Part 2

In English, the omission of H’s that ought to be heard, is peculiar to England, and especially marked in London and the Southern counties. The Lowland Scotch are free from the defect; and the people of the Highland districts and the North run to the opposite extreme, and give to their H’s a strong guttural sound. The Irish and Welsh are also free from it. Men of English parentage and American birth, New Englanders, Virginians, &c., are correct in their use of the Aspirate (vide _Atlantic Monthly_, No. 269). That the Americans are without this H-trait, may be accounted a result of the predominance of North British and Irish immigrants.

His Eminence Cardinal Manning, when favouring the writer with some valuable notes on the subject of Aspirates, gave, as his opinion, that the dropping of H’s in England cannot be explained by foreign influences. The Aspirate is put on and put off in certain counties—as in Middlesex and Gloucestershire—with long local traditions; and he believes that, like the Greek digamma, it refuses all submission to criticism.

HISTORY OF THE ENGLISH H.

There is something startling in the announcement that were William Shakespeare to hear one of his plays read by a good speaker of our own day, it would be less intelligible to him than if spoken in the Somersetshire dialect. So great is the change in English pronunciation. This fact prepares us for the discovery that great alterations have taken place in the significance of individual letters; and that the phonetic value of letter H has changed also.

Dr Johnson, in 1755, wrote: “Grammarians of the last age directed that _an_ should be used before H, whence it appears that the English anciently aspirated less.”

“The great Doctor uttered many hasty things.”—

_Thackeray._

Dr Johnson’s suppressed premiss is negatived by his own _protégé_, Goldsmith, in whose writings _an_ occurs before every variety of H; a fact which shows that _an_ and the Aspirate were not generally considered to be incompatibles. That their juxtaposition does not of itself offend the modern ear, may be proven by uttering the words “_than have_” and “_they have_,” in which the Aspirate is heard to follow the _n_ and the vowel-sound with equal grace and fluency. There are, moreover, many reasons for entertaining an opinion directly opposed to that expressed by the great lexicographer; and for believing the powers of the English H to have been steadily on the decline since the days of primitive English. In all Aryan languages, H has a tendency to mollify and decay; and its powers are always found to be most strongly marked in Germanic tongues that are in nearest historical relation with their common Teutonic ancestor.

Inductively, one is led to believe that the English Aspirate is less strong than formerly. This belief will acquire support from the following argument:—

It will be remembered that prior to the introduction of terminal rhymes, the laws of Prosody were based upon principles slightly different from those of to-day; our ancestors, preferring an identity of consonant-sounds to an assonance of vowels, required that syllables to rhyme should _begin_ with the same letter—the system being known as ALLITERATION. If we bear in mind how much must have depended on the distinctness and strength of the alliterative rhymes of early verse, where the metrical management and rhythmical cadence were far from being irreproachable, we shall readily concede that the bard will have selected for his use the strongest and most distinct rhymes that the language could supply. “Rhymes to the eye,” as they are called, would have been utterly useless, from the fact of poetry being then composed for oral rendering, and the hearers generally ignorant of spelling. It is, therefore, agreeable to reason to conclude that all sounds employed in alliterative rhyming were distinctly audible, strong, and emphatic. Now, on looking over alliterative verses of the seventh to thirteenth centuries, one cannot fail to be struck by the frequent occurrence of rhymed H’s: their proportion being, in many poems, in excess of that of any other letter. Modern poets, it is true, have not unfrequently pressed H into service as an alliterative rhyme, but in so doing they have afforded ample proof of the inefficiency of the modern English Aspirate, when acting in that capacity. One of the best specimens of modern alliterative H-rhymes is that in one of Moore’s American poems:—

“And I said, ‘If there’s peace to be found in the world, A _h_eart that is _h_umble might _h_ope for it _h_ere.’”

But the alliteration is scarcely appreciable, unless the rendering be accompanied by undue aspiratory efforts. Whenever we hear a run of words rhyming alliteratively in H, it is highly probable that only half the pleasure we experience is conveyed to us by ear, and that the other half is of a subjective nature, and arises from our _knowing_ the letter H to enter into the formation of the words, and the alliteration would be almost lost to us were we ignorant of their orthography. Hence, it is rather from an association of ideas, than from an effect produced on the organs of hearing, that we derive the pleasure; and the modern H, indicating as it does merely a like modification in the phonation of the several vowels to which it is prefixed, cannot be regarded as having a _distinct sound_ of its own, nor, consequently, as constituting a perfect alliterative rhyme. Do not the mute H’s of the following words give results nearly as satisfactory as the H’s in the above quotation?—

The _h_eir that is _h_onest will _h_onour the _h_our!

Considering, then, the faintness and the nature of the Aspirate of to-day, and its insufficiency for purposes of alliteration, we seem at liberty to conclude that the Anglo-Saxon and Early English H, so much affected of the early poets, was stronger than our own, and had, in all probability, retained much of the pristine power of its Teutonic harshness.

That the sound of the Anglo-Saxon H bore a resemblance to that of an unvocalized _y_ (see page 37), is made manifest by the free interchange of _h_ and _y_ in ancient MSS. The substitution of surds for sonants, and _vice versâ_, is common to the early stages of the development of all orthographical codes.

Mr Ellis, whose researches have thrown great light on these matters, gives as his opinion—

_In Anglosaxon, a final_ h _was equal to the_ ch _of lo_ch_, or German da_ch_. In the thirteenth century the sound of_ H _seems to have been very uncertain, and in the fourteenth it was lost in those words before which a vowel was elided. In the sixteenth it was pronounced or not, differently from the present custom._[4]

There exists a belief—perhaps on no very firm foundation—that the Normans could not, or would not, aspirate their H’s; and the idea gains some support in the period of decadence of the strong English H having commenced subsequently to the Norman invasion. It is, however, not easy to understand how these Norsemen should have learned to entirely abandon the use of H in consequence of a century and a half’s residence in Neustria. Salesbury, a Welsh linguist, exhumed by Mr Ellis, implies moreover that, as late as the sixteenth century, the French still aspirated at least _some_ of their H’s, and Littré, in his admirable dictionary, declares the Norman Aspirate to be in a state of good preservation (“_très-nettement conservé_”) in our own day. The old Norse H had been, according to Rask, Grimm, and Ellis, a vigorous and thriving aspirate; Rapp gives it as having been equal to _kh_. But presuming that, prior to the Invasion, the Normans had become droppers of H’s, would enable one to account for the unsettled state of the English H in the thirteenth century, when English reappeared as a national speech (1258). Also, according to this latter view, a habit of not aspirating would have been greatly in vogue for a time, and for a Saxon to have dropped his H’s would have been equivalent to an announcement of good breeding and aristocratic acquaintances, or of his being in the habit of frequenting the court and other haunts of the Norman nobility. But when the language of the vanquished began to overcome that of the conqueror, the Aspirate must have entered upon a new era, and H’s again have prevailed in the land. Still the new H had not the vigour of the old one—the guttural of the Anglo-Saxon. In the fourteenth century, as mentioned by Mr Ellis, its employment was subject to various rules; and this will have probably been the period during which the first mute H’s received public recognition, being tolerated as a sort of compromise or concession made to an aristocracy little partial to H’s. Throughout the remaining centuries there have been rules of some sort governing—though very laxly—the employment of the Aspirate. But the powers of H were gradually, surely, and steadily waning, until, at length, its strong guttural sound finally and completely evanesced towards the latter half of last century.

Presuming that the reader consents to recognise the antique origin, the unbroken line of descent, and the rough, sturdy ancestry of our English H, it may be interesting to notice that in 1847 appeared the second edition of a critical work on the English Language,[5] written in German (by a fellow of Cambridge), purporting among other things to prove to the omniscient Teuton, that in England the aspiration of H’s is altogether a modern invention, a fanciful outcome of recent orthoepical dogmatism; and that by good speakers it is practically ignored. Concerning this writer, Mr Ellis says, “His principal argument is the retention of _an_, _mine_, _thine_, &c., before words beginning with H, in the authorised version of 1611. The lists of words with mute H given by Palgrave, Salesbury, &c., were of course unknown to him. If, however, he had been aware of the loose manner in which H is inserted and omitted in Layamon, the ‘Genesis and Exodus,’ Prisoner’s Prayer, and other writings of the thirteenth century, he would doubtless have considered his point established. In practice, I understand from a gentleman who conversed with him, he omitted the H altogether.”

MODERN ASPIRATES.

The English H has been variously classified, and still more variously and vaguely defined. Some phonologists have discovered in it the properties of a vowel; most have agreed to regard it as a consonant. Webster declared it to be “not strictly a vowel nor an articulation, but a letter _sui generis_”—a negative classification that may be accepted to-day. The letter has been termed the symbol of a guttural breathing, an evanescent breathing, a mere breathing, a strong breathing, a whisper, and “a propulsed aspiration” (_B. H. Smart_); and some affirm it to be “no sound at all.”

The English H represents an action rather than a sound. When the action indicated accompanies the utterance of a vowel, a change is produced in the vowel-sound; hence, Bishop Wilkins (1668) called the H a “guttural vowel”—not, however, a particularly happy definition.

In stating H to be “a letter _sui generis_,” Webster enounced a truth that many have seemed inclined to overlook. Consonants are distinct sounds that precede or follow other consonants and vowels; but the Aspirate becomes part of any vowel it accompanies. This may be otherwise expressed by saying, that in aspirating we emit a noiseless current of unvocalised breath that gradually vocalises itself into an aspirated vowel. The truth of the assertion may be tested by pronouncing an aspirated vowel, _e.g._, “=ha=,” and observing that no change in position of the vocal organs occurs during the act. In uttering a syllable consisting of a consonant and a vowel, a change of position is requisite to the formation of each constituent element—for example, in the case of “=fa=.” Thus then, the H in well-spoken English does not represent a distinct and independent sound; but prescribes a breathing that modifies the vowel it accompanies. It is A SIGNAL TO ASPIRATE THE SUCCEEDING VOWEL.

This oneness of the vowel and its H is productive of a change in the natures of both. The _a_ in “h_a_ll” is as different from that in “_a_ll,” as is the Aspirate of “_h_all” from that of “_h_eel.” It follows, therefore, that these Aspirates are equal in number to the vowel-sounds (said to be about seventeen), and that the letter H represents them all. For convenience sake, one speaks of “the sound of an H,” “to pronounce, or aspirate an H,” and “to drop an H;” meaning respectively, _the sound of an aspirated vowel_, _to aspirate_, and _to omit to aspirate a vowel with an H before it_.

As already submitted, most H’s may, now-a-days, be said to be _soundless_, although not “Silent H’s;” the latter might with more propriety be termed functionless letters. To soundless H’s one exception distinctly occurs in English; to wit, the H that precedes the long _ū_, as in _hue_, _huge_, _humor_, &c. This H—a phonetic link between the ancient English H’s and the modern Aspirate—has a sound of its own, and may be heard. Elevating the base of the tongue so as to leave a narrow aperture between its centre and the palate, we emit, with vocalized breath, the sound _y_ heard in _yew_; with breath that is _not_ vocalized we produce the subdued, palatal grating sound constituting the H of _hue_. Hence, HŪ represents a vowel _preceded by an audible_ H, and not a vowel-sound that is aspirated. The Arabic ﺡ corresponds to the H of HŪ.

Other kinds and degrees of H are enumerated by Mr Ellis, who gives a list of six. They vary in power from that of the scarcely audible aspiration that the Cockney introduces into “park” (paahk), to that of the jerked breath that _h‘_ represents in _bah‘_. The breathings of the different H’s vary also in degree of intensity according to the nature and strength of their vowels; being most pronounced in the case of long and open vowels,—compare “_h_ard” and “_h_it.”

Some writers have described aspirated vowels as being whispered vowels. The error of this description is obvious to the most superficial observer; it would mean that aspirated vowels are unvocalized. A man, moreover, need not drop his H’s though he holloa through a speaking trumpet.

=Vocalized breath= is that which carries with it a sound produced by vibrations of the vocal chords. These are situate in the larynx, and may be felt vibrating, by placing the hand on the throat while they are in action. “Krantzenstein and Kempelen have pointed out that the conditions necessary for changing one and the same sound into different vowels, are difference in the size of two parts—the oral canal and the oral opening,” (_vide_ Kirkes’ Physiology). Some consonants are produced by this kind of breath, but with the concurrence also of certain movements of the lips, tongue, &c., and they are called _sonants_ or _voiced consonants_: Ex.—_l_, _n_, _r_, &c.

=Unvocalized breath= is that employed in whispering. With the assistance of certain movements of the speech-organs, unvocalized breath produces in ordinary speech a class of consonants that are called _surds_ or _breathed consonants_: Ex.—_f_, _s_, _t_, &c.

NOTE.—_T_ is of the class called _momentary_ or _explosive_ consonants. They need the help of a vowel, or of a voiced consonant, in order to express themselves fully. This circumstance, together with the fact of vocalised breath entering into the formation of many consonants, will probably account for the common notion that _no_ consonant can be uttered without a _vowel_ accompaniment. The independence of the sibilant _s_, offers alone a sufficient refutation of the assumption. It is in Polynesia that savages are found who cannot put two consonants together without a vowel between them.

Æsthetically considered, the modern English H is an important embellishment, and adds immensely to the strength and pleasing effect of speech. The Aspirate can render certain discordant sounds of our language half euphonious, breathing gently on a hard vowel, deepening its tone and swelling its volume. As an instance, take the pronoun _I_ and the adjective _high_; and notice that the vowel-sound in the latter is by far the more pleasing, approaching almost that of the soft _ai_ of the Italian. In oratory, a preponderance of aitch’d words in a passage allows of great energy of utterance without risk of it degenerating into an affected or bombastic tirade of “big-sounding” words.

H is an earnest letter. It is a noteworthy coincidence that a large portion of those words associated with strong and violent actions and emotions have the Aspirate: _hew_, _heave_, _hate_, _abhor_, &c., together with the ejaculations, _Ho!_ _Ha!_ _Hollo!_ _Harrah!_ _Hang it!_ (an exclamation used by Geo. Wither, born A.D. 1588), &c., are examples. In Elocution, the Aspirate lends itself to the expressing of propinquity, bringing the scene and the sound of the action within a more proximate compass. The union of H with most consonants results in the production of smooth sounds. The euphonic “sweetnesses” of Mr Swinburne’s richly mellifluent verse, will be found, on analysis, to depend greatly on the two powers of TH and those of other digraphs of H. Writers on the subject of Natural Significance, or Specific Import of Articulate Sounds, who have mostly been adherents to the Epicurean or _Pooh-Pooh_ theory, have in some instances limited the primary emotional significance of an Aspirate H to the denoting of a desire or craving. It may reasonably be asked, whether they have not identified a part with the whole, and whether every awakening of intense feeling does not find its natural expression in an aspirated vowel.

The manner in which the H is used by our best writers, shows they appreciated its vigour and stress-giving properties. In Shakespeare, the H is most frequent in salient passages and epigrams. It plays a conspicuous part in the grand, deep anthem-eloquence of Dryden’s full-toned lines; and in the verses of Byron and other strong writers its powers are judiciously applied. A recognition of the honest vigour of aspirated words is conspicuous in an aphæresis perpetrated for histrionic purposes by Mr Henry Irving, who has informed the writer that he sometimes drops the H in “humbleness—”

“as in Shylock’s speech to Antonio:[6]

‘Shall I bend low, and in a bondsman’s key, With ’bated breath and whisp’ring (h)umbleness, Say this....’

where the idea is much better expressed by the omission of the Aspirate.”

There are persons to whom the simple act of aspirating, will never have suggested the idea of difficulty; but there are many others (who in their ordinary speech, put H before half the vowels that do not require it) who are totally at a loss when asked to aspirate a given vowel. They either aspirate unconsciously or not at all. If the reader has never attempted to reform a persistent H-dropper, by teaching him the value and nature of the Aspirate, he can form no adequate idea of the extreme difficulty of the task. Some people can learn everything but H’s. “_Speak as though you were breathing on glass_,” is a practical precept often laid down for the benefit of young children; and is one deserving of the consideration of many of their elders; for, as a matter of fact, in pronouncing the words _hay_, _he_, _high_, _hoe_, before a mirror, one will observe that four successive breath-marks are thrown on the cold surface of the glass; whereas none will be seen if one drop the H’s. In pronouncing the H of HŪ, the markings are scarcely discernable or altogether absent; the breath-stream having become diverted and attenuated by friction against the palate. In Aspirating _ha!_ the breath-marks are very distinct; but still more so in the case of the jerked terminal _h‘_ of a quick, contemptuous _bah‘!_

The above experiment is valuable as affording an insight into the phonation of the modern English Aspirate, and as a means by which the new convert from the H-dropping heresy may learn to avoid the opposite error of excessive zeal in the production of his H’s. It is noticeable that the early aspirative labours of a converted H-dropper give birth to monstrosities. He pronounces _hand_, _heart_, &c., as though the vowels were _preceded_ by the _ch_ of lo_ch_. This is a reversion to a former type of H’s, but not the developed modern Aspirate. The physiological difference in the formation of aspirated and non-aspirated vowel-sounds appears to be, that, in aspirating, the oral passage is rendered more cavernous, and a greater volume of breath is emitted. This may be partly verified by uttering the Italian _ā_ before the mirror. When the same vowel is aspirated (_ha_), the soft palate is seen to be slightly raised, while the tongue is depressed and slightly retracted, thereby causing an enlargement of the cavity through which the sound passes.

The H, in some positions, is not easily managed. In colloquial speech it is frequently left out of little words that are of minor importance to the sense. In a homely rendering of, “You saw how high (h)e held (h)is head,” the occluded h’s would be nearly lost. Such a pronunciation, though not one to be highly commended, finds its excuse in convenience, and can claim some degree of extenuation in a very antique origin, and of justification in extensive usage.

In the case of short, unaccented syllables of a metrical composition, as in the following instance,

“But Marmion said that ever near, A lady’s voice was in _h_is ear, And that the priest _h_e could not _h_ear.”...

and in this couplet—

_H_e _h_eeds it not; ’mid eddied _h_eaving foam _H_e _h_ears the echoes of _h_is island _h_ome,

difficulties are presented in the way of a regard for H’s and for metre. Under all circumstances, to stop and stutter is inelegant, to repeat a word for the sake of giving it its dropped H, has a ludicrous effect; and to attempt by a powerful effort to aspirate some particular vowel, will often result in a promiscuous scattering of H’s. The only advice to the novice is: select difficult passages,[7] and practice them repeatedly—speak slowly and carefully. One must endeavour to aspirate with ease, letting the result be light, not forced, though distinct to the ear. Each person should use discretion, and suit the degree of aspiration to the power of his voice. The degree suitable to some persons would require an effort on the part of others to imitate. The great thing necessary is once thoroughly to understand the nature of the process, and then to remember where to apply it. The performance will gradually become a result of reflex action and be gone through correctly but unconsciously.

H-dropping must be overcome, and the misuse of H avoided; the world is intolerant of dissent from customs established; and orthoepy, or correct pronunciation, is a cardinal virtue, although, in common with most other of the “orthos,” it is endowed with chameleon-like faculties of change.

THE SILENT H.