Quick question for something it’s hard to find a ready answer to online, namely the orthographic conventions regarding cum and quum. As far as I can understand from a couple of references, cum was more likely (possibly exclusively) written in Classical Latin. For instance, Allen and Greenough say “u (vowel) after u (consonant) was avoided, [the Romans] writing cum (for quom, very late quum).” In Hale’s article “The Art of Reading Latin” (1867), the author with only a hint of exasperation) says, “What is cum?” Some [students] say, with perfect readiness, preposition, some say conjunction. “But,” I answer, "if you are used to the right spelling, you know with an instant’s thought that no Roman that ever lived could tell at this point [i.e., without further context] whether it was preposition or conjunction. "
So, if the latter especially is accurate, it seems to leave no doubt that the conjunction was spelled cum in Classical Latin, but reanalyzed by later writers and written quum. If that is correct, why did quum proliferate, especially (where I see it) in 19th century texts? Simplicity? Clarity? Any corrections would be appreciated.
I don’t have an answer, but I suspect that Latin orthography was less normalized at any period than Allen & Greenough or the standard grammars would have you believe. Also, consciously archaic spellings were used in certain periods. Matters of othography were probably systematically investigated in the 19th century, based primarily on epigraphic evidence and obscure statements by ancient grammarians, and the normalization of the spelling cum in printed texts probably dates from that period. The spelling quum was probably found in some manuscripts–maybe older, Carolingian-era mss.–possibly reflecting a spelling prevalent in late antiquity, and might have been taken as original before the spelling cum became standardized in printed texts in the mid- to late 19th century. But this is all speculation on my part.
There is a discussion of the phonetic changes that underlie the orthographic change from quom to cum in Allen, Vox Latina, 16-20. He mentions that the archaic spelling uo for uu (equos, seruos) is sometimes found in the manuscript traditions of Vergil and Horace.
Thanks, Shenoute. This explains why older printed texts might have preferred quum. Incidentally, a spelling qum is also reported in the Oxford Latin Dictionary.
Quintilian is writing in the second half of the first century CE; Isidore, around 600 CE.
I think it’s significant that Quintilian notes that the distinction between quom and cum is observed a multis, i.e., not everyone. I think this bears out my suspicion that Latin orthography was not as uniform as it is sometimes made out to be.
Thanks to the responders, I didn’t have time to reply after my first reading. A distinction may have been observed by some editors; alas that I don’t remember - I was browsing older texts on Google Books when I asked.