« НазадПродовжити »
does the acute make long the first syllables of tácet, of áger, and of pecudes ? We cannot apply to the Greek a passage which, though unquestionably correct, is correct only as applied to Latin, and even there only to trisyllables. The middle syllable of volūcris is grave, and if the necessity of metre require you to make it long, you must change the accent as well as the quantity, and read it with an acute. But why? Not because a long syllable and an accented syllable are the same either in Greek or in Latin, but because in the latter language the accent of a word of three syllables depends upon the quantity of its penultimate.“ Media brevis gravem habebit sonum.” The same explanation applies to two passages which Primatt cites from Aulus Gellius :
“Valerius Probus Grammaticus: is Hannibâlem et Hasdrubalem et Hamilcârem ita pronun. tiabat, ut penultimam circumflecteret.” (iv. 7.)
“ Annianus poeta: is affatim ut admodum, prima acuta, non media, pronuntiabat.” (vii. 7.)*
I have dwelt longer upon the difference between Greek and Latin accent, because I am persuaded that an assumption of their general identity is the fallacy which causes most of my countrymen to reject the pronunciation by the marks. This fallacy is at once detected by asking ourselves two questions: first, why do I lay the accent on the first of dómus ? The answer points out to us that a short syllable is not of necessity grave, and therefore a long syllable is not of necessity acute. Having gained this step, we come to the second question, why do I lay the accent on the second of tyrannus ? Not from necessity, but because Quinctilian tells me, “media longa acuta,” which is an arbitrary rule, true in Latin, and false in Greek.
PRINCIPLES OF QUANTITY. 4. I think I have answered the only two objections which can be made to the reading apayo Marw according to its mark. A short syllable is not, simply as such, necessarily grave: neither is the middle syllable of a paquátwv to be modulated by the same rule as the middle one of maximos.
Still however I can imagine that my readers may not be entirely convinced. Their understandings may not be able to refuse assent to any of the propositions which have formed links in the chain of reasoning; and yet their ears may remain unsatisfied till they shall have heard Greek verse recited in such a manner as to reconcile accent with quantity, so that apaquátwn may sound at the same time as a paroxytone and as a Cretic. Now this is a very difficult thing to accomplish. Though the Greek of the present day reads Xenophon and Plato in a way to do justice to the sweet variety of the accent, he has lost the art of reciting Homer and Euripides, with the metrical rhythm which is neces. sary to mark the proportion between long and short syllables. All we can learn on that subject is from the writings of the ancients, which, as might have been expected in a subject so nearly connected with music, leave us sorely in want of a living teacher to enforce and explain what we read. And in truth, on this subject, grammar without music, can do little more than
Teach us to moum our errors, not to mend;
A sharp accuser, but a helpless friend. Nevertheless I think enough remains for the purpose which I have in view. I think, though I cannot myself recite Greek poetry as the ancients did, that it may not be impossible for the Greeks of the present day to revive the rhythm of their ancestors : but supposing this out of the question, we have enough in the ancient authors to give us some idea of their mode of recitation, and to show us, if not what it was, at least what it was not, and that there is no pretence for vio- . lating their accents, under the pretence of preserving their quantity.
I shall with this view, and this only, bazard some observations, perhaps I should rather say guesses, on the principles on which the Greeks fixed the quantity of their language, and the manner in which they expressed it.
And first, as to the principles on which they fixed the quantity. That they must have observed it in prose, is clear from the nature of the thing, and from express authority. From the first origin of the language, ävOpač must bave taken more time to pronounce than émé : à ve paž
must therefore have been essentially long as compared with èuè, and that word short as compared with ăv@pat, before any poet made use of either; and so they must necessarily continue as long as the language endures : so that when a Greek says άνθραξ εμέ φλέγει, he cannot help giving the first two words the proper relative quantity: it is true that he night dwell as long on éuè as on av paš, but this would produce so drawling and unusual a sound, as would be ridiculous, if not unintelligible.
Besides, as the accent of words above two syllables depends on the quantity of the last syllable, it is obvious that the quantity of the last syllable must have been so sensible to the ear in common discourse as to afford a guide for the accen. tuation of the preceding syllables.
We shall see further express authorities that time, that is quantity, was observed in prose.
The principles which regulated quantity seem to have resulted partly from necessity and partly from arbitrary rule. And first, of those fixed by necessity.
Every vowel must take up a certain time to be intelligibly pronounced; but that time will be increased if we combine it with a consonant, which must of course be also pronounced ; if there be two consonants the time must be longer to give effect to each, and besides, the number of consonants being the same, some will take more time to sound than others. For instance,
the first syllable of anonic takes a certain time to proncunce ; as little perhaps as any in the lan. guage. Let the number (1) represent the time we take to pronounce it. It would require a longer time (2) to pronounce the first syllable of annonc, because here we must give effect to the A as well as the A, before we can pass on to the next syllable. A longer time (3) would be re. quired for ayauoc, because the r is more difficult to pronounce than the liquid A ; a longer (4) for a Opavoog, and so (5) for aypoc, (6) for axcog, and (7) for ävo pwrog. Now the time which each of these words takes in the pronunciation results not from any arbitrary rule, but from the nature of things, it being impossible for our organs of speech to produce two or three sounds in as short a time. as one : “ Longa erit syllaba, quando post vocalem vel diphthongum sequuntur duæ vel plures consonæ, quæ in sui pronuntiatione diversos oris motus requirunt, vel, ut medicus medice loquar, diversorum in ore musculorum actionem, unde necessario duo aut plura momenta insumi debent ad consonas pronuntiandas diversim.” (Henninius, s. 84.)
Thus the first syllable of avopu noc is by necessity longer than the first of annonc, because the A in ůvo pwtroc, by being placed before three consonants, must take more time to pronounce than the other A, which is placed before the single 1; or, to adopt the usual phrase of grammarians, the A in ăvopwπος is longer by position than the A in αληθής.