C. Pronunciation of Ancient Greek

The de Compositione is not a treatise on Greek Pronunciation, or even on Greek Phonetics. The sections which touch upon these subjects are strictly subsidiary to the main theme; they are literary rather than philological in aim. There was, in fact, no independent study of phonetics in Greek antiquity; the subject was simply a handmaid in the service of music and rhetoric. Hence the reference early in c. 14 to the authority of Aristoxenus “the musician,” and the constant endeavour to rank the letters according to standards of beautiful sound. Still, though Dionysius’ object in describing the way in which the different letters are produced is not scientific but aesthetic and euphonic, much praise is due to the rigorous thoroughness which led him to undertake such an investigation at all. And it has had important incidental results.

One modern authority claims that, notwithstanding difficulties in the interpretation of the de Compositione due either to vague statements in the text or to defective knowledge on our own part, it is possible to reconstruct, with essential accuracy, the “Dionysian Pronunciation of Greek,” or (in other words) the pronunciation current among cultivated Greeks during the fifty years preceding the birth of Christ; while another authority has given a transliteration of the Lord’s Prayer, according to the original text, in the Hellenistic pronunciation of the first century A.D.[64] It is, further, maintained that, thanks to the general progress of philological research, we can in the main reproduce with certainty the sounds (including even the aspirates) actually heard at Athens in the fourth century B.C.—with such certainty, at all events, as will suffice for the practical purposes of the modern teacher.[65]

Two circumstances render it unsafe to lean unduly on Dionysius’ evidence in determining the pronunciation of the earlier Greek period. Although he studied with enthusiasm the literature produced by Greece in her prime, and would certainly desire to read it to his pupils in the same tones as might have been used by its original authors, it is hardly likely that the pronunciation of the language had changed less in three or four hundred years than that (say) of English has changed since the days of Shakespeare.[66] The other circumstance is the uncertainty which attends some of his statements, quite apart from any question of the period which they may be supposed to cover. This uncertainty is due to the fact that there was no science of phonetics in his day, and that consequently his explanations are sometimes obscure, either in themselves or at all events to their modern interpreters. But in many other cases he is, fortunately, explicit and easily understood. One example only shall be given, but that an important one: the pronunciation of ζ. In 144 9-12, it is clearly indicated that ζ is a double letter, and that it is composed of σ and δ (in that order): διπλᾶ δὲ τρία τό τε ζ̄ καὶ τὸ ξ̄ καὶ τὸ ψ̄. διπλᾶ δὲ λέγουσιν αὐτὰ ἤτοι διὰ τὸ σύνθετα εἶναι τὸ μὲν ζ̄ διὰ τοῦ σ̄ καὶ δ̄, τὸ δὲ ξ̄ διὰ τοῦ κ̄ καὶ σ̄, τὸ δὲ ψ̄ διὰ τοῦ π̄ καὶ σ̄, κτλ. The manuscript testimony is here in favour of σ̄ καὶ δ̄ (rather than the reverse order), and it may be noticed that the similar reading, ὐπασ̅δ̅εύξαισα, is well supported in Sappho’s Hymn to Aphrodite ( 238 9). The statement is not in any way contradicted by the further statements in 146 5 and 148 6; and taken together with other evidence (e.g. such forms as συρίσδειν = συρίζειν, κωμάσδειν = κωμάζειν, Ἀθήναζε = Ἀθήνασδε), it seems to establish this as at least one pronunciation of ζ. The actual pronunciation may well have varied at different times and in different places. Some authorities think that in fifth-century Greece the sound was like that of English zd in the word ‘glazed,’ while in the fourth century it roughly resembled dz in the word ‘adze’ (Arnold and Conway, op. cit. pp. 6, 7).

The book which deals most directly with the de Compositione in relation to Greek pronunciation is A. J. Ellis’ English, Dionysian, and Hellenic Pronunciation of Greek, considered in reference to School and College Use. In applying great phonetic skill to the interpretation of Dionysius’ statements, the author of this pamphlet has done much service; but he abandons too lightly any attempt to recover a still earlier pronunciation, and shows an uncritical spirit in so readily believing (p. 4) that Erasmus could be hoaxed in the matter of Greek pronunciation. A more trustworthy work is F. Blass’ Pronunciation of Ancient Greek (translated by W. J. Purton), in which the scientific aids towards a reconstruction of the old pronunciation are marshalled with much force. Arnold and Conway’s Restored Pronunciation of Greek and Latin, and Giles’ Manual of Comparative Philology (pp. 114-118: especially p. 115 for ζ), contain a succinct statement of probable results. There is also a good article, by W. G. Clark, on Greek Pronunciation and Accentuation in the Journal of Philology i. pp. 98-108; with which should be compared the papers by Wratislaw and Geldart in vol. ii. of the same journal. The entire conflict on the subject of Greek pronunciation, as waged by the early combatants in England and Holland, is reflected in Havercamp’s two volumes entitled Sylloge Scriptorum qui de linguae Graecae vera et recta pronuntiatione commentarios reliquerunt, videlicet Adolphi Mekerchi, Theodori Bezae, Jacobi Ceratini et Henrici Stephani (Leyden, 1736), and his Sylloge Altera Scriptorum qui ... reliquerunt, videlicet Desiderii Erasmi, Stephani Vintoniensis Episcopi, Cantabrigiensis Academiae Cancellarii, Joannis Checi, Thomae Smith, Gregorii Martini, et Erasmi Schmidt (Leyden, 1740). Erasmus’ dialogue de recta Latini Graecique sermonis pronunciatione (Basle, 1528) was, in its way, a true work of science in that it laid stress on the fact that variety of symbols implied variety of sounds, and that diphthongal writing implied a diphthongal pronunciation. Attention has lately been directed to the fact that Erasmus claims no originality for his views on this subject, and that he had been anticipated, in varying degrees, by Jerome Aleander in France, by Aldus Manutius in Italy, and (earlier still) by the Spanish humanist, Antonio of Lebrixa (Bywater The Erasmian Pronunciation of Greek and its Precursors Oxford, 1908). It may be noted, in passing, that when enumerating the errors of his Byzantine contemporaries, Antonio mentions that they pronounced Ζ “as a single letter, whereas it was really composite, and stood for SD” (Bywater, p. 20). Among the immediate successors of Erasmus in this field the most interesting, perhaps, is Sir Thomas Smith (1513-1577), who, like Cheke, was one of the “etists” and so incurred the wrath of Stephen Gardiner and drew out that edict which threatened various penalties (including corporal punishment for boys) against the practice of unlawful innovations in the province of Greek pronunciation. It was Smith who, in his treatise de recta et emendata linguae Graecae pronuntiatione (Havercamp, ii. 542), detected a lacuna in the text of C.V. 140 16 as current in his time, and secured the right sense by the insertion of δύο δὲ βραχέα τό τε ε̄ καὶ τὸ ο̄ after τὸ ω̄ (in l. 17). Echoes, more or less distinct, of the long dispute as to the pronunciation of the ancient classical languages may be heard in such various quarters as: (1) [Beaumont and] Fletcher’s Elder Brother ii. 1, “Though I can speak no Greek, I love the sound on’t; it goes so thundering as it conjur’d devils”; (2) King James I. (in an address to the University of Edinburgh, delivered at Stirling), “I follow his [George Buchanan’s] pronunciation, both of his Latin and Greek, and am sorry that my people of England do not the like; for certainly their pronunciation utterly fails the grace of these two learned languages”; and (3) Gibbon’s reference to “our most corrupt and barbarous mode of uttering Latin.” In modern times a constant effort is being made to get nearer to the true pronunciation of the two classical languages; and (to speak of Greek alone) some interesting side-lights have been shed on the subject by the discovery of Anglo-Saxon or Oriental transliterations (cp. Hadley Essays pp. 128-140, and Bendall in Journal of Philology xxix. 199-201). The application of well-ascertained results to the teaching of Greek pronunciation could be injurious only if it were allowed to impede the principal object of Greek study—contact with the great minds of the past. But an attempt to recapture some part of the music of the Greek language is hardly likely to have this disastrous effect.