Mar. 26. 1853.] 



NOTES AND QUERIES. 



311 



»a. SOUTH YERSUS GOLDSMITH, TALLETEAND, ETC. 



(Vol. vi., p. 575.) 



This remarkable saying, like most good things 

 of that kind, has been repeated by so many dis- 

 tinguished writers, that it is impossible to trace it 

 to any one In particular, in the precise form in 

 which it is now popularly received. I shall quote, 

 in succession, all those who appear to have ex- 

 pressed it in words of the same, or a nearly similar, 

 import, and then leave your readers to judge for 

 themselves. 



I cannot help thinking that the first place should 

 be assigned to Jeremy Taylor, as he must have 

 tad the sentiment clearly In view In the following 

 sentence : 



" There is in mankind an universal contract implied 

 in all their intercourses ; and words being instituted to 

 declare the mind, and for no other end, he that hears me 

 speak hath a right in justice to be done him, that, as 

 far as I can, what I speak be true ; for else he by words 

 does not know your mind, and then as good and better 

 not speak at all." 



Next we have David Lloyd, who in his State 

 Worthies thus remarks of Sir Roger Aschara : 



" None is more able for, yet none is more averse to, 

 :that circumlocution and contrivance wherewith some 

 men shadow their main drift and purpose. Speech was 

 made to open man to man, and not to hide him ; to pro- 

 mote commerce, and not betray it." 



Dr. South, Lloyd's cotemporary, but who sur- 

 vived him more than twenty years, expresses the 

 -sentiment in nearly the same words : 



*' In short, this seems to be the true inward judgment 

 of all our politick sages, that speech was given to the 

 -ordinary sort of meti, whei-ehy to communicate their mind, 

 i>ut to wise men whereby to conceal it." 



The next writer In whom this thought occurs is 

 Butler, the author of Hudibras. In one of his 

 prose essays on the " Modern Politician," he says : 



" He (the modern politician) believes a man's words 

 and his meanings should never agree together : for he 

 that says what he thinks lays himself open to be ex- 

 pounded by the most ignorant ; and he who does not 

 jnahe his words rather serve to conceal than discover the 

 sense of his heart, deserves to have it pulled out, like a 

 traitor's, and shown publicly to the rabble." 



Young has the thought In the following couplet 

 on the duplicity of courts : 



" When Nature's end of language Is declin'd. 

 And men talk only to conceal their mind." 



From Young It passed to Voltaire, who in the 

 •dialogue entitled "Le Chapon et la Poularde," 

 makes the former say of the treachery of men : 



" lis n'emploient les paroles que pour deguiser leurs 

 pensces." 



Goldsmith, about the same time, in his paper in 

 The Bee, produces it in the well-known words : 



" Men who know the world hold that the true use of 

 speech is not so much to express our wants, as to ccmceal 

 them." 



Then comes Talleyrand, who is reported to have 

 said : 



" La parole n'a ete donnee a I'homme que pour de- 

 guiser sa pensee." 



The latest writer who adopts this remark with- 

 out acknowledgment is, I believe, Lord Holland. 

 In his Life of Lope de Vega he says of certain 

 Spanish writers, promoters of the cultismo style: 



" These authors do not avail themselves of the inven- 

 tion of letters for the purpose of conveying, but of con- 

 cealing, their ideas." 



From these passages (some of which have already 

 appeared in Vol. i., p. 83.) it will be seen that the 

 germ of the thought occurs in Jeremy Taylor; 

 that Lloyd and South improved upon it ; that 

 Butler, Young, and Goldsmith repeated it ; that 

 Voltaire translated It into ,French ; that Talley- 

 rand echoed Voltaire's words ; and that It has now 

 become so familiar an expression, that any one 

 may quote It, as Lord Holland has done, without 

 being at the trouble of giving his authority. 



If, from the search for the author, Ave turn to 

 consider the saying itself, we shall find that its 

 practical application extends not merely to every 

 species of equivocation, mental reservation, and 

 even falsehood ; but comprises certain forms of 

 speech, which are intended to convey the contrary 

 of what they expx'ess. To this class of words the 

 French have given the designation of contre-verite ; 

 and, to my surprise, I find that they Include therein 

 the expression amende honorable. Upon this point 

 the Grammaire des Grammaires, by GIrault Du- 

 vivier, has these remarks : 



" La contre-verite a beaucoup de rapport avec 

 I'ironie. Amende honorable, par exemple, est une 

 contre-verite, une verite prise dans un sens oppose a. 

 celui de son ^nonciation ; car, au lieu d'etre honorable, 

 elle est infamante, deshonorante." 



I have some doubts as to whether this meaning 

 of amende honorable be in accordance with our 

 English notion of Its import ; and I shall be thank- 

 ful to any of your readers who will help me to 

 a solution. I always understood that the term 

 honorable, in this expression, was to be taken in its 

 literal sense, namely, that the person who made an 

 open avowal of his fault, or tendered an apology 

 for It, was acting, in that respect^ in strict con- 

 formity with the rules of honour. It Is possible 

 that, at first, the amende honorable may have been 

 designed as a "peine infamante;" but Its modern 

 acceptation would seem to admit of a more liberal 

 construction. 



