short as the pre-antepe-
nultima στρῦ:

SECOND DISSERTATION.

Μαρναμένων ἀμφ᾽ αὐτόν" ὃ δ᾽ ἐν στρύφάλιγγι κονίης
Κεῖτο μέγας μεγαλωστὶ, λελασμένος ἱπποσυνάων.

The same, which is here said of φά with its acute con-
tinuing short, is equally true of the acuted penultima
μέ ἴῃ Μαρναμένων, μέγας, λελασμένος, and the acuted ulti-
ma of αὐτὸν and μεγαλωστί.

Not that I will admit this additional length from the
acute, harmless as itis to quantity, being persuaded
with Bishop Hare, that, instead of necessarily adding
the least degree of delay to a syllable, it may rather
make a short one even more short. Hine usu venit, ut
brevior acuta videatur, etiam cum ipsa quoque brevis est.*

If Dr. G. should choose to retract his concessions
relating to the nature of the acute, [ am not unwilling
to remit them to him, and will engage myself to prove
the truth of my own assertion, concerning it, to sense.
I will elevate and shorten the penultima of κυρίου, in
the judgment of any ear that can distinguish a high

p- 22. And tothe same purpose also
Sext. Empiricus : Μουσικοὶ priv yap ἴσως
ἀλόγους τινὰς χρόνους, καὶ φωνῶν παραυξή-
σεις δυνήσονται ἀπολιπεῖν" τοῖς δὲ μὴ χω-
εοῦσι τὸ τοιοῦτο Badoc Γραμιματικοῖς τῆς
ἀπορίας, ἀλλ᾽ αὐτὸ μκόνον εἰς βραχεῖαν καὶ
μακρὰν διαιρουμένοις τὴν γενικὴν συλλαξὴν,
Musici
quidem fortasse poterunt relinquere que-

οὐκ ἔστι συγγνωμιονεῖν δίκαιον.

dam tempora, ad certam mensuram non
minutim exucta, et vocum augmenta le-
via. Grammaticis vero, gui non capiunt
profunditatem hujusmodi dubitationis,
sed solum Syllabam in genere dividunt
in brevem et longam, non equum est
ignoscere. Grammat. i,
cap. 6.
* De Metr. Comic, p. 62.

Adversus

270 REPLY TO DR. G.’s

from a low tone, in as easy and discernible a manner, as
T can shorten the grave penultima of méximos. The
difference between the two to me is, that κυρίου sounds
much more agreeably to my ear, than if it were κύριου.
I do therefore, in answer to Dr. G.’s queries,* declare,
that “ 1 speak upon a supposition, that an acute
accent may be founded in such a manner, as will not
make the short syllable, upon which it is laid, appear
long.” And let this then be called, as Dr. G. requires,
“the standard accent;” by which IT mean only an ele-
vation of sound, connected commonly with a long time
in modern languages, but frequently separated, and
always separable, from it in the Greek and Roman;
separable not only by the ancients, but by us. And
when therefore we do not separate this acute from a
long quantity in places where the ancients did, that I
call an abuse. Dr. G. seems to think it strange, that
“IT would have our own language pronounced by one
accent, and the Greek by another.” But this I would
have done, and shew it may be. If to the Greek lan-
guage we are to join our own lengthened acute, because
we are Englishmen, why not join to it likewise our own
letters and characters, and thus thoroughly modernize it
at once by giving it English types? Which, if done,
however ridiculous this supposition may appear, would
not so much aifect the true sound of that language,
as the application of an accent to it different from
its own.

Dr. G. complains,+ that my account of the acute was
obscure and hardly intelligible. [ had said that “ accent
is not only distinct from quantity, but in the formation
of the voice really antecedent to it. The height or pitch
of the sound is taken first, and then the continuance of it
is settled.” Agreeably to this, after having shewn that
every acute sound operates quicker on the sense than a
grave (which is as well proved by modern philosophy

* Second Dissert. p. 75, 76. 78, t Ibid. p. 83. 85, 86.
80. + Essay, p. 7.

SECOND DISSERTATION. 271

as by those passages collected by me from the * ancients),
I said, that, “‘ even when the acute is joined with a long
syllable, though the duration of the sound [when elevated ]_
is long, yet the power and effect of the acute [%. e.-of the
elevation itself] is short and quick to the sense ; + which
can perceive the effect of this elevation, before the con-
tinuance of the note is determined one way or the other
for long or short.” If he really does not understand this,
1 am sorry that 1 am not more fortunate and clear in my
expression; but comfort myself with the hopes, that it ap-
pears not unintelligible to other readers. His complaints
of the obscurity of my writing in some places, and his
perversions of it in others, do now convince me of the
expediency of that advice, which I offered to certain
readers, from Gaudentius, and prefixed to my Essay. I
have great reason to think that Dr. G. is not duly τὴν
ἀκοὴν γεγυμνασμένος, hath not an ear rightly disciplined
to the question; since he seems not to distinguish be-
tween the mere elevation of a sound, and the duration
of it after it is elevated. If he could have distinguished
this, he would not have written some of the latter pages
of his Second Dissertation.

When the acute accent, as described by me to be quick
and rapid, is by him called mine,{ he gives to me what
has many owners, who have at least a joint property in
it with myself, and indeed a much better; I mean || Aris-
totle, Cicero, Plutarch, Macrobius, Suidas, J. Pollux,
Stobeeus, Pet. Victorius, Salmasius, Lipsius, and Bishop
Hare. For all these writers described it before me in
the same manner.

As he diverts § himse!f so much with the confession
which I made, of my inability fully to express to my
satisfaction seme things which I had conceived; I could
amuse him, since he is so easily pleased, with a hun-

* Essay, latter part of the seventh ἢ Essay, latter part of the seventh
chapter. ehapter.
+ Ibid. p. 144. § Second Dissert. p. 87, 88.

$ Second Dissert. p. 86.

972 REPLY TO DR. G.’S

dred passages out of Cicero and all the best writers, who
frequently acknowledge the same inability. They all,
on several occasions, own they cannot find expressions
adequate to their ideas: and my own incapacity in this
respect, I am neither ashamed to perceive or to acknow-
ledge. I often conceive things in my own mind, which it
is not in my power to communicate to another. Particu-
larly in a case of sound, it is frequently very difficult to
convey in a precise manner the idea of it, except by
sound, or by characters appropriated to it, ἐ. 6. by musi-
cal notations. Of this, no doubt, Michaelis was sensi-
ble, when in writing upon this very subject he says, that
he “ cannot express himself so clearly to the reader, as
he might, if his paper could speak.”* Are we to con-
sider these words of Michaelis as ἃ ridiculous confession
of inability, or as a proper apology of diflidence?

To those many difficulties, which Dr. G. confesseth+} do
attend the defence of his system, let me‘add a trifling one
which perhaps he doth not see, arising from the different
representations he hath given of me. For if I was capa-
ble of writing such despicable jargon, as he, by a mis-
interpretation of my words, imputes to me {in some
places, I must be so far from having those literary qua-
lities,|| which his unmerited complaisance hath attributed
to me in others, that I should be the most.dull and illiterate
of mortals, and deserve to be debarred for the future from
the use of a pen on any subject, after having so egregi-
ously abused it upon this. But why should J complain
of being misinterpreted by Dr. G. when in this respect I
suffer in such reputable company, as (not to mention
other authors) Porphyry; whose τόνος, and χρόνος too,
have been wrested and tortured by a more perverted § in-
terpretation, if possible, than my poor acute ?

* See the note in Essay, p. 200. sion of my words arises from his not
+ Second Dissert. p. 87. distinguishing between the effect of
+ © This isthe same, asif Mr. Foster the mere elevation of sound, and the
had said, that though the sound of itbe duration of it when elevated.
long, yet the sound of it is short.” || Second Diss. p, 9. 95, Pref. p. xv

Second Dissert. p. 85. This perver- § Essay, p. 142.

SECOND DISSERTATION. 275

_ The conclusion of his work doth at length clear up
that ambiguity, of which I complained in the beginning
of it: for he closes his Dissertation by declaring, that
the main point, which he had in view, was to shew that
the ancient Greek language cannot be pronounced accord-
ing to accents, i. 6. according to that [lengthened] acute
accent, which we use, without spoiling the quantity.* 1
wonder it should be his main point, to shew what I had
myself shewn, and disapprove what I had condemned
and endeavoured to correct. . But why was this exposi-
tion of his main point thus postponed, and not given ra-
ther in the first than the last part of his Dissertation ?
The reason of it is perhaps not very distant. Had this
declaration appeared in the title or first page, instead of
the last, the reader would hardly have turned to the se-
cond, or chosen to be at the trouble actum agere. But
we will take his explanation where we find it. And
the amount then of his argument, as it now stands, is
this. The present Greek marks of accentuation are, by
his silence, allowed to be antique, genuine, and faithful,
which he denied in his former Treatise. But they are
now, it seems, to be neglected and erased from the book
of learning, because we cannot in all cases express those
very tones which they denote. My opinion on the other
hand is, that they are to be preserved, not only as au-
thentic and curious remains of antiquity, but as appli-
cable also to their proper and original use. But allow-
ing, for the sake of argument, the contrary to be true,
“that we can not so apply them in expressing the old
tones ;” yet,if on account of misapplication we are to
reject them, we ought, on the same principle and charge
of abuse, to expunge from our present Greek alphabet
all those letters, the ancient sounds of which we do not
properly express: which should we on that account an-
nul, we should leave the alphabet in as scanty a state as
Palamedes found it. This kind of reasoning therefore
proves too much, and is not to be admitted. But what

ἘΞ Second Dissert. p. 94.
T

274. REPLY, &c.

if we can express the old fones more truly, than we do
the ancient sounds of many single letters? And this we
certainly can. ‘There is therefore less reason for sup-
pressing the tonical marks, than for cancelling those
single letters; though no good or sufficient reason for
either.

If in any of the preceding pages there should be found
expressions, which may have escaped me in the warmth
of argument, appearing unhandsomely to reflect on those
from whom I am by rational conviction obliged to dis-
sent, all such INDICTA SUNTO. Every thing of that kind
T should always wish to have as remote from my papers, .
as it is from my intention.

DISSERTATION

AGAINST PRONOUNCING THE

GREEK LANGUAGE

ACCORDING TO

ACCENTS.

Ἧ μὲν πεζὴ λέξις οὐδενὸς οὔτε ὀνόματος οὔτε ῥήματος βιάζεται τοὺς χρό-
yous, οὐδὲ μετατίθησιν. ἀλλ᾽ οἵας παρείληφε τῇ φύσει τὰς συλλαβὰς, τάς TE
μακρὰς καὶ τὰς βραχείας, τοιαύτας φυλάττει.

Dionys. Halic, Megt Συνθεσ. Ονοματ. §. 11.

PREFACE.

BY the Greek language, which the title-page setteth
forth, the reader is to understand the ancient Greek lan-
guage, and not themodern. This I look upon as ἃ dif-
ferent language from the former; as different perhaps as
the Italian is from the Latin. We indeed call it the
modern Greek; but the modern Greeks themselves call
it ῥωμαϊκήν. Simon Portius was the first, who published
a grammar of this language at Paris in 1638, which he
entitled Γραμματικὴ τῆς ῥωμαϊκῆς γλώσσας. And Joh.
Tribbechovius, in the year 1705, published at Jena an-
other grammar of the same language with this title, Bre-
via Lingueé ῥωμαϊκῆς Elementa. ** Appellatur vero
vulgaris Graecorum lingua ῥωμαϊκὴ sive Roma, quia
Christiani Greeci Constantinopolim suam novam Romam
pridem dixerant.” Consistently with this, by accents the
reader is also to understand those, which are commonly
used in writing and pronouncing the ancient Greek.

It is now about seventy years since Henninius and
Wetstein wrote upon the pronunciation of the Greek
language: and the same subject was moved again in
Italy not many years ago. +Mirtisbus Sarpedonius
wrote against the accentual pronunciation, and }{ Sta-
nislaus Velastus wrote in favour of it. If what these

* Mich. Langii Meletema de Ori- Rome, 1750.
gine, Progressu, et variis Fatis Ling. ¢ Tho. Stanislai Velasti Dissertatio
Grece. Sect. xx. Noriberge, 1708. de Litterarum Grecarum Pronuncia-
+ Mirtisbi Sarpedonii Dissertatiode tione. 4to, Romz, 1751.
vera Atticorum Pronunciatione. 4to.

278 PREFACE.

authors have said had been, either way, satisfactory to
me, the following papers might have been spared. But,
if Iam not greatly mistaken, they have not gone to the
bottom of this subject. This I am certain of, that the
method which I have pursued is quite different from
any which I have yet seen. However, the reader is
free to consider what hath been, or may be said on both
sides, and then to judge for himself.

DISSERTATION

AGAINST

GREEK ACCENTS.

A RIGHT pronunciation is necessary in all languages.
And the more harmonious a language is in itself, the
more will it suffer by a wrong pronunciation: as, there-
fore, the Greek language recommendeth itself, above al
other languages, upon account of its harmony, it must
be well worth our while, if we would be acquainted
with its real beauties, to know how it ought to be 2
pronounced.

The use of accents in the ancient Greek language
was one thing, and the modern use of them in the same
language is another. The προσῳδίαι were musical. προσ-
ῳδία, μετ᾽ ὀργάνου won. Hesych. παρὰ τὸ πρὸς αὐτὰς (κι-
θάρας) ἀδειν ἡμᾶς ταῖς φωναῖς" ἢ παρὰ τὸ πρὸς αὐτὰς ἄδεσ-
θαι τὰ ποιήματα. Etymolog. Mag.—And so *Alexander
Aphrodisiensis, ἃ muchmore ancient writer: προσῳδία, ὃ
τόνος πρὸς Ov δομεν. |

+ Henninius and others have argued against themodem
use of accents in the Greek language, chiefly from ancient
manuscripts, inscriptions, and medals; in none of
which any accents appear: and this argument is cer-

* Ad sophisticos Elenchos Aristo- t Ἑλληνισμοὸς op8a805e
telis, c. iii.

280 A DISSERTATION AGAINST

tainly very strong and conclusive. For as to that part
of the argument, which is founded upon ancient inscrip-
tions and medals, if it should be said, that no accents
appear in them because they could not be conveniently
placed there, this cannot be said as to that part of the
argument, which is founded upon ancient manuscripts,
where they could have been conveniently placed. The
main force, therefore, of this argument ariseth from an-
cient manuscripts. And it will appear to have a still
greater force, ifit be considered, that no manuscripts that
are a thousand years old and upwards have any accents:
which is a full proof, not only that accents, as they are
now usedin the Greek language, were unknownto the an-

cient Greeks, but also that they are of a very mo-

dern date, and were not in common use but after the
abovementioned period, ὁ. 6. since the seventh century.
* Nor were accents generally written in manuscripts
immediately after that time: for there are many, and
good manuscripts too, written since the seventh century,
which have no accents at all. But the practice began
in the seventh century, and by degrees prevailed.

In the library of St. Germain des Prez there is a
manuscript of St. Paul’s Epistles, which was copied from
a manuscript of Pamphilus, the martyr; as is said in the
last lines of the said copy. The original manuscript was
destroyed when the library of Czesarea was burnt; and,
~ consequently, the copy must have been made before

the year 800. In this manuscript there are accents
which are placed as accents are now placed; and these
accents appear to be as old as the manuscript itself;
for the letters and accents are written with the same ink.
In some places, indeed, the accents have been re-
touched; but yet so, that it still appears in these very
places that the original accents (which are not quite
obliterated) were placed just as they are now placed.
This, I believe, isthe oldest manuscript extant that hath

* Montfaucon’s Paleographia Greca, p. 215,
5

GREEK ACCENTS. 281

original accents. But even this manuscript carrieth
with it a proof that accents were not then in common
and general use: for it hath, not only many words, but
even many lines, without any accents; which must have
arisen from the copier’s being used to write indifferently
with or without accents.

When [ considered this subject, many years
ago, I thought one might argue more effectually
upon it in a manner that may be called a priori,i.e.
from the nature of syllables, and even from the analogy
of the doctrine of accents. Upon this principle I drew
up some observations, which I have since put together,
and now submit to the judgment of the reader; premis-
ing this, that, by the analogy of the doctrine of accents,
I meana conformity to those general rules of accenting,
which profess to have a regard to quantity, and to keep
as much as possible the accent of the first word, or
words of the same form, in the same place.

My design is not to write against all use of accents;
some accents are and must be used in all lan-
guages, for there is no harmony in continued mono-
tones ; and therefore * Martianus Capella very justly
saith, that accents are the soul of words, and the found-
ation of music: Anima vocum οἱ musices seminarium.
But my design is to shew, that the modern way cf
placing accents in the ancient Greek language is wrong,
because it is, lst, Very arbitrary and uncertain; 2dly,
Contrary to analogy, reason, and quantity ; and, 3dly,
Contradictory to itself.

The truth of these propositions will appear from an
induction of particulars ; and it will be almost impossi-
ble to keep them so distinct but that they will sometimes
run one into another. The doctrine of the Greek accents
is so perplexed a thing, that what isa ruleinone
case, sometimes becometh the foundation for excep-
tions toa rule in another case. And sometimes also the
rules and the exceptions may be fairly transposed: so

* Lib. ili. c. de Fasligio.

282 A DISSERTATION AGAINST

that the exceptions may be converted into rules, and
the rules may become exceptions. However, 1 shall
endeavour to keep these things as distinct as the nature
of them will allow.

PROPOSITION 1.

The modern use of accents in the ancient Greek lan-
guage is arbitrary and uncertain :

I. Accents are not placed upon words of the same
form by any uniform and constant rule, but words of the
same form are accented differently; and words of dif-
ferent forms are accented in the same manner.

A polysyllable, whose last is short, and penulti-

mate long, by nature, may be accented three ways,

viz. onthe last, penultimate, and antepenultimate ; as
τύψουσα, τυποῦσα; ταπεινός. And sometimes one and the
same word of this form is accented two ways: as ἀνίασι,
ascendunt ; and ἀνιᾶσι, sursum mittunt ; diac, abeunt ;
and ἀφιᾶσι, dimittunt ; διΐασι, transeunt, percurrunt ; and
Siac, transmittunt ; εἰσίασι, OY ἐνίασι, imtroeunt ; and
εἰσιίισι, OF ἐνιᾶσι, intromittunt ; κατίασι; descendunt ; and
καθιᾶσι, demittunt ; μετίασι, persequuntur ; and μεθιᾶσι,
omitiunt. ΑἸ] these are third persons plural of imu, 60;
and inu, mitto; and, as they are all of the same form,
they are capable of being, and so ought to be, accented
in the same manner: whether they come from ἴημι, Or ine,
1 the sense will sufficiently determine ; and, therefore,
the rule prescribed in this case must be quite arbi-
trary. ‘‘ Hoc tamen sciendum est, in eundi significa-
tione penultimam, cum simplicis verbi, tum composito-
rum, utrumque recipere accentum posse : sed proparoxy-
tonam habere desinentiam, quum prima singularis est
εἶμι (i. 6. ἴημι) ; properispomenam, quum prima singula-
ris est ἴημι. 5 This rule, 1 say, is arbitrary in itself: and

* Scot. Univers. Gram, Gree. p. 320,

GREEK ACCENTS. 283

what further evidently sheweth it to be so is, that, in fact,
there are, as* Caninius hath observed, many variations
from it. “In compositione (ab type) ἐνιᾶσι, at εἰσίασι.
συνίασι Vero et συνιᾶσι. προσίασι, NON προσιᾶσι : at tact, ab
εἶμι, Sic Componitur, προϊᾶσι, NON mootacr at ἀνίασι et
ἀνιᾶσι. κατίασιν et κατιᾶσι. διίασιν et dvidor. μετίασιν et 1
μετιᾶσι."

The first in μία hath an acute upon the penultimate,
though its a final is short; μία being excepted from the
generalrule, by which nouns ending in ca have the a final
long. But the last in μιᾶς and μιᾷ hath a circumflex,
though they are both capable of having an acute upon
the first, because} the last is long. The case of tac, ld,
and μηδεμιᾶς, μηδεμιᾷ, is the same. And so in ἄμφω, and
δύω ; which have an acute upon the first, and a circum-
flex upon the second in ἀμφοῖν and δυοῖν.

Adyoc hath an acute upon the first, but δὲός hath an
acute upon the last; though both of them are
words of the same form. And so ἑκών, volens, is an
oxytone, but ἄκων, nolens, is a barytone.

Monosyllables, long by nature, should be circum-
flexed ; as ἦν, ἧς, 7. They are indeed circumflexed when
they are contracted, but when they are uncontracted,
they are oxytones by the general rule; and so ὦν and
ὄν are accented in the same manner. But this distinc-
tion is quite arbitrary; for if a syllable be long in its
nature, no possible difference, as to its sound and pro-
nunciation, can arise from its being originally long, or
from its being so by contraction. And, besides, as it is
laid down for arule in the doctrine of accents, that, when
the last syllable of a word is short, and the penultimate
long by nature, this, ifit is to have an accent, must
be circumflexed ; by this analogy, all monosyllables,
long by nature, should be circumflexed, because itis sup-
posed that they are to have an accent; and because, by
being long by nature, they are as capable of being circum-
flexed, as if they were penultimate syllables. But the

* Hellenism, edit, 4to, p. 279. t Vid, Etymol. Mag. Voce Εἷς, p. 303.

284 A DISSERTATION AGAINST

rule is otherwise, and the exceptions from it are the
only monosyllables that are rightly accented.

Verbal nouns ending in éoc, ἔα, gov, (which answer to
the gerunds of the Latins) are accented with an acute
upon the penultimate, though the last is short, 7. 6. they
are accented in the same manner as if they were words
of the same form with those that have the last syllable
long.

1 Verbal nouns ending in roc are accented upon the

4 last; as ὁρατός. But when they are compounded, the
accent is drawn back to the antepenultimate; as ἀόρατος,
i. e. *if the composition is made after the derivation.
But if itis made before, i. e. if these nouns are derived
from a compound verb, then they retain the accent upon
the last; as ἐκλεκτός, ἐπιθυμητός. But what sense is
there in this? and what purpose can it serve, but to
perplex things, which are very simple and easy in them-
selves?

Verbal nouns ending in τὸς are sometimes used in
different senses ; and grammarians are not agreed how

to accent them according to their different senses.—
15 Ammonius saith, that ἄμητος, with the accent upon
the antepenultimate, signifieth the harvest, 7. 6. the fruits
of the harvest; but that ἀμητός, with the accent upon
the last, signifieth the time of the harvest. ἴλμητος προ-
παροξυτόνως σημαίνει αὐτὰ τὰ Sepiopara, τοῦτ᾽ ἔστι τὸν καρ-
πόν: ὀξυτόνως δὲ τὸν καιρὸν τοῦ Φερισμοῦ. Philoponus
agreeth with Ammonius. But the great Etymologist
saith just the reverse: ἄμητος 6 καιρὸς τοῦ Sépouc™ ἀμητός
δὲ, ὁ ϑερισμός" οἱονεὶ αὐτὸς 6 ἀμώμενος καρπός. And so doth
Suidas : ἀμητός, αὐτὰ τὰ τεϑερισμένα, ὀξυτόνως. προπαροξυ-
τόνως δὲ, ἄμητος, ὃ καιρὸς τοῦ ϑέρους, ἐν ᾧ δεῖ ἀμᾷν. Hesy-
chius differeth from himself: ἀμητός, ϑερισμός" ἄμητος, ὃ
καιρός, 501]. ϑερισμοῦ. And so as to τρυγητος, a word of
the same form. Τρύγητος, 6 καιρός. Τρυγητός, ὃ τρύγος.

And in this he agreeth with the Etymologist. But
ἣν when he expresseth himself in words at length, he

* Sylburgii Rudiment. Gree. Ling. p. 259. N. Meth. Gree. p- 383.

GREEK ACCENTS. 285

saith just the reverse, and agreeth with Ammonius: τῆς
μὲν πρώτης ὀξυνομένης αὐτὰ τὰ τεθερισμένα᾽ τῆς δὲ τελευταίας,
ὁ καιρὸς τῆς συγκομιδῆς τῶν καρπῶν. If this was the real
sentiment of Hesychius, as there is most reason to
think if was, then the accents in the former instances
must have been placed wrong, both in the manuscripts
and printed books; as indeed they easily might. And
though these grammarians are ancient in respect to us,
yet are they modern in respect to the true Greeks: and
their disagreement is a full proof that the ancient Greeks
did not use any accents to mark the different senses of
the same word, but that they are the invention of mo-
dern grammarians.

This is farther evident from hence, that the same 17
variation is to be found in the manuscripts, in which
words of this form are accented; as H. Stephens him-
self confesseth, even when he professeth to adhere to
the rule of Hesychius, as it agreeth with that of Ammo-
nius. For after he had quoted two passages out of
Hesiod, in which the word ἄμητος is accented upon the
first, and signifieth the harvest, or gathering of the fruits
of the earth, he addeth,* ‘ Re vera in quibusdam ex-
emplaribus Hesiodi non ἀμήτου legitur, sed ἀμητοῦ in ci-
tatis modo locis.” + Sylburgius hath farther observed,
that σπορητός, signifying both the action and the time of
sowing ; and ἀλοητός, signifying both the action and 18
the time of threshing, are never accented but with ~
an acute upon the last; and that the abovementioned,
and many more words of the same form, are accented
sometimes differently, though the sense be the same;
and that sometimes the sense is different, though the
accent be the same. And it may be still farther ob-
served, that in words of this form the grammarians have
provided but two places for the accent, according to
two different senses. Whereas some of them bear three
different senses; and yet nothing is said as to placing

* Thes. Ling. Gree. t.i. fol.383. are” Egy. καὶ ‘Hyde. v. 382. 573.
and ihe passages which he refers to, τ Ubi supra.

286 A DISSERTATION AGAINST

the accent for this third sense. For instance, ἄμητος
signifieth the fruits of the harvest, the time of the har-
vest, and the reaping, or act of getting in, the harvest.
But upon the whole, Moschopulus ingenuously con-
19 fesseth, that in all the words of this form, there is no

“reason for placing the accent differently, according
to the different sense which they bear. And, as what he
saith on this subject is very full and express, I shall
produce it here: ἀμητὸς ὃ καιρὸς ὅτε ἀμῶσι, καὶ 6 καρπὸς ὃ
ἀμώμενος, καὶ ἡ ἐνέργεια, ἤγουν αὐτὸ τὸ ἀμᾷν. ὥσπερ ἀλοητὸς
ὃ καιρὸς ὅτε ἀλοῶσι, καὶ ὃ καρπὺς ὃ ἀλοώμενος, καὶ τὸ ἀλοᾷν.
καὶ ὃ τρυγητὸς ὃ καιρὸς ὅτε τρυγῶσι, καὶ ὃ καρπὸς ὃ τρυγώμε-
νος, καὶ τὸ τρυγᾷν. ἀροτὸς δὲ ὁ καιρὸς ὅτε ἀρῶσιν, καὶ τὸ
ἀροῦν. δοκοῦσι δὲ ὀξύνεσϑαι, ὡς νεατὸς, ἐπαινετὸς, νοητὸς,
ἀγαπητὸς, ϑεατὸς, ὑμνητὸς, καὶ ἁπλῶς πάντα τὰ εἰς ὃς ἁπλᾶ
doa ἀπὸ παϑητικῶν παρακειμένων γίνεται περισπωμένων συζυ-
γιῶν. αἰτία δὲ οὐ φαίνεται δι᾿ ἣν ἕκαστον τούτων ἐπὶ τοῦδε μὲν
τοῦ σημαινομένου ὀξυτονησήσεται, ἐπὶ δὲ τοῦδε προπαροξυν-

Shocra. "Eoy. καὶ “Hu. ver. 386, &c. Edit. Heinsii,

p. 95.

20 If. The accent of the oblique cases varieth often ,
“" and without reason, from the accent of the nomina-
tive case both as to nature and place.

Oxytones in eve circumflex the last syllable of the
vocative in ev; as βασιλεύς, ὦ βασιλεῦ : though they
might retain the acute of the nominative case. And so
contracts of the fourth; as λεχώ, ὦ λεχοῖ : Which also
might retain the acute of the nominative case.

The genitive plural of the first declension is to have
a circumflex on the last syllable; as ταμιῶν, τελωνῶν,
μουσῶν, τιμῶν. Now in most of these cases, the last syl-
lable ought to have no accent at all; but the penulti-
mate should be accented with an acute; both because

the last syllable is long, and because the accent of
21 the first word is upon the penultimate, ταμίας, τελώ-
νης, μοῦσα.

Θυγάτηρ hath an acute upon the penultimate. But in
the oblique cases this accent is shifted about in a
strange manner. Jf is upen the last in the genit. and

GREEK ACCENTS. 2387

dat. sing. and dual, and in the genit. plur. ϑυγατρὸς, συ-
γατρὶ, ϑυγατροῖν, δυγατρῶν. It is upon the penultimate
in the dat. plur. ϑυγατράσι. And in the other cases it is
drawn back to the first ; and so as to all nouns ending
in np.

III. All dissyllable prepositions (except ava and διὰ),
when they are placed after the case, which they govern,
draw back their accent; as ϑεοῦ πάρα, τούτων πέρι. This
is quite arbitrary, and very absurd; for in such 29
cases there is no change either as to quantity, or ~
signification.

The reason of this, I suppose, is, that these preposi-
tions are, in this case, considered as if they were, ina
manner, enclitics. But this is introducing one absurd-
ity, to support another: for the rules by which the ac-
cents of enclitics and synenclitics are directed to be
moved, are as absurd and arbitrary, as those which re-
late to the accents of words, which are not enclitics.

If an enclitic is to be considered as so connected with
the preceding word, as to make a part of it so far as ac-
cent is concerned, there is more reason to alter the ac-
cent of the first word, than to remove the accent of the
dissyllable preposition; as in the foregoing instance,
Seob παρα. Fora circumflex bears upon its follow- τῇ
ing syllable; and so this cannot have another ac- ~
cent. And it cannot bear upon more than one syllable,
and this too must be a short one: whereas Scot παρα
would be agreeable to the general rules, and have its
proper accent.

When a preposition goeth before its case, and is
joined with it as one word, then the preposition loseth
its accent, and the accent of the compound word is
placed according to the general rules; as παραχρῆμα.
Why then should not dissyllable prepositions, when they
come after the cases which they govern, be considered
in the same manner, and have their accents regulated
according to the general rules, by which compound
words are accented? For as these prepositions are, in

288 A DISSERTATION AGAINST

both cases the very same, they ought to be pro-
nounced in the very same manner.

IV. As to the doubtful vowels a, νυ, they may be
considered in three respects :

1. As being long or short in the same word.

2. As being always short in the same word.

3. As being always long in the same word.

Now in those words, in which the doubtful vowels
are always long, this consideration (in respect to the
effect which it hath upon the accentuation) taketh place
only as to the last syllable, but not the penultimate.
Whereas it would be of equal, if not more service, in
the latter case, because here the reader is in greater
25 danger of pronouncing wrong. For instance ; in dy-
χυρα, γέφυρα, κίνδυνος, Cebyvumt, ζεύγνυσι, third per-
son singular, the accent is placed upon the antepenulti-
mate. And yet in all these words v is always long, and
is, in this respect, andin respect also of the final syllable
(which, in all these instances, is short by nature, or so
far as accent is concerned), as capable of receiving a
circumflex as μῦϑος, κῦδος, σῦκον, ζευγνῦσι, third person
plural; or as any of the doubtful vowels, when they are
always long at the end of a word, are capable of causing
an acute to be placed upon the penultimate. For in all
these cases, a, εν v, have the power of aa, εἰ, vv; and
are therefore as truly long, as ἡ and w are. For these are
said to be long by nature for no other reason, but be-
cause they have the power of ce and oo, 7. 6. ἡ ἃπ w
26 require just as much time to pronounce them, as ee

and oo. And all diphthongs and vowels by contrac-
tion, are long by nature, because they have in them the
power of the vowels, which compose them, or from
which they are contracted; and so they require the same
time in pronouncing them; which is the very case of a,
4, and v, not only when they are always long, but in
every case, in which they are long; for whenever a
vowel is long, it hath the power of two short vowels,
otherwise it would not be long.

The doubtful vowels, when they are short, are always

GREEK ACCENTS. 289

considered as such in placing accents. They are indeed
oftener short than long. But if they are always consi-
dered, in respect to accentuation, as short, when they
are short, why should they not also, in respect to ac-
centuation, be always considered as long, when they 97
are long? But this is very rarely done. And ac-
cents are placed in verse just as if verse were prose.

No vowel can, in its nature, and at the same time, be
long and short. The vowels a, ἐ, v, are common only in
this sense, that they are capable of admitting of a double
prosody. But when they have been so qualified, they
really are as long in one case, and short in the other, as if
they were always long or short. For it is not the bare
figure or character of a vowel which determineth its na-
ture, but the sound, or time, which is given to it. Itis
upon this principle that *Sextus Empiricus argueth,
when he would prove that the vowels α ἐν are not in
their nature δίχρονα στοιχεῖα. Ta τοιαῦτα τῶν στοιχείων
ἐπιδεικτικά ἐστι μήκους τε καὶ συστολῆς, οὔτε δὲ μακρά G
ἐστιν, οὔτε βραχέα, οὐϑ᾽ ἑκάτερον, πρὶν ἀπὸ προσῳδίας ~
ποιηξῆναι. But Empiricus carrieth the argument too far
when + he concludeth from hence that there are ten
vowels, viz. ἡ, w,and acv long, and, o, andacvshort. For
such a multiplication of vowels would serve no purpose.
And besides, what the grammarians mean by δίχρονα
στοιχεῖα is sufficiently intelligible and consistent. For
when they say that a syllable is long or short by nature,
they.only mean, that it is so by the prosody, or time,
which is given to it. And even ἡ and ὦ are long by na-
ture only in this sense. But the conclusion which I
would draw from hence will still follow, viz. That if, in
the present system of accents, a due regard was paid to
quantity, the places of accents, in respect to the
vowels acv, would vary according to the prosodia
of them in their respective situations; which it is evi-
dent they do not.

* Ady. Grammat. J. i. ὁ. 6. sect. 106, 7, 8. + Sect. 112.

A DISSERTATION AGAINST

PROPOSITION’ If.

The modern use of accents in the ancient Greek lan-
guage is contrary to analogy, reason, and quantity.

I. Acand o, being diphthongs, are long by nature:
and yet in placing accents a and o final are reckoned
short; as τύπτεσϑαι, dvSowror—but there is no foundation
in reason for this. For no diphthong, considered simply
in itself, can be favoured in its pronunciation as a sylla-
ble, which is common in its nature, or by a weak posi-

tion, can: and so it is not capable of being pro-

nounced short or long at pleasure. This is not done
when any other diphthong is at the end of a word ; and
yet the diphthongs a and οἱ have at least as full a sound
as any other diphthongs; especially if they are pro-
nounced as the ancient Greeks did probably pronounce
them: for a and o are the chief vowels in these diph-
thongs. In all contractions the ὁ gives way to them;
they require, in the pronouncing of them, a peculiar
opening of the organs of speech: and in these northern
countries we do not extend our organs of speech sufli-
ciently to give them that fulness of sound which they
ought to have, and which is given to them in the south-
ern parts of the world. Farther still, « and w, with ane
subscribed, are contractions of the diphthongs ac and οἱ:
3 I mean only as to the writing of them, for they are

the same as to time; * or rather, they are the very
diphthongs αἱ and οἱ, having the « written under them after
the modern way, instead of having it written at the side
after the way of the ancients, who were strangers to the +
subscribed. And yet a and w are never considered as

* Dativus casus, qui, in Vocibus in
οι, per ὦ, subscripto :, exaratur hodie,

vectum esset.—In Inscriptione Farne-
siana dativus casus in ἢ et ὦ per El et

hic (i.e. in Inscriptione Baudelotiana)
per ὁ exprimitur, + una serie adscripto,
ut animadvertas in illis vocibus EN TOI
ΠΌΛΕΜΟΙ : idque antequam ὦ μέγα ad-

ΟΙ exaratur, ut in Baudelotianis Mar-
moribus. Similiterqae dativus in ᾧ,
subscripto +, per Al.—Montfaue. Pa-

leogr. Grac. p. 138. 141.

GREEK ACCENTS. 29)

short in the placing of accents ; which manifestly shews,
that the modern doctrine of Greek accents is not founded
upon any analogy or quantity, but is contrary to both.

From this rule, however, some exceptions are 39
made. Γ

For a

In the tenses of the optative mood; as φιλήσαι.

For a

1. In the tenses of the optative mood ; as τετύφοι.

2. In contracts ; as Sam@ot, Λητοῖ.

And some perhaps may be disposed to think that more
exceptions may be made from this rule. For instance:

For a

1. In the nominative cases plural of nouns, which
have an acute upon the penultimate of the nominative
case singular; as ταμίας, ταμίαι; Αἰνείας, Αἰνείαι.

2. In all infinitives ending in a, which are accented
upon the penultimate; and which accent is acute, ...
κ ; : Sate , 99
if the penultimate is not long by nature ; as τετυφέ-
vat, τυπέσπαι; excepting the first aorist of the middle voice
in aova ; Which, still making its last syllable short by the
rule, is therefore always accented upon the antepenulti-
mate; as τύψασϑαι.

For οἱ

1. Inthe nominative cases plural of nouns, which have
an acute upon the penultimate of the nominative case
singular; as τετυμμένος, τετυμμένοι.

-2. In adverbs; as οἴκοι. To distinguish it, it is said,
from οἶκοι, Aides.

I could indeed wish that these, and more particulars,
might be admitted as exceptions from the rule; because
they would bring things nearer to the standard of quan-
tity: but this is not to be done.

For though it followeth that the last is short, or

: 34
considered as short, when there is an accent upon
the antepenultimate, yet it doth not follow that a and οι
final are considered as long, because the foregoing sylla-
ble hath an acute; for a penultimate may, aceording to
the doctrine of accents, have an acute, whether the last
u 2

292 A DISSERTATION AGAINST

syllable be short or long. The truth of the case is, that
the rule, with all its exceptions, be they more or fewer,
is contrary to reason and quantity. For how can a syl-
lable be considered as short or long, but by the actual
pronunciation of it, or giving it one measure in the for-
mer case, and two measures in the latter? Now this is
a thing which can be determined only by the length or
shortness of syllables themselves. But the doing of it
merely upon the account of accents, and in so ar-
39 bitrary and inconsistent is dealing t
y and inconsistent a manner, is dealing too
freely with quantity, which is not founded on arbitrary
principles, but in the nature and reason of things.

The considering the diphthongs a and o as short in
respect to accents, seemeth to have owed its rise to a
corrupt pronunciation of the diphthongs, which pre-
vailed among the Romans in the times of Claudius and
Nero. And ifthe Romans introduced this pronuncia-
tion into Greece, as it is probable they did, for the
Greeks knew it not before Greece was subdued by the
Romans, then this part of the doctrine of accents will
evidently appear to be modern, and the time of its com-
, mencement may very nearly be pointed out. [saac Vos-
3 sius hath spoken very fully concerning the facts,

from which these consequences follow. * “ Eas
(scil. diphthongos) integras fuisse, et vere diphthongos,
ita ut utraque vocalis exaudiretur, quamvis vel ipsum
testetur vocabulum, certius tamen colligitur ἃ scriptis
ilorum omnium, qui floruere antequam Grecia Romanis
serviret. Claudii et Neronis temporibus mutata demum
fuit pronunciatio, tunc quippe precipue usus invaluit
ut diphthongi absorberentur, quod ipsum quoque Latinz
contigit Lingue, utpote in qua bivocalium usus maxima
ex parte cessarit jamdiu ante ztatem Ciceronis. Non
tantum insolens quid, sed et vastum et rusticum pre se
ferre videbantur diphthongi AI et OI, nec defuere, credo,
qui fauces non satis patere, nec sine dolore in tam

37 1 raat! PES EUS
atos sonos diduci et explicari posse adfirmarent.

* De Poemat. Cantu. p. 16, 17.

GREEK ACCENTS. 293°

Sine mora itaque a Romanis transiit vitiosus hic pro-
nuntiandi ritus ad Greecos, gentem adulandi peritissi-
mam, frustra reclamantibus doctis, et antiqui moris stu-
diosis ; qui licet aliquamdiu restitere, brevi tamen et
ipsi quoque in mollius loquendi genus concessere; et
adeo quidem ut Trajani et Adriani seculo bivocalium
usus penitus cessasse videatur. Hinc est quod in illis
Marmoribus, quorum Inscriptiones factee sunt post ea
tempora, mira diphthongorum confusio occurrat, cum
tamen in vetustioribus lapidibus Orthographiz ratio
optime sibi constet.” This soon became the case of all
the diphthongs. For * Sextus Empiricus lived under
Commodus, or soon after; and he expressly saith , 8
that the sound of the diphthongs αἱ, «, and ov, was
simple and uniform, i. 6. they were pronounced as mere
vowels. ὋὉ τοῦ a καὶ εἰ φϑόγγος ἁπλοῦς ἐστι, Kal μονόοει-
δής. καὶ ὃ τοῦ ov φϑόγγος μονοειδὴς καὶ ἀσύνϑετος καὶ ἀμε-
τάβολος, ἐξ ἀρχῆς ἄχοι τέλους λαμβάνεται. Advers. Gram-
matic. 1. 1. c. 5. §.117,8.—This also agreeth with, what
seemeth to me to have been, the true origin of the Greek
accents : an account of which I shall lay before the
reader before I finish this subject.

II. In the motion of nouns through their numbers and
cases, the accent of the first word is not kept in its place,
or removed, or changed, by any uniform rule of analogy
or quantity. :

Monosyllables, which increase in declining, have 39
a remarkable variation in their accents. The acute,
which is upon the nominative case, ought, according to
the analogy of the doctrine of accents, to be kept upon
the same syllable of the increased word as much as pos-
sible. And yet, in contradiction to this, and to other
general rules, an acute is placed upon the last syllable
of the genit. and dat. sing. and of the dat. plur.; as χει-
ρός, χειρί, χερσί; and a circumflex is placed upon the
last syllable of the genit. and dat. dual. and of the genit.
plur.; as χειροῖν, χειρῶν. And, besides this, the penul-

* Fab, Bib. Gree. I. iv. c. 18.

204 A DISSERTATION AGAINST

timate, if it be long by nature, and is followed by a
syllable, is circumflexed in the accusat. singular, and in
the nominative, accusative, and vocative dual and plural,
40 ἃ χεῖρα, χεῖρε, χεῖρας. Whereas the accent οὔ the
first word might have been kept upon the same syl-
lable in all the oblique cases; viz. either an acute or a
circumflex: for the quautity of the penultimate and last
syllable would, in all cases, allow of one of them.

111. The general rule for placing accents on verbs, is
to remove them as far back from the last syllable as
possible. And yet in the motion of verbs through their
moods, tenses, numbers, and persons, the accent is not
always kept back as far as possible, but it is moved for-
wards when the nature of the syllables, and even the
analogy of accents, do not require so forward a motion.

EXAMPLE.

τύπτω active.
2d fut. indicat.
Αἵ τυπτῶ; πυϊτεῖς, menace
TUTELTOV, TUTELTOV.
TUTOUMEV, TUTELTE, τυποῦσι.
Optat.
τυποῖμι, TUTOLC, TUTOL.
TUTOLTOV.
τυποῖμεν, τυποῖτε, TUTOLEV.
Infinit.
τυπεῖν.
Particip.
τυπῶν.
Middle
indicat.
τυποῦμαι, TUT), τυπεῖται.
τυπεῖσϑον, τυπεΐίσπον.-
TUTELOIE, τυποῦνται.
Infinit.

τυπεῖσϑαι.

GREEK ACCENTS. 295

So also the 2d aor. infinit. and particip. active, τυπεῖν,
τυπών ;—the perf. and plusperf. infinit. and particip. ac-
tive, rerupévar, τετυφώς ;—the two aors. subjunct. infinit.
and particip. passive, τυφϑῷ ture, τυφϑῆναι τυπῆναι, 9
tupvetc, τυπείς ;—the perf. and plusperf. particip.pas-
Sive, τετυμμένος ;—the 2d aor. imperat. and infinit. middle,
τυποῦ, τυπέσϑαι 5—and the perf. and plusperf. infinit. and
particip. middle, τετυπέναι, reruT we.

In all which instances the accent of the first word
might have continued the same, and have retained its
original place, either by the natural quantity of the last
syllable, or because the diphthong ais reckoned short
in the modern system of accents. Whereas now the
accent of the first word, instead of being removed back,
is not even kept back so much as its original place re-
quired; but is carried more forward than the natural or
artificial quantity of the last syllable requires.

IV. An acute, after its ἄρσις or elevation, cannot 43
have more than three measures in its Séove or fall;
for the ear cannot well go farther to judge of accents.
But then the distribution of these measures is quite ar-
bitrary in the modern system of Greek accents; for when
an acute is upon the antepenultimate, two of the three
measures in the fall must be in the penultimate, and not
in the last. Whereas there is nothing in the rules of
harmony, and of genuine pronunciation, that can hinder
two of the three measures in the fall from being either
in the penultimate, or in the last; as it is in Latin.
Κύριου and κύριῳ are as harmonious as démin? and dé-
mind. And therefore the accenting of such words upon
the penultimate, though the accent was originally AA
upon the antepenultimate in the nominative case,
cannot be founded upon harmony, analogy, or reason.

This is farther evident from hence ; that even in the
present system of Greek accents, some words are, con-
trary to the abovementioned general rule, directed to
be accented upon the antepenultimate, though the last
is long; as Αἰνείεω, ὄφεως, and many others, which will
be produced under the third proposition.

290 A DISSERTATION AGAINST

V. The system of accents, I have said, professeth in
its first rules to have a regard’ to quantity, but in its
progress departeth from it without any reason. Many
words which might, by the first rules in the system of
accents, be accented so as to agree with quantity, are
yet accented contrary to it—zonuoc hath an acute
upon the antepenultimate; though according to
quantity it ought to have a circumflex upon the penulti-
mate, and according to the first rules in the system
of accents, it might be so accented. For they allow
this, and all words of the same form, to be capable of
having a circumflex upon the penultimate. And words
of this form ought never to have an acute upon the first,
but a circumflex upon the second. For a circumflex is
the natural and proper accent of every syllable, that is
long in its nature; and a circumflex consisteth of an
acute and a grave, 7. 6. it sheweth that there is both an
elevation and depression of the voice in the syllable over
which it is placed. ᾿ἔρημος therefore must be so pro-
nounced, as if the long vowel in its penultimate was
AG resolved into two short ones, and the former marked
with an acute, and the latter with a grave; as thus,
ἐρέξμὸς. Now if every vowel, which is long in its nature,
hath also a natural elevation in its first part or measure,
it followeth that ἐρημος, and all words of the same form,
ought not to have, and cannot have, an acute uponthe first:
because they would then have an elevation upon each of
their two first syllables ; which no language alloweth.

PROPOSITION III.

The modern use of accents in the ancient Greek lan-
guage is contradictory to itself.
I. The rule for accenting words ending in ve, the
* Ktymologist telleth us is this. Polysyllables end-
ing in ve, which have the v short, are to have an

* In Voce λίγεια. _

GREEK ACCENTS. 207

acute upon the antepenultimate. Τὰ εἰς v¢ ὑπὲρ δύο συλ-
λαβὰς, συστέλλοντα τὸ ὕ, ᾿προπαροξύνεται᾽ οἷον, λεύκοφρυς,
ἥμισυς, ἀτράφαξυς. According to this rule, ἐλαχυς ought
to have an acute upon the antepenultimate; but yet it
is directed to be acuted upon the last. And the reason
given for this is, because there is another rule, contrary
to the former, for accenting some words ending in vc,
which directeth the accent to be placed upon the last,
when words of this form have a neutral ending, and an
a in the penultimate: ἐπειδὴ τὰ εἰς ve ἔχοντα οὐδετέρου͵
παρασχηματισμὸν, παραληγόμενα TO a, ὀξύνεται, οἷον πραὕὔς;
ταχύς, τούτου χάριν καὶ τὸ ἐλαχύς ὀξύνεται. There is the
same contradictory rule for the accenting of ἐλαχεια ;
the general rule is this: nouns feminine, ending in a,

which come from nouns masculine, ending in ue,

are to have an acute upon the antepenultimate, if the
masculine hath a grave upon the last; but if the mascu-
line hath an acute upon the last, then the feminine is
to have a circumflex upon the penultimate. Τὰ εἰς a
λήγοντα δηλυκὰ ἀπὸ τῶν εἰς ὃς ἀρσενικῶν γινόμενα, εἰ μὲν
βαρύνεται τὰ ἀρσενικὰ, προπαροξύνεται τὰ ϑηλυκά" οἷον πρέσ-
Bue πρέσβεια, ἥμισυς ἡμίσεια" εἰ δὲ ὀξύνεται τὰ ἀρσενικὰ, προ-
περισπᾶται τὰ ϑηλυκά. According to this rule, ἐχαχεια ought
to have a circumflex upon the penultimate; but yet both
ἐλαχεια and λίγεια from λιγύς are directed to be acuted
upon the antepenultimate. And the reason given for
this is, because there is another rule, contrary to the
former, for accenting some of these feminines, which 49
directs an acute to be placed upon the antepenulti-
mate, when the word cometh from a present tense. Ta
δὲ ἀπὸ ἐνεστῶτος παρηγμένα διὰ τοῦ Ga ϑηλυκὰ, προπαροξύ-
νεται οἷον μήδω, Μήδεια" λίγω, λίγεια and so ἐλάχεια, be-
cause * ἐλαχύς is, by them, made to come from ἐλῶ, as
λιγύς is from λίγω or λέγω. But the grammarians would
be very hard put to it to prove that these nouns come
from those verbs, if something more were required of
them in proof of it than bare assertion. However, the

* Etymol. in Vocibus Ἐλάσσων et Asyus.

298 A DISSERTATION AGAINST

rules manifestly contradict themselves; and, instead
of paying a due regard to quantity, one would think,
were made on purpose to oppose it.

TI. An oxytone becometh a barytone in a continued
discourse, except in the case of enclitics ; and the acute
= accent, when so changed, doth not seem to be either

a proper acute, or a proper grave. Not a proper
acute, for if it were there would be no change, and
it would have the same effect wpon following words that
all final syllables, which are acuted, have upon enclitics,
i. 6. to draw them as if were into one word. Neither
doth this accent properly become a grave, for there can
be no grave upon the last but when there is a circum-
fiex upon the foregoing syllable, or an acute upon one
of the two foregoing syllables, which cannot be the case
of an oxytone; so that in pronouncing such a word, the
last syllable is not to be uttered as if it were accented
with either an acute or a grave: not witha grave be-

cause it is originally acutitonous; and not with an

acute for the reasons abovementioned. * “ Le grave
ne se marque jamais que dans la suite du discours, et a
la fins des mots, ou il y auroit naturellement un aigu,
montrant qu’alors ces mots ne relevent pas tout a fait
Jeur finale, mais la sotitiennent seulement un peu. [15
la sotitiennent, dis je, parce quil est de la nature de la
voix, de soutenir totijours quelque syllable en chaque
mot, et qu’autrement elle fondroit trop: et ils ne Vele-
vent pas tout a fait, parce que cet elevement paroistroit
tellement au respect du mot suivant, quil sembleroit
Punir a soy, ce qui ne se peut faire qu’aux encliti-
ques.”

The making oxytones become barytones in such a
manner that they are not to be pronounced either as
oxytones or barytones, is really monstrous. But
besides this, it is a great absurdity, and contrary to
the nature of ail languages, that the same word, when
pronounced separately, should be subject to a different

* N. Meth. Gree. p..546.

GREEK ACCENTS. 299

modulation from what it must have when it makes part
of a continued discourse.

Indeed the nature of accents hath not been sufficient-
ly considered: it is evident that every word must have
an accent; and it is, I think, as evident, that there is,
and can be, in nature but one accent, viz. the acute.
The grave is not an accent, but the privation of an ac-
cent: and all polysyllables which have an acute in the
middle, must have, or be supposed to have, as many
graves as there are syllables in those words besides the
acuted syllable. For the syllables which precede the
acute, are to be pronounced with a privation of ac- 53
cent, ὁ. 6. with a grave, as well as those which fol-
low it. But the tone with which the syllables, which
precede the acute, are to be pronounced, is not deemed
an accent; and, therefore, as the reason is the same,
the tone with which the syllables which follow the
acute are to be pronounced, cannot be deemed an
accent. The circumflex, as it consisteth of an acute
and a grave, can be deemed an accent only in re-
spect to the former part of it: but this cannot make it a
distinct accent. The figure of it, indeed, is one, but the
nature of it is double; and if it be expressed according
to its constituent parts, as it was originally expressed, it
will evidently appear, that the latter part of it is only the
privation of an accent, i.e. no accent at all; and that
the former part of it is what only canbe deemed an 5,
accent.

This must be the meaning of Quinctilian when he
saith: “ Est autem in omni voce utique acuta:” as is
farther evident from what nearly follows: “ Praeterea
nunquam in eadem, flexa, et acuta, quoniam eadem
flexa ex acuta.” From the former of these passages it
is easy to observe that it destroyeth all that part of the
doctrine of accents which relateth to atonics: ‘‘ ea vero
que sunt syllabe unius, erunt acuta, aut flexa, ne sit
aliqua vox sine acuta.” nsiit. lib. 1. c. 5.

J will not pursue this any farther: [| mention it only
to shew how contradictory the doctrine of accents is to

900 A DISSERTATION AGAINST

itself, and to-all manner of reason inthis instance. For
when, by this doctrine, oxytones become barytones, the
55 patrons of the system of accents never tell us where

the acute is then to be placed; and yet it is evident
that they must have one, for every word must have an
accent, and every grave supposes an acute.

EIT. Many Greek words have an acute upon the ante-
penultimate, though the last islong, contrary to a funda-
mental rule in the doctrine of accents. Of these there
are four classes:

1. The Tonic genit. cases in ew for ov, as Aivelew.

2. The Attic genit. cases of contracts in tc and u, as
ὄφεως, ὄφεων 5 σινήπεως, σινήπεων.

3. Nouns in we and wy, which do not increasé in
the genit. case, as εὔγεως, ἀνώγεων.,

4. The compounds of γέλως, as κατάγελως.

50 ‘These, indeed, are introduced as exceptions from

' the general rule, but the words which are compre-
hended under these exceptions are so numerous, and of
such a nature, that they must be allowed to be a mani-
fest contradiction to the general rule. And, besides, I
have this farther observation to make upon them, that
they all prove what I have before advanced, viz. that
there is nothing in the nature of syllables, or the ana-
logy of the doctrine of accents, to hinder an acute from
being upon the antepenultimate when the last is long.
For the reasons given for the accents continuing upon
the antepenultimate in these exceptions, will equally
prove that it might remain upon the antepenultimate of
all words which have it upon that syNable in the nomi-
ne tative case; and, consequently, that κυριου and κυ-

pup, and all words of the same form, may, according
to this analogy, have an acute upon the first, because
they have it upon that syllable in their nominative cases.

IV. One general rule in the doctrine of accents is,
that the accent of the first word remaineth on the same
syllable in declining when no. particular rule requireth
it tobe removed. Now,

1. The rule itself:is contradicted by all those in-

CREEK ACCENTS. 301

stances in which the accent of the first word is removed
in declining without any particular rule; as μία hath an
acute upon the penultimate, but a circumfiex upon the
last in μιᾶς and μιᾷ. So μηδεμία, μηδεμιᾶς, μηδεμιᾷ ; and
SO ἄμφω, ἀμφοῖν ; δύω, δυοῖν.

2. This rule, when observed, is, in many cases, con-
tradictory to another general rule, which requireth
that an acute should be placed upon the antepenu!-
timate when the last syllable is short, and the penulti-
mate is not long by nature; for when a masculine par-
ticiple hath an acute upon the penultimate, this acute
will, by the present rule, remain upon the penultimate
ofthe neuter gender. And so ἁγιάζον hath an acute
upon the penultimate, because ἁγιάζων hath an acute
upon the penultimate, and a neutral participle doth not
draw back its accent; though it ought not to have an
acute, as the last syllable is short; and it cannot have a
circumflex as the penultimate is not long by nature, but
its proper accent should be an acute upon the antepe-
nultimate. And so, likewise, in the imparisyllabical
declension, when the last syllable of the nominative
case hath an acute, this remaineth on the penulti-
mate of the oblique cases, though the two last syllables
are short, as λαμπὰς, λαμπάδος, λαμπάδι.

3. In contradiction to the abovementioned general
rule, the place of the accent on the first word is directed
to be removed by three particular rules :

1. One particular rule, which requireth the accent of
the first word to be removed, is this: that the last sylla-
ble of the genitive plural of the first declension is to be
accented with a circumflex, as ταμιῶν, τελωνῶν, μουσῶν,
although their nominative cases are accented upon the
penultimate, as ταμίας, τελώνης, μοῦσα. This particular
rule, so far as it goeth, is a contradiction to the present
general rule ; and what is farther observable upon it is,
that itis subject to many exceptions which yet are,
all agreeable to that other general rule,which placeth
an acute upon the penultimate when the lastis long. The
exceptions are, that the genitive cases plural of χλούνης,

ῦ

09 A DISSERTATION AGAINST

χρήστης, Erhow, ἀφύη, and of the feminines of adjec-
tives in oc, are not to be accented with a circumflex upon
the last, but with an acute upon the penultimate. Now
these instances shew the absurdity of the particular rule
for placing a circumflex upon the last syllable of the
genitive case plural of nouns of the first declension;
and the particular rule, so far as it goeth, contradicteth
the rule for retaining, in declining, the place of the ac-
cent of the first word: for all nouns of the first declen-
sion, which have an acute upon the penultimate, are ca-

pable of retaining it in the same place in the geni-

tive plural; and it would be more agreeable, even
to the analogy of accents, for them to do so, without
perplexing the doctrine of accents by rules which are
perpetually contradicting one another.

2. Another particular rule, which requireth the ac-
cent of the first word to be removed, is this; that mono-
syllables which increase in declining, acute the last syl-

lable of the genit. and dat. sing. and of the dat. plur. and
circumflex the last syllable of the genit. and dat. dual,
and of the genit. plur.; as χείρ, χειρός, χειρί, χερσί, χειροῖν,
χειρῶν. And yet in all these cases, the accent of the
first word may be preserved upon the same syllable of
the increased word, viz. an acute when that syllable is
62 not long by nature, and a circumflex, when it is long
»~ by nature and the last syllable is short. So the cir-
cumflex is placed in the accusat. sing. and in the no-
minat. accusat. vocat. dual. and plur. of words of this
form; as χεῖρα, χεῖρε, χεῖρες, χείρας. , And so the acuteis
placed in the oblique cases of all monosyilable partici-
ples; as ϑέντος, στάντος, δόντος, ὄντος.

3. A third particular rule, which requireth the ac-
cent of the first word to be removed, relateth to femi-
nines ending in ea, which come from masculine oxy-
tones in eve or nc. Those which come from a masculine
oxytone in eve, are to have an acute upon the penulti-
mate; and those which come from a masculine oxy-
tone in ye, are to have an acute upon the antepenulti-
mate. The reason given for this 15, because in the for-

GREEK ACCENTS. 303

mer case ἃ final is long, but in the lafter it is short. 63
But this is no reason at all as to the present point; ~~
for a final, whether long or short, is capable of being
acuted. And therefore all the instances of this kind
are, in both cases, equally contradictory to the rule for
keeping the accent of the first word upon the same syl-
lable as much as possible.

V. As the first in τίϑημι, ἵστημι, δίδωμι, ζεύγνυμι, is ac-
cented, this accent should remain upon the first of the
third pers. plur. as it remaineth upon the first of all
the other persons, whether the penultimate be long or
short. And yet, contrary to this analogy, the penulti-
mate of this person is circumflexed: riS<io1, ἱστᾶσι, di-
dover, ζευγνῦσι. If it be said, that this is done to make
these persons conformable in their accent to the
dat. case plur. of the participles of the same
tenses, to which they are like in all other respects, this
is rather a reason why they should not be so accented,
that they might differ in accent, as they do im sense.
But even that rule is not universal; for deo, third pers.
plur. of ἄημι spiro, is accented by some upon the first.

VI. The second and third persons sing. of the opta-
tive passive of verbs in μὲ have a circumflex on their
penultimate; as τιϑεῖο, τιϑεῖτο; ἱσταῖο, ἱσταῖτο ; διδοῖο, δι-
δοῖτο. But δύναιο, δύναιτο are accented upon the first.
And so these persons, in these tenses, are always ac-
cented, when the active is not in use; as δύνημι is not.
But how can this circumstance be a foundation for any
difference in the placing of accents in the above- ._
mentioned persons of the optative passive of verbs, sad
which in all respects are the same, whether their ac-
tives be im use,or not? However, so it is, though it
contradicts the general analogy of such verbs.

Vil. Dissyllable prepositions, when they are followed
by a word which beginneth with a vowel, lose their last
syllable, and have no accent at all; as παρ᾽ ἐμοῦ. But
this is contrary both to reason and to the general doc-
trine of accents ; for no monosyllable can be pronounced
without some accent. And this analogy is observed

304. A DISSERTATION AGAINST

whenever the elision is made in a declinable word; as
δείν᾽ ἔπαϑεν. For in this case the accent is always drawn
back to the penultimate, though it might have been
otherwise placed before the elision; and so it sheweth
_, that all monosyllables ought to have an accent,
a and that the depriving monosyllables, which arise
from dissyllable prepositions, of an accent, is contrary
both to reason, and to the general analogy of accents.

It is in vain to pretend that accents, as they are now
used, are consistent with quantity, and that a due regard
may be had to both.

1. Because quantity is not the constant, is seldom
the rule for placing of accents. And therefore, whenever
accents are not placed according to quantity, this must
cause a difference in the pronunciation. For why are
accents in any case placed according to quantity, but
that they may both agree in the pronunciation? and if
the pronunciation is genuine and rational when accents
and quantity agree, it must necessarily be corrupt and

irrational when they disagree. One of them must

give way to the other. And if quantity doth this,
then it will be at variaice with itself; and if accents
give way, then they are nothing as to pronunciation.

2. Because this is not true in fact. No man can
read prose or verse according to both accent and quan-
tity ; for every accent, if it is any thing, must give some
stress to the syllable, upon which it is placed. And
every stress that is laid upon a syllable, must necessa-
rily give some extent to it, for every elevation of the
voice τ time, and time is quantity,” οὔτε χρόνος
χωρὶς τόνου εὑρίσκεται, οὔτε τύνος χωρὶς χρόνου. For this
reason Dionysius Thrax saith, that a tone or accent

.. giveth a greater extent or quantity, + τόνος πρὸς ὃν
6S δ . ie
QOOMEV καὶ τὴν φωνὴν εὐρύτεραν ποιοῦμεν- ven a
rough breathing is able to make a short vowel long for
no other reason, but because it layeth a greater stress

* Πορφυρίου «περὶ meorwdiac. Ms. Bib. + Ms. Bibliothee. Medicer.
Reg. Ang. p. 2,

GREEK ACCENTS. 905

upon it than a smooth breathing doth. And the pause
which must necessarily be made at the end of every
verse, is the true reason why the last syllable is not
common, but necessarily long. It cannot therefore be
said that accents only denote an elevation of the voice,
for no such elevation can subsist, and be made sensible
in pronouncing, whatever may be done otherwise in
singing, without some stress or pause, which is always
able to make a short syllable long.

It is upon account of this connexion between accent
and quantity that Quinctilian saith, that, in the case of
common syllables, the piace of the accent varieth
with the quantity of the syllable. Ἔ“ Evenit, ut oe
metri quoque conditio mutet accentum : ut

“‘___. Pecudes, picteque Volucres.

Nam Volucres media acuta legam: quia etsi natura bre-
vis, tamen positione longa est, ne faciat iambum, quem
non recipit versus heroicus.” So that, according to
Quinctilian, when the penultimate of volucres is long, it
must be read with an acute accent; but when itis short,
it must be read without one: which, in both cases, can
be founded only in the connexion between accent and
quantity. For if these were unconnected, the two last
syllables in volucres might make either a spondee, or
an iambus, without any alteration in the accent.

In some ancient Latin inscriptions, an acute ac-
cent is put to shew that the syllables, over which it bat
is put, are long: as +STA’TIO’, PATRO'NO’, PE’DANIO’,
CLEMENS, MA’NIBVS, CV’RIONE, PECVNIA’.. The pro-
per mark of along syllable indeed was an apex, or bar.
However, this sheweth, that in the sense of those who
engraved these inscriptions, a syllable was long when it
had such an elevation given to it, as is proper to an
acute accent: for otherwise the engravers would never
have put two such accents upon one word, nor such an
accent upon the first syllable of CVRIONE.

* Instit. lib. i. c. 5. risii Cenotaph. Pisan, Dissert. iy. ec.

+ Lips. de L.L. Pronunt.c.19. No- alt.
os

306 A DISSERTATION AGAINST

Upon the same account some ecclesiastical poets
have made short some syllables of Greek words,
71 Nes ὃ :
which originally, and in their nature, are long,
merely because they had only a grave accent, and have
made long others, which originally are short, merely be-
cause they had an acute accent. So in Sidonius Apol-
linaris the penultimate of Euripides is long, because
Εὐριπίδης is accented upon the penultimate ; and in
Prudentius, the penultimate of eremus, Idola, Mathesis,
Serapis, is short, because these words in the Greek lan-
guage are accented with an acute upon the antepenulti-
mate.

It is as impossible to read prose according to accents,
and, at the same time, maintain a due regard to quantity,
as it is to read poetry according to quantity and metre,
and, at the same time, maintain a due regard to accents.

This hath never been attempted, neither can the
12 other any more be done.

Though accents are placed, yet they are never read in
verse; because if they were, they would turn verse into
prose. *“ Si quis itaque hodiernos Grecorum accen-
tus seu prosodiam sequatur et legat Carmina vel Ho-
meri, vel cujuscunque alius antiqui poeta, nullos om-
nino pedes, nullum vel metrum vel rhythmum agnoscet,
nihil quod numerosum sit, vel aures afliciat ; sed sonum
absonum et ridiculum, et versus qui cantari nequeant,
denique quidvis potius quam Carmina intelliget.” In
the original use of accents quantity always agreed with
the elevation and depression of the voice. But as the
modern use of accents seldom agreeth with quantity,
” those who would have a pronunciation formed
3 upon both accent and quantity require an impossi-
bility.

Nothing would shew the absurdity of the modern
system of accents in this respect more effectually, than
to take a piece of poetry, and place the accents accord-
ing to the quantity, which the doubtful and long vowels

* Ts. Vossius de Poemat. Cantu. p. 21.

GREEK ACCENT'S: 307

and diphthongs have in their respective places. This
would cause such a variation in the places of the ac-
cents, arising from the different length or shortness of the
vowels and diphthongs in their different situations, as
would make the modern system of accents appear quite
ridiculous. For of the two sets of accents, which this
would exhibit, the one would at least approve itself by
its agreement with quantity, and the other would imme-.
diately shew its absurdity by its disagreement from v4
even what it pretendeth to.
There are syllables, which are shorter than short, and
longer than long. * Διαλλάττει βραχεΐα συλλαβὴ βρα-
χείας, καὶ μακρὰ μακρᾶς, καὶ οὔτε τὴν αὐτὴν ἔχει δύναμιν, οὔτε
ἐν λόγοις ψιλοῖς, οὔτ᾽ ἐν ποιήμασιν, ἢ μέλεσι διὰ ῥυθμῶν ἢ
μέτρων κατασκευαζομένοις πᾶσα βραχεῖα, καὶ πᾶσα μακρά.---
When a short vowel is followed by another vowel, it
is shorter than when it is followed by a mute anda
liquid, though it be also short in this position. And a
long vowel is not so long when it is followed by another
vowel, as when it is by one or more consonants, Far-
ther still, the ancients were so nice upon the subject of
quantity, that they made a difference in the degrees Τῇ
of the quantity of the same vowel, in respect, not
only of the letters which followed, but also of those
which went before it. + Dionysius Halicarnasseus, to
illustrate this, produceth the words ὁδός, ῥόδος, τρόπος
and στρόφος ; in all which the first syllable is short, and
yet it is longer in pdédoc than in ὁδός, longer in τρόπος
than in ῥόδος, and longer in στρόφος than in τρόπος. Ac-
cents can, and do take no notice of this. But quantity
can, and doth. And so did the ancients in reading or
repeating both poetry and prose; and made the differ-
ence sensible to the ear. So in the foregoing instances,
Dionysius saith that the first syllable of the last word,
though it still remaineth short, yet becometh longer than
the shortest by the three sensible additions, which
are made to it: τρισὶν αὕτη προσδήκαις ἀκουσταῖς μα-

γον»

* Dionys. Halicar. Περὶ Συνθέσ. ᾿ονομάτ. ᾧ. 15. + Thid,
x 2

308 A DISSERTATION AGAINST

κρότερα γενήσεται τῆς βοαχυτάτης, μένουσα ETL βραχεῖα.
And from hence he maketh this conclusion: * therefore
these four differences in a short syllable, which
ce have or produce a correspondent sensation, are
measured or estimated by the addition, which is made of
one, two, or three consonants to the first short syllable.
Indeed all the different kinds of writing, so far as the
judgment of the ear is concerned, arise from the differ-
ent manner in which writers dispose letters, syllables,
and words. As there is no mystery in this, one would
be disposed to think there could be no great difficulty
in the right management of it. And yet how few writers
are there, who have succeeded in the execution so well,
as to deserve and leave to posterity an established
78 character?’ Their ill success could not proceed
from any ignorance of an art, which, in its nature, is so
very plain and simple, but from their want of that prin-
ciple, which alone can secure success; I mean a want
of taste. This, when we have it, is an inborn principle;
which cannot be acquired, though it may be improved.
But the present accents, being founded upon a wrong
taste, cannot give or improve a true one; but directly
tend to spoil our taste, if we haveany. For true taste

* E give the sense of this passage
as I think it ought to beread. The
original is certainly corrupted, Οὐκοῦν
πέσσαρες αὗται βραχείας συλλαβῆς δια-
φοραὶ, τὴν ἀνάλογον ἔχουσαι αἴσθησιν, τῆς
Victorius (Var.
Lect. 1. xiii. c. 6.) instead of ἀνάλογον
read ἄλογον. But the difficulty doth not
consist in this word. Whether we read

παραλλαγῆς μέτρον.

ἀνάλογον or ἄλογον still the grammatical
construction is imperfect, there being no
verb to answer to the nominative cases.
Dr. Hudson saw this; and therefore
he read τὴν ἀνάλογον ἔχουσιν αἴσθησιν
πρὸς τὸν τῆς παραλλαγῆς μέτρον. ΜΓ.
Upton hath gone farther; and offered
two emendations, one of which seem-
eth obscure and confused, and the

other maketh still greater allerations
in the text.
παραλλαγῆς μέτρον, We read ἐκ τῆς πα-

But if, instead of τῆς

ραλλαγῆς μετροῦνται, the emendation
will be easy and natural, and the sense
agreeable with the context. For then
μετεοῦνται will be the verb, to which
διαφοραί and ἔχουσαι refer, and the sense
of the passage will be what Dionysius
certainly meant. For the additions
that are made to the first syllable, be-
ing the causes of the differences in the
quantity of it, those additions must be
the rule, by which these differences
are to be measured, and made sensible
in the pronunciation. For these rea-
sons therefore I have translated the

passage according to this reading.

GREEK ACCENTS. 309

so the modern doctrine of accents.

There is a prosaical rhythm, which is very simple :
there is an oratorical rhythm, which is more numerous ;
and there is a poetical rhythm, which is the per-
fection of all human compositions. All these a
rhythms arise from a due proportion in quantity; or, in
other words, from a due assemblage of long and short
syllables, in a certain ratio. Now as a pronunciation
by accent must produce a rhythm, and this is different
from that which ariseth from the length and shortness
of syllables, it is as evident, that one cannot read or
repeat by accent and quantity at the same time, as it is
evident that two distinct rhythms cannot be produced by
the same movements, or that the same rhythm cannot be
produced by different movements. The rhythm of music
is capable of being varied in many more ways than the
combination of the different feet, which are used in
verse, can possibly reach. And therefore music
may be so adapted to poetry, that this may be sung, 80
and both produce one rhythm. But the rhythm which
ariseth from a bare elevation and depression of the
voice, fixed in every word to certain places by certain
rules, is of too narrow a compass to take in the various
combinations of syllables and feet that may be used in
verse. And, therefore, though the Greek poetry was
sung according to musical notes, yet could it never have
been read or repeated according to the modern accents :
nor could orations, or common prose for the same rea-
son, in proportion to the lower degree of rhythm, which
is proper to them. For it is to be observed, as a thing
which is essential in the present case, that the rhythm of
prose is of the same nature with the rhythm of poetry.
The difference doth not consist in the quality, but 81
only in the quantity. Μουσικὴ γάρ τις ἣν καὶ ἡ τῶν
πολιτικῶν λύγων ἐπιστήμη, τῷ ποσῷ διαλλάττουσα τῆς ἐν
ῳδαῖς καὶ ὀργάνοις, οὐχὶ τῷ ποιῷ. Καὶ γὰρ ἐν ταύτῃ καὶ
μέλος ἔχουσιν αἱ λέξεις, καὶ puSpov, καὶ μεταξολὴν, καὶ πρέ-

is ever founded in nature. And so is quantity: but not

Le int Weert , a3 Ν Κη fa Ν - aN
τον. ΦΟΤΕ καὶ ETL ταῦυτης ἢ AKON Τερίζεται μὲν τοις μέλεσιν;

910 A DISSERTATION AGAINST

ἄγεται δὲ τοῖς puSpoic, ἀσπάζεται δὲ μεταβολὰς, wove δ᾽ ἐπὶ
πάντων τὸ οἰκεῖον. Dionys. Halicarn. Περὶ Συνϑέσ. Ὄνο-
par. ἃ. 11.

Metre differeth from rhythm as the species doth from
the genus. For which reason the * scholiast upon Ari-
stophanes calleth rhythm the father of metre, πατὴρ μέτρου
ῥυϑμός. Metre ariseth necessarily from syllables; but
rhythm may arise from mere sounds. Metre therefore
must produce one rhythm; and accents, if they differ from

quantity, must produce another. What rhythmis, and

82 howit differeth from metre, is well explained by Lon-
sinus in those +scholia upon Hephestion, which are as-
cribed to him. Διαφέρει μέτρον ῥυθμοῦ. ὕλη μὲν γὰρ τοῖς
μέτροις ἡ συλλαβὴ, καὶ χωρὶς συλλαβῆς οὐκ ἂν γένοιτο μέτρον:
ὁ δὲ ῥυθμὸς γίνεται μὲν καὶ ἐν συλλα[βῇ. γίνεται δὲ καὶ χωρὶς
συλλαβῆς. καὶ γὰρ ἐν κρότῳ, ὅταν χαλκέας ἴδωμεν τὰς σφύρας
καταφέροντας, ἅμα τινὰ ῥυϑ μὸν ἀκούομεν᾽ καὶ ἴππων πορεία ῥυδ-
μὸς ἐνομίσϑη, καὶ κίνησις δακτύλων, καὶ μελῶν σχήματα, καὶ
χορδῶν κινήματα, καὶ ὀρνίθων πτερίσματα. μέτρον δὲ οὐκ ἂν
γένοιτο χωρὶς λέξεως ποιᾶς καὶ ποσῆς. Syllables, saith Lon-
ginus, are the subject matter of metre. And indeed it is
upon this very account that they have been called feet ;
because when they are so employed they bear some ana-
82 logy to the movements of the feet in dancing. So
“ + Philoponus. Θεωρεῖται ὃ puSpd¢ καὶ ἐπὶ τῶν κροτούν-
των ταῖς χερσὶ καὶ τοῖς ποσίν. ὅταν γὰρ ἡ ταχεῖα καὶ Poadsia
τῶν ποδῶν ἄρσις Kal ϑέσις λόγον ἔχωσι πρὸς ἀλλήλας, ῥυϑ-
μὸς γίνεται. καὶ ἐντεῦϑεν ἀπὸ μεταφορᾶς τοῦτων ἡ τοιάδε τῶν
συλλαβῶν συμπλοκὴ, ἣν παραλαμβάνομεν πρὸς τὴν τῶν
μέτρων γένεσιν, πόδες ἐκλήϑησαν. ‘Take now the first ex-
ample which Longinus mentioneth, that of smiths strik-
ing their hammers upon their anvils (from whence music
is said to have taken its rise), and suppose two sets of
them (consisting either of different numbers, or of the
same number, but provided with hammers of different
natures) to be striking upon their anvils at the same

* Nub. v. 638. $ In lib. ii. Aristot. de Anima,
ἡ Edit. Paris. 1553. p. 76. L. I. viii. a.

GREEK ACCENTS. 91

fime, and you will clearly see, that, though each set will
produce a rhythm, yet both sets striking at the same 8A
time must produce discords.

Are accents then ofno use? I answer,

1. Accents may be useful to distinguish the different
senses of words, which do not differ in form or sound.
As εἰμί sum and εἶμι vado ; ἐστόν ἐστέ estis, and ἔστον ἔστε
estote; οὐ non and ov ἐδὲ. In which last words ἃ distinc-
tion may be useful, though not that which is here made.
The circumflex is unnecessary to this purpose ; as well
because both these monosyllables must, and cannot but
be pronounced with a circumflex, whether it be marked
or not, as because the different senses are distinguished
by the different breathings; which some grammarians
reckoned also among the προσῳδίαι. But such distinc-
tions ought to cause no difference in the pronunci-
ation, because there is no difference in the quantity.
And a careful reader will distinguish them by the con-
text, without the help of accents, as readily, and by
the same means, that he will distinguish the different
senses of any word, which, with the same accent, car-
rieth different senses.

TO’KOS with one and the same accent on the penul-
timate, signifieth the time of bringing forth, the act of
bringing forth, and the thing brought forth. In this case
the accent, being the same, is of no help to the reader.
But the context telleth him in which of these three
senses the word τόκος is to be taken in the place that
lieth before him. And therefore it must follow from
hence, that the same difference, as to sense, might 86
as well be observed without an accent.

ἮΝ, with one and the same accent, carrieth five differ-
ent senses. Itis the first and third person singular, and
third person plural of the imperfect of εἰμί; and then it
signifieth eram, erat, erant. It is the first person sin-
gular of the 2d aor. of ἴημι; and then it signifieth ivi.
And it is also the first person of the imperfect of φημί;
and then it signifieth dixt. In all which cases the reader
can have no help from the accent, but only from the

312 A DISSERTATION AGAINST

context, to find out the sense of ἦν in each particular
place. And this he will readily do, if he duly attendeth.
And as such another instance cannot perhaps be pro-
duced, I mean of one word which carrieth five different
gy senses under one and the same accent, and yet
“" these different senses are discovered without diffi-
culty, there cannot be a more evident proof that accents
cannot be of great use, though they should be allowed
to be of some. For a reader may, and will, in all cases,
discover the particular sense, which a word of different
senses bears in any particular place, by the same means
by which he may and will discover the different senses
of ἦν.

The prepositions ava and διά have an acute upon the
last syllable, to distinguish them from ὦ ἄνα rex and τὸν
Δία Jovem. But a reader must be very stupid, if he can-
not distinguish a preposition from a noun without the
assistance of an accent.

2. Accents may be useful to distinguish the quantity
98 of syllables. But then to do this they ought always
to be placed according to quantity; which, in the
modern use of them, they are not. And therefore, as
accents may sometimes lead us to the knowledge of
quantity, so is it certain that they may sometimes mis-
leadus. 'The accent of περικαλλέα, being upon the pe-
nultimate, may induce an unknowing reader, who judg-
eth of quantity by accent, to think that a final there is
long. And the rather so, because he may, perhaps,
have observed, that the penultimate of βασιλέα hath such
an accent, and that the a final here is long. Whereas
a final in βασιλέα is long, because it is long in all the
Attic accusative cases of this form; which, in this re-
spect, follow the analogy of the Attic and Ionic genitives
inwe. Bat a final in περικαλλέα is short; and the
accent is upon the penultimate only because it was
upon that syllable in the nominative case περικαλλής.
And so, for much the same reason, in ἱππότα, and words
of the same sort, ὃ, 6. whose ending in ye hath been
changed by the Macedonians into a, though the a final

GREEK ACCENTS. 313

is short, yet still, notwithstanding this alteration, the
accent is kept upon the penultimate. |

** Apices, (saith * Scaurus,) ibi poni debent, ubi iisdem
literis alia atque alia res designatur, ut venit et venit,
aret et aret, legit et legit, ceteraque his similia. Super
I tamen literam apex non ponitur. Cetere vocales,
quia, eodem ordine posite, diversa significant, apice
distinguuntur, ne legens dubitatione impediatur.” This
relateth to both uses of accents, when the sense
varieth, and the quantity is different. But this will ἐν,
not, by any means, support the modern doctrine of ac-
cents in the Greek language, because it taketh in only
those words that are ambiguous in their sense and quan-
tity; which are but few.

Though the apices, which were used by the Latins,
were distinct from accents, yet still these, when sense
and quantity are connected with them, come within the
same reason, and so ought to be subject to the same
rule, ὁ. e. that they ought to be used but in doubtful
cases. This is the only circumstance that can make
the use of them proper and necessary. +‘ Longis syl-
labis omnibus apponere apicem ineptissimum est, quia
plurime, natura ipsd verbi quod scribitur, patent. 9]
Sed interim necessarium, cum eadem litera alium ὁ
atque alium intellectum, prout correpta, vel producta
est, facit; ut malus, utrum arborem significet, an homi-
nem non bonum, apice distinguitur. Palis aliud priore
syllaba longa, aliud sequenti significat; et, cum eadem
litera nominativo casu brevis, ablativo longa est, utrum
sequamur, plerumque hac nota monendi sumus.”

If the placing of different accents upon the same
parts, or of the same accent upon different parts of the
same words, when they carry different senses, should be
allowed to be ever so proper and useful to distinguish
these different senses, yet no argument can be drawn 92
from hence for the use of accents in words, which “~~
do not carry such different senses; much less for the

* De Orthographia. ἐ Quinctil. lib. 1. c. 7.

914 A DISSERTATION AGAINST

forming of a system of accents to run through the whole
body of a language. For the words which carry such
different senses, are very few in comparison with the
whole vocabulary of the Greek language, which is a very
copious one. But accents are placed upon all words—
they are placed where they are not wanted ;—where they
can be of no manner of use;—and where, if they are
observed in pronouncing, they destroy all that harmony
which ariseth from a just quantity, and upon which the
beauty and power of oratory and poetry do, in a great
measure, depend.

Upon the whole—on the one hand the advantages of

accents are but small; but, on the other, they are
τ attended with many and great disadvantages.

1. They introduce unnecessary difliculties into a lan-
guage, which hath sufficient ones of itself.

2. They are placed by rules, which are often arbi-
trary, and contrary one to another.

3. They destroy all that harmony for which the Greek
language is so justly esteemed.

4. They encourage laziness. It is an easy matter to
see an accent marked over a syllable, and to place the
stress of the voice there: but it is not so easy a matter
to know the quantity of syllables, and give to every part
of a word its due proportion of time. We are hereby
led and accustomed to trust to our eyes, and not to our

ears.
O4 Prosody originally was τόνος φωνῆς πρὸς Ov ἄδομεν.
But now it isa quite different thing. From the an-
cient musical use of accents therefore no argument can
be drawn to support the modern practice and use of ac-
cents. For though we know but little of the musical or
tonical pronunciation of the ancients, yet thus much we
know, that it was perfectly agreeable to the nature and
quantity of syllables. But the modern use of accents is
not agreeable to the nature and quantity of syllables.
Neither hath it any music in it: unless irregular sounds
can be so called. It must therefore be, as it is in truth,
a third thing, distinct from the use of accents among

GREEK ACCENTS. 315

the ancient Greeks, and from the nature and quantity of
syllables; and consequently cannot be supported by
either,

This conclusion .seemeth necessary ; and unless

Ba. eer ; Ἵ 95
we make such a distinction, we must run into in-
explicable difficulties. *<‘ Qui porro usus accentuum
fuerit in vocali pronuntiatione, ef qua ratione syllaba-
Tum quantitatem, et accentuum inflexionem veteres con-
ciliaverint, nondum ita perspicue explanatum est.” This
indeed is a thing, which can never be explained, so long
as we confound the modern use of accents with that

which was made of them by the ancient Greeks.

τς Accents are of less use in the Greek language to lead
us to the knowledge of quantity than in any other lan-
guage; because it affords more helps or criéeria to this
purpose, which are distinct from accents, and arise
from the very constitution of that language. For 96
besides the different characters, which the Greek lan-
guage hath for e long and e short, and for ὁ long and o
short, it hath twelve diphthongs; which are all long.
By which means an infinite number of syllables are
known to be long by the writing and natural sound of
them, previously to any use that may be made of ac-
cents.

Tones, or accents, are, and cannot but be used in all
languages. +“ Ut nulla vox sine vocali, ita sine accentu
nulla est.” Where a language is not founded in a na-
tural quantity of syllables, the placing of accents may
be allowed to be arbitrary. But not so where the very
nature of a language establisheth a difference be-
tween syllables, and maketh some long and others 97
short. In this case the use of accents cannot be arbi-
trary, but must correspond with the natural length or
shortness of the syllables, which compose the words
of that language. Otherwise a perpetual discord will
arise.

* Montfauc, Paleogr. Greec. p. 236. + Diomedes, lib. ii.

316 A DISSERTATION AGAINST

This maketh a great difference between the ancient
Greek and the modern languages. In these the pro- -
nunciation doth not depend upon a natural quantity,
and therefore a greater liberty may be allowed in the
placing of accents. But in the Greek language the
pronunciation essentially depends upon a natural quan-
tity, and therefore all use of accents that is contrary to
quantity must be injurious to pronunciation.
98 Men are led to accent their words, partly by the

constitution of their language, and partly by their
own natural temper. One of a volatile temper will
love short syllables, and will not like to be stopped
either by quantity or accent; so that in pronouncing a
word of three syllables he will run on, and place the
accent upon the last syllable, because he can run no
farther. On the contrary, one of a phlegmatic temper
will love long syllables, and will be pleased with the
majesty of quantity and accent: so that in pronouncing
a word of three syllables, he will naturally lay some
stress as soon as he can, and fix upon the first for his

accent.

We see something of this even in the ancient, though

not the most ancient Greek language, the dialects of

fe which consisted not only in the permutation, addi-

tion, and subtraction of letters, but also in the placing
of accents.

The *Dorians put a circumflex upon the last syllable
of all their first futures ; whereas the common language
put it only upon those that end in Ae, μῶ, ve, pw.

The + Molians are said to have been βαρυντικοί, 2. 6.
they placed their accents as soon as they could. So
πόταμος and κάλος had an acute upon the first sylia-
ble, which necessarily brought a grave upon the last;
whereas the common dialect put an acute upon the
last; as ποταμός, καλός. Soin ἄεισιν {they put the ac-
cent upon the first; whereas a circumflex was commonly

* Mag. Etymol. in Voce Κύριος. + Mag. Etymol. in Voce ἄεισιν.

+ Mag. Etymol. ibid.

GREEK ACCENTS. 317

put upon the penultimate ddow. And so in * ὄρσω 100
for do the future of dow: where ἃ σ is inserted ~
that it might not have the form of the futures of those
conjugations, which have the penultimate short, anda
circumflex upon the last. And in this, as in many other
particulars, the Latins followed the Aolians; and, in-
deed, itis very evident that the Latin tongue was formed
upon the Aolic dialect of the Greek language.

But this seemeth to relate only to what was practised
by the common people, and in common conversation ;
for those that wrote in any one dialect, never departed
from quantity, any more than those that wrote in any
other dialect.

The modern Greeks have carried the barbarity of
accents much farther. They sometimes place the

: 101
accent, and even a circumflex, upon the fourth
from the last: whereas the ancient Greeks never placed
it higher than the third from the last, nor the circumflex
beyond the penultimate. +“ Loci accentuum sunt qua-
tuor, ultima, penultima, antepenultima, et praantepe-
nultima. Preantepenultima acutum. agnoscit et cir-
cumflexum. Acutum quidem in iis, quorum penultima
est in va, ut ἀναγκάλλιασις exuliatio, ἐνύκτιασεν nox facia
est; quasi ca unicam efficiat syllabam, et in προπαροξυ-
τόνοις, quibus additur particula ve, ut κάμετε κάμετενε fa-
citis : circumflexum autem in iis, quorum penultima cir-
cumilectitur, et iis additur articulus cum particula ve, ut
εἴδατονε vidi illud.”

-As some parts of Greece were under the domi- 102
nion of the Venetians, it is probable that the mo- ~~
dern Greeks learned this method of accentuation from
the Italians, who sometimes place the accent upon the
fourth from the last; as séguitano, visitano, desiderano,
considerano. {** Ante tertiam quidem, nulla, quod sci-
am, Lingua preter Etruscam, Tonum collocat. In his
enim verbis, séguitano, visitano, séminano, desiderano,

~ * Mag. Etymol. in Voce ἄεισιν. Vulg. c. 2.
t Sim, Portii Gram. Ling. Gree. ¢ Canin. Hellenism, Ed. 4to. p. 98.

318 A DISSERTATION AGAINST

considerano, in quarta a fine est acutus. In compositis
etiam in quinta et sexta, portandosenela, desideranovici,
seminanovict. Quidam vir doctissimus in octava quo-
que id observavit, séminanovicisene, edificanovicisene.”
We have some instances of this in our own language;
as dérmitory, repository, preparatory, authoritatively,

deménstratively. But this hurts the ear; for, in
10s judging of accents, the ear cannot go farther back
than the third syllable. And when the accent is placed
higher, we find, in fact, that all the subsequent syllables
are pronounced as rapidly as if they were but two.

Analogy, and the reason of things, require that all
words of the same form, at least where there cannot be any
difference in the sense, should be accented in the same
manner. But this is not observed in the modem doc-
trine of Greek accents; and the most probable reason
that can be given for this variation, seemeth to be the
different manner of accenting the same words, 2. e.
words of the same form, or of the same number of syl-

lables, by different people, who spoke different mo-
104 ther-tongues. And when a foreig f ace

ner-tongues. And when a foreign manner of ac

centing was once introduced into the Greek language,
the manner of one people prevailed in some words, and
the manner of another people prevailed in other words,
though both were of the same form, and capable of be-
ing accented in the same manner.

In all cases, when the nature of a language admitteth
of quantity, this must be the natural and best rule for
the pronouncing of it; and all use of accents that in-
terfereth with quantity, must, in proportion, interfere
with pronunciation. And this is the case of the Greek
language, but not so of the modern ones; especially of
those which sprang from the Teutonic and Esclavonian.

For these, consisting of a greater proportion of
τ» consonants, must of necessity have a greater num-
_ ber of long syllables. And the great disproportion be-
tween long and short syllables made it impossible to
think of establishing quantity for a foundation of har-
mony in pronunciation. Hence it became necessary to

GREEK ACCENTS. 319

lay aside the consideration of quantity, and to have re-
course to accents to form some harmony, such as it is:
so that I am apt to think that the present use of accents
was introduced into the Greek language, when conquest
and commerce, and other methods of intercourse, brought
foreigners into Greece ; for then each was naturally led
to pronounce Greek according to the accents which pre-
vailed in his mother-tongue. For instance: he whose
mother-tongue abounded in anapests (as the French,
which hath no trisyllable that maketh a dactyl) 106
would naturally have placed the accent upon the
last syllable, and made ταπεινός an oxytone, though the
penultimate is long by nature. And she whose mother-
tongue abounded in dactyls (as the English, which hath
no trisyllable that maketh an anapest), would naturally
have placed the accent upon the antepenultimate, and
pronounced τύψασϑαι with the accent upon the first,
though the lastis long by nature, and the penultimate
by position. And if you were to give to a Frenchman
and to an Englishman, who knew nothing of the Greek
accents, two Greek words to pronounce, one consisting
of three long syllables, and the other of three short ones,
in both cases the Frenchman would certainly place the
accent upon the last, and make both words ana- 107
pests; and the Englishman would certainly place
the accent upon the first, and make both words dactyls.
The reason why some words are accented differently,
when there is no difference in the sense, could not be
because the laws of accents originally allowed such
words to have different accents; for accents were not
originally placed according to the laws of prosody, but
the laws of prosody were formed according to an use and
custom, which was already established. In the same
manner that languages in general were not originally
formed according to grammar ; but grammar was formed
according to the use and custom which prevailed in lan-
guages, and had already fixed the general nature of them.
But the true reason of this variation must be, that
the Greeks, by conversing with foreigners, who δὼ

320 A DISSERTATION AGAINST

spoke different languages, and differed one from another;
in placing their accents, learned of them their respective-
ways of accenting; and some Greeks placed their ac-
cent one way, and other Greeks placed it in the same
word another way. This maketh it highly probable, that
the present doctrine of Greek accents is owing to the
different ways of accenting, which were practised in
other languages.

This account of the modern, arbitrary, and irrational
placing of Greek accents seemeth agreeable to fact.
The original use of accents among the ancient Greeks
was entirely musical. The grammarians of the school
of Alexandria were the first who applied them to an-
109 other use, which was to distinguish quantity; and

as long as accents were applied to this purpose,
no alteration could be thereby caused in the pronuncia-
tion of the Greek language. On the contrary, such an
use of accents was intended to be, and really was in it-
self, a good securiiy for the preservation of its genu-
ine pronunciation. But in process of time, and when
foreigners intermixed with the Grecians, their way of
accenting crept into the Greek language, and so the pre-
sent manner of placing accents was introduced. It will
be proper to consider this more particularly.

The present system of accents was not formed at
once. As there was a progress in the corrupt pronun-
ciation of the Greek language, so was there a progress
in the doctrine of accents. P
110 The accents that were first used were agreeable
to quantity. This is evident from Dionysius Hali-
carnasseus. *‘H μὲν γὰῤ πεζὴ λέξις οὐδενὸς οὔτε ὀνόματος
οὔτε βήματος βιάζεται τοὺς χρόνους, οὐδὲ μετατίθησιν" ἀλλ᾽
οἵας παρείληφε τῇ φύσει τὰς συλλαβὰς, τάς τε μακρὰς καὶ τὰς
βραχείας, τοιαύτας φυλάττει. In another place the same
judicious writer observeth, that all the parts of speech
do not affect the ear in the same manner. And the great
and good reasons which he assigneth for the causes of

* Tlegt Συνθέσ,. ᾽Ονομώτ. §. 11.

GREEK ACCENTS. 321

this, are, the nature of letters which compose words,
and have many and different powers, and the union of
syllables, which is formed in various manners. * Ov,’
ἅπαντα πέφυκε τὰ μέρη τῆς λέξεως ὁμοίως διατιϑέναι τὴν
ἀκοήν" ὥσπερ οὐδὲ τὴν ὁρατικὴν αἴσϑησιν τὰ ὁρατὰ πάντα,
οὐδὲ τὴν γευστικὴν τὰ γευστὰ, οὐδὲ τὰς ἄλλας αἰσϑήσεις ΠῚ
τὰ κινοῦντα ἑκάστην" ἀλλὰ καὶ γλυκαίνουσί τινες αὐτὴν

ἦχοι, καὶ πικραίνουσι, καὶ τραχύνουσι, καὶ λεαίνουσι, καὶ πολλὰ
ἄλλα πάϑη ποιοῦσι περὶ αὐτήν᾽ Αἰτία δὲ ἥτε τῶν γραμμάτων
φύσις, ἐξ ὧν ἡ φωνὴ συνέστηκε, πολλὰς καὶ διαφόρους ἔχουσα
δυνάμεις, καὶ ἡ τῶν συλλαβῶν πλοκὴ παντοδαπῶς σχηματι-
ζομένη. By which we see that accents, in the sense in
which they are now understood, had no part in this af-
fair, and that they could not possibly be considered any
farther than they were agreeable to the nature of letters
and syllables, ὁ. 6. to quantity.

This truth may also be made evident from fact. The
remains of antiquity, which we have upon this subject,
are indeed very scanty; but yet, such as they are, they
evidently prove this to have been the case. All poly-
syllables ending in ove were originally accented 112
with a circumflex upon the penultimate; but the
modern Athenians accented them with an acute upon
the antepenultimate. This we learn from the +} great
etymologist, who blameth the alteration at the same time
that he acquainteth us with it: τὰ διὰ τοῦ οἷος ὀνόματα
ὑπὲρ δύο συλλαβὰς, ἅπαντα προπερισπᾶται. οἷον, παντοῖος,
ἀλλοῖος, ἑτεροῖος" οἱ δὲ μεταγενέστεροι τῶν ᾿Αττικῶν τὸ γε-
λοῖος καὶ ὁμοΐος προπαροξύνουσιν" οὐκ εὖ. The word τρο-
παιον, and all words of the same form, were originally ac-
cented with a circumflex upon the penultimate; but by a
later rule they are to be accented with an acute upon the
antepenultimate. ‘{ [lay κτητικὸν οὐδέτερον, ἀπὸ ϑηλυκοῦ γε-
γονὸς, τρίτην ἀπὸ τέλους ἔχει τὴν ὀξεΐαν" οἷον, κεφαλή, κε- 113
φάλαιον᾽" γυνή, γύναιον" ὅθεν καὶ τροπή, τρόπαιον" οἱ δὲ ὶ
παλαιοὶ Αττικοὶ προπερισπῶσιν. Suidas saith the same thing,
and so doth the scholiastupon Aristophanes, who farther

* Sect. 12, 13. t Mag. Etymol. in voce τρόπαιον,

+ In voce γελοῖος.

322 A DISSERTATION AGAINST

addeth, that the ancient manner of placing the accent is
preferable to the modern, as being more agreeable to
analogy. *Kat οἶμαι κατ᾽ ἀναλογίαν τοῦτο μᾶλλον παρὰ
σφίσιν, ἢ τοῦτο προφέρεσϑαι, ὡς ἀπὸ τοῦ τρίτη τὸ τριταῖον; καὶ
ἀπὸ τοῦ οὐρὰ τὸ οὐραῖον.

When the ancient pronunciation of the Greek lan-
guage began to be corrupted, the grammarians found it
necessary to introduce the use of accents, to pre-
serve, as much as possible, that ancient pronunciation.
If therefore we can discover how those first gram-
14 marians placed accents, and if it should appear that

they placed them according to quantity, this will be
a farther proof of what I have here advanced. As
+ Homer was the first Greek book that was read in the
schools of the ancients, it is reasonable to think that
this was the first that was accented; and it appears from
several instances, that those accents were placed ac-
cording to quantity. Ἔρημος is accented by the moderns
with an acute upon the antepenultimate ; but it was ac-
cented in Homer with a circumflex upon the penulti-
mate: παρὰ τοῖς ᾿Αττικοῖς προπαροξύνεται᾽ παρὰ δὲ τῷ
ποιητῇ προπερισπᾶται. Il. K. v. 520.

~ ~ 2
Ὡς ἴδε χώρον ἐρῆμον, ὅθ᾽ ἔστασαν ὠκέες ἵπποι.

1 This is confirmed by Eustathius, who saith ex-
Ls pressly, that Ἔρημος was accented after this manner,
not only i in this, but in all other places in Homer: ὃ προ-
emer at δὲ καὶ ἐνταῦϑα τὸ ἐρῆμος, καϑὰ καὶ ἀλλαχοῦ, kas
ὁμοιότητα τοῦ ἑτοῖμος. And so the word is accented in
Bishop More’s manuscript. Ὅμοιος is accented by the
moderns with an acute upon the antepenultimate. But
it was accented in Homer with a circumflex upon the

* Tn Plat. v. 453. Edit. Tib. ‘Hem- L.I.c, 17. For which reason Palladas

sterhusit. calleth the Iliad ἀρχὴ Γραμματικῆς.
+ Plin. Epp. L. Il. Ep.14. Optime Antholog. L. 1. c. 17.
institutum est ut ab Homero atque Vir- $ M. Etymol. in voce Ἔρημτος.

gilio lectio inciperet. Quinctil. Instit. § Edit. Rom. fol. 822. 1. v.

GREEK ACCENTS. 323

penultimate. So * Porphyry: τὰ διὰ τοῦ οἵος ἅπαντα προ-
περισπὦμεν. ἑτεροΐος" γελοῖος" ἀλλοῖος" διὰ τοῦτο καὶ Ὅμηρος
τῇ ἀναλογίᾳ χρησάμενος + ὡς αἰεὶ Sede, φησὶ, τὸν ὁμοῖον ἄγει
πρὸς τὸν ὁμοῖον. οἱ δὲ ᾿Αττικοὶ ὅμοιος λέγουσι. Corinthus
saith much the same thing; and Herodian and 16
Eustathius assure us that ὁμοῖος was always ac-
_cented by the ancients, and in Homer, with a circumflex
upon the penultimate, as well as ἐρῆμος and ἑτοῖμος" {rd
δὲ ἐρῆμα προπερισπῶσιν οἱ παλαιοί. ὥσπερ yap ἑτοῖμον λέγει
Ὅμηρος προπερισπωμένως κατὰ ἀρχαϊσμὸν, οὕτω καὶ ἐρῆμον
τὸ παρ᾽ ἡμῖν ἔρημον. Τὸ μέντοι ὁμοῖος, αὐτὸ μὲν οὐκ ἔχει
παραδοξίαν τινά" ἀνάλογον γάρ ἐστι τοῖς διὰ τοῦ οἱος προπε-
ρισπωμένοις᾽ δοκοῦν προπερισπασϑῆναι καὶ ἐκ τοῦ ὁμοίϊος"
μᾶλλον δὲ τὸ ὅμοιος ἔχει τι καινὸν κατὰ συνήϑειαν He φασιν
ἀττικῆν. Διὸ ‘Howdiavde φησιν ὅτι τὸ παρ᾽ Ὁμήρῳ ἐρῆμον καὶ
ἑτοῖμον, οἱ νεώτεροι ἀττικοὶ ἀναλόγως φασὶν ἔρημον καὶ ἕτοι-
μον. Herodian and Eustathius agreed as to the accentu-
ation of these words in Homer: but Eustathius differed
from Herodian as to the analogy of the ancient and
modern accentuation of them. Τὸ δὲ ὁμοῖον ὅτι ava- 117
λόγως προπερισπᾶται, καὶ οὐ παρὰ τύπον κατὰ τὸ προ-
παροξυτονούμενον ὅμοιον πολλαχοῦ δηλοῦται. ὥσπερ καὶ τὸ
ὁμοῖος ἔν τε ἄλλοις καὶ ἐν ᾿Οδυσσείᾳ. ὃ πάντως ἀναλογώτερον
τοῦ ὅμοιος. fol. 569.1. xvii. Ὃ δὲ ὁμοῖος, ἀναλόγως προ-
περισπᾶται ἐκ TOU ὃμός. κατὰ τὸ, παντὸς παντοῖος. ἄλλος ἀλ-
λοῖος. καὶ τὰ ὅμοια. τὸ μέντοι ὅμοιος ὕστερον οἱ ἀττικοὶ παρώ-
Evvav. tol. 1817. 1.xv. I shall only observe farther, that
Porphyry, in the abovementioned place, addeth, that
τροπαῖον was marked with a circumflex upon the penulti-
mate in the copies of Thucydides : πάλιν ἡμεῖς μὲν ἀναλό-
yur τρόπαιον λέγομεν. ὡς σπήλαιον, σύλαιον. ὃ δὲ Θουκυδίδης
τροπαῖον ᾿Αττικῶς. The meaning of which is, that the
moderns put an accent upon the antepenultimate of τρό-
maov to bring it to the analogy of other words 118
of the same form, which were so accented (though
that analogy might, with more reason, have been re-

* περὶ προσωδίας MS. Biblioth. Re- t Odyss. P. v. 218.
gis Ang. ¢ Eustath. fol. 531. 1. xxxii. &c.
we

ded A DISSERTATION AGAINST

versed), but that in Thucydides a circumflex was put
upon the penultimate, according to the manner of the
ancient Athenians, which is also agreeable to what Eu-
stathius saith on this subject.

From hence, therefore, and from other instances which
might be produced, it appeareth, that the ancient manner
of placing accents was agreeable to quantity. But it is
not an easy matter to point out the exact time, when a
different manner of accenting began.

The patrons of the present system of accents endea-
vour to prove the antiquity of them from two incidents
in which Demosthenes was concermed. One of them is
119 in his Orationsz<ot στεφάνου ; and the other is related
by Plutarch, in his Lives of the ten orators: but
neither of these places hath, in my opinion, been rightly
understood; and they wiil appear, in their true sense, to
be very far from proving the point for which they are °
produced. )

In the oration περὶ στεφάνου, the point which Demos-
thenes had in view, was to persuade the people that
4Eischines was the mercenary, juoSwrdec, and not the guest
or friend, ξένος, of Philip and Alexander. Now, in
order to effect this, Demosthenes had a mind to bring his
audience to an open declaration of it. And the way
which he took to bring this about, was, *it is said, by
appealing to his hearers, and asking them if Aischines
was not a μισϑωτος ; artfully putting the accent in the

wrong place, because he knew the people would
120 . : : oe
immediately correct his pronunciation; and then he
would take their correction of his pronunciation as a
declaration of their judgment that Aischines was a μισ-
Swroc; and in this he met with all the success he de-
sired. ‘This hath the appearance of an argument, and
yet there is nothing in Demosthenes to support it. His
words are: ᾿Αλλὰ μισϑωτὸν ἐγὼ σὲ Φιλίππου πρότερον,
καὶ νῦν ᾿Αλεξάνδρου καλῶ, καὶ οὗτοι πάντες. εἰ ὃ᾽ ἀπιστεῖς,
ἐρώτησον αὐτούς. μᾶλλον δ᾽ ἐγὼ TOUS ὑπὲρ σοῦ ποιήσω" πό-

* Guliel, Bail. de Accentibus Graecorum.

GREEK ACCENTS. 325

τερον ὑμῖν, ὦ "Ανδρες ᾿Αϑηναῖοι, μίσϑωτος Αἰσχίνης, ἢ ξένος
εἶναι ᾿Αλεξάνδρου δοκεῖ ;---ἀκούεις ἃ λέγουσι, i.e. ἴ say
that you were the μισϑωτος of Philip, and that you are
now the μισθωτὸς of Alexander. All that are present
will say the same thing. If you disbelieve me, ask 121
them; yea, rather, I will ask them for you. Do
you believe, Ὁ Athenians! that Aischines is the μίσθωτος
or ξένος of Alexander? You hear what they say.—It
is evident that Demosthenes, after he had put the ques-
tion, made a pause, and that his hearers answered μισ-
θωτός; upon which Demosthenes concluded with these
words; ἀκούεις ἃ λέγουσι. But it doth not appear that
Demosthenes made use of any artifice to bring his hear-
ers to make such an answer: and much less doth it
appear that the artifice which he put in practice, was by
placing a wrong accent upon the word μισϑωτός. This
is taken from his commentator Ulpian, who lived five
hundred years after him, and who delivers this only as
the opinion or saying of some. Τινὲς εἰρήκασιν ὅτι ἑκὼν ἐν
τῷ ἐρωτᾷν ὁ ῥήτωρ ἐβαρβάρισεν ἐξεπίτηδες, μίσθωτον λέγων’ 199
Eira ἐπελάβετό τις αὐτοῦ, ὡς διορθούμενος, καὶ ἐβόησε τῶ ἰδίῳ
τόνῳ μισθωτός" εἶτα τὴν διόρθωσιν ἀπόκρισιν καὶ βεβαίωσιν εἴρηκεν.
But such an artifice was too low and mean for Demos-
thenes to have recourse to. And, besides, as the suc-
cess of it was very uncertain, one cannot think he would
in prudence have trusted to it. If any artifice was
practised, it is more natural to conclude, that Demos-
thenes had previously secured some persons to make
the answer which he expected. And this agreeth with
the solution which Ulpian giveth to this affair, who far-
ther telieth us, that, according to the opinion of others, it
was his friend Menander that answered μισϑωτός. Oi δέ
φασιν ὡς Μένανδρος ὁ κωμικὸς φίλος ὧν αὐτοῦ, καὶ ὧν ἐν τοῖς δικασ-
ταῖς, ἀπεκρίνατο χαριζόμενος" καὶ τοῦ ἑνὸς τὴν φωνὴν ὡς τῶν πάντων
ἐδέξατο.

From Plutarch’s Lives of the ten orators, the 123
patrons of the present system of accents assert,
that the Athenians found great fault with Demosthenes
for placing an acute upon the antepenultimate of the

990 A DISSERTATION AGAINST

word ᾿Ασκληπιος. To judge fairly of this assertion we
must consider the passage itself. Plutarch telleth us,
that Demosthenes, not having succeeded in his public
performances, retired, and was greatly cast down; but
that he was comforted and encouraged by Eunomus the
Thriasian, and more by Andronicus the actor, who told
him, that his orations were good, but that he was defi-
cient as to his action. And then * Plutarch addeth,
προελθὼν δὲ πάλιν εἰς τὰς ἐκκλησίας, νεωτερικῶς τινα λέγων, διεσύ-
ρετο" ὧς κωμῳδηθῆναι αὐτὸν ὑπὸ ᾿Αντιφάνους, καὶ Τιμοκλέους, μὰ
194 γῆν; μὰ κρήνας, μὰ ποταμοὺς, μὰ νάματα. dudcac δὲ τοῦτον
τὸν τρόπον ἐν τῷ δήμῳ, θόρυβον ἐκίνησεν. "Ὥμννε δὲ καὶ τὸν
᾿Ασκλήπιον, προπαροξύνων᾿Ασκλήπιον, καὶ παρεδείκνυεν αὐτὸν ὀρϑῶς
λέγοντα" εἶναι γὰρ τὸν θεὸν ἤπιον. καὶ ἐπὶ τούτῳ πολλάκις ἐθορυβήθη.
i. 6. Demosthenes appearing again in the public assem-
blies, and having said some things that were new and
unusual, was found fault with, insomuch that he was ri-
diculed by Antiphanes and Timocles in their comedies
by these expressions :—I call the earth to witness, I call
the springs to witness, I call the rivers to witness, I call
the waters to witness. He was also wont to call Ais-
culapius to witness, laying an extraordinary stress upon
the antepenultimate of ᾿Ασκλήπιος, and he insisted that
he spoke truly, for that Ausculapius was ἤπιος, ἃ mild,
95 benign, and beneficent God. And upon this ac-
- count he was often disturbed. But this doth not
come up to what is pretended; nor can it be made to
come up to it, but by overstraining and perverting the
text.

And the patrons of the present system of accents are
so sensible of this, that Baillius, in quoting the passage,
hath put an acute upon the penultimate of ᾿Ασκληπιον
(contrary to the common way of accenting this word,
which putteth an acute upon the last), ὥμνυε δὲ καὶ τὸν
᾿Ασκληπίον ; and, in his translation of it, hath, in order to
make out his own sense, inserted words, to which there
is nothing at all in the original that answereth: “ Nec

* Ed. Par. 1624. tit. p. 845.

GREEK ACCENTS. 327

᾿Ασκληπίον acita penultima more Attico, sed acuta an-
tepenultima ᾿Ασκλήπιον (more, ut sibi videbatur, consen-
taneo) pronuntiavit.” Butthis is very unfair, and 26
forcing too strict a sens the word προπαροξύ-
g too stric e upon poTap

νων. The plain meaning of Plutarch seems to be no
more than this: that Demosthenes was thought to make
too frequent appeals ; that he used to appeal to Aiscu-
lapius; and that when he did this he laid an uncommon
stress upon the antepenultimate of ᾿Ασκληπιος ; but that
the accent was not to be placed there Plutarch doth not
say. In his Lives of the ten orators, and in his * Pa-
rallels, he mentions the particular defects and faults of
Demosthenes :—as, that his speech was thick; that he
could not pronounce distinctly the letter 9; that he had
an awkward, unbecoming motion of his shoulders; that
his voice was low ; and that his breath was so short, that,
in speaking long periods, he was forced to make in- 197
cisions, which suspended and hurt the sense; that

his compositions were too much laboured; that there
was a confusion in his periods ; and that he abounded
too much in figures. But Plutarch doth not say that
Demosthenes accented his words in wrong places. And
yet, if he had, this was a fault which would and must
have been taken notice of in the first place. Indeed, it
cannot be imagined that Demosthenes, who had been
born and bred up in Athens, could possibly be faulty in
this respect.

Suidas seemeth to say that the ancient manner of
placing accents prevailed under Eupolis, Cratinus, Aris-
tophanes, and Thucydides, and the new manner under
Menander, &c. + Τρόπαιον οἱ παλαιοὶ ᾿Αττικοὶ προπερισ-
πῶσιν. οἱ δὲ νεώτεροι προπαροξύνουσι. ἡ δὲ παλαιὰ ᾿Ατθίς
> pote. tay bad WIT , 198
ἐστιν, ἧς ἦρχεν Εὔπολις, Κρατῖνος, ᾿Αριστοφάνης, Θου-
κυδίδης. ἡ δὲ νέα ᾿Ατϑίς ἐστιν, ἧς ἐστι Μένανδρος, καὶ ἄλλοι.
If Suidas meant this of a common practice in the man-
ner of accenting, he certainly was mistaken. The scho-
liast upon Aristophanes, from whom he seemeth to have

* T.i. p. 848. t In voce τρόπαιον.

328 A DISSERTATION AGAINST

made his extract, saith nothing of this; besides, Suidas
quoteth no authority. In truth, he seemeth either to have
mistaken the abovementioned passage of Ulpian, or to
have injudiciously confounded two things which are of
a very different nature. However, it is no improbable
conjecture to suppose, that a corrupt manner of pro-
nouncing some words in the Greck language was occa-
sioned by Alexander’s expedition into Asia. His army
might have learned to accent some words according to
129 the manner of the Asiatics: and as it is reason-
“able to think that many Asiatics went with them,
when they returned into Greece, these, we may be sure,
were very faulty in this respect. Upon the death of
Alexander, two great empires were formed out of his
conquests : one in Egypt under Ptolemy, and another
in Asia under Seleucus. In both these kingdoms the
- pronunciation of the Greek language must have been
greatly corrupted; and this corruption must have infected
Greece itself, considermg the intercourse and corres-
pondence which was carried on between Greece and the
two new kingdoms. Alexander died in the first year of
the 114th Glymp.; upon which Ptolemy immediately
began his reign, as Seleucus did his twelve years after-
wards. In the first year of the 153d Olymp. 7. 6. 156

a, years after the death of Alexander, Paulus Aimi-
199 tins ed Gr 1 made ita R i
ius conquered Greece, and made it a Roman pro
vince, by which the genuine pronunciation and accentu-
ation of the Greek language must have been farther cor-
rupted. The Greek language received an additional
wound by the irruption of *the Goths into Greece in
the third century: indeed, the Goths had, before this,
made several emigrations into Greece. From Scandi-
navia they moved southward; first to the islands in the
Baltic, then settled upon the continent about the Vis-
tula; and afterwards, by the force of their arms, they
possessed themselves of Dacia, ὁ. 6. of that large
country, which was bounded on the east by the Euxine

* Eutropii Brevier. L. ix. ον, 8. sub Gallieno.

GREEK ACCENTS. 329

Sea, on the west by the river Tibiscus, and on the
south by the Danube. They maintained this ac- 131
quisition 700 years, i. 6. from before Alexander's
time to the time of Valentinian and Valens. * ‘'Ter-
tia Gothorum Sedes in Dacia, quam hodie Transylva-
niam Hungarie ac Valachiam nominant. Quas paulo
ante Alexandri Magni ztatem occupasse invenio: reli-
quisse vero sub Valentiniano et Valente, circa Annum
Salutis reparate 376, Chronologiz nos ratio docet.”
This situation afforded the Goths many favourable
opportunities of going into Greece: and they were so
fond of this country, that many of them settled in it;
and in such numbers, as to make the want of them felt
in their native country: which obliged the Westrogoths
(in orderto put a stop to this evil) to make a 132
law to exclude those Goths who settled in Greece
from inheriting in their native country. +‘ Nullius
(in Gothia) hereditatis capax esto, qui in Grecia do-
micilium fixit.”. De Hereditat. cap. 12. lib.ii. The
{ last wound which the Greek language received, was
when the Saracens, in the reign of Heraclius, i. 6. at
the beginning of the seventh century, over-ran Greece.
By this the pronunciafion of the Greek language was
corrupted to such a degree, that it was now found as
necessary to write accents in books for common use,
as it had been before to write them onlyinthe ,.,..
c 133
books of learners.

This account of the progress in the corruption of
the Greek language agreeth with the time when ac-
cents are said to have been invented; and also with
the time, when we find, in fact, by the manuscripts
which are now extant, that accents began to be in com-

* Wolfang. Lazius DeGent. Migra- _ as is necessary to fix, with some degree

tionibus. p. 554, 555.

+ Vid. Stiernhielmiam in Anti-Clu-
verio, Dissert. I. et Ingewaldi Hist.
Gree. Ling. p. 283.

¢ The corruption of the Greek Jan-
guage is considered here only so far

of probability, the common use of ac-
cents. It suffered greater corruptions
afterwards ; of which the reader may
see an account in Du Fresne’s Preface
to his Glossary Medie οἱ Infime Graci-

tatts.

330 A DISSERTATION AGAINST

mon use; though even then, and formany ages after, se-
veral writers, who were studious of antiquity, did not
use them: as is evident from those manuscripts without
accents, which yet were written in the same age with
others that have them.

Aristophanes of Byzantium, according to* Suidas,
flourished at Alexandria in the 145th Olympiad: he is
said to have been the inventor of accents, 7. 6. at least as
134 ‘© the use which he made of them ; for before him
the use of accents wasentirely musical. But he
thought that accents might be usefully applied to pre-
serve the metrical pronunciation of the Greek language,
and for this reason he employed them to facilitate the
knowledge of that language to those foreigners who
were desirous of learning it. +‘ Aristophanes Byzan-
tius προσῳδίαν sive accentus excogitavit. Non quod ad
illam usque zetatem Greca lingua accentibus et spiriti-
bus caruerit: nulla enim potest lingua sine accentu et
spiritu pronuntiari ; sed quod ille ea, qua usus magis-
ter invexerat, ad certas normas et regulas deduxerit,
signa et formas invenerit, quo loco essent constituendi
᾿ς accentus et spiritus docuerit.” The grammarians, who
135 succeeded Aristophanes, in the school of Alexan-
dria, followed his example. But, if his method was
to make accents always agree with quantity, there is
reason to doubt whether his successors, in process of
time, kept strictly to his rules. {Isaac Vossius thought
that the agreement of accents with quantity was kept up
till the time of Antoninus and Commodus, and even
down to the seventh century. ‘ Usque ad tempora An-
tonini et Commodi Impp. perstitit nihilominus antiqua
et fere integra loquendi ratio, ut opus non fuerit totidem
apicibus scripturas onerare, ac posterioribus factum sit
seculis, cessante nempe et penitus collapsa vetere pro-
nuntiandi ratione. Quam recens sit usus apponendi
istiusmodi accentus quibuslibet scripturis, hoc satis de-

* In voce ᾿Αριστοφάνης. 1 De Poemat. Caniu. p. 18, 19.

+ Monifauc. Paleogr. Gree. p. 33.

GREEK ACCENTS sel

elarat, quod in nullis marmoribus, nullis numis- 49¢
matis, nullis denique codicibus, qui quidem mille,

aut nongentis annis antiquiores sunt, virgule aut apices
ulli compareant. Unde satis evidenter patet, toto inter-
medio tempore, quod ab Aristophane grammatico ef-
fluxit, usque ad id tempus, quo accentus adscribi ce-
perunt, per spatium nempe octo vel novem seculorum,
haud aliis usibus adhibitas fuisse a grammaticis accen-
tuum notas, quam ad erudiendam in arte metrica Juven-
tutem. Nec tamen existimandum similem, ac nunc pas-
sim recepta est, olim quoque fuisse accentuum ratio-
nem. Qui enim cantus aut lectio subsistere possit, si
quis Homericos versus, ita ac vulgo fit, pronuntiet ?

* Ἠέλιος δ᾽ ἀνόρουσε λιπὼν περικαλλέα λίμνην 137
ρ ρ μ
Οὐρανὸν ἐς πολύχαλκον, ἵν᾽ ἀθανάτοισι φαείνῃ
Καὶ θνητοῖσι βροτοῖσιν ἐπὶ ζείδωρον ἄρουραν"

* Longe aliter veteres; sic nempe illi accentus digere-
bant.

Ἠξλιὸς δ᾽ ἀνοροῦσε λιπὼν περικάλλεα λίμνην
ἤθυρανον ἐς πολυχάλκον, iv ἀθανατοῖσι pacivy
Καὶ θνητοῖσι βροτοῖσιν ἐπὶ ζειδῶρον ἀροῦραν"

“« Vera esse que aflirmo libenter agnoscet is, qui vete-
rum grammaticorum, Dionysii Thracis, Apollonii Alex-
andrini, A‘lii Dionysii Halicarnassensis, Aristarchi ju-
nioris, et aliorum, que supersunt, scripta et fragmenta
evolvat.” But this lieth open to great uncertainties.
There is nothing extant of Aristophanes of Byzantium :
he is quoted but once by Apollonius, and that not to any
purpose that cometh up to the present point. Apollo-
nius doth not, in his Syntax, say any thing either 138
from himself or from the elder Aristarchus, whom
he often quoteth, that proveth what Vossius hath ad-
vanced. ‘There is reason to doubt whether the Τέχνη

* Odyss. r. v. 1, &c.

990 A DISSERTATION AGAINST

γραμματικὴ, which is ascribed to Dionysius Thrax, and
is still extant, be really the work of that Dionysius, who
was the scholar of Aristarchus, or of some other Diony-
sius. The only printed copy that we have of this Τέχνη
γραμματικὴ Was published by * Fabricius, from a manu-
script in the Holstein library; and this contains nothing
upon the present subject. There is nothing of Aristar-
chus junior published, that I know of; nor of A®lius
Dionysius Halicarnassensis, excepting a tract, περὶ ἀκ-
λίτων ῥημάτων, in Aldus’s Thesaurus. What we have
upon the subject of Greek accents, according to the pre-
139 Sent system, is conveyed tous by the Greek scho-

liasts and grammarians, who, though we call them
ancient, in respect of us, are yet modern in respect of
the truly ancient Greeks. They copy one another; and
all seem plainly to derive their doctrine from the gram-
marians of the school of Alexandria, many of whom
lived before the times of Antoninus and Commodus;
so that, though it should be allowed that Aristophanes,
and some of his immediate successors, placed accents
agreeably to quantity, yet is it by no means an improba-
ble conjecture, that in process of time the grammarians
of that school departed from the system of Aristo-
phanes, and did not pay adue regard to quantity. And
when this essential rule was neglected, and accents
were placed according to a corrupt pronunciation which
140 prevailed, then, of course, the rules for placing ac-
cents must have been multiplied in proportion as
the corrupt pronunciation increased : but as it doth not
appear when the alteration began, this matter must still
remain undetermined.

It is not to be thought that the grammarians formed at
once a perfect system of accents which was universally
agreed to and received : their first business was to
bring into some consistency, and reduce under some
rules, a pronunciation which had been corrupted at dif-
ferent times, and in different ways; which could not be

* Bib. Grac. lib. v. c. 7. ᾧ 13.

GREEK ACCENTS. BR

done but by many rules, and more exceptions ; and then
they endeavoured, upon their own authority, to form or
fix a distinctive pronunciation of some words in which
yet they greatly differed one from another.

One case, in which the grammarians accented 444
differently the same word, was to distinguish its ac-
tive from its passive sense: as γελοιος,} the etymo-
logist telleth us, with an acute upon the antepenul-
timate, signifieth one who is a subject of ridicule;
but with a circumflex upon the penultimate, signifieth
a joker, γέλοιος λέγεται, ὃ γέλωτος ἄξιος" γελοῖος δὲ ὁ
γελωτοποιός. Ammonius saith the same thing: and
so doth + Eustathius: τοῦ δὲ τρισυλλάβου (scil. γελοῖος)
τινὲς ὀξύνουσι τὴν πρώτην συλλαβὴν, ὥς φησι Διονύσιος
Αἴλιος. οἱ δὲ πλεῖστοι, γελοῖον μὲν προπερισπωμένως, τὸν γε-
λωτοποιὸν λέγουσι. οἷον τὸν μίμον. γέλοιον δὲ, τὸν καταγέ-
λαστον. δοκεῖ δέ φησι τῶν παλαιῶν ᾿Αττικῶν εἶναι, προπε-
ρισπᾷν τὰ τοιαῦτα. ὁμοῖον. ἑτοῖμον. γελοῖον. But Suidas, T.
Magister, and Phavorinus, say quite the contrary: 142
γελοῖος 6 καταγέλαστος. γέλοιος δὲ ὃ γελωτοποιός.
{ Philoponus hath observed, that,there was a third man-
ner of accenting this word, by putting an acute upon the
last, ἔχει δὲ παρασημειώσεις τοιαύτας καὶ 6 φιλόπονος. ἐν αἷς
καὶ ὅτι γελοῖος μὲν ὁ καταγέλαστος προπερισπωμένως, γελοιὸς
δὲ ὀξυτόνως ὁ γελωτοποιός. And ἃ ὃ manuscript lexicon in
the Coislian library exhibiteth the same: γελοῖος μὲν 6
καταγέλαστος προπερισπωμένως᾽" γελοιὸς δὲ, ὀξυτόνως, ὃ γε-
λωτοποιός : which is manifestly copied from Eustathius.

Another case, in which the grammarians accented dif-
ferently the same word, was to distinguish its proper from
its figurative sense; as ἄγροικος, || Ammonius telleth us,
witha circumflex upon the penultimate, signifieth one 143
who dwelleth in the country; but with an acute upon
the antepenultimate, signifieth an ill-bred man. ᾿Αγροῖκος
καὶ "Αγροικος διαφέρει. προπερισπωμένως μὲν, ὁ ἐν ἀγρῷ Ka-

* In voce γελοῖος. § Montfauc. Cat. Bib. Coisl. p. 470.
t Il. B. fol. 205.1. 44. || In voce ᾿Αγροῖκος.
¢ Eustath. 0. Μ. fol, 906. 1. 50.

334 A DISSERTATION AGAINST

τοικῶν. προπαροξυτόνως δὲ, ὃ σκαιὸς τοῦς τρύπους. And
yet Ptolemeus Ascalonita, whom Ammonius had pe-
rused, for he quoteth him under the word τρίετες, saith
quite the contrary :* "Aypouxog βαρύτονον, ὁ ἐν ἀγροῖς δια-
τρίβων" ἀγροῖκος δὲ προπερισπώμενον, ὃ μὴ ἥμερος. But
there is no reasonable foundation for such a difference
in the accentuation of this word; all the compounds of
οἰκὸς are proparoxytonous; and, therefore, if analogy is
allowed to be a rule for accenting words of the same
form, there cannot be any good reason to make an
exception for this single word.+ “ Discrimenestinter
gtammaticos circa hoc discrimen; et profecto haud
scio an ita stricte et superstitiose observetur hec differ-
entia apud auctores. Quamobrem dispungerem penitus
hanc notam διακριτικὴν inter ἀγροῖκος et ἄγροικος, tum
quia de ea non convenit inter grammaticos; tum quia
non memini eam ab auctoribus ubique observatam ; tum
quia tam cognatz et finitima: sunt hz significationes, ut
non opus sit eas accentu distingui; tum denique quia cz-
tera omnia composita in οἰκὸς sunt proparoxytona. μέτοι-
KOC, ἄποικος, σόλοικος πάροικος, Pepéotkoc,” &c. I would not,
however, have it concluded from hence, that I approve
145 of the placing an acute upon the antepenultimate
of these words. I rather think, and am persuaded,
that ἀγροικος, and ἀγοραιος, concerning the accentuation
of which there is much the same variation among the
grammarians, and all words of the same form, had ori-
ginally, as they ought to have, a circumflex upon the
penultimate, and that it was the moderns, the μεταγενέσ-
τεροι ᾿Αττικοὶ, who accented the antepenultimate with an
acute.

It is evident, therefore, that the present system of ac-
cents is not founded onthe genuine pronunciation of the
Greek language, which was agreeable to quantity, but
on a corrupt pronunciation, which began and increased
in latter ages. Those grammarians, from whom we

* Fabricii Bibl. Greec. lib. iv. c. 33. t Jac. Duport. Prelect. in Theo-
§. 5. phrast. Char, iv. p. 979,

GREEK ACCENTS. — eS

have received this system, were really modern in 116
respect of the pure and genuine pronunciation of

the Greek language. The rules which they formed had
but little regard to quantity; and were, in many cases,
contrary one to another. And, therefore, it is no wonder
that this system is not, even now, uniform and consist-
ent, and that there are many variations in the placing
of accents, both in accented manuscripts and printed
books; which would not have been the case, if gram-
marians had placed accents as they were placed when
the Greek language was in its purity.

There are undoubtedly some difficulties to be met
with on the subject of accents, both in the Greek and
Latin languages. But these may, perhaps, be removed
by considering that in all languages, the pronuncia-
tion of some words is founded only upon custom 114

y upon ’
which is above all the laws of grammar. * “ Quod
Greci, quod Barbari hodie in sua quisque lingua; cur
non Romani habuerint, et quedam pronunciarint ad
Morem potius, quam ad Normam? Ad suavitatem,
quam ad quantitatem? Ego censeam: etsi adfirmare
aut illustrare id mihi fas paucis argumentis vel exem-
plis. Quomodo enim penetrem aut oculos adjiciam in
tenebras illius Avi? Omnia silentio et oblivione obru-
ta: et scimus in ea parte hactenus, quatenus scire nos
grammatici voluerunt. Quibus tamen ipsis expressa
quedam contra suam legem, presertim eam, que te-
nores ligatad modulum syllabe et mensuram.”
There are several instances of this in Quinctilian, 148
Priscian, Festus, Gellius, and Charisius. And we have
the same reason to say of the pronunciation of the an-
cient Greek language, that + Sanctius had to say of that
of the Latin—that there were some things in the use of
accents among the ancient Romans, qui nostras aures
omnino fugiunt. In living languages there is a necessity
of complying with custom: but in dead languages this
reason seemeth to cease. If, therefore, the patrons of the

* Lipsius de rect. Pronunt. L. L. ο. 21. + Minerva, I. iv. c. 14. art. 5.

336 A DISSERTATION, &c.

modern doctrine of accents, in pronouncing the ancient
Greek language, think they can reconcile their doctrine
with a due observation of quantity, they are free to re-
tain it: but I must sincerely confess, that I do not see

how they can. Onthe contrary, we plainly see, that,

in fact, they do not; and that in verse they do not
so much as pretend to it: so that, in this respect, they
necessarily run into the great absurdity of making two
languages out of one. And, therefore, if we would ob-
serve uniformity, and keep to what we can safely rely
on, we must not admit of any use of accents in the pro-
nunciation of the ancient Greek language, but what is
consistent with quantity; and if we have lost the nicer
part of the ancient pronunciation, we have the more
reason to adhere to that essential part which still sub-
sisteth.

SECOND DISSERTATION

AGAINST PRONOUNCING THE

GREEK LANGUAGE

ACCENTS.

IN ANSWER TO

MR. FOSTER’S ESSAY

ON THE DIFFERENT NATURE OF ACCENT AND QUANTITY.

Accentuum Gracorum omnis hodie ratio prepostera est atqué perversa.
Ric. BENTLEII Ep. aD MILLIUM, p. 82.

ek Ἷ ΣΝ] wag

7 λ ὯΝ ἣν . "
Γ TAPED ALI: GRA TIN:
‘ is ne i |
ee | ;

ty ‘ I , an Sei tet cA he +a roa δ
ae AO ec Aiken a NOR OT SOE ee
9) a ΤῸ ἢ εχ αν ἜΤ ΟΝ δ τ t ΠΣ μεν νι, |

- x
᾿ Ἐὶ ἐς
, τ
ie : Bi
v » 2 <a
ἣ -
ῥ Π "
᾿ ᾿ ᾿
ἢ,
.᾿
᾿ »
‘
ἢ x :
" ᾿ oe γ᾽
ἷ
F -
F ὶ j i
- ν᾿ ;
᾿ Ἵ
Β ᾿ γ
᾿ ane? “- z
~~
on Ἷ .
' 4
ΔΌΣ A
ν ἣ μὰ
ἣ ΄ Pfs
: , .
i .
‘ ie
" > . A x Ἧ

PREFACE.

1 HAVE, in the following Dissertation, endeavoured
to keep to one point, which, indeed, is the main
foundation of the present controversy: and have passed
over some things upon which Mr. Foster has enlarged,
because I am but little, or not at all, concerned in them.

As to the assistance which may be borrowed from
music to explain the doctrine of accents, I have de-
clared my sentiments in the body of the Dissertation.
And as to those Greeks who, upon the downfall of
the Grecian empire, fled into the west, and there
taught their language, I am under no obligation to say
any thing about their characters, because I have never
impeached them. But the censure which Mr. Foster has
been pleased to pass upon the University of Oxford, for
allowing some Greek books to be printed without ac-
cents at their press, requires to have some notice taken
of it, because it is equally groundless and unprece-
dented.

The Hebrew Bible was, but few years ago, printed at
Oxford without vowels, and without causing any out-
cry ; and yet there was more room for censure in this
case, because it is well known that many look upon the
Hebrew vowels to be as sacred a part as any other
of the Hebrew text. Politian,* many years ago,
printed some Sibylline verses, and an elegy of Callima-
chus, without accents, because he found them so in his

* Miscellan. p. 58. 80.
“2

340 PREFACE.

manuscripts; and the* Greek New Testament was
printed at London, in the year 1729, without accents ;
and all this was done without any censure. Mr. Foster
therefore must entertain an uncommon fondness for his
. own opinions, otherwise one cannot conceive that
he would have broke out with so much asperity
against the University of Oxford on this occasion. ‘The
University, in allowing some Greek books to be printed
at their press without accents, have done no more than
what had been done before by others without censure ;
and in this they really did less than they had done in al-
lowing the Hebrew Bible to be printed at their press
without vowels. The truth is, that the printing of books
with or without accents is no determination of the con-
troversy about accents on either side, much less is the
imprimatur of the vice-chancellor to Greek books, with
or without accents, a declaration of the University for or
against accents.
Mr. Foster has carried his anger against the Uni-
versity of Oxford still farther, by invidiously re-
minding them of a certain + decree of convocation, which
was passed in a time when party principles had unhap-
pily got the better of cool judgment, and which the pre-
sent members of that University do, it is to be presumed,
wish had never been made. Nor has Mr. Foster at all
mitigated his resentment by his tellmg the University,
with an appearance of deference, though only ironical,
that { they may if they please annul half the letters in
every alphabet, and he shall not be the person to call
in question their authority ; when, in the very same
viii breath, he loudly calls upon the editors of two or
three Greek books without accents, under the vice-

* Dr. Twells published three se- this circumstance. In this he shewed

veral pieces against this edition of the
New Testament, in which he set forth
all the faults he found in it; bnt he
was so far from blaming the editor for
publishing the Greek text without ac-
cents, that he never once mentioned

his judgment and temper, and gave an
example worthy of being taken notice
of and followed by those who are fond
of making mountains of mole-hills.

+ Essay, p. 204.

t Ibid.

PREFACE. 341

chancellor’s imprimatur, to step forth from behind their
shield of academie auctoritas, and fight with him in this
cause. Alas! what modest author or editor will ven-
ture to offer any thing to the public, if, for so harmless a
thing as the printing of a Greek book without accents,
he must be charged with unfaithfulness, and with giving
up, and, by a kind of breach of trust, destroying what he
should look on as a sacred deposit in his hands?

By these expressions, which are not intended by any
means to be understood hyperbolically, it appears that
Mr. Foster considers the printing of Greek books with-
out accents as a crime not at all inferior to sacri-
lege. But, in the name of plain common sense,
where is the unfaithfulness? where is the breach of
trust? where is the destroying a sacred deposit by such
a practice? If any unfaithfulness, any breach of trust,
any destroying a sacred deposit does, in respect to ac-
cents, attend the printing of Greek books, there is much
more reason to lay these crimes in charge to those that
print them with accents. The oldest and best Greek ma-
nuscripts that we have are without accents; and ifthe edi-
tors of Greek books from such manuscripts had printed
them as they found them, they would have printed them
without accents. If they had done this, they could
not possibly be charged with unfaithfulness, breach
of trust, and destroying a sacred deposit. The plain
query then here is—whether they have not justly in-
curred these charges by putting into their editions, from
manuscripts that are more recent, and not so good, ac-
cents which are not in the oldest and best manuscripts ?
Did not Dr. Grabe print at Oxford, under the vice-chan-
cellor’s imprimatur, the Septuagint translation of the
Old Testament with accents, though the Alexandrian
manuscript, from which he printed it, and which his edi-
tion was intended to represent, has them not ? Mr. Fos-
ter might, and with more justice too, have in this case
laid a charge of unfaithfulness, breach of trust, and
destroying a sacred deposit; but then he would have

342 PREFACE.

made two charges which would have contradicted and
destroyed each other.

If the arguments which Mr. Foster has offered are so
strong, so cogent, and so unanswerable, as he takes them
to be, he had reason to expect they would operate by
their own force. This was the only proper conduct for
him to observe on this occasion: for an adversary is
always brought over more effectually and more easily
by conviction, than by being loaded with opprobrious
language.

An author of great judgment and temper, whose sen-
timents on the subject of accents partly agree with

those of Mr. Foster, was so sensible of the many

difficulties and objections to which this proposed
method of pronunciation was liable, that he almost
placed it amongst the ἀδύνατα, and has ingenuously al-
lowed those that differ from him, either to print Greek
books without accents, or to print them with accents,
but to pay no regard to them. * ‘ Ut libere dicam quod
sentio, vel tonos prorsus sublatos esse velim tantisper
dum depravata illa pronuntiatio tonorum pro temporibus
emendetur (quum presertim veteres constet istos apices
in scribendo non usurpassc) vel nullam eorum rationem
haberi.” Here then is another man whom, if he
were alive, Mr. Foster might also have called upon
to step forth and fight with him for having unluckily,
though very honestly, said a thing which Mr. Foster dis-
approves of.

As I have not the honour of being a member of the
University of Oxford, and have not published any Greek
author without accents, I may, upon these accounts, be
thought more impartial; and for this reason I have al-
lowed myself the liberty of saying something in vindica-
tion of that learned body, that the world may not be im-
posed upon by such an outcry, and think that the Univer-
sity of Oxford has licensed the printing of some very

* Sylloge Scriptor. Havercamp. P. that T. Beza was the author of this
I, p. 179. It appears by a note, p.352, _ piece.

PREFACE. 343

wicked books. But I desire the reader will judge
by the reasons which I have set forth.

The University of Oxford, and the editors under their
licence, undoubtedly had good reasons for what they
have done; and they are free, if they please, though I
do not apprehend they will think themselves obliged, to
account for their conduct in this respect. Mr. Foster
also was free to offer his reasons to the public: but it
would have been more to his credit if he had kept within
the bounds of decency. No reader will think that he
has shewn any Attic urbanity in concluding his book
with so much acrimony; nor will he be induced to en-
tertain a favourable opinion of the Greek language, by
having before him an unlucky proof, that a know-
ledge of that and good manners do not always go
together.

There is another thing which it concerns the reader to
be informed of, but which I have not mentioned in the
Dissertation, that I might keep as strictly as possible to
the point 1 had inview. The thing is this: Mr. Foster
has all along produced Professor Cheke, and made him
appear as an advocate on his side. And yet I do not
find that that learned professor ever intended to intro-
duce such a method of pronunciation as Mr. Foster
suggests. He has not said so; neither can such an in-
ference be justly made from any thing which he has said
on this subject. Indeed the dispute between Bishop
Gardiner and Professor Cheke, was of a quite differ-
ent nature: it had for its object the pronunciation
of the Greek vowels, diphthongs, and consonants only.
The edict of the bishop, as chancellor, mentions only
vowels, diphthongs, and consonants; but saith not one
word of accents. The pronunciation which Professor
Cheke practised and taught, is set forth by him in his
first letter to the bishop; in which he mentions only
vowels, diphthongs, and consonants: and this exposi-
tion he there * saith is forma totius ret. This pronun-

χὶν

XVi

* Syll. Script. de L. Gr. P. ii. p. 284.

944 PREFACE.

ciation he had learned from his predecessor, Professor
Smith, who wrote three books in vindication of it, which
were addressed by him to Bishop Gardiner. And
in the second book he sets forth the several parti-
culars, in which their pronunciation consisted: and yet
in none of these is there any mention of the nature and
power of accents. Nay, what is more, * Mr. Foster
himself acknowledges, that accents had no share in this
dispute: so that I cannot see upon what good founda-
tion Mr. Foster could possibly produce Professor Cheke
for an advocate in his cause. Professor Cheke speaks
of his pronunciation of Greek accents in a transient,
general manner; and without any explanation. And
as, in this case, both sides appeal to antiquity, those
that make all acuted syllables long, as well as those
that do not, it is impossible to form an argument
in favour of either side, from such general assertions
and appeals, unless particulars are set forth; which
Professor Cheke has not, either professedly or occa-
sionally, done. But Mr. Foster thought that the namé
and authority of Professor Cheke would give him credit.
Wishing, therefore, to have him appear an advocate on
his side, he has, by a too hasty inference, made him so;
and, with a good degree of assurance, given this to his
readers fora + certain fact. But how precarious the draw-
ing of inferences in such a manner is, will plainly appear
by another case. Velastus { asserts, that the accen-
tual pronunciation of the Greek language, now used
in the offices of the Greek church, is the same that has
been used from all antiquity. Now, if Velastus had
gone no farther, Mr. Foster might, with equal justice,
have produced him for an advocate on his side: but he
would have been greatly mistaken. For Velastus ex-
plains himself, and saith, that they entirely neglected
quantity, pronounced all acuted syllables long, and made
short syllables that are naturally long.

XVii

XVili

xix

* Introduction to Essay. ἔ De Litt. Grecar. Pronunt. Rom.
ἡ Essay, p. 199. 1751.

Α
SECOND DISSERTATION

AGAINST PRONOUNCING THE

GREEK LANGUAGE

ACCORDING TO

ACCENTS.

Some years ago I published a Disseriation against
pronouncing the Greek Language according to Accents.
In the preface to which I declared, that by the Greek
language the reader was to understand the ancient Greek
language, and by accents, those which are commonly
used in writing and pronouncing that language. And
at the * beginning of the Dissertation itself, I also
declared, that my design was not to write against all
use of accents (for some accents are, and must be, used
‘in all languages), but to shew, or endeavour to shew,
that the modern way of placing accents in the ancient
Greek language is wrong; because it is,—1. Arbitrary
and uncertain.—2. Contrary to analogy, reason, and
quantity.—And, 3. Contradictory to itself.

This has excited Mr. Foster to compose, and lately
to publish, an Essay on the different Nature of Accent
and Quantity. And I cannot but be glad that so inge-

* Page 281.

346 SECOND DISSERTATION AGAINST

nious a writer has taken this subject into his considera-
tion. For the end which we both have in view is, I
3: suppose, the same, viz. To discover and establish
the genuine pronunciation of a most excellent lan-
guage. But as there is great reason to apprehend that
so much success is not to be hoped for, yet still the re-
moving of a vicious pronunciation would be a good step
towards it. And this was the immediate design of my
Dissertation.

This disquisition, the reader will observe, consists of
two parts. The first relates to the place of accents; and
the second to the power of them. Mr. Foster has be-
stowed but few strictures on the many particulars which
I had mentioned under the first part, and has insisted
chiefly upon the nature and power of accents, or rather
of the acute accent. And this indeed is the main point

to be considered in the present disquisition. For if

the nature and power of the acute accent be once
settled, there will be less reason to dispute concerning
the place of accents.

I shall therefore confine myself to this point. As to
the other part of this disquisition, I shall only beg leave
to lay before the reader a passage from Scaliger, which
will not only enable him to form a judgment upon the
subject in general, but by which he will also see that the
opinion concerning the impropriety of the Greek accents
is not an opinion, that was, among other whimsical ones,
started, as Mr. Foster * asserts, about ninety years ago,
by the younger Vossius. And I shall do this with no
5, Small satisfaction to myself, as I find that some of

my thoughts on this subject fall in with those of
that great man, whose very excellent book, De Causis
fing. Latine, 1 had not read, when I published my first
Dissertation. The passage has some length; but the
goodness of it will make ample amends to the reader
for his trouble.

+“ Quum Greci tam in ultima syllaba singularum se-

* Introduction. t De Causis L. L. ¢. 58.

GREEK ACCENTS. 347

paratarumque vocum, quam in altera, ac tertia a fine
sede acutum imponere consuevissent; in consequentia,
sive contextu orationis, quos accentus in fine ponebant,
acutos omisere: proque eis graves substituere: idque
eo egere consilio, propterea quod acutus accentus vide-
tur tollere syllabam ita, ut sequens syllaba prematur:
in qua tanquam fini suo quiescat vox. Quum igitur 6
nihil haberent, quod sequeretur, nihil quoque me-
tuere: at cum esset vox, que subiret, cavere ne tan-
quam una fieret cum precedente. Id quod etiam in
encliticis evenire videretur. Igitur acuunt τούς, et περί,
οἵ τόν ; 4185, cum contexuere, gravibus insigniunt, τοὺς
περὶ τὸν ἄδεον. Nos vero hanc eandem animadvertentes
rationem, qua acutus accentus tollit vocem in syllabam,
quam acuit ita, ut sequens prematur, in fine vocis non
ponimus, ne expectemus aliam syllabam subeuntem, in
qua vox conquiescat: id quod Latini suis libris omnes
testati sunt, nullam apud nos supremam syllabam acui.
Acutus enim positus, aut exigit alias consequentes syl-
labas, autnon. Si exigit, igitur, non est ponendus 7
in fine vocum separatarum: si non exigit, ergo in ‘
consequentia quoque poni potuit. Sed falsi Greci sunt,
cum putarent gravem accentum nihil ad vocem perti-
nere, sed ad syllabas tantum, unde etiam syllabicum
vocavere. Iccirco adducti sunt ut crederent, turpe esse
edere dictionem, quz nullo accentu insigniretur: quasi
quum jura quoque absurdum censent hominem intesta-
tum mori. Id autem eveniebat, nisi acutum in fine sal-
tem reposuissent, cum dictio in syllabis praecedentibus
neque illum haberet, neque circumflexum. Sed ea ratio,
aut perspicienda fuit etiam in consequentia, ubi gravem
collocassent; aut ne in primis quidem vocibus admit-
tenda. Apud nos igitur aut in penultima, aut in tertiaa
fine sedem ei statuere. Occupare autem alias, initio
propiores, Greci sibi licere noluerunt: quos etiam 8
prisci Latini secuti easdem posteris, imitatione potius,
quam consilio ducti, leges prescripsere. Nam quamo-
brem non liceat mihi vocem tollere in quarta a fine,
nulla ratio musica potuit persuadere: possunt enim

348 SECOND DISSERTATION AGAINST

eodem tenore tam in voce, quam in tibia, aut fidibus de-
duci multz vel breves, vel longz. Quod si iccirco
noluere, quia duabus syllabis sequentibus imminere
acuta syllaba videatur, in quibus tractus vocis non im-
moretur: quod fieret si essent plures: videamus quam
non recte servarint hec. Est eadem ratio tam apud
Grecos, quam nobis, sed diversus modus. Nam utrique
9 negant ante tria finalia tempora singula, id est, ante

tres breves syllabas, acui posse syllabam. Quare
si duz postremz sint longs, quoniam solvi possunt in
quatuor breves, non potuit in precedenti ulla syllaba
acutus collocari. Ratio hac una communis. At mo-
dus diversus sic. Greeci, si ultima longa sit, et penul-
tima brevis, ultimz longitudinem, ex qua fieri duc
breves possent, observarunt: at si penultima longa sit,
et ultima brevis, misere hujus penultime, tanquam 10]
nulla esset, nullam rationem habuere. Latini contra
ultime: longitudinem non curarunt: penultimee jus suum
attributum retinuere. Ergo jam deprehendimus accen-
tuum horum cantillationem ridiculam, non natura, sed
usu quodam gesticulatorio constare. Wideamus vero,
1 quod et supra tetigimus, quam ipsa sibi suis non
ν constet legibus. Principio Greeci diphthongos ali-
quot, quas producebant in pronunciando, quod attinebat
ad accentuum sedes, pro brevibus habuere, ut τέτυπται.
Przeterea Latini eadem ratione ultimas omnes neglexere.
Postremo antepenultimas omnes Greci longas, nullo
detracto tempore, acuto accentui postposuere. Quare
si una ex his vel in fine, vel in proxima fini sede, solva-
tur in duo tempora, sane in quarto a fine tempore acu-
tus ille gracculus, quem ab ea sede exulare jubent, in-
venictur. Quare sapienter a posteris factum est, qui
preterquam in quibusdam partibus orationis, ut in ex-
clamationibus, indignationibus, interrogationibus, nul-
lum hujus putidi servitii jugum ferre voluerint. Nam

si ante acutum in eadem voce plurime syllabz

gravi pronunciantur, κακοφαρμακευτρίς, quare post
illum totidem non possint? Qued si respondeant, in-
clinari nequire tantum numerum: quare, ubi nulla est

GREEK ACCENTS, 40

que inclinetur, hunc eundem ipsum statuere? ut in pre-
senti exemplo, nulla syllaba secuta.”—Indeed both the
Greek and Latin grammarians have said many things on
the subject of accents that have no solidity: and it is
with good reason that Scaliger has passed a severe
though just judgment upon their doctrine in this parti-
cular: “ Omnino hee omnia ad ostentationem literato-
riam sunt invecta.” c. 64.

I shall now proceed to the point I proposed. And
the first thing [I shall do will be to consider some pas-
sages out of Dionysius Halicarnassensis, which Mr.
Foster thinks I have greatly mistaken or misre- 19
presented.

I. The passage which ought to be considered in the
first place, is indeed of great weight in the present dis-
quisition. And * Mr. Foster seems very angry against
it, not only upon account of its appearing in the body
of my Dissertation, but also for its assurance in looking
him in the face even from the title-page. I shall set
the passage down, and then make some observations
upon it.

+ Ἡ piv γὰρ πεζὴ λέξις οὐδενὸς οὔτε ὀνόματος οὔτε ῥήμα-
τος βιάζεται τοὺς χρόνους, οὐδὲ μετατίθησιν᾽ ἀλλ᾽ οἵας παρεί-
ληφε τῇ φύσει τὰς συλλαβὰ ς, τάς τε μακρὰς καὶ τὰς βοαχείας,
τοιαύτας φυλάττει.

1. Mr. Foster’s first charge against meis, that I
have urged this passage as affording an invincible τ
and conclusive argument against the use of accents in
general among the old Greeks, p.82. and as if Dionysius
objected against the use of accents in general pronuncia-
tion, Ὁ. 85. and did in this passage declare against all
accents, p.86, But my short answer is, that this passage
was not produced by me for any such purposes, but as
an argument against such an use of accents as alters
and spoils the quantity. I have all along allowed the use
of accents. And in the very paragraph in which I have
produced this and another passage from Dionysius, I

* Essay, p. 85. + Dion. Hal. π. Συχϑ. 5. 11.

300 SECOND DISSERTATION AGAINST

*declared that I produced them to prove, that the accents

that were first used were agreeable to quantity, and
14 that they could not be considered but as they were
agreeable to quantity.

This declaration is very plain: and, so far as it goes,
is, I think, agreeable even to Mr. Foster’s general sen-
timents. And I cannot but observe here, that Mr.
Foster, having in his thoughts what had been asserted
by some other authors, against whom he was writing at
the same time, has, not only in this place, but through-
out his Essay, ascribed to me consequences, which fol-
low, or seem to him to follow, from their assertions, but
which I am not at all concerned to vindicate. And as
to the present charge, I ought to make this farther obser-
vation—that it does not and cannot follow from any

thing tuat has been said by me or others upon this
1S subject. For we all allow the use of accents as
necessary: hut what accents, and where they are to be
placed, are other points.

2. Mr. Foster’s next charge against me concerning
this passage is, that I have mistaken the sense of it, by
not attending to the context.

Let us see whether this be really so.

The position with which Dionysius sets out is, that
musicians made words submit to their musical measures,
and not their musical measures to words. Ἢ δὲ ὀργανική
τε Kal ῳδικὴ μοῦσα τὰς λέξεις τοῖς μέλεσιν ὑποτάττειν ἀξιοῖ,
καὶ οὐ τὰ μέλη ταῖς λέξεσιν. To make good this position,
Dionysius produces part of a chorus in the Orestes of

Euripides. The composers who had set this chorus

6 to music, made, as he tells us, the two syllables of
ovya and of λευκον, and the two last of ἀρβυλης, sound
with the same tone or accent, and so spoiled the quan-
tity. Now it is not pretended that the quantity was
spoiled by making σι, λευ, and Ane short. It must there-
fore have been done by making ya, cov, and βὺυ long.
But this was the effect of the tone, which the musicians

* Dissert. p. 521.

GREEK ACCENTS. 30L

put upon these three syllables. For no other reason is
assigned for their. making ya, cov, and Sv equal in time
to ot, λευ, and Axe, 1. 6. long, but the tone or accent which
was put upon them. At the same time that Dionysius
blames the Melici, he blames also the Rhythmict for their
doing the same thing. Then follows the above passage.
And the whole concludes with a repetition of the 17
doctrine contained in the position with which he
had set out; but is expressed more fully and plainly,
in respect to both of them, and to the thing itself. Ἢ δὲ
ῥυθμικὴ καὶ μουσικὴ μεταβάλλουσιν αὐτὰς (scil. συλλαβὰς)
μειοῦσαι καὶ αὔξουσαι, ὥστε πολλάκις εἰς τἀναντία μεταχω-
ρεῖν. οὐ γὰρ ταῖς συλλαβαῖς ἀπευθύνουσι τοὺς χρόνους, ἀλλὰ
τοῖς χρόνοις τὰς συλλαβάς. So that the general senti-
ment of Dionysius was, that the time or quantity was
not to be altered upon any account.

We do not know enough of the music of the ancients,
and of that particular composition which Dionysius
censures, to judge of the justness of his criticisms.
But yet this we must suppose, that the instance which
he produces, was understood by him to come up to his
point; which was, that the Meliciand Rhythmici did,
by their tones, alter the nature, the quantity, the 15
χρόνοι of syllables, and made some short syllables long,
and some long syllables short, contrary to what was con-
stantly done in the πεζὴ λέξις, and πολιτικοὶ λόγοι. Tam
therefore led by this, by the position with which Diony-
sius sets out, and by the conclusion, to think that I have
given the true sense of the above passage. And I am
farther confirmed in this, because the passage under
consideration, taken in this sense, is entirely agreeable
to the general doctrine that runs through this treatise of
Dionysius. And that Iam not singular in this will ap-
pear from Mr. Upton’s note upon the passage itself :
* Insigne testimonium. Nihil sane apertius dici 19
potest contra receptam apud nos accentuum ratio-
nem, eorumque Usum. Est autem suus ex his etiam
(seu iis potius, quos Veteres adhibuerunt) accentibus
Sermoni Cantus, sed paucis opinor notus.” This, in-

352 SECOND DISSERTATION AGAINST

deed, as I apprehend, is the sense in which this passage
has hitherto been always understood. AndIdo not see
what reason Mr. Foster could have for being so angry
at my taking this passage of Dionysius in this sense, as
it is produced for an argument only against that use of
the acute accent, which puts such a stress upon short
syllables as makes them sound long. The argument is
certainly good in this case, if Dionysius understood him-
self, when he was blaming the Melici and Rhythmici.
20 Il. Another passage of Dionysius, with the mis-

taking or misrepresenting the sense of which I am
charged by * Mr. Foster, is in the same section, and as
follows : ἶ

Καὶ οὐκ ἀλλοτρίᾳ κέχρημαι τοῦ πράγματος εἰκόνι. μουσικὴ γάρ
τις ἦν καὶ ἡ τῶν πολιτικῶν λόγων ἐπιστήμη; τῷ IOLA διαλλάττου-
σα τῆς ἐν φὠδαῖς καὶ ὀργάνοις, οὐχὶ τῷ TIOIQ. Καὶ γὰρ ἐν ταύτῃ
καὶ μέλος ἔχουσιν at λέξεις, καὶ ῥυθμὸν, καὶ μεταβολὴν, καὶ πρέπον.
ὥστε καὶ ἐπὶ ταύτης ἣ ἀκοὴ τέρπεται μὲν τοῖς μέλεσιν, ἄγεται δὲ τοῖς
ῥυϑμοῖς, ἀσπάζεται δὲ τὰς μεταβολὰς, ποϑεῖ δ᾽ ἐπὶ πάντων τὸ οἷ-
κεῖον. ἣ δὲ διαλλαγὴ κατὰ τὸ μᾶλλον καὶ ἧττον.

Upon areview of what Thad said, and a perusal of
what Mr. Foster has advanced on the contrary, I find

no reason to think I had mistaken the true sense of

τ Dionysius.
The points which Dionysius treats in this, and the
following sections, are those particulars, which make
compositions ἡδεῖαι and καλαί. Now that, by these com-
positions, he means all compositions in verse as well as
prose, is evident; for after he had mentioned the four
chief things, which, in his opinion, made compositions
ἡδεῖαι and καλαί, viz. μέλος, ῥυθμός, μεταβολή, and τὸ πρέ-
πον, he says, ὧν μὲν οὖν στοχάζονται πάντες οἱ σπουδῇ γρά-
φοντες μέτρον, ἢ μέλος, ἢ τὴν λεγομένην πεζὴν λέξιν, ταῦτ᾽
ἐστί. And then Dionysius sheweth that we judge of the
exactness and perfection of these in the same manner
that we judge of every thing that is harmonious, ὃ. 6. by
g9 2 Sense which nature has implanted in us.» This he
~ illustrates by instancing in the performances of the

* Kssay, p. 2, note.

GREEK ACCENTS. 303

Melici and Rhythmici, of the εὐμέλεια and εὐρυθμία of
which we judge, not by our own abilities in performing,
but bya natural sentiment: τοῦτο μὲν ἐπιστήμης ἐστὶν, ἧς ov
πάντες μετειλήφαμεν" ἐκεῖνο δὲ πάϑους, ὃ πᾶσιν ἀπέδωκεν ἣ φύσις.
This illustration, the reader will observe, goes no farther
than the μέλος and ῥνθμός. But afterwards Dionysius
takes in the μεταβολὴν and the τὸ πρέπον. And then his il-
lustration is carried on to dancing as well as music:
τεκμαίρομαι δὲ, ὅτι καὶ τῆς ὀργανικῆς μούσης Kal τῆς ἐν ὠδαῖς γοη-
τείας, καὶ τῆς ἐν ὀρχήσει χάριτος ἐν ἅπασι διευστοιχούσης, μεταβολὰς
δὲ μὴ ποιησαμένης εὐκαίρους, ἣ τοῦ πρέποντος ἀποπλανηϑείσης,
βαρὺς μὲν ὃ κόρος, ἀηδὲς δὲ τὸ μὴ τοῖς ὑποκειμένοις ἁρμόττον ἐφάγη,
All this Dionysius applieth to the particular posi- 23
tion which he had in view, viz. that we judge of the ~
excellence of the πολιτικοὶ λόγοι by the same principle
that we judge of the excellence of the other things he
had mentioned; for the πολιτικοὶ λόγοι, differ from them
ΠΟΣΩΙ, in degree, but not ΠΟΙΩῚ, in quality. They
must have the same four qualities to make them excel-
lent, that are required to make music, and poetry set to
music, excel, though not in so high, or so perfect a de-
gree. Andso it immediately follows: Καὶ yap ἐν ταύτῃ
καὶ μέλος ἔχουσιν αἱ λέξεις, Kal ῥυ μὸν, καὶ μεταβολὴν, Kal πρέπον.
ὥστε καὶ ἐπὶ ταύτης ty ἀκοὴ τέρπετα: μὲν τοῖς μέλεσιν, ἄγεται δὲ τοῖς
ῥυϑμοῖς, ἀσπάζεται δὲ τὰς μεταβολὰς; ποϑεῖ δ᾽ ἐπὶ πάντων τὸ οἰκεῖ-
ον. ἡ δὲ διαλλαγὴ κατὰ τὸ μᾶλλον καὶ ἧττον. So that in the
passage now under consideration, by IIOSQI and
ΠΟΙΩΣῚ, Dionysius must have meant the same thing, a
that he expresses by μᾶλλον and ἧττον at the conclusion
of the paragraph. And indeed these expressions are so
much the same in sense, that some have thought that the
latter might, for this reason, be left out of the text.

All this receives a full confirmation from section 25,
in which Dionysius sheweth how prose compositions
may be made to resemble poetry, viz. by having poetical
ornaments, but yet not so many as poetry ; and even by
industriously concealing them: so that, without appear-
ing too much, they may yet be perceived and felt.

Dionysius hath, in other places, used the word ΠΟΣΩῚΙ

304 SECOND DISSERTATION AGAINST

in the same sense in which I understand it here. So
25 sect. 17. οὐκ ἔχοντες δὲ εἰπεῖν MOZQI, but not being

able to say how much. And sect. 18. ἀλλ᾽ ὅμως
ἄξιόν ἐστιν ἰδεῖν TOTAL διενήνοχεν ὁ ποιητὴς τοῦ σοφιστοῦ,
how much, or by how many degrees, the poet has ex-
celled the sophist.

W hat hath been here said will, I trust, not only justify
me from the charge of having mistaken the sense of this
passage of Dionysius, but also enable the reader to
judge of the sense that Mr. Foster has put upon it. He
understands Dionysius to mean, that *oratorical or
common discourse differs from music, not in the quality,
but number only of sounds ; i.e. that the former takes in
the compass only of four or five notes, but that music
takes in the compass of twelve, fourteen, or more. But
56 if Dionysius had meant this, after he had said τῷ
“" TLOXQI διαλλάττουσα τῆς ἐν ὠδαῖς καὶ ὀργάνοις, οὐχὶ
τῷ ΠΟΙΩΙ, he would certainly have subjoined: for though
musicians make use of a greater number of notes, or
sounds, than are made use of in the πολιτικοὶ λόγοι, yet
the four or five notes or sounds, which are made use of
in these, are of the same nature and quality with the like
number of notes or sounds used in music. Whereas Dio-
nysius forcibly leads us to a quite different sense, even
to that which is above set forth, by subjoining this ex-
planation, Καὶ γὰρ ἐν ταύτῃ καὶ μέλος ἔχουσιν ai λέξεις, καὶ
ῥυθμὸν, καὶ μεταβολὴν, καὶ πρέπον : which is as much as
if he had expressly said, the difference, I mean, consist-
eth in the IIOSQI of these things. I leave the reader
to judge of this, and shall only say, that to me the

sense which Mr. Foster has put upon this passage,
an appears forced and unnatural. But far be it from
me to say, as Mr. Foster doth of some others in a like
instance, that +he has ignorantly misunderstood it, or
basely misrepresented it ; and much less that he has wil-
fully misconstructed it.

III. There is another passage of Dionysius, which I

* Essay, p. 2, note. + Introduction. Essay, p. 85.

GREEK ACCENTS. 300

shall consider. Not that I have made any use of it, but
because * Mr. Foster lays great stress upon it; and yet,
I apprehend, he has mistaken the sense of it.

Ἔ Ῥυθμοί τε ἄλλοτε ἄλλοι, καὶ σχήματα παντοῖα, Kal τάσεις
φωνῆς αἱ καλούμεναι προσῳδίαι διάφοροι, ΚΛΕΠΤΟΥ- 98
ΣΑΙ τῇ ποικιλίᾳ τὸν κόρον.

Iapprehend Mr. Foster has carried the meaning of
this passage much farther than Dionysius intended.
The true sense of it seems very obvious: Dionysius in
this section, sheweth how a composition is made beauti-
ful, harmonious, and excellent by the μεταβολή. Καὶ ἔστι
λέξις κρατίστη πασῶν, ἥτις ἂν ἔχοι πλείστας ἀναπαύλας καὶ με-
ταβολὰς ἁρμονίας. Sameness, saith he, of the best things
always createth satiety; but when they are varied, they
by this variation appear new. Κύρον yap ἔχει καὶ τὰ καλὰ
πάντα, ὥσπερ καὶ τὰ ἡδέα, μένοντα ἐν τῇ ταυτότητι" ποικιλλόμενα
δ᾽ ἐν ταῖς μεταβολαῖς ὡς ἀεὶ καινὰ μένει. Now besides several
other variations that ought to be made to prevent satiety,
Dionysius saith that various figures are to be used; 99
and that the ρυθμοί and προσῳδίαι are to be varied,
ὃ. 6. that the same ῥυθμοί, or feet, and the same προσῳδίαι,
or words having the same oooy fa, must not be con-
stantly, or too frequently used; but that different feet,
and words having different προσῳδίαι, must be intro-
duced, that satiety may be prevented by such a ποικιλία.
This is all that Dionysius saith, and it is very evident
that it cannot support that arbitrary, and preposterous
placing, and changing the places of accents, which the
present system prescribes. ‘The ποικιλία, which Diony-
sius meant, will produce beauty, harmony, and excel-
lence ; but {Π6.ποικιλία of the present system of accents
cannot but produce a disagreeable satiety in another
way.

When Dionysius, sect. 25, saith, that a discourse
is eVovspoc, which διαπεποίκιλταί τισι puSpoic, he means
a discourse, in which words are used that have different
feet. And so, if he had been speaking there of the

* Essay, p. 86. 171. + Dion. sect. 19.
2A2z

280 SECOND DISSERTATION AGAINST

προσῳδίαι, and had said, that a discourse διαπεποίκιλται
προσῳδίαις, he would have meant a discourse, in which
words are used that have. different accents; and no
more.

This agreeth with what Dionysius prescribes, sect. 12:
that we must not put ἑξῆς, close together, πόλλ᾽ ὀλιγοσύλ-
AaBa, μήτε πολυσύλλαβα, μηδ᾽ ὁμοιότονα, μηδ᾽ ὁμοιόχρονα:
and universally, that we must τὴν ὁμοιότητα διαλύειν 5
and τὸν κόρον φυλάττεσϑαι, by avoiding a sudden, or

close repetition of the same words, parts of speech,
figures, &c.: the doing of which Dionysius there
calls ποικίλλειν.

it appears very evident to me, that Dionysius under-
stood ποικιλία and κόρος in this comprehensive sense.
The ποικιλία in sect. 12. is said to arise from the γραμμάτων
φύσις, and the συλλαβῶν πλοκὴ παντοδαπῶς σχηματιζομένη,
without any mention of the προσῳδίαι. In sect. 18., after
Dionysius had mentioned the μέλος, puSude, μεταβολή,
and τὸ πρέπον, he adds: EE ἁπάντων of φημι τούτων ἐπίτη-
δεύεσϑαι δεῖν τὸ καλὸν ἐν ἁρμονίᾳ λέξεως, ἐξ ὧνπερ καὶ τὸ
ἡδύ. Αἰτία δὲ κἀνταῦϑα, ἣ τε τῶν γραμμάτων φύσις, καὶ ἡ
τῶν συλλαβῶν δύναμις, ἐξ ὧν πλέκεται τὰ ὀνόματα. Again
without any mention of the προσῳδίαι. And in sect. 15.
39 Dionysius, after he had said that there was a great

“difference between letters, both as to their power
and sound, adds, that the best writers always endeavour
to form ἃ ποικιλία by a proper disposition of letters and
syllables, according to their powers and sounds. Ταῦτα
δὴ καταμαϑόντες οἱ χαριέστατοι ποιητῶν τε καὶ συγγραφέων, τὰ
μὲν αὐτοί τε κατασκευάζουσιν ὀνόματα, συμπλέκοντες ἐπιτη-
δείως ἀλλήλοις τὰ γράμματα" καὶ τὰς συλλαβὰς δὲ οἰκείως,
οἷς ἂν βούλωνται παραστῆσαι πάϑεσι, ποικίλως φιλοτεχνοῦ-
σιν. Still without any mention of the προσῳδίαι. And
the κόρος in sect. 11. is said to arise from the not adapt-
ing every thing in general to the subject. Βαρὺς μὲν 6
κόρος, ἀηδὲς δὲ τὸ μὴ ὑποκειμένοις ἁρμόττον.

In the many passages which Dionysius produceth
out of ancient authors, and which he blameth for

a3 their stiffness, asperity, and want of harmony, he

GREEK ACCENTS. 307

never mentions this ποικιλία προσῳδιῶν. And yet, if
by ποικιλία προσῳδιῶν, he meant the system of accents
which we now have; and ‘if these take off, or lessen
that stiffness, asperity, and want of harmony, which
he censures, he would certainly, one would think, have
taken notice of them in these instances: and indeed he
ought, in justice to those authors, to have done it. For
we find the same ποικιλία προσῳδιῶν, according to the
present system, in Hegesias that we do in Demosthenes ;
and the same in * Pindar’s dithyrambic, that we do in
Homer.

Besides all this, there is, I apprehend, a fault in the
common reading of this passage. Instead of KAEII- 34
TOYSAI, I think we should read KAEIITOY3SI, and
refer it to puSmol, σχήματα and τάσεις : for otherwise
there is no verb to answer to these three neminative
cases. With this reading, ποικιλία will not be restrained
to τάσεις, but will take in ῥυῶμοί, σχήματα, and τάσεις.
And what seemeth to confirm this reading is, that, ina
few lines after, the word ποικιλία is twice used in this
comprehensive sense. Whereas, if Dionysius had in
the above passage referred ποικιλία to τάσεις only, one
would of course expect that in these two places he would
have said ποικιλία τάσεων. But, instead of this, he makes
the want of ποικιλία, for which he censureth the followers
of Isocrates, to consist in quite different things : περὶ τὰς
“μεταβολὰς, καὶ τὴν ποικιλίαν, ov πάνυ εὐτυχοῦσιν᾽ ἀλλ᾽ 35
ἔστι Tap’ αὐτοῖς εἷς περιόδου κύκλος, ὁμοειδὴς σχημάτων
τάξις, συμπλοκὴ φωνηέντων ἡ αὐτῆ. And when he saith,
that no writers ever made use of ποικιλίαις εὐροωτέραις, than
Herodotus, Plato, and Demosthenes, the word εὐροωτέ-
paic cannot but be thought a very improper epithet to
ποικιλίαις τάσεων.

Though this passage, when duly considered, falls
greatly short of what Mr. Foster would have it say, yet
is it produced by him as parallel to a passage in Quinc-
tilian, which he + enlarges upon, with a design of making

* Dion, sect. 22. t Essay, p. 151, &c.

358 SECOND DISSSERTATION AGAINST

these two passages communicate light to each other.

But the passage in Quinctilian, when rightly considered,

3g Will be found to answer his purpose as little as that
of Dionysius.

“« * Accentus quoque cum rigore quodam, tum simili-
tudine ipsa minus suaves habemus; quia ultima syllaba
nec acuta unquam excitatur, nec flexa circumducitur,
sed in gravem, vel duas graves cadit semper. Itaque
tanto est sermo Gracus Latino jucundior, ut nostri
Poéte, quoties dulce carmen esse voluerunt, illorum id
nominibus exornent.”

This passage hath considerable difficulties. It would
not be an easy matter to say what Quinctilian meant by
a stmilitudo of accents, if he had proceeded no farther.
But he hath explained himself by saying, that the Greeks
placed the acute and circumflex upon the last syllable,

which the Latins never did, and that upon this ac-

count the Latin accents were not so sweet as the
Greek. One cannot indeed refuse to Quinctilian the
privilege of being his own interpreter. But then, as the
Latins had the same number of accents with the Greeks,
it cannot easily be conceived how a difference, arising
from the mere placing of accents as to one syllable only,
could cause a difference in the sweetness of them; and
such a difference too as would, in this respect, give a
considerable advantage and superiority to the Greek
language: unless it can be proved that the placing of
accents on final syllables is more harmonious than the
placing them on peaultimates and antepenultimates.
20 But what is more material,—if this point be

accurately considered, no such difference between
the Latin and Greek accents will be found as Quincti-
lian suggests. For the circumflex containeth an acute
and a grave: therefore, when it is placed upon the last
syllable of a Greek word, and resolved into its constitu-
ent parts, the pronunciation of this word will end in a
grave. And though an accent be placed upon the last

* Instil. I. xii. c. 10.

GREEK ACCENTS. 909

‘syllable of a Greek word, yet this is to take place only
when the word is pronounced separately. For in discourse
the final acute is always turned into, and pronounced as,
agrave. Where then is the real difference, in this re-
spect, between the Latin and Greek accentuation? What
foundation does this afford to blame the Latin man- .
ner, as less harmonious and diversified than the
Greek ?

Quinctilian appears still more prejudiced in favour of
the Greeks, by what he says at the close of this pas-
sage. For what Latin poets have, in order to make their
compositions more harmonious, made use of Greek
words, merely because they were accented upon the last
syllable?

This prejudice was not peculiar to Quinctilian :—the
Romans in general were fond of every thing that was
Grecian. And in this they were not always led by
reason, but were sometimes misled by admiration: as
Quinctilian himself acknowledgeth. ‘Sed res tota magis
Greecos decet, nobis minus succedit; nec id fieri natura
puto, sed alienis favemus ; ideoque, cum κυρταυχένα
mirati sumus, incurvicervicum vix a risu defendi-
mus.” Lib.i.c.5. May not therefore what Quinctilian
hath said, in commendation of the Greek final accent,
with justice be considered as an instance of that general
prepossession which the Romans entertained for the
Greek language, and which, he acknowledgeth, was not
always founded in nature and reason?

Quinctilian certainly was a man of great judgment;
but yet he was not infallible. He hath mistaken the
sense of some authors whom he hath quoted: he hath
committed some errors in points of grammar; and even
in his endeavours to make out, in other respects, the
superior sweetness of the Greek language above the
Latin; as may be seen in our learned Gataker’s 41
Diatrib. de N. Instrumenti Stylo, c. 2.

In reality, therefore, there is nothing in this passage of
Quinctilian, or in that of Dionysius, that can make out

3860 SECOND DISSERTATION AGAINST

the ποικιλία, which Mr. Foster intended, or * supply him
with a full and satisfactory answer to some objections
brought against the modern accentual marks : for, notwith-
standing this pretended disparity, and consequent sweet-
ness, the pronunciation of all words in συνεπείᾳ, or con-
struction, in the Greek language, whose last syllable is
marked with a circumflex, or an acute (when separate)
doth in reality end ina grave. And so the harmony is,
in both cases, the same.

12 Having considered the above passages of Diony-
42 sius as far as seemed necessary, I shall now. pro-
ceed to the main point, viz. the consideration of the
nature, power, and force of the acute accent.

That the elevation and depression of sounds are dis-
tinct from the continuance of them, is a poit which
nobody will deny; but yet what may be expressed by
mere sounds, cannot equally be expressed in the pro-
nunciation of words and syllables. On this is founded
the difference between vocal utterance and singing.
When words are set to music, then they are sung, and
the modulation is strictly speaking, μουσικη. But when
words are only uttered, then the modulation is only said

to be musical; a modulation which bears some rela-
43 tion and resemblance to music, as all sounds do.
For this reason, speaking is called μουσική τις ἐπιστήμη,
Dionys. λογῶδές τι μέλος, Aristoxen. guidam Cantus ob-
scurior, Cic. quasi quidam Cantus, Diomed. 1. ii. de Ac-
cent. There is as much difference between musical and
music, as there is between poetical and poetry. So that
when any term which is proper to music, is applied to
accentual pronunciation, it ought to be understood in a
qualified sense, 7. 6. with such allowances as the differ-
ence or ποσότης between them requires. Otherwise there
will be no difference between speaking or pronouncing
and singing ; whichis the very thing to be avoided. “Sit
autem in primis lectio virilis——non tamen in Canticum

* Essay, p. 166.

GREEK ACCENTS. 361

dissoluta, nec plasmate (ut nunc a plerisque fit) 44
effeminata. De quo genere optime C. Czsarem
pretextatum adhuc accepimus dixisse: δὲ cantas, male
cantas: Si legis, cantas.” Quinct. Inst. lib. i. c. 8.
Those that have endeavoured to give an idea of the
Greek accents, by comparing them with the notes that
are used in music, have, so far as illustration goes,
done very well; but if we carry this farther, and to a
degree of strictness, we shall do very ill: because
this will confound vocal utterance with singing. And
this affords another reason why, in the second passage
of Dionysius which has been considered, ΠΟΣΩῚΙ can-
not be taken in the sense in which Mr. Foster would
have it understood. For if ΠΟΣΩΙ means, according
to * Mr. Foster, that oratorical or common discourse 45
differs from music only in the number of sounds, i. 6. 4
that the former has.only four or five notes, but that the
latter has many more, then the accentual pronunciation
of a Greek sentence wiil not differ from the singing of
the same sentence, when set to four or five correspond-
ing notes in music, ὃ. 6. it will, in both cases, be a song.
Whereas, on the contrary,so long as vocal utterance and
singing shall subsist, there will ever be an essential dif-
ference, a difference ΤΩΙ ΠΟΣΩῚ between them, though
the number of notes used in both cases be the same,
and within the same compass. And the same ΠΟΣΟ-
ΤῊΣ would still subsist, whether the number of notes
used in singing were reduced to four or five, or the
number of sounds in vocal utterance were increased
to ten, twelve, or more; because that, in all these 46
cases, the one would be singing, and the other vocal ut-
terance. This is performed by the application of the
organs of speech according to the proper offices which
nature has assigned them; but that is performed by the
modulation of sound according to the strict rules of
music, and without any articulation.

* Essay, p. 2, note.

902 SECOND DISSERTATION AGAINST

The ear is the proper judge of quantity, and of the
power and force of accents. And according to Cicero
and Quinctilian, it is the bestjudge. ‘<< Aurium est admi-
rabile quoddam, artificiosumque Judicium, quo judica-
tur.” Cic.de Nat. D.1.ii. ὅδ. “ Quarum est Judicium
superbissimum.” Orat. S. 44. Quinctilian speaks of

the Aurtum Mensura as the rule, by which verses
were made before the invention of feet. *‘‘Poéma
nemo dubitaverit imperito quodam initio fusum, et Au-
rium Mensura, et similiter decurrentium Spatiorum ob-
servatione esse generatum ; mox in 60 repertos pedes.”
And he allows the same judgment of the ear as to com-
positions in prose. “ Quem in poémate locum habet
versificatio, eum in oratione compositio. Optime au-
tem de illa judicant Aures, que et plena sentiunt, et pa-
rum expleta desiderant.” Τεκμήριον μέτρου ἀκοή. εἰ
δὲ τὸ κρίνον ἐστὶν ἀκοὴ, τὸ κοσμοῦν ἐστι φωνή" ὡς γὰρ τὸν
ἦχον τῆς εὐρυθμίας ἐκτείνουσά τε καὶ συστέλλουσα φωνὴ σχη-
ματίζει τὰς συλλαβὰς, οὕτως εἰσδεξαμένη κρίνει ἡ ἀκοή.
Longinus. edit. Hudson. Pref.
48 Grammarians divide quantity into short and long;
but philosophers consider syllables more accurately,
and observe many degrees in each of the orders of short
and long syllables. To explain this, I must go back
to the very elements of quantity: and in doing this, I
shall follow, and enlarge upon the principles of Diony-
sius. This method will bring the present disquisition
into a narrower compass, give a clearer view of the
subject matter of it, and enable the reader to judge of
himself of several things, which Mr. Foster has ad-
vanced in different parts of his Essay, without my re-
ferring to them particularly; which would be tedious
and unpleasant both to the reader and myself.
The following paradigm exhibits to the eye a
εν progression of quantity, from the shortest to the
longest syllable :—

* Jostit. 1, ix. c. 4.

GREEK ACCENTS. 363

ἡμίφωνα
ο ἄφωνον. καὶ ἡμίφωνον ἢ
ὁ]δὸς ἤϊλατο
po|doc An| yw
τροΐπος πληγὴ
στροϊφος Σπληϊνιτις
ὁτ᾽]} Σπλην]

Σφηΐ!

Let us now make some observations.

I. The several consonants that are joined in the same
syllable with the vowels o and ἢ; are so many additions
that make themselves sensible to the ear. They are
called ἢ πρόσθηκαι ἀκουσταὶ, and aicSyrai. And so Β
po is longer than ο, reo longer than po, orpo longer oh
than τρο, An longer than ἡ, πλη longer than An, ὥπλη longer
than 7An; and 67 is longer than στρο, ὥπλην longer than
Σπλη, and Σφηξ longer than Σπλην.

II. A consonant joined with a vowel, but following it
in the same syllable, makes that vowel longer than any
number of consonants do that are placed before it.
The reason of this is, that the vowel being the most es-
sential part of the syllable, the voice always hastens to
seize it; and in order to do this, it slurs over all the conso-
nants that are placed before it; so that the voice suffers
little or no delay. But the case of the consonant that
follows is not the same; it cannot be slurred over, but
must be pronounced full and distinct: otherwise it
would run into, and be confounded with, the fol- ol
lowing syllable. By this mean the voice is delayed
more in the latter, than in the former part of the sylla-
ble; and 67 is longer than ozo, and ἣν longer than Σπλη.
For this reason, a short vowel can be followed but by
one consonant in the same syllable, though it may be
preceded by more. The Rhythmici allowed half a time
to a consonant, when it followed a vowel; οἷον τὴν we,
οἱ γραμματικοὶ λέγουσιν εἶναι δύο χρόνων" οἱ δὲ ῥυϑμικοὶ δύο

* Dionys. sect. 15.

364 SECOND DISSERTATION AGAINST

ἡμίσεως" δύο μὲν τοῦ ὦ μακροῦ, ἡμίσεως δὲ χρόνου τοῦ ς. πᾶν
γὰρ σύμφωνον λέγεται ἔχειν ἥμισυν χρόνον. Schol. in He-
phest. p.78. ed. 1553.

On this is founded an ingenious observation of Mr.
. Dawes,concerning the Holic digamma, which, in its
Ὁ power, answers to our W. “ Hec utique inter
duas vocales intercedens in diversis pro arbitrio sylla-
bis enunciari poterit. Verbi utique Avww priorem pro
lubitu constituere licebit vel Av vel Avw: si a vocali
claudatur Av-ww, non poterit non corripi: sin a conso-
nante Avw-w, eam simul ac pronunciaris, ea erit oris fi-
guratio, ut ante sequentem vocalem altera w (Avw) ne-
cessario sit efferenda. Similis est ratio prosoediaca
verborum awop, dawiZw, écwa, oAowoc, aliorumque haud
paucorum.” Miscel. p. 165, 6.

111. Though these several differences are sensible to
an attentive ear, yet, as they are too nice for common
use, grammarians have made but one general division of
53 syllables into short and long. And when they say,
that a long syllable has twice the time of a short
syllable, this must be understood in a general sense, and
in relation principally to the vowels that are in them;
as they are long or short, either by nature or position.
As w has twice the time of o, and ἡ twice the time of ε:
and o and ε, when they are followed by two mutes, are
reckoned equal to w and 7. But, ina strict sense, there
are several degrees of length in each of the orders of
short and long syllables, according to the several sensi-
ble additions that are made to vowels. This is evi-
dent from the above paradigm, and the first observation.
And hence it follows, that though ὦ has twice the time of
o, yet it has not twice the time of ozpo, because this has

the sensible additions of three consonants : nor has
o4 : : : ar
stow twice the time of ozpo, because though ὦ has
twice the time of 0, yet orpw has not twice as many, but
only the same sensible additions that στρο has.
Upon these principles it was that the Rhythmici said that
the first syllable ef a dactyl, though long, was shorter
than a perfect syllable ; but as they were not able to

GREEK ACCENTS. 365

say how much, they called it ”AXoyov. * Οἱ μέντοι ῥρυθ-
μικοὶ τούτου TOU ποδὸς τὴν μακρὰν βραχύτεραν εἶναί φασι τῆς
τελείας" οὐκ ἔχοντες δὲ εἰπεῖν ποσῷ, καλοῦσιν αὐτὴν "Αλογον.
By a perfect syllable, I suppose, was meant a long syl-
lable, that had all the sensible additions which a long
syllable could have.

IV. In general, every sensible addition that is made 55
to the latter part ofa syllable must cause a more sen-
sible delay in the pronunciation of it, and make it propor-
tionably longer than any addition that is made in the
former part of it. And this seems to me to be the case
of the acute accent, for the pronunciation of a syllable
depends upon the body of the syliable sounded; now
this body is made up, not only by the letters in the syl-
lable, but also by the stress thatis added to it, or by the
delay that is caused by the acute accent: and every
such delay is a βραδύτης τις τοῦ χρόνου.

The ancient Greek grammarians did not think that the
acute accent was a mere elevation of the voice: they 56
ascribed to it a power of lengthening syllables,
and making short syllables long; they did not say that
this accent was pronounced long or short, according to
the length or shortness of the syllables with which it
was joined, for then (he accent would have been said to
be pronounced long, because the syllable with which it
was joined was long; but, on the contrary, they said that
a short syllable became long because it was joined with
an acute accent; they must, therefore, have ascribed to
this accent a power of making short syllables long.

And it is observable that they never ascribed to the
grave accent any power as to quantity: and yet, if this
accent be the reverse of the acute (as grammarians re-
present it), it would, one would think, follow, that 5
a grave would have been presumed to have a power
of making a long syllable short, as the acute was thought
to have of making a short syllable long. But this has
never been suggested ; and [ cannot assign any reason

* Dion. sect. 17.

900 SECOND DISSERTATION AGAINST

for this, but that it was thought there was a peculiar
power in the acute accent, which, by the stress it laid
upon a short syllable, did in all cases make it longer,
and in some cases long; for in all the ways of making a
long syllable short which grammarians mention, they
never say that this was done by virtue of the grave ac-
cent.

The Metrici did not allow themselves so great a lati-
tude in the time of syllables as the Rhythmici, and yet
58 they gave a greater length to a short syllable, when

it had an acute, than it did to the same syllable
when it had not that accent. So the scholiast upon
Hepheestion. Ἰστέον ὅτι παρὰ τοῖς μετρικοῖς ἡ ὀξυτονου-
μένη συλλαβὴ μείζων ἐστὶ τῆς βιαρυνομένης, οἷον ἡ λος συλ-
λαβὴ, ἡ ἐν τῷ καλός, μείζων ἐστὶ τῆς ἐν τῷ φίλος. γίνεται
γὰρ βραδύτης τις τοῦ χρόνου διὰ τῆς ὀξείας.

The same scholiast says there are several ways by
which a short syllable may be made long; and the se-
cond way which he mentions is by the acute. Δεύτε-
ρος δὲ τρόπος τῶν τὴν ββιοαχεῖαν εἰς μακρὰν ἀναφερόντων, ὃ
διὰ τῆς ὀξείας. αὕτη οὖν ἡ ὀξεῖα ἐπικειμένη τινὶ τῶν βραχέων
ἢ βραχυνομένων διχρόνων, μηκύνει" ὡς ἐπὶ τοῦ,

59 1 Ὑρῶες δ᾽ ἐῤῥίγησαν ἐπεὶ ἴδον αἰόλον ὄφιν.

ἰδοὺ 6 τελευταῖος ποῦς Tuppixise μὲν ὑπάρχει: ἐπειδὴ δὲ τὴν
ὀξεῖαν ἔχει ἐπικειμένην ἐπὶ τὸ ο, ἀντὶ mgotEns παρείληπται, τῆς
ὀξείας μηκυνούσης τὸ O, καὶ οὐκ ἀκαίρως" δοκεῖ γὰρ ἡ ὀξεῖα
ἀνατεινομένῃ τῇ τε φωνῃ, καὶ αὐτῇ τῇ ϑέσει καὶ διατυπώσει τοῦ
χαρακτῆρος ἑαυτῆς τὴν βραχεῖαν ἀνακαλεῖσθαι εἰς ἑτέραν τάξιν.
ἡ οὖν ὀξεῖα τοιαύτην ἔχει φύσιν καὶ δύναμιν, ὡς μὴ μόνον ἐπι-
κειμένη ἐπάνω βραχείας, μηκύνειν αὐτὴν, ἀλλὰ καὶ προκειμένη,
καὶ μετακειμένη, δύνασϑαι τῇ βοαχείᾳ χρόνον χαριεῖσθαι.

The reader willbe pleased to observe here, that what
I call the stress of the acute, the scholiast calls ϑέσις καὶ

διατύπωσις τοῦ χαρακτῆρος ἑαυτῆς. Now the ϑέσεις were

Re Se if Lee ihe t Tl.’ ver. 208.

GREEK ACCENTS. 367

pauses, or stops, that caused a delay in pronouncing.
* « Lectioni posituras accedere, vel distinctiones (0
oportet, quas Greeci ϑέσεις vocant, que inter legen-
dum dant copiam spiritum reficiendi, ne continuatione
deficiat.” So that, according to this scholiast, the
acute caused a delay in pronouncing as well as the
stops. These positure are also called θέσεις by +Do-
natus.

Eustathius delivers the same doctrine in his comment
upon the followingt verse of Homer :

Biv εἰς Αἰόλου κλυτὰ δώματα
μ

λαγαρότης ἐστὶν, ὡς τοῦ Αἰόλου ἀντὶ μακρᾶς ἔχοντος τὴν
παραλήγουσαν.---Φεραπεία δὲ τοῦ τοιούτου μετρικοῦ πάδους
μάλιστα ἡ ὀξεῖα, δυναμένη ἐκτείνειν, ὡς ἀλλαχοῦ ἐῤῥέθη, 61
ov μόνον βραχὺ φωνῆεν ᾧ ἐπίκειται, ὡς ἐν τῷ αἰόλον
ὄφιν, ἀλλὰ καὶ τὸ πρὸ αὐτῆς, καὶ τὸ per avtiv.—The place,
to which Eustathius refers, is, l suppose, Odyss. I. ver.
230. v. iii. fol. 1464, 5. And it ought to be observed,
that what Eustathius and the scholiast say concerning
the power of the acute may, for aught that appears to
the contrary, extend fo remote antiquity: for they do
not mention this as a ‘hing that was advanced only by
some, and denied by others, but as a general, received
principle ; and Eustathius’s words, in the place last re-
fered to, are, of τόνοι, μουσικῆς ὄντες ἀπηχήματα, Wc φασιν
οἱ παλαιοὶ, ἔχουσι τοιαύτην δύναμιν.

All that I produce these authorities for, is to shew the
sentiments of the ancient grammarians on this subject:
and if we admit the system of accents which we have 62
received from them, there seemsto be the same rea-
son to admit what they teach concerning the power of the
acute accent. Whether other and better solutions can
be given of the cases which they mention, is a point
which I have at present nothing to do with.

* Diomed, 1. ii. col. 432. $ Odyss. K, ver. 60. edit. Rom. v
+ Col. 1742. iil. fol. 1647.

368 SECOND DISSERTATION AGAINST

To prove that the ancient grammarians thought that
the acute accent gave a greater extent or quantity to syl-
lables, I had produced the following passage from Dio-
nysius Thrax.* Τόνος πρὸς dv ᾷδομεν καὶ τὴν φωνὴν εὐρύ-
τεραν ποιοῦμεν. ‘This hath been objected to by} Mr. Foster,
63 though he owns at the same time, that if Dionysius

had here said φωνὴν μακρότεραν instead of εὐρύτε-
ραν, ἐξ might have been some confirmation of my assertion.
if so 1 am content to leave it to the reader (after he has
perused the above citations, and what I shall add here)
to judge whether Dionysius by εὐρύτεραν did not mean the
same thing as ifhe had said μακρότεραν. I apprehend
that φωνὴ here is the same as φωνὴ ἐγγράμματος, Gaza,
Lascaris, φωνὴ ἔναρθρος, {Dionys. Halicar., φϑόγγος
ἔναρθρος, ἐγγράμματος, §Pollux; and that it signifieth
not a mere sound, but the enunciation, or vocal utter-

ance, of a word or syllable ; when, therefore, it is

said that a tone or acute accent makes the enun-
ciation, or vocal utterance, of a word or syllable, εὐρύτε-
ραν, this cannot signify ὀξύτεραν, less βαρύτεραν, and
much less βραχύτεραν. What then can it signify but
μακρότεραν 1---εὐρὺς in general signifieth extension every
way. but sometimes it signifieth extension only in
breadth, in contradistinction to height:

|| τύμβον δ᾽ οὐ μώλα πολλὸν ἐγὼ grovéecOar ἄνωγα,
᾿Αλλ᾽ ἐσιεικέα τοῖογ' ἔπειτα δὲ καὶ τὸν ᾿Αχαιοὶ
Εὐρύν θ᾽ ὑψηλόν τε τιϑήμεναι.

If I have committed any fault here, it must be in my un-
derstanding Dionysius 'Thrax in the same sense in which
the scholiast upon Hephestion, and Eustathius would

* Dissert. p. 304. Thy γένεσιν ἐκ τούτων AapeBetver τπαρῶτον,
+ Essay, p. 142, 145. καὶ τὴν διάλυσιν εἰς ταῦτα ποιεῖται τελευ-
ἐ ᾿Αρχαὶ μὲν οὖν εἰσι τῆς ἀνϑρωπίνης σαίαν. π΄. Συνθ. sect. 14. and so Vox in
καὶ ἐνάρθρου φωνῆς, αἱ μηκέτι δεχόμεναι Quinctilian, Instit. 1. i. c. 5. and Dio-
διαίρεσιν, ἃς καλοῦμεν στοχεῖα καὶ γράμ- med. 1. 11]. 00]. 425.
ματα" γράμματα μὲν, ὅτι γραμμαῖς τισι § Lib. ii. c.iv. 5. 114,
σημαίνεται" στοιχεῖα δὲ, ὅτι Maca φωνὴ || Il. Ψ. ver. 245, &e.

GREEK ACCENTS. 369

have understood him. Dionysius was giving a gram-
matical definition ; and, accordingly, I understood 4,
εὐρύτεραν to mean the same thing here as paxpdrepay ;

and for the same reasons, and upon the same authori-
ties, I still understand it in the same sense, and think it
very expressive of the idea intended to be conveyed.

As to * Mr. Foster’s saying, that εὐρύτης relates toa
measure of the voice, totally distinct from the height
and length of it, though joined with them both, and re-
ferring to his first chapter, and to Scaliger, for a full ex-
planation of this, I do not apprehend, that what is there
said by Mr. Foster can be applied to the present case.
For what Mr. Foster there advances, and would support
by the authority of Scaliger, is the emphasis: whereas,
by the afflatio vocis in latitudine, Scaliger means
the breathings in general, and not what is peculiarly 4
called the emphasis. For this regards but one particu-
lar syllable, or word, or part of a sentence, whereas the
afflatio vocis in latitudine of Scaliger regards every
syllable, and makes part of their body: and itis the
vocal utterance of this body which he + calls quantity.
Besides, the emphasis is not ranked by the grammarians
among the προσῳδίαι, but by the rhetoricians among the
figures of speech.

To give a farther support to this εὐρύτης or emphasis,
Mr. Foster produces a passage from the 20th chapter of
Aristotle’s Poetics; where he is treating of the powers
and letters of speech; and says, ταῦτα δὲ διαφέρει σχήμασί
Te TOU στόματος, καὶ τόποις, Kal δασύτητι, καὶ ψιλότητι,
καὶ μήκει, καὶ βραχύτητι, ἔτι δὲ καὶ ὀξύτητι, καὶ βαρύτητι,
καὶ τῷ μέσῳ. Aristotle mentioneth here several distinct
things, which together make up the body or quantity of
every syllable: but from none of these can the emphasis
possibly be made out. I suppose, Mr. Foster would
sround it upon the δασύτης and ψιλότης ; but, I am per-
suaded, every unprejudiced reader will understand these
to mean only the breathings, or aspirations.

* Essay, p. 143. + De Causis Ling. Lat. lib. ii. ο, 52.
2B

970 SECOND DISSERTATION AGAINST

It will not be improper to consider and produce here
what the same scholiast upon Hephzstion saith con-
cerning the rough breathing; which, with him, is the
fourth way, by which a short syllable may be made

long. For in this, as well as in the case of the
68 acute, a like effect proceeded from a like cause, viz.
a Sensible addition of time.

* Αὕτη τοίνυν ἡ δασεῖα, ἐπικειμένη, καὶ μετακειμένη, Kat προκει-

μένη; τὴν βραχεῖαν εἰς μακρὰν ἀγάγει" ἐπικειμένη μὲν; ὡς ἐπὶ τοῦ,

+ Ἕως 6 ταῦθ᾽ ὥρμαινε κατὰ φρένα; καὶ κατὰ ϑυμύν-

προκεφάλου γὰρ ὄντος τοῦ στίχου, τὸ μὲν ἕ ἐν ἀρχῇ οὗ μετρεῖται" τὸ
δὲ ὡς ὃ ἀντὶ σπονδείου παραλαμβάνεται, τῆς δευτέρας συλλαβῆς τὸ ο
μόνον ἐχούσης, καὶ μὴ ἐπιφερομένων δύο συμφώνων" ἀλλ᾽ ἡ δασεῖα
ἐπικειμένη ἐμήκυνεν αὐτὴν τῷ πνεύματι, καὶ τῇ διαστάσει τῶν φωγη-
τικῶν ὀργάνων, τῶν μᾶλλον διατεινομένων ἐν τῇ προφορᾷ τοῦ
πλείονος πνεύματος.
The scholia upon Hephestion are ascribed by some
69 to Longinus. But they seem rather to be a collec-
tion from several authors. And from what is said
p. 93. 1.8. concerning the δασεῖα, it appears that the last
cited passage was taken from Heliodorus, who was
prior to Hephestion. For Hephestion mentions him
more than once. He is also said to have written a
learned treatise on the subject of metre before Hephzes-
tion by Longinus, in a fragment of his, that was pub-
lished from a MS. in the Vatican by Dr. Hudson in the
preface to his edition of Longinus. Whence it appears
that Heliodorus was a writer of weight and esteem.

It was therefore upon the general principle, that every
sensible addition gave some time and length to sylla-
"0 bles, that the acute accent was allowed to have this
peculiar power, by reason of the ϑέσις καὶ διατύπω-
σις τοῦ χαρακτῆρος ἑαυτῆς, Of the stress which it laid, and
of the consequent delay which it caused, in pronun-
ciation. In the times of the of παλαιοὶ, of Heliodorus,

* P, 78. + IID A. ver. 193.

GREEK ACCENTS. 371

of the scholiast upon Hephestion, of Eustathius, &c.
we see that the acute accent was considered as having
the power, both of making short syllables long, and of
shortening the adjoining syllables. And it must have
been in pursuance of this doctrine, that some Latin
poets, from Plautus down to the ecclesiastical poets,
when they made use of Greek words, followed a quan-
tity, which was directed by the Greek accents, and not
by the nature of the syllables either in the Greek or
Latin. Joseph Scaliger in his Ausonianz * Lecti- val
ones has collected a good number of these. I shall’ ‘
therefore produce him here in proof of the present ob-
servation. “In iisdem Grecis nominibus non quanti-
tatem, sed accentum spectabant. Quia, ut etiam notat
Servius in libello de accentibus, Latini eundem accen-
tum, quem Greeci habent, efferunt in Greecis nominibus.
Verbi gratia, quia Grecis vox hec εἴδωλα habet accen-
tum in prima, Latini quoque eodem accentu extulere,
idola. Que quidem vox semper est dactylus apud
Prudentium. Grecis dicitur Εὐριπίδης : eodem accentu
Latini semper extulerunt. Propterea penultimam pro-
ducit Sidonius, non quantitatem, sed accentum Latinum
(Grecum) secutus. Item Greci pronuntiant ἤλρατος,
nomen ejus, quiscripsit φαινόμενα. Sidonius contra ᾿
veterum Latinorum morem, qui mediam semper pro-
duxerunt, corripit. Denique inspice totum Sidonium,
totum Prudentium, et alios: invenies semper eos non
syllabas Greecas, sed accentum Greecorum esse secutos.
Sic Ausonius in voce τρίγωνος facit ; quia accentus non
est in media, que longa est, propterea eam corripit.
Quis audebit dicere Ausonium ignoratione literarum
Grecarum hoc commisisse? Nemo sanus quidem, ut
puto. Sed iis temporibus stulte videbatur non 10] pro-
ducere syllabam, ubi accentus esset, quia is est mos
linguze Latinee. Adeo ut Plautus in hoc secutus sit ju-
dicium vulgi: quia non cum doctis, sed cum plebe sibi

* Lib. ii. ο. 21.
28 2

372 SECOND DISSERTATION AGAINST

ao rem esse videret. Nam semper apud illum Pheedro-

mus est dactylus, quia Greece Φαίδρωμος. Item
quia Φίλιππος dicitur accentu in prima, eodem modo
mediam corripit. Et nunquam aliter invenies apud
Plautum, quin mediam in nomine Philippus corripuerit.
Quod mirum est in positione. Sed quzrenti causam
accentum semper pretexet.” 'The reader will do me the
justice to observe, that I do not produce this to justify
such a practice, but to shew that the ancients did not
think that the acute Greek accent was a mere elevation
of the voice. Though I think it proves a great deal
more. For how can it be conceived that Latin writers
could lay such a stress upon acuted Greek syllables, as
made the short syllable, with which it was joined, long,

and the following long syllable short, unless the
“4 Greeks of their times did so? But whether these
were faults in a language, that could support itself upon
its own natural quantity, is another thing. However, it
is not improbable that our strong acute accent took its
rise from that practice. And the use of it, with sucha
power, was confirmed from the consideration of the
nature of modern languages, which, without such an
accent, are not capable of affording any tolerable har-
mony.

I take this to be generally true as to most, if not all,
modern languages. For when this acute accent is placed
indifferently on all syllables, whether they be naturally
short or long, and the short syllables are then pronounced

long, this can proceed from nothing, but the power
75 and force of the acute accent. But, without launch-
ing out into unnecessary discussions, I keep, in the
present argument, to the single point of our own acute
accent; which is the accent we use in pronouncing the
Greek language. Though I cannot but observe here,
that Mr. Foster is mistaken when he says, that this prac-
tice is entirely our own, owing to the nature of our Eng-
lish pronunciation, p. 139. for foreigners do the same.
Voss. de Art. Gram. lib. ii. c. 10.

GREEK ACCENTS. 373

This Mr. Foster calls an abuse. But when one speaks
of an abuse, this must refer to a standard, whichis fixed
and allowed. For nothing can be reckoned wrong, but
what departs from what is allowed to be right. But
where is this standard? has it ever been fixed? "6
has Mr. Foster discovered it? One ought to think
he has. For he, all along, speaks upon a supposition,
that an acute accent may be sounded in such a manner,
as will not make the short syllable, upon which it is
laid, appear long to the ear. This then must be deemed
the standard accent: and in reference to this it is that
our accent, upon account of its carrying a greater stress,
is an abuse. I will not carry this so far as to say, that
Mr. Foster would have us alter our accent in the pro-
nunciation of our own language. But then I must say,
that he would have us pronounce our own language by
ene accent, and the Greek language by another. If he
does not mean this he means nothing. And if he means
this he saith nothing against those, who are not for

: : 77
pronouncing the Greek language according to ac-
cent. Forall of them by this mean the present modern
acute accent, which carrieth such a stress, as makes the
syllable, upon which it is laid, sound long to the ear:
and it is by this sound that the ear judges of quantity.

To form a just notion of the true state of the debate
between us, who are against pronouncing the Greek
language according to accents, and those whoare for it,
it will be necessary to consider in what we agree, and in
what we disagree :—Both sides allow the use of accents
in the pronunciation of the Greek language: both sides
allow that the elevation and depression of the voice are,
in their nature, distinct from the continuance of such
elevation and depression, 7. 6. from quantity: both
sides allow that each accent, considered of itself, is ca-
pable of two modifications in point of time, and may be
varied to the compass of four or five notes : and both sides
allow, that, in pronouncing the Greek language, accents
are not to interfere with and spoil quantity. But we differ
in this: that we assert, that so far as the argument from

974 SECOND DISSERTATION AGAINST

accent goes, our acute accent carrieth such a stress
with it, as makes every syllable over which it is placed
sound long to the ear, and so spoils the quantity. And
Mr. Foster asserts that the acute accent ought, when it
is placed over a short syllable, to carry with it but half
of the stress or time which it carries with it when it is
placed over along one, and that by this the quan-
tity would be preserved. Now upon ‘this state of
the debate, which is the only true one, it is very obvious
to observe, that by the acute accent we mean that ac-
cent which we moderns use in pronouncing our own lan-
guage, and which doth in all cases sound the syllable
over which it is placed long, and that Mr. Foster means
an accent which is not in use with us. In relation,
therefore, to the accent which we mean, and which we
all use, I really cannot see that there is any difference
between us and Mr. Foster, if he abides by the princi-
ples which he hath laid down, and the concessions
which he hath made. For ΠΟΥ alloweth that the ac-
cent which we use does make all syllables sound
long to the ear, and + that ἐγ the voice is retarded in
some syllables, by what cause soever that delay be occa-
sioned, there is truly and formally long quantity. But
this is the very thing we contend for; and from which we
strongly conclude, that therefore the Greek language
ought not to be pronounced according to accents, mean-
ing our acute accent. As for those accents which Mr.
Foster mentions, and which are to be lengthened or
shortened, we have nothing to do with them in the pre-
sent debate ; they are quite another thing ; whatever
becomes of them, our position is proved upon this
principle, which we both admit, viz. that our acute
accent maketh all syllables long, and that this spoils the
Greek quantity.

ἘΠῚ allow the fact, Essay, p.139.— quantity in English versification as the
and p. 25. heconfirmeth thisby aquo- same. To which may be added Dr.
tation from Mr. Johnson, who, in his | Ward’s First Essay upon the English
prosody, prefixed to his dictionary, Language, p. 30.
considers the acute tone and long + Essay, p. 16.

GREEK ACCENTS. 970

Mr. Foster, in his Introduction, sets out with an ap-
pearance ofaccuracy in giving four or five senses in which
the word accent is sometimes used, and this he doth with
avery good design, viz. to guard against ambiguity: but
the reader, I believe, will not think that in the body of
his book he has so carefully guarded against ambiguity
as he had professed to do; for ambiguity and confusion
do not arise from hence, that a word bears different
senses, but from urging against one sense of a word ar-
guments drawn from another sense of it: let the 8.
reader therefore judge whether Mr. Foster hath not
done this. Our arguments are drawn from the nature,
power, and effect of accents, taken in one sense; and
againstthis Mr. Foster produceth arguments drawn from
the nature, power, and effect of accents taken in another
sense. —

To give the reader a thorough insight into this affair,
it will be proper to consider the accent which Mr. Foster
recommendeth, and would substitute in the place of
ours.

The accent of Mr. Foster is to be high, quick to the
sense, sharp, instantaneous, and* even when it is joined
with along syllable, though the duration of the sound be
long, the power and effect of the acute is short and
quick to the sense, occasioned by a high note succeed-
ing a low one, or rising above the grave tone of voice;
the perception of which transition is sudden and instan-
taneous, before the continuance of the note is determined
one way or the other for long or short; and this Mr.
Foster saith he clearly perceives, and more clearly than
he can perhaps express ; but men of common under-
standings will not, 1 am apt to think, clearly perceive
what an accent this is, and much less will they be able
to make any use of it in speaking.

To make out the former part of his description of the
acute accent, Mr. Foster hath subjoined a long note to

* Essay, p. 144, 3, 6.

976 SECOND DISSERTATION AGAINST

shew that ὀξύς, in its consequential, figurative sense,
signifieth sometimes quick and hasty: but he might
have spared himself the trouble of proving what nobody
doth or will deny. It will also be readily allowed, that
ὀξύς, in its peculiar, musical sense, is used for a high tone
without any consideration of length, but then we must
remember, what 1 mentioned before, that vocal ut-
terance is not singing ; and because words, borrowed
from music, are used to express the tones of the voice
in speaking, we are not therefore to conclude that they
are to be taken in their original strict sense when
they are used in this way; for cvery thing that is musical
is not music, as every thing that is poetical is not
poetry.
᾿ς When Mr. Foster saith, that though the duration of the
sound of the accent, when joined with a long syllable, be
long, the power and effect of it is short, to me, and I
am apt to think, to every reader, this is the same as
if he had said, that though the sound of it be long, yet the
sound of it is short: for I take it that the sound of the
accent is the same with the power and effect of it; or,
however, that they are inseparable. A vowel that is
followed by two half vowels, as in contémnit, the in-
stance produced by Mr. Foster, is not, indeed, in strict-
ness, so long as if it were followed by two mute conso-
nants; but still, if it be in the order of long syllables, the
acute accent that is over it, or joined with it, cannot
have both a Jong and a short sound, but must necessa-
rily be sounded long throughout the whole body of the
syllable.
What makes Mr. Foster’s description of his ac-
cent the less intelligible is, that he * alloweth it to
have one measure of time; for upon this one cannot
avoid asking, how an accent, that hath one measure of
time, can, on the one hand, be quick, short, and instanta-
neous? and, on the other hand, how the duration of the

* Essay, p. 174.

GREEK ACCENTS. 377

sound of it can be long? For it should seem that, in
the former case, it would not have one time; and, in
the latter, that it would have two times. And besides all
this—if this acute, of one measure of time, be placed
over a long syllable, as it will then reach and operate
over but one half, and the first half of it, what is to be-
come of the remaining half? Is it to have no accent?
Yes, it must certainly have some accent, but this
cannot be another acute; it must then be a grave, but
an acute and grave on a long syllable are a circumflex.

If in any other instance | have mistaken the meaning
of Mr. Foster, I ought to produce some excuse of my
own. But in the present case I do not apprehend there
is any need of my doing this; for I cannot but think
that my inability to comprehend his meaning, if I do not
comprehend it, is sufficiently excused by his confession
of his inability to express it.

I have confessed, and do again confess, that there are
many difficulties on both sides of this subject, more ὡς
than I am able to remove, even to my own Ssatisfac-
tion: but I think it much better ingenuously to acknow-
ledge this, than, witha profession of removing difficulties,
to suggest what I cannot clearly express. I restrain myself
therefore to the main points which I have all along had
in view, viz. that the ear is the proper judge of sounds ;
that the acute accent, which we use, makes all sylla-
bles with which it is joined sound long to the ear; and,
therefore, that the Greek language ought not to be pro-
nounced according to it; because by this every short
syllable that has an acute accent will sound long.

Those that have read Mr. Foster’s Essay must, with-
out my pointing to particular places, have ob-
served that he has dropped several unhandsome ex-
pressions, and entertaineth a contemptuous opinion of
the understandings and hearts of those from whom he
differs on this subject. Such practices are indeed very
common in the world, even among those who really are
scholars: Mr. Cheke, whose learning Mr. Foster justly
commends, was guilty of this, and Bishop Gardiner

978 SECOND DISSERTATION AGAINST

smartly reproached him for his having applied the in-
decent word debacchari to him; notwithstanding he de-
clared, in almost the same breath, that in all his expres-
sions towards the bishop he would keep within the
bounds of the strictest modesty, and avoid every thing

that might give offence. * “'Tuorum verborum obli-

tus, interim debacchari, verbum parum honorificum,
mihi adscribis: interim, sed paulo post, ita ais: Ego
vero me intra modestie fines continebo, neque unquam ita
loquar ut dominationi tue verbo displicuisse videar. Non
satis Greece hoc: cavisset enim Gracus suum menda-
cium oblivione prodere, ne tanquam sorex suo indicio
periret.” But because such practices are common, they
are not therefore less blameable: the gentleman ought
always to get the better of the mere scholar; if he does
not, he hurts himself more than his adversaries: and in
the present case, the reader will not fail to pass this
91 just judgment upon Mr. Foster—that of all men
he had most reason to avoid such a conduct, as+
he hath professed, that, till lately, he was himself in the
same way of thinking with those from whom he now
differs, and then, no doubt, he entertained as good an
opinion of his own understanding and heart as it is to
be supposed he now doth.

Mr. Foster{ maketh excuses for his having concerned
himself in this subject, but he needed not to have done
this, as his inclination leads him to, and his profession
engages him in, the study of the learned languages, in
which every degree of accuracy deserveth commendation.
For my part, instead of making excuses for writing ona
92 subject of this nature, I might, with a good grace

now, and with a much better hereafter, make excuses
for my want of leisure. The subject is not trivial or trifling.
§ Men of learning and judgment know how to set a pro-

* Syll. Script. de L. 6. P. yol. 1. myself let the reader perase the follow-

Ρ. 448, ing passage of Quinctilian: “‘ Quo mi-
+ Introduction. nus sunt ferendi, qui hanc artem, ut te-
ὦ Ibid. nuem ac jejunam, cayillantur, que nisi

ὁ In justification of Mr. Foster and oratori futuro fundamenta fideliter je-

GREEK ACCENTS. 379
per value upon grammatical disquisitions, because they
know the important effects of them; they are the found-
ation of all good compositions. The author of Hermes
has acquired great reputation by that performance ; 93
nor will I (though I should, upon a due considera-

tion of the main point in debate, be still thought really
to differ from Mr. Foster) refuse to give him his due
praise. By his performance on the present subject he
has shewn himself to be a man of genius and learning ;
and if he has written with the same disposition that I
write, there is, at least there ought to be, no difference
between us but what appears upon paper.

The main point which I had in view, was to shew
that the ancient Greek language cannot be pro-
nounced according to accents, 7. 6, according to that
acute accent which we use, without spoiling the quan-
tity ; and I have pursued it in such a manner, as, I trust,
will enable the reader to judge for himself of what hath
been, or may be, said on this subject.

To pursue it any farther would be to descend to mere
altercation, a method by no means conducive to the dis-
covery of truth, or to the information of the reader.

I have before me this judicious observation of Quinc-
tilian :* “ Non obstant he discipline per illas eun- 95
tibus, sed circa illas herentibus.” Of which I shall
now make a prudent use by putting an end to this Disser-
tation, and taking my leave of the subject.

cerit, quidquid superstruxeris corruet ;
necessaria pueris, jucunda senibus,
dulcis secretorum comes, et que vel
sola omni studiorum genere plus habet
operis quam ostentationis. Ne quis
igitur tamquam parva fastidiat gram-
matices elementa ; non quia magne sit
oper consonantes a vocalibus discer-
here, ipsasque eas in semivocalium
numerum, mutarumque partiri; sed
quia interiora velut sacri hujus adeun-

tibus apparebit multa rerum subtilitas,
quz non modo acuere ingenia puerilia,
sed exercere altissimam quoque erudi-
tionem ac scientiam possit.” lib. i.c. 4.
And we learn from Macrobius, that Ci-
cero himself, after he had pleaded in
the forum, frequently went to the
school of Antonius Guipho. Saturn, I.
iil. c. 12.
* Instit. I. i. c. 7.

ᾧ ἊΝ ᾿ pees ἀρῃῦ. nrg ae
Ἐν cae τὰ aw Agi ων hie i tees

erate Haba Pa
ΧΩ IE os ἀπ δὴν πε τιν Ea

ἴων. one οὐ whitened: ἀν σὰ δξννγυν tery
eu “seg $a) oF dv ΒΗ... δήμοις va
{iam aa: ve aly τὸ ποι οϊωξ
: soe Ὁ ΡΤ Δ neat
eae & Sito SOR ac feedifoadth a WOR
ἢ δι ἐοι 1“ naddaoadt anita
Abe 5.8 τὰς chs δμδ θυ ger δα ΔΓ ae te
ve ooglle Gi) ho ates af ΗΝ

x “td eee το es 3 Ν +

peppy atten! or law SRD ange OR, Ὁ ΠΕ ΝΝΑ
ΠΝ indy 8) ΘῈΣ wi ovina Gite ἐσ “αν a dua’ et

k ἮΝ can να ary serrate δὲ
ning dat vie awe τι
" I alt Heat θὲ Wk
She δὲ δνλγων Glass’
Ἀν ΠΒΑ. ψυμνηδμον, εὐδῶν
᾿ : ees nde ean bios
in ed es oe aie ip
is Ξ δες aia

INDEX

TO THE

Accent, on what founded, p. 3. ety-
mology οὗ the word how misapplied,
ib. accent how closely counected with
quantity, 5. 7. how necessary, 6. af-
fects the harmony of verse, 37. 151.
159. seq. accent of the Romans, 41,
42. seq. the rules of it, 43. marks of
Roman accent misapplied in inscrip-
tions, 60, seq. 211, 212. accent of the
Greeks, 79, seq. its use and importance,
86—88. Greek accent added a grace to
the Roman verse, 151. Greek accent
different from the Roman, 152, seq.
170. irregularity of the Greek accent,
171, seq. variation of it at different
times, 176, seq. and of the Roman, 177.
its reference in Greek and Latin to the
quantity of following syllables, 179.

Acute, how it affects the sense, 9.
coincidence of it with the long quanti-
ty in English, 25. it does not lengthen,
as well as elevate, 140, seq. the nature
of it, 144, seq. proved to be consistent
with a short time, 181. the final Greek
acute defended, 186.

Eolic dialect, peculiarity of its
tones, 44, seg. like the Doric, 49. infu-
sion of it in the Roman language, 50,
seq. its softness and want of aspiration,
51, 52.

Alphabets, ancient as well as modern,
defective and redundant, 22.

Alexander Aphrodisiensis, his defi-
nition of Προσωδία, 3. 98.

Analogy not always to be expeoted
in a language, 168, seq.

Ammonius, on χώταγμα, 17. on the
accent of several words, 109.

᾿Ανίημιε ἄνεσις, when applied to the
voice, their sense, 5.

Aristoxenus, his remark on accent,
ἘΞ

Aristophanes of Byzantium, intro-
ducer of accentual marks, 101. vindi-
cation of his character, 103, seg. au-
thor of the marks of punctuation,
104.

Apollonius Alex. Dyscolus, followed
by Priscian and Lascaris, 4. his remark
on the AXolic tones, 46. on the want of
aspiration among the Alolians, 51. on
the Aolic digamma, used by Alczus,
Sappho, Alcman, 64. how he denomi-
nales the acute tone, 82. on the accent
of compound adjectives, 86. on the ac-
cent of provouus, 186. 188.

Aristotle, his distinction of accent,
quantity, and spirit, 11. on the neces-
sity of regarding accent, where metre
is concerned, 38. on ὀξὺ and βαρύ, 81.
on the rhythm of prose, 87. some pas-
sages of his relating to accent, 9799.
his account of the acute, 147.

Aldus, his observation on the differ-
ent dialects of the Italian language,
40,

982

Ancients, the nicety of their ear, 88.

Anapestic measure, peculiarity of
it, 167.

Apex, the Roman mark of quantity ;
difference between that and accentual
marks, 60. seq.

“Aeots and Θέσις, 81. accentual and
metrical, different, ibid. 82. 162. seq.

Aspiration, what it is, 10. in many
Greek syllables formerly, where it now
has no mark, 39. final, in the Roman,
Syrian, and Egyptian languages, ibid.
why in some Roman words of Greek
derivation, and not in others, 52. seq.

Attics, who are the old, and later,
178.

Augment, in verbs, the rejection of
it AXolic as well as Ionic, and from
thence Roman, 56, 57.

Atonics, the doctrine of them vindi-
cated, 179, seq.

Athenzas, his remark on the Aio-
lism of the Roman ‘tones, 58. on the
eccent of certain words, 109. 186,

187.

B, Roman and Greek letter, its afli-
nity with V, 70, 71.

Bentley (Dr.) his remark on the
minor Tonic measure, 32. his applica-
tion of the digamma, 72,73. his ex-
planation of a passage in Horace con-
firmed by a Greek epigram found since
his time, 73. his remarks on the Latin
accent, 155, seg. whether his account of
the metrical arsis in Roman poets is
right, 164, seq.

Βλόψ, expressive of the dropping of
water, 19.

Bowyer (Mr.) his opinion of Γ' be-
ing applied for the digamma, 75.

σ.

Callistratus, after Simonides settled
the present Greek alphabet, 21.

Callimachus, his scholiast, on two
initial consonants, 23.

Czsura, of tiie Greeks and Romans,
36, seq. The same not required in
English verse, 37.

91.

INDEX.

Caninius, his remarks conformable
to those of antiquity, 47.

Capella, (Martianus) his names of
accents, 81. on the gravity and acute-
ness of sound, 84, 183.

Charisius, on the quantity of ds dssis,
19:

Castorion Solensis, particular mea-
sure of his poem, 37.

Cassiodorus, on the ol. digamma
in Latin, 65.

Calabria,-remains of the Greek lan-
guage there in the time of Petrarch,
120.

Charax, his remark on the accent of
some words, 110.

Cheke, (Sir John) on ascertaining
the pronunciation of letters from the
sounds of beasts, 19. onthe method of
considering ancient pronunciation in
general, 40. says, that accent and quan-
tity were both observed by his friends
in pronouncing Greek, 199, 200. holds
the Greek accents inviolate, 203.

Charlemagne, answered Greek am-
bassadors in their own language,
137.

Chrysoloras, (Emanuel) at London
on an embassy in the reign of Richard
the Second, 122.

Choriambic foot, in English metre,

Ceporinus, (Jacob) on the metrical
power of initial Latin and Greek con-
sonants, 94.

Cicero, his remark on accent, 6, 7.
his division of sounds, 7. on the quan-
tity of inclytus, 18. the want of aspi-
ration among the old Latins, 53. his
writings depreciated by some of the
Greeks, and why, 123, seq. his charac-
ter ill-treated at first by the Romans,
124. his remarks on the Greek nation,
124, 125. his description of the acute
sound, 148.

Comnena (Anna, the Byzantine
princess), style of her history, 133.

Consonants, the power of two initial
ones among the Greeks and Romans,
23, seq. vowels short before two or
three in Greek, 24, 25. They do not
neeessarily retard the voice, 25.

Corinthas,on vowels long by nature,

INDEX. ὃν

and position, 19. on the Molians having
no dual number, 45.

Cratinus, his account of the power
of the long E, 19.

Cretic measure in our language, 35.

Dactyl foot, the use of it in English
metre, 29. Dactylic measure excluded
from our language, 34.

Dawes (Mr.) on two initial conso-
nants, and initial g, 23. his application
of the digamma to Homer’s metre, 54.
his mistake concerning the arsis, 166.

Despauterius, on confounding ac-
cent with quantity, 62.

Διάσπημα defined, from the musical
writers, 182, 183, seq.

Digamma (clic) the power and ap-
plication of it, 50, seg. in Homer’s me-
tre, 54, 55. an account of it in the old
Greek and Roman languages, 64, seq.
the sure application of it, 74. Mis-
takes about it in Hesychius, ibid.

Dionysius Thrax, a sentence of his
on accent misapplied by Dr. G. 142.

Dionysius Alius, on the Greeks re-
gulating their accent by the ultimate,
179.

Dio Cassius, his spleen against Ci-
cero, 123.

Diomedes, his remark on accent,
6. 119. a passage in his works cor-
reeted, 143.

Dionysius (Halicarn.) on the Greek
origin of the Romans, 49. on the olism
of their language, 51. expresses the Ato-
lic digamma by the Attic od, 68. on the
accent of the old Greeks, 80. a passage
of his concerning the contrariety of ac-
cents to quantity, stated and explained,
81--- 87. on the ποικιλία of the Greek
accents, 171. how music differs from
common discourse, 182, seg. observed
the accent of the Romans, 173.

Donatus, on the quantity of esset,
essemus, 18.

D’orville (Mr.) on the short Molic
or Beeotic οὐ, 50. on the marks of
Greek and Latin accentuation, 60. on
the accent of the old Greeks, 79. on
the present accentual marks, 205.

383

Draco, Stratoniceus, on dissyllable
barytone verbs, 17.

Dual number, none in the Aolic or
Roman language, 45.

Enclitic, the Roman, p. 155. vindi-
cation of the Greek, 174, seq. our Eng-
lish enclitic shewn, 175.

English language, the quantity of
it, 15, seg. acute accent and long
quantity of it generally coincident, 25.
yet both of them distinct and discerni-
ble, 25. the kinds of metre init, 29.
seq. the iambic hath a variety superior
to that in ancient verse, 20. why no
hexameters in English: the iambic
and trochaic tendency of it, 33, 34.
different dialects of it, 39. the tones
of it more varied than the Roman,
154. the want of varied inflections
in it, ibid.

Ἐσιτείνω, and ἐπίτασις, when ap-
plied to the voice, their sense, 5.

Enripides, the atcenting of a pas-
sage in his Electra from Dionysius ex-~
plained, 83, seq.

Eustathius, his remark on particular
words expressive of certain sounds,
19. on the Aiolic accent, 46. his ac-
count of the first Greek settlements in
Italy, 48. if

F, the Roman letter, not corres-
ponding with the Greek φ, 66. account
of it by Terentianus Maurus, Mart.
Capella, Quinctilian, 67.

Feet, metrical, in our common dis-
course and prose compositions, 6.

Fuimus, the first syllable of it long
in Ennius, 54.

Fundanias, the pronunciation of that
word by a Greek laughed at by Cice-
10) OL.

Gandentius, his clear account of ac-
cent and quantity, 14.

Garcillasso, dela Vega, on the Peru-
vian accent, 159.

384

r, the mistaken application of it in-
stead of digamma, 74, 75. in Homer’s
Τέντο Févro, &c.

Gellius, (Aulus) his remarks on the
quantity of particular long syllables,
18. on the swmmus tonus of Nigi-
dius, 81.

Grammarians, Latin ones after Quinc-
tilian, on the subject of accent, 58.

Grammarians, Greek, who wrote on
accent, a list of them, 93. 96.

Greeks, modern grammarians, their
observations agreeable to those of an-
liquity, 4. a short vindication of the
learned Greek exiles, 120, seq. they
duly distinguish between accent and
quantity, 121.

Greek (ancient language) introduc-
tion of it into Italy, 48, seg. The ex-
tent of it, 126, seg. its ascendancy over
the Roman, 127, seq. though publicly
discouraged, 128. appearance of it in
the British language, 129. why used
by the first publishers of the gospel,
130. duration of it shewn, ibid. seq.
alterations in it, 131. it borrowed seve-
ral words from the Latin, 132. tolera-
ble purity of it in very late writers,
ibid. why it subsisted long after the
Roman, 133. whether Alexander’s
Asiatic expedition could affect it,
135. seq.

Greeks, accurate in the use of their
pronouns, 175.

Greece (modern) the litargies of
St. Basil and Chrysostom used in the
churches there, 120.

Grevius (Joh. Georg.) copies of
the errors of Is. Vossius, 161.

G. (Dr.) mistakes a passage in
Dionys. Halic. 2. his error concern-
ing the inconsistency of accent and
quantity, 7. concerning the quantity of
the northern languages, 15. his strange
supposition concerning the /Molic ac-
cent, 47. his mistaken notion concern-
ing the nature of the acute, 139, seq.
concerning the accents of words end-
ing οἶκος, 160. his arguments drawn
from the irregularity of Greek accents
answered, 168, seg. his mistake about
atonics and enclitics, 173, seq. about
the later Attics, 178, about the falling

INDEX.

times in the accentual thesis of Gr:
and Lat. 187. 190.

Grave sound, how it affects the
sense, 9.

Hannibal wrote in Greek, 126.

Herodian, son of Apollonius, his
Προδῳδία, 4. on the want of aspiration
among the Aolians, 51. his account of
Homer’s Γέντο, 75. how he denomi-
nates the acute tone, 81. on the accent
of participles of preterit pass. 171. on
the accent of φασί, 186.

Hare (Bp.) on the nature of the
acute, 148.

Hermogenes, on the accent of δημο-
ota determining the sense of it, 98.

Herodius, his distich on petty gram-
marians, 46.

Henninius, his error concerning the
quantity of modern languages, 28.
concerning the Greek accent, 159, seq.

Hemsterhuis, the propriety of his
censure on Lucian concerning Hanni-
bal’s ignorance of Greek, 126.

Homer’s language Aolic in many
respects, 55, seq. objections to par-
ticular passages of his answered by
the help of accent, 99. seq. his miurus
verse, 141.

Ho-op, the Greek call on shipboard,
19.

Huetius, on the old marks of punc-
tuation, 104.

Jambic feet, common in discourse,
84.

ἴδον the second aorist, for ἔξιδον, 75.

Juba, a Greek wriler, 127.

Johnson (Mr. Samuel) his remark
on the English acute, 25.

Ionic (minor) foot, in English me-
tre, 31. among the Greeks and Ro-
mans, 32.

Irish, an account of their pronun-
ciation, 39.

Irregularity of language in general
considered, 168, seq.

Italian language, the accent of it,
155.

INDEX.

7 .

Lasearis, his definition of Προσωδία,
S. his remarks agreeable to the rules
of anliquily, 4.

Lascaris (John, or Jauus), his epi-
taph on himself, 117.

Languages, the northern ones have
quantity as well as the Greek and Ro-
man, 14, seg. we must not in all cases
argne from one to another, 189.

Latins (ancient) want of aspiration
in their language, and why, 52, seq.
abbreviations among them, as among
the old Greeks, 56.

Lipsins, recommends the use of the
Roman aper, 44. on the want of aspi-
ration among the old Latins, 52. on the
abbreviations among the old Latins and
Greeks, 56. onthe accentual marks mis-
applied in some Latin inscriptions, 61.
his emendation of a line of Afranius and
Pacuvius, 71. on the nature of the
acute, 147.

Leo X. his regard for literature,
118. his Greek academy, ibid.

Δογοειδὴς poetry, what it was, 112.

Longinus, on long and short times,
23.

Lucillius, on the Jong and short Ro-
man I. 20.

Lyric Greek poems, many destroyed
in the later ages, on account of their
impurity, 138.

Marks, of accent and quantity, an-
cient like the modern, 3, 4. the mis-
application of them in modern edi-
tions of Latin authors, 44.

Marks of accent not used nor want-
ed by the ancient Greeks, 99, seg.
why more wanted, when used, than
marks of quantity, 101, seq. when,
and by whom introduced, 102, seg.
proof of their appearance in very old
copies, before Christ, 108, seq. their
misapplication, 115. their present po-
sition conformable to the accounts of
the old tones, 176, seq. their use in
the case of homonymous words consi-
dered, 180, seg. their three places in
Greek, diflerent from the Latin, de-

385

fended, 185. 190. ‘The present marks
not to be suppressed, 198, seq. may be
properly applied by an English voice,
199.

Macrobius, on the different accent
of the Greek infinitives, 59. on acute
sounds, 148.

Metre, founded in quantity alone,
356. Roman and Greek metre alike,
but modulation different, 158.

Michaelis, his remark on expressing
the Greek accent distinct from quan-
tity, 200. ῖ

Melancthon, his remark on the Greek
and Latin marks of accent, 60. on
confounding accent with quantity, 62.

Meeris Atticista, on the second ὦ
of ἀγοράζω, 17. on the accent of cer-
tain words, 109.

Markland (Mr.) his opinion of the
Greek accents, 206.

Montfaucon, on the time when ac-
centual marks were most used, 111.

Monks, of the dark ages, their lite-
rary merit, 136, seq.

Morhoff, his brief account of. the
learned Greek exiles, 121.

Muretus, a piece of criticism of his
considered, 192.

Music, how it differs from discourse,
2. 182.

Musical composers, how they per-
verled right accent and quantity in set-
ting words to music, according to Dio-
nysius, 82, seq.

Musurus (Marcus of Crete), his fa-
mous elegy, 118. his care of several
Greek edilions, 116. Dedication of
Aldus to him, ibid.

Natural, what properly called so in
speech, 28.

Nigidius, on the accent of Valeri,
81.

Norris (Cardinal) confounds the Ro-
man apex with the accentual mark, 61.

᾿Οξύτης, account of it from Aristoxe-
nus, 5., the semses of ὀξύς, 144, seq.

386

Olympiodorus, his remark on the
solemnity of the Roman tones, 153.

Oratorical accent different from sylla-
bic, 12, 115-

Orthography, old Roman, of yow-
Ὁ]. ΡΟΣ. Καὶ

Otho II. Emperor, owed his escape
from the enemy to his knowledge of
Greek, 137.

Οὐ diphthong short among the Alo-
lians, 50. in Homer, ibid.

Προσωδία, its old Greek definition
given imperfectly, 3.

Palatium derived, according to Eus-
tathius and Dionys. Hal. from παλλάν-
τιον, named after Pallas the son of
Evander, 48, 49.

Perizonius, on the accent of the an-
cients, 41.

Petrarch learnt Greek from a Cala-
brian monk, 120.

Philelphus, his remark on the Eo-
lism of Homer, 56. on the state of the
Greek language before the taking of
Constantinople, 116.

Philodemus, his epigram to which
Horace alludes, 73.

Pierson (John), his remark on the
variation of accent and spirit in the
old Greek, and in his own Janguage, 40.

Pilatus (Leontius), Gr. master of
Boccace, 120.

Plato, on the accent of certain words,
80. his remarks on the nice attention of
the Greeks to their language, 89.

Pliny, on the introduction of the
Greek language into Italy, 49.

Plutarch, his distinction between ac-
cent and quantily, 8. A passage of
his concerning the accent of ᾿Ασκληπσι-
ὅς, 90, seq. of “Eeov, 92. on the nature
of acute sounds, 147.

Perrault injudiciously ridicules a pas-
sage in Homer, 155.

Φωνὴ διαστηματική, and συνεχής, their
difference, 184, seq.

Pope (Mr.) his mistake, in ridiculing
Dr. Bentley, 72.

Porphyry, a MS. sentence of his on
accent misapplied by Dr. G., 142.

INDEX.

Priscian, his account of accent, quan-
tity, and spirit, 10. His remark on the
final aspiration of the Syrian and Agyp-
tian languages, 39. on the /Bolism of
the Roman language, 50, seq. on the
digamma in the perfect tenses, 54. on
arsis and thesis, 82. on the Roman and
Greek pronouns, 175.

Pronunciation, of all languages, how
established, 26, seq. 4

Prose, the rhythm of it, 66—88.

Psellus (Michael), his versus poli-
tici, 115.

φθόγγος, the meaning of it, 9.

Quantity, on what founded, 4. how
necessary, 6. the different degrees of
long and longer, short and shorter
times, 17, seq. the authority of quan-
tity, on what founded, 26, seq. alone,
not a sufficient foundation of much har-
mony, 28. ancient quantity not ob-
served by the enemies of accents, 191,
seq:

Quinctilian, on the want of aspira-
tion among the old Latins, 52. on the
tone-pipe of Gracchus, 182. on the
Roman and Greek accent, 151.

Rhodiginus, Czel. his account of the
formation and duration of sounds, 9.

Rhythm more complex, than metre,
36. may be bad, where metre is good,
ibid. but not in English, 37. the reason
of this, 38.

Ρυθμός, poetical, Scaliger’s «ἀδδημ
of it, ibid. its enlarged sense, 205.

Roman language, derived from the
fiolic, 44, seq. whether it has a duak
number, 45. Romans unwilling to ac-
knowledge the Greek origin of their
language, 57. did not use accentual
marks, 59. the sameness and uniformity
ofthe Roman accent, 151. its difference
from the Greek, 152, seq. the supposed
majesty of it, 153.

Rules, relating to language, follow-
ing it, not directing it, 26.

Rutgersius gives a ridiculous de-
scription of some strolling Greeks, 120.

INDEX,

5, Roman consonant, sometimes sub-
stituted for the Greek aspirate, 54.

Scaliger (Jul.) his division of the
modes of sound, 10. on the long penul-
timates of genitives of pronouns, 91.
on the name of grave and acute, 41. on
the sound of the digamma, 69. on the
arsis and thesis, 81. on the Roman ac-
cent, 156, on the arbitrary form of lan-
guage, 169. remarks on his manner of
considering the old tones, 189.

Salmasius, his remark on monosylla-
bles, 56. on the affinity between the
Roman B and consonant V, 71. his ac-
count of the acute tone, 148.

Sarpedonius follows the errors of
15. Vossius, 160.

Sense, of hearing as well as seeing,
corrected by judgment, 194.

Scioppius Gasp. his remark on mo-
dern pronunciation, 195.

Scols, in their pronunciation sepa-
rate the acute tone from the long time,
25. an account of their pronunciation,
38.

Scholiast, on Hephzstion, his re-
mark on the different degrees of long
quantity, 17. his mistake concerning
the power of the acute, 141.

Schol. on Euripides, concerning the
old Greek orthography, 21.

Schol. on Theocrit. concerning the
folic accent, 46.

Schol. on Homer, concerning the
accent of ἁμαρτῇ, 109.

Sextus Empiricus, on the number of
Greek vowels, 21.

Seneca, the difference of the Greek
and Roman language characterized by
him, 153.

Sergius, his description of the di-
gamma, 38.

Servius, on the Greek settlements in
Italy, 49. on the digamma in the per-
fect tenses, 54. on words with the Greek
accent in Latin verse, 151. on the ac-
cent of some penultimates in Latin,
187.

Σιγαλόεις in Homer well explained
by Dr. Taylor, 74,

387

Sounds, on the diyision of them into
high and low, accent is founded, 3, on

their different length, quantity, 4.

Sophocles, two passages in his Gidip.
Col. corrected, 77.

Smith (Mr. Thomas), on the restora-
tion of ancient pronunciation, 196,

Spirit, aspiration, and emphasis, dis-
tinguished from accent and quantity, 9.
seq.

Sei (Hen,) his account of gra-
vity and acuteness of sound, 5. on the
Greek marks of accent, 180.

Stephanus (de Urbibus) on the Aio-
lic accent, 46.

Taylor (Dr.) on the different pow-
ers of vowels, 20. on the στιγμαὶ of
Herodian’s Catholic prosody, from the
Anthologia, 95. on the accentuated
Herculaneum inseription, 210, seq.

Terentianus (Maurus) on an, inilial
§ joined with another consonant, 23.
on the minor Ionic measure in Horace,
32. on the digamma, 51. 68. on the
miurus verse in Gr. and Lat. 141. on
the accent of Σωκράτην, 144. on the
metrical arsis and thesis, 163.

Teivw, the prosodical sense of it and
its derivatives, 80, 81.

Τόπος, the meaning of the word when
applied to the voice, 14.

Triclinius (Demetrius) his obserya-
tion on the marks of accent, 110.

Trochee foot, the use and force of
it in English verse, 30.

Trypho, on the accent of certain
words, 108.

Tzetzes, his remark on the aspira-
tion of the Attics, 39.

Tzetzes (John), his versus Politici
and their metre, 112, seg. his know-
ledge of true quantity, 114,

Tyrannio, his treatise on the Roman
language, with what view wrilten, 58.

V, the Roman letter, the use and
power of it, 65, seq, like the Greek οὐ,
Kaglish 00 and w, French ou, 69.

388

Ulpian, his remark on the artful
raistake of Demos. in pronouncing the
word μισθωτός, 91.

Vanderhardt (Herman), his treatise,
and opinion concerning the Greek ac-
centual marks, 13.

Varro, on the quantity of the first
syllable in pluit, luit, 54. unwilling to
accept a Greek etymology, 57. on the
want of analogy in language, 170.

Verses found often in prose, 86.

Verwey adopts the errors of Is.
Vossius, 161.

Victorinus, on the quantity of in
compounded, 18.

Victorinus (Marius) on the subdi-
vision of times, 22. on the metrical
arsis and thesis, 163.

Victorius (Peter) on the traces of
Greek in the Tuscan language, 48. on
the particular sense of θοὸς in Homer,
146.

Virgil, his propriety in translating
Homer's βαρυστενάχων, 5. his prejudice
in favour of the Latin origination of
his own language, 57. a conjectural

ee
Printed by J. F. DOVE, St. John’s

INDEX.

*
emendation of a passage in Aun. v. 76.
his sense of uda vox, 185.

Vossius (Isaac) what ages of Gre-
cism he allows to be pure, 46. his hy-
pothesis concerning the Greek accents
erroneous, 149, seq.

Vossius (Gerard) on the misapplica-
tion of acventual marks in some Latin
inscriptions, 61.

Vowels, doubtful ones, their nature
and different powers, 20, seq. Roman
long ones formerly expressed by two
characters, ibid. long, though coming
immediately before other vowels, 24.
short before more than one or two con-
Sonants, ibid. 28. a greater number
of them make a language more harmo-
nious, 28. .

Vulgar pronunciation, in what the
corruption of it chiefly consists, 47,

Welch, an account of their pronun-
ciation, 39.

Women, Greek and Roman, retain
best the purity of their language, 116.

Square.

4
ΚΝ

=
ΩΝ, :

gAELIBRARYO
3

OS:ANCEL
CSAAINNIS

sy
S
Ξ
%G

aQE-LIBRARY.O¢
a

35 3
Ὥμοιην

Ξ
Εξ
Ξ
ΞΘ
S

aXELIBRARY Qc
ΟΝ ΩΣ

τ
Ξ
ΓΞ

ΔΕΙΒΒΑΒΥΟς
3 By

OF-CALIFO

<AEUNIVERS/7

Ἢ
ΞΘ
—

iS
=
=
pee
Senawysoi

SHEUNIVERS

S{IEUNIVERS/p,

-S 2,
ahs
5. DJs

ops LOS ANGEL
ΚΤ ΕΟ

RS
=
=
o

es ΕΞ
=
ae

WyOs)-4JOY

LOS‘ANGELES:

(

OF CAUIFORY
λιν Π3

a
ΞΕ
Θ᾿ Θ

Ὶ
=
=
&

OF-CALIFORy,
“SOANVHAN-I

AELIBRARY.Oe

CUSMIAINIS

Ἔ
Ξ
S

ἕ

ΔΕ ΒΒΑΠΥΟς
ἤμρ ιν

LIBRARY.Qe

etna

<NEUNIVERS/py
oO

ἕ

Zomonysor% :

sHEUNIVERS,
ἡεροίλμεις =

S
4

LIBRARY Qe

δὲ

ῷ ay

Ε
Ξ Ξ
ΠΝ ΦΟΝΝ

SMEUNIVERS/p>
Θ

πὰ

anyon

AMWAY

SME UNIVERS

ye
2
oe
=
3
Ss

AVEUNIVERS/7,

a
2

e
3
᾿

/SUIAINN:
pcos ὦ

OF CALIFO

OF CALIFORY,
aii

AQELIBRARYO¢

LOS-ANCELE

eIIDDADV A.

we
%

VAOINY)-30

-- a DO
ὙΠ ΦΟΙΝ “Grant

SVEUNIVE

ΟΣ

5
Ξ
=
%

st {ibKARTC

εἰ
2:

ke ORY,

aA
ΕΞ
ἽΠ

ε at “UNIVERSY,

gore
ΕΞ

“YOAWNATES

2
Ξ
9

GFCALIFORY
Ὀλανμαπϑὰ

a
Ξ
=
ue
2

ARE LIBRARY.

Seite

11403 M¥}-30"

LOS:ANGELES. »

OF-CALIFORy,
ONAN AY

E-LIBRARY Qe

NIVER,
agit WP

=
ε

“em quia

| cute... 4A

SRIEUNIVERS/>

$
|
=
%

ENS

“snow oe

ine

Zen SOY

SOS GEL

SE ee

spit en

SENOS
LOS ANG

aX OF CAL FO)

OF CAL Ὡς

ἥν

tit “UNIVERS,,
ΜΔ]:

Wonivuan γὰν

gpl: ANGELES:

"SOA HANT: we

OF: CALIFOR4,

TUSHIAINN: >
ae eae

ἥν,

λιν ΠΝ

ΩΝ. >

<QELUBRARY.

ELES,

MUL UBHAN TOS

Ε Ξ
Ξ Ξ
͵ Ξ

“ye
<=
Ξ
°

EUIBRARYQ
2
ρον

st
Ξ
Ξ
Ξ

AQEUBRARY Os

USANA

rgpeciom

“Maoaivd: 40
ὃ i

=n
Oe
>
ἘΞ
ἘΞ
=o
τὰ

Len ‘Sor

ἫΝ

ZOMVUAMT: A

git οὐρου

ἐὰν:
7,011}.

ἘΠῚ
ΠΤ
ΤΗΝ

i
Sie

Internet Archive Audio

Featured

Top

Images

Featured

Top

Software

Featured

Top

Books

Featured

Top

Video

Featured

Top

Mobile Apps

Browser Extensions

Archive-It Subscription

Save Page Now

See other formats