ENGLAND. (LANGUAGE AND LITERATURE.) 



33 



the sounds, and it is particularly the object and in- 

 tention of the vowels, which cannot meet the ear with 

 too great distinctness. But what shall we say of a 

 language, in which the vowels themselves, the very 

 elements of all pronunciation, are so often indeter- 

 minate, and in which so many syllables are either 

 half-crushed between the teeth, or vanish with a sibi- 

 lant sound on the edge of the lips ? ' The English- 

 man,' says Voltaire, ' gains upon us two hours a-day, 

 by swallowing half of all his words.' I do not, how-- 

 eve) 1 , attach much importance to such reproaches, be- 

 cause a language is always sufficiently good for those 

 who use it from their infancy ; but it is true, that we 

 find a thousand Englishmen, who speak French 

 tolerably well, for one Frenchman, who is able 

 to speak good English; and this disproportion 

 between two nations, closely united as they are by a 

 regular and established intercourse, must be princi- 

 pally caused by the strangely wliimsical pronunciation 

 of the language of the English." (vol. i. p. 143.) 

 "' Yet, notwithstanding the indistinctness of their 

 vowels, and their masses of consonants, they lay 

 claim to harmony of language ; and we will allow 

 it to them, if, in return, they will admit that this 

 harmony can be felt by themselves alone. They 

 have, too, some advantages which, I think, we can- 

 not deny them. Inversion of language is allowed in 

 their poetry almost to as great an extent as in Italian, 

 that is, much less than in Latin and Greek. Their 

 constructions and poetical forms are bolder, and yet 

 more manageable than ours. They can also employ 

 rhyme, or not, as they please, and can indulge more 

 than we can in the formation of new words." Ob- 

 servations of this kind must, however, be taken with 

 much allowance. Another French writer, cited by 

 Mr Mitford in his Harmony of the English Lan- 

 guage, says " The English speak so much between 

 their teeth, that the French cannot understand 

 them ;" and adds " VAnglois est la seule langue 

 pour laquelle il ne fautpas une langue." " It is im- 

 possible (says Mr Mitford) not to acknowledge that 

 there is much justice in this imputation." 



In our article Americanism (q. v.), we directed 

 the reader's attention to the important fact, that 

 England and the United States of America offer the 

 first instance in history of two great, independent, 

 and active nations having a common language, but 

 situated at a great distance from each other, and daily 

 developing new and characteristic features. These 

 relations must, sooner or later, exert a powerful influ- 

 ence upon the common language ; for no language is so 

 stable as not to undergo continual changes, if spoken 

 by a people in the full vigour of social and political life. 

 This state of things has already produced some effect 

 on the English language, as we have observed in 

 that article. But, from the deep and natural in- 

 terest felt by Americans in the literature of England, 

 which must be a part of their own as long as Shak- 

 speare and Milton shall live in their works, the 

 effect has hitherto been inconsiderable, and not 

 greater than we should expect from the mere circum- 

 stance of so different and remote local situations. 

 The most material difference, probably, has been in 

 the pronunciation of the language, which, however 

 important in our daily conversation, is of secondary 

 importance in relation to the literature and written 

 language of the two countries. It has often been 

 observed by English travellers and others, that the 

 pronunciation of the United States is far more uniform 

 than that of England ; and so nearly alike every- 

 where, that the people of any one town or district 

 are perfectly understood in every other part of the 

 country ; which is not the case in England. When 

 considered more minutely, however, there has for a 

 long time existed a marked distinction 1>etween the 



pronunciation of the New England and Southern 

 States. In New England, it is supposed by some, 

 that the pronunciation has been, till lately, very 

 nearly what it was in the mother country a century 

 ago or more. However this may be, it is a well- 

 known fact that the New England pronunciation lias 

 been materially changed since the publication and 

 general use of Walker's Pronouncing Dictionary, or 

 within the last thirty years. That which prevailed 

 before that period, was probably much influenced by 

 the very general use of a small dictionary published 

 by Perry. (See f Worcester's edit, of Johnson, Pref., 

 p. ix.) The pronunciation of some of the Southern 

 and Middle States was more affected by the instruc- 

 tion of Scottish and Irish teachers, who, besides 

 peculiarities of pronunciation, have taught the people 

 of these states to confound the established idiomatic 

 distinction between shall and will, and should and 

 would. 



The orthography of our language has undergone 

 no material change in America, it being the general 

 inclination to follow that of the best English writers 

 of the age. But English orthography is so irregular, 

 particularly in the use of the vowels, as to make our 

 language more difficult than any other to the Euro- 

 pean nations. The signs of the sounds are so incon- 

 stant, that they do not, when first heard by a 

 foreigner, impress themselves on the memory so 

 distinctly as those of the other European languages 

 do, and, of course, cannot be so easily remembered 

 for future use. To this embarrassment is to be added 

 our custom of throwing back the accent to the first 

 syllables of words, which necessarily produces that 

 tiurried and indistinct utterance, of which foreigners 

 so justly complain. We may here add a general 

 remark or two of an intelligent German, who has 

 had much experience in writing English, and whose 

 observations are confirmed by our own experience, 

 so far as we have had occasion to consider this 

 subject. The English language is peculiarly adapted 

 to exact discussions of all practical matters in 

 society, and to political inquiries. It has also more 

 force than the European languages generally, in 

 descriptive writing, whether prose or poetry ; and in 

 poetry, it has more power in epic than in lyric com- 

 position ; the latter requiring that more metaphysical 

 character of language which is found in the highest 

 degree, probably, in the German. The scholars of 

 Germany, who have studied our language more 

 thoroughly than any other nation has done, remark, 

 that English is much less abstract than their own 

 and that we admit new formations of words much 

 more reluctantly and capriciously than the Germans 

 do. It is also to be observed, that we adopt new 

 terms from the French, with more facility than from 

 the German, notwithstanding the close affinity ot 

 the latter to our own language. This tendency to 

 introduce Gallicisms led doctor Johnson to appre- 

 hend, that, unless some check were interposed, the 

 English nation would one day " be reduced to babble 

 a dialect of France." For further information 

 respecting the English language, see the article 

 Anglo-Saxon. 



Literature. The literature of England is one of 

 her proudest boasts. In this place, we can merely 

 advert to a few of its more distinguished names, 

 referring the reader to these in the Encyclopedia for 

 further information. To do the subject justice would 

 require volumes. Gildas is, perhaps, the earliest 

 English writer of whom anything is known ; his 

 appearance has been fixed in 560. Bede, the histo- 

 rian, flourished about the beginning of the eighth 

 century. Alfred distinguished himself by his literary 

 talents, no less than by his abilities as a monarch. 

 The history of England was written by Maltiiew 



