Page images
PDF
EPUB

Proudfit finds it an easy task to show that the Heidelberg Catechism has no sympathy with Romanism, is not made up of unintelligible mystification, and falls in with the general Augustinian theory of salvation in opposition to every sort of Pelagianism; and this he plays off as an overwhelming contradiction to our statement, that the Catechism stands pre-eminent among Reformed or Calvinistic symbols for its catholic historical spirit, for its sense of the mystical interest in religion in connection with the intellectual, and for its moderation and reserve in not urging the Calvinistic system to its metaphysical extremes. The logic certainly is both easy and cheap.

out.

We are glad to understand, that the first edition of Mr. Williard's book is already off his hands, and that the demand for it is such as to call for a second. The circulation is of course so far mainly within the German church. It would be a pity if the present Introduction merely should stand in the way of its being favorably received in the Reformed Dutch church, as Dr. Proudfit seems to think it should and must do. We beg leave therefore to suggest a simple remedy for the evil. Let a separ ate edition be engaged for the special use of this venerable sister denomination, carefully revised and with the Introduction left. Or if preferred, let another Introduction be drawn up, either by Dr. Proudfit himself or by somebody else, calculated for the meridian of New Brunswick, and conformed in all respects theologically to the reigning Puritan standard of the present time. Let it roundly affirm, that on the subject of the decrees the formal teaching of the Heidelberg Catechism falls not a whit behind the determinations of the Synod of Dort, that it owns no sympathy whatever with the catholic ideas of the ancient church, that it eschews religiously the whole mystical interest in religion and moves only in the sphere of the logical understanding, that it has in it no inward relationship whatever to Lutheranism, that the true key to its sense and spirit should be sought rather in New England Puritanism, that it is unchurchly and unsacramental throughout, acknowledging no objective grace, no mystery at all, (just as little, be it whispered, as Art.. XXXV of the Belgic Confession,) in the holy sacraments, on a full par thus with the universal sectarian rationalism of the day. Let this be the standpoint, we say, of the new Introduction, got up for the special use and benefit of the Reformed Dutch church;. and if the Dutch church, generally should choose to be satisfied with it, the world at large, we presume, will not feel it necessary to make any objection, J. W. N..

LATIN PRONUNCIATION.

Elements of Latin Pronunciation, for the use of Students in Language, Law, Medicine, Zoology, Botany, and the Sciences generally in which Latin words are used. By S. S. HALDEMAN, A. M., Professor of Natural History in the University of Pennsylvania. Philadelphia: Lippincott, Grambo & Co. 1851. 12mo., pp. 76.

THOSE of us students in Pennsylvania, who were inducted into the rudiments of the Latin Language some thirty years ago, well remember with what care we were taught our proper pronunciation. As one of the fundamental maxims it was laid down to us in the Grammar of Dr. Ross, which we learned by heart, that an Anglicized pronunciation of Latin must be cautiously avoided. The observance of this injunction, however, at any rate, so far as the letters were concerned, we were pleased to find, was not very difficult. The learned shibboleth, upon which we soon began to pride ourselves, consisted in the proper enunciation of two vowels, A and E. The sounds of the other letters coincided mostly with those of the English; but a we were constantly enjoined to pronounce ah, as heard in the English word far, and e, aye, as heard in the English word prey or there, without any variations. This, in those blissful days, we supposed to be the general custom in all learned nations. What was our astonishment then, soon afterwards, in coming in contact with New England grammars, which have long since, we are almost sorry to say it, in a great measure superseded in Pennsylvania our beloved Ross's, to find it laid down among other extenuating rules that a and e, when at the end of an accented syllable, must be pronounced as the same vowels in the same positions in English. Of pá-ter and dé-dit, for instance, the first syllables must be uttered with the same sounds as those in the English words, fatal and metre. "Oh, what a fall was there, my countrymen!" We could not succumb to it. We were constrained to admit that in many particulars these new grammars were in advance of our old favorite's, especially in the syntax, but we could not give up our superior pronunciation. We felt as proud of it as did the old Seceder lady, of whom we have somewhere heard, when asked to tell the difference between the tenets of her own church and those of the Presbyterian. "Difference!" she exclaimed. "And dinna ye ken the difference! Why 'tis awfu'; as you yoursel' would easily ken did ye but come and hear ane o' our learned ministers frae the

pulpit Yours o' the ither kirk, in the Bible when they come to the word, Mesopotamia, aye say it in a finified way: Mesopotá mia; but ours o' the orthodox faith, when they come to it, aye fling open their mou's braidly and spak it out: Mesopotáhmiah, wi' a heavenly sound."

Having stated to a learned New England teacher, a few years ago, my predilection for this mode of pronunciation he expressed his utter astonishment that a man of my taste, as he was pleased to say, would wish to ever sanction any Scotch Irish intonations in the refined language of ancient Rome. I reminded him, however, as my more extended philological reading had then enabled me, that this sublime, sonorous pronunciation of the vowels a and e was not at all restricted to any dialect of Scotland or Ireland, as he himself well knew, but that it was to be heard also at the present day in almost all the polished languages on the continent of Europe.

"Granting this to be a fact," he replied, "it follows not thence certainly that in our country these two vowels should be uttered as they are in those foreign lands, in our Latin. The ancient pronunciation of this language having, in a great measure, been lost, you are well aware that in different modern nations the learned have accommodated the sounds in its letters and syllables as far as possible to similar ones of their own. As then in these United States the English Language prevails, it certainly becomes us to pronounce our Latin according to the English usage."

"I admit," said I, "that the English is the prevailing speech in our country; but does this form any insuperable bar, in case the mode of pronunciation on the continent of Europe accords best with the genius of the ancient Latin Language, to our adopting it generally in our classical reading and speaking?"

"Oh," cried he, "I perceive that your wishes are not limited. You are pleading, it seems, for a foreign enunciation not only of your two favorite vowels but of the whole alphabet! You would fain introduce into our American Latin an Italian or German pronunciation not only of and e but of all the other vow. els, diphthongs and consonants!"

"Not introduce," said I, "if you please, but extend its use; as in some of our best Literary Institutions, you are well aware, it has long since been introduced. As this pronunciation is, in a manner, lineally descended from the ancient Latin, and it certainly comes nearer to the original, would it not be well to use it generally in all our classical schools and colleges?"

What reply he made to this suggestion I do not now remem

ber; but I feel persuaded that, in the end, I came off decidedly the better in the argument. Here I would have rested on my laurels, being satisfied; but since I have met with some who would fain carry this reform still higher. Even in Italy, they say, some of the letters have deviated considerably from their ancient sounds; and would it not be well, they ask, by ascertaining this and adopting the earliest mode of expressing them, to approach in our Latin reading as near as possible to the original? To those I would reply: "Tis a consummation devoutly to be wished.' As the Latin letters too were, in all likehood, phonetic, retaining in all positions the same sounds, being varied only in length, were these once fully ascertained and settled, their pronunciation would be easy. Of reviving their old sounds the greatest difficulty in the way, however, would be modern custom and prejudice. It is hard to overcome old habits. As, for instance, to adduce one case out of several, in nearly all Europe, as is well known, in Latin the letter e before e, i, y, ae or oe, is pronounced like our English s, but, in all other positions, like ; whereas with the ancient Romans it had always the force of the last mentioned guttural. Could we, however, with all our love for ancient usage, be easily brought back to the earliest mode of expression, and, in reading the classics, say Kikero for Cicero, kircum for circum, &c? In English we are familiar with so many words derived from the Latin in all of which the c, as above located, has this sibilant sound that our modern ears, we fancy, could hardly be brought to hear with pleasure their primitives in Latin pronounced otherwise.

Be this as it may, we feel persuaded, however, that no student in the Latin can be thorough without a knowledge of its ancient pronunciation. Only in this way can he arrive at an apprehension of its etymology, which is so essential to the proper understanding of a language. By restoring words to their ancient sounds he will at once be struck by close and beautiful relationships and resemblances between them and others, which he had never before suspected; and these too by no means confined to the Latin, but often existing between them and others in other languages. In this way too, as can easily be perceived, the study becomes of vast account in the researches of the ethnologist. Hitherto this subject has been kept, in a great measure, out of view. Our modern grammarians make no mention of it. As some of our theologians care little about ancient creeds or of looking too narrowly into ecclesiastical history lest it might unsettle some of their favorite dogmas, so many of our grammarians care not much about making any allusion to the ancient

powers of the letters lest it might disturb the faith of students in their present, approved, national modes of pronouncing Latin. We trust this little work of Prof. Haldeman may serve to awaken a deeper interest in the subject. That philosophical talent and tact so essential for investigations in natural science, which he is well known eminently to possess, he has here brought to bear on the elements of the Latin Language with peculiar success. His conclusions, we fancy, are generally, if not always, correct, as they are founded on philosophical principles, having been drawn from various reliable materials both ancient and modern, in a manner almost as satisfactory and as safely to be trusted as the deductions of mathematics. These, in most cases, agree with those of other eminent philologists, but in some they are entirely new. Thus has he furnished a work which was much wanted in our country; a cheap, convenient manual of only seventysix pages, duodecimo, einbracing the results of deep research, which no student of the ancient languages or indeed of any of the sciences in which Latin words are used, should ever be without.

Mercersburg, Pa.

W. M. N.

« PreviousContinue »