An apology for the study of northern antiquities Part 1

An Apology For The Study of Northern Antiquities.

by Elizabeth Elstob.

INTRODUCTION

The answerers who rushed into print in 1712 against Swift's _Proposal for Correcting, Improving and Ascertaining the English Tongue_ were so obviously moved by the spirit of faction that, apart from a few debating points and minor corrections, it is difficult to disentangle their legitimate criticisms from their political prejudices. As Professor Landa has written in his introduction to Oldmiron's _Reflections on Dr. Swift's Letter to Harley_ and Mainwaring's _The British Academy_ (Augustan Reprint Society, 1948): "It is not as literature that these two answers to Swift are to be judged. They are minor, though interesting, doc.u.ments in political warfare which cut athwart a significant cultural controversy."

Elizabeth Elstob's _Apology for the Study of Northern Antiquities_ prefixed to her _Rudiments of Grammar for the English-Saxon Tongue_ is an answer of a very different kind. It did not appear until 1715; it exhibits no political bias; it agrees with Swift's denunciation of certain current linguistic habits; and it does not reject the very idea of regulating the language as repugnant to the st.u.r.dy independence of the Briton. Elizabeth Elstob speaks not for a party but for the group of antiquarian scholars, led by Dr. Hickes, who were developing and popularizing the study of the Anglo-Saxon origins of the English language--a study which had really started in the seventeenth century.

What irritated Miss Elstob in the _Proposal_ was not Swift's eulogy or Harley and the Tory ministry, but his scornful reference to antiquarians as "laborious men of low genius," his failure to recognize that his manifest ignorance of the origins of the language was any bar to his p.r.o.nouncing on it or legislating for it, and his repet.i.tion of some of the traditional criticisms of the Teutonic elements in the language, in particular the monosyllables and consonants. Her sense of injury was personal as well as academic.

Her brother William and her revered master Dr. Hickes were among the antiquarians whom Swift had casually insulted, and she herself had published an elaborate edition of _An English-Saxon Homily on the Birthday of St. Gregory_ (1709) and was at work on an Anglo-Saxon homilarium. Moreover she had a particular affection for her field of study, because it had enabled her to surmount the obstacles to learning which had been put in her path as a girl, and which had prevented her, then, from acquiring a cla.s.sical education. Her _Rudiments_, the first Anglo-Saxon grammar written in English, was specifically designed to encourage ladies suffering from similar educational disabilities to find an intellectual pursuit. Her personal indignation is shown in her sharp answer to Swift's insulting phrase, and in her retaliatory cla.s.sification of the Dean among the "light and fluttering wits."

As a linguistic historian she has no difficulty in exposing Swift's ignorance, and in establis.h.i.+ng her claim that if there is any refining or ascertaining of the English language to be done, the antiquarian scholars must be consulted. But it is when she writes as a literary critic, defending the English language, with its monosyllables and consonants, as a literary medium, that she is most interesting.

There was nothing new in what Swift had said of the character of the English language; he was merely echoing criticisms which had been expressed frequently since the early sixteenth century. The number of English monosyllables was sometimes complained of, because to ears trained on the cla.s.sical languages they sounded harsh, barking, unfitted for eloquence; sometimes because they were believed to impede the metrical flow in poetry; sometimes because, being particularly characteristic of colloquial speech, they were considered low; and often because they were a.s.sociated with the languages of the Teutonic tribes which had escaped the full refining influence of Roman civilization. Swift followed writers like Nash and Dekker in emphasizing the first and last of these objections.

There were, of course, stock answers to these stock objections.

Such criticism of one's mother tongue was said to be unpatriotic or positively disloyal. If it was difficult to maintain that English was as smooth and euphonious as Italian, it could be maintained that its monosyllables and consonants gave it a characteristic and masculine brevity and force. Monosyllables were also very convenient for the formation of compound words, and, it was argued, should, when properly managed, be an a.s.set rather than a handicap to the English rhymester.

By the time Swift and Miss Elstob were writing, an increasing number of antiquarian Germanophils (and also pro-Hanoverians) were prepared to claim Teutonic descent with pride.

Most of these arguments had been bandied backwards and forwards rather inconclusively since the sixteenth century, and Addison in _The Spectator_ No. 135 expresses a typically moderate opinion on the matter: the English language, he says, abounds in monosyllables,

which gives us an opportunity of delivering our thoughts in few sounds. This indeed takes off from the elegance of our tongue, but at the same time expresses our ideas in the readiest manner, and consequently answers the first design of speech better than the mult.i.tude of syllables, which make the words of other languages more tunable and sonorous.

It is likely that neither Swift nor Miss Elstob would have found much to disagree with in that sentence. Swift certainly never proposed any reduction in the number of English monosyllables, and the simplicity of style which he described as "one of the greatest perfections in any language," which seemed to him best exemplified in the English Bible, and which he himself practised so brilliantly, has in English a very marked monosyllabic character.

But in his enthusiasm to stamp out the practice of abbreviating, beheading and curtailing polysyllables--a practice which seemed to him a threat to both the elegance and permanence of the language-- he described it as part of a tendency of the English to relapse into their Northern barbarity by multiplying monosyllables and eliding vowels between the rough and frequent consonants of their language.

His ignorance of the historical origins of the language and his rather hackneyed remarks on its character do not invalidate the general scheme of his _Proposal_ or his particular criticisms of current linguistic habits, but they did lay him open to the very penetrating and decisive attack of Elizabeth Elstob.

In her reply to Swift she repeats all the stock defenses of the English monosyllables and consonants, but, by presenting them in combination, and in a manner at once scholarly and forceful, she makes the most convincing case against Swift. Unlike most of her predecessors, Miss Elstob is not on the defensive. She is always ready to give a sharp personal turn to her scholarly refutations--as, for instance, when she demonstrates the usefulness of monosyllables in poetry by ill.u.s.trations from a series of poets beginning with Homer and ending with Swift. There can be little doubt that Swift is decisively worsted in this argument.

It is not known whether Swift ever read Miss Elstob's _Rudiments_, though it is interesting to notice a marked change of emphasis in his references to the Anglo-Saxon language. In the _Proposal_ he had declared with a pretense of knowledge, that Anglo-Saxon was "excepting some few variations in the orthography... the same in most original words with our present English, as well as with German and other northern dialects." But in _An Abstract of the History of England_ (probably revised in 1719) he says that the English which came in with the Saxons was "extremely different from what it is now." The two statements are not incompatible, but the emphasis is remarkably changed. It is possible that some friend had pointed out to Swift that his earlier statement was too gross a simplification, or alternatively that someone had drawn his attention to Elizabeth Elstob's _Rudiments_.

All writers owe much to the labors of scholars.h.i.+p and are generally ill-advised to scorn or reject them, however uninspired and uninspiring they may seem. Moreover when authors do enter into dispute with "laborious men of low genius" they frequently meet with more than their match. Miss Elstob's bold and aggressive defense of Northern antiquities was remembered and cited by a later scholar, George Ballard, as a warning to those who underestimated the importance of a sound knowledge of the language. Indeed, he wrote, "I thought that the bad success Dean Swift had met with in this affair from the incomparably learned and ingenious Mrs. Elstob would have deterred all others from once venturing in this affair." (John Nichols, _Ill.u.s.trations of the Literary History of the Eighteenth Century_, 1822, IV, 212.)

Charles Peake University College, London

PREFACE

to the Reverend Dr. _Hickes_.

SIR,

Soon after the Publication of the Homily on St. Gregory, I was engaged by the Importunity of my Friends, to make a Visit to _Canterbury_, as well to enjoy the Conversations of my Friends and Relations there, as for that Benefit which I hoped to receive from Change of Air, and freer Breathing, which is the usual Expectation of those, who are used to a sedentary Life and Confinement in the great City, and which renders such an Excursion now and then excusable. In this Recess, among the many Compliments and kind Expressions, which their favourable Acceptance of my first Attempt in _Saxon_, had obtained for me from the Ladies, I was more particularly gratified, with the new Friends.h.i.+p and Conversation, of a young Lady, whose Ingenuity and Love of Learning, is well known and esteem'd, not only in that Place, but by your self: and which so far indear'd itself to me, by her promise that she wou'd learn the _Saxon Tongue_, and do me the Honour to be my _Scholar_, as to make me think of composing an _English Grammar_ of that Language for her use. That Ladies Fortune hath so disposed of her since that time, and hath placed her at so great distance, as that we have had no Opportunity, of treating farther on this Matter, either by Discourse or Correspondence. However though a Work of a larger Extent, and which hath amply experienced your Encouragement, did for some time make me lay aside this Design, yet I did not wholly reject it. For having re-a.s.sumed this Task, and accomplish'd it in such manner at I was able, I now send it to you, for your Correction, and that Stamp of Authority, it must needs receive from a Person of such perfect and exact Judgement in these Matters, in order to make it current, and worthy of Reception from the Publick. Indeed I might well have spared my self the labour of such an Attempt, after the elaborate Work of your rich and learned _Thesaurus_, and the ingenious Compendium of it by Mr. _Thwaites_; but considering the Pleasure I my self had reaped from the Knowledge I have gained from this Original of our Mother Tongue, and that others of my own s.e.x, might be capable of the same Satisfaction: I resolv'd to give them the Rudiments of that Language in an English Dress.

However not 'till I had communicated to you my Design for your Advice, and had receiv'd your repeated Exhortation, and Encouragement to the Undertaking.

The Method I have used, is neither entirely new, out of a Fondness and Affectation of Novelty: nor exactly the same with what has been in use, in teaching the learned Languages. I have retain'd the old Division of the Parts of Speech, nor have I rejected the other common Terms of _Grammar_; I have only endeavour'd to explain them in such a manner, as to hope they may be competently understood, by those whose Education, hath not allow'd them an Acquaintance with the Grammars of other Languages. There is one Addition to what your self and Mr.

_Thwaites_ have done on this Subject, for which you will, I imagine, readily pardon me: I have given most, if not all the _Grammatical_ Terms in true old _Saxon_, from _aelfrick_'s Translation of _Priscian_, to shew the _polite_ Men of our Age, that the Language of their Forefathers is neither so barren nor barbarous as they affirm, with equal Ignorance and Boldness. Since this is such an Instance of its Copiousness, as is not to be found in any of the polite modern Languages; and the _Latin_ itself is beholden to the _Greek_, not only for the Terms, but even the Names of Arts and Sciences, as is easily discerned in the Words, _Philosophy_, _Grammar_, _Logick_, _Rhetorick_, _Geometry_, _Arithmetick_, &c. These Gentlemens ill Treatment of our Mother Tongue has led me into a Stile not so agreeable to the Mildness of our s.e.x, or the usual manner of my Behaviour, to Persons of your Character; but the Love and Honour of one's Countrey, hath in all Ages been acknowledged such a Virtue, as hath admitted of a Zeal even somewhat extravagant. _Pro Patria mori_, used to be one of the great Boasts of Antiquity; and even the so celebrated Magnanimity of _Cato_, and such others as have been called Patriots, had wanted their Praise, and their Admiration, had they wanted this Plea. The Justness and Propriety of the Language of any Nation, hath been always rightly esteem'd a great Ornament and Test of the good Sense of such a Nation; and consequently to arraign the good Sense or Language of any Nation, is to cast upon it a great Reproach. Even private Men are most jealous, of any Wound, that can be given them in their intellectual Accomplishments, which they are less able to endure, than Poverty itself or any other kind of Disgrace. This hath often occasion'd my Admiration, that those Persons, who talk so much, of the Honour of our Countrey, _of the correcting, improving and ascertaining_ of our Language, shou'd dress it up in a Character so very strange and ridiculous: or to think of improving it to any degree of Honour and Advantage, by divesting it of the Ornaments of Antiquity, or separating it from the _Saxon_ Root, whose Branches were so copious and numerous. But it is very remarkable how Ignorance will make Men bold, and presume to declare that unnecessary, which they will not be at the pains to render useful. Such kind of Teachers are no new thing, the Spirit of Truth itself hath set a mark upon them; _Desiring to be Teachers of the Law, understanding neither what they say, nor whereof they affirm, 1 _Tim._ 1. 7._ It had been well if those wise _Grammarians_ had understood this Character, who have taken upon them to teach our Ladies and young Gentlemen, _The whole System of an English Education_; they had not incurr'd those Self-contradictions of which they are guilty; they had not mention'd your self, and your incomparable Treasury of _Northern Literature_ in so cold and negligent a manner, as betrays too much of an invidious Pedantry: But in those Terms of Veneration and Applause which are your just Tribute, not only from the Learned of your own Countrey, but of most of the other Northern Nations, whether more or less Polite: Who would any of them have glory'd in having you their Native, who have done so much Honour to the Original of almost all the Languages in Europe.

But it seems you are not of so much Credit with these _Gentlemen_, who question your Authority, and have given a very visible Proof of their Ingenuity in an Instance which plainly discovers, that they cannot believe their own Eyes.

The _Saxons_, say they, if we may credit Dr. _Hickes_, had various Terminations to their Words, at least two in every Substantive singular: whereas we have no Word now in use, except the personal Names that has so. Thus Dr. _Hickes_ has made six several _Declensions_ of the _Saxon_ Names: He gives them three _Numbers_; a Singular, Dual, and Plural: We have no Dual Number, except perhaps in _Both_: To make this plainer, we shall transcribe the six Declensions from that Antiquary's Grammar.

I would ask these Gentlemen, and why not credit Dr. _Hickes_? Is he not as much to be believ'd as those Gentlemen, who have transcribed so plain an Evidence of the six Declensions to shew the positive Unreasonableness and unwarrantable Contradiction of their Disbelief?

Did he make those six Declensions? or rather, did he not find them in the Language, and take so much pains to teach others to distinguish them, who have Modesty enough to be taught? They are pleased to say we have no Word now in use that admits of Cases or Terminations. But let us ask them, what they think of these Words, _G.o.d's Word_, _Man's Wisdom_, the _Smith's Forge_, and innumerable Instances more. For in _G.o.d's Word_, &c. is not the Termination _s_ a plain Indication of a Genitive Case, wherein the Saxon _e_ is omitted? For example_, Go?e?

?o??, Manne? ?i??om, ?mie? Heo?. Some will say, that were better supplied by _his_, or _hers_, as Man _his_ Thought, the Smith _his_ Forge; but this Mistake is justly exploded. Yet if these Gentlemen will not credit Dr. _Hickes_, the _Saxon_ Writings might give them full Satisfaction. The _Gospels_, the _Psalms_, and a great part of the _Bible_ are in _Saxon_, so are the _Laws_ and _Ecclesiastical Canons_, and _Charters_ of most of our _Saxon Kings_; these one wou'd think might deserve their Credit. But they have not had Learning or Industry enough to fit them for such Acquaintance, and are forc'd therefore to take up their Refuge with those Triflers, whose only Pretence to Wit, is to despise their Betters. This Censure will not, I imagine, be thought harsh, by any candid Reader, since their own Discovery has sufficiently declared their Ignorance: and their Boldness, to determine things whereof they are so ignorant, has so justly fix'd upon them the Charge of Impudence. For otherwise they must needs have been ashamed to proceed in manner following.

We might give you various Instances more of the essential difference between the old _Saxon_ and modern _English_ Tongue, but these must satisfy any reasonable Man, that it is so great, that the _Saxon_ can be no Rule to us; and that to understand ours, there is no need of knowing the _Saxon_: And tho' Dr.

_Hickes_ must be allow'd to have been a very curious Enquirer into those obsolete Tongues, now out of use, and containing nothing valuable, yet it does by no means follow (as is plain from what has been said) that we are obliged to derive the Sense, Construction, or Nature of our present Language from his Discoveries.

I would beseech my Readers to observe, the Candour and Ingenuity of these Gentlemen: They tell us, _We might give you various Instances more of the essential difference between the old _Saxon_ and modern _English_ Tongue_; and yet have plainly made it appear, that they know little or nothing of the old _Saxon_. So that it will be hard to say how they come to know of any such _essential difference, as MUST satisfy any reasonable Man_; and much more that this _essential difference_ is so _great, that the _Saxon_ can be no Rule to us, and that to understand ours, there is no need of knowing the _Saxon_._ What they say, _that it cannot be a Rule to them_, is true; for nothing can be a Rule of Direction to any Man, the use whereof he does not understand; but if to understand the Original and Etymology of the Words of any Language, be needful towards knowing the Propriety of any Language, a thing which I have never heard hath yet been denied; then do these Gentlemen stand self-condemned, there being no less than four Words, in the Scheme of Declensions they have borrowed from Dr. _Hickes_, now in use, which are of pure _Saxon_ Original, and consequently _essential to the modern English_. I need not tell any English Reader at this Day the meaning of _Smith_, _Word_, _Son_, and _Good_; but if I tell them that these are Saxon Words, I believe they will hardly deny them to be _essential to the modern English_, or that they will conclude that the difference between the old _English_ and the modern is so great, or the distance of Relation between them so remote, as that the former deserves not to be remember'd: except by such Upstarts who having no t.i.tle to a laudable Pedigree, are backward in all due Respect and Veneration towards a n.o.ble Ancestry.

Their great Condescension to Dr. _Hickes_ in allowing him to have been a very curious Inquirer into those _obsolete Tongues, now out of use, and containing nothing valuable in them_, is a Compliment for which I believe you, Sir, will give me leave to a.s.sure them, that he is not at all obliged; since if it signifies any thing, it imports, no less than that he has employ'd a great deal of Time, and a great deal of Pains, to little purpose. But we must at least borrow so much a.s.surance from them, as to tell them, that your Friends, who consist of the most learned sort of your own Countrey-men, and of Foreigners, do not think those Tongues so obsolete and out of use, whose Significancy is so apparent in Etymology; nor do they think those Men competent Judges to declare, whether there be any thing contained in them valuable or not, who have made it clear, that they know not what is _contain'd_ in them. They would rather a.s.sure them, that our greatest Divines[A], and Lawyers[B], and Historians[C] are of another Opinion, they wou'd advise them to consult our Libraries, those of the two Universities, the _Cottonian_, and my Lord Treasurers; to study your whole _Thesaurus_, particularly your _Dissertatio Epistolaris_, to look into Mr. _Wanleys_ large and accurate Catalogue of _Saxon_ Ma.n.u.scripts, and so with Modesty gain a t.i.tle to the Applause of having confest their former Ignorance, and reforming their Judgment. I believe I may farther take leave to a.s.sure them, that the Doctor is as little concerned for their _Inference_, which they think _so plain from what has been said, that they are not obliged to derive the Sense, Construction, or Nature of our present Language from his Discoveries_.

He desires them not to _derive_ the _Sense_ and _Construction_ of which they speak, in any other manner, than that in which the Nature of the things themselves makes them appear; and so far as they are his _Discoveries_ only, intrudes them on no Man. He is very willing they should be let alone by those, who have not Skill to use them to their own Advantage, and with Grat.i.tude.

[Footnote A: Archbishops _Parker_, _Laud_, _Usher_, Bishop _Stillingfleet_, the present Bishops _of Worcester_, _Bath_ and _Wells_, _Carlisle_, St. _Asaph_, St. _Davids_, _Lincoln_, _Rochester_, with many other Divines of the first Rank.]

[Footnote B: The Lord Chief Justice _Cook_, Mr. _Lombard_, _Selden_, _Whitlock_, Lord Chief Justice _Hales_, and _Parker_, Mr. _Fortescue_ of the Temple, and others.]

[Footnote C: _Leland_, who writes in a Latin Style in Prose and Verse, as polite and accurate as can be boasted of by any of our modern Wits. _Jocelin_, _Spelman_, both Father and Son, _Cambden_, _Whelock_, _Gibson_, and many more of all Ranks and Qualities, whose Names deserve well to be mention'd with Respect, were there room for it in this place.]

But to leave these Pedagogues to huff and swagger in the heighth of all their Arrogance. I cannot but think it great Pity, that in our Considerations, for Refinement of the _English_ Tongue, so little Regard is had to Antiquity, and the Original of our present Language, which is the _Saxon_. This indeed is allow'd by an ingenious Person, who hath lately made some Proposals for the Refinement of the _English_ Tongue, _That the old _Saxon_, except in some few Variations in the Orthography, is the same in most original Words with our present _English_, as well as with the _German_ and other _Northern_ Dialects_; which makes it a little surprizing to me, to find the same Gentleman not long after to say, _The other Languages of _Europe_ I know nothing of, neither is there any occasion to consider them_: because, as I have before observ'd, it must be very difficult to imagin, how a Man can judge of a thing he knoweth nothing of, whether there can be occasion or no to consider it. I must confess I hope when ever such a Project shall be taken in hand, for _correcting_, _enlarging_, and _ascertaining_ our Language, a competent Number of such Persons will be advised with, as are knowing, not only in _Saxon_, but in the other Languages of _Europe_, and so be capable of judging how far those Languages may be useful in such a Project. The want of understanding this aright, wou'd very much injure the Success of such an Undertaking, and the bringing of it to Perfection; in denying that a.s.sistance toward adjusting the Propriety of Words, which can only be had from the Knowledge of the Original, and likewise in depriving us of the Benefit of many useful and significant Words, which might be revived and recalled, to the Increase and Ornament of our Language, which wou'd be the more beautiful, as being more genuine and natural, by confessing a _Saxon_ Original for their native Stock, or an Affinity with those Branches of the other _Northern Tongues_, which own the same Original.

The want of knowing the _Northern Languages_, has occasion'd an unkind Prejudice towards them: which some have introduced out of Rashness, others have taken upon Tradition. As if those Languages were made up of nothing else but Monosyllables, and harsh sounding Consonants; than which nothing can be a greater Mistake. I can speak for the _Saxon_, _Gothick_, and _Francick_, or old _Teutonick_: which for aptness of compounded, and well sounding Words, and variety of Numbers, are by those learned Men that understand them, thought scarce inferior to the _Greek_ itself. I never cou'd find my self shocked with the Harshness of those Languages, which grates so much in the Ears of those that never heard them. I never perceiv'd in the Consonants any Hardness, but such as was necessary to afford Strength, like the Bones in a human Body, which yield it Firmness and Support. So that the worst that can be said on this occasion of our Forefathers is, that they spoke at they fought, like Men.

The Author of the _Proposal_, may think this but an ill Return, for the soft things he has said of the Ladies, but I think it Grat.i.tude at least to make the Return, by doing Justice to the Gentlemen. I will not contradict the Relation of the ingenious Experiment of his vocal Ladies, tho' I could give him some Instances to the contrary, in my Experience of those, whose Writings abound with Consonants; where Vowels must generally be understood, and appear but very rarely.

Perhaps that Gentleman may be told that I have a _Northern_ Correspondence, and a _Northern_ Ear, probably not so fine as he may think his own to be, yet a little musical.

And now for our _Monosyllables_. In the Controversy concerning which, it must be examined, first whether the Charge which is exhibited against the _Northern Languages_ is true, that they consist of nothing but _Monosyllables_; and secondly, whether or no the Copiousness and Variety of _Monosyllables_ may be always justly reputed a fault, and may not sometimes as justly be thought, to be very useful and ornamental.

And first I must a.s.sert, that the ancient _Northern Languages_, do not wholly nor mostly consist of _Monosyllables_. I speak chiefly of the _Gothick_, _Saxon_, and _Teutonick_. It must be confest that in the _Saxon_, there are many _Primitive_ Words of one Syllable, and this to those who know the Esteem that is due to Simplicity and Plainness, in any Language, will rather be judged a Virtue than a Vice: That is, that the first Notions of things should be exprest in the plainest and simplest manner, and in the least compa.s.s: and the Qualities and Relations, by suitable Additions, and Composition of _Primitive_ Words[D]; for which the _Saxon_ Language is very remarkable, as has been before observed, and of which there are numerous Examples, in the following Treatise of _Saxon Grammar_, and infinitely more might have been added.

[Footnote D: Of this the _Greeks_ give as a fair Example, when they express the Original and Author of all Things, their ?at??

??d???te ?e??te, by their Monosyllable ?e??. As the _Hebrews_ do by ??, the _Goths_ the Ancestors of our _Saxon_ Progenitors by the Word ??????, the _Saxons_, old _Germans_, _Teutons_, _Francick_, and _English_, in the _Monosyllable_ Go?, the _Germans_ #Gott#, and the _French_ _Dieu_.]

The second Enquiry is, whether or no the Copiousness and Variety of _Monosyllables_ may be always justly reputed a fault, and may not as justly be thought, to be very useful and ornamental? Were this a fault, it might as justly be charged upon the learned Languages, the _Latin_ and _Greek_: For the _Latin_ you have in _Lilly_'s Rules concerning Nouns, several Verses, made up for the most part of _Monosyllables_, I mention him not as a Cla.s.sick, but because the Words are Cla.s.sical and _Monosyllables_; and in the _Greek_ there are several as it were, idle _Monosyllables_, that have little Significancy, except to make the Numbers in Verse compleat, or to give a Fulness to their Periods, as the Verses of _Homer_ and other _Greek Poets_ plainly evidence: An Instance or two may suffice;

?? ?? d? ta p??ta d?ast?t?? ???sa?te.

Here are four _Monosyllables_ in this Verse,

??? d' ??? ?? ??s?, p??? ?? ?a? ???a? ?pe?se?.

Here are six _Monosyllables_, and one cutting off.