PRONUNCIATION OF "HUMBLE."
(Vol. viii., pp. 229. 298.)
It is my misfortune entirely to differ from Mr. Dawson (p. 229.) and Mr. Crossley (p. 298.) as to the pronunciation of humble; and permit me to say (with all courtesy) that I was unfeignedly surprised at the latter's assertion, that sounding
the h is "a recent attempt to introduce a mispronunciation," as I have known that mode of pronunciation all but universally prevalent for nearly the last forty years; and I have had pretty good opportunities for observing what the general usage in that respect was, as I was for some years at a very large public school, then at Oxford for more than the usual time, and have since resided in London more than twenty-five years, practising as a barrister in Westminster Hall, and on one of the largest circuits. If, therefore, I have not had ample means of judging as to the pronunciation of humble, I know not where the means are to be found; especially as I doubt whether humble and humbly are anywhere so frequently used as in courts: a counsel rarely making a speech without "humbly submitting" or making a "humble application." Now the result of my experience is, that the h is almost universally sounded; and at this moment I cannot call to mind a single gentleman who omits it, who does not also omit it in many other instances where no doubt can exist that it ought to be sounded.
Mr. Dawson believes the sounding the h to be "one of those, either Oxford, or Cambridge, or both, peculiarities of which no reasonable explanation can be given." Now I believe Mr. Dawson is right in supposing that that usage is general both at Oxford and Cambridge, and I rather think that not only an explanation of the fact may be given, but that the fact itself, that in both the Universities the h is sounded, is extremely cogent evidence that it is correct. It cannot be doubted that the fact that a word is spelled with certain letters is clear proof that, at the time when that spelling was adopted, the word was so sounded as to give a distinct sound to each of the letters used, and that clearly must have been the case with words beginning with h especially. When, therefore, the present spelling of humble was adopted, the h was sounded. Now, whilst I freely admit that the utterance of any word may be changed—"Si volet usus, quem penes arbitrium est, et jus et norma loquendi"—still it cannot be questioned that the usage must be so general, clear, and distinct among the better educated classes (where-ever they may have received their education) as to leave no reasonable doubt about the matter; and that it lies on those who assert that such a change has taken place, to show such a usage as I have mentioned. And when the number of the members of the Universities is considered, and their position as men of education, it must at least admit of doubt whether, if a general usage prevailed among them to pronounce a particular word in the manner in which it originally was pronounced, this would not alone prevent a different pronunciation among others from having that general prevalence, which would be sufficient to justify a change in the utterance of such word.
But let us consider whether the usage of the Universities is not very cogent evidence that the h is generally sounded throughout England, 1. Each University contains a large number of the higher and better educated classes. 2. The members come from all parts of England indiscriminately. 3. Infinitely the majority come from schools; and some of the large schools have generally many members at each University. By such persons the pronunciation of the schools cannot fail to be represented. 4. Every one on entering the University is expected at least to know his own language. 5. There is no instruction, as far as I know (however much the fact may be to be regretted), ever given in English at either University. 6. There is a perpetual change of about a third of the members every year, few remaining above three years. Now can any one, who candidly considers these facts, doubt that a usage in pronouncing a particular word at either University if generally prevalent, is very strong evidence that the same usage is generally prevalent throughout England; but if any one does entertain such a doubt, surely it must be done away, when he finds that the same usage prevails at both Universities; though there exists such a degree of rivalry between them as would prevent the one from adopting from the other any usage which was liable to any the least doubt, and though there is no communication between them that could account for the same usage prevailing in both.
Mr. Crossley appeals to the Prayer Book as a decisive authority, and instances "an humble," &c. If any one will examine the Prayer Book, he will find that it is no authority at all; as "an" is at least as often used erroneously before h as not. In reading over the first sixty-eight Psalms, I found the following instances—Ps. xxvii. 3. and Ps. xxxiii. 15., "An host of men;" Ps. xlvii. 4. and Ps. lxi. 5., "An heritage;" Ps. xlix. 18., "An happy man," Ps. lv. 5., "An horrible dread;" Ps. lxviii. 15., "An high hill." And in the same Psalms I only found one instance of a before h, viz. in Ps. xxxiii. 16., "A horse;" and in this case the Bible version has "An horse." In the first Lesson for the 19th Sunday after Trinity, Dan. iii. 4., "An herald," and 27., "An hair of their head," occur; and in the next chapter (iv. 13.), "An holy one." It is plain from these instances (and doubtless many others may be found), that the use of "an" before h, in the Bible or Prayer Book, can afford no test whatever whether the h ought to be sounded or not.
S. G. C.
After the sensible Note of your correspondent E. H., it is perhaps hardly necessary to say more on the subject of aspirated and mute h. If these remarks, therefore, seem superfluous, they may easily be suppressed, and that too without any offence to the writer.
It is very dangerous to dogmatise on the English language. We really have no authority to which we can confidently appeal, except the usage of good society: "Quem penes arbitrium est, et jus et norma loquendi." Unfortunately, however, every man is convinced, that in his own society that usage is to be found; and your correspondents, who have agreed in approving the Heapian pronunciation, will probably, on that ground, still retain the same opinion.
The only words in the English language, in which h is written, but not pronounced, are words derived from Latin through the French; but of these, many in English retain the aspirate, though in French nearly all lose it. The exceptions collected by E. H. satisfactorily prove that we do not follow the French rule implicitly. They indeed carry the non-aspiration farther than to words of Latin derivation. They omit the aspirate to nearly all words derived from Greek. This we never do. I think that E. H.'s rule, of always aspirating h before u, is not entirely without exceptions. Except in Ireland, I never heard humour or humorous aspirated, though in humid and humect the h is always sounded. If this be right, it depends solely on the usage of good society, and not on rules laid down by Walker or Lindley Murray, whose authority we do not acknowledge as infallible. I may here remark, that no arguments can be drawn from our Liturgy or translation of the Bible that would not prove too much. If, because we find in our Liturgy "an humble, lowly, and obedient heart," we are to read "an 'umble," we must also read "an 'undred, an 'ouse, an 'eap, an 'eart;" for an was prefixed in our Liturgy as well as in our translated Bible to every word beginning with h, and not (as one of your correspondents supposes) only to words beginning with silent h. Among young clergymen there is a growing habit (derived I suppose from Walker, or other such sources) of indulging in the Heapian dialect. I think Mr. Dickens will have done us more good by his ridicule, than will ever be effected by serious arguments; and I feel as much obliged to him as to E. H. To show how dangerous it is to be bound by a mere grammarian authority, a disciple of Vaugelas or Restaut (no insignificant names in French philology) would be led to read les héros as if it were "les zéros."
E. C. H.