<GetPassage xmlns:tei="http://www.tei-c.org/ns/1.0" xmlns="http://chs.harvard.edu/xmlns/cts">
            <request>
                <requestName>GetPassage</requestName>
                <requestUrn>urn:cts:latinLit:phi1002.phi001.perseus-eng2:1.5.7-1.5.26</requestUrn>
            </request>
            <reply>
                <urn>urn:cts:latinLit:phi1002.phi001.perseus-eng2:1.5.7-1.5.26</urn>
                <passage>
                    <TEI xmlns="http://www.tei-c.org/ns/1.0"><text xml:lang="eng"><body><div n="urn:cts:latinLit:phi1002.phi001.perseus-eng2" type="translation" xml:lang="eng"><div n="1" type="textpart" subtype="book"><div n="5" type="textpart" subtype="chapter"><div n="7" type="textpart" subtype="section"><p> 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 <pb n="v1-3 p.83"/> 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 <hi rend="italic">barbarism.</hi>
                     </p></div><div n="8" type="textpart" subtype="section"><p> 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 <hi rend="italic">cantus,</hi>
                        <note anchored="true" place="unspecified"> Pers. v. 71.
                                Usually, though wrongly, spelt <hi rend="italic">oanthus.</hi>
                        </note> though Persius uses it as established in the
                            Latin language; Catullus picked up <hi rend="italic">ploxenum</hi>
                        <note anchored="true" place="unspecified">Cat. xcvii. 6.</note> (a box) in
                            the valley of the Po, while the author of the <hi rend="italic">in
                                Pollionem,</hi> be he Labienus or Cornelius Gallus, imported <hi rend="italic">casamo</hi> from Gaul in the sense of
                                <quote>follower.</quote> As for <hi rend="italic">mastruca,</hi>
                        <note anchored="true" place="unspecified"> In <hi rend="italic">Or. pro Scauro.</hi>
                        </note> which is Sardinian for
                            a <quote>rough coat,</quote> it is introduced by Cicero merely as an
                            object of derision. </p></div><div n="9" type="textpart" subtype="section"><p> 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. </p></div><div n="10" type="textpart" subtype="section"><p> 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. </p></div><div n="11" type="textpart" subtype="section"><p> Some teachers however, to display their learning, are in the habit of
                            picking out examples of <hi rend="italic">barbarism</hi> 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. </p></div><div n="12" type="textpart" subtype="section"><p> For Tinga of Placentia, if we may believe Hortensius who takes him to
                            task for it, committed two <hi rend="italic">barbarisms</hi> in one word
                            by saying <hi rend="italic">precula</hi> for <hi rend="italic">pergula:</hi> that is to say he substituted c for <hi rend="italic">g,</hi> and transposed <hi rend="italic">r</hi> and e. On the other
                            hand <pb n="v1-3 p.85"/> when Ennius writes <hi rend="italic">Mettocoque
                                Fufetioeo,</hi>
                        <note anchored="true" place="unspecified"> The
                                barbarism lies in the use of the old Greek terminationoeo in the
                                genitive. </note> where the <hi rend="italic">barbarism</hi> is
                            twice repeated, he is defended on the plea of poetic licence. </p></div><div n="13" type="textpart" subtype="section"><p> Substitution is however sometimes admitted even in prose, as for
                            instance when Cicero speaks of the army of <hi rend="italic">Canopus
                                which</hi> is locally styled <hi rend="italic">Canobus,</hi> while
                            the number of authors who have been guilty of transposition in writing
                                <hi rend="italic">Trasumennus</hi> for <hi rend="italic">Tarsumennus</hi> has succeeded in standardising the error. Similar
                            instances may be quoted. If <hi rend="italic">adsentior</hi> be regarded
                            as the correct form, we must remember that Sisenna said <hi rend="italic">adsentio,</hi> and that many have followed him on the
                            ground of analogy: on the other hand, if <hi rend="italic">adsentio</hi>
                            is the correct form, we must remember that <hi rend="italic">adsentior</hi> has the support of current usage. </p></div><div n="14" type="textpart" subtype="section"><p> 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. </p></div><div n="15" type="textpart" subtype="section"><p> For instance <hi rend="italic">dua</hi> and <hi rend="italic">tre</hi>
                            are <hi rend="italic">barbarisms</hi> and differ in gender, but the
                            words <hi rend="italic">duapondo</hi> and <hi rend="italic">trepondo</hi>
                        <note anchored="true" place="unspecified">Two and
                                three pounds in weight.</note> have persisted in common parlance
                            down to our own day, and Messala shows that the practice is correct.
                        </p></div><div n="16" type="textpart" subtype="section"><p> It may perhaps seem absurd to say that a <hi rend="italic">barbarism,</hi> which is an error in a single word, may be made,
                            like a <hi rend="italic">solecism,</hi> by errors in connexion with
                            number or gender. But take on the one hand <hi rend="italic">scala</hi>
                            (stairs) and <hi rend="italic">scopa</hi> (which literally means a twig,
                            but is used in the sense of broom) and on the other hand <hi rend="italic">hordea</hi> (barley) and <hi rend="italic">mulsa</hi>
                            (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, <pb n="v1-3 p.87"/> in the latter of plural for singular.
                            Those on the other hand who have used the word <hi rend="italic">gladia</hi> are guilty of a mistake in gender. </p></div><div n="17" type="textpart" subtype="section"><p> 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 <hi rend="italic">Europai</hi> and <hi rend="italic">Asiai</hi>
                        <note anchored="true" place="unspecified">The archaic
                                genitive as used by epic poets.</note> ; or when the opposite fault
                            occurs, called <hi rend="italic">synaeresis</hi> or <hi rend="italic">synaloephe</hi> by the Greeks and <hi rend="italic">complexio</hi>
                            by ourselves: as an example I may quote the line of Publius Varro:
                                <quote rend="blockquote"><l part="N"> turn te flagranti deiectum
                                    fulmine Plaethon. <note anchored="true" place="unspecified"><hi rend="italic"> Ph <hi rend="overline">oe</hi> thon </hi>
                                        for <hi rend="italic">Phaëthon.</hi>
                              </note>
                           </l></quote>
                     </p></div><div n="18" type="textpart" subtype="section"><p> 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 <hi rend="italic">Italiam fato
                                profugus,</hi>
                        <note anchored="true" place="unspecified"><hi rend="italic">Aen.</hi> i. 6. </note> or the shortening of a
                            long such as <hi rend="italic">unĭius ob noxam et furias;</hi>
                        <note anchored="true" place="unspecified"><hi rend="italic">Aen.</hi> i.
                                45. </note> but in poetry we cannot label these as actual faults.
                        </p></div><div n="19" type="textpart" subtype="section"><p> 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 <hi rend="italic">h</hi> is a
                            letter or merely a breathing, practice having frequently varied in
                            different ages. </p></div><div n="20" type="textpart" subtype="section"><p> Older authors used it but rarely even before vowels, saying <hi rend="italic">aedus</hi> or <hi rend="italic">ircus,</hi> while its
                            conjunction with consonants was for a long time avoided, as in words
                            such as <pb n="v1-3 p.89"/>
                        <hi rend="italic">Graccus</hi> or <hi rend="italic">triumpus.</hi> Then for a short time it broke out into
                            excessive use, witness such spelling as <hi rend="italic">chorona,
                                chenturia or</hi>
                        <hi rend="italic">praecho,</hi> which may still be
                            read in certain inscriptions: the well-known epigram of Catullus <note anchored="true" place="unspecified">Cat. Ixxxi.</note> will be
                            remembered in this connexion. </p></div><div n="21" type="textpart" subtype="section"><p> The spellings vehementer, comprehendere and mihi have lasted to our own
                            day: and among early writers, especially of tragedy, we actually find
                                <hi rend="italic">mehe</hi> for <hi rend="italic">me</hi> in the
                            older MSS. </p></div><div n="22" type="textpart" subtype="section"><p> It is still more difficult to detect errors of <hi rend="italic">tenor</hi> or tone (I note that old writers spell the word <hi rend="italic">tonor,</hi> as derived from the Greek <foreign xml:lang="grc">τόνος</foreign> ), or of accent, styled prosody by
                            the Greeks, such as the substitution of the acute accent for the grave
                            or the grave for the acute: such an example would be the placing of the
                            acute accent on the first syllable of <hi rend="italic">Camillus,</hi>
                     </p></div><div n="23" type="textpart" subtype="section"><p> or the substitution of the grave for the circumflex in <hi rend="italic">Cethegus,</hi> an error which results in the alteration of the
                            quantity of the middle syllable, since it means making the first
                            syllable acute; or again the substitution of the circumflex for the
                            grave on the second syllable of <hi rend="italic">Appi,</hi> where the
                            contraction of two syllables into one circumflexed syllable involves a
                            double error. </p></div><div n="24" type="textpart" subtype="section"><p> This, however, occurs far more frequently in Greek words such as <hi rend="italic">Atrei,</hi> which in our young days was pronounced by
                            the most learned of our elders with an acute accent on the first
                            syllable, necessitating a grave accent on the second; the same remark
                            applies to <hi rend="italic">Nerei</hi> and <hi rend="italic">Terei.</hi> Such has been the tradition as regards accents. <note anchored="true" place="unspecified"> The Roman accent was a stress,
                                while the Greek was a pitch accent, though by the Christian era
                                tending to change into stress. Roman grammarians borrow the Greek
                                terminology and speak of accents in terms of pitch. The explanation
                                of this is probably that the Roman stress accent was accompanied by
                                an elevation of the pitch. Here the acute accent certainly implies
                                stress; the grave implies a drop in pitch and the absence of stress.
                                The circumflex means that the voice rises slightly and then falls
                                slightly, but implies stress. See Lindsay, <hi rend="italic">Latin
                                    Language,</hi> pp. 148–153. </note>
                        <pb n="v1-3 p.91"/>
                     </p></div><div n="25" type="textpart" subtype="section"><p> Still I am well aware that certain learned men and some professed
                            teachers of literature, to ensure that certain words may be kept
                            distinct, sometimes place an acute accent on the last syllable, both
                            when they are teaching and in ordinary speech: as, for instance, in the
                            following passage: <quote rend="blockquote"><cit><quote><l part="N">quae circus litora, circum piscosos
                                            scopulos,</l></quote><bibl default="false">Aen. iv. 254.</bibl></cit></quote>
                     </p></div><div n="26" type="textpart" subtype="section"><p> where they make the last syllable of <hi rend="italic">circum</hi> acute
                            on the ground that, if that syllable were given the grave accent, it
                            might be thought that they meant <hi rend="italic">circus</hi> not <hi rend="italic">circuitus.</hi>
                        <note anchored="true" place="unspecified"><hi rend="italic">i.e.</hi> that <hi rend="italic">circum</hi> is the ace. of <hi rend="italic">circus,</hi> and not the adverb indicating circuit. </note>
                            Similarly when <hi rend="italic">quale</hi> is interrogative, they give
                            the final syllable a grave accent, but when using it in a comparison,
                            make it acute. This practice, however, they restrict almost entirely to
                            adverbs and pronouns; in other cases they follow the old usage. </p></div></div></div></div></body></text></TEI>
                </passage>
            </reply>
            </GetPassage>