PART VII.

Δεκατον μεν ετος τοδ' επει Πριαμου.

For the latter line to have the same movement as the former, it must be read thus—

Dekatón men etós to d' epéi Priamóu.

Now we well know that, whatever may be any English scholar's notions of the Greek accents, this is not the way in which he reads Greek anapæsts.

Again thetrochaicmovement of theiambicsenarius is a point upon which the most exclusive Greek metrists have insisted; urging the necessity of reading (for example) the first line in the Hecuba—

Hǽko nékron keuthmóna kai skótou pýlas.

rather than—

Hækó nekrón keuthmóna kai skotóu pylás.

§ 656. I have said thatcertain English metres have often a very different metrical character, &c. I can strengthen the reasons against the use of classical terms in English prosody, by enlarging upon the wordoften. The frequency of the occurrence of a difference of character between classical and English metres similarly named is not a matter ofaccident, but is, in many cases, a necessity arising out of the structure of the English language as compared with that of the Greek and Latin—especially the Greek.

With the exception of the so-called second futures, there is no word in Greek whereof thelastsyllable is accented. Hence, no English line ending with an accented syllable can have a Greek equivalent. Accent for accent—

but no Greek word (with the exception of the so-called second futures likeνεμῶ=nemô) and (probably) no Latin word at all, is accented likepresúmeandcavalíer.

From this it follows that although the first three measures of such so-called English anapæsts as—

As they splásh in the blóod of the slíppery stréet,

may be represented by Greek equivalents (i. e., equivalents in the way of accent)—

Ep' omóisi feroúsi ta kleína—

a parallel to the last measure (-ery stréet) can only be got at by one of two methods;i. e., by making the verse end in a so-called second future, or else in a vowel preceded by an accented syllable, and cut off—

Ep' omóisi feróusi ta kleína nemó—

or,

Ep' omóisi feróusi ta kleína prosóp'.[70]

Now it is clear that when, over and above the fact of certain Greek metres having a different movement from their supposed English equivalents, there is the additional circumstance of such an incompatibility being less an accident than a necessary effect of difference of character in the two languages, the use of terms suggestive of a closer likeness than either does or ever can exist is to be condemned; and this is the case with the words,dactylic,trochaic,iambic,anapæstic, as applied to English versification.

§ 657.Certain classical feet have no English equivalents.—Whoever has considered the principles of English prosody, must have realized the important fact that,ex vi termini, no English measure can have either more or less thanoneaccented syllable.

On the other hand, the classical metrists have several measures in both predicaments. Thus to go no farther than the trisyllabic feet, we have the pyrrhic ([˘ ˘]) and tribrach ([˘ ˘ ˘]) without a long syllable at all, and the spondee ([ˉ ˉ]), amphimacer ([ˉ ˘ ˉ]), and molossus ([ˉ ˉ ˉ]) with more than one long syllable. It follows, then that (evenmutatis mutandis,i.e., with the accent considered as the equivalent to the long syllable) English pyrrhics, English tribrachs, English amphimacers, English spondees, and English molossi are, each and all, prosodial impossibilities.

It is submitted to the reader that the latter reason (based wholly upon the limitations that arise out of the structure of language) strengthens the objections of the previous section.

§ 658.The classical metres metrical even to English readers.The attention of the reader is directed to the difficulty involved in the following (apparently or partially) contradictory facts.

1. Accent and quantity differ; and the metrical systems founded upon them differ also.

2. The classical systems are founded upon quantity.

3. The English upon accent.

4. Nevertheless, notwithstanding the difference of the principle upon which they are constructed, the classical metres, even as read by Englishmen, and readaccentually, are metrical to English ears.

§ 659. Preliminary to the investigation of the problem in question it is necessary to remark—

1. That, the correctness or incorrectness of the English pronunciation of the dead languages has nothing to do with the matter. Whether we read Homer exactly, as Homer would read his own immortal poems, or whether we read them in such a way as would be unintelligible to Homer reappearing upon earth, is perfectly indifferent.

2. That whether, as was indicated by the author ofΜέτρον ἄριστον, we pronounce the anapæstpătŭlæ, precisely as we pronounce the dactyleTītўrĕ, or draw a distinction between them is also indifferent. However much, as is done in some of the schools, we may sayscri-bererather thanscrib-ere, oram-or, rather thana-mor, under the notion that we are lengthening or shortening certain syllables, one unsurmountable dilemma still remains, viz., that the shorter we pronounce the vowel, the more we suggest the notion of the consonant which follows it being doubled; whilst double consonantslengthenthe vowel which precedes them. Hence, whilst it is certain thatpatulæandTityremay be pronounced (and that without hurting the metre) so as to be both of the samequantity, it is doubtful what thatquantityis. Sound for soundTĭtyremay be as short aspătulæ. Sound for soundpāttulæmay be as long asTīttyre.

Hence, the only assumptions requisite are—

a.That Englishmen donotread the classical metres according to their quantities.

b.That, nevertheless, they find metre in them.

§ 660.Why are the classical metres metrical to English readers?—Notwithstanding the extent to which quantity differs from accent, there is no metre so exclusively founded upon the former as to be without a certain amount of thelatter; and in the majority (at least) of the classical (and probably other) metresthere is a sufficient amount of accentual elements to constitute metre; even independent of the quantitative ones.

§ 661.Latitude in respect to the periodicity of the recurrence of similarly accented syllables in English.—Metre (as stated in p.499), "is the recurrence, within certain intervals, of syllables similarly affected."

The particular way in which syllables areaffectedin English metre is that ofaccent.

The more regular the period at which similar accents recur the more typical the metre.

Nevertheless absolute regularity is not requisite.

This leads to the difference between symmetrical and unsymmetrical metres.

§ 662.Symmetrical metres.—Allowing for indifference of the number of syllables in the last measure, it is evident that in all lines where the measures are dissyllabic the syllables will be a multiple of the accents,i. e., they will be twice as numerous. Hence, with three accents there are six syllables; with four accents, eight syllables, &c.

Similarly, in all lines where the measures are trisyllabic the syllables will also be multiples of the accents,i. e., they will be thrice as numerous. Hence, with three accents there will be nine syllables, with four accents, twelve syllables, and with seven accents, twenty-one syllables.

Lines of this sort may be called symmetrical.

§ 663.Unsymmetrical metres.—Lines, where the syllables arenota multiple of the accents, may be called unsymmetrical. Occasional specimens of such lines occur interspersed amongst others of symmetrical character. Where this occurs the general character of the versification may be considered as symmetrical also.

The case, however, is different where the whole character of the versification is unsymmetrical, as it is in the greater part of Coleridge's Christabel, and Byron's Siege of Corinth.

In the yéar since Jésus diéd for mén,Eíghteen húndred yeárs and tén,Wé were a gállant cómpaný,Ríding o'er lánd and sáiling o'er séa.Óh! but wé went mérrilý!We fórded the ríver, and clómb the high híll,Néver our steéds for a dáy stood stíll.Whéther we láy in the cáve or the shéd,Our sleép fell sóft on the hárdest béd;Whéther we cóuch'd on our róugh capóte,Or the róugher plánk of our glíding bóat;Or strétch'd on the beách or our sáddles spréadAs a píllow beneáth the résting héad,Frésh we wóke upón the mórrow.Áll our thóughts and wórds had scópe,Wé had héalth and wé had hópe,Tóil and trável, bút no sórrow.

In the yéar since Jésus diéd for mén,

Eíghteen húndred yeárs and tén,

Wé were a gállant cómpaný,

Ríding o'er lánd and sáiling o'er séa.

Óh! but wé went mérrilý!

We fórded the ríver, and clómb the high híll,

Néver our steéds for a dáy stood stíll.

Whéther we láy in the cáve or the shéd,

Our sleép fell sóft on the hárdest béd;

Whéther we cóuch'd on our róugh capóte,

Or the róugher plánk of our glíding bóat;

Or strétch'd on the beách or our sáddles spréad

As a píllow beneáth the résting héad,

Frésh we wóke upón the mórrow.

Áll our thóughts and wórds had scópe,

Wé had héalth and wé had hópe,

Tóil and trável, bút no sórrow.

§ 664.Many(perhaps all)classical metres on a level with the unsymmetrical English ones.—The following is the notation of the extract in the preceding section.

x x a x a x a x aa x a x a x aa x x a x a x aa x x a x a x x aa x a x a x xx a x x a x x a x x aa x x a x x a x aa x x a x x a x x ax a x a x x a x aa x x a x x a x ax x a x a x x a x ax a x x a x x a x ax x a x x a x a x aa x a x a x a xa x a x a x aa x a x a x aa x a x a x a x

x x a x a x a x a

a x a x a x a

a x x a x a x a

a x x a x a x x a

a x a x a x x

x a x x a x x a x x a

a x x a x x a x a

a x x a x x a x x a

x a x a x x a x a

a x x a x x a x a

x x a x a x x a x a

x a x x a x x a x a

x x a x x a x a x a

a x a x a x a x

a x a x a x a

a x a x a x a x

Now many Latin metres present a recurrence of accent little more irregular than the quotation just analysed. The following is the accentual formula of the first two stanzas of the second ode of the first Book of Horace.

Accentual Formula of the Latin Sapphic.

Latin Asclepiad.

Horace, Od.I.i., 1-6.

Latin Hexameter.

Æn.i., 1-5.

A longer list of examples would show us that, throughout the whole of the classical metres the same accents recur, sometimes with less, and sometimes with but very little more irregularity than they recur in theunsymmetricalmetres of our own language.

§ 665.Conversion of English into classical metres.—In the preface to his Translation of Aristophanes, Mr. Walsh has shown (and, I believe, for the first time), that, by a different distribution of lines, very fair hexameters may be made out of the well-known lines on the Burial of Sir John Moore:—

Not a drum wasHeard, not a funeral note as his corse to the rampart we hurried,Not a soldier dis-Charged his farewell shot o'er the grave where our hero we buried.We buried himDarkly at dead of night, the sods with our bayonets turning;By the strugglingMoonbeams' misty light and the lantern dimly burning.Lightly they'llTalk of the spirit that's gone, and o'er his cold ashes upbraid him,But little he'llReck if they let him sleep on in the grave where a Briton has laid him.

Not a drum wasHeard, not a funeral note as his corse to the rampart we hurried,Not a soldier dis-Charged his farewell shot o'er the grave where our hero we buried.

Not a drum was

Heard, not a funeral note as his corse to the rampart we hurried,

Not a soldier dis-

Charged his farewell shot o'er the grave where our hero we buried.

We buried himDarkly at dead of night, the sods with our bayonets turning;By the strugglingMoonbeams' misty light and the lantern dimly burning.

We buried him

Darkly at dead of night, the sods with our bayonets turning;

By the struggling

Moonbeams' misty light and the lantern dimly burning.

Lightly they'llTalk of the spirit that's gone, and o'er his cold ashes upbraid him,But little he'llReck if they let him sleep on in the grave where a Briton has laid him.

Lightly they'll

Talk of the spirit that's gone, and o'er his cold ashes upbraid him,

But little he'll

Reck if they let him sleep on in the grave where a Briton has laid him.

§ 666. Again, such lines as Coleridge's—

1. Make réady my gráve clothes to-mórrow;

or Shelly's—

2. Líquid Péneus was flówing,

are the exact analogues of lines like—

1. Jam lácte depúlsum leónem,

and

2. Gráto Pýrrha sub ántro.

§ 667. The rationale of so remarkable a phænomenon asregularity of accent in verses considered to have been composed with a view to quantity onlyhas yet to be investigated. That it was necessary to the structure of the metres in question is certain.

§ 668.Cæsura.—Thecæsuraof the classical metrists is the result of—

1. The necessity in the classical metres (as just indicated) of an accented syllable in certain parts of the verses.

2. The nearly total absence in the classical languages of words with an accent on the last syllable.

From the joint effect of these two causes, it follows that in certain parts of a verse no final syllable can occur, or (changing the expression) no word can terminate.

Thus, in a language consisting chiefly of dissyllables, of which the first alone was accented, and in a metre which required the sixth syllable to be accented, the fifth and seventh would each be at end of words, and that simply because the sixth was not.

Whilst in a language consisting chiefly of either dissyllables or trisyllables, and in a metre of the same sort as before,if the fifth were not final, the seventh would be so, orvice versa.

§ 669.Cæsurameanscutting. In a language destitute of words accented on the last syllable, and in a metre requiring the sixth syllable to be accented, a measure (foot) of either the formulax a, orx x a(i. e., a measure with the accent at the end), except in the case of words of four or more syllables, must always be either itself divided, or else cause the division of the following measures—divisionmeaning the distribution of the syllables of the measure (foot) over two or more words. Thus—

a.If the accented syllable (the sixth) be the first of a word of any length, the preceding one (the fifth) must be the final one of the word which went before; in which case the first and last parts belong to different words, and the measure (foot) is divided orcut.

b.If the accented syllable (the sixth) be the second of a word of three syllables, the succeeding one which is at the end of the word, is the first part of the measure which follows; in which case the first and last parts of the measure (foot) which follows the accented syllable is divided orcut.

As thecæsura, or the necessity for dividing certain measures between two words, arises out of the structure of language, it only occurs in tongues where there is a notable absence of words accented on the last syllable. Consequently there is no cæsura[71]in the English.

§ 670. As far as accent is concerned, the classical poets write inmeasuresrather thanfeet. See p.505.

§ 671. Although the idea of writing English hexameters, &c., on the principle of an accent in a measure taking the place of the long syllables in a foot, is chimerical; it is perfectly practicable to write English verses upon the sameprinciple which the classics themselves have written on,i.e., with accents recurring within certain limits; in which case the so-called classical metre is merely an unsymmetrical verse of a new kind. This may be either blank verse or rhyme.

§ 672. The chief reason against the naturalization of metres of the sort in question (over and above the practical one of our having another kind in use already), lies in the fact of their being perplexing to the readers who havenotbeentrained to classical cadences, whilst they suggest and violate the idea ofquantityto those who have.

Whyhis idea of quantity is violated may be seen in p.165.

§ 673.Convertible metres.—Such a line as—

Ere her faithless sons betray'd her,

may be read in two ways. We may either lay full stress upon the wordere, and read—

Ére her faíthless sóns betráy'd her;

or we may lay little or no stress upon eitherereorher, reserving the full accentuation for the syllablefaith-infaithless, in which case the reading would be

Ere her faíthless sóns betráy'd her.

Lines of this sort may be called examples ofconvertible metres, since by changing the accent a dissyllabic line may be converted into one partially trisyllabic, andvice versâ.

This property of convertibility is explained by the fact of accentuation beinga relative quality. In the example before usereis sufficiently strongly accented to stand in contrast toher, but it is not sufficiently strongly accented to stand upon a par with thefaith-infaithlessif decidedly pronounced.

The real character of convertible lines is determined from the character of the lines with which they are associated.That the second mode of reading the line in question is the proper one, may be shown by reference to the stanza wherein it occurs.

Let Érin remémber her dáys of óld,Ere her faíthless sóns betráy'd her,When Málachi wóre the cóllar of góld,Which he wón from the próud inváder.

Let Érin remémber her dáys of óld,

Ere her faíthless sóns betráy'd her,

When Málachi wóre the cóllar of góld,

Which he wón from the próud inváder.

Again, such a line as

For the glory I have lost,

although it may be read

For the glóry I have lóst,

would be read improperly. The stanza wherein it occurs is essentially dissyllabic (a x).

Heéd, oh heéd my fátal stóry!Í am Hósier's ínjured ghóst,Cóme to seék for fáme and glóry—Fór the glóry Í have lóst.

Heéd, oh heéd my fátal stóry!

Í am Hósier's ínjured ghóst,

Cóme to seék for fáme and glóry—

Fór the glóry Í have lóst.

§ 674.Metrical and grammatical combinations.—Words, or parts of words, that are combined as measures, are words, or parts of words, combinedmetrically, or inmetrical combination.

Syllables combined as words, or words combined as portions of a sentence, are syllables and wordsgrammatically combined, or ingrammatical combination.

The syllablesere her faith-form a metrical combination.

The wordsher faithless sonsform a grammatical combination.

When the syllables contained in the same measure (or connected metrically) are also contained in the same construction (or connected grammatically), the metrical and the grammatical combinations coincide. Such is the case with the line

Remémber | the glóries | of Brían | the Bráve;

where the same division separates both the measure and the subdivisions of the sense, inasmuch as the wordtheis connected with the wordgloriesequally in grammar and in metre, in syntax and in prosody. So isofwithBrian, andthewithBrave.

Contrast with this such a line as

A chieftain to the Highlands bound.

Here the metrical division is one thing, the grammatical division another, and there is no coincidence.

Metrical,

A chíef | tain tó | the Hígh | lands bóund.

Grammatical,

A chieftain | to the Highlands | bound.

In the following stanza the coincidence of the metrical and grammatical combination is nearly complete:—

To árms! to árms! The sérfs, they róamO'er híll, and dále, and glén:The kíng is deád, and tíme is cómeTo choóse a chiéf agáin.

To árms! to árms! The sérfs, they róam

O'er híll, and dále, and glén:

The kíng is deád, and tíme is cóme

To choóse a chiéf agáin.

Wárriors or chiéfs, should the sháft or the swórdPiérce me in léading the hóst of the Lórd,Heéd not the córse, though a kíng's in your páth,Búry your stéel in the bósoms of Gáth.—Byron.

Wárriors or chiéfs, should the sháft or the swórd

Piérce me in léading the hóst of the Lórd,

Heéd not the córse, though a kíng's in your páth,

Búry your stéel in the bósoms of Gáth.—Byron.

there is a non-coincidence equally complete.

§ 675.Rhythm.—The character of a metre is marked and prominent in proportion as the metrical and the grammaticalcombinations coincide. The extent to which the measurea x xis the basis of the stanza last quoted is concealed by the antagonism of the metre and the construction. If it were not for the axiom, thatevery metre is to be considered uniform until there is proof to the contrary, the lines might be divided thus:—

a x, x a, x x a, x x a,a x, x a x, x a x, x a,a x, x a, x x a, x x a,a x, x a x, x a x, x a.

a x, x a, x x a, x x a,

a x, x a x, x a x, x a,

a x, x a, x x a, x x a,

a x, x a x, x a x, x a.

The variety which arises in versification from the different degrees of the coincidence and non-coincidence between the metrical and grammatical combinations may be calledrhythm.

§ 676.Constant and inconstant parts of a rhythm.—See§ 636. Of the three parts or elements of a rhyme, the vowel and the part which follows the vowel areconstant,i.e., they cannot be changed without changing or destroying the rhyme. Intoldandbold,plunder,blunder, both theooruon one side, and the-ldor-nderon the other are immutable.

Of the three parts, or elements, of a rhyme the part which precedes the vowel isinconstant,i.e, it must be changed in order to effect the rhyme. Thus,oldandold,toldandtold,boldandbold, donotrhyme with each other; althoughold,bold,told,scold, &c. do.

Rule 1.In two or more syllables that rhyme with each other, neither the vowel nor the sounds whichfollowit can bedifferent.

Rule 2.In two or more syllables that rhyme with each other, the sounds whichprecedethe vowel cannot bealike.

Now the number of sounds which can precede a vowel is limited: it is that of the consonants and consonantal combinations; of which a list can be madea priori.

and so on, the combinations of s being the most complex.

This gives us the following method (or receipt) for the discovery of rhymes:—

1. Divide the word to which a rhyme is required, into itsconstantandinconstantelements.

2. Make up the inconstant element by the different consonants and consonantal combinations until they are exhausted.

3. In the list of words so formed, mark off those which have an existence in the language; these will all rhyme with each other; and if the list of combinations be exhaustive, there are no other words which will do so.

Example.—From the wordtold, separate theoand-ld, which are constant.

Instead of the inconstant elementt, write successively,p,pl,pr,b,bl,br, &c.: so that you have the following list:—t-old,p-old,pl-old,pr-old,b-old,bl-old,br-old, &c.

Of theseplold,blold, andbrold, have no existence in the language; the rest, however, are rhymes.

§ 677. All words have the same number of possible, but not the same number of actual rhymes. Thus,silveris a word amenable to the same process astold—pilver,plilver,prilver,bilver, &c.; yetsilveris a word without a corresponding rhyme. This is because the combinations which answer to it do not constitute words, or combinations of words in the English language.

This has been written, not for the sake of showing poets how to manufacture rhymes, but in order to prove that a result which apparently depends on the ingenuity of writers, is reducible to a very humble mechanical process, founded upon the nature of rhyme and the limits to the combinations of consonants.

THE DIALECTS OF THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE.

§ 678. The consideration of the dialects of the English language is best taken in hand after the historical investigation of the elements of the English population. For this, see Part I.

It is also best taken in hand after the analysis of the grammatical structure of the language. For this, see Part IV.

This is because both the last-named subjects are necessary as preliminaries. The structure of the language supplies us with the points in which one dialect may differ from another, whilst the history of the immigrant populations may furnish an ethnological reason for such differences as are found to occur.

For a further illustration of this see pp.4,5.

§ 679. By putting together the history of the migrations into a country, and the grammatical structure of the language which they introduced, we find that there are two methods of classifying the dialects. These may be called the ethnological, and the structural methods.

According to the former, we place in the same class those dialects which were introduced by the same section of immigrants. Thus, a body of Germans, starting from the same part of Germany, and belonging to the same section of the Germanic population, even if, whilst at sea, they separated into two, three, or more divisions, and landed upon widely separated portions of Great Britain, would introduce dialects which were alliedethnologically; even though, by one of them changing rapidly, and the others not changing at all, they might, in their external characters, differ from each other, and agree with dialects of a different introduction. Hence, the ethnological principle is essentially historical, andis based upon the idea ofaffiliationor affinity in the way of descent.

Thestructuralprinciple is different. Two dialects introduced by different sections (perhaps it would be better to saysub-sections) of an immigrant population may suffer similar changes;e. g., they may lose the same inflexions, adopt similar euphonic processes, or incorporate the same words. In this case, their external characters become mutually alike. Hence, if we take two (or move) such dialects, and place them in the same class, we do so simply because they are alike; not because they are affiliated.

Such are the two chief principles of classification. Generally, they coincide; in other words, similarity of external characters isprimâ facieevidence of affinity in the way of affiliation, identity of origin being the safest assumption in the way of cause; whilst identity of origin is generally a sufficient ground for calculating upon similarity of external form; such being,a priori, its probable effect.

Still, the evidence of one in favour of the other is onlyprimâ facieevidence. Dialects of the same origin may grow unlike; dialects of different origins alike.

§ 680. The causes, then, which determine those minute differences of language, which go by the name ofdialectsare twofold.—1. Original difference; 2. Subsequent change.

§ 681. The original difference between the two sections (orsub-sections) of an immigrant population are referable to either—1. Difference of locality in respect to the portion of the country from which they originated; or 2. Difference in the date of the invasion.

Two bodies of immigrants, one from the Eyder, and the other from the Scheldt, even if they left their respective localities on the same day of the same month, would most probably differ from one another; and that in the same way that a Yorkshireman differs from a Hampshire man.

On the other hand, two bodies of immigrants, each leaving the very same locality, but one in 200A.D., and the other in 500A.D., would also, most probably, differ; and that as a Yorkshireman of 1850A.D.differs from one of 1550A.D.

§ 682. The subsequent changes which may affect the dialect of an immigrant population are chiefly referable to either, 1. Influences exerted by the dialects of the aborigines of the invaded country; 2. Influences of simple growth, or development. A dialect introduced from Germany to a portion of Great Britain, where the aborigines spoke Gaelic, would (if affected at all by the indigenous dialect) be differently affected from a dialect similarly circumstanced in a British, Welsh, and Cambrian district.

A language which changes rapidly, will, at the end of a certain period, wear a different aspect from one which changes slowly.

§ 683. A full and perfect apparatus for the minute philology of the dialects of a country like Great Britain, would consist in—

1. The exact details of the present provincialisms.

2. The details of the history of each dialect through all its stages.

3. The exact details of the provincialisms of the whole of that part of Germany which contributed, or is supposed to have contributed, to the Anglo-Saxon immigration.

4. The details of the original languages or dialects of the Aboriginal Britons at the time of the different invasions.

This last is both the least important and the most unattainable.

§ 684. Such are the preliminaries which are wanted for the purposes of investigation. Others are requisite for the proper understanding of the facts already ascertained, and the doctrines generally admitted; the present writer believing that these two classes are by no means coextensive.

Of such preliminaries, the most important are those connected with 1. the structure of language, and 2. the history of individual documents; in other words, certain points of philology, and certain points of bibliography.

§ 685.Philological preliminaries.—These are points of pronunciation, points of grammatical structure, and glossarial peculiarities. It is only the first two which will be noticed. They occur in 1. the modern, 2. the ancient local forms of speech.

§ 686.Present provincial dialects.—In the way of grammar we find, in the present provincial dialects (amongst many others), the following old forms—

1. A plural inen—we call-en,ye call-en, theycall-en. Respecting this, the writer in the Quarterly Review, has the following doctrine:—

"It appears to have been popularly known, if not in East Anglia proper, at all events in the district immediately to the westward, since we find it in Orm, in an Eastern-Midland copy of the Rule of Nuns, sæc. XIII., and in process of time in Suffolk. Various conjectures have been advanced as to the origin of this form, of which we have no certain examples before the thirteenth century.[72]We believe the true state of the case to have been as follows. It is well known that the Saxon dialects differ from the Gothic, Old-German, &c. in the form of the present indicative plural—making all three persons to end in-aþor-ad;—we—ȝe—hi—lufi-aþ(-ad). Schmeller and other German philologists observe that a nasal has been here elided, the true ancient form being-and,-ant, or-ent. Traces of this termination are found in the Cotton MS. of the Old Saxon Evangelical Harmony, and still more abundantly in the popular dialects of the Middle-Rhenish district from Cologne to the borders of Switzerland. These not only exhibit the full termination-ent, but also two modifications of it, one dropping the nasal and the other the dental.E.g.:—

—the last exactly corresponding with the Mercian. It is remarkable that none of the above forms appear in classical German compositions, while they abound in the Miracle-plays, vernacular sermons, and similar productions of the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries, specially addressed to the uneducated classes. We may, therefore, reasonably conclude from analogy that similar forms were popularly current in our midland counties, gradually insinuating themselves into thewritten language. We have plenty of examples of similar phenomena. It would be difficult to find written instances of the pronounsscho, orshe,their,you, the auxiliariessal,suld, &c., before the twelfth century; but their extensive prevalence in the thirteenth proves that they must have been popularly employed somewhere even in times which have left us no documentary evidence of their existence."

I prefer to consider this termination as-en, a mere extension of the subjunctive form to the indicative.

2. An infinitive form in-ie; as tosowie, toreapie,—Wiltshire. (Mr. Guest).

3. The participial form in-and; asgoand,slepand,—Lincolnshire (?), Northumberland, Scotland.

4. The common use of the termination-thin the third person present;goeth,hath,speaketh,—Devonshire.

5. Plural forms in-en; ashousen,—Leicestershire and elsewhere.

6. Old preterite forms of certain verbs; as,

The following changes (a few out of many) are matters not of grammar, but of pronunciation:—

Ui foroo—cuil,bluid, forcool,blood,—Cumberland, Scotland.

Oy fori—foyne,twoyne, forfine,twine,—Cheshire, Cambridgeshire, Suffolk.

Oy foroo—foytforfoot,—Halifax.

Oy foro—noite,foil,coil,hoil, fornote,foal,coal,hole,—Halifax.

Oy fora—loyneforlane,—Halifax.

Ooy foroo—nooin,gooise,fooil,tooil, fornoon,goose,fool,tool,—Halifax.

W inserted (with or without a modification)—asspwort,scworn,whoam, forsport,scorn,home,—Cumberland, West Riding of Yorkshire.

Ew foroo, oryoo—tewnfortune,—Suffolk, Westmoreland.

Iv foroo, oryoowhen a vowel follows—asSamivelforSamuel;EmmanivelforEmmanuel. In all these we have seen a tendency todiphthongalsounds.

In the following instances the practice is reversed, and instead of the vowel being made a diphthong, the diphthong becomes a vowel, as,

O foroy—bohforboy, Suffolk, &c.

Oo forow—broonforbrown,—Bilsdale.

Ee fori—neetfornight,—Cheshire.

O forou—bawn'forbound,—Westmoreland.

Of these the substitution ofooforow, and ofeefori, are of importance in the questions of the Appendix.

Ēē fora—theereforthere,—Cumberland.

Ēē forĕ—reed,seeven, forred,seven,—Cumberland, Craven.

Ā forō—sair,mair,baith, forsore,more,both,—Cumberland, Scotland.

Ă forŏ—saftforsoft,—Cheshire.

O foră—monforman,—Cheshire.Londforland,—East-Anglian Semi-Saxon.

Yinserted before a vowel—styake,ryape, forstake,rope,—Borrowdale; especially afterg(a point to be noticed),gyarden,gyown, forgarden,gown,—Warwickshire, &c.; and at the beginning of a word, asyat,yan, forate,one(ane),—Westmoreland, Bilsdale.

Hinserted—hafter,hoppen, forafter,open,—Westmoreland, &c.

Homitted—at,ard, forhat,hard,—Passim.

Transition of Consonants.

Bforv—WhitehebbonforWhitehaven,—Borrowdale.

Pforb—poatforboat.—Welsh pronunciation of many English words. See the speeches of Sir Hugh Evans in Merry Wives of Windsor.

Vforf—vindforfind,—characteristic of Devonshire, Kent.

Tford(final)—deetfordeed,—Borrowdale.

Tforch(tsh)—fetforfetch,—Devonshire.

Dforj(dzh)—sledforsledge,—Hereford.

Dforth(þ)—wid=with;tudder=the other,—Borrowdale, Westmoreland. Initial (especially before a consonant)—drash,droo=thrash,through,—Devonshire, Wilts.

Kforch(tsh)—thack,pick, forthatch,pitch,—Westmoreland, Lincolnshire, Halifax.

Gforj(dzh)—brigforbridge—Lincolnshire, Hereford.

Gpreserved from the Anglo-Saxon—lig,lie. Anglo-Saxon,licgan,—Lincolnshire, North of England.

Zfors—zeeforsee,—Devonshire.

Sforsh—sallforshall,—Craven, Scotland.

Yforg—yetforgate,—Yorkshire, Scotland.

Wforv—wiewforview,—Essex, London.

Nforng—bleedinforbleeding,—Cumberland, Scotland.

Skforsh—buskforbush,—Halifax.

Ejection of Letters.

Kbefores, the preceding vowel being lengthened by way of compensation—neistfornext,seistforsixth,—Halifax.

Dandvafter a consonant—golforgold,sillerforsilver,—Suffolk. The ejection offis rarer;myselformyself, however, occurs in most dialects.

Lfinal, after a short vowel,—in which case the vowel is lengthened—pooforpull,—Cheshire, Scotland.

Alchanged toaopen—hawfforhalf,saumon forsalmon,—Cumberland, Scotland.

Transposition.

Transpositions of the liquidrare common in all our provincial dialects; asgars,brid,perty, forgrass,bird,pretty. Here the provincial forms are the oldest,gærs,brid, &c., being the Anglo-Saxon forms. Again;acsian, Anglo-Saxon=ask, English.

§ 687.Ancient forms of speech.—In the way of grammar—

1. Thege-(see§ 409), prefixed to the past participle (ge-boren=borne) is, in certain localities,[73]omitted.

2. The present[74]plural form-s, encroaches upon the form in-n. Thus,munuces=munucan=monks.

3. The infinitive ends in-a, instead of-an. This is Scandinavian, but it is also Frisian.

4. The particleatis used instead oftobefore the infinitive verb.

5. The article[74]theis used instead ofse,seo,þæt=ὁ, ἡ, τὸ, for both the numbers, and all the cases and genders.

6. The form in-s(use,usse) replacesure=our.

In the way of sound—

1. Forms with the slenderer, or more vocalic[74]sounds, replace forms which in the West-Saxon are broad or diphthongal.[75]Beda mentions thatCœlinis the Northumbrian form ofCeawlin.

2. The simple[74]sound ofkreplaces the combination out of which the modern sound ofchhas been evolved.

3. The sound ofskreplaces either thesh, or the sound out of which it has been evolved.

The meaning of these last two statements is explained by the following extract: "Another characteristic is the infusion of Scandinavian words, of which there are slight traces in monuments of the tenth century, and strong and unequivocal ones in those of the thirteenth and fourteenth. Some of the above criteria may be verified by a simple and obvious process, namely, a reference to the topographical nomenclature of our provinces. Whoever takes the trouble to consult the Gazetteer of England will find, that of our numerous 'Carltons' not one is to be met with south of the Mersey, west of the Staffordshire Tame, or south of the Thames; and that 'Fiskertons,' 'Skiptons,' 'Skelbrookes,' and a whole host of similar names are equallyintrouvablesin the same district. They are, with scarcely a single exception, northern or eastern; and we know from Ælfric's Glossary, from Domesday and the Chartularies, that this distinction of pronunciation was established as early as the eleventh century. 'Kirby' or 'Kirkby,' is a specimen of joint Anglian andScandinavian influence, furnishing a clue to the ethnology of the district wherever it occurs. The converse of this rule does not hold with equal universality, various causes having gradually introduced soft palatal sounds into districts to which they did not properly belong. Such are, however, of very partial occurrence, and form the exception rather than the rule."—Quarterly Review, No.CLXIV.

Bibliographical preliminaries.—The leading facts here are the difference between 1. the locality of the authorship, and 2, the locality of the transcription of a book.

Thus: the composition of a Devonshire poet may find readers in Northumberland, and his work be transcribed by Northumbrian copyist. Now this Northumbrian copyist may do one of two things: he may transcribe the Devonian productionverbatim et literatim; in which case his countrymen read the MS. just as a Londoner reads Burns,i.e., in the dialect of the writer, and not in the dialect of the reader. On the other hand, he mayaccommodateas well as transcribe,i.e., he may change thenon-Northumbrian into Northumbrian expressions, in which case his countrymen read the MS. in their own rather than the writer's dialect.

Now it is clear, that in a literature where transcription,combined with accommodation, is as common assimpletranscription, we are never sure of knowing the dialect of an author unless we also know the dialect of his transcriber. In no literature is there more of thissemi-translation than in the Anglo-Saxon and the early English; a fact which sometimes raises difficulties, by disconnecting the evidence of authorship with the otherwise natural inferences as to the dialect employed; whilst, at others, it smoothes them away by supplying as many specimens of fresh dialects, as there are extant MSS. of an often copied composition.

Inquiring whether certain peculiarities of dialect in Layamon's Brut, really emanated from the author, a writer in the Quarterly Review, (No. clxiv.) remarks, that to decide this it "would be necessary to have access either to the priest's autograph, or to a more faithful copy of it than it was the practice to make either in his age or the succeedingones. A transcriber of an early English composition followed his own ideas of language, grammar, and orthography; and if he did not entirely obliterate the characteristic peculiarities of his original, he was pretty sure, like the Conde de Olivares, 'd'y meter beaucour du sein.' The practical proof of this is to be found in the existing copies of those works, almost every one of which exhibits some peculiarity of features. We have 'Trevisa' and 'Robert of Gloucester,' in two distinct forms—'Pier's Ploughman,' in at least three, and 'Hampole's Pricke of Conscience,' in half a dozen, without any absolute certainty which approximates most to what the authors wrote. With regard to Layamon, it might be supposed that the older copy is the more likely to represent the original; but we have internal evidence that it is not the priest's autograph; and it is impossible to know what alterations it may have undergone in the course of one or more transcriptions."

Again, in noticing the orthography of the Ormulum (alluded to in the present volume,§ 266), he writes: "It is true that in this instance we have the rare advantage of possessing the author's autograph, a circumstance which cannot with confidence be predicated of any other considerable work of the same period. The author was, moreover, as Mr. Thorpe observes, a kind of critic in his own language; and we therefore find in his work, a regularity of orthography, grammar, and metre, hardly to be paralleled in the same age. All this might, in a great measure, disappear in the very next copy; for fidelity of transcription was no virtue of the thirteenth or the fourteenth century; at least with respect to vernacular works. It becomes, therefore, in many cases a problem of no small complication, to decide with certainty respecting the original metre, or language, of a given mediæval composition, with such data as we now possess."

From all this it follows, that the inquirer must talk ofcopiesrather than ofauthors.

§ 688.Caution.—Differences of spelling do not always imply differences of pronunciation; perhaps they may beprimâ facieof such. Still it is uncritical to be over-hasty inseparating, as specimens ofdialect, works which, perhaps, only differ in being specimens of separateorthographies.

§ 689.Caution.—The accommodation of a transcribed work is susceptible ofdegrees. It may go so far as absolutely to replace one dialect by another, or it may go no farther than the omission of the more unintelligible expressions, and the substitution of others more familiar. I again quote the Quarterly Review,—"There are very few matters more difficult than to determineà priori, in what precise form a vernacular composition of the thirteenth century might be written, or what form it might assume in a very short period. Among the Anglo-Saxon charters of the eleventh and twelfth centuries, many are modelled upon the literary Anglo-Saxon, with a few slight changes of orthography and inflection; while others abound with dialectical peculiarities of various sorts. Those peculiarities may generally be accounted for from local causes. An East-Anglian scribe does not employ broad western forms, nor a West of England man East-Anglian ones; though each might keep his provincial peculiarities out of sight, and produce something not materially different from the language of Ælfric."

§ 690.Caution.—In the Reeve's Tale, Chaucer puts into the mouth of one of his north-country clerks, a native of the Strother, in the north-west part of the deanery of Craven, where the Northumbrian dialect rather preponderates over the Anglian, certain Yorkshire glosses. "Chaucer[76]undoubtedly copied the language of some native; and the general accuracy, with which he gives it, shows that he was an attentive observer of all that passed around him.

"We subjoin an extract from the poem, in order to give our readers an opportunity of comparing southern and northern English, as they co-existed in the fifteenth century. It is from a MS. that has never been collated; but which we believe to be well worthy the attention of any future editor of the Canterbury Tales. The italics denote variations from the printed text:—

Back to Index Next