« PreviousContinue »
Later Usage. — The use of synizesis had been very extended in O. Lat., but a complete change of attitude took place in the later literary language. A more precise system of pronunciation was accepted both by writers of verse and of rhythmical prose, and a consistent body of theoretical principles was formulated. Hence the Augustan poets sought to reduce both shortening and slurring within the narrowest limits possible, and to confine these processes to a limited circle of words. But of the two processes they naturally viewed with much greater toleration that which involved the actual shortening of syllables; as refined and tasteful artists, they could not but' regard the frequent slurring of syllables as vulgar and incorrect. Hence while they admitted (at least theoretically) the consonantization of the vowels i(e) and u, they rejected almost entirely the slurring of these sounds, and preferred, through a strengthened pronunciation of the first vowel, to introduce scið, nescið-quis (Cat. 6, 4; Hor. C. iii, 24, 64), diš, diúturnus, diútius, etc., in place of O. Lat. sc(i)ā, nesc(i)quis,' dvo or d(u)ő (cf. Gk. duódexa and dódeka),2 d(i )ūtius (cf. d(i )ūdum); cf. also the introduction of the forms děi, děis in this period (Sturtevant, l.l., 21), and the restoration of nihil, prehendo, hercule, mchercule in place of O. Lat. nil, prendo, hercle, mehcrcle. Moreover, the poets of the empire, such as Seneca, Martial, Juvenal, and Statius, fol. lowed the guidance of analogy and the trend of careful pro
fact, provided for exceptionally short syllables through the prosodical figure Synizesis. For this reason some of the preliminary remarks contained in the first section of this paper seem to me now somewhat unnecessary, although the ancient metricians may be justly criticised for not distinguishing more clearly between the natural and the artificial forms of synizesis.
1 But see above, p. 174, n. 2 (end); to examples of the restored vowel should be added the frequent dŭellum of Horace (C. iii, 5, 38; 14, 18, etc.).
2 According to Studemund, A.L.L. III, 550 f., duo is very nearly dvõ in the dramatists, that is, in the nom. masc., where it is the sole form, Pl. allows it to end an iambic line (dło), but in the acc. masc., where the form duos also exists, he treats it as a monosyllable (dvo) and uses the form duos instead at the end of a line. From this use it is probable that duo was more nearly one syllable than two in Plautus's time; cf. also Lindsay, L.L. 411. There are two exceptions to the rule, i.e. two cases of acc. dúo in verse-closes: Ep. 187; Ps. 1000. An original dūõ, which would not admit synizesis, is improbable; cf. late duo.
nunciation, as it existed throughout this entire period, when they resolved the synizesis-diphthong ui in cui, cuicumque (earlier quoii, quoiicumque), and huic into củi, củicumque, and hūic; see examples in L. Müller, R.M., 318 f.; Neue, 11%, 454. Hence, after the period of Lucilius, Lucretius, and Varro (cf. L. Müller, l.l., 546), we find only those forms freely slurred by the dactylic poets which present especial difficulty in hexameter verse, e.g. eidem (dat. sing.), eodem, eaedem, eosdem, and of other slurred forms we find only a few isolated examples, viz. : dat. sing. (e)i regularly in Cicero's clausulae (Zielinski, Clauselgesetz, 176), and once in Catullus (82, 3), m(e)is (Sen. Troad. 191), s(u)āpte (id. Agam. 250), (i) (Cat. 61, 124 ff.; Mart. xi, 2, 5), vidētis (Hor. Epod. 12, 7, — dactylic), (I Jūle (id. C. iv, 2, 2 — sapphic; cf. L. Müller, l.l., 307), S(u dēvo (Prop. iv, 2 (3), 45), etc. Similarly, there is reason to believe that the more dignified poets entertained some prejudice against the forms of the pronoun is, on account of their frequent slurring, and although they accepted fully the contract forms di, dis, idem (nom. pl.), isdem, they seem to have especially avoided the nom. and abl. pl. of is.4 According to Meader-Wölfflin, A.L.L. XI, 373, dissyllabic ei and eis are represented in the poets only by the group-form in-šis, Manil. ii, 744, and whether monosyllabic i and is were allowed at all, is a question still under discussion (Meader, Latin Pronouns, 23).
In the remains of popular poetry, however, and in later poets like Terentianus Maurus and Ausonius (L. Müller, 322), colloquial synizesis forms occur much more freely, and it is evident from late inscriptional forms like so, tis, quescas, etc., that they were always retained in vulgar Latin, although the distinction between consonant and vowel i and u probably became more marked as time went on. Especially well known is the late Latin tendency for di, when followed by a vowel, to assume the spirant sound of y (Lindsay, L.L. 49, 84), and to be written at times z or d, e.g. des CIL. V, 6244 ; 2(es), ib., 1667; do, dae (Schuchardt, Vok. des Vulgärlat. II, 463 ; III, 289; Bücheler, Lex. It. vii; Seelmann, Ausspr. d. Lat. 187); cf. Oscan zicolom for * dieculom. The beginnings of this tendency, especially in hiatus before a long vowel, may be recognized in a few O. Lat. words, e.g. Iūturna from Diūturna,? Iovem from 0. Lat. Diovem, and, to a limited extent, also, in the Plautine scansions d(e)o, d(eae, dli)e, d(i )erectus, D(i)espiter, dilu, dli Jutinus, d(i )utius, dihudum; cf. also the scansions dvellum, d(u)o, d(u)odecim, d(u)im, and the tendency of dụ in some of these forms to pass into d, and later, into b (Stolz, Müller's Handb. 11°, 2, 82).
1 All the examples are collected by Skutsch, l'épas, 148.
2 Dat. sing. ei was almost as much a monosyllable in Priscian's time as huic and cui ; cf. Keil, III, 10, 2 ff.
3 Cf. Munro, Criticisms and Elucidations of Catullus, Cambridge, 1878, 135 ff. 4 Cf. L. Müller, l.l., 297.
5 Similarly trisyllabic eidem and eisdem are represented only by the rhythmical groups sēd-židem, Pl. Mi. 758 (Sturtevant, l.l., 25), and dăt-čisdem, Juv. xiv, 30 (L. Müller, lol., 297).
III. ADDITIONAL PRINCIPLES OF SYNIZESIS. In the preceding section the vague term synizesis has been more exactly defined through the law of Brevis Coalescens. It remains to state very briefly, as the limits of the present article require, a few additional facts which are simple corollaries of this law, but which, in several cases, have a bearing upon the general subject of classical synizesis and the limitations to which it is subject.
(1) Two Short Vowels Preserved Intact. - Word-forms in which two short vowels come together, e.g. měū(s), měă, füèrit, are not subject to synizesis, except in those cases where the second short vowel is elided before a following long vowel, and an iambic sequence results, as in Mo. 98 m(e)ă, haud áliter. Hence it is scarcely necessary to discuss seriously the assumption of wholly unnecessary and gratuitous syni
1 Cf. L. Müller, R.M.2, 308: “Contra in illis, quae sunt tuus, suus, cum initio valde fuisset exili sono littera eadem, corroboratast sensim.”
2 Cf. Bull. d. ist. arch. 1871, 136 f. The two forms, however (like Diāna and lāna, Diānus and lānus), are perhaps connected only by popular etymology; cf. Stolz, Hist. Gramm. 305. For the treatment of di in hiatus in the Pelignian dialect, cf. Lindsay, L. L. 49.
8 Cf. dibus, CIL. VI, 25540, for diébus.
zesis forms such as myůs, myă, yă, or such as tuos, meus, mea, ea;1 such strange and abortive forms are rejected at the present day by all careful critics (e.g. Lindsay, L.L. 439, 426; Ahlberg, De procel. I, 88 ff., 154), and, in accordance with Spengel's well-considered views (Einl. su Andria, xxxi, n. 3), synizesis is confidently restricted to those cases in which a short vowel is 'subordinated' to a following long one. Thus, with reference to the supposed form meus, eu is not a regular Latin diphthong, but is of secondary origin in SEU, neu, and the result of reduction from sive, neve; even in the case of genuine compounds, neutiquam is pronounced nyutiquain, něúter is regularly a trisyllable (Consentius, Keil, V, 389, 28), etc. A similar disproof might be given of the other supposed combinations also, which in no case involve the contraction of qualitatively similar vowels such as is seen in nēmo, desse, dēbeo, nil, conesto, etc. Further, pūri, Lucr. iv, 1026, does not represent påčri, as L. Müller supposes (R.M.2 298), but must be referred to the adj. pūrus, as Munro has shown;3 påěritiem, Auson. Prof. 10, 17, is not to be explained as a case of synizesis, but is a proceleusmaticus used in place of a dactyl, since resolution of the arsis is sometimes allowed in both the early and the late hexameter, e.g. Enn. A. 267 M. cápitibu(s); CIL. I, 542 fácilia fáxseis ; cf. Priscian, Keil, II, 14; Christ, Metr.? 145; Exon, Hermathena, XIII, 157 f. Finally, it may be added that examples of iambic měús, tuós, with final s making position, are excessively rare in the dramatists, e.g. Hau. 219 non út měūs, qui (Fleck.: non út měúst, qui).
i These last are retained in Neue, 113, 371 ff., no doubt through lack of careful revision.
2 Similarly the Augustan poets do not admit synizesis in the case of two short vowels unless the second is long by position or by pause, e.g. Verg. Ed. vi, 30, Orph(e)ā, where the short a is lengthened by pause ; cf. also L. Müller, Einl. zu Sat. des Horaz, xxvii, $ 3. Hence dein and proin, which always show synizesis, occur only before consonants (Skutsch, Forsch. 87 ff.; Birt, Rhein. Mus. LI, 267 f.).
8 Similarly it is almost sheer wantonness for L. Müller to interpret pārë as puere in Lucil. xxvi, 83 M., where Marx now reads (xxvi, 662): laútum e ménsa púrē cápturús cibúm.
(2) Synizesis in Cases of Elision. — Synizesis occurs both when the iambic sequence is contained in a single word, as in tuo, and when, as the result of elision, it is contained in two words, as in t(11)o a'rbitrátu, Cap. 867 (for numerous other examples, see C. Müller, Pl. Pr. 457 ff.). In the first class of cases, the use of synizesis is relatively more frequent, and occurs with the possessives, as we have seen, about nine times as frequently as the dissyllabic measurement. In cases of the second class, however, where a small fragment of the bruised' vowel is doubtless retained in pronunciation and intervenes between the two syllables of the iambic sequence, the employment of synizesis is only twice as frequent as the dissyllabic measurement; thus m(e)o, t(u), s(11)o arbitratu occur in Pl. twelve times, měo arbitratu occurs six times; m(ejam uxorem occurs seven times, měam uxorem four times. The examples of supposed méa úxor, which are cited by Ahlberg, De corrept. Pl. 70, should be read m(e)a úxor, as is necessary in Am. 522 m(e)a utxor. For qu(i )a in elision, cf. p. 180, n. 3.
(3) Principle of C. F. W. Müller: Total Elision of Synizesis Forms not Allowable before a Short Syllable. Müller correctly observed (Pl. Pr. 457 f.) that a combination like meo ănimo is necessarily always read as tetrasyllabic in early Latin verse; since then a combination like meo ārbitratu may always, or almost always, be conceivably pentasyllabic, i.e. read as mếo árbitratu, he concluded that the supposed monosyllabic forms never suffer 'total elision,' and are therefore never really treated like monosyllabic forms in any particular. Müller's conclusion, however, is manifestly lacking in logical cogency, and is not warranted by his premises. For he was only warranted in concluding with certainty that these forms do not suffer 'total elision' before a short vowel. This latter is undoubtedly the case, for the vocal organs experienced no special difficulty in pronouncing the sequence měo
1 Compare the careful observations of Bömer, l.1., 43, in refutation of Müller's view: “Maximam offensionem huiusmodi vocabuli synalæphe cum brevi vocali habebat . . . Synaloephe cum longa vocali minus erat insueta. Loci, quales sunt mea Antiphila, meo ārbitratu, etc., saepius inveniuntur.”