be heard, here and there, in English words which are in common use. Even the peculiar sound of the French u is often heard in the best pronunciation of the English word tureen, in the first syllable of bureau, and in other words, which are thoroughly English, though chiefly derived from the French. And many of the best Latin scholars in America, if not also in England, have always used the sound of a in father for the long sound of a in Latin words. The long sounds of e and i in "the Continental Method," are also fully met by the English sounds of e and i in the words obey and machine. On the other hand, the French u confessedly fails to meet all the sounds of u in Latin words. And of late, many French teachers of Latin represent the long u, in Latin words, by the French diphthong, ou, just as the ancient Greeks sometimes represented it by their diphthong ov. It is worth while, therefore, to note here some of the questions which scattered hints, in the writings of Quintilian, make inevitable, and at the same time, leave, in some instances, wholly unanswerable.

In ancient Latin the letter u had sometimes the sound of a vowel and sometimes the force of a consonant, as in the word seruus, pronounced servus. Quintilian says (Lib. I, c. 4.) that in such words the firet u had the force of the digamma; a sound of v or F, which the Greeks sometimes introduced between two vowels to avoid an awkward hiatus. His language is this: "Nevertheless, also, that Eolic letter itself [the digamma] with which we speak seruus"-pronounced with the digamma, servus or serfus, Eng. servant and serf-"follows us, even if its form has been rejected." But what does he mean, when he says in the same place, (Lib. XII, c. 10.) that the two vowels in the words equos and equum "make a sound such as was not known among the Greeks, and therefore could not be expressed by their letters?" This is a question which cannot be easily answered. But this is not all; he says in another place (Lib. I, c. 4.) that "there is also a middle-or an intermediate (Lat. medius) sound of u and i, for we do not

speak optumum as we speak optimum." But, when we find, in some editions, another reading, to this effect; "For we do not speak optimum as we speak opimum," the question comes up, whether there was in Latin a sound intermediate between the vowels u and i, considered as either short or long, or whether each of those vowels had a middle, or third sound. And this, again, is a question not easily answered, and certainly one not fully answered by any testimony of ancient writings in volumes now extant.

It is, indeed, clear and certain, from the testimony of Quintilian, that the letter u had, in his day, two (if not three) distinct sounds. But all this does not sanction the idea, recently insisted on, with singular zeal, by some American scholars and grammarians, that the letter v had, in "the Roman pronunciation" of the Latin language, the sound which the English letter w takes as a consonant. This idea is very amusing, when it is expressed in the first lessons of Latin grammar, in connection with the remark that the Latin language had no w. But what an exhibition American boys would make of themselves. repeating the Latin words vivo, vivis, vivit, vivimus, vivitis, vivunt, with this pronunciation, wee-wo, wee-wees, wee-weet, wee-weemoos, wee-wee-tees, wee-woont. And what a figure an American scholar would cut, pronouncing the Latin word, convivalis, cone-wee-wah-lees, Eng. convivial. He would certainly suggest the idea, if he did not serve for an example, of excessive conviviality. Yet such is the "Roman pronunciation," so called, and such the inevitable result of any attempt to give the vowels in Latin one unvarying

sound.

Many boys and girls, as well as men and women, in America, have great power of endurance. But any lingo so barbarous would soon prove intolerable to all. The idea that the ancient Romans, in their pronunciation of Latin, ever tolerated such a barbarous hiatus, in any words often repeated, is preposterous. And it is a happy circumstance for the cause of high rhetoric, that one of its finest speci

mens, in the famous despatch of the great general and orator, Julius Cæsar, "veni, vidi, vici," was committed to written characters, and not handed down orally, in such childish utterances as these way-nee, wee-dee, wee-kee. Even in the English language, w is never used as a consonant in the middle of words, with the exception of a few, like awake, bewail and beware; chiefly compound words, in which a slight hiatus between the two parts of the compound is of small account. And the consonant sound of w before a, in any words, produces a very slight hiatus, almost imperceptible. But that barbarous pronunciation of v with the sound of w, which is proposed and prescribed in the mis-named "Roman pronunciation," is wholly set at nought by the plain testimony of Quintilian, where he speaks (Lib. I, c. 4.) of the sound which the Latins gave to the letter v, in vulgus and servus, as the digamma. And it is to be hoped that such a barbarous pronunciation, whatever it may be called, will be henceforth regarded, not only by thorough scholars, but also by young students, at least in England and America, as a thoroughly punctured and exploded bubble. For it is, at the best, an empty and puerile conceit, especially adapted, and apparently, in part, designed, for the amusement of young students, in all nations, except, possibly, Germans. To thorough scholars whose knowledge of Latin is verified and established by the constant perusal of ancient writings of every period, and to diligent students of those languages which are most directly descended from the Latin, that whimsical conceit is sheer nonsense.

How useless, as a guide to young students, is the newfangled method of pronunciation, appears from the fact that a scholar of no mean attainments, Professor Gildersleeve, attempting to explain that method, in his Latin Primer, makes these very strange and almost unintelligible remarks. "Ch is not a genuine Latin sound. In Latin words it is a k; in Greek words a kh; commonly pronounced as ch in German (an aspirated h)." What, now, does all this

signify? Unless the phrase "an aspirated h" is a misprint for "an aspirated k"-whatever that may be-or possibly a mistake for a guttural h, or a guttural k, then what, pray, is "an aspirated h," in other words, an aspirated aspirate? And then, again, which of the three, or four, sounds of ch in German is supposed to represent and guide the pronunciation of ch in Greek words, according to that Latin Primer? What, in fine, is to come of such fanciful changes, as to any practical gain, in the study of Latin and Greek, or in the use of any modern language? Simply nothing; absolutely nothing.

N. E. CORNWALL.

SOME LETTERS OF ST. BASIL.

(Continued.)

To what good account his correspondence with the orthodox outside of Cappadocia was turned by St. Basil, will appear from the letters which we print next, giving them at length because they illustrate so well the Catholic polity of the Primitive Church. In the autumn of 375, after his return from Pisidia, Basil made a journey northwards into Pontus, to re-establish amicable relations with the bishops of that province, who had become unfriendly through the arts of Eustathius of Sebaste, and the violence of Atarbius of Neo-Cæsarea. The former secretly put slanders into circulation, while the latter, who held Sabellian or Marcellian opinions, inveighed against Basil publicly in his discourses in church. It had been customary for some of the Bishops of this province to be present at the annual gathering at Cæsarea, on the festival of St. Eupsychius; but this year they sent no deputation, and had for some time omitted

to send the customary litera formata-being influenced partly by the intrigue of of Eustathius, and partly, as the Editor suggests, being willing not to compromise themselves by too great intimacy with Basil, now that the heretics were plotting against him at court. St. Basil takes notice of the omission of these tokens of communion in Ep. 203, written before his journey, and expostulates with them for their breach of Catholic unity, as follows:

Ep. 203.-To the Bishops of Pontus.

"I have had great desire of meeting with you, but there has always been some hindrance in the way of my wish. For I was prevented either by weakness of body (which you are not at all ignorant of-how much it is with me, being my. companion from early youth to this old age, and chastising me according to the righteous judgment of God, who ordereth all things in wisdom), or by the cares of the Churches, or by contests with those who gainsay the word of truth. Wherefore unto this present I continue in much afflic tion and grief, knowing that I am wanting as regards you. For I-hearing from God, who for this reason undertook the sojourn in the flesh that by the pattern of His deeds He might direct our life, and with His own voice might announce to us the Gospel of the Kingdom, that by this shall all men know that ye are my disciples, that ye love one another; and that, being about to complete the economy in the flesh, the Lord left. His own peace as the farewell gift to His own disciples, saying: 'Peace I leave with you, my peace I give unto you'-I, hearing this, am not able to persuade myself that I can be worthy to be called a servant of Jesus Christ without the love towards one another, and without being, as far as in me lies, at peace with all men. And indeed I waited a long time, if perhaps there might be a visitation of us from your love. For ye are not ignorant that we, being set forth before all the public as the rocks jutting out into the sea, receive the fury of the heretical waves, which breaking upon us are kept from washing over that which is behind us. But when I say 'we,' I do not refer it to the power of men, but to the grace of God, who showeth His power in the weakness of men, as says the prophet from the face of the Lord, saying: 'Fear ye not me who place the sand for a bound of the sea?' for by that