Humanistic Standards of Diction in the Inkhorn ControversyAuthor(s): Alvin VosReviewed work(s):Source: Studies in Philology, Vol. 73, No. 4 (Oct., 1976), pp. 376-396Published by: University of North Carolina PressStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/4173916 .Accessed: 21/02/2012 17:00

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

University of North Carolina Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access toStudies in Philology.

http://www.jstor.org

Humanistic Standards of Diction

in the Inkhorn Controversy

by AIlvin Voos

A LTHOUGH a full account of the circle of sixteenth- century Cambridge humanists has yet to be written, the influential role of men like John Cheke, Roger Ascham,

and Thomas Wilson in the inkhorn controversy has been widely noted.' The foremost humanists in England at mid-century, this coterie of scholars voiced the chief opposition to the zealous " improvers " of the language. Avid neologizing had predominat- ed since the advent of printing in England. For writers as diverse as William Caxton, John Skelton, Stephen Hawes, and Sir Thomas Elyot, the inadequacy of English as a medium of ex- pression was the most acute and sensitive problem facing men of letters. Elyot, the most conscientious neologizer, deliberately undertook what he termed "the necessary augmentation of our language."2 However, in the 1540's a general revolt against "ink pot terms" checked rampant, indiscriminate neologizing. As R. F. Jones has shown, some opposed the inkhornists out of a patriotic commitment to native resources; others rejected the tide of new words out of anti-rhetorical, moralistic aversion to verbal affectation; still others inveighed against the obscurity

I The most exhaustive account of the controversy may be found in Richard Foster Jones, The Triumph of the English Language: A Survey of Opinions Concerning the Vernacular from the Introduction of Printing to the Restoration (Stanford, 195 3), pp. 68-14I. Cf. Vere Rubel, Poetic Diction in the English Renaissancefrom Skelton through Spenser (New York and London, 194I), particularly pp. I-I3.

2 The Boke Named the Gouernor, ed. H. H. S. Croft (London, I 883), I, 245 .

376

Alvin Vos 377

of " outlandish English." But, in Jones' view, the most sophisti- cated and balanced critics of neologizing were the Cambridge humanists, for, although they too resented the obscurity and the affectation of inkhorn terms, they were able to frame prescrip- tions for the remaining deficiencies of the language.3 They alone managed to oppose wholesale neologizing while allowing neces- sary linguistic augmentation to continue, and thus they first proposed the stratagem that allowed the English language to triumph in this battle over words.

As a result of the emphasis of Jones and others on the native English context, the role of classical theory in the thinking of the Cambridge humanists has not hitherto been explored. The humanists' advocacy of linguistic purity has been viewed solely in the light of the contemporary controversy. Their predeces- sors and contemporaries, rather than Cicero and Quintilian, have supplied the terms by which we have measured their con- tribution to the conflict over diction. Yet it was their adherence to the precepts of classical rhetoric concerning diction and their attempts to adapt these precepts to the English situation that enabled them to chart their course in this inkhorn controversy. Although they did share with their less humanistic contempor- aries a hostility to affectation and to obscurity, theirs was a unique perspective, for they spoke in the name of classical principles. To be sure, they were not at all isolated from the debate that raged around them. Yet their approach to it was new. They were responsive not merely to contemporary conditions, but also to classical standards and guidelines. Grounded in the teachings of Cicero and Quintilian concerning proper diction, their perspec- tive reinforced and complemented what many "purists" were saying. The clarity, consistency, and sophistication of their views were due in the first place to their unique classical approach.

I

The importance of diction in classical rhetorical theory is suggested by Caesar's widely repeated dictum on style: "The

3 The Triumph of the English Language, pp. 97-103.

378 Humanistic Standards of Diction

choice of words is the foundation of eloquence." 4 This peremp- tory assertion takes on added significance in the light of his own reputation; "of all our orators," says Atticus in Cicero's Brutus, "he is the purest user of the Latin tongue."S In the opinion of the Atticists, for whom purity in diction was the truest mark of orthodoxy, Caesar surpassed all others. In fact, as Cicero describes it, after diction had deteriorated through an influx of foreigners into Rome, Caesar acted as a purifier of the language: "by invoking rational theory [Caesar] strives to correct distorted and corrupt usage by restoring usage (consuetudo) pure and un- corrupted."6 In a situation not dissimilar to that in sixteenth- century England, where strange and unheard of words threatened to overwhelm good usage, Caesar-in the name of linguistic purity-resisted borrowing and neologizing. Caesar's dictum, therefore, is neither a slogan nor a truism; its force is to underline the ancient rhetoricians' conviction that one's choice of words must be governed by conservative theoretical principles con- cerning usage and by objective standards of purity and pro- priety.

These principles and standards of diction are elaborated at two points in well-developed classical rhetorical theory. The first is the explanation of the first two Theophrastian virtutes dicendi, Latinitas (also called puritas, elegantia, or ratio Latine loquendi) and perspicuitas (also explanatio or ratio plane loquendi), which are always taken more or less as a pair. For Cicero and Quintilian Latinitas and perspicuitas derive primarily from the orator's words, and their prescriptions for these normative virtutes turn on a fundamental classical principle of diction:

4 Cited in Cicero, Brutus z5 3: " [Caesar] dixit verborum dilectum originem esse eloquentiae." For an analysis of Caesar's position on diction, see A. D. Leeman, Orationis Ratio: The Stylistic Theories and Practice of the Roman Orators, Historians, and Philosophers (Amsterdam, I963), I, 1 56-9. Chapters 4, 5, 6, and I2 of Leeman's study contain a useful introduction to the general classical theory of diction.

5Brutus z52: '. . . illum omnium fere oratorum Latine loqui elegantissime." I have quoted the translation by G. L. Hendrickson in the Loeb Classical Library.

6 Brutus 26I, trans. Hendrickson: "Caesar ... rationem adhibens consuetudinem vitiosam et corruptam pura et incorrupta consuetudine emendat."

Alvin Vos 379

native words in current use have priority over newly coined or borrowed ones. Too many new words, obsolete words, or foreign words will both sully the purity and darken the perspi- cuity of a language. "Our words should have nothing provin- cial or foreign about them," admonishes Quintilian; "all our words should be such as to reveal the native of this city, so that our speech may seem to be of genuine Roman origin."7 The customary speech (consuetudo) of Rome serves as the touch- stone of purity. Cicero is equally conservative in demanding words in current usage: students of the older masters "must not employ words that are no longer in customary use, except occasionally and sparingly, for the sake of decoration."8 In the minds of classical rhetoricians, purity and perspicuity of style can be conserved only if neologizing, borrowing, and other processes of linguistic change are resisted.

The very brevity of every classical analysis of the first two virtutes results from the rhetoricians' assumptions about the in- valuable contribution of consuetudo. Crassus, in De Oratore, says explicitly that he skims rapidly over the rules of correct diction because they are imparted by "the habit of daily conversation in the family circle" (consuetudo sermonis quotidiani ac domestici).9 Happily, in the process of acquiring the language, Roman chil- dren anticipate the rhetoricians' conservative allegiance to native words in current use. Thus Quintilian can transpose many of his comments on proper diction to his preliminary discussion of elementary education in Book One of the Institutio. Nevertheless, neither he nor Cicero means to downgrade the importance of puritas and perspicuitas. Unless one figures to learn the rules of

7 Institutio Oratoria VIII.i.2-3, trans. Butler: " hic non alienum est admonere ut sint quam minime peregrina et externa.... Verba omnia... alumnum urbis oleant, ut oratio Romana plane videatur, non civitate donata." For an analysis of Quintilian's doctrine of verba Latina and verba peregrina, especially their relationship to urbanitas, see Jean Cousin, I8tudes surQuintilien, Vol. I, Contribution a' la Recherche des Sources de l'Instituuion Oratoire (I935; rpt. Amsterdam, I967), pp. 399-406.

8 De Oratore III.39, trans. H. Rackham in the Loeb Classical Library: "Neque tamen erit utendum verbis eis quibus iam consuetudo nostra non utitur, nisi quando ornandi causa, parce."

9 De Oratore I1.48.

3 8o Humanistic Standards of Diction

purity and perspicuity in school through an intensive, system- atic study of literature (a foolish redundancy in ancient Rome, but a burdensome necessity in Renaissance Europe), following consuetudo is the condition of achieving these minimal, yet indispensable, qualities.

If puritas is more nearly an aesthetic matter of taste or literary sophistication (the faults of speech lacking puritas are termed barbarisms and solecisms), perspicuitas centers on the possibility of communication itself. In his discussion of the second virtus, therefore, Cicero introduces another classical principle of diction. If one wants to ensure that he will be understood, he must employ "words in customary use that indicate literally (proprie) the meaning that we desire to be conveyed and made clear, without ambiguity of language or style." 10 We meet here for the first time that immensely significant word proprius: "CCverbis proprie demnonstratibus." "Words in their literal meaning" is probably the best rendering here (propria verba are frequently contrasted with verba translata, the Latin term for metaphor). And yet the connotations of the word are very rich and ordinarily go considerably beyond mere literalness. Quintilian devotes half of his chapter on perspicuitas to a treatment of the various meanings of proprietas." I The basic meaning of the term propria verba is that word and thing belong together, that they fit each other, that the word is appropriate to the matter. Only where the antithesis of metaphorical and nonmetaphorical is at issue does "appropriate" come to mean simply "literal." In most cases, therefore, propria verba is better rendered "proper words," a simple-seeming term which, we now realize, is heavily freighted with meaning. Indeed, Quintilian, for whom perspicuitas is the primary quality of style, makes propriety in words the chief element of perspicuity. Thus in this the first locus in classical

10 De Oratore III.49, trans. Rackham: ". . . verbis usitatis ac proprie demonstran- tibus ea quae significari ac declarari volemus sine ambiguo verbo aut sermone." Cf. Rhetorica ad Herennium IV.I7: "Clarity ... is achieved by two means, the use of current terms and of proper terms" ("Explanatio. . . conparatur duabus rebus, usitatis verbis et propriis").

II Institutio Oratoria VIII.ii. i-i i.

Alvin Vos 38I

theory where diction is a signifcant element, "proper" words join native, common words as the basic ingredients of a style distinguished for purity and perspicuity.

In rhetorical theory the other locus for the discussion of diction is found in the analysis of ornatus, the third virtus dicendi. Now, as both Cicero and Quintilian state immediately, ornatus resides in either individual words or the arrangement of groups of words. Only the former interests us here. From the fresh perspective of ornatus, both Cicero and Quintilian essentially consolidate and reinterpret the emphases we have already discovered: "The words we employ then are either the proper and definite designa- tions of things, which were almost born at the same time as the things themselves; or terms used metaphorically and placed in a connexion not really belonging to them; or new coinages invented by ourselves." 12 Within this deceptively simple enumer- ation lie the criteria by which one will choose and reject his words. For, despite the apparent parallelism in these kinds of words, the first, propria verba, are basic and normative for Cicero and the rhetoricians. Metaphorical words (translata verba) are "carried over" into the place ordinarily occupied by propria verba. New coinages (facta verba) are occasional words, specially created for a particular moment where "proper words" are unavailable or unsuitable. But propria verba are, so to speak, "almost born at the same time as the things themselves." Cicero's metaphor suggests that "proper words" are the natural (from the Latin "to be born") words. The "proper word" cannot be divorced from the thing itself.

Since the best words are ordinarily chosen from the range of propria verba, deviation from them requires a rhetorical justifica- tion. Such deviations are not inherently objectionable but desirable and effective on certain occasions. Cicero explains that these deviations are generally suitable for more ornate styles.

12 De Oratore III.149, trans. Rackham: "Ergo utimur verbis aut eis quae propria sunt et certa quasi vocabula rerum paene una nata cum rebus ipsis; aut eis quae transferuntur et quasi alieno in loco collocantur; aut eis quae novamus et facimus ipsi." Cf. Instituio Oratoria VIII.iii.24.

3 8z Humanistic Standards of Diction

Thus the concept of " proper words " serves not chiefly to restrict and confine the orator but to delineate for him a set of special words which are particularly apt for ornamentation: "There are then three things which the orator contributes in the matter of mere vocabulary towards the decoration and embellishment of his style-rare words, new coinages, and words used meta- phorically."I3 Archaisms (inusitata verba) here join facta verba and translata verba (he could also have added borrowed words, peregrina verba) as the departures from the word which is "born with the thing," the "proper word." Quintilian amplifies Cicero's statement. "Old words . .. give our style a venerable and majestic air.... But we must not overdo it." "Our own writers ... have not met with much success [in coining new words] .... Some new formations do, however, succeed in establishing themselves."14 In short, such words can be useful and satisfying, but belong chiefly to a style with unusual ornatus. At every point classical rhetorical theory invariably returns to propria verba and usitata verba as the standards in diction.

Two points need to be emphasized at the conclusion of this brief survey of classical rhetorical theory concerning diction. First, the primacy of propria verba and sitata zverba in classical principles does not entail the use of dull, uninspiring words. "In the case of proper words," says Cicero, anticipating an objection, "it is the distinction of an orator to avoid what is commonplace and hackneyed and to employ select and dis- tinguished terms. . . . A certain choice must be exercised, and this choice must be weighed by a critical faculty of ear." I5 Thus

'3 De Oratore III.152, trans. Rackham: "Tria sunt igitur in verbo simplici quae orator afferat ad illustrandam atque exornandam orationem, aut inusitatum verbum aut novatum aut translatum." Cf. De Ora/ore III.3g and Instituio Oratoria VIII.iii.I 5.

'4 Instituio Oratoria VIII.iii.24-5, 3 I-3, trans. Butler: " Namque et sanctiorem et magis admirabilem faciunt orationem, quibus non quilibet fuerit usurus.... Sed utendum modo ...." "Nostri ... vix in [fingendo] satis recipiuntur.... Quaedam tamen perdurant."

IS De Oratore III1.50, trans. Rackham: "In propriis est igitur illa laus oratoris ut abiecta atque obsoleta fugiat, lectis atque illustribus utatur.... delectus est qui- dam habendus atque is aurium quodam iudicio ponderandus...." Cf. Institutio Oratoria VIII.iii. I 6-z 3 .

Alvin Vos 383

no simple, mechanical formula or rule will generate apt, correct words. Propriety is a general, aesthetic quality; within the classical guidelines there is a good deal of room for iudicium. Nothing in the theory denies the orator his unique color and style.

The second noteworthy feature of classical theory is what must be called its basic conservatism regarding diction. The emphasis of classical rhetoricians concerning diction is on plainness, propriety, and custom. The orator is less flamboyant in his choice of words than in his rhythms, figures, periods, or other features of style. Thus Cicero, who is often rightly termed Asian in style, is strikingly Attic in what he has to say about choice of words. The orator must use the far-fetched, recondite, or showy word sparingly if he is to be understood. Ornatas is chiefly gotten in another way. This is a matter of taste, of course, and "Senecan" stylists grow more daring. And even Cicero has ample room for metaphor and other extraordinary words. Nevertheless, when speakers, as Quintilian complains concerning his contemporaries, begin to prefer the pointed, astonishing word to the appropriate, the unusual to the apparent, then decadence has set in. Purity, propriety, and perspicuity are then lost. "As a rule," asserts Quintilian, "the best words are essen- tially suggested by the subject matter and are discovered by their own intrinsic light [cf. Cicero's 'almost born at the same time as the things themselves'] . .. . Those words are best which are least far-fetched and give the impression of simplicity and reality.... Cicero long since laid down this rule in the clearest of language, that the worst fault in speaking is to adopt a style inconsistent with the idiom of ordinary speech and contrary to the common feeling of mankind." I6 The concluding invocation of one of the most basic principles of De Oratore underlines the

i6 Institutio Oratoria VIII.proem.2I-5, trans. Butler: "Nam plerumque optima rebus cohaerent et cernuntur suo lumine.... [verba] sunt optima minime arcessita et simplicibus atque ab ipsa veritate profectis similia.... satis aperte Cicero praeceperat, in dicendo vitium vel maximum esse a vulgari genere orationis atque a consuetudine communis sensus abhorrere." In his last sentence Quintilian quotes De Oratore . I 2.

384 Humanistic Standards of Diction

unanimity of rhetorical theorists concerning diction. Adherence to customary usage (consuetudo) is, as it were, a safeguard and a guideline for speaking. In fact, it would be difficult to over- estimate the importance of consuetudo in Quintilian's thinking. "Usage," he says in one of his classic sententiae, "is the surest pilot in speaking, and we should treat language as currency minted with the public stamp."'7 He responds to the puerile ingenuity of the inkhornists of his day with a radical, simple conservatism. Properly trained, the critical faculty recognizes that in diction purity, propriety, customary usage, and perspi- cuity are the watchwords of classical doctrine.

II

In the Renaissance the applicability of this classical doctrine to English was first recognized by the coterie of humanists centered in St. John's College, Cambridge. Even for the study of Latin, however, classical principles and standards of diction had to be adjusted and reinterpreted, for Renaissance schoolboys no longer acquired purity, propriety, and perspicuity of speech through what Cicero called " the habit of daily conversation in the family circle." Nevertheless, the earnest conviction of the hu- manists that the purest Latin of Rome remained the proper language of educated men provided the impetus for influential Cambridge scholars like Ascham, Cheke, and Wilson to turn to classical rhetoric for guidance in the vexed controversy over English diction. Though each spoke to the issues with a slightly different emphasis, the position of all three in the inkhorn controversy was clearly informed by their study of the ancient rhetoricians.

Thomas Wilson's successful balance between a determined opposition to vain, affected neologizing and a hearty approval of prudent borrowing stems directly from his domestication of Cicero's and Quintilian's principles and standards of diction. Of course, as R. F. Jones points out, Wilson's colorful attack on

'7Institutio Oratoria I.vi.3, trans. Butler: "Consuetudo... certissima loquendi magistra, utendumque plane sermone ut nummo, cui publica forma est."

Alvin Vos 3 8 5

" French English," " English Italienated," and all " talke poudered with ouersea language" does to some degree spring simply from a distaste for the rank affectation of those who hope to "catche an ynke horne terme by the taile."I8 But Wilson's attacks on both affectation and obscurity, which in Jones' analysis are the twin pillars supporting virtually all the attacks on inkhornism, do not originate merely in a broad-based, prag- matic concern with the eclipse of "the King's English." For Wilson, affectation and obscurity are only the result of a deeper, more fundamental dislocation of linguistic values. With the assistance of classical principles concerning diction Wilson probes the very root and essence of affectation.

Thus the locus of his discussion of inkhornism is, in a fitting adaptation of the ancients' organization of the ars rhetorica, his treatment of "plainnesse," the first of his four virtutes dicendi.19 Like Cicero and Quintilian he perceives that the qualities of puritas and perspicuitas pertain chiefly to diction. Equally classical are the basic concepts of his prescriptions for diction- propriety, perspicuity, and customary usage: "Those therefore that will eschue this folly [i.e., inkhornism], and acquaint them- selves with the best kind of speech, must seeke from time to time [i.e., constantly: see OED] such wordes as are commonly receiued, and such as properly may expresse in plaine maner, the whole conceipt of their minde."20

The role of common speech and customary usage in Wilson's analysis is particularly large; indeed, Wilson dexterously makes this classical notion of consuetudo cut two ways. Its normative force works, on the one hand, to condemn the "ouer fine" speech of inveterate neologizers. For Wilson, as for Cicero and Quintilian, following consuetudo cannot be separated from adhering to the native purity of the language: "Among all other

I8 The Triumph of the English Language, pp. ioo-2. For Wilson's attack, see The Arte of Rhetorique, ed. G. H. Mair (Oxford, I909), pp. i62-5.

I9 In collapsingpuritas and perspicuitas into " plainnesse," and dividing ornatus into "composition" and "exornation," Wilson appears to be following Rhetorica ad Herennium IV.17.

20 The Arte of Rhetorique, p. i6 5.

386 Humanistic Standards of Diction

lessons this should first be learned, that wee neuer affect any straunge ynkehorne termes, but to speake as is commonly receiued.... Some seeke so far for outlandish [i.e., foreign] English, that they forget altogether their mothers language."2I In terms of classical thought, such dandies have reversed the norm, preferring peregrina verba over usitata verba. But, on the other hand, the concept of consuetudo serves equally well to justify limited, necessary borrowing. It is "well doen" to enrich the language with words like "communion" and "pre- rogatiue," he notes, "when all others are agreed to followe the same waie." Conversely, "the folie is espied, when ... we will vse such wordes as fewe men doe vse."22 Thus Wilson's con- servatism in diction is flexible, demanding the exercise of iudicium. But for him, as for Quintilian, consuetudo is "the surest pilot in speaking."

Wilson's open acknowledgment of indebtedness to "that most excellent Oratour Tullie" is not, therefore, as it has been termed,23 merely a closing "reference to Cicero," but the emphatic culmination of his approach to the inkhorn contro- versy. His concluding exhortation that we learn to avoid the "follie" of inkhornism from De Oratore (the very passages that we have already noted in Part One) summarizes and makes explicit his theoretical framework.24 The endorsement of Cicero is designed to certify the classical character of Wilson's analysis. For him classical rhetorical theory complements, reinforces, and sharpens the protest he voices with other, less humanistic "purists."

Showing a moderation similar to Wilson's, John Cheke, the leader of the Cambridge circle, also looks beyond the English battlefield and draws his inspiration from classical principles and standards of diction. Nevertheless, the unusually Saxon flavor of his English diction, especially in the translation of the Gospels,

21 The Arte of Rhetorique, p. 162. 22 The Arte of Rhetorique, p. i65. 23 The Triumph of the English Language, p. I02.

24 The Arte of Rhetorique, p. I65.

Alvin Vos 387

has won him a reputation for a unique kind of purism. This enthusiasm for keeping English "unmixt and unmangeled" is regularly linked with that of Ralph Lever, a St. John's scholar of the next generation, whose rigid, idiosyncratic Art of Witcraft (I 573) resists all borrowed " terms of art" in favor of pure native compounds. His zeal for the native purity of English has been viewed primarily as a curious, idealistic enterprise, quaint and even reactionary.25

However, Cheke never allows this apparent preference for words of Saxon vintage to become an end in itself, just as he, like Wilson, refuses simply to join most nonhumanistic commenta- tors in making obscurity and affectation in contemporary English the controlling issues in the formulation of principles of diction. His position in the inkhorn controversy derives from his deeper, more fundamental allegiance to classical principles and standards. The classical views expressed in his well-known letter of I557 (printed at the head of Thomas Hoby's translation of Castiglione's Libro del Cortegiano) originate in his commitment to the genius of a language, to that which is natural to it. For English such purity alone is proper. Cheke's most basic concept of diction is the classical idea of propriety: I am of this opinion that our own tung shold be written cleane and pure, unmixt and unmangeled with borowing of other tunges, wherein if we take not heed by tijm, ever borowing and never payeng, she shall be fain to keep her house as bankrupt. For then doth our tung naturallie and praisablie utter her meaning, when she bouroweth no counterfeitness of other tunges to attire her self withall, but useth plainlie her own, with such shift, as nature, craft, experiens and folowing of other excellent doth lead her unto.

26

Except for his fanciful metaphor of language as a creditor prone to bankruptcy, Cheke's opinions are founded on the classical

25 See, for example, C. S. Lewis, English Literature in the Sixteenth Century Excluding Drama (Oxford, 1954), p. 283: "[Cheke] was also, to speak freely, something of a crank. He had a bee in his bonnet about 'pure and unmixed' English...."

26 "A Letter of Syr J. Cheke," p. 7 in the Everyman Library edition of The Book of the Courtier, trans. Thomas Hoby (London and New York, I928).

3 88 Humanistic Standards of Diction

conceptions of purity and propriety. His insistence that language employ "her own" resources is only to take the classical demands for verbal propriety in the most basic, etymological sense. Similarly, his emphasis on resisting the mingling and mixing which results from frequent borrowing is to adapt for English the classical quality of Latinitas. His preference for "cdeane and pure" English parallels Cicero's and Quintilian's establishment of the native, unadulterated speech of Rome as the norma loquendi. Finally, his demand that meaning be expressed "natur- allie" in words aligns him with Cicero, who defined proper words as those born (nata) with the things they signify.

In concluding his letter Cheke underscores this Ciceronian perspective. Virtually echoing Quintilian's comment, noted above, that "the best words essentially dwell in things," he compliments Hoby that no word is so strange but that "it seemeth to grow out of the matter and not to be sought for." 27 Unlike the decadent writers of Quintilian's age, whose words were "hunted for" and "fetched from afar," Hoby follows the classic Ciceronian philosophy which has words and things, like wisdom and eloquence, united harmoniously.

When Cheke, like Wilson, goes on to sanction what Jones has termed "necessary neologizing," his comments again hark back to classical standards. Although he does not call explicidy for common words, his belief in the primacy of tradition and custom nevertheless prompts this advice: and if she [the English language] want at ani tijm (as being unperfight she must) yet let her borow with suche bashfulnes, that it mai appeer, that if either the mould of our own tung could serve us to fascion a woord of our own, or if the old denisoned wordes could content and ease this neede, we wold not boldly venture of unknowen wordes.28

The key word in Cheke's exhortation is "bashfulnes." It implies that for him there is a certain linguistic decorum or norm that must sometimes be overstepped because of inadequacies in

27Tbe Book of the Courtier, p. 8. 28 The Book of the Courtier, p. 8.

AIvin Vos 389

the language. There can be little doubt that Cheke has in mind the specific classical norm of propria verba, for the permissible "shifts" or deviations that he goes on to enumerate follow classical lines. The ancient rhetoricians had enumerated facta verba and inusitata (prisca) verba as useful substitutes on special occasions for propria verba, and Cheke likewise namesfacta verba ("fascion a woord of our own") and inusitata verba ("the old denisoned wordes ") as the preferable resources to ease the shortage of English words. Only in one respect does Cheke alter the classical approach-and here we touch on what is usually termed his preference for Saxon words. The ancients had cautiously listed peregrina verba as one of the ways to give language greater flexibility. Cheke is even more chary, terming them "unknowen wordes." As classical rhetoricians saw it, Latin would need to borrow occasionally from Greek if there was to be real linguistic and cultural growth. But Cheke sees two possibilities for English: it can draw upon either its own past, or upon other languages. He prefers the former. His rationale can be detected in his assumption that peregrina verba are "un- knowen": facta verba and inusitata verba resemble most closely proper, familiar words, which, as rhetorical theory pointed out, are the conditions for perspicuity. The apparent quaintness of Cheke's preference for words of Saxon origin is thus only a minor, personal variation of an old, well-known approach to diction. Not a radical, unique, or hastily considered proposal to withstand reckless inkhornists, Cheke's approach to diction is a studied, humanistic attempt to domesticate sane principles con- cerning the most thorny issue in contemporary speech. Reduced to fundamentals, Cheke's position on diction is that of the classi- cal rhetoricians.

Roger Ascham affords the most complete testimony concerning the influence of classical rhetoric on humanistic thought about diction. Propriety, purity, and perspicuity are ever on his lips, and the classical emphasis on native, customary speech is domesticated against the onslaughts of "curious" wordsmiths. "I have not attained to great power of eloquence," Ascham

390 Humanistic Standards of Diction

writes to Sir William Petre with calculated modesty, " but indeed I have never sought for it; for this is what I set before myself: that I always preserve and cling to propriety in words and perspicuity in thoughts."29 Not, of course, that the two belong to two distinct realms; on the contrary, they go hand in hand as Ascham knows well, for propria verba are the prerequi- sites of perspicuity. There can be no question but that Ascham understands this in a basically Ciceronian fashion. In his last letter to John Sturm, in which he summarizes The Schoolmaster for the benefit of his friend who does not read English, Ascham singles out the purity and propriety of Cicero's language as worthy of special adoration: "In that the purest of times, from that most happy flower of Latinity he drank in the propriety of the Roman tongue right along with the milk of Rome."30 Ascham yearns for a culture in which customary speech will auto- matically and effortlessly inculcate the peculiar virtutes of diction. As a baby Cicero could imbibe pure speech. "His language could be chaste in its native propriety,"3I continues Ascham. It is one of his favorite phrases. He tries it out early in his career, for example, in searching for a compliment sufficient to Princess Elizabeth, his pupil: "In every kind of writing she readily notices if there is a word that does not fit or one that has been fetched with excessive carefulness.... Speech born out of the subject, chaste in its propriety, sparkling in its perspicuity, she freely approvesof." 32 Purity, propriety, and perspicuity in diction are her virtues. She likes the customary, common word, not the one which stands out, "curiosius accersitum." And had not Quintilian said that the best words are those which are least far-fetched,

29 The Whole Works of Roger Ascham, ed. J. A. Giles (1864-i865; rpt. New York, I965), I, 387: "Magnam eloquentiae vim non consequutus, sed ne sequutus quidem unquam sum: hoc enim in scribendo consilium tantum mihi propono, ut proprieta- tem in verbis, ut perspicuitatem in sententiis semper tuear et conservem."

30 Works, II, I8I: "Proprietatem Romanae linguae simul cum lacte Romae, purissima aetate, ex ipso Latinitatis laetissimo flore hausit."

31 Works, II, i8i: . . . lingua ejus proprietate domestica casta esset." 32 Works, I, I92: "In omni oratione, si quod invitum verbum, aut curiosius

accersitum fuerit, facile animadvertit.... Orationem ex re natam, proprietate cas- tam, perspicuitate illustrem, libenter probat."

Alvin Vos 391

"optima [verba] minime arcessita," and Cicero that one must be careful lest he sound farfetched, "cavendum est, ne arcessitum dictum putetur" ?33 And once more drawing directly on Cicero, Ascham applauds her natural speech where thing gives birth to the word; "orationem ex re natam," says Ascham; "vocabula paene una nata cum rebus ipsis," Cicero had said. Elizabeth's diction, in fact every one of her virtues, is described in a pastiche of Ciceronian words and phrases.

Ascham's most plainspoken and thoughtful words about diction occur in The Schoolmaster when he undertakes "to touch more particularly, which of those authors, that be now most commonly in men's hands, will soon afford you some piece of eloquence."34 His survey of authors is at root a student's Baedeker to those whose diction is pure and proper and therefore safe. Ascham warns that "the Latin tongue, concerning any part of pureness of it, from the spring to the decay of the same, did not endure much longer, than is the life of a well-aged man."35 The best precaution is to adhere to classical standards of purity and propriety of diction: "A good student must be therefore careful and diligent to read with judgment over even those authors which did write in the most perfect time. And let him not be afraid to try them, both in propriety of words and form of style, by the touchstone of Caesar and Cicero, whose purity was never soiled, no not by the sentence of those that loved them worst. 36

These standards of purity and propriety, as Ascham applies them in this survey, are sharp dividers. Even the " short time of any pureness of the Latin tongue" must be viewed critically. Of its first years only Plautus and Terence remain. And even in Plautus, unless the schoolmaster "make wise and wary choice" concerning, among other things, his "propriety of words," the child will be led astray. Ascham makes an explicit critique of

33 Institutio Oratoria VIII.proem.23, and De Oratore II.256. 34 Works, III, 244. 35 Works, III, 244. 36 Works, III, 26I.

392 Humanistic Standards of Diction

their "words." Only Terence is wholly safe, whose "words be chosen so purely." "For word and speech, Plautus is more plenti- fiil, and Terence more pure and proper." And lest we miss the point about "all this good propriety of words, and pureness of phrases, which be in Terence," Ascham recalls us once more to the standards of orthodoxy: " And therefore, as oft as I read those comedies, so oft doth sound in mine ear the pure fine talk of Rome, which was used by the flower of the worthiest nobility that ever Rome bred."37 Pained that learning, as he says else- where, has been hurt, even destroyed by some men who care not for words, but for matter, Ascham clings to a fond, visionary hope that somehow through literature English schoolboys can, like the children of Rome, acquire linguistic purity and pro- priety automatically.

Ascham makes more precise what purity and propriety mean to him when he turns to Sallust. The discussion, moreover, has a twofold value for us here. It not only underscores Ascham's classical approach to diction, it also confirms-and then elabor- ates-our earlier analysis of John Cheke's stand on diction; for Ascham's earnest evaluation of Sallust is really Cheke's: "My dearest friend and best master that ever I had or heard in learning, Sir John Cheke ... did once give me a lesson for Sallust, which . . . I shall never forget." 38 In brief, the lesson is this: "He said that Sallust was not very fit for young men to learn out of him the purity of the Latin tongue; ... he was not the purest in propriety of words...." Almost immediately Ascham links this impurity and impropriety in diction to Sallust's neglect of perspicuitas: "'he doth not express the matter lively and naturally with common speech.... Caesar and Cicero's talk is so natural and plain, and SaUust's writing [is] so artificial and dark." Thus even a lover of eloquence like Ascham will not condone rhetorical artifice in diction. Sallust's artificiality is not merely affectation, it is unnaturalness: Ascham seems to have in mind

37 Works, III, z45-8. 38 The "lesson for Sallust," from which the quotations in this and the following

two paragraphs are taken, is found in Works, III, 264-73.

AIvin Vos 393

the Ciceronian conception of the best word as the natural word, born out of the thing. Again invoking the touchstones, Ascham here assumes the interdependency of classical notions of custom, naturalness, purity, perspicuity, and propriety.

For Ascham Sallust's failure to use "common speech" is an especially serious departure from classical criteria for diction: "Caesar and Cicero ... were daily orators amongst the common people, and greatest counsellors in the senate-house; and there- fore gave themselves to use such speech as the meanest should well understand, and wisest best allow; following carefully that good counsel of Aristotle, Loquendum, at multi: sapiendum, at pauci." But "Sallust was no such man," as Cheke explains to Ascham. He grew up "very misorderly in riot and lechery"; bad living corrupted his tongue. When he set out to write his history, he was not only far removed from "the common talk of Rome," he also had his nose in old books, whose old words "smell." Thus for usitata verba he cultivates archaic words, which Cicero had said are a special kind of word to be used sparingly for ornamentation.

And there is more: "And yet the use of old words is not the greatest cause of Sallust's roughness and darkness.... yea, Sallust is more given to new words than to old ... as claritudo for gloria, exacte for perfecte, facundia for eloquentia." These words, as Cicero's avoidance of them proves, are not "good, that is, proper for the tongue and common for men's use." Though he begins to sound slavishly Ciceronian, Ascham returns in the end to good classical principles: the best words are neither very old nor completely new, but proper and customary. Sallust, Ascham repeats several times, uses "outlandish" words, by which he means not, in the modern sense, outrageous and offensive, but alien and foreign words- peregrina et externa verba, as Quintilian puts it. In short, Ascham's criteria are rigorously classical. Critics in the classical tradition have always found Sallust lacking in proprietas. Ascham's and Cheke's judgment concerning Sallust proceeds simply from holding up a classical measuring stick to his diction.

394 Humanistic Standards of Diction

In Toxophilus (I 545) Ascham applies these classical principles and standards directly to English. He does not shrink from demanding that giddy inkhornists, who, like Sallust, "make all things dark and hard," imitate Cicero, who "increased the Latin tongue after another sort." Again quoting the "counsel of Aristodle, to speak as the common people do, to think as wise men do," he domesticates classical standards of purity, perspi- cuity, and common usage.39 In a letter to Bishop Gardiner he draws specifically on Cicero's and Quintilian's Latin terminology to define his policy concerning the diction of the vernacular: In writing [Toxophilms] I have been zealous to separate myself very widely from almost the whole lot of English writers: not because I am offended when something is written in English, but because I think that in general unlearned and thoughtless men have been active in this kind of undertaking. Moreover, they pursue subject matter which is worthless or beyond their ability; in doing so, they shun proper and plain words (verba propria et perspicua); they don't know anything about metaphorical words and ones suitable for genuine brilliance.... Thus in our own vernacular tongue they are not careful to be native and proper (domestici et proprii), but foreign and outlandish (peregrini et advenae).40

Thus recourse to the ancient classics is Ascham's confident response to the contemporary crisis in diction. Like Wilson and Cheke, he seeks guidance concerning diction not first of all in the exigencies of the intensifying controversy, nor in the widespread opposition to obscurity and affectation, but in the universally applicable standards of a language and culture which had mastered the art of speaking well.

The central problem of the inkhornists-as well as of virtually all of their unhumanistic opponents-is their inability to rally

39 Works, II, 7. The humanists had virtually assimilated Aristotle's maxim (from Topics II.z) into rhetorical theory. See also Wilson, Arte of Rhetorique, p. i62.

40 Works, I, 79-80: "In hoc libro scribendo, longissime abesse et discrepare ab universo fere Anglorum scriptorum numero studebam: non quod aliquid Anglice scriptum esse aegre feram sed quod plurimum homines indoctos et termerarios in hoc studendi genere elaborasse intelligam. Materiam autem inanem aut eorum facultati imparem sequuntur, in qua re verba propria et perspicua fugiunt, translata et ad verum splendorem accommodata nesciunt; ... et sic in nostra lingua vernacula non domestici et proprii sed peregrini et advenae esse student."

Alvin Vos 395

around comprehensive, moderate guidelines for remedying any inadequacy in the English language. Their policies are essen- tially ad hoc. Aimless and perplexed, they simply have no established standards or principles to which they can turn. Victims of antithetical pressures to enrich and beautify English on the one hand and to clarify and popularize it on the other, they experience the dilemma of that early inkhornist, Caxton: "bytwene playn rude / & curyous [terms] I stand abasshed."4I

Caxton's plight is the plight of virtually every neologizer of the first half of the sixteenth century. Even Thomas Elyot, humanist that he is, never shares the Cambridge humanists' confidence in classical perspectives on diction. Elyot's humanism is predomi- nantly Platonic, not Ciceronian. The political orientation of most of his work overshadows his interest in classical rhetoric and classical eloquence, which for the Cambridge humanists of the next generation becomes the focus of study. In the area of dic- tion Elyot could only compromise, never challenge the terms of the dilemma. His well-known practices of doubling and of defining each new word spring from the same pressure to create single-handedly and in isolation a solution that meets the author's felt need for new words without disenfranchising his reader. Generally, the enemies of neologizing fare no better, being frequently inspired not by well-defined standards of good diction but by sheer negativism. As English becomes more modish, obscure, and affected, their voices become more strident and abusive. Thus if the Cambridge humanists turn away from classical standards and guidelines toward the vehement, contra- dictory approaches and the chaotic, ever-changing rationales of their contemporaries, they hear only the voices of Babel.

The fundamental contribution of Ascham, Wilson, Cheke, and humanists of their persuasion is therefore to delineate a firm, even-handed approach to diction based on hitherto unavailable concepts and principles. To be sure, they are not immune from the vehemence and harshness of the controversy. Their view

4I The Prologues and Epilogues of William Caxton, ed. W. J. B. Crotch (London, I928), p. IO9.

396 Humanistic Standards of Diction

of the issues from a theoretical perspective cannot be divorced from their awareness of contemporary conditions. Time- honored classical precepts have meaning to them only in the context of a severely polarized controversy concerning the adequacy of the vocabulary of English. Nevertheless, they give direction to the controversy, inspiring new confidence in the adequacy of English. Above all, the classical foundation of their precepts enables them to moderate practices that otherwise tend to be extreme, compulsive, and quixotic. Noting the weight of Cheke's influence, Vere Rubel suggests that by the beginning of the reign of Elizabeth, "it was generally held that English had become adequate, even abundant." 42 The neologizers' compulsion to augment the language predominated only in the first half of the sixteenth century. Largely through the influence of the Cambridge humanists, the long-standing defensiveness and insecurity concerning the adequacy of English waned. Like Caesar in the ancient world, they acted to restore and stabilize the language through the application of theoretical principles con- cerning good usage.

State University of New York at Binghamton

42 Poetic Diction in the English Renaissance, p. I 3.