Letter 3001: Avitus, bishop, to Viventiolus the rhetorician.
Avitus of Vienne→Viventiolus, (later of Lyon)|c. 490 AD|Avitus of Vienne
education books
From: Avitus, bishop of Vienne
To: Viventiolus, a rhetorician
Date: ~500 AD
Context: A witty and learned defense of Latin grammar — Avitus responds to a critic who accused him of using the wrong vowel quantity in the word POTITUR during a sermon, mounting a point-by-point refutation using Virgil and the rules of Latin conjugation.
Avitus, bishop, to Viventiolus the rhetorician.
Word has reached me through the rumor mill that you claim I committed a barbarism in the homily I recently delivered to the people of Lyon at the dedication of a church — publicly rebuking me for sinning in a formal oration. I confess this could have happened, especially to me, since whatever literary studies I had in greener years — well, age takes everything [Virgil, Eclogues 9.51]. I had hoped, however, to hear this from you in person, because even if my capacity for knowledge is diminishing, my appetite for learning has not changed. But since I gather you said it behind my back, I have taken care to respond in kind, even in my absence.
The charge, as I hear it, is that I pronounced the middle syllable of POTITUR as long, supposedly failing to follow Virgil, who shortened it in the phrase "vi potitur" [Aeneid 1.172]. But this is forgivable as a necessity of meter — and we regularly find Virgil doing the same sort of thing: overriding the natural quantity of syllables to satisfy the demands of his verse, dispensing with grammatical correctness where the meter requires it. Take these examples:
"Non erimus regno indecores" [Aeneid 1.607]
"Fervere Leucaten" [Aeneid 8.677]
"Namque ut supremam falsa inter gaudia noctem / Egerimus, nosti" [Aeneid 6.513-14]
No grammarian would claim that these three words — fervere, egerimus, or indecores — should have their penultimate syllables shortened. Virgil, using the license of poets, presumes to shorten the middle syllable of POTITUR. But let us set aside poetic license for a moment and examine the word by the rules of grammar.
Since the second person POTIRIS has a long middle syllable, it follows that the third person POTITUR should be long as well — just as we say SORTIOR, SORTIRIS, SORTITUR. Likewise in the perfect tense: POTITUS SUM, ES, EST. In the imperative: POTIRE, just as SORTIRE. In the optative mood, present and imperfect, through all three persons with the syllable equally long: UTINAM POTIRER, POTIRERIS, POTIRETUR. If you make the third person POTITUR short, you would be forced to do the same with the second person POTIRIS — which the whole integrity of the Latin language excludes from every example and usage.
There you have it: a defense of the very word you criticized. Now, paying my respectful regards, I earnestly ask that since I, by the right of friendship, have expressed my view in the freedom of this letter, you in turn — setting aside the example of Virgilian authority, since we should not follow Virgil in his handling of barbarisms when we cannot follow him in the dignity of his verse — would write back to me with the reasoning I should adopt. Or if you prefer to settle the question with a citation, I trust you will search more carefully among the prose authors you rightly teach to your students, and share what you find.
Avitus episcopus Viventiolo rhetori.
Cum rumor ex vobis susurriat, quod in homilia, quam nuper ad populum Lug-
dunensem in dedicatione basilicae videor concionatus, barbarismum me incurrisse di-
catis, palam scilicet castigantes, quod publica oratione peccaverim: fateor istud potuisse
contingere, praesertim mihi, cui, si qua in annis viridioribus fuerunt studia litterarum,
omnia fert aetas. Ambieram tamen a vobis hoc ipsum coram positus audire, quia
etiam si sciendi in me facultas minuitur, discendi cupiditas non mutatur. Sed quia
vos absentem dicere comperi, quamquam absens respondere curavi. Igitur culpasse
vos ferunt, quod POTITVR mediam syllabam productam dixerim, Virgilium in hoc verbo
scilicet non secutus, qui syllaba ipsa correpte usus est dicens
Vi potitur.
Sed istud remissibile est poematis necessitate, quod perinde saepe invenimus Virgilium
praesumpsisse, ut scilicet metri legem, sicubi opus est, barbarismo contempto expediat
et syllabarum naturam certis quibusque locis artem minime secutus invertat. Quale
est illud:
Non erimus regno indecores,
vel:
Fervere Leucaten
vel illud:
Namque ut supremam falsa inter gaudia noctem
Egerimus, nosti.
Cum utique haec tria verba, id est fervere, egerimus aut indecores, nullus
litteratorum corripi adserat, sed productis naturaliter paenultimis syllabis adhortetur
ponenda. Virgilius ergo usus licentia poetarum secundum ea, quae supra diximus,
corripiens mediam syllabam praesumit POTITVR. Quod verbum sequestrata paulisper
poetica libertate artis potius lege tractemus. Secundum quod longa media est POTIRIS,
testat, ut persona tertia, id est POTITVR, similiter longa sit; sicut dicimus SORTIOR
SORTIRIS SORTITVR. Sic tempore praeterito perfecto prima, secunda, tertia persona
POTITVS SVM ES EST; sic imperativo modo tempore praesenti secunda persona POTIRE,
sicut SORTIRE. Similiter optativo modo tempore praesenti et praeterito imperfecto sub
totis tribus personis aeque syllaba producta: VTINAM POTIRER POTIRERIS POTIRETVR.
Ceterum si tertiam personam POTITVR brevem ponas, idem facere cogeris et in secunda,
ut POTIRIS dicas, quod utique ab omni exemplo atque usu integritas Latinitatis ex-
cludit. Ecce verbum, quod a vobis reprensum fuerat, de quo audeo rationem mutuari.
Nunc autem honorificum salve persolvens impensis precibus quaeso, ut, quia ego ami-
citiae iure, quid mihi videretur, stilo paginae liberioris expressi, vos quoque ad vicem
sublato, ut supra dictum est, Virgilianae auctoritatis exemplo, quem vel ob hoc in bar-
barismorum usurpatione non debemus sequi, quia in carminum dignitate non possumus
consequi, licet idem Virgilius POTITVS vel POTITI producte posuerit, sicut est illud
auroque potiti,
vos mihi magis rationem, quam sequi debeam, rescripto exponente tractetis. Aut si
certe sciscitantem testimonii cuiuscumque eligitis docere compendio, spero, ut de priscis
magis oratoribus, quos discipulis merito traditis, perquisitum diligentius repertumque
pandatis. Quod si nec argumento artis nec oratorio invenitur, patere communes filios,
quorum ingenia mallem praesenti tempore ut primus quam solus imbueres, hoc uno
tantum vitio esse contentos. Qui tamen ex illo profluentis uberi fonte doctrinae iam
nunc inter initia sua non minus quam litteras bibant, quod amicum attrahere magis
studiis quam detractare et oratorem eloqui potius quam obloqui decet.
◆
From:Avitus, bishop of Vienne
To:Viventiolus, a rhetorician
Date:~500 AD
Context:A witty and learned defense of Latin grammar — Avitus responds to a critic who accused him of using the wrong vowel quantity in the word POTITUR during a sermon, mounting a point-by-point refutation using Virgil and the rules of Latin conjugation.
Avitus, bishop, to Viventiolus the rhetorician.
Word has reached me through the rumor mill that you claim I committed a barbarism in the homily I recently delivered to the people of Lyon at the dedication of a church — publicly rebuking me for sinning in a formal oration. I confess this could have happened, especially to me, since whatever literary studies I had in greener years — well, age takes everything [Virgil, Eclogues 9.51]. I had hoped, however, to hear this from you in person, because even if my capacity for knowledge is diminishing, my appetite for learning has not changed. But since I gather you said it behind my back, I have taken care to respond in kind, even in my absence.
The charge, as I hear it, is that I pronounced the middle syllable of POTITUR as long, supposedly failing to follow Virgil, who shortened it in the phrase "vi potitur" [Aeneid 1.172]. But this is forgivable as a necessity of meter — and we regularly find Virgil doing the same sort of thing: overriding the natural quantity of syllables to satisfy the demands of his verse, dispensing with grammatical correctness where the meter requires it. Take these examples:
"Non erimus regno indecores" [Aeneid 1.607] "Fervere Leucaten" [Aeneid 8.677] "Namque ut supremam falsa inter gaudia noctem / Egerimus, nosti" [Aeneid 6.513-14]
No grammarian would claim that these three words — fervere, egerimus, or indecores — should have their penultimate syllables shortened. Virgil, using the license of poets, presumes to shorten the middle syllable of POTITUR. But let us set aside poetic license for a moment and examine the word by the rules of grammar.
Since the second person POTIRIS has a long middle syllable, it follows that the third person POTITUR should be long as well — just as we say SORTIOR, SORTIRIS, SORTITUR. Likewise in the perfect tense: POTITUS SUM, ES, EST. In the imperative: POTIRE, just as SORTIRE. In the optative mood, present and imperfect, through all three persons with the syllable equally long: UTINAM POTIRER, POTIRERIS, POTIRETUR. If you make the third person POTITUR short, you would be forced to do the same with the second person POTIRIS — which the whole integrity of the Latin language excludes from every example and usage.
There you have it: a defense of the very word you criticized. Now, paying my respectful regards, I earnestly ask that since I, by the right of friendship, have expressed my view in the freedom of this letter, you in turn — setting aside the example of Virgilian authority, since we should not follow Virgil in his handling of barbarisms when we cannot follow him in the dignity of his verse — would write back to me with the reasoning I should adopt. Or if you prefer to settle the question with a citation, I trust you will search more carefully among the prose authors you rightly teach to your students, and share what you find.
Modern English rendering for readability. See the 19th-century translation or original Latin/Greek for scholarly use.