218

Mr. URBAN,

You

A. H.

Exeter, Aug. 30. YOUR Correspondent Col. Macdonald has pointed out an apparent incongruity in the 16th verse of the first chapter of Genesis, which he is desirous to rectify by an hypothesis that the fixed stars were created many ages before the solar system, of which the earth forms a part; and that the words "he made the STARS also," allude only to the planets and the comets revolving round the sun; and which he supposes to have been created, together with the earth, at the period adverted to by Moses, in the first chapter of Genesis. Before I offer any observations on this point, Mr. Macdonald must be aware that a still greater incongruity exists with regard to the creation of the sun itself, which, according to the Mosaic account, did not take place till the fourth day, although the evening and the morning" are stated to have formed component parts of the first, second, and third days. With respect to his hypothesis, that the STARS also are to be considered as the planetary bodies only, we must be governed by the sense in which the word "stars" was taken, at the time when Moses wrote his History of the

Creation. The first mention of STARS" will be found in the 5th verse of the 15th chapter of Genesis, when the promise of a numerous progeny was made to Abraham" and he brought him forth abroad, and said, Look now toward Heaven, and tell the STARS, if thou be able to number them; and He said to him, so shall thy seed be." This is also repeated in the 17th verse of the 22d chapter of Genesis-"I will multiply thy seed as the STARS of the heaven, and as the sand upon the sea shore." It is here very evident that the whole armament of STARS

was

alluded to; and the probability therefore is, that the words he made the STARS also," have a reference to the fixed stars generally, and not merely to

[Sept.

the planets forming a part of our solar system. The idea entertained by your Correspondent, that the fixed stars were created many ages prior to the globe we inhabit, does not seem to be corroborated by Moses; since in the first verse of the 5th chapter of Genesis, he says"In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth;" by which we naturally understand that they were called at the same time into existence; but whether this period may be justly considered as at the distance of 6000 years only, when Colonel Macdonald supposes the solar system to have been created; or "in the beginning of time," when that gentleman imagines the fixed stars were allotted their places in the great Canopy of Heaven, must be left to wiser heads than mine to determine. My sole object in the present communication is merely to consider, and I hope impartially, whether an hypothesis, founded (no doubt) on very proper motives, is, or is not. founded in truth, The enlarged views of your Correspondent, respecting the boundless magnificence and grandeur of the UNIVERSE, reflect the greatest credit on his understanding, and naturally lead us to the contemplation of the CREATOR himself, and to ejaculate with Milton,

"These are thy glorious works, parent of good,

Thus wondrous fair! THYSELF how wondrous Almighty! thine this universal frame,

then! Unspeakable! who sitʼst above the Heavens, To us invisible!" Yours, &c. E. T. PILGRIM.

W

Mr. URBAN, Sept. 12. WHEN a knight, armed to ap enters the lists, and throws down his pearance in panoply of proof, gauntlet as a challenge to all comers, it is no wonder if those who are not so well provided with weapons, nor so back from the encounter. Thus did I, well skilled in the use of them, shrink on reading the letter of J. S. H, in your last Supplement, allow my discrecline contending with him on the protion to overcome my valour, and denunciation of the word heard. But since *B. whose paper appears in p. 104, and who is not quite so formidɛwhose side he has ranged himself, ble an antagonist as the champion on chooses to engage in the contest, I have no hesitation in adventuring to break a lance with him, in honour of

the

1925.]

the damsel Orthoëpy, trusting that some one, more equally matched with the first challenger, may afterwards prove the inefficacy of his cumbrous armour in the defence of a bad cause. To begin with B. He quotes Dr. Johnson in support of the opinions of J. S. H. Now it is admitted on all all hands that Johnson, great as he was, had his peculiarities; and we have the authority of his very partial biographer, Boswell, for asserting that one of these was his obstinacy in supporting theories or opinions which he had previously taken up, frequently upon very slight and insufficient grounds. He first made up his mind upon a given subject; and then, if his opinion was untenable, amused himself, and exercised his ingenuity, by adducing arguments in its defence.

Of the word now under consideration the Doctor remarks, that to pronounce it herd would form a single exception to the sound of ear in the English language. This is a mistake. The letters eur, when combined, have four distinct sounds. The first, which may be called their proper sound, as being that which most frequently occurs, and analogous to the sound of ea united with other consonants, is similar in effect to eer, as in ear, hear, fear, rear, &c. The second sound resembles that of air, as in bear, swear, pear, &c. The third resembles that of ar, as in heart; and the fourth that of ur, as in chearful, fearful; to which we may add that the late John Philip Kemble, who, notwithstanding the peculiarity of some of his canons, must be classed among the most perfect masters of his native language, used to adopt burd as the pronunciation of beard. If it be objected, in spite of the authority of Walker, that the pronunciation of chearful and fearful should not be such as I have here given, and that

219

Kemble's peculiarities are no authority at all, I trust that the other examples, which I doubt not are of greater antiquity than Johnson, are sufficient to prove that his dogma on this point is not implicitly to be received. It is worth while to observe, that, in a note en the identical passage in Boswell's Life of Johnson quoted by *B. (see 8vo edition, 1804, vol. 111. p. 215,) Mr. Malone remarks that this word, in the age of Elizabeth, was "frequently written, as doubtless it was pronounced, hard." This mode is still to be met with among the natives of Scotland.

Having proceeded thus far in my endeavour to state the merits of this question, I will venture, although, not so well acquainted with the Father of English Poesy as your Correspondent J. S. H., to examine the arguments which he brings forward on his side.

He says that the verb to hear is regular*. We have the authority of Murray, and other grammarians, for affirming that it is not. We cannot, therefore, with certainty derive the pronunciation of the imperfect tense and participle from that of the present.

Such is the genius of the English language, that the mode of writing a word affords but slight proof of the manner of pronouncing it. This will be evident from a consideration of what has been said on the different sounds of ear. Yet to the orthography of hered and heered J. S. H. refers as his strongest argument. In Chaucer we find herte written for heart. Yet J. S. H. I presume, will not insist that the modern pronunciation of the word should be heert. On the contrary, as it often rhymes with smerte (smart), we should infer that the modern sound is correct. To what, then, would this lead us? Herte is now he come heart, and pronounced hart.

220

From analogy, hered, which is converted into heard, should follow the pronunciation mentioned by Malonehard.

Any argument dependent upou rhyme cannot be considered as conclusive. Poets in all periods, since rhyme became an appendage of English verse, have taken licences in this respect. Chaucer himself, from whom all J. S. H.'s examples are taken, abound with such.

"Embrouded was he, as it were a mede Alle ful of freshe floures, white and rede 2." "And ran unto London, unto Seint Poule's, To seken him a chanterie for soules." "A wert, and thereon stode a tuft of heres3 Rede as the bristles of a sowe's eres 4."

I willingly admit that, in calling these rhymes irregular, I do so with reference to the present pronunciation of the words; and I confess I do not see any proof that can be brought forward to decide whether, in the time of Chaucer, the words mede, rede, were perfectly consonant, or dissimilar as at present. The same may be said of heard, and any of the rhymes to it which J. S. H. produces.

All that I contend for is that, as language in the lapse of time undergoes various changes, it is absurd to require, upon grounds by no means clear, that the alleged ancient pronunciation of one word should be retained, while no objection is raised to the innovations which have taken place in the sound of others of analogous orthography. To carry an argument to its full extent often shews its absurdity. Let us apply this test to the rhymes of J. S. H. The following lines, which I remember to have heard chaunted by a village hoyden some years ago, when' rustics were not addicted to the study of mathematics, are certes not from the pen of a superior poet, and are probably not generally known to your refined readers; but as they suit my purpose I shall not apologise for their introduction.

What care I how black I be? Twenty pounds will marry me. If twenty won't, forty shall, Is'nt Bet a bouncing girl? It is certain that among uneducated persons girl is pronounced gal-a fact of which Geoffrey Crayon takes notice (vide The Stage Coach.) But I doubt not J. S. H. would be infinitely horri

[Sept

fied if any one were to maintain the correctness of that pronunciation on the authority of the above quoted rhyme.

But admitting that rhyme is of supreme authority in determining the pronunciation of words, J. S. H.'s logic is erroneous. He produces a couplet in which heard is made to correspond with sweard (sword) and then another in which sweard answers to beard. Therefore, says he, heard and beard have similar sounds. But what proof have we that the ancient and modern pronunciation of beard are identical? I think it perfectly possible that the case is not so. Sword, in some parts of the country, more particularly in swerd, full power being given to the w. Scotland, is pronounced swurd or Beard therefore to rhyme with it must follow the mode of Kemble formerly alluded to; and if so J. S. H.'s syllogism falls to the ground.

But in truth the matter is not worth an argument. It is undoubtedly custom. Quem penes arbitrium est et jus et norma loquendi.

The pronunciation heerd, for which your Correspondent contends, is I think never met with in the present day, except in the mouths of natives of the northern counties, or of such as have associated much with them. It is in short regarded as a provincialism; and so long as the usage of welleducated persons points to herd, that must be regarded as the correct pronunciation of the word in question.

Having mentioned Kemble as an authority, I am aware that I have exposed myself to be twitted for quoting one who was so eccentric in his pronunciation as to give to aches the sound of aitches. This fanciful pronunciation, as is well known, has called forth the jeers of wits and witlings without number since it was first hazarded. The only defence of it with which I am acquainted is grounded upon the necessities of the line in which the word occurs,

"I'll rack thee with old cramps; Fill all thy bones with aches; make thee

roar

That beasts shall tremble at thy din."

TEMPEST, Act 1. Scene 2.

but, as Lord Byron observes (see Medwin's Conversations) is at variance with its correct etymology. It may, however, be remarked, that Butler, in

1825.]

his Hudibras, introduced aches as a rhyme to catches; and it can hardly be imagined that he, however small the restraint which he usually places upon his Pegasus, would have ventured upon so extravagant a neglect of consonance, had there not been in his day some authority or other for the pronunciation which he seems to have adopted. Yours, &c.

Mr. URBAN,

ON

W. C. D.

Exeter, Sept. 6. N reading your last Supplement, p. 579, I felt much surprised at the remarks on the subject of poetry, from your Taunton correspondent T. In the first place T. ascribes the origin of poetry to the "ancient Hebrew," and to its being "so exactly calculated for that fine and poetical language." Hebrew poems are certainly the finest as well as the earliest in existence; but this is a very different thing from Hebrew's giving birth to poetry. The original cause of poetry is much more remote. It is to be found in the very nature of man. Constituted as he every where is, whether the language he speaks be a poetical one or not, he will occasionally, in every region of the earth, break forth into poetical effusions. Poetry is universally the natural language of intense feeling, whether that feeling be Hebrew or English, Italian or Indian, Spanish or African. This, and not the structure of the language, was the cause of its "becoming the medium of prophecy and religious instruction."

Here we see the reason why a plentiful crop of poets depends in a great measure upon external causes; upon national institutions that restrain or give the rein to nature, upon climate, upon local situation, or other similar causes, suited to excite or deaden feeling, to raise or lull asleep sentiment or fancy. For instance, the fine tract of Asia Minor, how plentifully did it produce great men of every sort? and how was it that it did so? The purity and benignity of the air, the varieties of the fruits and fields, the beauty and number of the rivers, and the constant gales from the happy isles of the Western Sea, all conspire to bring its productions of every kind to the highest perfection; they inspire that mildness of temper and flow of fancy, which favour the most extensive views, and give the finest conceptions of nature and truth. Good sense is indeed said to be the pro

221

duct of every country, but the richest growths and fairest shoots of it, spring like other plants, from the happiest exposition and most friendly soil." "In the early times of liberty," aecordingly, "the first and greatest number of philosophers, historians, and poets, were natives of the Asiatic coast, and adjacent islands. And after an interval of slavery, when the influences of the Roman freedom and of their mild government had reached that happy country, it repaid them with men of virtue and learning in such numbers as to fill their schools and the houses of the great; to be companions for their princes, and to leave some noble monuments for posterity." (Life of Homer.) To mention but a few, Homer and Hesiod, Archilochus and Tyrtæus, Sappho and Alcæus, Simonides and Phocylides, were natives of this happy region. Surely this is quite sufficient to establish our proposition. Nature and Poetry are found in perfection together; and where every thing contributes to warm the heart and kindle the feelings, there is heard the voice of melody in its greatest sweetness.

How ridiculous is it then to ascribe the universality of poetry to the dispersion of "the Jews over most of the Countries of the earth?" Positively, Mr. Urban, when I had read thus far T.'s letter, I little expected to find him a scholar as well as a critic. Wide as the dispersion of the Jews has been, there have been poets in nations that had never heard of the name of Jew, and had never had any intercourse with civilized nations.

I confess myself in the next place at a loss to comprehend what T. means by saying that few modern pieces of poetry meet the applause of the public, except they be in a style that differs not materially from that of the ancients. It must indeed happen that men of a liberal education often in their writings refer to things they have met with in by-gone days, and even sometimes, imperceptibly perhaps, introduce in them the beauties of the ancient writers. But I take it that Scott, Byron, Moore, Crabbe, with the majority of our popular bards, would be rather surprised to be taken for servile imitators of the style of the classic authors, except in those cases where they have avowed themselves to be so. But T. tells us "few but imitators of the classics eniov

222

at present the honours of the greatest poets of Britain." I, for one, as a lover of curiosities, should feel much indebted to T.'s kindness for a few instances in proof of his assertion. We surely have nothing to do now-a-days with Dryden, Pope, and Gray, when discoursing of the present state of English poetry.

He next wonders how it is that

poetry has not kept pace with other arts and sciences, and "remains unimproved, unaltered, and even unequalled by the moderns." For the sake of argument let us grant this to be the case. T. seems to consider poetry as one of those arts or sciences (which he pleases) that may by repeated labour and application be fagged up to perfec tion. But here he is mistaken. Poetry is a natural talent. It is never acquired to any degree of excellence. "Poeta nascitur non fit," is a very old observation. Innumerable instances may be adduced to shew how little the cultivation of the mind originates the spirit of poetry. And in some how little it improves it. A first-rate poem is never to be expected till the world is blessed with a first-rate naturally poetical genius. And when he is given, it is not as T. supposes " patronage and support," that will set him a writing, nor is it the want of these that will keep him from it. Our own Milton is an example of this. Perhaps T. never heard how little he obtained for his divine poem. Milton's name by the way reminds me, that the reason why the ancient poets have never been surpassed is, that "the power of nature could no farther go,” though indeed T. says there is ample room for improvement." And likewise he may be brought forward as an example of the complete failure of labour to make a poet. Where Milton gives himself up to nature and original feeling, there he is unequalled. Where he labours to shew his acquired forces, there he is almost laughable.

To return. T. re-echoes this oft repeated strain that there is a want of patronage of merit. He owns indeed that the idea is "hackneyed." It may, I fancy, to go a step further, be said now-a-days to be unfounded. However we may fall short of the ancients in other matters, in this we are with rapid strides following them, namely, the encouragement given to merit in every department of the Arts and Sciences.

[Sept.

The complaint, however, probably will never cease to be made. It is indeed almost constitutional in poets. “Nune hederæ sine honore jacent," and also, Heu miseram sortem, duramque a sidere

vitam,

Quam dat doctiloquis vatibus ipse Deus! were laments of a poet even of the Augustan age.

With regard to T.'s quotation from Horace, Ep. I. 1. 109, I have to observe, that I never before knew that "dives" in this place meant the sage's being wealthy in worldly riches, "dives pictai vestis et auri, (Et. Lat. Gram.)

have been accustomed to take it to signify his possessing, what truly is the best of wealth, such satisfaction in abundant stores of mind that he looks with neglect on external riches. Yours, &c.

Mr. URBAN,

P.

Lake House, near Amesbury, Wilts, Sept. 13.

the subject of the Letter of J.D.

N an attentive consideration to

(p. 103), I cannot but arrive at the conclusion, that England was not (in the modern acceptation of the word) conquered by William I. It is true he obtained a decisive victory over the forces of his rival Harold, who was slain at the close of the engagement; yet he gained this victory with great numerical loss; it was fought at an angle of the kingdom, against forces hastily drawn together, whilst the strength of the most distant parts of the realm was still unimpaired; and he manifested his sense of his great insecurity by the caution with which he pursued his subsequent measures. Had Harold survived, flushed as he must have felt with his recent success against the Norwegians, and entrenched as he was in the love and affection of his subjects, we may well presume that the issue of this important contest would have been in his favour. William, however, was more indebted to a concatenation of fortunate circumstances which assisted him to reach the throne to which he aspired, than to his own exertions. In addition to this union of causes, which operated powerfully, and against all reasonable expectation, in the aid of his wishes; we must recollect also, that he invaded England under the pretence, and perhaps the semblance of right, that he claimed the throne, hæreditario jure,

and