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,
_Vitâ illâ 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.--_Quà
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,
_Quà 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 Naturâ ipsâ _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 _Victoriâ_;--hujas _Cohortem impuram_, cum illius
_Exercitu invicto_;--hujus _Libidines_, cum illius _Continentiâ_;--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.
But if their own ears are so indelicate and devoid of taste, will they pay
no deference to the judgment of others, who are universally celebrated for
their learning? I will not mention _Isocrates_, and his two scholars,
_Ephorus_ and _Naucrates_; though they may claim the honour of giving the
richest precepts of composition, and were themselves very eminent Orators.
But who was possessed of a more ample fund of erudition?--who more subtle
and acute?--or who furnished with quicker powers of invention, and a
greater strength of understanding, than _Aristotle_? I may add, who made a
warmer opposition to the rising fame of _Isocrates_? And yet _he_, though
he forbids us to versify in prose, recommends the use of _numbers_. His
hearer _Theodectes_ (whom he often mentions as a polished writer, and an
excellent artist) both approves and advises the same thing: and
_Theophrastus_ is still more copious and explicit. Who, then, can have
patience with those dull and conceited humourists, who dare to oppose
themselves to such venerable names as these? The only excuse that can be
made for them is, that they have never perused their writings, and are
therefore ignorant that they actually recommend the prosaic _metre_ we are
speaking of. If this is the case with them (and I cannot think otherwise)
will they reject the evidence of their own sensations? Is there nothing
which their ears will inform them is defective?--nothing which is harsh
and unpolished?--nothing imperfect?--nothing lame and mutilated?--nothing
redundant? In dramatic performances, a whole theatre will exclaim against
a verse which has only a syllable either too short or too long: and yet
the bulk of an audience are unacquainted with _feet_ and _numbers_, and
are totally ignorant what the fault is, and where it lies: but Nature
herself has taught the ear to measure the quantity of sound, and determine
the propriety of its various accents, whether grave, or acute.
Do you desire, then, my Brutus, that we should discuss the subject more
fully than those writers who have already elucidated this, and the other
parts of rhetoric? Or shall we content ourselves with the instructions
which _they_ have provided for us? But wherefore do I offer such a
question, when your elegant letters have informed me, that this is the
chief object of your request? We shall proceed, therefore, to give an
account of the commencement, the origin, and the nature and use of
_prosaic numbers_.
The admirers of Isocrates place the first invention of numbers among those
other improvements which do honour to his memory. For observing, say they,
that the Orators were heard with a kind of sullen attention, while the
Poets were listened to with pleasure, he applied himself to introduce a
species of metre into prose, which might have a pleasing effect upon the
ear, and prevent that satiety which will always arise from a continued
uniformity of sound. This, however, is partly true, and partly otherwise;
for though it must be owned that no person was better skilled in the
subject than _Isocrates_; yet the first honour of the invention belongs to
_Thrasymachus_, whose style (in all his writings which are extant) is
_numerous_ even to a fault. But _Gorgias_, as I have already remarked, was
the original inventor of those measured forms of expression which have a
kind of spontaneous harmony,--such as a regular succession of words with
the same termination, and the comparing similar, or contracting opposite
circumstances: though it is also notoriously true that he used them to
excess. This, however, is one of the three branches of composition above-
mentioned. But each of these authors was prior to _Isocrates_: so that the
preference can be due to _him_ only for his _moderate use_, and not for
the _invention_ of the art: for as he is certainly much easier in the turn
of his metaphors, and the choice of his words, so his numbers are more
composed and sedate. But _Gorgias_, he observed, was too eager, and
indulged himself in this measured play of words to a ridiculous excess.
He, therefore, endeavoured to moderate and correct it; but not till he had
first studied in his youth under the same _Gorgias_, who was then in
Thessaly, and in the last decline of life. Nay, as he advanced in years
(for he lived almost a hundred) he corrected _himself_, and gradually
relaxed the over-strict regularity of his numbers; as he particularly
informs us in the treatise which he dedicated to Philip of Macedon, in the
latter part of his life; for he there says, that he had thrown off that
servile attention to his numbers, to which he was before accustomed:--so
that he discovered and corrected his _own_ faults, as well as those of his
predecessors.
Having thus specified the several authors and inventors, and the first
commencement of prosaic harmony, we must next enquire what was the natural
source and origin of it. But this lies so open to observation, that I am
astonished the ancients did not notice it: especially as they often, by
mere accident, threw out harmonious and measured sentences, which, when
they had struck the ears and the passions with so much force, as to make
it obvious that there was something particularly agreeable in what chance
alone had uttered, one would imagine that such a singular species of
ornament would have been immediately attended to, and that they would have
taken the pains to imitate what they found so pleasing in themselves. For
the ear, or at least the mind by the intervention of the ear, has a
natural capacity to measure the harmony of language: and we accordingly
feel that it instantly determines what is either too short or too long,
and always expects to be gratified with that which is complete and well-
proportioned. Some expressions it perceives to be imperfect, and
mutilated; and at these it is immediately offended, as if it was defrauded
of it's natural due. In others it discovers an immoderate length, and a
tedious superfluity of words; and with these it is still more disgusted
than with the former; for in this, as in most other cases, an excess is
always more offensive than a proportional defect. As versification,
therefore, and poetic competition was invented by the regulation of the
ear, and the successive observations of men of taste and judgment; so in
prose (though indeed long afterwards, but still, however, by the guidance
of nature) it was discovered that the career and compass of our language
should be adjusted and circumscribed within proper limits.
So much for the source, or natural origin of prosaic harmony. We must next
proceed (for that was the third thing proposed) to enquire into the nature
of it, and determine it's essential principles;--a subject which exceeds
the limits of the present essay, and would be more properly discussed in a
professed and accurate system of the art. For we might here inquire what
is meant by prosaic _number_, wherein it consists, and from whence it
arises; as likewise whether it is simple and uniform, or admits of any
variety, and in what manner it is formed, for what purpose, and when and
where it should be employed, and how it contributes to gratify the ear.
But as in other subjects, so in this, there are two methods of
disquisition;--the one more copious and diffusive, and the other more
concise, and, I might also add, more easy and comprehensible. In the
former, the first question which would occur is, whether there is any such
thing as _prosaic number_: some are of opinion there is not; because no
fixed and certain rules have been yet assigned for it, as there long have
been for poetic numbers; and because the very persons, who contend for
it's existence, have hitherto been unable to determine it. Granting,
however, that prose is susceptible of numbers, it will next be enquired of
what kind they are;--whether they are to be selected from those of the
poets, or from a different species;--and, if from the former, which of
them may claim the preference; for some authors admit only one or two, and
some more, while others object to none. We might then proceed to enquire
(be the number of them to be admitted, more or less) whether they are
equally common to every kind of style; for the narrative, the persuasive,
and the didactic have each a manner peculiar to itself; or whether the
different species of Oratory should be accommodated with their different
numbers. If the same numbers are equally common to all subjects, we must
next enquire what those numbers are; and if they are to be differently
applied, we must examine wherein they differ, and for what reason they are
not to be used so openly in prose as in verse. It might likewise be a
matter of enquiry, whether a _numerous_ style is formed entirely by the
use of numbers, or not also in some measure by the harmonious juncture of
our words, and the application of certain figurative forms of expression;
--and, in the next place, whether each of these has not its peculiar
province, so that number may regard the time or _quantity_, composition
the _sound_, and figurative expression the _form_ and _polish_ of our
language,--and yet, in fact, composition be the source and fountain of all
the rest, and give rise both to the varieties of _number_, and to those
figurative and luminous dashes of expression, which by the Greeks, as I
have before observed, are called ([Greek: _schaemaia_],) _attitudes_ or
_figures_. But to me there appears to be a real distinction between what
is agreeable in _sound_, exact in _measure_, and ornamental in the mode of
_expression_; though the latter, it must be owned, is very closely
connected with _number_, as being for the most part sufficiently numerous
without any labour to make it so: but composition is apparently different
from both, as attending entirely either to the _majestic_ or _agreeable_
sound of our words. Such then are the enquiries which relate to the
_nature_ of prosaic harmony.
From what has been said it is easy to infer that prose is susceptible of
_number_. Our sensations tell us so: and it would be excessively unfair to
reject their evidence, because we cannot account for the fact. Even poetic
metre was not discovered by any effort of reason, but by mere natural
taste and sensation, which reason afterwards correcting, improved and
methodized what had been noticed by accident; and thus an attention to
nature, and an accurate observation of her various feelings and sensations
gave birth to art. But in verse the use of _number_ is more obvious;
though some particular species of it, without the assistance of music,
have the air of harmonious prose, and especially the lyric poetry, and
that even the best of the kind, which, if divested of the aid of music,
would be almost as plain and naked as common language. We have several
specimens of this nature in our own poets [Footnote: It must here be
remarked, that the Romans had no lyric poet before _Horace_, who did not
flourish till after the times of _Cicero_.]; such as the following line in
the tragedy of _Thyestes_,
"_Quemnam te esse dicam? qui in tardâ senectute_;
"Whom shall I call thee? who in tardy age," &c.;
which, unless when accompanied by the lyre, might easily be mistaken for
prose. But the iambic verses of the comic poets, to maintain a resemblance
to the style of conversation, are often so low and simple that you can
scarcely discover in them either number or metre; from whence it is
evident that it is more difficult to adapt numbers to prose than to verse.
There are two things, however, which give a relish to our language,--well-
chosen words, and harmonious _numbers_. Words may be considered as the
_materials_ of language, and it is the business of _number_ to smooth and
polish them. But as in other cases, what was invented to serve our
necessities was always prior to that which was invented for pleasure; so,
in the present, a rude and simple style which was merely adapted to
express our thoughts, was discovered many centuries before the invention
of _numbers_, which are designed to please the ear. Accordingly
_Herodotus_, and both his and the preceding age had not the least idea of
prosaic _number_, nor produced any thing of the kind, unless at random,
and by mere accident:--and even the ancient masters of rhetoric (I mean
those of the earliest date) have not so much as mentioned it, though they
have left us a multitude of precepts upon the conduct and management of
our style. For what is easiest, and most necessary to be known, is, for
that reason, always first discovered. Metaphors, therefore, and new-made
and compounded words, were easily invented, because they were borrowed
from custom and conversation: but _number_ was not selected from our
domestic treasures, nor had the least intimacy or connection with common
language; and, of consequence, not being noticed and understood till every
other improvement had been made, it gave the finishing grace, and the last
touches to the style of Eloquence.