(Vol. vi., p. 575.)
This remarkable saying, like most good things of that kind, has been
repeated by so many distinguished writers, that it is impossible to trace
it to any one in particular, in the precise form in which it is now
popularly received. I shall quote, in succession, all those who appear to
have expressed it in words of the same, or a nearly similar, import, and
then leave your readers to judge for themselves.
I cannot help thinking that the first place should be assigned to Jeremy
Taylor, as he must have had the sentiment clearly in view in the following
sentence:
"There is in mankind an universal contract implied in all their
intercourses; and _words being instituted to declare the mind, and for
no other end_, he that hears me speak hath a right in justice to be
done him, that, as far as I can, what I speak be true; for else he by
words does not know your mind, and then as good and better not speak at
all."
Next we have David Lloyd, who in his _State Worthies_ thus remarks of Sir
Roger Ascham:
"None is more able for, yet none is more averse to, that circumlocution
and contrivance wherewith some men shadow their main drift and purpose.
_Speech was made to open man to man, and not to hide him_; to promote
commerce, and not betray it."
Dr. South, Lloyd's cotemporary, but who survived him more than twenty
years, expresses the sentiment in nearly the same words:
"In short, this seems to be the true inward judgment of all our
politick sages, that _speech was given to the ordinary sort of men,
whereby to communicate their mind, but to wise men whereby to conceal
it_."
The next writer in whom this thought occurs is Butler, the author of
_Hudibras_. In one of his prose essays on the "Modern Politician," he says:
"He (the modern politician) believes a man's words and his meanings
should never agree together: for he that says what he thinks lays
himself open to be expounded by the most ignorant; and _he who does not
make his words rather serve to conceal than discover the sense of his
heart_, deserves to have it pulled out, like a traitor's, and shown
publicly to the rabble."
Young has the thought in the following couplet on the duplicity of courts:
"When Nature's end of language is declin'd,
And men talk only to _conceal their mind_."
From Young it passed to Voltaire, who in the dialogue entitled "Le Chapon
et la Poularde," makes the former say of the treachery of men:
"Ils n'emploient les paroles que pour _déguiser leurs pensées_."
Goldsmith, about the same time, in his paper in _The Bee_, produces it in
the well-known words:
"Men who know the world hold that the true use of speech is not so much
to _express_ our wants, as to _conceal_ them."
Then comes Talleyrand, who is reported to have said:
"La parole n'a été donnée à l'homme que pour _déguiser sa pensée_."
The latest writer who adopts this remark without acknowledgment is, I
believe, Lord Holland. In his _Life of Lope de Vega_ he says of certain
Spanish writers, promoters of the _cultismo_ style:
"These authors do not avail themselves of the invention of letters for
the purpose of _conveying, but of concealing, their ideas_."
From these passages (some of which have already appeared in Vol. i., p. 83)
it will be seen that the germ of the thought occurs in Jeremy Taylor; that
Lloyd and South improved upon it; that Butler, Young and Goldsmith repeated
it; that Voltaire translated it into French; that Talleyrand echoed
Voltaire's words; and that it has now become so familiar an expression,
that any one may quote it, as Lord Holland has done, without being at the
trouble of giving his authority.
If, from the search for the author, we turn to consider the saying itself,
we shall find that its practical application extends not merely to every
species of equivocation, mental reservation, and even falsehood; but
comprises certain forms of speech, which are intended to convey the
_contrary_ of what they express. To this class of words the French have
given the designation of _contre-vérité_; and, to my surprise, I find that
they include therein the expression _amende honorable_. Upon this point the
_Grammaire des Grammaires_, by Girault Duvivier, has these remarks:
"La contre-vérité a beaucoup de rapport avec l'ironie. Amende
honorable, par exemple, est une contre-vérité, une vérité prise dans un
sens opposé à celui de son énonciation; car, au lieu d'être honorable,
elle est infamante, déshonorante."
I have some doubts as to whether this meaning of _amende honorable_ be in
accordance with our English notion of its import; and I shall be thankful
to any of your readers who will help me to a solution. I always understood
that the term _honorable_, in this expression, was to be taken in its
literal sense, namely, that the person who made an open avowal of his
fault, or tendered an apology for it, was acting, _in that respect_, in
strict conformity with the rules of honour. It is possible that, at first,
the _amende honorable_ may have been designed as a "peine infamante;" but
its modern acceptation would seem to admit of a more liberal construction.
{312}
There are other expressions, framed upon this "lucus a non lucendo"
principle, which may fairly be classed among _contre-vérités_. The French
say that a thing is _à propos de bottes_, when it is altogether
inappropriate. We all use the formula of "your most obedient, humble
servant," even when we intend anything but humility or obedience.