_degree_, _appear_, _consent_, _repent_, _demand_, _report_,
_suspect_, _affront_, _event_.
4. TROCHÆUS, or CHOREUS, a long and a short. Ex. _fervat_,
_whereby_, _after_, _legal_, _measure_, _burden_, _holy_, _lofty_.
5. TRIBRACHYS, three short. Ex. _melius_, _property_.
6. MOLOSSUS, three long. Ex. _delectant_.
7. ANAPÆSTUS, two short and a long. Ex. _animos_, _condescend_,
_apprehend_, _overheard_, _acquiesce_, _immature_, _overcharge_,
_serenade_, _opportune_.
8. DACTYLUS, a long and two short. Ex. _carmina_, _evident_,
_excellence_, _estimate_, _wonderful_, _altitude_, _burdened_,
_minister_, _tenement_.
9. BACCHIUS, a short and two long. Ex. _dolores_.
10. HYPPOBACCHIUS, or ANTIBACCHIUS, two long and a short. Ex.
_pelluntur_.
11. CRETICUS, or AMPHIMACER, a short syllable betwixt two long. Ex.
_infito_, _afternoon_.
12. AMPHIBRACHYS, a long syllable betwixt two short. Ex. _honore_,
_consider_, _imprudent_, _procedure_, _attended_, _proposed_,
_respondent_, _concurrence_, _apprentice_, _respective_,
_revenue_.
13. PROCELEUSMATICUS, four short syllables. Ex. _hominibus_,
_necessary_.
14. DISPONDEUS, four long syllables. Ex. _infinitis_.
15. DIIAMBUS, composed of two Iambi. Ex. _severitas_.
16. DITROCHÆUS, of two Trochæi. Ex. _permanere_, _procurator_.
17. IONICUS, two short syllables and two long. Ex. _properabant_.
18. Another foot passes under the same name, composed of two long
syllables and two short. Ex. _calcaribus_, _possessory_.
19. CHORIAMBUS, two short syllables betwixt two long. Ex.
_Nobilitas_.
20. ANTISPASTUS, two long syllables betwixt two short. Ex.
_Alexander_.
21. PÆON 1st, one long syllable and three short. Ex. _temporibus_,
_ordinary_, _inventory_, _temperament_.
22. PÆON 2d, the second syllable long, and the other three short.
Ex. _potentia_, _rapidity_, _solemnity_, _minority_, _considered_,
_imprudently_, _extravagant_, _respectfully_, _accordingly_.
23. PÆON 3d, the third syllable long and the other three short. Ex.
_animatus_, _independent_, _condescendence_, _sacerdotal_,
_reimbursement_, _manufacture_.
24. PÆON 4th, the last syllable long and the other three short. Ex.
_Celeritas_.
25. EPITRITUS 1st, the first syllable short and the other three
long. Ex. _voluptates_.
26. EPITRITUS 2d, the second syllable short and the other three
long. Ex. _pænitentes_.
27. EPITRITUS 3d, the third syllable short and the other three
long. Ex. _discordias_.
28. EPITRITUS 4th, the last syllable short and the other three
long. Ex. _fortunatus_.
29. A word of five syllables composed of a Pyrrhichius and
Dactylus. Ex. _ministerial_.
30. A word of five syllables composed of a Trochæus and Dactylus.
Ex. _singularity_.
31. A word of five syllables composed of a Dactylus and Trochæus.
Ex. _precipitation_, _examination_.
32. A word of five syllables, the second only long. Ex.
_necessitated_, _significancy_.
33. A word of six syllables composed of two Dactyles. Ex.
_impetuosity_.
34. A word of six syllables composed of a Tribrachys and Dactyle.
Ex. _pusillanimity_.
_N. B._ Every word may be considered as a prose foot, because every word
is distinguished by a pause; and every foot in verse may be considered
as a verse word, composed of syllables pronounced at once without a
pause.
End of the SECOND VOLUME.
FOOTNOTES:
[1] Nec vero illa parva vis naturæ est rationisque, quod unum hoc
animal sentit quid sit ordo, quid sit quod deceat in factis dictisque,
qui modus. Itaque eorum ipsorum, quæ aspectu sentiuntur, nullum aliud
animal, pulchritudinem, venustatem, convenientiam partium, sentit.
Quam similitudinem natura ratioque ab oculis ad animum transferens,
multo etiam magis pulchritudinem, constantiam, ordinem, in consiliis
factisque conservandum putat, cavetque ne quid indecorè effeminatève
faciat; tum in omnibus et opinionibus et factis ne quid libidinosè aut
faciat aut cogitet. Quibus ex rebus conflatur et efficitur id, quod
quærimus, honestum. _Cicero de officiis, l._ 1.
[2] From many things that pass current in the world without being
generally condemned, one at first view would imagine, that the sense
of congruity or propriety hath scarce any foundation in nature; and
that it is rather an artificial refinement of those who affect to
distinguish themselves by a certain delicacy of taste and behaviour.
The fulsome panegyrics bestowed upon the great and opulent, in epistles
dedicatory and other such compositions, lead naturally to that thought.
Did there prevail in the world, it will be said, or did nature suggest,
a taste of what is suitable, decent, or proper, would any good writer
deal in such compositions, or any man of sense receive them without
disgust? Can it be supposed, that Lewis XIV. of France was endued by
nature with any sense of propriety, when, in a dramatic performance
purposely composed for his entertainment, he suffered himself, publicly
and in his presence, to be styled the greatest king ever the earth
produced? These it is true are strong facts; but luckily they do not
prove the sense of propriety to be artificial. They only prove, that
the sense of propriety is at times overpowered by pride and vanity;
which is no singular case, for this sometimes is the fate even of the
sense of justice.
[3] Contrary to this rule, the introduction to the third volume of
the _Characteristics_, is a continued chain of metaphors. These in
such profusion are too florid for the subject; and have beside the bad
effect of removing our attention from the principal subject, to fix it
upon splendid trifles.
[4] See act 1. sc. 2.
[5] See chap. 7.
[6] See chap. 3.
[7] See the Introduction.
[8] Part I. essay 2. chap. 4.
[9] Poet. cap. 5.
[10] L. 2. De oratore.
[11] Ideoque anceps ejus rei ratio est, quod a derisu non procul abest
risus. _Lib._ 6. _cap._ 3. § 1.
[12] See chap. 7.
[13] See chap. 10.
[14] Scarron.
[15] Tassoni.
[16] Nº 102.
[17] Tale of a Tub, sect. 7.
[18] A true and faithful narrative of what passed in London during the
general consternation of all ranks and degrees of mankind.
[19] Æn. l. 1. _At Venus obscuro_, &c.
[20] See chap. 10. compared with chap. 7.
[21] B. 2. ch. 11. § 2.
[22] See chap. 1.
[23] De oratore, l. 2. cap. 63.
[24]
If all the year were playing holidays,
To sport would be as tedious as to work:
But when they seldom come, they wish’d-for come,
And nothing pleaseth but rare accidents.
_First part, Henry_ IV. _act 1. sc. 3._
[25] Violent love without affection is finely exemplified in the
following story. When Constantinople was taken by the Turks, Irene, a
young Greek of an illustrious family, fell into the hands of Mahomet
II. who was at that time in the prime of youth and glory. Irene’s
charms conquered the savage heart of Mahomet. He abandoned himself to
his new mistress; and shut himself up with her, denying access even to
his ministers. His passion seemed to increase with time. In the most
important expeditions, frequently would he abandon the army, and fly to
his Irene. War was at a stand, for victory was no longer the monarch’s
favourite passion. The soldiers, accustomed to booty, began to murmur,
and the infection spread even among the commanders. The Basha Mustapha,
consulting the fidelity he owed his master, was the first who durst
acquaint him of the discourses held publicly to the prejudice of his
glory.
The Sultan, after a gloomy silence, formed his resolution. He ordered
Mustapha to assemble the troops next morning; and then retired with
precipitation to Irene’s apartment. Never before did that princess
appear so charming: never before did the prince bestow so many tender
caresses. To give a new lustre to her beauty, he exhorted her women
next morning to bestow all their art and care on her dress. He took her
by the hand, led her into the middle of the army, and pulling off her
vail, demanded at the Bashas with a fierce look, whether they had ever
beheld so accomplished a beauty? After an awful pause, Mahomet with one
hand laying hold of the young Greek by her beautiful locks, and with
the other pulling out his simitar, severed the head from the body at
one stroke. Then turning to his grandees, with eyes wild and furious,
“This sword,” says he, “when it is my will, knows to cut the bands of
love.”
[26] See chap. 2. part 3.
[27] Lady Easy, upon her husband’s reformation, expresses to her friend
the following sentiment. “Be satisfy’d; Sir Charles has made me happy,
even to a pain of joy.”
[28] See chap. 2. part 3.
[29] See chap. 2. part 3.
[30] See chap. 2. part 4.
[31] Chap. 2. part 1. sect. 2.
[32] See chap. 2. part 1. sect. 6.
[33] Act 2.
[34] Omnis enim motus animi, suum quemdam a natura habet vultum et
sonum et gestum. _Cicero, l. 3. De oratore._
[35] See this explained, Essays on morality and natural religion, part
2. essay 5.
[36] See chap. 2. part 6.
[37] See chap. 17.
[38] Though a soliloquy in the perturbation of passion is undoubtedly
natural, and indeed not unfrequent in real life; yet Congreve, who
himself has penned several good soliloquies, yields, with more candor
than knowledge, that they are unnatural; and he only pretends to
justify them from necessity. This he does in his dedication of the
_Double Dealer_, in the following words. “When a man in soliloquy
reasons with himself, and _pro’s_ and _con’s_, and weighs all his
designs; we ought not to imagine, that this man either talks to us,
or to himself; he is only thinking, and thinking (frequently) such
matter as were inexcuseable folly in him to speak. But because we are
concealed spectators of the plot in agitation, and the poet finds it
necessary to let us know the whole mystery of his contrivance, he is
willing to inform us of this person’s thoughts; and to that end is
forced to make use of the expedient of speech, no other better way
being yet invented for the communication of thought.”
[39] Act 3. sc. 6.
40
: The actions here chiefly in view, are what a passion
suggests in order to its gratification. Beside these, actions are
occasionally exerted to give some vent to a passion, without proposing
an ultimate gratification. Such occasional action is characteristical of
the passion in a high degree; and for that reason, when happily
invented, has a wonderful good effect in poetry:
_Hamlet._ Oh most pernicious woman!
Oh villain, villain, smiling damned villain!
My tables---- meet it is I set it down,
That one may smile, and smile, and be a villain;
At least I’m sure it may be so in Denmark. [_Writing._
So, uncle, there you are.
_Hamlet, act 1. sc. 8._
[41] See chap. 2. part 7.
[42] See passions explained as agreeable or disagreeable, chap. 2. part
2.
[43] Locke.
[44] Rough and blunt manners, are allied to anger by an internal
feeling, as well as by external expressions resembling in a faint
degree those of anger. Therefore such manners are easily heightened
into anger; and savages for that reason are prone to anger. Thus rough
and blunt manners are unhappy in two respects. They are first readily
converted into anger: and next, the change being imperceptible, because
of the similitude of external signs, the person against whom the
anger is directed is not put upon his guard. It is for these reasons
a great object in society, to correct such manners, and to bring on
a habit of sweetness and calmness. This temper has two opposite good
effects. First it is not easily provoked to wrath. Next the interval
being great betwixt it and real anger, a person of this temper who
receives an affront, has many changes to go through before his anger
be inflamed. These changes have each of them their external sign, and
the offending party is put upon his guard, to retire, or to endeavour a
reconciliation.
[45] See chap. 2. part 1. sect. 5.
[46] See chap. 2. part 7.
[47] See Appendix.
[48] In the _Æneid_, the hero is made to describe himself in the
following words: _Sum pius Æneas, fama super æthera notus._ Virgil
could never have been guilty of an impropriety so gross, had he assumed
the personage of his hero, instead of uttering the sentiments of a
spectator. Nor would Xenophon have made the following speech for Cyrus
the younger, to his Grecian auxiliaries, whom he was leading against
his brother Artaxerxes. “I have chosen you, O Greeks! my auxiliaries,
not to enlarge my army, for I have _Barbarians_ without number; but
because you surpass all the _Barbarians_ in valour and military
discipline.” This sentiment is Xenophon’s; for surely Cyrus did not
reckon his countrymen Barbarians.
[49] See chap. 2. part 1. sect 6.
[50] This criticism reaches the French dramatic writers in general,
with very few exceptions. Their tragedies are mostly, if not totally,
descriptive. Corneille led the way; and later writers following his
track, have accustomed the French ear to a style, formal, pompous,
declamatory, which suits not with any passion. Hence it becomes an
easy task to burlesk a French tragedy: it is not more difficult than
to burlesk a stiff solemn fop. The facility of the operation has in
Paris introduced a singular amusement, which is, to burlesk the more
successful tragedies in a sort of farce, called _a parody_. La Motte,
who himself appears to have been sorely galled by some of these burlesk
compositions, acknowledges, that no more is necessary to give them a
run, than barely to vary the _dramatis personæ_, and in place of kings
and heroes, queens and princesses, to substitute tinkers and tailors,
milkmaids and seamstresses. The declamatory style, so different from
the genuine expression of passion, passes in some measure unobserved,
when great personages are the speakers. But in the mouths of the
vulgar, the impropriety, with regard to the speaker as well as to
the passion represented, is so remarkable as to become ridiculous. A
tragedy, where every passion is made to speak in its natural tone,
is not liable to be thus burlesked. The same passion is by all men
expressed nearly in the same manner: and therefore the genuine
expressions of passion cannot be ridiculous in the mouth of any man,
provided only he be of such a character as to be susceptible of the
passion.
It is a well-known fact, that to an English ear the French actors
appear to pronounce with too great rapidity; a complaint much insisted
on by Cibber in particular, who had frequently heard the famous Baron
upon the French stage. This may in some measure be attributed to our
want of facility in the French language; as foreigners generally
imagine, that every language is pronounced too quick by natives.
But that it is not the sole cause, will be probable from a fact
directly opposite, that the French are not a little disgusted with
the languidness, as they term it, of the English pronunciation. I
conjecture this difference of taste may be derived from what is
observed above. The pronunciation of the genuine language of passion is
necessarily directed by the nature of the passion, and by the slowness
or celerity of its progress. In particular, plaintive passions, which
are the most frequent in tragedy, having a slow motion, dictate a slow
pronunciation. In declamation again, which is not the genuine language
of any passion, the speaker warms gradually; and as he warms, he
naturally accelerates his pronunciation. But as the French have formed
their tone of pronunciation upon Corneille’s declamatory tragedies, and
the English upon the more natural language of Shakespear, it is not
surprising that custom should produce such difference of taste in the
two nations.
[51] See chap. 2. part 3.
[52] See chap. 2. part 7.
[53] Titus Livius, l. 29. §17.
[54] Canto 20. stan. 124. 125. & 126.
[55] Page 316.
[56] Act 1. sc. 1.
[57] Act 2. sc. 1.
[58] Beginning of act 2.
[59] Act 3. sc. 3. at the close.
[60] A certain author says humourously, “Les mots mêmes d’amour et
d’amant sont bannis de l’intime société des deux sexes, et relegués
avec ceux de _chaine_ et de _flame_ dans les Romans qu’on ne lit plus.”
And where nature is once banished, a fair field is open to every
fantastic imitation, even the most extravagant.
[61] Act 4. sc. 5.
[62] Act 4. sc. 7.
[63] This observation is finely illustrated by a story which Herodotus
records, _book 3_. Cambyses when he conquered Egypt, took Psammenitus
the King prisoner: and to try his constancy, ordered his daughter to be
dressed in the habit of a slave, and to be employ’d in bringing water
from the river. His son also was led to execution with a halter about
his neck. The Egyptians vented their sorrow in tears and lamentations.
Psammenitus only, with a down-cast eye, remained silent. Afterward
meeting one of his companions, a man advanced in years, who being
plundered of all, was begging alms, he wept bitterly, calling him by
his name. Cambyses was struck with wonder, and sent a messenger with
the following question, “Psammenitus, thy master Cambyses is desirous
to know, why, after thou hadst seen thy daughter so ignominiously
treated, and thy son led to execution, without exclamation or weeping,
thou shouldst be so highly concerned for a poor man no way related to
thee?” Psammenitus returned the following answer: “Son of Cyrus, the
calamities of my family are too great to leave me the power of weeping:
but the misfortunes of a companion, reduced in his old age to want of
bread, is a fit subject for lamentation.”
[64] See chap. 2. part 3.
[65] Chap. 16.
[66] See this explained more particularly in chap. 8.
[67] Of this take the following specimen:
They clepe us drunkards, and with swinish phrase
Soil our addition; and, indeed, it takes
From our atchievements, though perform’d at height,
The pith and marrow of our attribute.
So, oft it chances in particular men,
That for some vicious mole of nature in them,
As, in their birth, (wherein they are not guilty,
Since Nature cannot chuse his origin),
By the o’ergrowth of some complexion
Oft breaking down the pales and forts of reason;
Or by some habit, that too much o’er-leavens
The form of plausive manners; that these men
Carrying, I say, the stamp of one defect,
(Being Nature’s livery, or Fortune’s scar),
Their virtues else, be they as pure as grace,
As infinite as man may undergo,
Shall in the general censure take corruption
From that particular fault.
_Hamlet, act 1. sc. 7._
[68] The critics seem not perfectly to comprehend the genius of
Shakespear. His plays are defective in the mechanical part, which
is less the work of genius than of experience; and is not otherwise
brought to perfection than by diligently observing the errors of
former compositions. Shakespear excels all the ancients and moderns,
in knowledge of human nature, and in unfolding even the most obscure
and refined emotions. This is a rare faculty, and of the greatest
importance in a dramatic author; and it is this faculty which makes him
surpass all other writers in the comic as well as tragic vein.
[69] Soliloquies accounted for chap. 15.
[70] Act 2. sc. 2.
[71] Act 1. sc. 1.
[72] Act 1. sc. 2.
[73] Act 1. sc. 2.
[74] See chap. 2. part 1. sect. 4.
[75] Here the German _a_ is understood.
[76] That the Italian tongue is rather too smooth, seems to appear from
considering, that in versification vowels are frequently suppressed in
order to produce a rougher and bolder tone.
[77] See Swift’s proposal for correcting the English tongue, in a
letter to the Earl of Oxford.
[78] See the reason, chap. 8.
[79] De structura perfectæ orationis, l. 2.
[80] Scot’s Christian life.
[81] Elements of criticism, vol. 1. p. 43.
[82] Chap. 2. part 4.
[83] Ibid.
[84] See Gerard’s French grammar, discourse 12.
[85] An argument against abolishing Christianity, Swift.
[86] Letter concerning enthusiasm. Shaftesbury.
[87] See chap. 8.
[88] Treatise of the sublime, cap. 16.
[89] Taking advantage of a declension to separate an adjective from its
substantive, as is commonly practised in Latin, though it detract not
from perspicuity, is certainly less neat than the English method of
juxtaposition. Contiguity is more expressive of an intimate relation,
than resemblance merely of the final syllables. Latin indeed has
evidently the advantage when the adjective and substantive happen to
be connected by contiguity as well as by the resemblance of the final
syllables.
[90] See chap. 1.
[91] Reflections sur la poesie Françoise.
[92] See chap. 2. part 1. sect. 4.
[93] Poet. L. 3. l. 365.-454.
[94] See chap. 2. part 4.
[95] De oratore, l. 3. cap. 58.
[96] De structura orationis, sect. 2.
[97] From this passage, however, we discover the etymology of the
Latin term for musical expression. Every one being sensible that there
is no music in a continued sound; the first inquiries were probably
carried no farther, than that to produce a musical expression, a number
of sounds is necessary; and musical expression obtained the name of
_numerus_, before it was clearly ascertained, that variety is necessary
as well as number.
[98] Music, properly so called, is analysed into melody and harmony.
A succession of sounds so as to be agreeable to the ear, constitutes
melody. Harmony is the pleasure that arises from co-existing sounds.
Verse therefore can only reach melody, and not harmony.
[99] After some attention given to this subject, and weighing
deliberately every circumstance, I have been forc’d to rest upon the
foregoing conclusion, That the Dactyle and Spondee are no other than
artificial measures invented for trying the accuracy of composition.
Repeated experiments convince me, that though the sense should be
altogether neglected, an Hexameter line read by Dactyles and Spondees,
will not be melodious. And the composition of an Hexameter line
demonstrates this to be true, without necessity of an experiment. It
will appear afterward, that in an Hexameter line, there must always
be a capital pause at the end of the fifth long syllable, reckoning,
as above, two short for one long. And when we measure this line by
Dactyles and Spondees, the pause now mentioned divides always a Dactyle
or a Spondee: it never falls in at the end of either of these feet.
Hence it is evident, that if a line be pronounced, as it is scanned,
by Dactyles and Spondees, the pause must be utterly neglected; which
consequently must destroy the melody, because a pause is essential to
the melody of an Hexameter verse. If, on the other hand, the melody
be preserved by making this pause, the pronouncing by Dactyles and
Spondees must be abandoned.
What has led grammarians into the use of Dactyles and Spondees, seems
not beyond the reach of conjecture. To produce melody, the latter
part of a Hexameter line consisting of a Dactyle and a Spondee,
must be read according to these feet: in this part of the line, the
Dactyle and Spondee are distinctly expressed in the pronunciation.
This discovery, joined with another, that the foregoing part of the
verse could be measured by the same feet, has led grammarians to adopt
these artificial measures, and perhaps rashly to conclude, that the
pronunciation is directed by these feet as well as the composition.
The Dactyle and Spondee at the close, serve indeed the double purpose
of regulating the pronunciation as well as the composition: but in the
foregoing part of the line, they regulate the composition only, not the
pronunciation.
If we must have feet in verse to regulate the pronunciation, and
consequently the melody, these feet must be determined by the pauses.
The whole syllables interjected betwixt two pauses ought to be deemed
one musical foot; because, to preserve the melody, they must all be
pronounced together, without any stop. And therefore, whatever number
there are of pauses in a Hexameter line, the parts into which it is
divided by these pauses, make just so many musical feet.