On page 152, speaking of the difficulties
of English pronunciation to a foreigner, he says, "Etenim si has quinque
voculas, _What think the chosen judges_? quid censent electi judices?
recte protuleris, omnem loquendi difficultatem superasti." Ben Jonson in
his Grammar gives similar examples, and speaks also of the loss of the
Saxon signs as having made a confusion. It is certain, then, at least,
that Shakspeare did not pronounce _thing, ting_,--or, if he did, that
others did not, as we shall presently show.
[Footnote M: Praefatio, p. 6. We abridge his statement.]
Most of Mr. White's arguments in support of his opinion are theoretic;
the examples by which he endeavors to sustain it tell, with one
exception, against him. That exception is his quoting from one of
Shakspeare's sonnets the rhyme _doting_ and _nothing_. But this proves
nothing (noting?); for we have already shown that Shakspeare, like all
his contemporaries, was often content with assonance, where identity
could not be had, in rhyming. Generally, indeed, the argument from
rhymes is like that of the Irishman who insisted that _full_ must be
pronounced like _dull_, because he found it rhyming with _b[)u]ll_. Mr.
White also brings forward the fact, that _moth_ is spelt _mote_, and
argues therefrom that the name of the Page Moth has hitherto been
misconceived. But how many _th_ sounds does he mean to rob us of? And
how was _moth_ really pronounced? Ben Jonson rhymes it with _sloth_ and
_cloth_; Herrick, with _cloth_.
Pages:
282
283
284
285
286
287
288
289
290
291
292
293
294
295
296
297
298
299
300
301
302
303
304
305
306