0

junction concordants and ought to be, in order to fulfil the purposes of language. bo Having difcuffed fyllables, we proceed to words; which make a third article. Mo+ nofyllables belong to the former head. Polyfyllables open a different scene. In a cur fory view, one will readily imagine, that the effect a word hath upon the ear, muft depend entirely upon the agreeableness or difagreeableness of its component fyllables. In part it doth; but not entirely; for we must also take under confideration the effect that a number of fyllables compofing a word have in fucceffion. In the first place, fyllables in immediate fucceffion, pronounced, each of them, with the fame or nearly the fame aperture of the mouth, produce a weak and imperfect found; witnefs the French words détété (detefted), dit-il (fays he), patetique (pathetic). On the other hand, fyllable of the greatest aperture fucceeding one of the fmalleft, or the oppofite, makes a fucceffion, which, because off its remarkable difagreeableness, is diftinguifhed! by a proper name, viz. hiatus. The moft agreeable fucceffion, is, where the FA

a

cavity

cavity is increased and diminished alternately by moderate intervals. Secondly, words confifting wholly of fyllables pronounced flow or of fyllables pronounced quick, commonly called long and fhort fyllables, have little melody in them. Witness the words petitioner, fruiterer, dizziness. On the o ther hand, the intermixture of long and fhort fyllables is remarkably agreeable; for example, degree, repent, wonderful, altitude, rapidity, independent, impetuofity. The cause will be explained afterward, in treating of verfification.

Diftinguishable from the beauties above mentioned, there is a beauty of fome words which arises from their fignification. When the emotion raised by the length or shortness, the roughness or fmoothnefs, of the found, resembles in any degree what is raised by the fenfe, we feel a very remarkable pleas fure. But this fubject belongs to the third fection.oadı

211 The foregoing obfervations afford a standard to every nation, for estimating, pretty accurately, the comparative merit of the words that enter into their own language. Hh 2 And

And though at firft view they may bẹ thought equally useful for eftimating the comparative merit of different languages; yet this holds not in fact, because no perfon can readily be found who is fufficiently qualified to apply the ftandard. What I mean is, that different nations judge differ ently of the harfhnefs or fmoothness of articulate founds: a found, harfh and difagreeable to an Italian, may be abundantly fmooth to a northern ear. Where are we to find a judge to determine this controverfy? and fuppofing a judge, upon what principle is his decifion to be founded? The cafe here is precifely the fame as in behaviour and manners, Plain-dealing and fincerity, liberty in words and actions, form the character of one people. Polite, nefs, referve, and a total difguife of every fentiment that can give offence, form the character of another people. To each the manners of the other are disagreeable. An effeminate mind cannot bear the leaft of that Toughness and severity, which is generally efteemed manly when exerted upon proper

4

occafions. Neither can an effeminate ear

bear

bear the leaft harfhnefs in words that are deemed nervous and founding by those ac cuftomed to a rougher tone of language, Muft we then relinquish all thoughts of comparing languages in the point of roughness and smoothness, as a fruitless inquiry? Not altogether fo; for we may proceed a certain length, though without hope of an ultimate decifion. A language with difficulty pronounced even by natives, muft yield the preference to a smoother lan guage. Again, fuppofing two languages pronounced with equal facility by natives, the preference, in my judgement, ought to be in favour of the rougher language; provided it be alfo ftored with a competent fhare of more mellow founds. This will be evident from attending to the different effects that articu late found hath upon the mind. A smooth gliding found is agreeable, by smoothing the mind and lulling it to reft. A rough bold found, on the contrary, animates the mind. The effort perceived in pronouncing, is communicated to the hearers: they feel in their own minds a fimilar effort, which

1

which roufes their attention andisdifpofes them to action. I muft add another confideration. The agreeableness of con traft in the rougher language, for which the great variety of founds gives ample opportunity, muft, even in an effeminate ear, prevail over the more uniform founds of the fmoother language *. This

appears to me all that can be fafely determined upon the prefent point. With refpect to the other circumstances that conftitute the beauty of words, the standard above mentioned is infallible when apply'd to foreign langua ges as well as to our own. For For every man, whatever be his mother-tongue, is equally capable to judge of the length or shortness of words, of the alternate opening and clofing of the mouth in fpeaking, and of the relation which the found bears to the fenfe. In these particulars, the judgement is fufceptible of no prejudice from custom, at least of no invincible prejudice. di gu la din z na fidhavan Prd, buvot desw

* That the Italian tongue is rather too fmooth, feems to appear from confidering, that in verfification vowels are frequently fuppreffed in order to produce a rougher and bolder

tone.

That