Style has three kinds of excellence, correctness, lucidity and elegance (for many include the all-important quality of appropriateness under the heading of elegance). Its faults are likewise threefold, namely the opposites of these excellences. The teacher of literature therefore must study the rules for correctness of speech, these constituting the first part of his art.

The observance of these rules is concerned with either one or more words. I must now be understood to use verbum in its most general sense. It has of course two meanings; the one covers all the parts of which language is composed, as in the line of Horace: Once supply the thought,And words will follow swift as soon as soughtArs Poetica, 311. the other restricts it to a part of speech such as lego and scribo. To avoid this ambiguity, some authorities prefer the terms voces, locutiones, dictiones.

Individual words will either be native or imported, simple or compound, literal or metaphorical, in current use or newly-coined. A single word is more likely to be faulty than to possess any intrinsic merit. For though we may speak of a word as appropriate, distinguished or sublime, it can possess none of these properties save in relation to connected and consecutive speech; since when we praise words, we do so because they suit the matter.

There is only one excellence that can be isolated for consideration, namely euphony, the Greek term for our uocalitas: that is to say that, when we are confronted with making a choice between two exact synonyms, we must select that which sounds best.

In the first place barbarisms and solecisms must not be allowed to intrude their offensive presence. These blemishes are however pardoned at times, because we have become accustomed to them or because they have age or authority in their favour or are near akin to positive excellences, since it is often difficult to distinguish such blemishes from figures of speech.1 The teacher therefore, that such slippery customers may not elude detection, must seek to acquire a delicate discrimination; but of this I will speak later when I come to discuss figures of speech. cp. § 40.

For the present I will define barbarism as an offence occurring in connexion with single words. Some of my readers may object that such a topic is beneath the dignity of so ambitious a work. But who does not know that some barbarisms occur in writing, others in speaking? For although what is incorrect in writing will also be incorrect in speech, the converse is not necessarily true, inasmuch as mistakes in writing are caused by addition or omission, substitution or transposition, while mistakes in speaking are due to separation or combination of syllables, to aspiration or other errors of sound.

Trivial as these points may seem, our boys are still at school and I am reminding their instructors of their duty. And if one of our teachers is lacking in education and has done no more than set foot in the outer courts of his art, he will have to confine himself to the rules published in the elementary text-books: the more learned teacher on the other hand will be in a position to go much further: first of all, for example, he will point out that there are many different kinds of barbarism.

One kind is due to race, such as the insertion of a Spanish or African term; for instance the iron tire of a wheel is called cantus, Pers. v. 71. Usually, though wrongly, spelt oanthus. though Persius uses it as established in the Latin language; Catullus picked up ploxenum Cat. xcvii. 6. (a box) in the valley of the Po, while the author of the in Pollionem, be he Labienus or Cornelius Gallus, imported casamo from Gaul in the sense of follower. As for mastruca, In Or. pro Scauro. which is Sardinian for a rough coat, it is introduced by Cicero merely as an object of derision.

Another kind of barbarism proceeds from the speaker's temper: for instance, we regard it as barbarous if a speaker use cruel or brutal language.

A third and very common kind, of which anyone may fashion examples for himself, consists in the addition or omission of a letter or syllable, or in the substitution of one for another or in placing one where it has no right to be.

Some teachers however, to display their learning, are in the habit of picking out examples of barbarism from the poets and attacking the authors whom they are expounding for using such words. A boy should however realize that in poets such peculiarities are pardonable or even praiseworthy, and should therefore be taught less common instances.

For Tinga of Placentia, if we may believe Hortensius who takes him to task for it, committed two barbarisms in one word by saying precula for pergula: that is to say he substituted c for g, and transposed r and e. On the other hand when Ennius writes Mettocoque Fufetioeo, The barbarism lies in the use of the old Greek terminationoeo in the genitive. where the barbarism is twice repeated, he is defended on the plea of poetic licence.

Substitution is however sometimes admitted even in prose, as for instance when Cicero speaks of the army of Canopus which is locally styled Canobus, while the number of authors who have been guilty of transposition in writing Trasumennus for Tarsumennus has succeeded in standardising the error. Similar instances may be quoted. If adsentior be regarded as the correct form, we must remember that Sisenna said adsentio, and that many have followed him on the ground of analogy: on the other hand, if adsentio is the correct form, we must remember that adsentior has the support of current usage.

And yet our fat fool, the fashionable schoolmaster, will regard one of these forms as an example of omission or the other as an instance of addition. Again there are words which when used separately are undoubtedly incorrect, but when used in conjunction excite no unfavourable comment.

For instance dua and tre are barbarisms and differ in gender, but the words duapondo and trepondo Two and three pounds in weight. have persisted in common parlance down to our own day, and Messala shows that the practice is correct.

It may perhaps seem absurd to say that a barbarism, which is an error in a single word, may be made, like a solecism, by errors in connexion with number or gender. But take on the one hand scala (stairs) and scopa (which literally means a twig, but is used in the sense of broom) and on the other hand hordea (barley) and mulsa (mead): here we have substitution, omission and addition of letters, but the blemish consists in the former case merely in the use of singular for plural, in the latter of plural for singular. Those on the other hand who have used the word gladia are guilty of a mistake in gender.

I merely mention these as instances: I do not wish anyone to think that I have added a fresh problem to a subject into which the obstinacy of pedants has already introduced confusion. The faults which arise in the course of actual speaking require greater penetration on the part of the critic, since it is impossible to cite examples from writing, except in cases where they occur in poetry, as when the diphthong is divided into two syllables in Europai and Asiai The archaic genitive as used by epic poets. ; or when the opposite fault occurs, called synaeresis or synaloephe by the Greeks and complexio by ourselves: as an example I may quote the line of Publius Varro: turn te flagranti deiectum fulmine Plaethon. Ph oe thon for Phaëthon.

If this were prose, it would be possible to give the letters their true syllabic value. I may mention as further anomalies peculiar to poetry the lengthening of a short syllable as in Italiam fato profugus, Aen. i. 6. or the shortening of a long such as unĭius ob noxam et furias; Aen. i. 45. but in poetry we cannot label these as actual faults.

Errors in sound on the other hand can be detected by the ear alone; although in Latin, as regards the addition or omission of the aspirate, the question may be raised whether this is an error when it occurs in writing; for there is some doubt whether h is a letter or merely a breathing, practice having frequently varied in different ages.

Older authors used it but rarely even before vowels, saying aedus or ircus, while its conjunction with consonants was for a long time avoided, as in words such as Graccus or triumpus. Then for a short time it broke out into excessive use, witness such spelling as chorona, chenturia or praecho, which may still be read in certain inscriptions: the well-known epigram of Catullus Cat. Ixxxi. will be remembered in this connexion.