breaks and intermissions, while another is flowing and diffusive; it is
evident that the difference cannot result from the natural sounds of
different letters, but from the various combinations of long and short
syllables, with which our language, being differently blended and
intermingled, will be either dull and motionless, or lively and fluent; so
that every circumstance of this nature must be regulated by _number_. For
by the assistance of _numbers_, the _period_, which I have so often
mentioned before, pursues it's course with greater strength and freedom
till it comes to a natural pause. It is therefore plain that the style of
an Orator should be measured and harmonized by _numbers_, though entirely
free from verse; but whether these numbers should be the same as those of
the poets, or of a different species, is the next thing to be considered.
In my opinion there can be no sort of numbers but those of the poets;
because they have already specified all their different kinds with the
utmost precision; for every number may be comprized in the three following
varieties:--_viz_. a _foot_ (which is the measure we apply to numbers)
must be so divided, that one part of it will be either equal to the other,
or twice as long, or equal to three halves of it. Thus, in a _dactyl_
(breve-macron-macron) (long-short-short) the first syllable, which is the
former part of the foot, is equal to the two others, in the _iambic_
(macron-breve)(short-long) the last is double the first, and in the
_paeon_ (macron-macron-macron-breve, or breve-macron-macron-macron)(short-
short-short-long, or long-short-short-short) one of its parts, which is
the long syllable, is equal to two-thirds of the other. These are feet
which are unavoidably incident to language; and a proper arrangement of
them will produce a _numerous_ style.
But it will here be enquired, What numbers should have the preference? To
which I answer, They must all occur promiscuously; as is evident from our
sometimes speaking verse without knowing it, which in prose is reckoned a
capital fault; but in the hurry of discourse we cannot always watch and
criticise ourselves. As to _senarian_ and _hipponactic_ [Footnote: Verses
chiefly composed of iambics] verses, it is scarcely possible to avoid
them; for a considerable part, even of our common language, is composed of
_iambics_. To these, however, the hearer is easily reconciled; because
custom has made them familiar to his ear. But through inattention we are
often betrayed into verses which are not so familiar;--a fault which may
easily be avoided by a course of habitual circumspection. _Hieronymus_, an
eminent Peripatetic, has collected out of the numerous writings of
Isocrates about thirty verses, most of them senarian, and some of them
anapest, which in prose have a more disagreeable effect than any others.
But he quotes them with a malicious partiality: for he cuts off the first
syllable of the first word in a sentence, and annexes to the last word the
first syllable of the following sentence; and thus he forms what is called
an _Aristophanean_ anapest, which it is neither possible nor necessary to
avoid entirely. But, this redoubtable critic, as I discovered upon a
closer inspection, has himself been betrayed into a senarian or iambic
verse in the very paragraph in which he censures the composition of
_Isocrates_.
Upon the whole, it is sufficiently plain that prose is susceptible of
_numbers_, and that the numbers of an Orator must be the same as those of
a Poet. The next thing to be considered is, what are the numbers which are
most suitable to his character, and, for that reason, should occur more
frequently than the rest? Some prefer the _Iambic_ (macron-breve)(short-
long) as approaching the nearest to common language; for which reason,
they say, it is generally made use of in fables and comedies, on account
of it's resemblance to conversation; and because the dactyl, which is the
favourite number of hexameters, is more adapted to a pompous style.
_Ephorus_, on the other hand, declares for the paeon and the dactyl; and
rejects the spondee and the trochee (long short). For as the paeon
has three short syllables, and the dactyl two, he thinks their shortness
and celerity give a brisk and lively flow to our language; and that a
different effect would be produced by the trochee and the spondee, the one
consisting of short syllables, and the other of long ones;--so that by
using the former, the current of our words would become too rapid, and too
heavy by employing the latter, losing, in either case, that easy
moderation which best satisfies the ear. But both parties seem to be
equally mistaken: for those who exclude the paeon, are not aware that they
reject the sweetest and fullest number we have. Aristotle was far from
thinking as they do: he was of opinion that heroic numbers are too
sonorous for prose; and that, on the other hand, the iambic has too much
the resemblance of vulgar talk:--and, accordingly, he recommends the style
which is neither too low and common, nor too lofty and extravagant, but
retains such a just proportion of dignity, as to win the attention, and
excite the admiration of the hearer. He, therefore, calls the _trochee_
(which has precisely the same quantity as the _choree_) _the rhetorical
jigg_ [Footnote: _Cordacem appellat_. The _cordax_ was a lascivious dance
very full of agitation.]; because the shortness and rapidity of it's
syllables are incompatible with the majesty of Eloquence. For this reason
he recommends the _paeon_, and says that every person makes use of it,
even without being sensible when he does so. He likewise observes that it
is a proper medium between the different feet above-mentioned:--the
proportion between the long and short syllables, in every foot, being
either sesquiplicate, duple, or equal.
The authors, therefore, whom I mentioned before attended merely to the
easy flow of our language, without any regard to it's dignity. For the
iambic and the dactyl are chiefly used in poetry; so that to avoid
versifying in prose, we must shun, as much as possible, a continued
repetition of either; because the language of prose is of a different
cast, and absolutely incompatible with verse. As the paeon, therefore, is
of all other feet the most improper for poetry, it may, for that reason be
more readily admitted into prose. But as to _Ephorus_, he did not reflect
that even the _spondee_, which he rejects, is equal in time to his
favourite dactyl; because he supposed that feet were to be measured not by
the quantity, but the number of their syllables;--a mistake of which he is
equally guilty when he excludes the _trochee_, which, in time and
quantity, is precisely equal to the iambic; though it is undoubtedly
faulty at the end of a period, which always terminates more agreeably in a
long syllable than a short one. As to what Aristotle has said of the
_paeon_, the same has likewise been said by _Theophrastus_ and
_Theodectes_.
But, for my part, I am rather of opinion that our language should be
intermingled and diversified with all the varieties of number; for should
we confine ourselves to any particular feet, it would be impossible to
escape the censure of the hearer; because our style should neither be so
exactly measured as that of the poets, nor entirely destitute of number,
like that of the common people. The former, as being too regular and
uniform, betrays an appearance of art; and the other, which is as much too
loose and undetermined, has the air of ordinary talk; so that we receive
no pleasure from the one, and are absolutely disgusted with the other. Our
style, therefore, as I have just observed, should be so blended and
diversified with different numbers, as to be neither too vague and
unrestrained, nor too openly numerous, but abound most in the paeon (so
much recommended by the excellent author above-mentioned) though still in
conjunction with many other feet which he entirely omits.
But we must now consider what number like so many dashes of purple, should
tincture and enrich the rest, and to what species of style they are each
of them best adapted. The iambic, then, should be the leading number in
those subjects which require a plain and simple style;--the paeon in such
as require more compass and elevation; and the dactyl is equally
applicable to both. So that in a discourse of any length and variety, it
will be occasionally necessary to blend and intermingle them all. By this
means, our endeavours to modulate our periods, and captivate the ear, will
be most effectually concealed; especially, if we maintain a suitable
dignity both of language and sentiment. For the hearer will naturally
attend to these (I mean our words and sentiments) and to them alone
attribute the pleasure he receives; so that while he listens to these with
admiration, the harmony of our numbers will escape his notice: though it
must indeed be acknowledged that the former would have their charms
without the assistance of the latter. But the flow of our numbers is not
to be so exact (I mean in prose, for in poetry the case is different) as
that nothing may exceed the bounds of regularity; for this would be to
compose a poem. On the contrary, if our language neither limps nor
fluctuates, but keeps an even and a steady pace, it is sufficiently
_numerous_; and it accordingly derives the title, not from its consisting
entirely of numbers, but from its near approach to a numerous form. This
is the reason why it is more difficult to make elegant prose, than to make
verses; because there are fixed and invariable rules for the latter;
whereas nothing is determined in the former, but that the current of our
language should be neither immoderate nor defective, nor loose and
unconfined. It cannot be supposed, therefore, to admit of regular beats
and divisions, like a piece of music; but it is only necessary that the
general compass and arrangement of our words should be properly restrained
and limited,--a circumstance which must be left entirely to the decision
of the ear.
Another question which occurs before us, is--whether an attention to our
numbers should be extended to every part of a sentence, or only to the
beginning and the end. Most authors are of opinion that it is only
necessary that our periods should end well, and have a numerous cadence.
It is true, indeed, that this ought to be principally attended to, but not
solely: for the whole compass of our periods ought likewise to be
regulated, and not totally neglected. As the ear, therefore, always
directs it's view to the close of a sentence, and there fixes it's
attention, it is by no means proper that this should be destitute of
_number_: but it must also be observed that a period, from it's first
commencement, should run freely on, so as to correspond to the conclusion;
and the whole advance from the beginning with such an easy flow, as to
make a natural, and a kind of voluntary pause. To those who have been
we'll practised in the art, and who have both written much; and often
attempted to discourse _extempore_ with the same accuracy which they
observe in their writings, this will be far less difficult than is
imagined. For every sentence is previously formed and circumscribed in the
mind of the Speaker, and is then immediately attended by the proper words
to express it, which the same mental faculty (than which there is nothing
more lively and expeditious) instantly dismisses, and sends off each to
its proper post: but, in different sentences, their particular order and
arrangement will be differently terminated; though, in every sentence, the
words both in the beginning and the middle of it, should have a constant
reference to the end. Our language, for instance, must sometimes advance
with rapidity, and at other times it's pace must be moderate and easy; so
that it will be necessary at the very beginning of a sentence, to resolve
upon the manner in which you would have it terminate; but we must avoid
the least appearance of poetry, both in our numbers, and in the other
ornaments of language; though it is true, indeed, that the labours of the
Orator must be conducted on the same principles as those of the Poet. For
in each we have the same materials to work upon, and a similar art of
managing them; the materials being words, and the art of managing them
relating, in both cases, to the manner in which they ought to be disposed.
The words also in each may be divided into three classes,--the
__metaphorical_,--the new-coined,--and the antique;--for at present we
have no concern with words _proper_:--and three parts may also be
distinguished in the art of disposing them; which, I have already
observed, are _juncture_, _concinnity_, and _number_. The poets make use
both of one and the other more frequently, and with greater liberty than
we do; for they employ the _tropes_ not only much oftener, but more boldly
and openly; and they introduce _antique_ words with a higher taste, and
new ones with less reserve. The same may be said in their numbers, in the
use of which they are subjected to invariable rules, which they are
scarcely ever allowed to transgress. The two arts, therefore, are to be
considered neither as wholly distinct, nor perfectly conjoined. This is
the reason why our numbers are not to be so conspicuous in prose as in
verse; and that in prose, what is called a _numerous_ style, does not
always become so by the use of numbers, but sometimes either by the
concinnity of our language, or the smooth juncture of our words.
To conclude this head; If it should be enquired, "What are the numbers to
be used in prose?" I answer, "_All_; though some are certainly better, and
more adapted to it's character than others."--If "_Where_ is their proper
seat?"--"In the different quantity of our syllables:"--If "From whence
their _origin_?"--"From the sole pleasure of the ear:"--If "What the
method of blending and intermingling them?"--"This shall be explained in
the sequel, because it properly relates to the manner of using them, which
was the fourth and last article in my division of the subject." If it be
farther enquired, "For what purpose they are employed?" I answer,--"To
gratify the ear:"--If "_When_?" I reply, "At all times:"--If "In what part
of a sentence?" "Through the whole length of it:"--and if "What is the
circumstance which gives them a pleasing effect?" "The same as in poetical
compositions, whose metre is regulated by art, though the ear alone,
without the assistance of art, can determine it's limits by the natural
powers of sensation." Enough, therefore, has been said concerning the
nature and properties of _number_. The next article to be considered is
the manner in which our numbers should be employed,--a circumstance which
requires to be accurately discussed.
Here it is usual to enquire, whether it is necessary to attend to our
numbers through the whole compass of a period, [Footnote: Our author here
informs us, that what the Greeks called [Greek: periodos], a _period_, was
distinguished among the Romans by the words _ambitus, circuitus,
comprehensio, continuatio_, and _circumscriptio_. As I thought this remark
would appear much better in the form of a note, than in the body of the
work, I have introduced it accordingly.] or only at the beginning or end
of it, or equally in both. In the next place, as _exact number_ seems to
be one thing, and that which is merely _numerous_ another, it might be
enquired wherein lies the difference. We might likewise consider whether
the members of a sentence should all indifferently be of the same length,
whatever be the numbers they are composed of;--or whether, on this
account, they should not be sometimes longer, and sometimes shorter;--and
when, and for what reasons, they should be made so, and of what numbers
they should be composed;--whether of several sorts, or only of one; and
whether of equal or unequal numbers;--and upon what occasions either the
one or the other of these are to be used;-and what numbers accord best
together, and in what order; or whether, in this respect, there is no
difference between them;--and (which has still a more immediate reference
to our subject) by what means our style may be rendered _numerous_. It
will likewise be necessary to specify the rise and origin of a
_periodical_ form of language, and what degree of compass should be
allowed to it. After this, we may consider the members or divisions of a
period, and enquire of how many kinds, and of what different lengths they
are; and, if they vary in these respects, _where_ and _when_ each
particular sort is to be employed: and, in the last place, the _use_ and
application of the whole is to be fully explained;--a very extensive
subject, and which is capable of being accommodated not only to one, but
to many different occasions. But without adverting to particulars, we may
discuss the subject at large in such a manner as to furnish a satisfactory
answer in all subordinate cases.
Omitting, therefore, every other species of composition, we shall attend
to that which is peculiar to forensic causes. For in those performances
which are of a different kind, such as history, panegyric, and all
discourses which are merely ornamental, every sentence should be
constructed after the exact manner of _Isocrates_ and _Theopompus_; and
with that regular compass, and measured flow of language, that our words
may constantly run within the limits prescribed by art, and pursue a
uniform course, till the period is completed. We may, therefore, observe
that after the invention of this, _periodical_ form, no writer of any
account has made a discourse which was intended as a mere display of
ornament, and not for the service of the Forum, without _squaring_ his
language, (if I may so express myself) and confining every sentence of it
to the strictest laws of _number_. For as, in this case, the hearer has no
motive to alarm his suspicions against the artifice of the speaker, he
will rather think himself obliged to him than otherwise, for the pains he
takes to amuse and gratify his ear. But, in forensic causes, this accurate
species of composition is neither to be wholly adopted, nor entirely
rejected. For if we pursue it too closely, it will create a satiety, and
our attention to it will be discovered by the most illiterate observer. We
may add, it will check the pathos and force of action, restrain the
sensibility of the Speaker, and destroy all appearance of truth and open
dealing. But as it will sometimes be necessary to adopt it, we must
consider _when_, and _how long_, this ought to be done, and how many ways
it may be changed and varied.
A _numerous_ style, then, may be properly employed, either when any thing
is to be commended in a free and ornamental manner, (as in my second
Invective against _Verres_, where I spoke in praise of _Sicily_, and in my
Speech before the Senate, in which I vindicated the honour of my
consulship;)--or; in the next place, when a narrative is to be delivered
which requires more dignity than pathos, (as in my fourth Invective, where
I described the Ceres of the Ennensians, the Diana of the Segestani, and
the situation of Syracuse.) It is likewise often allowable to speak in a
numerous and flowing style, when a material circumstance is to be
amplified. If I myself have not succeeded in this so well as might be
wished, I have at least attempted it very frequently; and it is still
visible in many of my Perorations, that I have exerted all the talents I
was master of for that purpose. But this will always have most efficacy,
when the Speaker has previously possessed himself of the hearer's
attention, and got the better of his judgment. For then he is no longer
apprehensive of any artifice to mislead him; but hears every thing with a
favourable ear, wishes the Orator to proceed, and, admiring the force of
his Eloquence, has no inclination to censure it.
But this measured and numerous flow of language is never to be continued
too long, I will not say in the peroration, (of which the hearer himself
will always be a capable judge) but in any other part of a discourse: for,
except in the cases above-mentioned, in which I have shewn it is
allowable, our style must be wholly confined to those clauses or divisions
which we erroneously call _incisa_ and _membra_; but the Greeks, with more
propriety, the _comma_ and _colon_ [Footnote: The ancients apply these
terms to the sense, and not to any points of distinction. A very short
member, whether simple or compound, with them is a _comma_; and a longer,
a _colon_; for they have no such term as a _semicolon_. Besides, they call
a very short sentence, whether simple or compound, a _comma_; and one of
somewhat a greater length, a _colon_. And therefore, if a person expressed
himself either of these ways, in any considerable number of sentences
together, he was said to speak by _commas_, or _colons_. But a sentence
containing more words than will consist with either of these terms, they
call a simple _period_; the least compound period with them requiring the
length of two colons.
Ward's Rhetoric, volume 1st, page 344.]. For it is impossible that the
names of things should be rightly applied, when the things themselves are
not sufficiently understood: and as we often make use of metaphorical
terms, either for the sake of ornament, or to supply the place of proper
ones, so in other arts, when we have occasion to mention any thing which
(through our unacquaintance with it) has not yet received a name, we are
obliged either to invent a new one, or to borrow it from something
similar. We shall soon consider what it is to speak in _commas_ and
_colons_, and the proper method of doing it: but we must first attend to
the various numbers by which the cadence of our periods should be
diversified.
Our numbers will advance more rapidly by the use of short feet, and more
coolly and sedately by the use of long ones. The former are best adapted
to a warm and spirited style, and the latter to sober narratives and
explanations. But there are several numbers for concluding a period, one
of which (called the _dichoree_, or double _choree_, and consisting of a
long and a short syllable repeated alternately) is much in vogue with the
Asiatics; though among different people the same feet are distinguished by
different names. The _dichoree_, indeed, is not essentially bad for the
close of a sentence: but in prosaic numbers nothing can be more faulty
than a continued or frequent repetition of the same cadence: as the
_dichoree_, therefore, is a very sonorous number, we should be the more
sparing in the use of it, to prevent a satiety. _C. Carbo_, the son of
_Caius_, and a Tribune of the people, once said in a public trial in which
I was personally engaged,--"_O Marce Druse, Patrem appello_;" where you
may observe two _commas_, each consisting of two feet. He then made use of
the two following _colons_, each consisting of three feet,--"_Tu dicere
solebas, sacram esse Rempublicam:"--and afterwards of the period,--
"_Quicunque eam violavissent, ab omnibus esse ei poenas persolutas_" which
ends with a _dichoree_; for it is immaterial whether the last syllable is
long or short. He added, "_Patris dictum sapiens, temeritas filii
comprobavit_" concluding here also with a _dichoree_; which was received
with such a general burst of applause, as perfectly astonished me. But was
not this the effect of _number_?--Only change the order of the words, and
say,--"_Comprobavit filii temeritas_" and the spirit of them will be lost,
though the word _temeritas_ consists of three short syllables and a long
one, which is the favourite number of Aristotle, from whom, however, I
here beg leave to dissent. The words and sentiments are indeed the fame in
both cases; and yet, in the latter, though the understanding is satisfied,
the ear is not. But these harmonious cadences are not to be repeated too
often: for, in the first place, our _numbers_ will be soon discovered,--in
the next, they will excite the hearer's disgust,--and, at last, be
heartily despised on account of the apparent facility with which they are
formed.