Chapter IX: Part 9

"As it is knowne how meny maner peple beeth in this land: There beeth also so many dyvers longages and tongues. Nathless, Walschemen and Scotts, that hath nought medled with other nations, holdeth wel nyh his firste langage and speeche: But yif the Scottes that were sometime considerat and woned with the Picts draw somewhat after hir[148] speeche: But yif the Flemynges that woneth in the weste side of Wales haveth left her strange speeche and speketh Sexon like now. Also Englishmen, they had from the begynnynge thre maner speeche, northerne, sowtherne, and middel speeche in the middle of the lande, as they come of the maner peple of Germania. Nathless by comyxtion and mellynge[149]; first with Danes and afterwards with Normans, in meny the contray langage is apayred[150] and som useth strong wlafferynge,[4] chiterynge,[4] hartynge[4] and gartynge,[4] grisbayting;[151] this apayryng[152] of the burthe of the tunge is because of tweie thinges: oon is for children in scole, agenst the usage and maner of all other nations, beeth compelled for to leve hire owne langage, and for to consture hir lessons and here[153] thinges in Frenche and so they haveth sethe[154] Normans came firste into England. Also gentilmen children beeth taught to speke Frenche from the tyme that they beeth rokked in hire cradle and conneth[155] speke and play with a childes brache and uplandissche men[156] will likne hymself to gentilmen and fondeth[157] with the greet besynesse for to speke Frenche for to be told of. [Trevisa, the translator remarks here--"This maner was moche used to, for first deth,[158] and is sithe[159] sum del[160] changed. For John Cornwaile, a maister of grammer, changed the lore[161] in grammer scole and construction of Frenche into Englishe. And Richard Peneriche lerned the manere techynge of him as other men, of Penriche. So that now the yere of our Lorde a thousand thre hundred and four score and fyve and of the second king Richard after the conquest, nyne; and alle the grammar scoles of England children lerneth Frenche and construeth and lerneth an Englishe and haveth thereby advantage in oon side, and disadvantage in another side. Here[162] advantage is that they lerneth hir grammer in lasse tyme, than children were wonned to doo. Disadvantage is, that now children of grammer scole conneth na more Frenche than can hir _lift heele_,[163] and that is harme for hem an they schulle[164] passe the see and travaille in strange londes and in many other places. Also gentilmen haveth now moche left for to teche here children Frenche."] _Ranulphus_.--Hit seemeth a great wonder how Englishe men and her[165] own longage and tongue is so dyverse of sown in this oon ilande, and the longage of Normandie is comlynge[166] of another lande and hath oon maner soun among all men that speketh hit arigt in England. [Trevisa's remark--"Nevertheless there is as many diverse maner Frenche in the reeme[167] of France, as is dyvers maner Englishe in the reeme of England."] _R_. Also of the aforesaid Saxon tonge that is deled[168] athree and is abide scarceliche[169] with few uplandishe men, is great wonder. For men of the est with men of the west is as it were under the same partie of hevene accordeth more in sownynge of speeche than men of the north with men of the south. Therefore it is that Mercii, that beeth men of myddel England, as it were, parteners of the endes, understandeth bettrie the side longages than northerne and southerne understandeth either other. All the longage of the Northumbers and specialliche at York, is so scharp, slitting and frotynge and unschape that the southerne men may that longage unnethe[170] understande. I trow that is because that they beeth nyh to strange men and nations, that speketh strongliche, and also because the kinges of Englande woneth[171] alway fer[172] from that contray, for they beeth more turned to the south contray, and yif they goeth to the northe contray, they goeth with great helpe and strengthe. The cause why they beeth more in the southe contray than in the northe, for it may be better corn londe, more peple, more noble cities, and more profitable havenes."[173]

On this passage we may make the following remarks:

1. That the third person singular of the verb is invariably used
with _plural_ as well as singular nouns; _they_ _beeth_, _haveth_.
Whereas in Chaucer and Mandeville the same person ends generally
in _en_; _they seyn_ for _they say_.

The same third person was used for the imperative, by the best English writers,

"And soft take me in your armes twey,
For love of God, and hearkeneth what I sey."

Chaucer, Knight's Tale, 2783.

"And at certyn houres, they seyn to certyn offices,
_maketh pees_;" that is, _make peace_.--Mandeville, p. 281.

2. That _yif_ is used for _if_; a proof that _if_ is a verb, a
contraction of _gif_ or _yif_ (for they were used promiscuously)
the imperative of _gifan_, to give.[174]

3. That the subjunctive form of verbs was not used after _if_;
_and yif they goeth to the northe contray_.

4. That there were three principal dialects in the English; the
_northern_, which was corrupted by the Scots and Picts, and from
which the present Yorkshire language is derived; the _middle_,
which came from Germany and retained its primitive purity, and
is the true parent of modern English; and the _southern_, by
which is meant, either the language of the southern parts which
was corrupted by an intercourse with foreigners; or what is more
probable, the language spoken in Devonshire, and on the borders of
Cornwall, which was mixed with the old British, and is now almost
unintelligible.

5. That the conquests of the Danes and Normans had corrupted the
pure language of the Saxons.

6. That this corruption proceeded principally from the teaching of
French in schools.

7. That country people, (uplandish men) imitated the practice of
the polite, and learnt French, as many do now, _to be told of_.

8. That Cornwail and others, in Trevisa's time, had begun to
reform this practice.

9. That French had almost banished the native Saxon from the
polite part of the nation, and that the _uplandish_ or western
people alone retained it uncorrupted.

10. That the kings of England resided principally in the southern
parts of the kingdom, where the land was most fertile, best
cultivated, most populous, and most advantageous for commerce.

[D], page 59.

Chaucer's particular patron was John of Gaunt, Duke of Lancaster. He married Philippa, the sister of Lady Swinford, who before her marriage and after her husband's death, was one of the Duke's family.

"Grete well _Chaucer_ when you mete--
Of dittees and of songes glade,
The which he----made
The londe fulfilled is over all."

Gower.

Gower is said to have been Chaucer's preceptor.

"My maister _Chaucer_--chiefe poet of Bretayne
Whom all this lond should of right preferre,
Sith of our language he was _the lode starre_,
That made first to dystylle and rayne
The gold dew dropys of speche and eloquence
Into our tungue through his excellence."

Lydgate.

Chaucer's merit in improving the English language is celebrated by other poets of his time--Occleve, Douglas and Dunbar. They call him the _floure of eloquence_, the _fader in science_, and the _firste fynder of our fayre langage_.

He died in 1400.

It must however be remarked that Chaucer did not import foreign words, so much as introduce them into books and give them currency in writing. It must further be observed that when I speak of the incorporation of Latin words with the English, I would not be understood to mean that words were taken directly from the Roman tongue and anglicised. On the other hand, they mostly came thro the channel of the Norman or Provençal French; and perhaps we may call them with propriety _French_ words; for they had lost much of their Roman form among the Gauls, Franks and Normans.

The most correct account I have seen of the state of the language in the 11th, 12th, 13th and 14th centuries, is in the first volume of Bell's edition of Chaucer.

We have the authority of Ingulphus, a historian of credit, for alleging that the French began to be fashionable in England, before the conquest. Edward the Confessor resided many years in Normandy, and imbibed a predilection for the French manners and language. On his accession to the throne of England, in 1043, he promoted many of his Norman favorites to the first dignities in the kingdom; under the influence of the king and his friends, the English began to imitate the French fashions.

But the conquest in 1066, completed the change. The court of William consisted principally of foreigners who could speak no language but French. Most of the high offices and rich livings in the kingdom were filled with Normans, and the castles which, by order of the conqueror, were built in different parts of the country, were garrisoned by foreign soldiers, in whom the king might most safely confide.[175] Public business was transacted in the French, and it became dishonorable or a mark of low breeding, not to understand that language. Indeed under the first reigns after the conquest, it was a disgrace to be called an _Englishman_. In this depressed state of the English, their language could not fail to be neglected by the polite part of the nation.

But as the body of the nation did not understand French, there must have been a constant effort to root it out and establish the English. The latter however gained ground slowly during the two first centuries of the revolution. But in the reign of king John, Normandy, which had been united with England under the Norman princes, was taken by the French, 1205, and thus separated from the British dominions. In the next reign (Henry III.) some regulations were made between the two kingdoms, by which the subjects of either were rendered incapable of holding lands in the other. These events must have restrained, in some degree, the intercourse between the two kingdoms, and given the English an opportunity to assume their own native character and importance. In this reign the English began to value themselves upon their birth, and a knowlege of the English language was a recommendation, tho not a requisite, in a candidate for a benefice.

It appears also by the passage of Higden before quoted, that the practice of construing Latin into French, in the schools, had closed before his time. This, with the other causes before assigned, contributed to root out the French, and make the English reputable; and in the reign of Edward III. produced the act, mentioned in the text, in favor of the English. This act did not produce a total change of practice at once; for we find the proceedings in parliament were published in French for sixty years after the pleas in courts were ordered to be in English, and the statutes continued in French about 120 years after the act, till the first of Richard III.

It may be observed that the royal assent to bills was in some instances given in English during the reign of Henry VI. _Be it ordained as it is asked: Be it as it is axed._[176] But the royal assent is now declared in French.

[E], page 66 and 34.

Sir William Temple's stile, tho easy and flowing, is too diffuse: Every page of his abounds with tautologies. Take the following specimen from the first page that presents itself on opening his third volume.

"Upon the survey of these dispositions in mankind and these conditions of government, it seems much more reasonable to pity than to envy the _fortunes_ and _dignities_ of princes or _great_ ministers of _state_; and to _lessen_ and _excuse_ their _venial_ faults, or at least their misfortunes, rather than to _encrease_ and _make them worse_ by _ill colors_ and _representations_."----Of Pop. Dis.

_Fortunes_ and _dignities_ might have been better expressed by _elevated rank_ or _high stations_; _great_ is superfluous, and so are _lessen_ and _make them worse_, and either _colors_ or _representations_ might have been omitted.

"The first safety of _princes_ and _states_ lies in avoiding all _councils_ or _designs_ of innovation, in _ancient_ and _established forms_ and _laws_, especially those concerning liberty, property and religion (which are the possessions men will ever have most at heart;) and thereby leaving the channel of _known_ and _common_ justice _clear_ and _undisturbed_." Several words might here be retrenched, and yet leave the author's meaning more precise and intelligible. This is the principal fault in Temple's stile.

"But men, accustomed to the free and vagrant life of hunters, are incapable of regular application to labor; and consider agriculture as a _secondary_ and _inferior_ occupation."--Robertson's Hist. Amer. book 4.

Supposing _secondary_ and _inferior_ not to be exactly synonimous, in this sentence one would have answered the purpose.

"_Agriculture_, even when the strength of man is seconded by that of the animals _which he has subjected to the yoke_, and his power augmented by _the use of the various instruments with which_ the discovery of metals has furnished him, is still _a work_ of great labor."--The same.

This sentence is very exceptionable. Is _agriculture, a work?_ Can so _definite_ a term be applied to such a _general_ idea? But what a group of useless words follow! It was not sufficient to say, _the strength of man seconded by that of animals_, but the kinds of animals must be specified; viz. such as _he has subjected to the yoke_; when every person knows that other animals are never used; and consequently the author's idea would have been sufficiently explicit without that specification. In the subsequent clause, the words, _his power augmented by the use of the various instruments of metal_, would have been explicit; for the _discovery of metals_ must have been implied. Such expletive words load the mind with a chain of particular ideas which are not essential to the discourse.

"--And if any one of these prognostics is deemed unfavorable, they instantly abandon the pursuit of _those_ measures, _on which they are most eagerly bent_."--The same.

Here is an awkward conclusion of the period, and ascribeable to a too nice regard for grammatical rules. _They are most eagerly bent on_, would perhaps have been better; but a different construction would have been still less exceptionable. There is however a greater fault in the construction. By employing _those_ and _most eagerly_, the idea is, that savages, on the appearance of unfavorable omens, would abandon _those_ measures _only_, on which they are _most eagerly_ bent, and not others that they might be pursuing with less earnestness. Why could not the author have said in plain English--"they instantly abandon any measure they are pursuing."

This writer's stile likewise abounds with synonims; as _strengthen_ and _confirm_, _quicken_ and _animate_; when one term would fully express the meaning. "Strong liquors _awake_ a savage from his _torpid state_--_give a brisker motion to his spirits_, and _enliven_ him more thoroughly than either dancing or gaming."--Book. 4. What a needless repetition of the same idea! The author is also very liberal in the use of _all_--"_all_ the _transports_ and _frenzy_ of intoxication."--"War, which between extensive kingdoms, is carried on with little animosity, is prosecuted by small tribes, with _all_ the rancor of a private quarrel."

In short, the stile of Dr. Robertson, the great, the philosophic historian, is too labored. The mind of the reader is kept constantly engaged in attending to the structure of the periods; it is fatigued with words and drawn from the chain of events.

The stile of Kaims, tho not easy and flowing, is precise, and generally accurate. The stile of Blair's Lectures is less correct than that of his Sermons; but at the same time, less formal in the structure of the periods.

These remarks, the reader will observe, respect stile only; for the merit of Robertson, as a judicious and faithful historian; and of Kaims and Blair, as critics, is above praise or censure.

In no particular is the false taste of the English more obvious, than in the promiscuous encomiums they have bestowed on Gibbon, as a historian. His work is not properly a "_History_ of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire;" but a "Poetico-Historical Description of certain Persons and Events, embellished with suitable imagery and episodes, designed to show the author's talent in selecting words, as well as to delight the ears of his readers." In short, his history should be entitled, "A Display of Words;" except some chapters which are excellent commentaries on the history of the Roman Empire.

The general fault of this author is, he takes more pains to form his sentences, than to collect, arrange and express the facts in an easy and perspicuous manner. In consequence of attending to ornament, he seems to forget that he is writing for the _information_ of his reader, and when he ought to _instruct_ the _mind_, he is only _pleasing_ the _ear_. Fully possessed of his subject, he describes things and events in general terms or figurative language, which leave upon the mind a faint evanescent impression of some indeterminate idea; so that the reader, not obtaining a clear precise knowlege of the facts, finds it difficult to understand, and impossible to recollect, the author's meaning. Let a man read his volumes with the most laborious attention, and he will find at the close that he can give very little account of the "Roman Empire;" but he will remember perfectly that Gibbon is a most elegant writer.

History is capable of very little embellishment; _tropes_ and _figures_ are the proper instruments of _eloquence_ and _declamation_; _facts_ only are the subjects of _history_. Reflections of the author are admitted; but these should not be frequent; for the reader claims a right to his own opinions. The justness of the historian's remarks may be called in question--facts only are incontestible. The plain narrative of the Scripture historians, and of Herodotus, with their dialogues and digressions, is as far superior, considered as pure history, to the affected glaring brilliancy of stile and manner, which runs thro Gibbon's writings, as truth is to fiction; or the vermillion blush of nature and innocence, to the artificial daubings of fashion. The first never fails to affect the heart--the last can only dazzle the senses.

Another fault in Gibbon's manner of writing, is, the use of _epithets_ or _titles_ instead of _names_. "The Cæsar, the conqueror of the east, the protector of the church, the country of the Cæsars, the son of Leda," and innumerable similar appellations are employed, instead of the real names of the persons and places; and frequently at such a distance from any mention of the name, that the reader is obliged to turn over a leaf and look for an explanation. Many of the epithets are new; custom has not made us familiar with them; they have never been substituted, by common consent, for the true names; the reader is therefore surprized with unexpected appellations, and constantly interrupted to find the persons or things to which they belong.

I am not about to write a lengthy criticism on this author's history; a few passages only will be selected as proofs of what I have advanced. "Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire," vol. 3, oct. chap. 17: In explaining the motives of the Emperors for removing the seat of government from Rome to the East, the author says--"_Rome_ was insensibly confounded with the dependent kingdoms which had once acknowleged her supremacy; and _the country of the Cæsars_ was viewed with cold indifference by a martial prince, born in the neighborhood of the Danube, educated in the courts and armies of Asia, and invested with the _purple_ by the legions of Britain." By the author's beginning one part of the sentence with _Rome_, and the other with _the country of the Cæsars_, the reader is led to think two different places are intended, for he has not a suspicion of a tautology; or at least he supposes the author uses _the country of the Cæsars_ in a more extensive sense than _Rome_. He therefore looks back and reads perhaps half a page with a closer attention, and finds that the writer is speaking of the _seat of empire_, and therefore can mean the _city of Rome_ only. After this trouble he is displeased that the author has employed _five words_ to swell and adorn his period. This however is not the only difficulty in understanding the author. Who is the _martial prince_? In the preceding sentence, Dioclesian is mentioned, as withdrawing from Rome; and in the sentence following, Constantine is said to visit Rome but seldom. The reader then is left to collect the author's meaning, by the circumstances of the birth, education and election of this martial prince. If he is possessed of these facts already, he may go on without much trouble.

The author's affectation of using _the purple_ for the crown or imperial dignity, is so obvious by numberless repetitions of the word, as to be perfectly ridiculous.

"In the choice of an advantageous situation, he preferred the confines of Europe and Asia; to curb, _with a powerful arm_, the barbarians who dwelt between the Danube and Tanais; to watch, _with an eye of jealousy_, the conduct of the Persian monarch." Here the members of the sentence in Italics, are altogether superfluous; the author wanted to inform his reader, that Dioclesian designed to curb the barbarians and watch the Persian monarch; for which purpose he chose a favorable situation; but it was wholly immaterial to the subject to relate in what manner or degree, the emperor meant to exert his arm or his jealousy. Nay more, these are circumstances which are not reduceable to any certainty, and of which the writer and the reader can have no precise idea.

"With these views, Dioclesian had selected and embellished the _residence of Nicomedia_."--Is Nicomedia a princess, whose residence the emperor selected and embellished? This is the most obvious meaning of the sentence. But Nicomedia, we learn from other passages, was a city, the _residence_ itself of the emperor. Yet the author could not tell us this in a few plain words, without spoiling the harmony of the phrase; he chose therefore to leave it obscure and ungrammatical.

"--But the memory of Dioclesian was justly abhorred by the _Protector of the Church_; and _Constantine_ was not insensible to the ambition of founding a city, which might perpetuate the glory of his own name." Who is the _protector of the church_? By Constantine's being mentioned immediately after, one would think he cannot be the person intended; yet on examination, this is found to be the case. But why this separate appellation? It seems the author meant by it to convey this idea; That Dioclesian was a persecutor of the church, therefore his memory was abhorred by Constantine who was its protector; the _cause_ of _Constantine_'s _abhorrence_ is implied, and meant to be unfolded to the reader, in a single epithet. Is this history? I must have the liberty to think that such _terseness_ of stile, notwithstanding the authorities of Tacitus and Gibbon, is a gross corruption and a capital fault.

In description, our author often indulges a figurative poetical manner, highly improper.

"The figure of the imperial city (Constantinople) may be represented under that of an unequal triangle. The obtuse point, which advances towards the east, and the shores of Asia, meets and repels the waves of the Thracian Bosphorus." Here the author soars on poetic wings, and we behold the _obtuse point_ of a _triangle_, _marching_ eastward, _attacking_ and _repulsing_ its _foes_, the _waves_ of the Bosphorus; in the next line, the author sinks from the heights of Parnassus, and creeps on the plain of _simple narrative_--"The northern side of the city is bounded by the harbor."

"On these banks, tradition long preserved the memory of the sylvan reign of Amycus, who defied the _son of Leda_ to the combat of the Cestus." The author takes it for granted that his reader is acquainted with all the ancient fables of Greece and Rome. Such _allusions_ to facts or fables make a wretched figure in _sober history_.[177]

The author, after the manner of the poets, admits episodes into his descriptions, by way of variety and embellishment. He begins a description of Constantinople; to do justice to the city, he must describe its situation; he therefore gives an account of the Thracian Bosphorus, the Propontus and Hellespont, interspersed with ancient fables, and adorned with poetical imagery. When he arrives at the mouth of the Hellespont, his fancy leads him to the seat of ancient Troy, and he cannot pass it, without telling us from Homer, where the Grecian armies were encamped; where the flanks of the army were guarded by Agamemnon's bravest chiefs; where Achilles and his myrmidons occupied a promontory; where Ajax pitched his tent; and where his tomb was erected after his death. After indulging his fancy on this memorable field of heroic actions, he is _qualified_ to describe Constantinople.

But it is needless to multiply examples; for similar faults occur in almost every page. Most men, who have read this history, perceive a difficulty in understanding it; yet few have attempted to find the reason; and hardly a man has dared to censure the stile and manner.

To what cause then shall we ascribe the almost unanimous consent of the English and Americans, in lavishing praises upon Gibbon's history? In some measure doubtless to the greatness of the attempt, and the want of an English history which should unfold the series of events which connects ancient and modern times. The man who should light a lamp, to illuminate the dark period of time from the 5th to the 15th century, would deserve immortal honors. The attempt is great; it is noble; it is meritorious. Gibbon appears to have been faithful, laborious, and perhaps impartial. It is his stile and manner only I am censuring; for these are exceedingly faulty. For proof of this I appeal to a single fact, which I have never heard contradicted; that a man who would comprehend Gibbon, must read with painful attention, and after all receive little improvement.

The encomiums of his countrymen proceed from false taste; a taste for superfluous ornament. Men are disposed to lessen the trouble of reading, and to spare the labor of examining into the causes and consequences of events. They choose to please their eyes and ears, rather than feed the mind. Hence the rage for _abridgements_, and a display of rhetorical embellishments. Hence the eclat with which "Millot's Elements of General History," is received in the world. This work is no more than an _Index to General History_; or a recapitulation of the principal events. It is calculated for two classes of people; for those who, having read history in the original writers, want to revise their studies, without a repetition of their first labors; and for those who have but little time to employ in reading, and expect only a general and superficial knowlege of history.[178] But a man who would know the minute springs of action; the remote and collateral, as well as the direct causes and consequences of events; and the nice shades of character which distinguish eminent men, with a view to draw rules from living examples; such a man must pass by abridgements as trash; he must have recourse to the original writers, or to collections of authentic papers. Indeed a collection of all the material official papers, arranged in the order of time, however dry and unentertaining to most readers, is really the _best_, and the _only authentic_ history of a country. The philosopher and statesman, who wish to substitute fact for opinion, will generally suspect human testimony; but repose full confidence in the evidence of papers, which have been the original instruments of public transactions, and recorded by public authority.

These strictures are contrary to the opinions of most men, especially as they regard the stile of the authors mentioned. Yet they are written with a full conviction of their being well founded. They proceed from an earnest desire of arresting the progress of false taste in writing, and of seeing my countrymen called back to nature and truth.

POSTSCRIPT.

The foregoing remarks were written before I had seen the opinions of that judicious and elegant writer, East Apthorp, M. A. vicar of Croydon, on the same history. The following passage is too directly in point to be omitted. It is in his "Second Letter on the Study of History."

"I was disappointed in my expectations of instruction from this book (Gibbon's History) when I discerned that the author had adopted that entertaining but superficial manner of writing history, which was first introduced by the Abbe de Vertot, whose History of the Revolutions in the Government of the Roman Republic, is one of those agreeable and seducing models which never fail of producing a multitude of imitations. There is, in this way of writing, merit enough to recommend it to such readers, and such writers, as propose to themselves no higher aim, than an elegant literary amusement: It piques their curiosity, while it gratifies their indolence. The historian has the advantage, in this way, of passing over such events and institutions as, however essential to the science of history, are less adapted to shine in the recital. By suppressing facts and violating chronology; by selecting the most pleasing incidents and placing them in a striking point of view, by the coloring and drapery of stile and composition, the imagination is gratified with a gaudy spectacle of triumphs and revolutions passing in review before it; while the rapid succession of great events affords a transient delight, without leaving useful and lasting impressions either on the memory or judgement; or fixing those principles which ought to be the result of historic information.

"Nor is it the worst consequence of this slight and modish way of compiling history, that it affords to supine and unreflecting readers a barren entertainment, to fill up the vacant hours of indolence and dissipation. The historian who gives himself the privilege of mutilating and selecting, and arranging at discretion the records of past ages, has full scope to obtrude on his careless readers any system that suits with his preconceived opinions or particular views in writing."--"The only legitimate study of history is in _original historians_."

The same writer complains of a decline of literature in Great Britain, fixing the "settlement that followed the revolution," as the era of true science and greatness. He remarks that the "aim of modern writers seems to be to furnish their readers with fugitive amusement, and that ancient literature is become rather the ornament of our libraries, than the accomplishment of our minds; being supplanted by the modish productions which are daily read and forgotten."

[F], page 76.

For proof of what I have advanced respecting the sound of c in Rome, I would observe, that the genitive case of the first declension in Latin anciently ended in _ai_, which was probably copied from the Greeks; for it is very evident the Latin _æ_ in later writers, was the true representative of the Greek _ai_. Thus _Mousai_ in Greek was translated into the Roman tongue, _musæ_. Now _c_ before _ai_ had the sound of _k_; for where the Romans wrote _cæ_ the Greeks wrote _kai_. Thus _musica_, _musicæ_ in the first declension must have been pronounced _musika_, _musikai_, not _musisee_, as we now pronounce the _æ_.

As a further proof, we may appeal to the laws of the Roman poetry, by which dipthongs were always long, having the sound of two vowels combined.

But a decisive proof that _c_ before the vowels _a_, _o_, _u_ and the dipthongs, had the power of _k_, is that the Greeks always translated the _c_ in _kappa_. They wrote Cæsar, _Kaisaros_, &c.

In confirmation of which I may add, that the Germans, among whom the word _Cæsar_ became common to all emperors, and now signifies _emperor_, spell it _Kaisar_; and in the pronunciation they preserve the true Roman sound of _Cæsar_.[179]

That the Roman _c_ before _e_ and _i_ had the force of _ch_ or _tsh_, is probable from the present practice of the Italians, who would be the most likely to retain the pure Roman pronunciation. In modern Italian _ce_, _ci_ are pronounced _che_, _chi_; as _dolcemente_, _Cicero_, pronounced _dolchemente_, _Chichero_.

In this opinion I am supported by Dr. Middleton, who seems to have been thoroughly versed in Roman literature. It may gratify the learned reader to see his own words. _De Lat. Liter. pron. differ._

"Ante vocales _a_, _o_, _v_[180] eundem olim sonum habuisse ac hodie habet certissimum est: qualem autem ante reliquas _e_ et _i_, diphthongosque _æ_, _oe_, _ev_ habuerit, haud ita convenit. Angli illam Gallique etiam, haud ab _s_ distinguunt, in Coena, Cæsar, Ceres, cinis, &c. at in iisdem Itali, quod Romanos etiam fecisse olim existimo, eum huic literæ sonum tribuunt, quo nos _ch_ efferimus, in vocibus nostris, _cheek_, _cherry_, _cheap_, &c. itaque pronunciant Cicero, uti nos Chichester, chicheley, &c. ita tamen ac si ante _c_, cum in medio vocis sequatur vocalem, litera t leviter admodum et subobscure sonanda interponeretur; ut _Citcero_, Chitchester, quam pronuntiandi rationem expressisse plane sculptor quidam videtur, qui in inscriptione veteri contra orthographiæ regulas, _t_ ante _c_ interposuit in nomine _Vrbitcius_."

He observes however that Lipsius ridicules this opinion, and contends that _c_ had in all cases the force of _k_. This the Doctor ascribes to his partiality for the pronunciation of his countrymen, the Germans, which, he says, has often led him into errors. For altho _k_ before _a_, _o_, _u_ used frequently to be written for _c_, as _Karcer_ for _Carcer_, yet it never took the place of _c_ before _e_ and _i_; we never find _Karker_ for _Carcer_.

But that _c_ had the sound of our _ch_, is probable from another fact: In old inscriptions it is found that _c_ was often used for _t_ before _i_; _condicio_ for _conditio_, _palacium_ for _palatium_. Now _ch_ in English have a compound sound, which begins with that of _t_, and hence _ti_ and _ci_ in English have taken the sound of _ch_ or _sh_. It is evident therefore that _c_ before _i_ had a great affinity to _ti_; an affinity which is still preserved in the Italian language. These circumstances give us reason to believe that _ci_ and _ti_ in _condicio_ and _palatium_, were both pronounced _chi_, _condichio_, _palachium_. This sound of _ci_ agrees perfectly well with the Saxon sound in _cild_, pronounced _child_; _cele_, now pronounced _chill_, as I have remarked above; text, page 72.

[G], page 82.

I shall not enter into a particular discussion of the question, whether _h_ is a mark of _sound_ or not. By its convertibility with _k_ and _c_ in the ancient languages, we have reason to conclude that it once had a guttural sound, and the pronunciation of some northern nations of Europe confirms the opinion. But it appears in modern English to have no sound by itself; it however affects, in some degree, the sound of the vowel to which it is prefixed, by previously opening the mouth wider than is necessary to articulate the vowel. Thus in _hand_ we hear no sound but of _and_; yet in pronouncing _hand_ we open the throat wider, and emit the breath with violence before we begin the sound, which makes an obvious difference in pronouncing the words _and_ and _hand_; and perhaps this distinction is perceiveable as far as the words can be heard. The same may be said of _th_ in _think_.

The instance of a man who lost a dinner by telling his servant to _eat_ it, when he meant to tell him to _heat_ it, affords a useful lesson to those who are disposed to treat the letter _h_ with too much neglect.

[H], page 85.

That _i_ short is the same sound as _ee_ we have the authority of one of the first and best English grammarians. "Hunc sonum, (ee) quoties correptus est, Angli per _i_ breve, exprimunt; quum vero producitur, scribunt ut plurimum per _ee_, non raro tamen per _ie_; vel etiam per _ea_; ut, _sit_, _fit_, _feel_, _fill_, _fiend_, _near_," &c.---- Wallis, Gram. Sect. 2.

Ash confirms the opinion. "_Ee_ has one sound, as in _see_, _thee_, and coincides with the narrow _i_."--Gram. Diss. pref. to his Dic.

Kenrick's arrangement of the _long_ and _short_ vowels is exactly similar to mine.

Sheridan entertains a different opinion respecting the short _i_ and _e_. He considers them as distinct vowels, incapable of prolongation. Rhet. Gram. pref. to his Dict. page 16. In this he differs from most other writers upon the subject, who have attended to the philosophical distinctions of sounds. This appears to be an inaccuracy in his distribution of the vowels; altho it cannot affect the practice of speaking.

The sound of the Roman _i_, it is agreed on all hands, was that of the English _ee_. It retains that sound still in the Italian, French and Spanish, which are immediately derived from the Latin. It had its long and short sounds in Latin; as in _vidi_, _homini_; the first pronounced _veedee_, and the last _homini_, as we now pronounce _i_ in _fill_. The French preserve the long sound, and lay it down as a general rule, that _i_ is pronounced like the English _ee_: Yet in discourse they actually shorten the sound, and in _sentimens_, _ressentiment_, &c. pronounce _i_ as we do in _civil_. In the French _motif_, _i_ is long like _ee_; in this and all similar terminations, we shorten the sound, _motiv_. Mr. Sheridan, in this particular, is evidently singular and probably wrong.

That _e_ in _let_ is but the short abrupt sound of _a_ in _late_, is not so clear; but to me is evident. There is little or no difference in the position of the organs with which we pronounce both vowels. The Roman, Italian, Spanish and French _e_ is considered as the representative of the English _a_ in _late_, _made_; and yet in common discourse, it is shortened into the sound of _e_ in _let_, _men_: Witness, _legere_, _avec_, _emmené_, _bueno_, _entendido_: We observe the same in English; for _said_, _any_, _many_, which are pronounced _sed_, _enny_, _menny_, exhibit the same vowel or short _a_; the _e_ being the abrupt sound of _ai_ in _said_. I must therefore differ from Mr. Sheridan, and still believe that _e_ in _let_, and _i_ in _fit_, are capable of prolongation. Children, when, instead of a comparison, they would express the superlative by an emphasis, say _leetle_ instead of _little_; which is a mere prolongation of _i_ short.

Mr. Sheridan, in my opinion, is guilty of an error of greater consequence, in marking the two qualities of sound in _bard_ and _bad_ with the same figure. He distinguishes the different qualities of sound in _pool_ and _full_, and in _not_ and _naught_; and why he should omit the distinction of sound in _bard_ and _bad_, _ask_ and _man_, is to me inconceiveable. The last distinction is as obvious as the others which he has marked; and the defect of his scheme must lead a foreigner into mistakes. His scheme is singular; Kenrick, Perry and Burn all make a distinction in the time of pronouncing _a_ in _ask_ and _at_; and even Scott, who copies Sheridan's pronunciation almost implicitly, still makes the same distinction.

[I], page 87.

"Non multum differt hic sonus (w) ab Anglorum _oo_; Gallorum _ou_, Germanorum _u_ pingui, rapidissime pronunciatis; adeoque a quibusdam pro vocali fuit habita, _cum tamen revera consona sit_, quanquam ipsi vocali admodum sit affinis."----Wallis.

"It is indeed on the celerity of utterance, that all the difference, in many cases, between consonants and vowels depends; as in _w_ and _y_, in English; which, being discharged quickly, perform the office of consonants, in giving form only to the succeeding vowel; but when protracted or drawled out, acquire a tone and become the vocal _oo_ and _ee_."----Kenrick, Rhet. Gram. p. 4.

Perry has adopted this opinion and contends warmly that _w_ is a consonant. If _w_ is a vowel, says he, then _wool_, _wolf_, will be pronounced _oo-ool_, _oo-olf_, or _ool_, _olf_. I am sensible that in the beginning of words, _w_ has not precisely the power of _oo_; but it is not clear from this fact that it has the properties of a consonant. Place a vowel before _w_, as, _ow_, and there is no compression of the lips or other parts of the mouth, to obstruct the sound, as there is produced by _b_ or _m_, in _eb_ and _em_.

In opposition to the authorities mentioned, Sheridan ranks _w_ among the vowels, and supposes it to form dipthongs with the other vowels, as in _well_, _will_, &c. It appears to me to be a letter rather of an ambiguous nature, of which we have others in the language.

[J], page 88.

It has been remarked that by old authors _y_ was often used for _g_; _yeve_ for _give_; _foryete_ for _forget_.---- Chaucer, Knight's Tale, 1884.

I have observed that some foreigners pronounce _year_, in the same manner nearly as they do _ear_; and _yeast_ is commonly pronounced _east_. This pronunciation would easily lead a man into the supposition that _y_ is merely _ee_ short. But the pronunciation is vicious.

I observe also that Mr. Sheridan says, "_ye_ has the sound of _e_ long in _ye_; of _a_ long in _yea_; of _e_ long in _year_, _yean_; and of _e_ short in _yearn_, _yell_, &c." This confirms my opinion, and is a proof that he does not pronounce _y_ at all.

If _y_ has the sound of _e_ in _year_, then _e_ has _no_ sound, or there are in the word, _two_ sounds of _e_, which no person will undertake to assert. The dispute however is easily settled. I have learnt by attending to the conversation of well bred Englishmen, that they do not pronounce _y_ at all in _year_ and many other words. They say _ear_, _e_, for _year_, _ye_; and the sound of _e_, they erroneously suppose to be that of _y_. In America, _y_ has in these words, the consonant sound it has in _young_; and the English pronunciation must in this instance be faulty.

[K], page 103.

"Now the harmony of prose arises from the same principle with that which constitutes the harmony of verse; viz. numbers; or such a disposition of the words as throws them into just metrical feet, but very different from those which constitute any species of verse."--Essay on the Power of Numbers, &c. page 4. Introd.

"A good stile is both _expressive_ and _harmonious_. The former depends on the happy choice of the words to convey our ideas; the other on the happy choice of numbers in the disposition of the words. The language of some is expressive, but unharmonious; that is, the writer's words strongly convey his sentiments, but the order in which they are placed creates a sound unpleasant to the ear. The stile of others is harmonious but not expressive; where the periods are well turned and the numbers well adapted, but the sense obscure. The former satisfies the mind, but offends the ear; the latter gratifies the ear, but disgusts the mind. A good stile entertains and pleases both," &c---- Ibm. 2d. Part, page 17.

The author proceeds to illustrate his doctrines by showing in what the harmony of prose consists. He remarks that the words should in some degree be an echo to the sense, in prose as well as verse.

He proceeds--"Every sentence may be conceived as divisible into distinct and separate clauses; every clause, where there is an apparent cessation of the voice, should always end with a generous foot; and all the preceding numbers be so intermixt, that the short ones be duly qualified by the succeeding long ones; reserving the best and most harmonious number for the cadence."

To show how much depends on the proper arrangement of words, he quotes the following instance--"A divine, speaking of the Trinity, hath this expression--It is a mystery which we firmly believe the truth of, and humbly adore the depth of." Here the language is expressive, but not harmonious; not merely because the clauses end with the particle _of_, but because they abound with feeble numbers, _Pyrrhics_ and _Trochees_. Let us change the disposition of the feet--"It is a mystery, the truth of which we firmly believe, and the depths of which we humbly adore." The difference in the melody is very perceiveable. The force and music of the last disposition is increased by the Iambics and Anapæsts.

The most forceable feet, and those best adapted to sublime and serious subjects, are those which contain the most long syllables, or end in a long syllable; as the Iambic, the Spondee, the Anapæst. The weak feet are those which have the most short syllables or end in a short syllable; as the Pyrrhic, the Trochee, the Tribrach.

The want of proper measures, or a mixture of weak and strong syllables, is very remarkable in a passage of the Declaration of Independence. "We must therefore acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, _enemies in war_, _[)i]n p[=e]ace_, _fri[=e]nds_." The three last syllables form, if any thing, a Bacchic; the first syllable, short, and the two others, long. But in a just pronunciation, the foot is necessarily broken by a pause after _peace_. This interruption, and the two long syllables, render the close of the sentence extremely heavy. The period is concise and expressive, as it stands; but the arrangement might be much more harmonious--"O[)u]r [=e]n[)e]m[)i]es [)i]n w[=a]r; [)i]n p[=e]ace, o[)u]r fri[=e]nds." Here the measure and melody are perfect; the period closing with three Iambics, preceded by a Pyrrhic.

[L], page 111.

In a Scotch Ballad, called _Edom o Gordon_, we find the word _dreips_ for _drops_.

"--And clear, clear was hir zellow hair
Whereon the reid bluid _dreips_."

But it was often spelt _drap_, agreeable to the pronunciation. See Edward. Rel. An. Poet. 53.

The dialect in America is peculiar to the descendants of the Scotch Irish.

[M], page 111.

Mought is the past time or participle of an old Saxon verb _mowe_ or _mowen_, _to be able_. It answered to the _posse_ of the Romans, and the _pouvoir_ of the French. This verb occurs frequently in Chaucer.

"But that science is so fer us beforne,
We _mowen_ not, altho we had it sworne,
It overtake, it slit away so fast,
It _wol_ us maken beggers at the last."

Cant. Tales, l. 16, 148, Bell's edit.

"To _mowen_ such a knight done live or die."----Troil. and Cres. 2. 1594. That is, _to be able_ to make such a knight live or die.

"And _mought_ I hope to winne thy love,
Ne more his tonge could saye."

Sir Cauline, an old Ballad, l. 163.

"The thought they herd a woman wepe,
But her they _mought_ not se."

Adam Bell, &c. part 3. l. 2. in Rel. of An. Poet.

"So _mought_ thou now in these refined lays
Delight the dainty ears of higher powers.
And so _mought_ they in their deep scanning skill,
Allow and grace our Collen's flowing quill."

Spenser, Hobbynall.

There seem to have been among our Saxon ancestors two verbs of nearly or exactly the same signification, _may_ and _might_; and _mowe_ and _mought_. There is some reason to think they were not synonimous; that _may_ was used to express _possibility_, as _I may go next week_; and _mowe_ to express _power_, as _they mowen go_, they are able to go. But it is not certain that such a distinction ever existed. The Germans use _moegen_, in the infinitive; _mag_, in the indic. pres. _mæge_, in the subj. pres. in the imperfect of the ind. _mochte_; and in the imp. of the subj. _mæchte_. The English use _may_ and _might_ solely in their writing; but _mought_ is still pronounced in some parts of America.

_Holpe_ or _holp_ was not obsolete when the Bible was last translated, in the reign of king James; for it occurs in several places in that translation. It occurs frequently in old authors.

"Unkindly they slew him, that _holp_ them oft at nede."

Skelton El. on Earl of Northum. l. 47.

In Virginia it is pronounced _hope_. "Shall I hope you, Sir."

But we must look among the New England common people for ancient English phrases; for they have been 160 years sequestered in some measure from the world, and their language has not suffered material changes from their first settlement to the present time. Hence most of the phrases, used by Shakespear, Congreve, and other writers who have described English manners and recorded the language of all classes of people, are still heard in the common discourse of the New England yeomanry.

The verb _be_, in the indicative, present tense, which Lowth observes is almost obsolete in England, is still used after the ancient manner, I _be_, we _be_, you _be_, they _be_. The old plural _housen_ is still used for houses. The old verb _wol_ for will, and pronounced _wool_, is not yet fallen into disuse. This was the verb principally used in Chaucer's time, and it now lives in the purest branch of the Teutonic, the German.

For many years, I had supposed the word _dern_ in the sense of _great_ or _severe_, was local in New England. Perhaps it may not now be used any where else; but it was once a common English word. Chaucer uses it in the sense of _secret_, _earnest_, &c.

"This clerk was cleped Hende Nicholas
Of _derne_ love he could and of solas."

Mil. Tale, l. 3200.

"Ye mosten be ful _derne_ as in this case."

Ibm. 3297.

The word is in common use in New England and pronounced _darn_. It has not however the sense it had formerly; it is now used as an adverb to qualify an adjective, as _darn sweet_; denoting a great degree of the quality.

The New England people preserve the ancient use of _there_ and _here_ after a word or sentence, designating the _place where_; as _this here_, _that there_. It is called vulgar in English; and indeed the addition of _here_ or _there_ is generally tautological. It is however an ancient practice; and the French retain it in the pure elegant language of their country; _ce pays là_, _celui là_, _cet homme ici_; where we observe this difference only between the French and English idioms, that in French, the adverb follows the noun, _that country there_, _this man here_; whereas in English, the adverb precedes the noun, _that there country_, _this here man_. This form of speech seems to have been coeval with the primitive Saxon, otherwise it would not have prevailed so generally among the common people.

It has been before remarked that the word _ax_ for _ask_ was used in England, and even in the royal assent to acts of parliament, down to the reign of Henry VI.

"And to her husband bad hire for to sey
If that he _axed_ after Nicholas."----

Chau. Mil. Tale, 3412.

"This _axeth_ haste and of an hastif thing
Men may not preche and maken tarying."

Ibm. 3545.

This word to _ax_ is still frequent in New England.

I no not know whether our American sportsmen use the word, _ferret_, in the sense of driving animals from their lurking places. But the word is used in some parts of New England, and applied figuratively to many transactions in life. So in Congreve:

"Where is this apocryphal elder? I'll _ferret_ him."----Old Bach, act 4, fc. 21.

Sometimes, but rarely, we hear the old imperative of the Saxon _thafian_, now pronounced _thof_. But it is generally pronounced as it is written, _tho_. It is remarked by Horne, that _thof_ is still frequent among the common people of England.

_Gin_ or _gyn_ for _given_ is still used in America; as Bishop Wilkins remarks, it is in the North of England.

_Without_, in the sense of _unless_, is as frequent as any word in the language, and even among the learned. It is commonly accounted inelegant, and writers have lately substituted _unless_: But I do not see the propriety of discarding _without_, for its meaning is exactly the same as that of _unless_. It is demonstrated that they are both the imperatives of old verbs. _Without_, is _be out_, _be away_; and _unless_ is _dismiss_, or _be apart_. Instead of the imperative Chaucer generally uses the participle, _withouten_, _being out_.

The best writers use _without_ in the sense of _unless_.

"--And if he can't be cured _without_ I suck the poison from his wounds, I'm afraid he won't recover his senses, till I lose mine."---- Cong. Love for Love, act 4. sc. 3.

"'Twere better for him, you had not been his confessor in that affair, _without_ you could have kept his counsel closer."----Cong. Way of the World, act, 3. sc. 7.

The best speakers use the word in this manner, in common discourse, and I must think, with propriety.

_Peek_ is also used corruptedly for _peep_. By a similar change of the last consonant, _chirk_ is used for _chirp_, _to make a cheerful noise_. This word is wholly lost, except in New England. It is there used for _comfortably_, _bravely_, _cheerful_; as when one enquires about a sick person, it is said, he is _chirk_. _Chirp_ is still used to express the singing of birds, but the _chirk_ of New England is not understood, and therefore derided. Four hundred years ago it was a polite term.

"and kisseth hire swete, and _chirketh_ as a sparwe
With his lippes."----

Chaucer, Somp. Tale, 7386.