Institutio Oratoria

Having stated the rules which we must follow in speaking, I will now proceed to lay down the rules which must be observed when we write. Such rules are called orthography by the Greeks; let us style it the science of writing correctly. This science does not consist merely in the knowledge of the letters composing each syllable (such a study is beneath the dignity of a teacher of grammar), but, in my opinion, develops all its subtlety in connexion with doubtful points.

For instance, while it is absurd to place a circumflex over all long syllables since the quantity of most syllables is obvious from the very nature of the word which is written, it is all the same occasionally necessary, since the same letter involves a different meaning according as it is long or short. For example we determine whether mains is to mean an

apple tree

bad man

palus means a

stake,

marsh,

Similarly it has been held that we should observe distinctions such as the following: if the preposition ex is compounded with specto, there will be an s in the second syllable, while there will be no s if it is compounded with pecto.

Again the following distinction has frequently been observed: ad is spelt with a d when it is a preposition, but with a t when it is a conjunction, while cum is spelt quum when it denotes time, but cum when it denotes accompaniment.

Still more pedantic are the practices of making the fourth letter of quidquid a c to avoid the appearance of repeating a question, and of writing

It is often debated whether in our spelling of prepositions we should be guided by their sound when compounded, or separate. For instance when I say optinuit, logic demands that the second letter should be a b, while to the ear the sound is rather that of p: or again take the case of immunis:

the letter n, which is required by strict adherence to fact, is forced by the sound of the m. which follows to change into another m.

We must also note when analysing compound words, whether the middle consonant adheres to the preceding syllable or to that which follows. For example since the latter part of haruspex is from spectare, the s must be assigned to the third syllable. In abstemius on the other hand it will go with the first syllable since the word is derived from abstinentia temeti,

abstention from wine.

As for k my view is that it should not be used at all except in such words as may be indicated by the letter standing alone as an abbreviation. [*](K may stand for Kalendae, Kaeso, Karthago, Kalumnia, Kaput. ) I mention the fact because some hold that k should be used whenever the next letter is an a, despite the existence of the letter c which maintains its force in conjunction with all the vowels. Orthography, however,

is also the servant of usage and therefore undergoes frequent change. I make no mention of the earliest times when our alphabet contained fewer letters [*]( The original alphabet consisted of twenty-one letters, and was increased to twenty-three by the addition of y and z. ) and their shapes differed from those which we now use, while their values also were different. For instance in Greek the letter o was sometimes long and short, as it is with us, and again was sometimes used to express the syllable

And in Latin ancient writers ended a number of words with d, as may be seen on the column adorned with the beaks of ships, which was set up in the forum in honour of Duilius. [*]( The ablative originally terminated in d; e.g. pugnandod, marid, navaled, pracdad, etc., on the base of the column of Duilius. ) Sometimes again they gave words a final g, as we may still see in the shrine of the Sun, close to the temple of Quirinus, where we find the word uesperug, which we write uesperugo (evening star).

I have already spoken of the interchange of letters [*](I. iv. 12–17.) and need not repeat my remarks here: perhaps their pronunciation corresponded with their spelling.

For a long time the doubling of semivowels was avoided, [*](e.g. iusi was written for iussi. ) while down to the time of Accius and beyond, long syllables were indicated by repetition of the vowel.

The practice of joining e and i as in the Greek diphthong ει lasted longer: it served to distinguish cases and numbers, for which we may compare the instructions of Lucilius:

1. The boys are come: why then, their names must end
2. With e and i to make them more than one; and later—

1. If to a thief and liar ( mendaci furique ) you would give,
2. In e and i your thief must terminate.

it is also at times inconvenient. For in those words which end in i and have e as their last letter but one, we shall on this principle have to write e twice: I refer to words such as aurei or argentei and the like.

Now such a practice will be an actual hindrance to those who are learning to read. This difficulty occurs in Greek as

some wrote ai in all cases, as in Greek, others confined its use to the dative and genitive singular; whence it comes that Vergil, [*](Aen. ix. 26 and vii. 464. ) always a passionate lover of antiquity, inserted pictai uestis and aquai in his poems.

But in the plural they used e and wrote Syllae, Galbae. Lucilius has given instructions on this point also; his instructions occupy quite a number of verses, for which the incredulous may consult his ninth book.

Again in Cicero's days and a little later, it was the almost universal practice to write a double s , whenever that letter occurred between two long vowels or after a long vowel, as for example in caussae, cassus, diuissiones. That he and Vergil both used this spelling is shown by their own autograph manuscripts.