450
NOTES AND QUERIES. p* s. VIL JUNE s, woi.
tf or v perhaps presents the greatest diffi-
culty. Can any scholar say when Itakan v
superseded an older Roman w ? That the i of
the first syllable of silva is short by nature
is proved by Hor., Od. I. 23, 1-4 :
Vitas hinnulep me similis Chloe,
Quaerenti pavidam montibus aviis
Matrem, non sine vano
Aurarum, et siliiae raetu.
Now if u or v is always to be sounded as u in " pull " or w in " well," how can silwce be a spondee any more than ddhuc ?
As for Greek pronunciation, apart from the accentual marks I should say that the reasons for doubt are few. The vowels must be sounded as in Italian, with perhaps the ex- ception that w may have stood for the French o in noble; et may have been = 17, as the pass. ind. pres. second sing, rv-n-rrj or TVTTTCI seems to indicate ; ai undoubtedly was sounded as ai in "aisle"; 01 as in all lan- guages ; cv and rjv perhaps = English yoo, as in " neuter," or as eiv in Ewelrne.
I think it possible that if teachers began early enough they might get their pupils to sound accented syllables with a slightly higher musical intonation without stress or loudness. Failing that, I think they should be taught to sound the accents as in modern Greek, i.e., with additional stress or loudness on the syllables marked. This latter method has given us St. Helena and Sophia.
T. WILSON.
Harpenden.
How can we be sure what was the " Roman fashion " of pronouncing Latin 1 Take, for instance, the ancient Roman town Reate, now Rieti. Why may we not say that the Romans pronounced the word as English schoolboys used to be taught to pronounce it, but that modern Italians, in order to preserve the sound, have been obliged to change all the vowels ? SHERBORNE.
WHITGIFT'S HOSPITAL, CEOYDON (9 th S. vi. 341, 383, 402, 423, 479, 513 ; vii. 178, 256, 358). When ME. ARNOTT voluntarily places himself in the position of a disputant, it hardly be- comes him to regret, or express sorrow, that the person he would call to book does not accept his dictum, lacks faith in the autho- rities he quotes, or demurs to his assertions. If any one has cause to express concern over the subject, it is myself, because ME. AENOTT initiated the discussion, and now apparently is unable, from some cause, to carry his case to a legitimate issue. At one of the references given it will be found ME. AENOTT expressed as his opinion that it was " undesirable that the explanation on the ' Admonition to Parlia-
ment' should be allowed to rest as if there
was any real doubt with regard to the author-
ship." In this I acquiesced, and gave him
facts and circumstances calculated to throw a
new light on the matter, if not to dispel any
doubt in his mind as to who was the author
of the * Admonitions.'
Now MR. ARNOTT contents himself with futile regret, without any attempt to show iust cause for his pain of mind, but satisfies his argumentative acumen by naming " three more authorities." It would not do to enter upon the question as to what MR. ARNOTT really means when he uses the term " autho- rities"; too often authorities (so called) are simply compilers, who take for granted what previous writers have set down, without an attempt to verify their assertions.
1 am entitled to ask, Has MR. ARNOTT taken any steps to prove the authenticity of the " authorities " he has given 1 I might also ask if MR. ARNOTT has ever seen ' An Admoni- tion to Parliament'? Has he taken the trouble to compare the style of writing of the two 'Admonitions'? Has he read any of Whitgif t's statements respecting them ? How- ever, I now propose to probe the subject a little deeper than MR. ARNOTT apparently has, with the simple desire that those in- terested in the matter may be led to examine for themselves, and thus set at rest an Eliza- bethan ecclesiastical point.
The 'Admonition to Parliament' in the British Museum is indexed under T. Cart- wright, and is a small 12mo book, dated outside 1572, but wants a title-page. The book consists principally of two parts, the first headed on each page ' An Admonition to Parliament,' the second part being headed on each page 'A Second Admonition to Parliament.' At the end of the first part, and between it and the ' Second Admonition,' is a page and a half, titled " To the Christian Reader," and opening thus : " / have though te good, in this latter end of our booke, for sundry considerations, to certify you (beloved brethren) of the reasons that have moved us who are the Authors of
these treatises to kepe backe our names "
Now who is the I which I have italicized? It could not be Field and Wilcox. The " we " in the body of the matter referred to might be explained by a desire to confuse the reader, or on the editorial basis.
Between the page and a half quoted from and the ' Second Admonition ' are four leaves, the first being titled " To the Godly Readers, Grace and Peace from God," &c., and reading : "The Treaty se ensuing (christian reader) being purposely meant as the tytle pretendeth to be, a. seconcje Admonition to the Parliament," &c
