LETTERXXVII.
ALLITERATION very early made its appearance in English poetry. I have seen an old piece where it was intended to supply the place of rhyme: the terminations of each line were different; and there were in every one, three or four words which begun with the same letter. This I suppose was thought a beauty. Shakspeare in several places burlesques the improper use of Alliteration with great pleasantry. It was much inrequest in the days of Thompson——his
——Floor, faithless to the fuddled foot,
——Floor, faithless to the fuddled foot,
——Floor, faithless to the fuddled foot,
——Floor, faithless to the fuddled foot,
is scarce less ridiculous than Shakspeare’s
Bravely broach’d his bloody boiling breast.
Bravely broach’d his bloody boiling breast.
Bravely broach’d his bloody boiling breast.
Bravely broach’d his bloody boiling breast.
I believe wherever it isperceived, it disgusts. There is something very ridiculous in the pains of an author when he is searching for a set of words beginning with the same letter: this surely argues a “lack of matter.” A man who hasthingsin his head, is never curious aboutwords, unless it be those which express his meaning quickest and clearest. I would have given something to have seenthe paper upon whichSmolletfirst sketched the titles of some of his novels. I dare say it cost him as much time to fix upon the nameRoderick Random, as to write some of the best parts in that sprightly and entertaining performance.——RobertandRichardwere common,RogerandRalphwere vulgar—there was a necessity for a sounding uncommon name, and beginning with anR: at last, by a lucky chanceRoderickoccurred—andRoderickit is.—Do you think me fanciful? I call uponPeregrine Pickle, andFerdinand Fathomto prove the contrary.
If we laugh at the hard-sought-for Alliteration of the poet and historian, may we not laugh a littlelouder at that of the comic dramatist? Can any language be less that of nature or common conversation, than strings of words beginning with an M or N? And yet this has been done by one who paints the “Manners living as they rise.” It is surprizing that so sprightly a genius as Foote could submit to the drudgery of consulting his spelling-book for words proper to be paired—my threeppp’sput me in mind of a letter in the Student, in whichpis predominant—it is highly humourous and well worth your perusing.
Will you give me leave to make an abrupt transition from Alliteration toLiteration, and pardon me also for coining?
The Germans in pronouncing English, and writing it too, if they have not studied the language, almost constantly changebintop,dintot,g(hard) intok,vintof, and the reverse. This peculiarity of theirs, I find, upon recollection, is not confined to English. In the Burletta ofLa buona Figliola, the author makes his German character to saytrompettiandtampurri—nay they serve their own language the same, as I have observed from their pronunciation of proper names of cities, &c. it seems difficult to account for this——but perhaps not more so than for the trick of the French in giving an aspirate to those English words where there isnone, and omitting it where it should be used.——I once saw a French-man much surprized, (not disconcerted) at a general laugh when he was comparing our country women with his—an unlucky misplaced aspirate was all the cause—“The English ladies,” says he, “are so plain, but the French ladies are so ῞airy!”