' oiJ LATIN Pronunciation. 469 



because it is not universally applicable. The practice of those who 

 advocate the theory is the most effective argument against it. How, 

 for example, would they pronounce such words as these : — spei, rgi, 

 fieri, vis, fis, sis, die, hiemis, Iliadis, Hamadryades, liigeo, luoeo, 

 stupeo, rtibeo, fiierat, cSemo, coalesco? Moreover, how do they pro- 

 pose to distinguish words of doubtful or variable quantity, e.g. Cyclopes 

 and Cyclopes ; prSpago and prapagine ; movet and movit; fugit and 

 fugit J hie amor, hoc studium, etc., and Omnia vincit amor, et . . . . 

 Until they are able to adapt their rules to every case which may arise 

 in the language of a people so ardently attached to rhythm and so 

 morbidly sensitive of false elocution as the Romans, they can lay no 

 claim to the possession of a perfect system. 



In conclusion let me briefly state the positions I have attempted to 

 establish : — 



(X) That the quantity cannot now be expressed with any approach 

 to accuracy in modern speech, and that if discerned at all, 

 it can only be by inference from the other elements. 



(2) That conclusions drawn from accent can only be valid when 



applied to the penultimate of words of more than two 

 syllables. In all other cases the quantity must remain 

 wholly indeterminate so far as pronunciation is concerned. 



(3) That in attempting to construct a system of pronunciation 



adapted to our wants, the scanty knowledge we possess 



only warrants us to require (a) that the acute accent shall 



be expressed in accordance with the law as laid down by 



the Grammarians, and {U) that one of the two sets of 



sounds previously suggested shall be fixed as the uniform 



standard of enunciation wherever the Latin language is 



read or spoken. 



The practical results of these desultory observations may appear to 



be of little value; but when we consider the dogmatic positiveness 



with which untenable views upon this subject have been asserted, it 



will not appear an idle work to sweep away the rubbish even at the cost 



of exposing the poverty of the knowledge we possess. In a department 



where it is now impossible to extend the limits of the information at 



our command, it is no small task to distinguish certainty from fanciful 



invention. The chaff may add to the mass, but it is only the wheat 



which can be sifted with profit, and treasured, be it much or little, in 



the garner of the world. 



