Humanistic Standards of Diction in the Inkhorn Controversy
Author(s): Alvin Vos
Reviewed work(s):
Source: Studies in Philology, Vol. 73, No. 4 (Oct., 1976), pp. 376-396
Published by: University of North Carolina Press
Stable 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 of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].
University of North Carolina Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to
Studies in Philology.
http://www.jstor.org
Humanistic
in
the
Standards
Inkhorn
of
Diction
Controversy
by AIlvinVoos
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 predominated 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 expression 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
However, in the 1540's a general revolt against
language."2
"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),
Cf. Vere Rubel, Poetic Diction in the English Renaissancefrom Skelton
pp. 68-14I.
throughSpenser (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 " outlandishEnglish." But, in Jones' view, the most sophisticated and balanced critics of neologizing were the Cambridge
humanists,for, although they too resentedthe obscurity and the
affectationof inkhorn terms, they were able to frame prescriptions for the remainingdeficienciesof the language.3 They alone
managedto oppose wholesale neologizing while allowing necessary 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 emphasisof Jones and others on the native
English context, the role of classical theory in the thinking of
the Cambridgehumanistshas not hitherto been explored. The
humanists'advocacy of linguistic purity has been viewed solely
in the light of the contemporarycontroversy. Their predecessors and contemporaries, rather than Cicero and Quintilian,
have supplied the terms by which we have measuredtheir contribution to the conflict over diction. Yet it was their adherence
to the precepts of classicalrhetoric 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 humanisticcontemporariesa hostility to affectationand to obscurity,theirswas 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
ragedaroundthem. Yet their approachto it was new. They were
responsive not merely to contemporaryconditions, but also to
classicalstandardsand guidelines. Groundedin the teachingsof
Cicero and Quintilian concerning proper diction, their perspective reinforced and complemented what many "purists" were
saying. The clarity, consistency, and sophistication of their
views were due in the firstplaceto theiruniqueclassicalapproach.
I
The importance of diction in classical rhetorical theory is
suggested by Caesar'swidely repeated dictum on style: "The
3
The Triumphof theEnglishLanguage,pp.
97-103.
378
HumanisticStandardsof Diction
choice of words is the foundation of eloquence." 4 This peremptory 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 uncorrupted."6 In a situation not dissimilar to that in sixteenthcentury 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 concerning usage and by objective standards of purity and propriety.
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 currentuse 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 perspicuity of a language. "Our words should have nothing provincial 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
of Rome serves as the touchcustomary speech (consuetudo)
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 customaryuse, 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
virtutesresults from the rhetoricians'assumptions about the invaluable contribution of consuetudo.Crassus,in De Oratore,says
explicitly that he skims rapidlyover the rules of correct diction
because they are imparted by "the habit of daily conversation
sermonisquotidianiac domestici).9
in the family circle" (consuetudo
Happily, in the process of acquiring the language, Roman children anticipatethe rhetoricians'conservativeallegianceto native
words in current use. Thus Quintilian can transpose many of
his comments on proper diction to his preliminarydiscussion of
elementaryeducationin Book One of the Institutio.Nevertheless,
neither he nor Cicero means to downgrade the importance of
puritasand perspicuitas.Unless one figures to learn the rules of
7 InstitutioOratoria
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 verbaLatina and verbaperegrina,especially their relationship to urbanitas,
a'la Recherche
des Sourcesde
see Jean Cousin, I8tudessurQuintilien,Vol. I, Contribution
l'InstituuionOratoire(I935; rpt. Amsterdam, I967), pp. 399-406.
8 De OratoreIII.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 OratoreI1.48.
38o
Humanistic
Standards
of Diction
purity and perspicuity in school through an intensive, systematic study of literature(a foolish redundancyin ancient Rome,
but a burdensomenecessity in RenaissanceEurope), following
consuetudo
is the condition of achieving these minimal, yet
indispensable,qualities.
If puritasis more nearlyan aestheticmatterof taste or literary
sophistication (the faults of speech lacking puritas are termed
barbarismsand solecisms),perspicuitascenters on the possibility
of communicationitself. 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 ambiguityof language or style."10 We meet here
for the first time that immensely significant word proprius:
"CCverbis
propriedemnonstratibus."
"Words in their literalmeaning"
is probablythe best renderinghere (propriaverbaare frequently
contrasted with verbatranslata,the Latin term for metaphor).
And yet the connotationsof the word arevery rich and ordinarily
go considerablybeyond mereliteralness. Quintiliandevotes half
of his chapter on perspicuitasto a treatment of the various
I The basic meaning of the termpropria
meaningsof proprietas."
verbais that word and thing belong together, that they fit each
other, that the word is appropriateto the matter. Only where
the antithesis of metaphoricaland nonmetaphoricalis at issue
does "appropriate" come to mean simply "literal." In most
cases, therefore,propriaverbais betterrendered"proper words,"
a simple-seemingtermwhich, we now realize,is heavilyfreighted
with meaning. Indeed, Quintilian, for whom perspicuitasis the
primary quality of style, makes propriety in words the chief
element of perspicuity. Thus in this the first locusin classical
10 De Oratore III.49, trans. Rackham: ". . . verbis usitatis ac proprie demonstrantibus 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 rhetoricaltheory the other locusfor the discussion of diction
is found in the analysisof ornatus,the third virtusdicendi.Now, as
both Cicero and Quintilian state immediately,ornatusresides in
either individual words or the arrangementof groups of words.
Only the former interests us here. From the fresh perspective
of ornatus,both Ciceroand Quintilianessentiallyconsolidateand
reinterpret the emphases we have already discovered: "The
words we employ then are either the properand definitedesignations of things, which were almost born at the same time as the
things themselves; or terms used metaphoricallyand placed in a
connexion not really belonging to them; or new coinages
invented by ourselves."12 Withinthis deceptivelysimpleenumeration lie the criteria by which one will choose and reject his
words. For, despite the apparentparallelismin these kinds of
words, the first,propriaverba,are basic and normativefor Cicero
and the rhetoricians. Metaphoricalwords (translataverba)are
"carried over" into the place ordinarily occupied by propria
verba. New coinages (facta verba)are occasionalwords, specially
created for a particular moment where "proper words" are
unavailable or unsuitable. But propriaverbaare, so to speak,
"almost born at the same time as the things themselves."
Cicero'smetaphorsuggests 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 ordinarilychosen from the range of
propriaverba,deviation from them requiresa rhetoricaljustification. Such deviations are not inherently objectionable but
desirableand effectiveon certainoccasions. Cicero explainsthat
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.
38z
HumanisticStandardsof Diction
Thus the conceptof " properwords" servesnot chieflyto restrict
and confine the orator but to delineatefor him a set of special
words which are particularlyapt for ornamentation: "There
are then three things which the orator contributesin the matter
of mere vocabularytowards the decoration and embellishment
of his style-rare words, new coinages, and words used metaphorically."I3 Archaisms (inusitataverba)here join facta verba
and translataverba(he could also have added borrowed words,
peregrinaverba)as the departuresfrom 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
Some new formations do, however, succeed in
words] ....
establishing themselves."14 In short, such words can be useful
and satisfying, but belong chieflyto a style with unusualornatus.
At every point classical rhetoricaltheory invariably returns to
propriaverbaand usitataverbaas the standardsin diction.
Two points need to be emphasizedat the conclusion of this
brief survey of classical rhetorical theory concerning diction.
First, the primacy of propriaverbaand 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 distinguished terms. . . . A certain choice must be exercised,and
this choice must be weighed by a criticalfaculty 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 quidam habendus atque is aurium quodam iudicio ponderandus...."
Cf. Institutio
OratoriaVIII.iii. I 6-z 3 .
Alvin Vos
383
no simple, mechanicalformula 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 featureof classicaltheory is what must
be calledits basic conservatismregardingdiction. 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 oratormust use the far-fetched,recondite,
or showy word sparingly if he is to be understood. Ornatasis
chieflygotten in anotherway. This is a matterof taste, of course,
and "Senecan" stylists grow more daring. And even Cicero
has ample room for metaphor and other extraordinarywords.
Nevertheless,when speakers,as Quintiliancomplainsconcerning
his contemporaries, begin to prefer the pointed, astonishing
word to the appropriate, the unusual to the apparent, then
decadencehas set in. Purity, propriety,and perspicuityare then
lost. "As a rule," asserts Quintilian, "the best words are essentially suggested by the subjectmatterand 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
inconsistentwith the idiom of ordinaryspeechand contraryto the
common feeling of mankind."I6 The concluding invocation of
one of the most basic principles of De Oratoreunderlines the
i6 Institutio Oratoria VIII.proem.2I-5,
trans. Butler: "Nam plerumque optima
rebus cohaerent et cernuntur suo lumine....
[verba] sunt optima minime arcessita
satis aperte Cicero
et simplicibus atque ab ipsa veritate profectis similia....
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
HumanisticStandardsof Diction
unanimityof rhetoricaltheoristsconcerningdiction. Adherence
is, as it were, a safeguardand a
to customaryusage (consuetudo)
guideline for speaking. In fact, it would be difficult to overin Quintilian's thinking.
estimate the importance of consuetudo
"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, customaryusage, and perspicuity are the watchwordsof classicaldoctrine.
II
In the Renaissancethe applicabilityof this classical doctrine
to English was first recognized by the coterie of humanists
centeredin St. John's College, Cambridge. Even for the study of
Latin, however, classicalprinciplesand standardsof diction had
to be adjustedand reinterpreted,for Renaissanceschoolboys 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 humanists 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
38 5
" French English," " English Italienated," and all " talke
poudered with ouersea language" does to some degree spring
simply from a distastefor the rankaffectationof 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'
analysisare the twin pillarssupportingvirtuallyall the attackson
inkhornism, do not originate merely in a broad-based, pragmatic concern with the eclipse of "the King's English." For
Wilson, affectationand obscurity are only the result of a deeper,
more fundamental dislocation of linguistic values. With the
assistanceof classicalprinciplesconcerningdictionWilson probes
the very root and essence of affectation.
Thus the locusof his discussion of inkhornism is, in a fitting
adaptationof the ancients' organization of the ars rhetorica,his
treatmentof "plainnesse," the first of his four virtutesdicendi.19
Like Cicero and Quintilian he perceives that the qualities of
puritas and perspicuitas pertain chiefly to diction. Equally
classicalare the basic concepts of his prescriptionsfor dictionpropriety, perspicuity, and customaryusage: "Those therefore
that will eschue this folly [i.e., inkhornism],and acquaintthemselves 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 properlymay expressein plaine maner,the
whole conceipt of their minde."20
The role of common speech and customaryusage in Wilson's
analysisis particularlylarge; indeed, Wilson dexterously makes
cut two ways. Its normative
this classical notion of consuetudo
force works, on the one hand, to condemn the "ouer fine"
speech of inveterateneologizers. For Wilson, as for Cicero and
Quintilian, following consuetudocannot be separated from
adheringto the native purity of the language: "Among all other
I8 The Triumphof the EnglishLanguage,pp. ioo-2.
For Wilson's attack, see The
Arte of Rhetorique,ed. G. H. Mair (Oxford, I909), pp. i62-5.
I9 In collapsingpuritasandperspicuitas
into " plainnesse," and dividing ornatusinto
"composition" and "exornation," Wilson appears to be following Rhetoricaad
HerenniumIV.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, preferringperegrinaverbaover usitataverba. 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 "prerogatiue," 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 conservatism 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 controversy. His concluding exhortation that we learn to avoid the
"follie" of inkhornismfrom 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 characterof Wilson's
analysis. For him classical rhetorical theory complements,
reinforces, and sharpensthe protest he voices with other, less
humanistic"purists."
Showing a moderation similar to Wilson's, John Cheke, the
leader of the Cambridgecircle, also looks beyond the English
battlefieldand drawshis inspirationfrom classicalprinciplesand
standardsof diction. Nevertheless, the unusually Saxon flavor
of his English diction, especiallyin the translationof the Gospels,
TheArte of Rhetorique,
p. 162.
TheArte of Rhetorique,
p. i65.
23 The Triumph
of theEnglishLanguage,p.
24 TheArte of Rhetorique,
p. I65.
21
22
I02.
Alvin Vos
387
has won him a reputationfor a unique kind of purism. This
enthusiasm for keeping English "unmixt and unmangeled" is
regularlylinked with that of Ralph Lever, a St. John's scholarof
the next generation, whose rigid, idiosyncraticArt 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 primarilyas a curious, idealistic enterprise,quaint
and even reactionary.25
However, Cheke never allows this apparent preference for
words of Saxonvintage to become an end in itself, just as he, like
Wilson, refuses simply to join most nonhumanisticcommentators in makingobscurityand affectationin contemporaryEnglish
the controlling issues in the formulationof principlesof diction.
His position in the inkhorn controversyderivesfrom his deeper,
morefundamentalallegianceto classicalprinciplesand standards.
The classical views expressed in his well-known letter of I557
(printedat the headof ThomasHoby's translationof Castiglione's
LibrodelCortegiano)
originatein his commitmentto the genius of a
language, to that which is naturalto it. For English such purity
alone is proper. Cheke's most basic concept of diction is the
classicalidea 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 metaphorof language as a creditorprone
to bankruptcy, Cheke's opinions are founded on the classical
25 See, for example, C. S. Lewis, EnglishLiteraturein theSixteenthCentury
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 Libraryedition of TheBook
of theCourtier,trans. Thomas Hoby (London and New York, I928).
388
HumanisticStandards
of Diction
conceptionsof purityandpropriety. His insistencethatlanguage
employ "her own" resourcesis only to takethe classicaldemands
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 classicalquality of Latinitas. His preferencefor "cdeaneand
pure" English parallelsCicero's and Quintilian'sestablishment
of the native, unadulterated speech of Rome as the norma
loquendi.Finally, his demandthat meaning be expressed"naturallie" 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 matterand 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 Ciceronianphilosophy which has words and things, like
wisdom and eloquence, united harmoniously.
When Cheke,like Wilson, goes on to sanctionwhat Jones has
termed "necessary neologizing," his comments again hark
back to classicalstandards. Although he does not call explicidy
for common words, his belief in the primacy of tradition and
custom neverthelessprompts 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 thereis a certainlinguistic decorumor norm
that must sometimes be oversteppedbecause of inadequaciesin
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 propriaverba,for the permissible
"shifts" or deviations that he goes on to enumerate follow
classical lines. The ancient rhetoricians had enumeratedfacta
verbaand inusitata(prisca)verbaas useful substitutes on special
occasions for propriaverba,and Cheke likewise namesfacta verba
("fascion a woord of our own") and inusitataverba("the old
denisoned wordes") as the preferable resources to ease the
shortageof English words. Only in one respectdoes Chekealter
the classical approach-and here we touch on what is usually
termed his preference for Saxon words. The ancients had
cautiously listed peregrinaverbaas one of the ways to give
language greaterflexibility. 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 possibilitiesfor English: it can drawupon eitherits own past,
or upon other languages. He prefers the former. His rationale
can be detected in his assumption that peregrinaverbaare "unknowen": facta verbaand inusitataverbaresemble most closely
proper, familiarwords, which, as rhetoricaltheory pointed out,
are the conditions for perspicuity. The apparentquaintness 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 consideredproposal to
withstand reckless inkhornists, Cheke's approachto diction is a
studied, humanisticattempt to domesticatesane principles concerning the most thorny issue in contemporaryspeech. Reduced
to fundamentals,Cheke'sposition on diction is that of the classical rhetoricians.
Roger Aschamaffordsthe most completetestimonyconcerning
the influence of classical rhetoric on humanistic thought about
diction. Propriety, purity, and perspicuityare ever on his lips,
and the classical emphasis on native, customary speech is
domesticatedagainst the onslaughts of "curious" wordsmiths.
"I have not attained to great power of eloquence," Ascham
390
HumanisticStandardsof 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 propriaverbaare the prerequisites of perspicuity. There can be no question but that Ascham
understandsthis in a basically Ciceronianfashion. In his last
letter to John Sturm, in which he summarizesTheSchoolmaster
for the benefitof 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 Latinityhe drankin the proprietyof
the Roman tongue right along with the milk of Rome."30
Aschamyearnsfor a culturein which customaryspeechwill automaticallyand effortlesslyinculcatethe peculiarvirtutesof diction.
As a baby Cicero could imbibe pure speech. "His language
could be chastein its native propriety,"3I continues Ascham. It
is one of his favorite phrases. He tries it out early in his career,
for example,in searchingfor a complimentsufficientto Princess
Elizabeth,his pupil: "In every kind of writing she readilynotices
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 perspicuityin diction are
her virtues. She likes the customary,common word, not the one
which stands out, "curiosiusaccersitum." 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 proprietatem 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 castam, perspicuitate illustrem, libenter probat."
Alvin Vos
391
"optima [verba] minime arcessita," and Cicero that one must be
carefullest he sound farfetched,"cavendumest, ne arcessitumdictum
putetur"?33 And once more drawingdirectlyon Cicero,Ascham
applaudsher naturalspeech where thing gives birth to the word;
"orationemex re natam," says Ascham; "vocabulapaene una nata
cumrebusipsis,"Cicerohad said. Elizabeth'sdiction, in fact every
one of her virtues, is describedin a pasticheof Ciceronianwords
and phrases.
Ascham's most plainspoken and thoughtful words about
diction occur in TheSchoolmasterwhen 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
Baedekerto those whose diction is pure and properand 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 enduremuch longer, thanis the life of a well-aged man."35
The best precautionis to adhere to classical standardsof 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 afraidto try them, both in proprietyof words and form of
style, by the touchstone of Caesarand Cicero, whose purity was
never soiled, no not by the sentence of those that loved them
worst.
36
These standardsof purity and propriety, as Ascham applies
them in this survey, are sharpdividers. Even the " short time of
any purenessof 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
34
35
36
Institutio Oratoria VIII.proem.23,
Works,III, 244.
Works,III, 244.
Works,III,
26I.
and De Oratore II.256.
392
Humanistic
Standardsof Diction
their "words." Only Terence is wholly safe, whose "words be
chosen so purely." "For word and speech,Plautusis moreplentifiil, and Terence more pure and proper." And lest we miss the
point about "all this good proprietyof words, and pureness of
phrases,which be in Terence," Ascham recallsus once more to
the standardsof orthodoxy: " And therefore,as oft as I readthose
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 elsewhere, has been hurt, even destroyedby some men who carenot
for words, but for matter, Ascham clings to a fond, visionary
hope that somehow through literatureEnglish schoolboys can,
like the children of Rome, acquire linguistic purity and propriety 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 underscoresAscham's
classicalapproachto diction, it also confirms-and then elaborates-our earlieranalysisof John Cheke's stand on diction; for
Ascham's earnest evaluation of Sallust is really Cheke's: "My
dearestfriendand best masterthat ever I had or heardin 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 improprietyin diction to Sallust's neglect of
perspicuitas: "'hedoth not expressthe matterlively and naturally
with common speech.... Caesarand 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
rhetoricalartificein diction. Sallust'sartificialityis not merely
affectation,it is unnaturalness:Ascham seems to have in mind
Works,III, z45-8.
The "lesson for Sallust," from which the quotations in this and the following
two paragraphsare taken, is found in Works,III, 264-73.
37
38
AIvin Vos
393
the Ciceronianconception of the best word as the naturalword,
born out of the thing. Again invoking the touchstones,
Ascham here assumesthe interdependencyof classicalnotions of
custom, naturalness,purity, perspicuity,and propriety.
For Ascham Sallust's failure to use "common speech" is an
especially serious departurefrom classical criteria for diction:
"Caesarand Cicero ... were daily orators amongst the common
people, and greatest counsellors in the senate-house;and therefore gave themselves to use such speech as the meanest should
well understand,and wisest best allow; following carefullythat
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 corruptedhis 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 verbahe cultivates archaic words,
which Cicero had said are a special kind of word to be used
sparinglyfor 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 slavishlyCiceronian,Aschamreturns
in the end to good classicalprinciples:the best words are neither
very old nor completelynew, but properand 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 criteriaare 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.
HumanisticStandardsof Diction
394
In Toxophilus(I 545) Ascham applies these classicalprinciples
and standardsdirectly to English. He does not shrink from
demandingthat giddy inkhornists,who, like Sallust, "make all
things darkand hard,"imitate Cicero,who "increasedthe 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 domesticatesclassical standardsof purity, perspicuity, and common usage.39 In a letter to Bishop Gardinerhe
drawsspecificallyon Cicero'sand Quintilian'sLatinterminology
to define his policy concerningthe 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 (domesticiet proprii), but foreign and
outlandish (peregriniet advenae).40
Thus recourse to the ancient classics is Ascham's confident
response to the contemporarycrisis 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
universallyapplicablestandardsof a languageand culturewhich
had masteredthe art of speaking well.
The centralproblemof the inkhornists-as well as of virtually
all of their unhumanisticopponents-is their inability to rally
39 Works, II, 7. The humanists had virtually assimilated Aristotle's maxim (from
TopicsII.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 termerariosin
hoc studendi genere elaborasse intelligam. Materiam autem inanem aut eorum
facultati imparemsequuntur, in qua re verba propria et perspicuafugiunt, translata
et ad verum splendoremaccommodatanesciunt; ... et sic in nostra lingua vernacula
non domestici et proprii sed peregrini et advenae esse student."
Alvin Vos
395
around comprehensive,moderateguidelines for remedying any
inadequacyin the English language. Their policies are essentially ad hoc. Aimless and perplexed, they simply have no
established standards or principles to which they can turn.
Victims of antitheticalpressuresto 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'splight is the plight of virtuallyevery neologizer of the
firsthalf of the sixteenthcentury. Even Thomas Elyot, humanist
that he is, never shares the Cambridgehumanists'confidencein
classicalperspectives on diction. Elyot's humanismis predominantlyPlatonic,not Ciceronian. The politicalorientationof most
of his work overshadows his interest in classical rhetoric and
classical eloquence, which for the Cambridgehumanists of the
next generation becomes the focus of study. In the area of diction Elyot could only compromise,never challenge the terms of
the dilemma. His well-known practices of doubling and of
definingeach new word spring from the same pressure to create
single-handedlyand in isolation a solution that meets the author's
felt need for new words without disenfranchisinghis reader.
Generally, the enemies of neologizing fare no better, being
frequentlyinspirednot by well-definedstandardsof 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
classicalstandardsand guidelines toward the vehement, contradictory approachesand the chaotic, ever-changingrationalesof
their contemporaries,they hear only the voices of Babel.
The fundamentalcontributionof Ascham,Wilson, Cheke,and
humanists of their persuasion is therefore to delineate a firm,
even-handedapproachto 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 Prologuesand Epiloguesof
I928), p. IO9.
William Caxton, ed. W. J. B. Crotch (London,
Standardsof Diction
Humanistic
396
of the issues from a theoreticalperspective cannot be divorced
from their awareness of contemporary conditions. Timehonored classical precepts have meaning to them only in the
context of a severely polarized controversy concerning the
adequacyof the vocabularyof English. Nevertheless, they give
direction to the controversy, inspiring new confidence in the
adequacyof English. Above all, the classicalfoundationof their
preceptsenablesthem to moderatepracticesthat otherwise tend
to be extreme, compulsive, and quixotic. Noting the weight of
Cheke'sinfluence,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 predominatedonly in the
first half of the sixteenthcentury. Largelythrough the influence
of the Cambridgehumanists, the long-standing defensiveness
and insecurityconcerningthe adequacyof English waned. Like
Caesarin the ancientworld, they actedto restoreand stabilizethe
language through the applicationof theoreticalprinciples concerning good usage.
State Universityof New York at Binghamton
42
Poetic Diction in the English Renaissance,p.
I
3.