the car.

fion of the wind-pipe, but with different openings of the mouth, form a regular feries of founds, defcending from high to low, in the following order, i, e, a*, o, u. Each of these founds is agreeable to And if it be inquired which of them is the most agreeable, it is perhaps the fafeft fide to hold, that there is no univerfal preference of any one before the reft. Probably thofe vowels which are fartheft removed from the extremes, will generally be the most relished. This is all I have to remark upon the firft article. For confonants being letters which of themselves have no found, have no other power but to form articulate founds in conjunction with vowels; and every such articulate found being a fyllable, confonants come naturally under the second article. To which therefore we proceed.

All confonants are pronounced with a lefs cavity than any of the vowels; and confequently they contribute to form a found ftill more fharp than the sharpeft vowel pronounced fingle. Hence it follows, that every articulate found into which a confonant enters, muft neceffarily be double, though pronounced with one expiration of air, or with one. breath as commonly expreffed. The reafon is, that though two founds readily unite; yet where they differ in tone, both of them must be heard if neither of them be fuppreffed. For the fame reafon, every fyllable must be compofed of as many founds as there are letters, fuppofing every letter. to be diftinctly pronounced.

We next inquire, how far articulate founds into which confonants enter, are agreeable to the ear. With respect to this point, there is a noted obfervation, that all founds of difficult pronunciation are to the ear harsh in proportion. Few tongues are fo polished as entirely to have rejected founds that

Here the German a is understood.

are

are pronounced with difficulty; and such sounds muft in fome measure be difagreeable. But with refpect to agreeable founds, it appears, that a double found is always more agreeable than a fingle found. Every one who has an ear muft be fenfible, that the diphthongs oi or ai are more agreeable than any of these vowels pronounced fingly. And the fame holds where a confonant enters into the double found. The fyllable le has a more agreeable found than the vowel e or than any vowel. And in fupport of experience, a fatisfactory argument may be drawn from the wisdom of Providence. Speech is beftowed upon man, to qualify him for fociety. The provifion he hath of articulate founds, is proportioned to the ufe he hath for them. But if founds that are agreeable fingly, were not alfo agreeable in conjunction, the neceflity of a painful felection would render language intricate and difficult to be attained in any perfection. And this felection, at the fame time, would tend to abridge the number of useful founds, fo as perhaps not to leave fufficient for anfwering the different ends of language..

In this view, the harmony of pronunciation differs widely from that of mufic properly fo called. In the latter are difcovered many founds fingly agreeable, that in conjunction are extremely difagreeable; none but what are called concordant founds having a good effect in conjunction. In the former, all founds fingly agreeable are in conjunction concordant; and ought to be, in order to fulfil the purpofes of language.

Having difcuffed fyllables, we proceed to words; which make a 4. article. Monofyllables belong to the former head. Polyfyllables open a different fcene. In a curfory view, one will readily imagine, that the effect a word hath upon the muft depend entirely upon the agreeablenefs or difagreeaA 4

bleness

bleness of its component fyllables. In part it doth; but not entirely; for we must alfo 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 détêté (detefted), dit-il (fays he), patetique (pathetic). On the other hand, a fyllable of the greatest aperture fucceeding one of the fmalleft, or the oppofite, makes a fucceffion, which, because of its remarkable difagreeableness, is diftinguished by a proper name, viz. biatus. The moft agreeable fucceffion, is, where the 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. Witnefs the words petitioner, fruiterer, dizziness. On the other hand, the intermixture of long and fhort fyllables is remarkably agreeable; for example, degree, repent, wonderful, altitude, rapidity, independent, impetuofity. The caufe will be explained afterward, in treating of verfification.

Diftinguishable from the beauties above mentioned, there is a beauty of fome words which arifes from their fignification. When the emotion raised by the length or fhortnefs, the roughness or smoothnefs, of the found, refembles in any degree what is raifed by the fenfe, we feel a very remarkable pleafure. But this fubject belongs to the third fection.

The foregoing obfervations afford a standard to every nation, for estimating, pretty accurately, the comparative erit of the words that enter into their own language. And though at first view they may be thought equally useful for eftimating the comparative merit of different languages; yet

this holds not in fact, becaufe no perfon can readily be found, who is fufficiently qualified to apply the ftandard. What I mean is, that different nations. judge differently of the harshness or smoothness 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. Politeness, reserve, 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 difagreeable. An effeminate mind cannot bear the least of that roughnefs and feverity, which is generally esteemed manly when exerted upon proper occafions. Neither can an effeminate ear bear the leaft harfhnefs in words that are deemed nervous and founding, by thofe accustomed to a rougher tone. of language. Muft we then relinquish all thoughts of comparing languages in the point of roughness and smoothness, as a fruitlefs 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 fmoother language. Again, fuppofing two languages pronounced with equal facility by natives, the preference, in my judgment, 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 articulate found hath upon the mind. A fmooth: gliding found is agreeable, by fmoothing 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 rouses their attention and difpofes them to action. I must add another confideration. The agreeablenefs of contraft in the rougher language, for which the greater variety of founds gives ample opportunity, muft, even in an effeminate car, 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 circumftances that conftitute the beauty of words, the ftandard above mentioned is infallible, when apply'd to foreign languages as well as to our own. For every man, whatever be his mothertongue, is equally capable to judge of the length or fhortness 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 judgment is fufceptible of no prejudice from cuftom, at least of no invincible prejudice.

That the English tongue, originally harfh, is at prefent much foftened by dropping in the pronunciation many redundant confonants, is undoubtedly true. That it is not capable of being farther mellowed, without fuffering in its force and energy, will scarce be thought by any one who poffeffes an car. And yet fuch in Britain is the propensity for difpatch, that overlooking the majesty of words compofed of many fyllables aptly connected, the prevailing tafte is, to fhorten words, even at the expence of making them difagreeable to the ear and harsh in the pronunciation. But I have no occafion to infift upon this article, being prevented.

* 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.

by