Buck C. D. - Notes on Latin Ortography (Cl. Rev., 1899)

7/28/2019 Buck C. D. - Notes on Latin Ortography (Cl. Rev., 1899)

1/5

Notes on Latin Orthography

Author(s): Carl Darling BuckReviewed work(s):Source: The Classical Review, Vol. 13, No. 2 (Mar., 1899), pp. 116-119Published by: Cambridge University Press on behalf of The Classical AssociationStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/695409 .

Accessed: 18/07/2012 11:22

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms

of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

Cambridge University Press and The Classical Association are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve

and extend access to The Classical Review.

http://www.jstor.org
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=cuphttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=classicalhttp://www.jstor.org/stable/695409?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/695409?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=classicalhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=cup


2/5

116 THE CLASSICAL REVIEW.in the last number of this Review. They donot affect the age or authority of the Vul-gate, nor do they support the influence ofthe Alexandrians.

The minuscule family which I have calledh, represented to Dr. Leaf by the earlierdesignation' L Lips.,' is remarkable for theproportion of Alexandrian readings which itcontains. Dr. Leaf (1. c. p. 201) estimatedit in these figures :C [=f] 7, D [=o] 28, G [perh. =e] 25,H [=i] 27,SCant. [=g]34,LLips [=h]91.In my calculation these figures sink toe=3, f=4, g=2, i=6, h=F49.

Though the totals are smaller, the propor-portion is still further in favour of h.I must confess that I can see no certainor even probable explanation of this singularposition. Dr. Leaf (1. c. p. 204) appears tothink that h is descended from an Alexan-drian or prae-Alexandrian copy; an equallyobvious suggestion is that h represents adeliberate recension. The difficulties in theway of one or both of these views are : (1) if his a real descendant of an ancient MS., there

is no trace of it during all the centuriesbetween the date of this MS. and the thir-teenth century, and this, though papyri arebeing daily published of every century fromthe third B.c. to the sixth A.D.; (2) again,as against both descent and recension is tobe set the imperfection of the Alexandriancharacter of the family. There are 133Aristarchean readings as yet found in noMS., 82 found sporadically in single MSS.,or one or two MSS., 12 contained by theother families. This gives a total of 227Alexandrian or Aristarchean lections whichdo not appear in h.The question requires detailed examina-tion. The facts just mentioned make itseem probable that h differs from the otherfamilies only in degree, and that the sameprocess which accounts for the presence ofAlexandrian readings in the majority ofMSS. also produced h. However this maybe, the family h is the most interestingfeature of the mediaeval Homeric tradition,and the most striking result of recent colla-tion. T. W. ALLEN.

NOTES ON LATIN ORTHOGRAPHY.AT the meeting of the American Philo-logical Association in 1895 the followingresolutions were passed:' Whereas, American" school editions ofLatin authors exhibit a remarkable

inconsistency in Latin orthography, chieflydue to negligence, often, also, to ignoranceof the proper spelling in vogue in the timeof the respective authors,Whereas, he orthography of Latin, barring,possibly, that of the archaic period, has nowbeen scientifically determined,Therefore,be it resolved, that a committeeof three members of the American Philo-logical Association be appointed by thechair to report at its next annual meetingconcerning a uniform standard of Latinorthography for the use of school text-books.'See the Proceedings in Vol. xxvi., pp. liv. f.A committee was appointed of which thelate Professor Allen was chairman, andmade a report in the following year, ofwhich a summary appears in the Proceedingsof Vol. xxvii., pp. xxii. ff.Notwithstanding the statement in thesecond paragraph of the resolutions, thecommittee undoubtedly recognized, that, in

spite of the labours of Brambach and others,there are still some points upon whichopinions may reasonably differ; and therecommendations are made with all duecaution.As to the period whose spelling should betaken as the standard, everyone rwill agreewith the opinion of the committee, that itcannot be that of the Ciceronian period withits quoius, servos, equos, nom. pl. servei, etc.,but must be rather that of the first centuryof our era. The committee further suggeststhat the Monumentum Ancyranum maywell serve as a pattern as far as it goes.But with this preference for the firstquarter of the century one may reasonablytake issue. There seems to be no reasonfor departing from the judgment of Ritschl(Opuscula II, pp. 725 f.; followed byBrambach, Neugestaltung d. Lat. Ortho-graphie, p. 67) that Quintilian's spellingshould be good enough for us. For theAugustan period is one of transition inmatters of spelling, and it is not until laterthat a fairly uniform system becomesthoroughly established. It is true that theMonumentum Ancyranum shows for the most


3/5

THE CLASSICAL REVIEW. 117part the spellings which became theestablished ones, side by side with examplesof the older style (as clausum besideclaussum, caussa ; dat. pl.-is, but occasionally-eis; dat. sg., third decl. -i, but also plebei),-but not always (e.g. no example of miliabeside the numerous examples of millia).And in some specific cases our advocacy ofthis or that spelling will depend upon ourpoint of view in this matter of the relativeimportance of the first part of the century.

THE SPELLINGapse'sn, optineo, ETC.For example, the committee, after statingthat ' there can be little doubt that the

usage of the early first century is exemplifiedin the apsens of the Monumentum Ancy-ranum, and that the grammarians' fad(Quint. i. 7, 7) which introduced absens,obtineo,etc., against the actual pronunciation,was not known at that time,' is inclined torecommend the adoption of -ps-, -pt-, in thesecompounds. Preferable, it seems, would bethe principle that the traditional spellingneed not be reversed provided it becameestablished, or at least was in common usebefore the end of the first century. Andfollowing this principle we are justified inretaining absens (andplebswhich hadthesamehistory), obtineo, etc. For, aside from thestatement of Quintilian,1 we have the actual

evidence of inscriptions. Take the questionof ps: be in compounds. The p8 is, to besure, all but universal in inscriptions of therepublican period and remains the usualspelling throughout the Augustan period.But bs is not unknown even in the republicanand Augustan periods, and becomes morefrequent in the course of the first century.Examples are: substructionem,C..L. i. 592 =vi. 1314 (78 B.C.), ubsellarium, i. 1341 (afterCaesar), subscripta, v. 7231 (9 B.c.-a copy,but without variant), subsignata, x. 781 (4B.C.; cf. also subsignata, i. 577= x. 1781,which, however, was inscribed in imperialtimes), subsellio,xii. 6038 (Augustus), subsca-laria, vi. 5531 (1 A.D.), obsequium, Dessau212 (48 A.D.), absentis, x. 5394 (Nero),subsiciva beside subpsiciva, ix. 5420 (82 A.D.),absente, absolvere, Lex Col. Genet., Eph.Ep. ii. pp. 222 f. (written out at about theclose of the first century), and especiallysubscriptawithout exception on the 'militarydiplomas,' which extend from the time ofClaudius on. From those given in C.IL.iii. I have noted twenty-nine examples ofsubscripta which fall before the end of thefirst century, and the total number of oc-curences in the whole series of extantdiplomata must be upwards of seventy,perhaps a hundred. No example of supscribohas been noted in these or other inscriptions.We have then ample justification for theretention of the spelling absens, etc., whichgradually becomes the prevailing one, thoughthe old apsens, opservo, etc., continues to befound with considerable frequency in in-scriptions and manuscripts falling withinthe first six centuries.For the cases like plebs and obtineo I havemade no collections, but am satisfied thatthe conditions are essentially the same aswith absenrs, tc. The forms plebs, v. 7231 (71A.D.) and obtinente, Dessau, No. 105 (13/14A.D.), casually noted, are enough to show theexistence of our present spelling in the firstcentury.As for the pronunciation there is noquestion that we should give the sound p,as is clear from Quintilian's express state-ment in regard to obtineo. But in the course

1One might add the report that Varro preferredbsin the nominative of words with b in the obliquecases, quoted by Terentius Scaurus (Keil, vii. p. 27),Papirian apud Cassiodorus(K. vii. p. 159), and bymany modern writers. But if this statement is to befound in Varro'sextant works, I have not noticed it.And his words in one passage (Ling. Lat. x. 56-7)seem to show clearly that, whatever he may havepreferred, the actual spelling with which he wasfamiliar was -ps, which agrees with what we knowfrom the inscriptions of his time. For in developingthe idea that it is often better to start from the pluralform in explaining a word, he says that from trabesand duceswe see that the e is dropped, and thereforetraps and dux formedin the singular, but that fromthe singular we do not see how traps is made from band s or dux from c and s. The text is corrupt andeditors read trabs, but with this reading the point islost. The later grammarians were at odds in thismatter. Those who favoured ps in urps, etc., justi-fied their belief, characteristically enough, by statingthat such words would show 4 in Greek, and thatfor 4one should write in Latin ps not bs. So Teren-tius Scaurus, K. vii. p. 27, Marius Victorinus, K.vi. p. 21, and others. But Marius Victorinus wouldwrite bs in compounds like abstinet, obstipuit, etc.Those who favour the etymological spelling of urbs,etc., also demand labsus, scribsi, etc. And VeliusLongus, who is unable to come to a decision, is asmuch troubled about the spelling of absorpsias aboutthat of urbs (cf. K. vii. pp. 61, 64, 73-4). ButPriscian differentiates clearly, and while favouringurbs, plebs, etc. (K. ii. pp. 33, 320-1, 326), as well as

abscondo,etc. (K. ii. p. 46), teaches scripsi, lapsus,etc. (K. ii. 506-7). And in laying down this prin-ciple, which is the one we follow, Priscian was cer-tainly no innovator but the expounder of what hadlong been the best usage. For inscriptions showthat,while bshad long since become the standard spellingin prepositional compounds, and also, though perhapssomewhat less exclusively, in plebs, etc., forms likescribsi, conlabsus (cf. even ibsius), though not un-common in the aggregate, are far in the minority ascomparedwith scripsi, conlapsus, etc.


4/5

118 THE CLASSICALREVIEW.of time the spelling doubtlessreactedonthepronunciation, and in mediaeval times atleast absens and obtineo came to be actuallypronounced as ab-sens, ob-tineo.

THE SPELLING 8servs, vultus---cussecuntur ETC.There can be no question as to thetype of words represented by servus,since the spelling -vus became establishedin the Augustan period and the continuedappearance of the old spelling servos in thefirst century and even later is simplyarchaistic. There is little doubt that thechange from voltus to vultus took place atthe same time, and that the followingstatement of the committee is to be approved.' A middle course-voltus, volnus, butparvus, perpetuus-which we find pursued inseveral recent school-books, seems to have nohistorical justification.' The practice alludedto is perhaps to be explained by the factthat in the case of vultus etc. the archaisticspelling with vo is more persistent than inthe case of servus etc. Many of the earlymanuscripts, though fairly consistent in theuse of servus etc., show volt, voltis withsurprising frequency beside vult, vultis.The question of the spelling ecus, secuntur,etc., which the committee recommends, ismore complicated. Not that there is anyquestion that ecus is the only spelling of theAugustan period, barring of course the notinfrequent appearance of the older equos.Everyone agrees with Bersu that Brainm-bach was wrong in assuming that equus wasof equal age with divus, servus etc. Evendivos passed into divus through theintermediate stage of dius, as has beenshown clearly by Solmsen, Studien zur lat.Lautgeschichte, pp. 44 ff. But such formsas dius had a merely ephemeral existence,were in fact almost immediately replaced inthe cultivated speech by divus etc., with thev restored by the analogy of the obliquecases. But equus etc., with qu restoredfrom the oblique cases arose later,-justhow much later is the crucial point.Solmsen, 1.c. p. 52, remarks that, whiledivus replaced dius in the Augustan period,words like ecus regained their qu only in thefirst century. But did equus make anyserious inroads on ecus in the first century?The rise of the form equus has been carefullytraced by Bersu. The first step which thegrammarians took to do away with theseeming anomaly of ecus was to introducethe 'Accian' orthography qu in place of cu

(as in pequnia for pecunia), and so secure thesame consonant in all cases. It is to thisspelling equs, as Bersu, Die Gutturalen p.63, has shown, that the passage in Probus,Inst. Art. (K. iv. p. 108) refers. Cornutus,however (ap. Cassiodorus K. vii. 149-150,cited by Bersu p. 65), recalls an old rule thatq should be written only when followed byu and another vowel, and so advocates thespelling extinguunt, 'though it cannot bepronounced.' For he is professedly onewho, when there is a question ' whether weshould write as we hear, or as ought to bewritten,' 'would not trust always to theears.' But this was only one of thevagaries of Cornutus which probably had nodecisive influence on the practice of his time.Velius Longus (K. vi. p. 59) discusses thematter anew and decides that, while one uwould suffice to indicate the sound, the 'ratio'demands equus in order that the nominativeplural may be formed in the regular way bysubstituting -i for the -us. It is clear thatthe actual pronunciation with which thisgrammarian of Trajan's time was familiarwas ecus (equs). But the spelling equuswhich he advocated and which was adoptedby the later grammarians unquestionablyreacted on the pronunciation of cultivatedspeech, and by Priscian's time there was nolonger any recollection of a differencebetween equus and divus.It is unfortunate that words of thetype in question are of such rarity oninscriptions. Bersu quotes three examplesof equus, also Propinquus, Antiquus,Aequus. One of these, namely equus C.I.L.viii. 7986, belongs to the first centuryaccording to Mommsen's dating of theinscription, but Bersu regards this as one ofthe instances in which the precept ofCornutus was followed in disregard of theactual pronunciation. The form reliquumon an epitaph of a man who held officeunder Augustus (ix. 2845-6) would seemto be an earlier example than any cited byBersu and to seriously invalidate his wholeargument. But, unless the line in which itoccurs was added at a much later date,1the form must be regarded as an example ofthe ' Accian' spelling of the quadrisyllabicrelicuum which later became trisyllabic.On the other hand the spelling ecus (equs) isfound as late as the third century. Soequs viii. 4508 (202 A.D.) for ecus likeI The line is printed in the Corpus n smaller typethan the rest of the inscription, representing, wemay presume, an insertion. But there seems to benothing to indicate that this was anything more thanthe stone-cutter's immediate rectification of his over-sight in copying from the written text.


5/5

THE CLASSICAL REVIEW. 119pequaria of the same inscription forpecuaria ;relieum viii. 2728 (152 A.D.); ecus eph. ep.vii. no. 309, an inscription from Therestein Africa which according to viii. p. 215 didnot become a Roman Colony until about theend of the second century.Taking all the evidence together it seemswell nigh certain that ecus was the regularpronunciation throughout the first century,and highly probable that this also remainedthe usual spelling. Of the two fads of thegrammarians, equs was not in accord withthe usual system of orthography, equus notin accord with the pronunciation of thetime. And so to follow our principles

strictly we ought to write ecus. But thefact that at least the spelling equus was notunknown in the first century may seem tomany a sufficient excuse for retaining it andnot introducing in our schoolbooks a set offorms which would perhaps trouble ourstudents as much as they did the Romangrammarians. At all events it is clear thatthe necessity of reform is not so great as itwas in the case of quum which was notinvented before the fourth century, andthen had only a limited vogue, not beingrecognized by Priscian for example.CARL DARLING BUCK.University f Chicago.(To be continued.)

THE LITERARY DISCOVERIES OF POGGIO,A GREAT deal of interest has recentlybeen excited by two Madrid MSS. (X. 81,M. 31), which contain Asconius and ValeriusFlaccus, Manilius and the Silvae of Statiusrespectively. These are not written in thesame hand, but, as is shown by a list ofcontents on the first page of M. 31, wereonce bound up together in one volume.The way was led by Professor Ellis, who in1892 collated the Manilius, and in 1893published an article in Hermathena (No.xix pp. 261-286) demonstrating the valueof the MS., and gave a full collation of itin the Classical Review. Dr. Moritz Krohnof Zittau, who has for some years been occu-pied upon the Silvae of Statius, was in 1895fortunate enough to obtain for the periodof three months the loan of both MSS., aprivilege denied to English scholars. In

1896 I collated, while in Madrid, X. 81 (con-taining Asconius and Valerius Flaccus),and in the July number of the ClassicalReview published an article upon Asconius,in which I showed that the Madrid MS.,which I termed l, is itself the archetype ofall MSS. of this author belonging to thePoggian family.' I abstained from pro-nouncing as to whether it was or was notwritten by Poggio himself, because, althoughthe internal evidence pointed strongly tothis conclusion, the hand differs from thepublished specimens of his writing. I thought,however, that certain notes in the margin

were probably written by him. Shortlyafter the appearance of this article I re-ceived several letters from Dr. Krohn, inwhich he informed me that he had inde-pendently come to the same conclusion, butthat he went further than I had done andidentified the writing with that of Poggio.He arrived at this conclusion by the aid ofa Berlin MS. containing Cicero's Letters toAtticus (Berol. Hamilton 166) written byPoggio in 1408, in which the superscriptionsand marginalia are written in a hand whichdiffers from that employed for the text, andis in his opinion identical with that in whichthe text of X. 81 is written. He consideredthese two hands to represent the manusbellissima and manus velox of Poggiorespectively.I did not proceed to examine the case ofValerius Flaccus, partly because I had nodesire to further anticipate Dr. Krohn, andpartly because I was conscious of certaindifficulties. The first reason no longer ex-ists, since Dr. Krohn has given up his in-tention of editing the Silvae and handedover his materials to a successor. Quiterecently, also, Mr. Souter has published acollation of the Silvae made by himself inAugust 1898, the work being undertakenfor the managers of the Craven Fund atCambridge [Classical Review, Nov., Dec.1898].I have, therefore, gone through my col-lation of Valerius Flaccus and now proceedto set forth the results. Before, however,doing this I would briefly dismiss the oneMS. of Asconius belonging to the Poggian

I i.e. of all MSS.except Laur.plut. liv. 5, whichrepresents a copy taken by Bartolomeo de Monte-policiano, and the Pistoia MS. (Forteguerri 37)attributed by Kiessling and Schoell to Sozomenus.

Documents

Buck C. D. - Notes on Latin Ortography (Cl. Rev., 1899)