Antony, speaking of Julius Cæsar :

O world! thou wast the forest of this hart:
And this, indeed, O world, the heart of thee.
How like a deer, stricken by many princes,
Dost thou here lie!-Julius Caesar, act 3. sc. 3.

Playing thus with the sound of words, which is still worse than a pun, is the meanest of all conceits. But Shakspeare, when he descends to a play of words is not always in the wrong; for it is done sometimes to denote a peculiar character, as in the following pas

sage:

K. Philip. What say'st thou, boy? look in the lady's face.
Lewis. I do, my Lord, and in her eye I find

A wonder, or a wond'rous miracle;

The shadow of myself form'd in her eye;

Which being but the shadow of your son,

Becomes a sun, and makes your son a shadow.
I do protest, I never lov'd myself

Till now infixed I beheld myself

Drawn in the flatt'ring table of her eye.

Faulconbridge. Drawn in the flatt'ring table of her eye!
Hang'd in the frowning wrinkle of her brow!

And quarter'd in her heart! he doth espy

Himself Love's traitor: this is pity now,

That hang'd, and drawn, and quarter'd, there should be

In such a love so vile a lout as he.-King John, act 2. sc. 5.

A jingle of words is the lowest species of that low wit; which is scarce sufferable in any case, and least of all in an heroic poem: and yet Milton, in some instances, has descended to that puerility:

And brought into the world a world of woe.

-begirt th' Almighty throne

Beseeching or besieging

Which tempted our attempt

At one slight bound high overleap'd all bound.

-With a shout

Loud as from numbers without number.

One should think it unnecessary to enter a caveat against an expression that has no meaning, or no distinct meaning; and yet somewhat of that kind may be found even among good writers. Such make a sixth class.

Sebastian. I beg no pity for this mould'ring clay,
For if you give it burial, there it takes

Possession of your earth:

If burnt and scatter'd in the air, the winds

That strew my dust, diffuse my royalty,

And spread me o'er your clime; for where one atom

Of mine shall light, know there Sebastian reigns.

Dryden, Don Sebastian, King of Portugal, aet 1.

Cleopatra. Now, what news, my Charmion?
Will he be kind? and will he not forsake me?
Am I to live or die? nay, do I live?
Or am I dead? for when he gave his answer,
Fate took the word, and then I liv'd or died.

Dryden, All for Love, act 2.

If she be coy, and scorn my noble fire,

If her chill heart I cannot move;

Why, I'll enjoy the very love,

And make a mistress of my own desire.-Cowley, poem inscribed, The Request. His whole poem, inscribed, My Picture, is a jargon of the same kind.

-'Tis he, they cry, by whom

Not men, but war itself is overcome.-Indian Queen.

Such empty expressions are finely ridiculed in the Rehearsal : Was't not unjust to ravish hence her breath,

And in life's stead to leave us nought but death.—Act 4. sc. 1.

CHAP. XVIII.

BEAUTY OF LANGUAGE.

Of all the fine arts, painting only and sculpture are in their nature' imitative. An ornamented field is not a copy, or imitation of nature, but nature itself embellished. Architecture is productive of originals, and copies not from nature. Sound and motion may in some measure be imitated by music; but, for the most part, music, like architecture, is productive of originals. Language copies not from nature, more than music or architecture; unless where, like music, it is imitative of sound or emotion. Thus, in the description of particular sounds, language sometimes furnisheth words, which, besides their customary power of exciting ideas, resemble by their softness or harshness the sounds described; and there are words which, by the celerity or slowness of pronunciation, have some resemblance to the motion they signify. The imitative power of words goes one step farther the loftiness of some words makes them proper symbols of lofty ideas; a rough subject is imitated by harsh-sounding words; and words of many syllables, pronounced slow and smooth, are expressive of grief and melancholy. Words have a separate effect on the mind, abstracting from their signification and from their imitative power: They are more or less agreeable to the ear by the fulness, sweetness, faintness, or roughness of their tones.

These are but faint beauties, being known to those only who have more than ordinary acuteness of perception. Language possesseth a beauty superior greatly in degree, of which we are eminently sensible when a thought is communicated with perspicuity and sprightliness. This beauty of language, arising from its power of expressing thought, is apt to be confounded with the beauty of the thought itself; the beauty of thought transferred to the expression makes it appear more beautiful.* But these beauties, if we

Chap. 2. part 1. § 5. Demetrius Phalereus (of Elocution, § 75.) makes the same observation. We are apt, says that author, to confound the language with the subject, and if the latter be nervous, we judge the same of the former. But they are clearly distinguishable; and it is not uncommon to find subjects of great dignity dressed in mean language. Theopompus is celebrated for the force of his diction, but erroneously; his subject indeed has great force, but his atyle very little.

wish to think accurately, must be distinguished from each other. They are in reality so distinct, that we sometimes are conscious of the highest pleasure language can afford, when the subject expressed is disagreeable. A thing that is loathsome, or a scene of horror to make one's hair stand on end, may be described in a manner so lively, as that the disagreeableness of the subject shall not even obscure the agreeableness of the description. The causes of the original beauty of language, considered as significant, which is a branch of the present subject, will be explained in their order. I shall only at present observe, that this beauty is the beauty of means fitted to an end-that of communicating thought; and hence it evidently appears, that of several expressions, all conveying the same thought, the most beautiful, in the sense now mentioned, is that which in the most perfect manner answers its end.

The several beauties of language above-mentioned, being of different kinds, ought to be handled separately. I shall begin with those beauties of language that arise from sound, after which will follow the beauties of language considered as significant. This order appears natural; for the sound of a word is attended to before we consider its signification. In a third section come those singular beauties of language that are derived from a resemblance between sound and signification. The beauties of verse are handled in the last section; for though the foregoing beauties are found in verse as well as in prose, yet verse has many peculiar beauties, which, for the sake of connexion must be brought under one view: and versification, at any rate, is a subject of so great importance as to deserve a place by itself.

SECT. I.

BEAUTY OF LANGUAGE WITH RESPECT TO SOUND.

THIS subject requires the following order: The sounds of the dif ferent letters come first; next, These sounds as united in syllables; third, Syllables united in words; fourth, Words united in a period; and, in the last place, Periods united in a discourse.

With respect to the first article, every vowel is sounded with a sin gle expiration of air from the windpipe through the cavity of the mouth. By varying this cavity the different vowels are sounded; for the air, in passing through cavities differing in size, produceth various sounds, some high or sharp, some low or flat: a small cavity occasions a high sound, a large cavity a low sound. The five vowels, accordingly, pronounced with the same extension of the windpipe, but with different openings of the mouth, form a regular series of sounds, descending from high to low in the following order, i, e, a, 9, u.* Each of these sounds is agreeable to the ear; and if it be inquired which of them is the most agreeable, it is, perhaps, safest

* In this scale of sounds the letter i must be pronounced as in the word interest, and as in other words beginning with the syllable in; the letter e as in persuasion; the letter a as in bat; and the letter u as in number.

to hold, that those vowels which are the farthest removed from the extremes will be the most relished. This is all I have to remark upon the first article; for consonants being letters that of themselves have no sound, serve only, in conjunction with vowels, to form articulate sounds; and as every articulate sound makes a syllable, consonants come naturally under the second article, to which we proceed.

A consonant is pronounced with a less cavity than any vowel; and consequently every syllable into which a consonant enters must have more than one sound, though pronounced with one expiration of air, or with one breath as commonly expressed for however readily two sounds may unite, yet where they differ in tone, both of them must be heard if neither of them be suppressed. For the same reason, every syllable must be composed of as many sounds as there are letters, supposing every letter to be distinctly pronounced.

We next inquire, How far syllables are agreeable to the ear? Few tongues are so polished as entirely to have rejected sounds that are pronounced with difficulty; and it is a noted observation, that such sounds are to the ear harsh and disagreeable. But with respect to agreeable sounds, it appears, that a double sound is always more agreeable than a single sound. Every one who has an ear must be sensible that the diphthong oi, or ai, is more agreeable than any of these vowels pronounced singly: the same holds where a consonant enters into the double sound; the syllable le has a more agreeable sound than the vowel e, or than any other vowel. And, in support of experience, a satisfactory argument may be drawn from the wisdom of Providence. Speech is bestowed on man to qualify him for society; and his provision of articulate sounds is proportioned to the use he hath for them; but if sounds that are agreeable singly were not also agreeable in conjunction, the necessity of a painful selection would render language intricate and difficult to be attained in any perfection; and this selection at the same time would abridge the number of useful sounds, so as perhaps not to leave sufficient for answering the different ends of language.

In this view, the harmony of pronunciation differs widely from that of music properly so called. In the latter are discovered many sounds singly agreeable, which in conjunction are extremely disagreeable; none but what are called concordant sounds having a good effect in conjunction. In the former, all sounds singly agreeable are in conjunction concordant; and ought to be, in order to fulfil the purposes of language.

Having discussed syllables, we proceed to words, which make the third article. Monosyllables belong to the former head; polysyllables open a different scene. In a cursory view, one would imagine that the agreeableness or disagreeableness of a word, with respect to its sound, should depend upon the agreeableness or disagreeableness of its component syllables: which is true in part, but not entirely; for we must also take under consideration the effect of syllables in succession. In the first place, syllables in immediate succession, pronounced each of them with the same, or nearly the same, aperture of the mouth, produce

a succession of weak and feeble sounds; witness the French words dit-il, pathetique; on the other hand, a syllable of the greatest aperture succeeding one of the smallest, on the contrary, makes a succession, which, because of its remarkable disagreeableness, is distinguished by a proper name hiatus. The most agreeable succession is where the cavity is increased and diminished alternately within moderate limits. Examples, alternative, longevity, pusillanimous. Secondly, words consisting wholly of syllables pronounced slow, or of syllables pronounced quick, commonly called long and short syllables, have little melody in them, witness the word petitioner, fruiterer, dizziness; on the other hand, the intermixture of long and short syllables is remarkably agreeable, for example, degree, repent, wonderful, altitude, rapidity, independent, impetuosity.* The cause will be explained afterwards in treating of versification.

Distinguishable from the beauties above-mentioned, there is a beauty of some words which arises from their signification. When the emotion raised by the length or shortness, the roughness or smoothness of the sound, resembles in any degree what is raised by the sense, we feel a very remarkable pleasure. But this subject belongs to the third section.

The foregoing observations afford a standard to every nation, for estimating, pretty accurately, the comparative merit of the words that enter into their own language; but they are not equally useful in comparing the words of different languages; which will thus appear. Different nations judge differently of the harshness or smoothness of articulate sounds. A sound, for example, harsh and disagreeable to an Italian, may be abundantly smooth to a northern ear. Here every nation must judge for itself; nor can there be an solid ground for a preference when there is no common standard to which we can appeal. The case is precisely the same as in behaviour and manners plain dealing and sincerity, liberty in words and actions, form the character of one people; politeness, reserve, and a total disguise of every sentiment that can give offence, form the character of another people ;-to each the manners of the other are disagreeable. An effeminate mind cannot bear the least of that roughness and severity which is generally esteemed manly, when exerted upon proper occasions; neither can an effeminate ear bear the harshness of certain words that are deemed nervous and sounding by those accustomed to a rougher tone of speech. Must we then relinquish all thoughts of comparing languages in point of roughness and smoothness as a fruitless inquiry? Not altogether; for we may proceed a certain length, though without hope of an ultimate decision. A language pronounced with difficulty even by natives, must yield to a smoother language; and supposing two languages pronounced with equal facility by natives, the rougher language, in my judgment, ought to be preferred, provided it be also stored with a competent share of more mellow sounds; which will

* Italian words, like those of Latin and Greek, bave this property almost universally; English and French words are generally deficient. In the former, the long syllable is removed from the end as far as the sound will permit; and in the latter, the last syllabie is generally long. For example, Senator in English; Senator in Latin, and Senateur in French.