HISTORIC SKETCHES. 



15 



hia two sounds of i sounds little awayed by rule, and changing 



continually. II. bogina Italian, but carrying to the atudy tho 

 -..ni|.l.'x vocal habit of hia language, it must be some time 

 P rubcnd and practiae tho simplicity and per- 

 m i in -i mo of the sound of ono Italian a, one Italian t, one Italian 

 u, two Italian e'a, and two Italian o'a. Ho therefore pronounces 

 no vowt-1 pinvly, and wherever ho may move in Italy, hia insular 

 y will bo instantly recognised by tho facchino of any 

 inn, from hia inveterate habit of giving to tho Italian a 

 that most comical of sounds to a Tuscan ear, of a in hat and fat. 

 in T radi.-al error committed by Englishmen in pro- 

 nouncing Italian, arises from two opposite principles, which 

 may be said to bo tho fundamental rules of tho accentuation of 

 tho languages. In English, every word has its leading, marked, 

 or strongly accented syllable generally speaking, the root of 

 the word ; and it follows that while this syllable is distinctly 

 marked by the voice, the subordinate unaccented syllables fado 

 away in the utterance into on airy nothingness that can hardly bo 

 described. It is quite different with Italian. It has its accented 

 syllables just as in English, but the accent on the one does not 

 destroy the vocal enunciation of tho others. On the contrary, 

 full and substantial justice must be done to every syllable, each 

 being clearly sounded, full and roundly with the vowels, and in 

 a resonant or vibrating tone with the consonants. The contrast 

 may bo observed in tho pronunciation of any of the many words 

 of a kindred sound in both languages derived from the same 

 classic stock. Take the following : 



English. Italian. 



Difficulty Dif-fi-col-td. 



Voluntarily. Fo-lon-ta-ria-mn-t. 



Detestably. De-te-sta-ltil-men-te. 



Generously. Ge-ne-ro-sa-men-te. 



Indifferently. In-dif-fe-ren-te-men-te. 



Repetition. Re-pe-ti-zi-o-ne. 



This peculiarity of the English language, it may be remarked, 

 is the great obstacle which every English poet has encountered 

 in the effort to naturalise the classic measures of antiquity. 

 Contrasted with the open limpid vocalisation of Italy, the 

 pronunciation of the English is to an Italian so obscure or in- 

 distinct, as very frequently not to be even understood. It 

 might be presumed that in a word so sonorous as detestabilmente 

 or volontariamente it would be impossible to miss the true 

 sounds, yet an Englishman will, generally speaking, so slur over 

 what 'ho would from the analogy of his own language conceive 

 to be tho subordinate parts of the word, as to be often quite 

 unintelligible to an Italian. 



A third and radical difference between the two languages, as 

 regards the principles of pronunciation, proceeds from what 

 may be termed tho vocal mechanism or the physical principles 

 of enunciation. Shortly stated, the physical difference is this : 

 in England, they speak from the mouth ; in Italy, from the 

 chest. The Englishman whispers his words through the palate, 

 tongue, teeth, or lips ; the Italian throws them out with the 

 vigour of his lungs. When, therefore, the Englishman attempts 

 the pronunciation of Italian after his accustomed mode, he con 

 fines the open sounds of Italy to the limited mechanism of his 

 hissing or lisping articulation above the throat, and turns Italian 

 melody into harmonious discord, now a croak, now a hiss. 



These are the radical differences and difficulties which my 

 readers must strive to overcome. This is only to be accom- 

 plished by a constant recollection of these points of difference 

 in connection with the rules I am about to state and illustrate, 

 and by reading aloud, with a clear and distinct voice uttered 

 from the chest, every Italian word which I may have occasion to 

 give in the course of the grammar. 



HISTORIC SKETCHES. XXVII. 



HOW IRELAND BECAME PART OF GREAT BRITAIN. 

 PART I. 



A GLANCE at the map of the United Kingdom will serve to 

 show that England being inhabited by a powerful people, 

 numerically superior to the peoples both of Scotland and 

 Ireland, those two countries must necessarily be in union 

 with her. Neither of them could rest in security in tho 

 neighbourhood of so strong a state ; both would in turn be 



liable to be objected to, M the lamb was by the wolf in the 



fable ; and union* they could secure efficient foreign alliance*, 

 they muat, sooner or later, fall a prey, as the lamb also did. 

 For it would bo manifestly intolerable for the strong state 

 to hare possible enemies so near, opening a way at any time 

 into tho very heart of her dominion, presenting a ready means 

 of injury available by the first enemy which chose to 1 

 the friendship of either Scotland or Ireland ; and it could not 

 bo but that the strong state should perpetually strive to re- 

 move, by some means or other, the possibility of harm from 

 such a source. Union would seem -therefore to be suggested 

 by the best interests of all concerned. It WM also, politically 

 considered, a necessity : a matter in which the time of it 

 coming about was the only doubtful point. 



In another paper (" How England and Scotland Became 

 One," Historic Sketches, No. XVUI.), it was shown how the 

 necessity for nnion presented itself to the mind of him who 

 has been called " tho greatest of the Plan tage net*," " the 

 English Justinian," Edward L There, too, was shown, especi- 

 ally in regard to Scotland, the manner in which the English 

 king strove to supply his necessity : how, acting according to 

 his instincts, he tried to dragoon the Scots into union; how 

 he for a while succeeded, and how finally hia efforts were 

 frustrated, and he had nothing under the sun for hia warlike 

 labour. His state policy was a sound one, but his means for 

 carrying it out were unwisely chosen, and his proud spirit 

 scorned to apply itself to any other. He would be Caesar or 

 nothing, and in the course of his time he was both, as re- 

 garded the rulership of Scotland. How the nnion with Scot- 

 land was ultimately managed was also pointed out in the 

 same paper. Let us now turn to the case of the sister 

 island, and, with a view to see how that came into the onion, 

 trace the history of the various events that led np to the 

 desired consummation. 



To say that Ireland fell to England by conquest is neither 

 wholly true nor wholly false. It is wholly false to say that it 

 was conquered in the sense that Edward I. tried to conquer 

 Scotland conquered, that is, as a whole, the entire nation 

 being united under one head for the purpose of resisting a 

 common invader. It is not only doubtful whether, had the 

 Irish been united, the Anglo-Normans who went over would 

 ever have possessed more ground in the country than was 

 needed to cover their bones, but it is almost certain that tho 

 subjugation of the island would never have taken place ; 

 assuredly it would not with the force which actually went 

 over. Of course, after the precedent set at Hastings, where 

 the fate of England was decided in one pitched battle, and 

 in view of the fact that a mob, however numerous, can avail 

 nothing against the attack of disciplined troops, it is perhaps 

 presumptuous to say so much ; but we have only to point to 

 the case of Scotland for justification, and to see how there 

 the whole strength of England failed to hold in bondage 

 a united, freedom-loving people, irregular and undisciplined 

 though they were, in comparison with the followers of the 

 first soldier of his day. Ireland was not conquered as a whole, 

 for it never resisted as a whole never acknowledged for the 

 purposes of the common weal one supreme head or " dictator 

 whom all men should obey." It is not, therefore, absolutely 

 true to say that it was conquered, neither is it absolutely 

 false. It fell like the house that was built upon the sand, 

 because it had no foundation and was divided against itself. 

 Bit by bit it was subjugated by force of arms, and accord- 

 ing to a system of warfare which aimed at preventing a 

 repetition of resistance by means of extirpation a system 

 which required the constant presence of a strong military force 

 in the conquered districts, and which provoked from time to 

 time those outbursts of national and party anger which the 

 system has periodically put down with bloodshed and violence. 

 At no one period in her history has Ireland ever been united 

 as Scotland was when she successfully resisted the invader ; 

 at no one time has the sister island been animated by the 

 Scottish love of freedom, and dogged determination never 

 to acknowledge a foreign yoke; and certainly, at the time 

 of the first attempt that was made upon her indepen- 

 dence, Ireland was split np into rival factions as bitter 

 and hostile to one another as the worst common enemy could 

 dositv. 



The restless spirit that dwelt in the breast of every Norman 



