Part 18

The first thing, then, to be attended to, is the _structure_ of our language, or the agreeable connection of one word with another; which, though it certainly requires care, ought not to be practised with a laborious nicety. For this would be an endless and puerile attempt, and is justly ridiculed by _Lucilius_, when he introduces _Scaevola_ thus reflecting upon _Albucius_:

"As in the checquer'd pavement ev'ry square Is nicely fitted by the mason's care: So all thy words are plac'd with curious art, And ev'ry syllable performs its part."

But though we are not to be minutely exact in the _structure_ of our language, a moderate share of practice will habituate us to every thing of this nature which is necessary. For as the eye in _reading_, so the mind in _speaking_, will readily discern what ought to follow,--that, in connecting our words, there may neither be a chasm, nor a disagreeable harshness. The most lively and interesting sentiments, if they are harshly expressed, will offend the ear, that delicate and fastidious judge of rhetorical harmony. This circumstance, therefore, is so carefully attended to in the Roman language, that there is scarcely a rustic among us who is not averse to a collision of vowels,--a defect which, in the opinion of some, was too scrupulously avoided by _Theopompus_, though his master _Isocrates_ was equally cautious. But _Thucydides_ was not so exact; nor was Plato, (though a much better writer)--not only in his _Dialogues_, in which it was necessary to maintain an easy negligence, to resemble the style of conversation, but in the famous _Panegyric_, in which (according to the custom of the Athenians) he celebrated the praises of those who fell in battle, and which was so greatly esteemed, that it is publicly repeated every year. In that Oration a collision of vowels occurs very frequently; though _Demosthenes_ generally avoids it as a fault.

But let the Greeks determine for themselves: we Romans are not allowed to interrupt the connection of our words. Even the rude and unpolished Orations of _Cato_ are a proof of this; as are likewise all our poets, except in particular instances, in which they were obliged to admit a few breaks, to preserve their metre. Thus we find in _Naevius_,

"_Vos_ QUI ACCOLITIS _histrum_ FLUVIUM ATQUE ALGIDUM."

And in another place,

"_Quam nunquam vobis_ GRAII ATQUE _Barbari_."

But _Ennius_ admits it only once, when he says,

"_Scipio invicte_;"

and likewise I myself in

"_Hoc motu radiantis_ ETESIAE IN _Vada Ponti_."

This, however, would seldom be suffered among us, though the Greeks often commend it as a beauty.

But why do I speak of a collision of vowels? for, omitting this, we have frequently _contracted_ our words for the sake of brevity; as in _multi' modis, vas' argenteis, palm' et crinibus, tecti' fractis_, &c. We have sometimes also contracted our proper _names_, to give them a smoother sound: for as we have changed _Duellum_ into _Bellum_, and _duis_ into _bis_, so _Duellius_, who defeated the Carthagenians at sea, was called _Bellius_, though all his ancestors were named _Duellii_. We likewise abbreviate our words, not only for convenience, but to please and gratify the ear. For how otherwise came _axilla_ to be changed into _ala_, but by the omission of an unweildy consonant, which the elegant pronunciation of our language has likewise banished from the words _maxillae, taxillae, vexillum_, and _paxillum_?

Upon the same principle, two or more words have been contracted into one, as _sodes_ for _si audes_, _sis_ for _si vis_, _capsis_ for _cape si vis_, _ain'_ for _aisne_, _nequire_ for _non quire_, _malle_ for _magis velle_, and _nolle_ for _non velle_; and we often say _dein'_ and _exin'_ for _deinde_ and _exinde_. It is equally evident why we never say _cum nobis_, but _nobiscum_; though we do not scruple to say _cum illis_;--_viz._ because, in the former case, the union of the consonants _m_ and _n_ would produce a jarring sound: and we also say _mecum_ and _tecum_, and not _cum me_ and _cum te_, to correspond with _nobiscum_ and _vobiscum_. But some, who would correct antiquity rather too late, object to these contractions: for, instead of _prob_ DEUM _atque hominum fidem_, they say _Deorum_. They are not aware, I suppose, that custom has sanctified the licence. The same Poet, therefore, who, almost without a precedent, has said _patris mei MEUM FACTUM pudet_, instead of _meorum factorum_,--and _textitur exitium examen rapit_ for _exitiorum_, does not choose to say _liberum_, as we generally do in the expressions _cupidos liberum_, and _in liberum loco_, but, as the literary virtuosos above-mentioned would have it,

_neque tuum unquam in gremium extollas_ LIBERORUM _ex te genus_,

and,

_namque Aesculapi_ LIBERORUM.

But the author before quoted says in his Chryses, not only

_Cives, antiqui amici majorum_ MEUM,

which was common enough--, but more harshly still,

CONSILIUM, AUGURIUM, _atque_ EXTUM _interpretes_;

and in another place,

_Postquam_ PRODIGIUM HORRIFERUM PORTENTUM _pavos_.

a licence which is not customary in all neuters indifferently: for I should not be so willing to say armum _judicium_, as _armorum_; though in the same writer we meet with _nihilne ad te de judicio_ armum _accidit_? And yet (as we find it in the public registers) I would venture to say _fabrum_, and _procum_, and not _fabrorum_ and _procorum_. But I would never say duorum virorum _judicium_, or _trium_ virorum _capitalium_, or _decem_ virorum _litibus judicandis_. In Accius, however, we meet with

_Video sepulchra duo_ duorum _corporum_;

though in another place he says,

_Mulier una_ duum virum.

I know, indeed, which is most conformable to the rules of grammar: but yet I sometimes express myself as the freedom of our language allows me, as when I say at pleasure, either _prob deum_, or _prob deorum_;--and, at other times, as I am obliged by custom, as when I say _trium_ virum for _virorum_, or sestertium nummum for _nummorum_: because in the latter case the mode of expression is invariable.

But what shall we say when these humourists forbid us to say _nosse_ and _judicasse_ for _novisse_ and _judicavisse_; as if we did not know, as well as themselves, that, in these instances, the verb at full length is most agreeable to the laws of grammar, though custom has given the preference to the contracted verb? Terence, therefore, has made use of both, as when he says, _eho tu cognatum tuum non noras_? and afterwards,

_Stilphonem, inquam, noveras_?

Thus also, _fiet_ is a perfect verb, and _fit_ a contracted one; and accordingly we find in the same Comedian,

_Quam cara_ SINTQUE _post carendo intelligunt_,

and

_Quamque attinendi magni dominatus_ SIENT.

In the same manner I have no objection to _scripsere alii rem_, though I am sensible that _scripserunt_ is more grammatical; because I submit with pleasure to the indulgent laws of custom which delights to gratify the ear. _Idem campus habet_, says Ennius; and in another place, _in templis isdem_; _eisdem_, indeed, would have been more grammatical, but not sufficiently harmonious; and _iisdem_ would have sounded still worse.

But we are allowed by custom even to dispense with the rules of etymology to improve the sweetness of our language; and I would therefore rather say, _pomeridianas Quadrigas_, than _postmeridianas_; and _mehercule_, than _mehercules_. For the same reason _non scire_ would now be deemed a barbarism, becaule _nescire_ has a smoother sound; and we have likewise substituted _meridiem_ for _medidiem_, because the latter was offensive to the ear. Even the preposition _ab_, which so frequently occurs in our compound verbs is preserved entire only in the formality of a Journal, and, indeed, not always there: in every other sort of language it is frequently altered. Thus we say _amovit_, _abegit_, and _abstulit_; so that you can scarcely determine whether the primitive preposition should be _ab_ or _abs_. We have likewise rejected even _abfugit_, and _abfer_, and introduced _aufugit_ and _aufer_ in their stead;--thus forming a new preposition, which is to be found in no other verb but these. _Noti_, _navi_, and _nari_, have all been words in common use: but when they were afterwards to be compounded with the preposition _in_, it was thought more harmonious to say _ignoti_, _ignavi_, and _ignari_, than to adhere strictly to the rules of etymology. We likewise say _ex usu_, and _e Republica_; because, in the former case, the preposition is followed by a vowel, and, in the latter, it would have sounded harshly without omitting the consonant; as may also be observed in _exegit, edixit, refecit, retulit_, and _reddidit_.

Sometimes the preposition alters or otherwise affects the first letter of the verb with which it happens to be compounded; as in _subegit, summutavit_, and _sustutit_. At other times it changes one of the subsequent letters; as when we say _insipientem_ for _insapientem_, _iniquum_ for inaequum_, _tricipitem_ for _tricapitem_, and _concisum_ for _concaesum_: and from hence some have ventured to say _pertisum_ for _pertaesum_, which custom has never warranted.

But what can be more delicate than our changing even the natural quantity of our syllables to humour the ear? Thus in the adjectives _inclytus_, and _inhumanus_, the first syllable after the preposition is short, whereas _insanus_ and _infelix_ have it long; and, in general, those words whose first letters are the same as in _sapiens_ and _felix_, have their first syllable long in composition, but all others have the same syllable short, as _composuit, consuevit, concrepuit, confecit_. Examine these liberties by the strict rules of etymology, and they must certainly be condemned; but refer them to the decision of the ear, and they will be instantly approved.--What is the reason? Your ear will inform you they have an easier sound; and every language must submit to gratify the ear. I myself, because our ancestors never admitted the aspirate, unless where a syllable began with a vowel, used to say _pulcros, Cetegos, triumpos_, and _Cartaginem_: but some time afterwards, though not very soon, when this grammatical accuracy was wrested from me by the censure of the ear, I resigned the mode of language to the vulgar, and reserved the theory to myself. But we still say, without any hesitation, _Orcivios, Matones, Otones, coepiones, sepulcra, coronas_, and _lacrymas_, because the ear allows it. _Ennius_ always uses _Burrum_, and never _Pyrrhum_; and the ancient copies of the same author have

_Vi patefecerunt BRUGES_,

not _Phryges_; because the Greek vowel had not then been adopted, though we now admit both that and the aspirate:--and, in fact, when we had afterwards occasion to say _Phrygum_ and _Phrygibus_, it was rather absurd to adopt the Greek letter without adopting their cases, [Footnote: This passage, as it stands in the original, appears to me unintelligible: I have therefore taken the liberty to give it a slight alteration.] or at least not to confine it to the nominative; and yet (in the accusative) we say _Phryges_, and _Pyrrhum_, to please the ear. Formerly it was esteemed an elegancy, though it would now be considered as a rusticism, to omit the _s_ in all words which terminate in _us_, except when they were followed by a vowel; and the same elision which is so carefully avoided by the modern Poets, was very far from being reckoned a fault among the ancient: for they made no scruple to say,

_Qui est OMNIBU' princeps_,

not, as we do, OMNIBUS princeps; and,

_Vita illa DIGNU' locoque_,

not _dignus_.

But if untaught custom has been so ingenious in the formation of agreeable sounds, what may we not expect from the improvements of art and erudition? I have, however, been much shorter upon this subject, than I should have been if I had written upon it professedly: for a comparison of the natural and customary laws of language would have opened a wide field for speculation: but I have already enlarged upon it sufficiently, and more, perhaps, than the nature of my design required.

To proceed then;--as the choice of proper matter, and of suitable words to express it, depends upon the judgment of the Speaker, but that of agreeable sounds, and harmonious numbers, upon the decision of the ear; and because the former is intended for information, and the latter for pleasure; it is evident that reason must determine the rules of art in one case, and mere sensation in the other. For we must either neglect the gratification of those by whom we wish to be approved, or apply ourselves to invent the most likely methods to promote it.

There are two things which contribute to gratify the ear,--agreeable _sounds_, and harmonious _numbers_. We shall treat of numbers in the sequel, and at present confine ourselves to _sound_.--Those words, then, as we have already observed, are to have the preference which sound agreeably;--not such as are exquisitely melodious, like those of the Poets, but such as can be found to our purpose in common language.--_Qua Pontus Helles_ is rather beyond the mark:--but in

_Auratos aries Colchorum_,

the verse glitters with a moderate harmony of expression; whereas the next, as ending with a letter which is remarkably flat, is unmusical,

_Frugifera et ferta arva Alfiae tenet_,

Let us, therefore, rather content ourselves with the agreeable mediocrity of our own language, than emulate the splendor of the Greeks; unless we are so bigotted to the latter as to hesitate to say with the poet,

_Qua tempestate Paris Helenam, &c_.

we might even imitate what follows, and avoid, as far as possible, the smallest asperity of sound,

_habeo istam ego PERTERRICREPAM_;

or say, with the same author, in another passage,

_versutiloquas MALITIAS_.

But our words must have a proper _compass_, as well as be connected together in an agreeable manner; for this, we have observed, is another circumstance which falls under the notice of the ear. They are confined to a proper compass, either by certain rules of composition, as by a kind of natural pause, or by the use of particular forms of expression, which have a peculiar _concinnity_ in their very texture; such as a succession of several words which have the same termination, or the comparing similar, and contrasting opposite circumstances, which will always terminate in a measured cadence, though no immediate pains should be taken for that purpose. Gorgias, it is said, was the first Orator who practised this species of _concinnity_. The following passage in my Defence of _Milo_ is an example.

"Est enim, Judices, haec non _scripta_, fed _nata_ Lex; quam non _didicimus, accepimus, legimus_, verum ex Natura ipsa _arripuimus, hausimus, expressimus_; ad quam non _docti_, sed _facti_; non _instituti_, sed _imbuti_ simus."

"For this, my Lords, is a law not written upon tables, but impressed upon our hearts;--a law which we have not learned, or heard, or read, but eagerly caught and imbibed from the hand of Nature;--a law to which we have not been train'd, but originally form'd; and with the principles of which we have not been furnished by education, but tinctured and impregnated from the moment of our birth."

In these forms of expression every circumstance is so aptly referred to some other circumstance, that the regular turn of them does not appear to have been studied, but to result entirely from the sense. The same effect is produced by contrasting opposite circumstances; as in the following lines, where it not only forms a measured sentence, but a verse:

_Eam, quam nihil accusas, damnas,_

Her, whom you ne'er accus'd, you now condemn;

(in prose we should say _condemnas_) and again,

_Bene quam meritam esse autumas, dicis male mereri_,

Her merit, once confess'd, you now deny; and,

_Id quod scis, prodest nihil; id quod nescis, obest_,

From what you've learnt no real good accrues, But ev'ry ill your ignorance pursues.

Here you see the mere opposition of the terms produces a verse; but in prosaic composition, the proper form of the last line would be, _quod scis nihil prodest; quod nescis multum obest_. This contrasting of opposite circumstances, which the Greeks call an Antithesis, will necessarily produce what is styled _rhetorical metre_, even without our intending it. The ancient Orators, a considerable time before it was practised and recommended by _Isocrates_, were fond of using it; and particularly _Gorgias_, whose measured cadences are generally owing to the mere _concinnity_ of his language. I have frequently practised it myself; as, for instance, in the following passage of my fourth Invective against _Verres_:

"Conferte _hanc Pacem_ cum _illo Bello_;--_hujus_ Praetoris _Adventum_, cum _illius_ Imperatoris _Victoria_;--hujas _Cohortem impuram_, cum illius _Exercitu invicto_;--hujus _Libidines_, cum illius _Continentia_;--ab illo qui cepit _conditas_; ab hoc, qui constitutas accepit, _captas_ dicetis Syracusas."

"Compare this detestable _peace_ with that glorious _war_,--the _arrival_ of this governor with the _victory_ of that commander,--his _ruffian guards_, with the _invincible forces_ of the other;--the brutal luxury of the former, with the modest temperance of the latter;--and you will say, that Syracuse was really _founded_ by him who _stormed_ it, and _stormed_ by him who received it already _founded_ to his hands."--So much, then, for that kind of measure which results from particular forms of expression, and which ought to be known by every Orator.

We must now proceed to the third thing proposed,--that _numerous_ and well-adjusted style; of the beauty of which, if any are so insensible as not to feel it, I cannot imagine what kind of ears they have, or what resemblance of a human Being! For my part, my ears are always fond of a complete and full-measured flow of words, and perceive in an instant what is either defective or redundant. But wherefore do I say _mine_? I have frequently seen a whole assembly burst into raptures of applause at a happy period: for the ear naturally expects that our sentences should be properly tuned and measured. This, however, is an accomplishment which is not to be met with among the ancients. But to compensate the want of it, they had almost every other perfection: for they had a happy choice of words, and abounded in pithy and agreeable sentiments, though they had not the art of harmonizing and completing their periods. This, say some, is the very thing we admire. But what if they should take it into their heads to prefer the ancient _peinture_, with all its poverty of colouring, to the rich and finished style of the moderns? The former, I suppose, must be again adopted, to compliment their delicacy, and the latter rejected. But these pretended connoisseurs regard nothing but the mere _name_ of antiquity. It must, indeed, be owned that antiquity has an equal claim to authority in matters of imitation, as grey hairs in the precedence of age. I myself have as great a veneration for it as any man: nor do I so much upbraid antiquity with her defects, as admire the beauties she was mistress of:--especially as I judge the latter to be of far greater consequence than the former. For there is certainly more real merit in a masterly choice of words and sentiments, in which the ancients are allowed to excell, than in those measured periods with which they were totally unacquainted. This species of composition was not known among the Romans till lately: but the ancients, I believe, would readily have adopted it, if it had then been discovered: and we accordingly find, that it is now made use of by all Orators of reputation. "But when _number_, or (as the Greeks call it) prosaic _metre_, is professedly introduced into judicial and forensic discourses, the very name, say they, has a suspicious sound: for people will conclude that there is too much artifice employed to sooth and captivate their ears, when the Speaker is so over-exact as to attend to the harmony of his periods." Relying upon the force of this objection, these pretenders are perpetually grating our ears with their broken and mutilated sentences; and censure those, without mercy, who have the presumption to utter an agreeable and a well-turned period. If, indeed, it was our design to spread a varnish over empty words and trifling sentiments, the censure would be just: but when the matter is good, and the words are proper and expressive, what reason can be assigned why we should prefer a limping and imperfect period to one which terminates and keeps pace with the sense? For this invidious and persecuted _metre_ aims at nothing more than to adapt the compass of our words to that of our thoughts; which is sometimes done even by the ancients,--though generally, I believe, by mere accident, and often by the natural delicacy of the ear; and the very passages which are now most admired in them, commonly derive their merit from the agreeable and measured flow of the language.

This is an art which was in common use among the Greek Orators, about four hundred years ago, though it has been but lately introduced among the Romans. Ennius, therefore, when he ridicules the inharmonious numbers of his predecessors, might be allowed to say,

"_Such verses as the rustic Bards and Satyrs sung_:"

But I must not take the same liberty; especially as I cannot say with him,

_Before this bold adventurer_, &c.

(meaning himself:) nor, as he afterwards exults to the same purpose,

_I first have dar'd t'unfold_, &c.

for I have both read and heard several who were almost complete masters of the numerous and measured style I am speaking of: But many, who are still absolute strangers to it, are not content to be exempted from the ridicule they deserve, but claim a right to our warmest applause. I must own, indeed, that I admire the venerable patterns, of which those persons pretend to be the faithful imitators, notwithstanding the defects I observe in them: but I can by no means commend the folly of those who copy nothing but their blemishes, and have no pretensions even to the most distant resemblance in what is truly excellent.