"Cathmon, thy name is a pleasant _gale_."--_Ossian_. "Rolled into himself

he flew, wide on the _bosom of winds_. The old _oak felt_ his departure,

and _shook_ its whistling _head_."--_Id._ "Carazan gradually lost the

inclination to do good, as he acquired the power; as the _hand of time_

scattered _snow_ upon his head, the _freeziny influence_ [sic--KTH]

extended to his bosom."--_Hawkesworth_. "The sun _grew weary_ of gilding

the palaces of Morad; _the clouds of sorrow_ gathered round his head; and

_the tempest of hatred_ roared about his dwelling."--_Dr. Johnson_.

LESSON VII.--FIGURES OF RHETORIC.

FIGURE III.--ALLEGORY.

"But what think ye? A certain man had two sons; and he came to the first,

and said, 'Son, go work to-day in my vineyard.' He answered and said, 'I

will not;' but afterward he repented, and went. And he came to the second,

and said likewise. And he answered and said, 'I go, sir;' and went not.

Whether of them twain did the will of his father? They say unto him, 'The

first.'"--_Matt._, xxi, 28-31.

FIGURE IV.--METONYMY.

"Swifter than a whirlwind, flies the leaden _death_."--_Hervey_. "'Be all

the dead forgot,' said Foldath's bursting _wrath_. 'Did not I fail in the

field?'"--_Ossian_.

"Their _furrow_ oft the stubborn glebe has broke."--_Gray_.

"Firm in his love, resistless in his hate,

His arm is _conquest_, and his frown is _fate_."--_Day_.

"At length the _world_, renew'd by calm repose,

Was strong for toil; the dappled morn arose."--_Parnell_.

"What modes of sight betwixt each wide extreme,

The mole's dim curtain and the lynx's _beam_!

Of hearing, from the _life_ that fills the flood,

To _that_ which warbles through the vernal wood!"--_Pope_.

FIGURE V.--SYNECDOCHE.

"'Twas then his _threshold_ first receiv'd a guest."--_Parnell_.

"For yet by swains alone the world he knew,

Whose _feet_ came wand'ring o'er the nightly dew."--_Id._

"Flush'd by the spirit of the genial _year_,

Now from the virgin's cheek a fresher bloom

Shoots, less and less, the live carnation round."--_Thomson_.

LESSON VIII.--FIGURES OF RHETORIC.

FIGURE VI.--HYPERBOLE.

"I saw their chief, tall as a rock of ice; his spear, the blasted fir; his

shield the rising moon; he sat on the shore, like a cloud of mist on the

hill."--_Ossian_.

"At which the universal host up sent

A shout, that tore Hell's concave, and beyond

Frighted the reign of Chaos and old Night."--_Milton_.

"Will all great Neptune's ocean wash this blood

Clean from my hand? No; this my hand will rather

The multitudinous seas incarnadine,

Making the green one red!"--_Shakspeare_.

FIGURE VII.--VISION.

"How mighty is their defence who reverently trust in the arm of God! How

powerfully do they contend who fight with lawful weapons! Hark! 'Tis the

voice of eloquence, pouring forth the living energies of the soul;

pleading, with generous indignation and holy emotion, the cause of injured

humanity against lawless might, and reading the awful destiny that awaits

the oppressor!--I see the stern countenance of despotism overawed! I see

the eye fallen, that kindled the elements of war! I see the brow relaxed,

that scowled defiance at hostile thousands! I see the knees tremble, that

trod with firmness the embattled field! Fear has entered that heart which

ambition had betrayed into violence! The tyrant feels himself a man, and

subject to the weakness of humanity!--Behold! and tell me, is that power

contemptible which can thus find access to the sternest hearts?"--_Author_.

FIGURE VIII.--APOSTROPHE.

"Yet still they breathe destruction, still go on,

Inhumanly ingenious to find out

New pains for life, new terrors for the grave;

Artificers of death! Still monarchs dream

Of universal empire growing up

From universal ruin. _Blast the design_,

_Great God of Hosts! nor let thy creatures fall_

_Unpitied victims at Ambition's shrine_."--_Porteus_.

LESSON IX.--FIGURES OF RHETORIC.

FIGURE IX.--PERSONIFICATION.

"Hail, sacred _Polity_, by _Freedom_ rear'd!

Hail, sacred _Freedom_, when by _Law_ restrain'd!

Without you, what were man? A grov'ling herd,

In darkness, wretchedness, and want, enchain'd."--_Beattie_.

"Let cheerful _Mem'ry_, from her purest cells,

Lead forth a godly train of _Virtues_ fair,

Cherish'd in early youth, now paying back

With tenfold usury the pious care."--_Porteus_.

FIGURE X.--EROTESIS.

"He that chastiseth the heathen, shall not he correct? He that teacheth man

knowledge, shall not he know?"--_Psalms_, xciv, 10. "Can the Ethiopian

change his skin, or the leopard his spots? then may ye also do good, that

are accustomed to do evil."--_Jeremiah_, xiii, 23.

FIGURE XI.--ECPHONESIS. "O that my head were waters, and mine eyes a

fountain of tears, that I might weep day and night for the slain of the

daughter of my people! O that I had in the wilderness a lodging place of

way-faring men, that I might leave my people, and go from

them!"--_Jeremiah_, ix, 1.

FIGURE XII.--ANTITHESIS.

"On this side, modesty is engaged; on that, impudence: on this, chastity;

on that, lewdness: on this, integrity; on that, fraud: on this, piety; on

that, profaneness: on this, constancy; on that, fickleness: on this,

honour; on that, baseness: on this, moderation; on that, unbridled

passion."--_Cicero_.

"She, from the rending earth, and bursting skies,

Saw gods descend, and fiends infernal rise;

Here fix'd the dreadful, there the blest abodes;

Fear made her devils, and weak hope her gods."--_Pope_.

LESSON X.--FIGURES OF RHETORIC.

FIGURE XIII.--CLIMAX.

"Virtuous actions are necessarily approved by the awakened conscience; and

when they are approved, they are commended to practice; and when they are

practised, they become easy; and when they become easy, they afford

pleasure; and when they afford pleasure, they are done frequently; and when

they are done frequently, they are confirmed by habit: and confirmed habit

is a kind of second nature."--_Inst._, p. 246.

"Weep all of every name: begin the wo,

Ye woods, and tell it to the doleful winds;

And doleful winds, wail to the howling hills;

And howling hills, mourn to the dismal vales;

And dismal vales, sigh to the sorrowing brooks;

And sorrwing brooks, weep to the weeping stream;

And weeping stream, awake the groaning deep;

And let the instrument take up the song,

Responsive to the voice--harmonious wo!"--_Pollok_, B. vi, l. 115.

FIGURE XIV.--IRONY.

"And it came to pass at noon, that Elijah mocked them, and said, 'Cry

aloud; for he is a god: either he is talking, or he is pursuing, or he is

in [_on_] a journey, or peradventure he sleepeth, and must be awaked!'

"--_1 Kings_, xviii, 27.

"After the number of the days in which ye searched the land, even forty

days, each day for a year, shall ye bear your iniquities, even forty years;

and ye shall know my breach of promise."--_Numbers_, xiv, 34.

"Some lead a life unblamable and just,

Their own dear virtue their unshaken trust;

They never sin--or if (as all offend)

Some trivial slips their daily walk attend,

The poor are near at hand, the charge is small,

A slight gratuity atones for all."--_Cowper_.

FIGURE XV.--APOPHASIS, OR PARALIPSIS.

I say nothing of the notorious profligacy of his character; nothing of the

reckless extravagance with which he has wasted an ample fortune; nothing of

the disgusting intemperance which has sometimes caused him to reel in our

streets;--but I aver that he has not been faithful to our interests,--has

not exhibited either probity or ability in the important office which he

holds.

FIGURE XVI.--ONOMATOPOEIA.

[Fist][The following lines, from Swift's Poems, satirically mimick the

imitative music of a violin.]

"Now slowly move your fiddle-stick;

Now, tantan, tantantivi, quick;

Now trembling, shivering, quivering, quaking,

Set hoping hearts of Lovers aching."

"Now sweep, sweep the deep.

See Celia, Celia dies,

While true Lovers' eyes

Weeping sleep, Sleeping weep,

Weeping sleep, Bo-peep, bo-peep."

CHAPTER IV.--VERSIFICATION.

Versification is the forming of that species of literary composition which

is called _verse_; that is, _poetry_, or _poetic numbers_.

SECTION I.--OF VERSE.

Verse, in opposition to prose, is language arranged into metrical lines of

some determinate length and rhythm--language so ordered as to produce

harmony, by a due succession of poetic feet, or of syllables differing in

quantity or stress.

DEFINITIONS AND PRINCIPLES.

The _rhythm_ of verse is its relation of quantities; the modulation of its

numbers; or, the kind of metre, measure, or movement, of which it consists,

or by which it is particularly distinguished.

The _quantity_ of a syllable, as commonly explained, is the relative

portion of time occupied in uttering it. In poetry, every syllable is

considered to be either long or short. A long syllable is usually reckoned

to be equal to two short ones.

In the construction of English verse, long quantity coincides always with

the primary accent, generally also with the secondary, as well as with

emphasis; and short quantity, as reckoned by the poets, is found only in

unaccented syllables, and unemphatical monosyllabic words.[483]

The quantity of a syllable, whether long or short, does not depend on what

is called the long or the short sound of a vowel or diphthong, or on a

supposed distinction of accent as affecting vowels in some cases and

consonants in others, but principally on the degree of energy or loudness

with which the syllable is uttered, whereby a greater or less portion of

time is employed.

The open vowel sounds, which are commonly but not very accurately termed

_long_, are those which are the most easily protracted, yet they often

occur in the shortest and feeblest syllables; while, on the other hand, no

vowel sound, that occurs under the usual stress of accent or of emphasis,

is either so short in its own nature, or is so "quickly joined to the

succeeding letter," that the syllable is not one of long quantity.

Most monosyllables, in English, are variable in quantity, and may be made

either long or short, as strong or weak sounds suit the sense and rhythm;

but words of greater length are, for the most part, fixed, their accented

syllables being always long, and a syllable immediately before or after the

accent almost always short.

One of the most obvious distinctions in poetry, is that of rhyme and blank

verse. _Rhyme_ is a similarity of sound, combined with a difference:

occurring usually between the last syllables of different lines, but

sometimes at other intervals; and so ordered that the rhyming syllables

begin differently and end alike. _Blank verse_ is verse without rhyme.

The principal rhyming syllables are almost always long. Double rhyme adds

one short syllable; triple rhyme, two. Such syllables are redundant in

iambic and anapestic verses; in lines of any other sort, they are

generally, if not always, included in the measure.

A _Stanza_ is a combination of several verses, or lines, which, taken

together, make a regular division of a poem. It is the common practice of

good versifiers, to form all stanzas of the same poem after one model. The

possible variety of stanzas is infinite; and the actual variety met with in

print is far too great for detail.

OBSERVATIONS.

OBS. 1.--Verse, in the broadest acceptation of the term, is poetry, or

metrical language, in general. This, to the eye, is usually distinguished

from prose by the manner in which it is written and printed. For, in very

many instances, if this were not the case, the reader would be puzzled to

discern the difference. The division of poetry into its peculiar lines, is

therefore not a mere accident. The word _verse_, from the Latin _versus_,

literally signifies a _turning_. Each full line of metre is accordingly

called a verse; because, when its measure is complete, the writer _turns_

to place another under it. A _verse_, then, in the primary sense of the

word with us, is, "A _line_ consisting of a certain succession of sounds,

and number of syllables."--_Johnson, Walker, Todd, Bottes_, and others. Or,

according to _Webster_, it is, "A poetic _line_, consisting of a certain

number of long and short syllables, disposed according to the rules of the

species of poetry which the author intends to compose."--See _American

Dict._, 8vo.

OBS. 2.--If to settle the theory of English verse on true and consistent

principles, is as difficult a matter, as the manifold contrarieties of

doctrine among our prosodists would indicate, there can be no great hope of

any scheme entirely satisfactory to the intelligent examiner. The very

elements of the subject are much perplexed by the incompatible dogmas of

authors deemed skillful to elucidate it. It will scarcely be thought a hard

matter to distinguish true verse from prose, yet is it not well agreed,

wherein the difference consists: what the generality regard as the most

essential elements or characteristics of the former, some respectable

authors dismiss entirely from their definitions of both verse and

versification. The existence of quantity in our language; the dependence of

our rhythms on the division of syllables into long and short; the

concurrence of our accent, (except in some rare and questionable

instances,) with long quantity only; the constant effect of emphasis to

lengthen quantity; the limitation of quantity to mere duration of sound;

the doctrine that quantity pertains to all _syllables_ as such, and not

merely to vowel sounds; the recognition of the same general principles of

syllabication in poetry as in prose; the supposition that accent pertains

not to certain _letters_ in particular, but to certain _syllables_ as such;

the limitation of accent to stress, or percussion, only; the conversion of

short syllables into long, and long into short, by a change of accent; our

frequent formation of long syllables with what are called short vowels; our

more frequent formation of short syllables with what are called long or

open vowels; the necessity of some order in the succession of feet or

syllables to form a rhythm; the need of framing each line to correspond

with some other line or lines in length; the propriety of always making

each line susceptible of scansion by itself: all these points, so essential

to a true explanation of the nature of English verse, though, for the most

part, well maintained by some prosodists, are nevertheless denied by some,

so that opposite opinions may be cited concerning them all. I would not

suggest that all or any of these points are thereby made _doubtful_; for

there may be opposite judgements in a dozen cases, and yet concurrence

enough (if concurrence _can_ do it) to establish them every one.

OBS. 3.--An ingenious poet and prosodist now living,[484] Edgar Allan Poe,

(to whom I owe a word or two of reply,) in his "Notes upon English Verse,"

with great self-complacency, represents, that, "While much has been written

upon the structure of the Greek and Latin rhythms, comparatively _nothing_

has been done as regards the English;" that, "It may be said, indeed, we

are _without a treatise_ upon our own versification;" that "The very best"

_definition_ of versification[485] to be found in any of "_our ordinary

treatises_ on the topic," has "_not a single point_ which does not involve

an error;" that, "A _leading deft_ in each of these treatises is the

confining of the subject to mere _versification_, while metre, or rhythm,

in general, is the real question at issue;" that, "Versification is _not_

the art, but the _act_'--of making verses;" that, "A correspondence in the

_length_ of lines is by no means essential;" that "_Harmony_" produced "by

the regular alternation of syllables differing in quantity," does not

include "_melody_;" that "A _regular alternation_, as described, forms _no

part_ of the principle of metre:" that "There is no necessity of _any

regularity_ in the succession of _feet_;" that, "By consequence," he

ventures to "dispute the _essentiality_ of any alternation, regular or

irregular, of _syllables_ long and short:" that, "For _anything more

intelligible_ or _more satisfactory_ than this definition [i. e., G.

Brown's former definition of versification,] we shall look in vain in _any

published_ treatise upon the subject;" that, "So general and _so total a

failure_ can be referred only to some _radical misconception_;" that, "The

word _verse_ is derived (through _versus_ from the Latin _verto, I turn_,)

and * * * * it can be nothing but _this derivation_, which has led to _the

error_ of our writers upon prosody;" that, "_It is this_ which _has seduced

them_ into regarding the _line_ itself--the _versus_, or turning--as an

essential, or principle of metre;" that, "Hence the term _versification_

has been employed as sufficiently general, or inclusive, for treatises upon

rhythm in general;" that, "Hence, also, [comes] the precise catalogue of a

few varieties of English _lines_, when these varieties are, in fact, almost

without limit;" that, "_I_," the aforesaid Edgar Allan Poe, "_shall dismiss

entirely_, from the consideration of the principle of _rhythm_, the idea of

_versification_, or the construction of verse;" that, "In so doing, _we_

shall avoid _a world of confusion_;" that, "_Verse_ is, indeed, an

_afterthought_, or an _embellishment_, or an _improvement_, rather than an

element of rhythm;" that, "_This fact_ has induced the easy admission, into

the realms of Poesy, of _such works_ as the 'Télémaque' of Fenelon;"

because, forsooth, "In the elaborate modulation of their sentences, THEY

FULFIL THE IDEA OF METRE."--_The Pioneer, a Literary and Critical Magazine_

(Boston, March, 1843,) Vol. I, p. 102 to 105.

OBS. 4.--"Holding these things in view," continues this sharp connoisseur,

"the prosodist who rightly examines that which constitutes the external,

or most immediately _recognisable_, form of Poetry, will commence with the

definition of _Rhythm_. Now _rhythm_, from the Greek [_Greek: arithmos_],

_number_, is a term which, in its present application, very nearly _conveys

its own idea_. No more _proper_ word could be employed to present _the

conception intended_; for _rhythm_, in prosody, is, in its _last analysis_,

identical with _time_ in music. _For this reason_," says he, "I have used,

throughout this article, as synonymous with _rhythm_, the word _metre_ from

[Greek: metron], _measure_. Either the one or the other may be defined as

_the arrangement of words into two or more consecutive, equal, pulsations

of time_. These pulsations are _feet_. Two feet, at least, are requisite to

constitute a _rhythm_; just as, in mathematics, two units are necessary to

form [a] _number_.[486] The syllables of which the foot consists, when the

foot is not a syllable in itself, are subdivisions of the pulsations. No

equality is demanded in these subdivisions. It is only required that, so

far as regards two consecutive feet at least, the sum of the times of the

syllables in one, shall be equal to the sum of the times of the syllables

in the other. Beyond two pulsations there is no necessity for equality of

time. All beyond is arbitrary or conventional. A third or fourth pulsation

may embody half, or double, or any proportion of the time occupied in the

two first. Rhythm being thus understood, the prosodist should proceed to

define _versification_ as _the making of verses_, and _verse_ as _the

arbitrary or conventional isolation of rhythm into masses of greater or

less extent_."--_Ib._, p. 105.

OBS. 5.--No marvel that all usual conceptions and definitions of rhythm, of

versification, and of verse, should be found dissatisfactory to the critic

whose idea of _metre_ is fulfilled by the pompous _prose_ of Fenelon's

Télémaque. No right or real examination of this matter can ever make the

most immediately _recognizable_ form of poetry to be any thing else than

the form of _verse_--the form of writing in _specific lines_, ordered by

number and chime of syllables, and not squared by gage of the

composing-stick. And as to the derivation and primitive signification of

_rhythm_, it is plain that in the extract above, both are misrepresented.

The etymology there given is a gross error; for, "the Greek [_Greek:

arithmos_], _number_," would make, in English, not _rhythm_, but _arithm_,

as in _arithmetic_. Between the two combinations, there is the palpable

difference of three or four letters in either six; for neither of these

forms can be varied to the other, but by dropping one letter, and adding an

other, and changing a third, and moving a fourth. _Rhythm_ is derived, not

thence, but from the Greek [_Greek: rhythmos_]; which, according to the

lexicons, is a primitive word, and means, _rhythmus, rhythm, concinnity,

modulation, measured tune_, or _regular flow_, and _not "number_."

OBS. 6.--_Rhythm_, of course, like every other word not misapplied,

"conveys _its own idea_;" and that, not qualifiedly, or "_very nearly_,"

but _exactly_. That this idea, however, was originally that of

arithmetical _number_, or is nearly so now, is about as fanciful a notion,

as the happy suggestion added above, that _rhythm_ in lieu of _arithm_ or

_number_, is the fittest of words, _because_ "rhythm in prosody is _time_

in music!" Without dispute, it is important to the prosodist, and also to

the poet or versifier, to have as accurate an idea as possible of the

import of this common term, though it is observable that many of our

grammarians make little or no use of it. That it has some relation to

_numbers_, is undeniable. But what is it? Poetic numbers, and numbers in

arithmetic, and numbers in grammar, are three totally different sorts of

things. _Rhythm_ is related only to the first. Of the signification of this

word, a recent expositor gives the following brief explanation: "RHYTHM,

_n._ Metre; verse; _numbers_. Proportion applied to any motion

whatever."--_Bolles's Dictionary_, 8vo. To this definition, Worcester

prefixes the following: "The consonance of measure and time in poetry,

_prose composition_, and music;--also in dancing."--_Universal and Critical

Dict._ In verse, the proportion which forms rhythm--that is, the chime of

quantities--is applied to the _sounds_ of syllables. Sounds, however, may

be considered as a species of _motion_, especially those which are

rhythmical or musical.[487] It seems more strictly correct, to regard

rhythm as a _property_ of poetic numbers, than to identify it with them. It

is their proportion or modulation, rather than the numbers themselves.

According to Dr. Webster, "RHYTHM, or RHYTHMUS, in _music_ [is] variety in

the movement as to quickness or slowness, or length and shortness of the

notes; or _rather_ the proportion which the parts of the motion have to

each other."--_American Dict._ The "_last analysis_" of rhythm can be

nothing else than the reduction of it to its _least parts_. And if, in this

reduction, it is "identical with _time_," then it is here the same thing as

_quantity_, whether prosodical or musical; for, "The _time_ of a note, or

syllable, is called _quantity_. The time of a _rest_ is also called

quantity; because _rests_, as well as notes are a constituent of

rhythm."--_Comstock's Elocution_, p. 64. But rhythm is, in fact, neither

time nor quantity; for the analysis which would make it such, destroys the

relation in which the thing consists.

SECTION II.--OF ACCENT AND QUANTITY.

Accent and Quantity have already been briefly explained in the second

chapter of Prosody, as items coming under the head of Pronunciation. What

we have to say of them here, will be thrown into the form of _critical

observations_; in the progress of which, many quotations from other writers

on these subjects, will be presented, showing what has been most popularly

taught.

OBSERVATIONS.

OBS. 1.--Accent and quantity are distinct things;[488] the former being the

stress, force, loudness, or percussion of voice, that distinguishes certain

syllables from others; and the latter, the _time_, distinguished as _long_

or _short_, in which a syllable is uttered. But, as the _great_ sounds

which we utter, naturally take more time than the _small_ ones, there is a

necessary connexion between quantity and accent in English,--a connexion

which is sometimes expounded as being the mere relation of _cause and

effect_; nor is it in fact much different from that. "As no utterance can

be agreeable to the ear, which is void of proportion; and as _all

quantity_, or proportion of time in utterance, depends upon a due

observation of the _accent_; it is a matter of absolute necessity to all,

who would arrive at a good and graceful delivery, to be master of that

point. Nor is the use of _accent_ in our language confined to _quantity_

alone; but it is also the chief mark by which words are distinguished from

mere syllables. Or rather I may say, it is the _very essence_ of words,

which without that, would be only so many collections of

syllables."--_Sheridan's Lectures on Elocution_, p. 61. "As no utterance

_which is void of proportion_, can be agreeable to the ear; and as

quantity, or proportion of time in utterance, _greatly_ depends _on_ a due

_attention_ to the _accent_; it is _absolutely necessary for every person_,

who would attain a _just_ and _pleasing_ delivery, to be master of that

point."--_Murray's Gram._, 8vo, p. 241; 12mo, 194.

OBS. 2.--In the first observation on Prosody, at page 770, and in its

marginal notes, was reference made to the fact, that the nature and

principles of _accent_ and _quantity_ are involved in difficulty, by reason

of the different views of authors concerning them. To this source of

embarrassment, it seems necessary here again to advert; because it is upon

the distinction of syllables in respect to quantity, or accent, or both,

that every system of versification, except his who merely counts, is based.

And further, it is not only requisite that the principle of distinction

which we adopt should be clearly made known, but also proper to consider

which of these three modes is the best or most popular foundation for a

theory of versification. Whether or wherein the accent and quantity of the

ancient languages, Latin and Greek, differed from those of our present

English, we need not now inquire. From the definitions which the learned

lexicographers Littleton and Ainsworth give to _prosodia_, prosody, it

would seem that, with them, "the art of _accenting_" was nothing else than

the art of giving to syllables their right _quantity_, "whether long or

short." And some have charged it as a glaring error, long prevalent among

English grammarians, and still a fruitful source of disputes, to confound

accent with quantity in our language.[489] This charge, however, there is

reason to believe, is sometimes, if not in most cases, made on grounds

rather fanciful than real; for some have evidently mistaken the notion of

concurrence or coincidence for that of identity. But, to affirm that the

stress which we call accent, coincides always and only with long quantity,

does not necessarily make accent and quantity to be one and the same thing.

The greater force or loudness which causes the accented syllable to occupy

more time than any other, is in itself something different from time.

Besides, quantity is divisible,--being either _long_ or _short_: these two

species of it are acknowledged on all sides, and some few prosodists will

have a third, which they call "common." [490] But, of our English accent,

the word being taken in its usual acceptation, no _such_ division is ever,

with any propriety, made; for even the stress which we call _secondary

accent_, pertains to _long_ syllables rather than to short ones; and the

mere absence of stress, which produces short quantity, we do not call

_accent_.[491]

OBS. 3.--The impropriety of affirming _quantity_ to be the same as

_accent_, when its most frequent species occurs only in the absence of

accent, must be obvious to every body; and those writers who anywhere

suggest this identity, must either have written absurdly, or have taken

_accent_ in some sense which includes the sounds of our _unaccented_

syllables. The word sometimes means, "The _modulation_ of the voice in

speaking."--_Worcester's Dict., w. Accent_. In this sense, the lighter as

well as the more impressive sounds are included; but still, whether both

together, considered as accents, can be reckoned the same as long and short

quantities, is questionable. Some say, they cannot; and insist that they

are yet as different, as the variable tones of a _trumpet_, which swell and

fall, are different from the merely loud and soft notes of the monotonous

_drum_. This illustration of the "easy Distinction betwixt _Quantity_ and

_Accent_" is cited with commendation, in Brightland's Grammar, on page

157th;[492] the author of which grammar, _seems_ to have understood

_Accent_, or _Accents_, to be the same as _Inflections_--though these are

still unlike to quantities, if he did so. (See an explanation of

Inflections in Chap. II, Sec. iii, Art. 3, above.) His exposition is this:

"_Accent_ is the _rising_ and _falling_ of the Voice, above or under its

usual _Tone_. There are three Sorts of Accents, an _Acute_, a _Grave_, and

an _Inflex_, which is also call'd a _Circumflex_. The _Acute_, or _Sharp_,

naturally _raises_ the Voice; and the _Grave_, or _Base_, as naturally

_falls_ it. The _Circumflex_ is a kind of _Undulation_, or _Waving_ of the

Voice."--_Brightland's Gram._, Seventh Ed., Lond., 1746, p. 156.

OBS. 4.--Dr. Johnson, whose great authority could not fail to carry some

others with him, too evidently identifies accent with quantity, at the

commencement of his Prosody. "PRONUNCIATION is just," says he, "when every

letter has its proper sound, and when every syllable has its proper accent,

or which in English versification is _the same_, its proper quantity."--

_Johnson's Gram._, before Dict., 4to, p. 13; _John Burn's Gram._, p. 240;

_Jones's Prosodial Gram._, before Dict., p. 10. Now our most common notion

of _accent_--the sole notion with many--and that which the accentuation of

Johnson himself everywhere inculcates--is, that it belongs _not_ to "_every

syllable_," but only to some particular syllables, being either "a _stress

of voice_ on a certain syllable," or a _small mark_ to denote such

stress.--See _Scott's Dict._, or _Worcester's_. But Dr. Johnson, in the

passage above, must have understood the word _accent_ agreeably to his own

imperfect definition of it; to wit, as "_the sound given to the syllable

pronounced_."--_Joh. Dict._ An _unaccented_ syllable must have been to him

a syllable unpronounced. In short he does not appear to have recognized any

syllables as being unaccented. The word _unaccented_ had no place in his

lexicography, nor could have any without inconsistencey. [sic--KTH] It was

unaptly added to his text, after sixty years, by one of his amenders, Todd

or Chalmers; who still blindly neglected to amend his definition of

_accent_. In these particulars, Walker's dictionaries exhibit the same

deficiencies as Johnson's; and yet no author has more frequently used the

words _accent_ and _unaccented_, than did Walker.[493] Mason's Supplement,

first published in 1801, must have suggested to the revisers of Johnson the

addition of the latter term, as appears by the authority cited for it:

"UNA'CCENTED, _adj._ Not accented. 'It being enough to make a syllable

long, if it be accented, and short, if it be _unaccented_.' _Harris's

Philological Inquiries_."--_Mason's Sup._

OBS. 5--This doctrine of Harris's, that long quantity accompanies the

accent, and unaccented syllables are short, is far from confounding or

identifying accent with quantity, as has already been shown; and, though it

plainly contradicts some of the elementary teaching of Johnson, Sheridan,

Walker, Murray, Webster, Latham, Fowler, and others, in regard to the

length or shortness of certain syllables, it has been clearly maintained by

many excellent authors, so that no opposite theory is better supported by

authority. On this point, our language stands not alone; for the accent

controls quantity in some others.[494] G H. Noehden, a writer of uncommon

ability, in his German Grammar for Englishmen, defines accent to be, as we

see it is in English, "that _stress_ which marks a particular syllable in

speaking;" and recognizing, as we do, both a full accent and a partial one,

or "demi-accent," presents the syllables of his language as being of three

conditions: the "_accented_," which "cannot be used otherwise than as

_long_;" the "_half-accented_" which "must be regarded as ambiguous, or

common;" and the "_accentless_," which "are in their nature _short_."--See

_Noehden's Gram._, p. 87. His middle class, however, our prosodists in

general very properly dispense with. In Fiske's History of Greek

Literature, which is among the additions to the Manual of Classical

Literature from the German of Eschenburg, are the following passages: "The

_tone_ [i.e. accent] in Greek is placed upon short syllables as well as

long; in German, it accompanies regularly only long syllables."--"In giving

an accent to a syllable in an English word we _thereby_ render it a long

syllable, whatever may be the sound given to its vowel, and in whatever way

the syllable may be composed; so that as above stated in relation to the

German, an English accent, or stress in pronunciation, accompanies only a

long syllable."--_Manual of Class. Lit._, p. 437. With these extracts,

accords the doctrine of some of the ablest of our English grammarians. "In

the English Pronunciation," says William Ward, "there is a certain Stress

of the Voice laid on some one syllable at least, of every Word of two or

more Syllables; and that Syllable on which the Stress is laid may be

considered _long_. Our Grammarians have agreed to consider this Stress of

the Voice as _the Accent_ in English; and therefore the Accent and long

Quantity coincide in our Language."--_Ward's Practical Gram._, p. 155. As

to the vowel sounds, with the quantity of which many prosodists have

greatly puzzled both themselves and their readers, this writer says, "they

may be made as long, or as short, as the Speaker pleases."--_Ib._, p. 4.

OBS. 6.--From the absurd and contradictory nature of many of the

_principles usually laid down_ by our grammarians, for the discrimination

of long quantity and short, it is quite apparent, that but very few of them

have well understood either the distinction itself or their own rules

concerning it. Take Fisher for an example. In Fisher's Practical Grammar,

first published in London in 1753,--a work not unsuccessful, since Wells

quotes the "_28th edition_" as appearing in 1795, and this was not the

last--we find, in the first place, the vowel sounds distinguished as long

or short thus: "_Q._ How many Sounds has a Vowel? _A._ Two in general, viz.

1. A LONG SOUND, When the Syllable ends with a Vowel, either in

Monosyllables, or in Words of more Syllables; as, _t=ake, w=e, =I, g=o,

n=il_; or, as, _N=ature, N=ero, N=itre, N=ovice, N=uisance_. 2. A SHORT

SOUND, When the Syllable ends with a Consonant, either in Monosyllables, or

others; as _H~at, h~er, b~it, r~ob, T~un_; or, as _B~arber, b~itten,

B~utton_."--See p. 5. To this rule, the author makes needless exceptions of

all such words as _balance_ and _banish_, wherein a single consonant

between two vowels goes to the former; because, like Johnson, Murray, and

most of our old grammarians, he divides on the vowel; falsely calls the

accented syllable short; and imagines the consonant to be heard _twice_, or

to have "_a double Accent_." On page 35th, he tells us that, "_Long and

short Vowels_, and _long and short Syllables_, are _synonimous_

[--_synonymous_, from [Greek: synonymos]--] Terms;" and so indeed have they

been most erroneously considered by sundry subsequent writers; and the

consequence is, that all who judge by their criteria, mistake the poetic

quantity, or prosodical value, of perhaps one half the syllables in the

language. Let each syllable be reckoned long that "ends with a Vowel," and

each short that "ends with a Consonant," and the decision will probably be

oftener wrong than right; for more syllables end with consonants than with

vowels, and of the latter class a majority are without stress and therefore

short. Thus the foregoing principle, contrary to the universal practice of

the poets, determines many _accented_ syllables to be "_short_;" as the

first in "_barber, bitten, button, balance, banish_;--" and many

_unaccented_ ones to be "_long_;" as the last in _sofa, specie, noble,

metre, sorrow, daisy, valley, nature, native_; or the first in _around,

before, delay, divide, remove, seclude, obey, cocoon, presume, propose_,

and other words innumerable.

OBS. 7.--Fisher's conceptions of accent and quantity, as constituting

prosody, were much truer to the original and etymological sense of the

words, than to any just or useful view of English versification: in short,

this latter subject was not even mentioned by him; for prosody, in his

scheme, was nothing but the right pronunciation of words, or what we now

call _orthoëpy._ This part of his Grammar commences with the following

questions and answers:

"_Q._ What is the Meaning of the Word PROSODY? _A._ It is a Word borrowed

from the Greek; which, in Latin, is rendered _Accentus_, and in English

_Accent_. "_Q._ What do you mean by _Accent_? _A._ Accent originally

signified a Modulation of the Voice, or chanting to a musical Instrument;

but is now generally used to signify _Due Pronunciatian_, i.e. the

pronouncing [of] a syllable according to its Quantity, (whether it be long

or short,) with a stronger Force or Stress of Voice than the other

Syllables in the same Word; as, _a_ in _able, o_ in _above_, &c. "_Q._ What

is _Quantity_? _A._ Quantity is the different Measure of _Time_ in

pronouncing Syllables, from whence they are called long or short. "_Q._

What is the _Proportion_ between a long and a short Syllable? _A._ Two to

one; that is, a long Syllable is twice as long in pronouncing as a short

one; as, _Hate, Hat_. This mark (=) set over a Syllable, shows that it is

long, and this (~) that it is short; as, r=ecord, r~ecord. "_Q_. How do

you _know_ long and short Syllables? _A_. A Syllable is long or short

according to the Situation of the Vowel, i.e. it is generally long when it

ends with a Vowel, and short when with a Consonant; as, _F=a_- in _Favour_,

and _M~an_- in _Manner_."--_Fisher's Practical Gram._, p. 34.

Now one grand mistake of this is, that it supposes syllabication to fix the

quantity, and quantity to determine the accent; whereas it is plain, that

accent controls quantity, so far at least that, in the construction of

verse, a syllable fully accented cannot be reckoned short. And this mistake

is practical; for we see, that, in three of his examples, out of the four

above, the author himself misstates the quantity, because he disregards the

accent: the verb _re-cord'_, being accented on the second syllable, is an

_iambus_; and the nouns _rec'-ord_ and _man'-ner_, being accented on the

first, are _trochees_; and just as plainly so, as is the word _f=av~our_.

But a still greater blunder here observable is, that, as a "_due

pronunciation_" necessarily includes the utterance of every syllable, the

explanation above stolidly supposes _all_ our syllables to be _accented_,

each "according to its Quantity, (whether it be long or short,)" and each

"_with a stronger Force or Stress of Voice_, than _the other_ Syllables!"

Absurdity akin to this, and still more worthy to be criticised, has since

been propagated by Sheridan, by Walker, and by Lindley Murray, with a host

of followers, as Alger, D. Blair, Comly, Cooper, Cutler, Davenport, Felton,

Fowler, Frost, Guy, Jaudon, Parker and Fox, Picket, Pond, Putnam, Russell,

Smith, and others.

OBS. 8.--Sheridan was an able and practical teacher of _English

pronunciation_, and one who appears to have gained reputation by all he

undertook, whether as an actor, as an elocutionist, or as a lexicographer.

His publications that refer to that subject, though now mostly superseded

by others of later date, are still worthy to be consulted. The chief of

them are, his Lectures on Elocution, his Lectures on the Art of Reading,

his Rhetorical Grammar, his Elements of English, and his English

Dictionary. His third lecture on Elocution, and many pages of the

Rhetorical Grammar, are devoted to _accent_ and _quantity_--subjects which

he conceived to have been greatly misrepresented by other writers up to his

time.[495] To this author, as it would seem, we owe the invention of that

absurd doctrine, since copied into a great multitude of our English

grammars, that the accent on a syllable of two or more letters, belongs,

_not to the whole of it, but only to some_ ONE LETTER; and that according

to the character of this letter, as vowel or consonant, the same stress

serves to lengthen or shorten the syllable's quantity! Of this matter, he

speaks thus: "The _great distinction_ of our accent depends upon its

_seat_; which may be either upon a vowel or a consonant. Upon a vowel, as

in the words, glóry, fáther, hóly. Upon a consonant, as in the words,

hab'it, bor'row, bat'tle. When the accent is on the vowel, the syllable is

long; because the accent is _made by dwelling_ upon the vowel. When it is

on the consonant, the _syllable is short_;[496] because the accent is _made

by passing rapidly_ over the vowel, and giving a smart stroke of the voice

to the following consonant. _Obvious as this point is_, it _has wholly

escaped the observation of all our grammarians and compilers of

dictionaries_; who, instead of examining the peculiar genius of our tongue,

implicitly and pedantically have followed the Greek method of always

placing the accentual mark over a vowel."--_Sheridan's Rhetorical Gram._,

p. 51. The author's reprehension of the old mode of accentuation, is not

without reason; but his "great distinction" of short and long syllables is

only fit to puzzle or mislead the reader. For it is plain, that the first

syllables of _hab'it, bor'row_, and _bat'tle_, are twice as long as the

last; and, in poetry, these words are trochees, as well as the other three,

_glo'ry, fa'ther_, and _ho'ly_.

OBS. 9.--The only important distinction in our accent, is that of the

_primary_ and the _secondary_, the latter species occurring when it is

necessary to enforce more syllables of a word than one; but Sheridan, as we

see above, after rejecting all the old distinctions of _rising_ and

_falling, raising_ and _depressing, acute_ and _grave, sharp_ and _base,

long_ and _short_, contrived a new one still more vain, which he founded on

that of vowels and consonants, but "referred to _time_, or _quantity_." He

recognized, in fact, a _vowel accent_ and a _consonant accent_; or, in

reference to quantity, a _lengthening accent_ and a _shortening accent_.

The discrimination of these was with him "THE GREAT DISTINCTION of our

accent." He has accordingly mentioned it in several different places of his

works, and not always with that regard to consistency which becomes a

precise theorist. It led him to new and variant ways of _defining_ accent;

some of which seem to imply a division of consonants from their vowels in

utterance, or to suggest that syllables are not the least parts of spoken

words. And no sooner has he told us that our accent is but one single mode

of distinguishing a syllable, than he proceeds to declare it two. Compare

the following citations: "As the pronunciation of English words is chiefly

regulated by _accent_, it will be necessary to have a _precise idea_ of

that term. Accent with us means _no more_ than _a certain stress_ of the

voice upon _one letter_ of a syllable, which distinguishes it from all the

_other letters_ in a word."--_Sheridan's Rhetorical Gram._, p. 39. Again:

"Accent, in the English language, means _a certain stress_ of the voice

upon _a particular letter_ of a syllable which distinguishes it from the

rest, and, at the same time, _distinguishes the syllable itself_ to which

it belongs from the others which compose the word."--_Same work_, p. 50.

Again: "But as _our accent consists in stress only_, it can just as well be

placed on a consonant as [on] a vowel."--_Same_, p. 51. Again: "By the word

_accent_, is meant _the stress_ of the voice on _one letter_ in a

syllable."--_Sheridan's Elements of English_, p. 55. Again: "The term

[_accent_] with us has no reference to _inflexions_ of the voice, or

musical notes, but only means _a peculiar manner of distinguishing one

syllable of a word from the rest_, denominated by us accent; and the term

for that reason [is] used by us in the singular number.--This distinction

is made by us in _two ways_; either by _dwelling longer upon one syllable_

than the rest; or by _giving it a smarter percussion_ of the voice in

utterance. Of the first of these, we have instances in the words, _gl=ory,

f=ather, h=oly_; of the last, in _bat'tle, hab'it, bor'row_. So that

accent, with us, is not referred to tune, but to _time_; to _quantity_, not

quality; to the more _equable_ or _precipitate_ motion of the voice, not to

the variation of notes or _inflexions_."--_Sheridan's Lectures on

Elocution_, p. 56; _Flint's Murray's Gram._, p. 85.

OBS. 10.--How "precise" was Sheridan's idea of accent, the reader may well

judge from the foregoing quotations; in four of which, he describes it as

"_a certain stress_," "_the stress_," and "_stress only_," which enforces

some "_letter_;" while, in the other, it is whimsically made to consist in

two different modes of pronouncing "_syllables_"--namely, with

_equability_, and with _precipitance_--with "_dwelling longer_," and with

"_smarter percussion_"--which terms the author very improperly supposes to

be _opposites_: saying, "For the two ways of distinguishing syllables by

accent, as mentioned before, are _directly opposite_, and produce _quite

contrary effects_; the one, by _dwelling_ on the syllable, necessarily

makes it long; the other, by the _smart percussion_--of the voice, as

necessarily _makes it short_"--_Ib._, p. 57. Now it is all a mistake,

however common, to suppose that our accent, consisting as it does, in

stress, enforcement, or "percussion of voice," can ever _shorten_ the

syllable on which it is laid; because what increases the quantum of a vocal

sound, cannot diminish its length; and a syllable accented will always be

found _longer_ as well as _louder_, than any unaccented one immediately

before or after it. Though weak sounds may possibly be protracted, and

shorter ones be exploded loudly, it is not the custom of our speech, so to

deal with the sounds of syllables.

OBS. 11.--Sheridan admitted that some syllables are naturally and

necessarily short, but denied that any are naturally and necessarily long.

In this, since syllabic length and shortness are relative to each other,

and to the cause of each, he was, perhaps, hardly consistent. He might have

done better, to have denied both, or neither. Bating his new division of

accent to subject it sometimes to short quantity, he recognized very fully

the dependence of quantity, long or short, whether in syllables or only in

vowels, upon the presence or absence of accent or emphasis. In this he

differed considerably from most of the grammarians of his day; and many

since have continued to uphold other views. He says, "It is an _infallible

rule_ in our tongue that no vowel ever has a long sound in an unaccented

syllable."--_Lectures on Elocution_, p. 60. Again: "In treating of the

simple elements or letters, I have shown that some, both vowels and

consonants, are _naturally short_; that is, whose sounds _cannot possibly_

be prolonged; and these are the [short or shut] sounds of ~e, ~i, and ~u,

of vocal sounds; and three pure mutes, k, p, t, of the consonant; as in the

words _beck, lip, cut_. I have shown also, that the sounds of all the other

vowels, and of the consonant semivowels, may be prolonged to what degree we

please; but at the same time it is to be observed, that all these may also

be reduced to a short quantity, and are capable of being uttered in as

short a space of time as those which are naturally short. So that they who

speak of syllables as absolutely in their own nature long, _the common cant

of prosodians_, speak of a nonentity: for though, as I have shown above,

there are syllables absolutely short, which cannot possibly be prolonged by

any effort of the speaker, yet it is in his power to shorten or prolong the

others to what degree he pleases."--_Sheridan's Rhetorical Gram._, p. 52.

And again: "I have already mentioned that when the accent is on the vowel,

it of course makes the syllable _long_; and when the accent is on the

consonant, the syllable may be _either long or short_, according to the

nature of the consonant, or _will of the speakers_. And as _all unaccented

syllables are short_, the quantity of our syllables is adjusted by the

easiest and simplest rule in the world, and in the exactest

proportion."--_Lect. on Elocution_, p. 66.

OBS. 12.--This praise of our rule for the adjustment of quantity, would

have been much more appropriate, had not the rule itself been greatly

mistaken, perplexed, and misrepresented by the author. If it appear, on

inspection, that "_beck, lip, cut_," and the like syllables, are twice as

long when under the accent, as they are when not accented, so that, with a

short syllable annexed or a long one prefixed, they may form _trochees_;

then is it _not true_, that such syllables are either always necessarily

and _inherently_ short, or always, "by the smart percussion of the voice,

as necessarily _made_ short;" both of which inconsistent ideas are above

affirmed of them. They may not be so long as some other long syllables;

but, if they are twice as long as the accompanying short ones, they are not

short. And, if not short, then that remarkable distinction in accent, which

assumes that they are so, is as needless as it is absurd and perplexing.

Now let the words, _beck'on, lip'ping, cut'ter_, be properly pronounced,

and their syllables be compared with each other, or with those of

_lim'beck, fil'lip, Dr=a'cut_; and it cannot but be perceived, that _beck,

lip_, and _cut_, like other syllables in general, are _lengthened_ by the

accent, and shortened only in its absence; so that all these words are

manifestly trochees, as all similar words are found to be, in our

versification. To suppose "as many words as we hear accents," or that "it

is the laying of an accent on _one_ syllable, which _constitutes a word_,"

and then say, that "no unaccented syllable or vowel is ever to be accounted

long," as this enthusiastic author does in fact, is to make strange

scansion of a very large portion of the trissyllables and polysyllables

which occur in verse. An other great error in Sheridan's doctrine of

quantity, is his notion that all monosyllables, except a few small

particles, are _accented_; and that their quantity is determined to be long

or short by the _seat_ or the _mode_ of the accent, as before stated. Now,

as our poetry abounds with monosyllables, the relative time of which is

adjusted by emphasis and cadence, according to the nature and importance of

the terms, and according to the requirements of rhythm, with no reference

to this factitious principle, no conformity thereto but what is accidental,

it cannot but be a puzzling exercise, when these difficulties come to be

summed up, to attempt the application of a doctrine so vainly conceived to

be "the easiest and simplest rule in the world!"

OBS. 13.--Lindley Murray's principles of accent and quantity, which later

grammarians have so extensively copied, were mostly extracted from

Sheridan's; and, as the compiler appears to have been aware of but few, if

any, of his predecessor's errors, he has adopted and greatly spread

well-nigh all that have just been pointed out; while, in regard to some

points, he has considerably increased the number. His scheme, as he at last

fixed it, appears to consist essentially of propositions already refuted,

or objected to, above; as any reader may see, who will turn to his

definition of accent, and his rules for the determination of quantity. In

opposition to Sheridan, who not very consistently says, that, "_All_

unaccented syllables are _short_," this author appears to have adopted the

greater error of Fisher, who supposed that the _vowel sounds_ called long

and short, are just the same as the long and short _syllabic quantities_.

By this rule, thousands of syllables will be called long, which are in fact

short, being always so uttered in both prose and poetry; and, by the other,

some will occasionally be called short, which are in fact long, being made

so by the poet, under a slight secondary accent, or perhaps none. Again, in

supposing our numerous monosyllables to be accented, and their quantity to

be thereby fixed, without excepting "the _particles_, such as _a, the, to,

in_, &c.," which were excepted by Sheridan, Murray has much augmented the

multitude of errors which necessarily flow from the original rule. This

principle, indeed, he adopted timidly; saying, as though he hardly believed

the assertion true: "And _some writers assert_, that every monosyllable of

two or more letters, has one of its letters thus distinguished."--_Murray's

Gram._, 8vo, p. 236; 12mo, 189. But still he _adopted_ it, and adopted it

_fully_, in his section on Quantity; for, of his twelve words, exemplifying

syllabic time so regulated, no fewer than nine are monosyllables. It is

observable, however, that, in some instances, it is not _one_ letter, but

_two_, that he marks; as in the words, "m=o=od, h=o=use."--_Ib._, p. 239;

12mo, 192. And again, it should be observed, that generally, wherever he

marks accent, he follows the _old mode_, which Sheridan and Webster so

justly condemn; so that, even when he is speaking of "the accent on the

_consonant_," the sign of stress, as that of time, is set over a _vowel_:

as, "Sádly, róbber."--_Ib._, 8vo, 240; 12mo, 193. So in his Spelling-Book,

where words are often falsely divided: as, "Vé nice," for Ven'-ice; "Há no

ver," for Han'o-ver; &c.--See p. 101.

OBS. 14.--In consideration of the great authority of this grammarian, now

backed by a score or two of copyists and modifiers, it may be expedient to

be yet more explicit. Of _accent_ Murray published about as many different

definitions, as did Sheridan; which, as they show what notions he had at

different times, it may not be amiss for some, who hold him always in the

right, to compare. In one, he describes it thus: "Accent signifies _that

stress_ of the voice, which is laid on _one syllable_, to distinguish it

from the rest."--_Murray's Spelling-Book_, p. 138. He should here have

said, (as by his examples it would appear that he meant,) "on one syllable

_of a word_;" for, as the phrase now stands, it may include stress on a

_monosyllable in a sentence_; and it is a matter of dispute, whether this

can properly be called accent. Walker and Webster say, it is emphasis, and

not accent. Again, in an other definition, which was written before he

adopted the notion of accent on consonants, of accent on monosyllables, or

of accent for quantity in the formation of verse, he used these words:

"Accent is _the laying of_ a peculiar stress of the voice on a certain

_vowel_ or syllable in a word, that it may be better heard than the rest,

or distinguished from them; as, in the word _presúme_, the stress of the

voice must be on the second syllable, _súme_, which takes the

accent."--_Murray's Gram., Second Edition_, 12mo, p. 161. In this edition,

which was published at York, in 1796, his chief rules of quantity say

nothing about accent, but are thus expressed: [1.] "A _vowel or syllable_

is long, when _the vowel or vowels contained in it_ are slowly joined in

pronunciation with the _following letters_; as, 'F=all, b=ale, m=o=od,

h=o=use, f=eature.' [2.] A syllable is short, when the vowel is quickly

joined to the succeeding _letter_; as, '~art, b~onn~et, h~ung~er.'"--_Ib._,

p. 166. Besides the absurdity of representing "_a vowel_" as having

"_vowels_ contained in it," these rules are _made up_ of great faults. They

confound syllabic quantities with vowel sounds. They suppose quantity to

be, not the time of a whole syllable, but the quick or slow junction of

_some_ of its parts. They apply to no syllable that ends with a vowel

sound. The former applies to none that ends with one consonant only; as,

"_mood_" or the first of "_feat-ure_." In fact, it does not apply to _any_

of the examples given; the final letter in each of the other words being

_silent_. The latter rule is worse yet: it misrepresents the examples; for

"_bonnet_" and "_hunger_" are trochees, and "_art_," with any stress on it,

is long.

OBS. 15.--In all late editions of L. Murray's Grammar, and many

modifications of it, accent is defined thus: "Accent is _the laying of_ a

peculiar stress of the voice, on a certain _letter_ OR _syllable_ in a

word, that _it_ may be better heard than _the rest_, or distinguished from

_them_; as, in the word _presúme_, the stress of the voice must be on the

_letter u_, AND [the] _second syllable, sume_, which takes the

accent."--_Murray's Gram._, 8vo, p. 235; 12mo, 188; 18mo, 57; _Alger's_,

72; _Bacon's_, 52; _Comly's_, 168; _Cooper's_, 176; _Davenport's_, 121;

_Felton's_, 134; _Frost's El._, 50; _Fisk's_, 32; _Merchant's_, 145;

_Parker and Fox's_, iii, 44; _Pond's_, 197; _Putnam's_, 96; _Russell's_,

106; _R. O. Smith's_, 186. Here we see a curious jumble of the common idea

of accent, as "stress laid on some particular _syllable_ of a _word_," with

Sheridan's doctrine of accenting always "a particular _letter_ of a

_syllable_,"--an idle doctrine, contrived solely for the accommodation of

short quantity with long, _under the accent_. When this definition was

adopted, Murray's scheme of quantity was also revised, and materially

altered. The principles of his main text, to which his copiers all confine

themselves, then took the following form:

"The quantity of a syllable, is _that_ time which is occupied in

pronouncing it. It is considered as LONG or SHORT.

"A _vowel or syllable_ is long, when the accent is on the vowel; _which_

occasions it to be slowly joined in pronunciation with the following

_letters_: as, 'F=all, b=ale, m=o=od, h=o=use, f=eature.'

"A _syllable_ is short, when the accent is on the consonant; _which_

occasions the vowel to be quickly joined to the succeeding _letter_: as,

'~ant, b=onn~et, h=ung~er.'

"A long syllable generally requires double the time of a short one _in

pronouncing it_: thus, 'M=ate' and 'N=ote' should be pronounced as slowly

again as 'M~at' and 'N~ot.'"--_Murray's Gram._, 8vo, p. 239; 12mo, 192;

18mo, 57; _Alger's_, 72; _D. C. Allen's_, 86; _Bacon's_, 52; _Comly's_,

168; _Cooper's_, 176; _Cutler's_, 165; _Davenport's_, 121; _Felton's_, 134;

_Frost's El._, 50; _Fisk's_, 32; _Maltby's_, 115; _Parker and Fox's_, iii,

47; _Pond's_, 198; _S. Putnam's_, 96; _R. C. Smith's_, 187; _Rev. T.

Smith's_, 68.

Here we see a revival and an abundant propagation of Sheridan's erroneous

doctrine, that our accent produces both short quantity and long, according

to its seat; and since none of all these grammars, but the first two of

Murray's, give any _other_ rules for the discrimination of quantities, we

must infer, that these were judged sufficient. Now, of all the principles

on which any have ever pretended to determine the quantity of syllables,

none, so far as I know, are more defective or fallacious than these. They

are liable to more objections than it is worth while to specify. Suffice it

to observe, that they divide certain accented syllables into long and

short, and say nothing of the unaccented; whereas it is plain, and

acknowledged even by Murray and Sheridan themselves, that in "_ant, bonnet,

hunger_" and the like, the unaccented syllables are the _only short ones_:

the rest can be, and here are, lengthened.[497]

OBS. 16.--The foregoing principles, differently expressed, and perchance in

some instances more fitly, are found in many other grammars, and in some of

the very latest; but they are everywhere a _mere dead letter_, a record

which, if it is not always untrue, is seldom understood, and never applied

in any way to practice. The following are examples:

(1.) "In a long syllable, the vowel is accented; in a short syllable [,]

the consonant; as [,] _r=oll, p=oll; t~op, c~ut_."--_Rev. W. Allen's

Gram._, p. 222. (2.) "A syllable _or word_ is long, when the accent is on

the vowel: as n=o, l=ine, l=a, m=e; and short, when on the consonant: as

n~ot, l~in, L~atin, m~et."--_S. Barrett's Grammar, ("Principles of

Language,")_ p. 112.

(3.) "A syllable is long when the accent is on the vowel, as, P=all, s=ale,

m=o=use, cr=eature. A syllable is short when the accent is placed on the

consonant; as great´, let´ter, mas´ter."--_Rev. D. Blair's Practical

Gram._, p. 117.

(4.) "When the stress is on the _vowel_, the measure of quantity is _long_:

as, Máte, fáte, complàin, pláyful, un der míne. When the stress is on a

_consonant_, the quantity is short: as, Mat´, fat´, com pel´, prog´ress,

dis man´tle."--_Pardon Davis's Practical Gram._, p. 125.

(5.) "The quantity of a syllable is considered _as long or short_. It is

long when the accent is on the vowel; as, F=all, b=ale, m=ood, ho=use,

f=eature. It is short when the accent is placed on the consonant; as,

Mas´ter, let´ter."--_Guy's School Gram._, p. 118; _Picket's Analytical

School Gram._, 2d Ed., p. 224.

(6.) "A syllable is _long_ when the accent is on the vowel; and _short_,

when the accent is on the consonant. A _long_ syllable requires twice the

time in pronouncing it that a _short_ one does. Long syllables are marked

thus =; as, t=ube; short syllables, thus ~; as, m~an."--_Hiley's English

Gram._, p. 120.

(7.) "When the accent is on a vowel, the syllable is generally long; as

_=aleho=use, am=usement, f=eatures_. But when the accent is on a consonant,

the syllable is mostly short; as, _h~ap'py, m~an'ner_. A long syllable

requires twice as much time in the pronunciation, as a short one; as,

_h=ate, h~at; n=ote, n~ot; c=ane, c~an; f=ine, f~in_."--_Jaudon's Union

Gram._, p. 173.

(8.) "If the syllable _be long_, the accent is on the vowel; as, in _b=ale,

m=o=od, educ=ation; &c_. If _short_, the accent is on the consonant; as, in

_~ant, b~onnet, h~unger_, &c."--_Merchant's American School Gram._, p. 145.

The quantity of our unaccented syllables, none of these authors, except

Allen, thought it worth his while to notice. But among their accented

syllables, they all include _words of one syllable_, though most of them

thereby pointedly contradict their own definitions of accent. To find in

our language no short syllables but such as are accented, is certainly a

very strange and very great oversight. Frazee says, "The pronunciation of

an accented syllable _requires double the time_ of that of an unaccented

one."--_Frazee's Improved Gram._, p. 180. If so, our poetical quantities

are greatly misrepresented by the rules above cited. Allen truly says,

"Unaccented syllables are generally short; as, _r~etúrn, túrn~er_."--

_Elements of E. Gram._, p. 222. But how it was ever found out, that in

these words we accent only the vowel _u_, and in such as _hunter_ and

_bluntly_, some one of the consonants only, he does not inform us.

OBS. 17.--As might be expected, it is not well agreed among those who

accent single consonants and vowels, _what particular letter_ should

receive the stress and the mark. The word or syllable "_ant_," for example,

is marked "an´t" by Alger, Bacon, and others, to enforce the _n_; "ant´" by

Frost, Putnam, and others, to enforce the _t_; "~ant" by Murray, Russell,

and others, to show, as they say, "_the accent on the consonant_!" But, in

"A´NTLER," Dr. Johnson accented the _a_; and, to mark the same

pronunciation, Worcester now writes, "~ANT´LER;" while almost any

prosodist, in scanning, would mark this word "_~antl~er_" and call it a

_trochee_.[498] Churchill, who is in general a judicious observer, writes

thus: "The _leading feature_ in the English language, on which _it's_

melody both in prose and verse _chiefly depends_, is _it's accent_. Every

word in it of _more than one syllable_ has one of _it's_ syllables

distinguished by this from the rest; the accent being in some cases on the

vowel, in others on the _consonant that closes the syllable_; on the vowel,

when it has _it's_ long sound; on the consonant, when the vowel is

short."--_Churchill's New Gram._, p. 181. But to this, as a rule of

accentuation, no attention is in fact paid nowadays. Syllables that have

long vowels not final, very properly take the sign of stress on or after a

consonant or a mute vowel; as, =an´gel, ch=am´ber, sl=ay´er, b=ead´roll,

sl=ea´zy, sl=e=ep´er, sl=e=eve´less, l=ive´ly, m=ind´ful, sl=ight´ly,

sl=id´ing, b=old´ness, gr=oss´ly, wh=ol´ly, =use´less.--See _Worcester's

Dict._

OBS. 18.--It has been seen, that Murray's principles of quantity were

greatly altered by himself, after the first appearance of his grammar. To

have a full and correct view of them, it is necessary to notice something

more than his main text, as revised, with which all his amenders content

themselves, and which he himself thought sufficient for his Abridgement.

The following positions, which, in some of his revisals, he added to the

large grammar, are therefore cited:--

(1.) "Unaccented syllables are generally short: as, '~admíre, bóldn~ess,

sínn~er.' But to this rule there are _many_ exceptions: as, 'áls=o, éx=ile,

gángr=ene, úmp=ire, f=oretáste,' &c.

(2.) "When the accent is on the consonant, the syllable is often _more or

less short_, as it ends with a _single consonant_, or with more than one:

as, 'Sádly, róbber; persíst, mátchless.'

(3.) "When the accent is on a semi-vowel, the time of the syllable may be

protracted, by dwelling upon the _semi-vowel_: as, 'Cur´, can´, f~ulfil´'

but when the accent falls on a mute, the syllable _cannot be lengthened in

the same manner_: as, 'Búbble, cáptain, tótter.'"--_L. Murray's Gram._,

8vo, p. 240; 12mo, 193.

(4.) "In this work, and in the author's Spelling-book, the vowels _e_ and

_o_, in the first syllable of such words as, behave, prejudge, domain,

propose; and in the second syllable of such as pulley, turkey, borrow,

follow; are considered as _long vowels_. The second syllables in such words

as, baby, spicy, holy, fury, are also considered as _long

syllables_."--_Ib._, 8vo, p. 241.

(5.) "In the words _scarecrow, wherefore_, both the syllables are

_unquestionably long_, but not of equal length. We presume _therefore_,

that the syllables under consideration, [i.e., those which end with the

sound of _e_ or _o_ without accent,] may also be properly styled _long

syllables_, though their length is not equal to that of some

others."--_Murray's Octavo Gram._, p. 241.

OBS. 19.--Sheridan's "_infallible rule_, that no vowel ever has a long

sound in an unaccented syllable," is in striking contrast with three of

these positions, and the exact truth of the matter is with neither author.

But, for the accuracy of his doctrine, Murray appeals to "the authority of

the judicious Walker," which he thinks sufficient to prove any syllable

long whose vowel is called so; while the important distinction suggested by

Walker, in his Principles, No. 529, between "the length or shortness of the

vowels," and "that quantity which constitutes poetry," is entirely

overlooked. It is safe to affirm, that all the accented syllables occurring

in the examples above, are _long_; and all the unaccented ones, _short_:

for Murray's long syllables vary in length, and his short ones in

shortness, till not only the just proportion, but the actual relation, of

long and short, is evidently lost with some of them. Does not _match_ in

"_match´less_," _sad_ in "_sad´ly_," or _bub_ in "_bub´ble_," require more

time, than _so_ in "_al´so_," _key_ in "_tur´key_," or _ly_ in "_ho´ly_"?

If so, four of the preceding positions are very faulty. And so, indeed, is

the remaining one; for where is the sense of saying, that "when the accent

falls _on a mute_, the syllable cannot be lengthened by _dwelling upon the

semi-vowel_"? This is an apparent truism, and yet not true. For a semivowel

in the middle or at the beginning of a syllable, may lengthen it as much as

if it stood at the end. "_Cur_" and "_can_," here given as protracted

syllables, are certainly no longer by usage, and no more susceptible of

protraction, than "_mat_" and "_not_," "_art_" and "_ant_," which are among

the author's examples of short quantity. And if a semivowel accented will

make the syllable long, was it not both an error and a self-contradiction,

to give "_b~onnet_" and "_h~unger_" as examples of quantity _shortened_ by

the accent? The syllable _man_ has two semivowels; and the letter _l_, as

in "_ful fil´_," is the most sonorous of consonants; yet, as we see above,

among their false examples of short syllables accented, different authors

have given the words "_man_" and "_man´ner_," "_disman´tle_" and "_com

pel´_," "_mas´ter_" and "_let´ter_," with sundry other sounds which may

easily be lengthened. Sanborn says, "The _breve_ distinguishes a short

syllable; as, _m~anner_."--_Analytical Gram._, p. 273. Parker and Fox say,

"The Breve (thus ~) is placed over a vowel to indicate _its short sound_;

as, St. H~elena."--_English Gram._, Part iii, p. 31. Both explanations of

this sign are defective; and neither has a suitable example. The name "_St.

H~l=e´n~a_," as pronounced by Worcester, and as commonly heard, is two

trochees; but "_Hel´ena_," for _Helen_, having the penult short, takes the

accent on the first syllable, which is thereby _made long_, though the

vowel sound is _called short_. Even Dr. Webster, who expressly notes the

difference between "long and short _vowels_" and "long and short

_syllables_," allows himself, on the very same page, to confound them: so

that, of his three examples of a _short syllable,--"th~at, not,

m~elon,"_--all are erroneous; two being monosyllables, which any emphasis

must lengthen; and the third,--the word "_m~el´on_,"--with the first

syllable marked short, and not the last! See _Webster's Improved Gram._, p.

157.

OBS. 20.--Among the latest of our English Grammars, is Chandler's new one

of 1847. The Prosody of this work is fresh from the mint; the author's old

grammar of 1821, which is the nucleus of this, being "confined to Etymology

and Syantax." [sic--KTH] If from anybody the public have a right to expect

correctness in the details of grammar, it is from one who has had the

subject so long and so habitually before him. "_Accent_" says this author,

"is _the_ stress on a syllable, _or letter_."--_Chandler's Common School

Gram._, p. 188. Now, if our less prominent words and syllables require any

force at all, a definition so loose as this, may give accent to some words,

or to all; to some syllables, or to all; to some letters, or to all--except

those which are _silent_! And, indeed, whether the stress which

distinguishes some monosyllables from others, is supposed by the writer to

be accent, or emphasis, or both, it is scarcely possible to ascertain from

his elucidations. "The term _emphasis_," says he, "is used to denote a

fuller sound of voice _after_ certain words that come in _antithesis_; that

is, contrast. 'He can _write_, but he cannot _read_.' Here, _read_ and

_write_ are _antithetical_ (that is, in contrast), and are _accented_, or

_emphasized_."--P. 189. The word "_after_" here may be a misprint for the

word _upon_; but no preposition really suits the connexion: the participle

_impressing_ or _affecting_ would be better. Of _quantity_, this work gives

the following account: "The _quantity_ of a _syllable_ is that time which

is required to pronounce it. A syllable may be _long_ or _short_. _Hate_ is

long, as the vowel _a_ is elongated by the final _e_; _hat_ is short, and

requires about half the time for pronunciation which is used for

pronouncing _hate_. So of _ate, at; bate, bat; cure, cur_. Though

unaccented syllables are usually short, yet _many_ of those which are

accented are short also. The following are short: _ád_vent, _sin´_ner,

_sup´_per. In the following, the unaccented syllables are long: ál_so_,

éx_ile_, gán_grene_, úm_pire_. It maybe remarked, that the quantity of a

syllable is short when the accent is on a consonant; as, art´, bon´net,

hun´ger. The _hyphen_ (-), placed over a syllable, denotes that it is long:

n=áture. The breve (~) over a syllable, denotes that it is short; as,

d~etr=áct."--_Chandler's Common School Gram._, p. 189. This scheme of

quantity is truly remarkable for its absurdity and confusion. What becomes

of the elongating power of e, without accent or emphasis, as in _jun´cate,

pal´ate, prel´ate_? Who does not know that such syllables as "_at, bat_,

and _cur_" are often long in poetry? What more absurd, than to suppose both

syllables short in such words as, "_~advent, sin´ner, sup´per_," and then

give "serm~on, f=ilt~er, sp=ir~it, g=ath~er," and the like, for regular

trochees, with "the first syllable long, and the second short," as does

this author? What more contradictory and confused, than to pretend that the

primal sound of a vowel lengthens an unaccented syllable, and accent on the

consonant shortens an accented one, as if in "_âl´so_" the first syllable

must be short and the second long, and then be compelled, by the evidence

of one's senses to mark "ech~o" as a trochee, and "détract" as an iambus?

What less pardonable misnomer, than for a great critic to call the sign of

long quantity a "_hyphen_"?

OBS. 21.--The following suggestions found in two of Dr. Webster's grammars,

are not far from the truth: "Most prosodians who have treated particularly

of this subject, have been guilty of a fundamental error, in considering

the movement of English verse as depending on long and short syllables,

formed by long and short vowels. This hypothesis has led them into capital

mistakes. The truth is, many of those syllables which are considered as

_long_ in verse, are formed by the shortest vowels in the language; as,

_strength, health, grand_. The doctrine that long vowels are necessary to

form long syllables in poetry is at length exploded, and the principles

which regulate the movement of our verse, are explained; viz. _accent_ and

_emphasis_. Every emphatical word, and every accented syllable, will form

what is called in verse, a long syllable. The unaccented syllables, and

unemphatical monosyllabic words, are considered as short

syllables."--_Webster's Philosophical Gram._, p. 222; _Improved Gram._,

158. Is it not remarkable, that, on the same page with this passage, the

author should have given the first syllable of "_melon_" as an example of

_short_ quantity?

OBS. 22.--If the principle is true, which every body now takes for granted,

that the foundation of versifying is some distinction pertaining to

syllables; it is plain, that nothing can be done towards teaching the Art

of Measuring Verses, till it be known _upon what distinction_ in syllables

our scheme of versification is based, and by what rule or rules the

discrimination is, or ought to be, made. Errors here are central, radical,

fundamental. Hence the necessity of these present disquisitions. Without

some effectual criticism on their many false positions, prosodists may

continue to theorize, dogmatize, plagiarize, and blunder on, as they have

done, indefinitely, and knowledge of the rhythmic art be in no degree

advanced by their productions, new or old. For the supposition is, that in

general the consulters of these various oracles are persons more fallible

still, and therefore likely to be misled by any errors that are not

expressly pointed out to them. In this work, it is assumed, that

_quantity_, not laboriously ascertained by "a great variety of rules

applied from the Greek and Latin Prosody," but discriminated on principles

of our own--_quantity_, dependent in some degree on the nature and number

of the letters in a syllable, but still more on the presence or absence of

stress--is the true foundation of our metre. It has already been stated,

and perhaps proved, that this theory is as well supported by authority as

any; but, since Lindley Murray, persuaded wrong by the positiveness of

Sheridan, exchanged his scheme of feet formed by quantities, for a new one

of "feet formed by accents"--or, rather, for an impracticable mixture of

both, a scheme of supposed "_duplicates_ of each foot"--it has been

becoming more and more common for grammarians to represent the basis of

English versification to be, not the distinction of long and short

quantities, but the recurrence of _accent_ at certain intervals. Such is

the doctrine of Butler, Felton, Fowler, S. S. Greene, Hart, Hiley, R. C.

Smith, Weld, Wells, and perhaps others. But, in this, all these writers

contradict themselves; disregard their own definitions of accent; count

monosyllables to be accented or unaccented; displace emphasis from the rank

which Murray and others give it, as "the great regulator of quantity;" and

suppose the length or shortness of syllables not to depend on the presence

or absence of either accent or emphasis; and not to be of much account in

the construction of English verse. As these strictures are running to a

great length, it may be well now to introduce the poetic feet, and to

reserve, for notes under that head, any further examination of opinions as

to what constitutes the _foundation_ of verse.

SECTION III.--OF POETIC FEET.

A verse, or line of poetry., consists of successive combinations of

syllables, called _feet_. A poetic _foot_, in English, consists either of

two or of three syllables, as in the following examples:

1. "C=an t=y | -r~ants b=ut | b~y t=y | -r~ants c=on | -qu~ered

b=e?"--_Byron_.

2. "H=ol~y, | h=ol~y, | h=ol~y! | =all th~e | s=aints ~a | -d=ore

th~ee."--_Heber_.

3. "And th~e br=eath | ~of th~e D=e | -~it~y c=ir | -cl~ed th~e

ro=om."--_Hunt_.

4. "H=ail t~o th~e | chi=ef wh~o ~in | tr=i~umph ~ad |-v=anc~es!"--_Scott_.

EXPLANATIONS AND DEFINITIONS.

Poetic feet being arbitrary combinations, contrived merely for the

measuring of verses, and the ready ascertainment of the syllables that suit

each rhythm, there is among prosodists a perplexing diversity of opinion,

as to the _number_ which we ought to recognize in our language. Some will

have only two or three; others, four; others, eight; others, twelve. The

dozen are all that can be made of two syllables and of three. Latinists

sometimes make feet of four syllables, and admit sixteen more of these,

acknowledging and naming twenty-eight in all. The _principal_ English feet

are the _Iambus_, the _Trochee_, the _Anapest_, and the _Dactyl_.

1. The _Iambus_, or _Iamb_, is a poetic foot consisting of a short syllable

and a long one; as, _b~etr=ay, c~onf=ess, d~em=and, ~intent, d~egr=ee_.

2. The _Trochee_, or _Choree_, is a poetic foot consisting of a long

syllable and a short one; as, _h=atef~ul, p=ett~ish, l=eg~al, m=eas~ure,

h=ol~y_.

3. The _Anapest_ is a poetic foot consisting of two short syllables and one

long one; as, _c~ontr~av=ene, ~acqu~i=esce, ~imp~ort=une_.

4. The _Dactyl_ is a poetic foot consisting of one long syllable and two

short ones; as, _l=ab~our~er, p=oss~ibl~e, w=ond~erf~ul_.

These are our principal feet, not only because they are oftenest used, but

because each kind, with little or no mixture, forms a distinct order of

numbers, having a peculiar rhythm. Of verse, or poetic measure, we have,

accordingly, four principal kinds, or orders; namely, _Iambic, Trochaic,

Anapestic_, and _Dactylic_; as in the four lines cited above.

The more pure these several kinds are preserved, the more exact and

complete is the chime of the verse. But exactness being difficult, and its

sameness sometimes irksome, the poets generally indulge some variety; not

so much, however, as to confound the drift of the rhythmical pulsations:

or, if ever these be not made obvious to the reader, there is a grave fault

in the versification.

The _secondary_ feet, if admitted at all, are to be admitted only, or

chiefly, as occasional diversifications. Of this class of feet, many

grammarians adopt four; but they lack agreement about the selection.

Brightland took the _Spondee_, the _Pyrrhic_, the _Moloss_, and the

_Tribrach_. To these, some now add the other four; namely, the

_Amphibrach_, the _Amphimac_, the _Bacchy_, and the _Antibacchy_.

Few, if any, of these feet are really _necessary_ to a sufficient

explanation of English verse; and the adopting of so many is liable to the

great objection, that we thereby produce different modes of measuring the

same lines. But, by naming them all, we avoid the difficulty of selecting

the most important; and it is proper that the student should know the

import of all these prosodical terms.

5. A _Spondee_ is a poetic foot consisting of two long syllables; as,

_c=old n=ight, p=o=or s=ouls, ~am~en, shr=ovet=ide._

6. A _Pyrrhic_ is a poetic foot consisting of two short syllables; as,

presumpt-|_~uo~us_, perpet-|_~u~al_, unhap-|_p~il~y_, inglo-|_r~io~us_.

7. A _Moloss_ is a poetic foot consisting of three long syllables; as,

_De~ath's p=ale h=orse,--gre=at wh=ite thr=one,--d=eep d=amp v=a=ult._

8. A _Tribrach_ is a poetic foot consisting of three short syllables; as,

prohib-|_~it~or~y_, unnat-|_~ur~all~y_, author-|_~it~at~ive_,

innum-|_~er~abl~e_.

9. An _Amphibrach_ is a poetic foot of three syllables, having both sides

short, the middle long; as, _~impr=ud~ent, c~ons=id~er, tr~ansp=ort~ed._

10. An _Amphimac, Amphimacer_, or _Cretic_, is a poetic foot of three

syllables, having both sides long, the middle short; as, _w~ind~ingsh=eet,

l=ife-~est=ate, s=oul-d~is~eased._

11. A _Bacchy_ is a poetic foot consisting of one short syllable and two

long ones; as, _th=e wh=ole w~orld,--~a gre=at v=ase,--=of p=ure g=old_.

12. An _Antibacchy_, or _Hypobacchy_, is a poetic foot consisting of two

long syllables and a short one; as, _kn=ight-s=erv~ice, gl=obe-d=ais~y,

gr=ape-flow~er, g=old-b=eat~er_.

Among the variegations of verse, one emphatic syllable is sometimes counted

for a foot. "When a single syllable is [thus] taken by itself, it is called

a _Cæsura_, which is commonly a long syllable." [499]

FOR EXAMPLE:--

"Keeping | _time, | time, | time_,

In a | sort of | Runic | _rhyme_,

To the | tintin| -nabu| -lation that so | musi| -cally | _wells_

From the | _bells, | bells, | bells, | bells,

Bells, | bells, | bells._"

--EDGAR A. POE: _Union Magazine, for Nov. 1849; Literary World_,

No. 143.

OBSERVATIONS.

OBS. 1.--In defining our poetic feet, many late grammarians substitute the

terms _accented_ and _unaccented_ for _long_ and _short_, as did Murray,

after some of the earlier editions of his grammar; the only feet recognized

in his _second_ edition being the _Iambus_, the _Trochee_, the _Dactyl_,

and the _Anapest_, and all these being formed by _quantities_ only. This

change has been made on the supposition, that accent and long quantity, as

well as their opposites, nonaccent and short quantity, may oppose each

other; and that the basis of English verse is not, like that of Latin or

Greek poetry, a distinction in the _time_ of syllables, not a difference in

_quantity_, but such a course of accenting and nonaccenting as overrides

all relations of this sort, and makes both length and shortness compatible

alike with stress or no stress. Such a theory, I am persuaded, is

untenable. Great authority, however, may be quoted for it, or for its

principal features. Besides the several later grammarians who give it

countenance, even "the judicious Walker," who, in his Pronouncing

Dictionary, as before cited, very properly suggests a difference between

"_that quantity which constitutes poetry_," and the mere "_length or

shortness of vowels_," when he comes to explain our English accent and

quantity, in his "_Observations on the Greek and Latin Accent and

Quantity_," finds "accent perfectly compatible with either long or short

quantity;" (_Key_, p. 312;) repudiates that vulgar accent of Sheridan and

others, which "is only a greater force upon one syllable than another;"

(_Key_, p. 313;) prefers the doctrine which "makes the elevation or

depression of the voice inseparable from accent;" (_Key_, p. 314;) holds

that, "unaccented vowels are frequently pronounced long when the accented

vowels are short;" (_Key_, p. 312;) takes long or short _vowels_ and long

or short _syllables_ to be things everywhere tantamount; saying, "We have

_no conception_ of quantity arising from any thing but the nature of the

vowels, as they are pronounced long or short;" (_ibid._;) and again: "Such

long quantity" as consonants may produce with a close or short vowel, "an

English ear _has not the least idea of_. Unless the sound of the vowel be

altered, we have _not any conception_ of a long or short

syllable."--_Walker's Key_, p. 322; and _Worcester's Octavo Dict._, p. 935.

OBS. 2.--In the opinion of Murray, Walker's authority should be thought

sufficient to settle any question of prosodial quantities. "But," it is

added, "there are some critical writers, who dispute the propriety of his

arrangement."--_Murray's Octavo Gram._, p. 241. And well there may be; not

only by reason of the obvious incorrectness of the foregoing positions, but

because the great orthoëpist is not entirely consistent with himself. In

his "_Preparatory Observations_," which introduce the very essay above

cited, he avers that, "the different states of the voice," which are

indicated by the comparative terms _high_ and _low, loud_ and _soft, quick_

and _slow, forcible_ and _feeble_, "may not improperly be called

_quantities_ of sound."--_Walker's Key_, p. 305. Whoever thinks this,

certainly conceives of quantity as arising from _several other things_ than

"the nature of the vowels." Even Humphrey, with whom, "Quantity differs

materially from time," and who defines it, "the weight, or aggregate

quantum of sounds," may find his questionable and unusual "conception" of

it included among these.

OBS. 3.--Walker must have seen, as have the generality of prosodists since,

that such a distinction as he makes between long syllables and short, could

not possibly be the basis of English versification, or determine the

elements of English feet; yet, without the analogy of any known usage, and

contrary to our customary mode of reading the languages, he proposes it as

applicable--and as the only doctrine conceived to be applicable--to Greek

or Latin verse. Ignoring all long or short quantity not formed by what are

called long or short vowels,[500] he suggests, "_as a last refuge_," (§25,)

the very doubtful scheme of reading Latin and Greek poetry with the vowels

conformed, agreeably to this English sense of _long_ and _short_ vowel

sounds, to the ancient rules of quantity. Of such words as _fallo_ and

_ambo_, pronounced as we usually utter them, he says, "_nothing can be more

evident_ than the long quantity of the final vowel though without the

accent, and the short quantity of the initial and accented

syllable."--_Obs. on Greek and Lat. Accent_, §23; Key, p. 331. Now the very

reverse of this appears to me to be "evident." The _a_, indeed, may be

close or short, while the _o_, having its primal or _name_ sound, is

_called_ long; but the first _syllable_, if fully accented, will have

_twice the time_ of the second; nor can this proportion be reversed but by

changing the accent, and misplacing it on the latter syllable. Were the

principle _true_, which the learned author pronounces so "evident," these,

and all similar words, would constitute _iambic feet_; whereas it is plain,

that in English they are _trochees_; and in Latin,--where "_o_ final is

_common_,"--either _trochees_ or _spondees_. The word _ambo_, as every

accurate scholar knows, is always a _trochee_, whether it be the Latin

adjective for "_both_," or the English noun for "_a reading desk_, or

_pulpit_."

OBS. 4.--The names of our poetic feet are all of them derived, by change of

endings, from similar names used in Greek, and thence also in Latin; and,

of course, English words and Greek or Latin, so related, are presumed to

stand for things somewhat similar. This reasonable presumption is an

argument, too often disregarded by late grammarians, for considering our

poetic feet to be quantitative, as were the ancient,--not accentual only,

as some will have them,--nor separately both, as some others absurdly

teach. But, whatever may be the difference or the coincidence between

English verse and Greek or Latin, it is certain, that, in _our_ poetic

division of syllables, strength and length must always concur, and any

scheme which so contrasts accent with long quantity, as to confound the

different species of feet, or give contradictory names to the same foot,

must be radically and grossly defective. In the preceding section it has

been shown, that the principles of quantity adopted by Sheridan, Murray,

and others, being so erroneous as to be wholly nugatory, were as unfit to

be the basis of English verse, as are Walker's, which have just been spoken

of. But, the puzzled authors, instead of reforming these their elementary

principles, so as to adapt them to the quantities and rhythms actually

found in our English verse, have all chosen to assume, that our poetical

feet in general _differ radically_ from those which the ancients called by

the same names; and yet the _coincidence_ found--the "_exact sameness of

nature_" acknowledged--is sagely said by some of them _to duplicate each

foot into two distinct sorts for our especial advantage_; while the

_difference_, which they presume to exist, or which their false principles

of accent and quantity would create, between feet quantitative and feet

accentual, (both of which are allowed to us,) would _implicate different

names_, and convert foot into foot--iambs, trochees, spondees, pyrrhics,

each species into some other--till all were confusion!

OBS. 5.--In Lindley Murray's revised scheme of feet, we have first a

paragraph from Sheridan's Rhetorical Grammar, suggesting that the ancient

poetic measures were formed of syllables divided "into _long_ and _short_,"

and affirming, what is not very true, that, for the forming of ours, "In

English, syllables are divided into _accented_ and _unaccented_."--_Rhet.

Gram._, p. 64; _Murray's Gram._, 8vo, 253; _Hart's Gram._, 182; and others.

Now _some_ syllables are accented, and others are unaccented; but syllables

singly significant, i.e., monosyllables, which are very numerous, belong to

neither of these classes. The contrast is also comparatively new; our

language had much good poetry, long before _accented_ and _unaccented_ were

ever thus misapplied in it. Murray proceeds thus: "When the feet are

formed by _accent on vowels_, they are _exactly of the same nature as

ancient feet_, and have the same just quantity in their syllables. So that,

in this respect, _we have all that the ancients had_, and something which

they had not. We have in fact _duplicates of each foot_, yet with such a

_difference_, as to fit them for _different purposes_, to be applied at our

pleasure."--_Ib._, p. 253. Again: "_We_ have observed, that _English verse

is composed of feet formed by accent_; and that when the accent falls on

_vowels_, the feet are equivalent to those formed by quantity."--_Ib._, p.

258. And again: "From the preceding view of English versification, we may

see _what a copious stock of materials_ it possesses. For _we are not only

allowed the use of all the ancient poetic feet_, in our _heroic measure_,

but we have, as before observed, _duplicates of each_, agreeing in

movement, though differing in measure,[501] _and which_ make different

impressions on the ear; _an opulence peculiar_ to our language, _and which_

may be the source of a boundless variety."--_Ib._, p. 259.

OBS. 6.--If it were not dullness to overlook the many errors and

inconsistencies of this scheme, there should be thought a rare ingenuity in

thus turning them all to the great advantage and peculiar riches of the

English tongue! Besides several grammatical faults, elsewhere noticed,

these extracts exhibit, first, the inconsistent notion--of "_duplicates

with a difference_;" or, as Churchill expresses it, of "_two distinct

species of each foot_;" (_New Gram._, p. 189;) and here we are gravely

assured withal, that these _different sorts_, which have no separate names,

are sometimes forsooth, "_exactly of the same nature_"! Secondly, it is

incompatibly urged, that, "English verse is _composed of feet formed by

accent_," and at the same time shown, that it partakes largely of _feet

"formed by quantity_." Thirdly, if "_we have all that the ancients had_,"

of poetic feet, and "_duplicates of each_," "_which they had not_" we are

encumbered with an enormous surplus; for, of the twenty-eight Latin

feet,[502] mentioned by Dr. Adam and others, Murray never gave the names of

more than eight, and his early editions acknowledged _but four_, and these

_single_, not "_duplicates_"--_unigenous_, not severally of "_two

species_." Fourthly, to suppose a multiplicity of feet to be "_a copious

stock of materials_" for versification, is as absurd as to imagine, in any

other case, a variety of _measures_ to be materials for producing the thing

measured. Fifthly, "_our heroic measure_" is _iambic pentameter_, as Murray

himself shows; and, to give to this, "_all the ancient poetic feet_," is to

bestow most of them where they are least needed. Sixthly, "feet _differing

in measure_," so as to "_make different impressions on the ear_," cannot

well be said to "_agree in movement_," or to be "_exactly of the same

nature!_"

OBS. 7.--Of the foundation of metre, _Wells_ has the following account:

"The _quantity_ of a syllable is the relative time occupied in its

pronunciation. A syllable may be _long_ in quantity, as _fate_; or _short_,

as _let_. The Greeks and Romans based their poetry on the quantity of

syllables; but modern versification depends chiefly upon accent, the

quantity of syllables being almost wholly disregarded."--_School Gram._,

1st Ed., p. 185. Again: "_Versification_ is a measured arrangement of

words[,] in which the _accent_ is made to recur at certain regular

intervals. This definition applies only to modern verse. In Greek and Latin

poetry, it is the regular recurrence of _long syllables_, according to

settled laws, which constitutes verse."--_Ib._, p. 186. The contrasting of

ancient and modern versification, since Sheridan and Murray each contrived

an example of it, has become very common in our grammars, though not in

principle very uniform; and, however needless where a correct theory

prevails, it is, to such views of accent and quantity as were adopted by

these authors, and by Walker, or their followers, but a necessary

counterpart. The notion, however, that English verse has less regard to

quantity than had that of the old Greeks or Romans, is a mere assumption,

originating in a false idea of what quantity is; and, that Greek or Latin

verse was less accentual than is ours, is another assumption, left

proofless too, of what many authors disbelieve and contradict. Wells's

definition of quantity is similar to mine, and perhaps unexceptionable; and

yet his idea of the thing, as he gives us reason to think, was very

different, and very erroneous. His examples imply, that, like Walker, he

had "no conception of quantity arising from any thing but the nature of the

vowels,"--no conception of a long or a short _syllable_ without what is

called a long or a short _vowel sound_. That "the Greeks and Romans based

their poetry on quantity" of that restricted sort,--on _such "quantity"_ as

"_fate_" and "_let_" may serve to discriminate,--is by no means probable;

nor would it be more so, were a hundred great modern masters to declare

themselves ignorant of any other. The words do not distinguish at all the

long and short quantities even of our own language; much less can we rely

on them for an idea of what is long or short in other tongues. Being

monosyllables, both are long with emphasis, both short without it; and,

could they be accented, accent too would lengthen, as its absence would

shorten both. In the words _phosphate_ and _streamlet_, we have the same

sounds, both short; in _lettuce_ and _fateful_, the same, both long. This

cannot be disproved. And, in the scansion of the following stanza from

Byron, the word "_Let_" twice used, is to be reckoned a _long_ syllable,

and not (as Wells would have it) a short one:

"Cavalier! and man of worth!

_Let_ these words of mine go forth;

_Let_ the Moorish Monarch know,

That to him I nothing owe:

Wo is me, Alhama!"

OBS. 8.--In the English grammars of Allen H. Weld, works remarkable for

their egregious inaccuracy and worthlessness, yet honoured by the Boston

school committee of 1848 and '9, the author is careful to say, "Accent

should not be confounded with emphasis. _Emphasis_ is a stress of voice on

a word in a sentence, to mark its importance. _Accent_ is a stress of voice

on a syllable in a word." Yet, within seven lines of this, we are told,

that, "A _verse_ consists of a certain number of _accented and unaccented

syllables_, arranged according to certain rules."--_Weld's English

Grammar_, 2d Edition, p. 207; "Abridged Edition," p. 137. A doctrine cannot

be contrived, which will more evidently or more extensively confound accent

with emphasis, than does this! In English verse, on an average, about three

quarters of the words are monosyllables, which, according to Walker, "have

no accent," certainly none distinguishable from emphasis; hence, in fact,

our syllables are no more "divided into _accented_ and _unaccented_" as

Sheridan and Murray would have them, than into _emphasized_ and

_unemphasized_, as some others have thought to class them. Nor is this

confounding of accent with emphasis at all lessened or palliated by

teaching with Wells, in its justification, that, "The term _accent_ is also

applied, in poetry, to _the_ stress laid on monosyllabic words."--_Wells's

School Gram._, p. 185; 113th Ed., §273. What better is this, than to apply

the term _emphasis_ to the accenting of syllables in poetry, or to all the

stress in question, as is virtually done in the following citation? "In

English, verse is regulated by the _emphasis_, as there should be one

_emphatic_ syllable in every foot; for it is by the interchange of

_emphatick_ and _non-emphatick_ syllables, that verse grateful to the ear

is formed."--_Thomas Coar's E. Gram._, p. 196. In Latin poetry, the longer

words predominate, so that, in Virgil's verse, not one word in five is a

monosyllable; hence accent, if our use of it were adjusted to the Latin

quantities, might have much more to do with Latin verse than with English.

With the following lines of Shakspeare, for example, accent has, properly

speaking, no connexion;

"Good friend, thou hast no cause to say so yet;

But thou shalt have; and creep time ne'er so slow,

Yet it shall come, for me to do thee good.

I had a thing to say,--But let it go."--_King John_, Act iii, Sc. 3.

OBS. 9.--T. O. Churchill, after stating that the Greek and Latin rhythms

are composed of syllables long and short, sets ours in contrast with them

thus: "These terms are commonly employed also in speaking of English verse,

though it is marked, _not by long and short_, but by accented and

unaccented syllables; the accented syllables being _accounted_ long; the

unaccented, short."--_Churchill's New Gram._, p. 183. This, though far from

being right, is very different from the doctrine of Murray or Sheridan;

because, in practice, or the scansion of verses, it comes to the _same

results_ as to suppose all our feet to be "formed by quantity." To

_account_ syllables long or short and not _believe_ them to _be_ so, is a

ridiculous inconsistency: it is a shuffle in the name of science.

OBS. 10.--Churchill, though not apt to be misled by others' errors, and

though his own scanning has no regard to the principle, could not rid

himself of the notion, that the quantity of a syllable must depend on the

"vowel sound." Accordingly he says, "Mr. Murray _justly observes_, that our

accented syllables, or those reckoned long:, may have either _a long or [a]

short vowel sound_, so that we have _two distinct species_ of each

foot."--_New Gram._, p. 189. The obvious impossibility of "two distinct

species" in one,--or, as Murray has it, of "duplicates fitted for different

purposes,"--should have prevented the teaching and repeating of this

nonsense, propound it who might. The commender himself had not such faith

in it as is here implied. In a note, too plainly incompatible with this

praise, he comments thus: "Mr. Murray adds, that this is 'an opulence

_peculiar_ to our language, and which may be the source of a boundless

variety:' a point, on which, I confess, _I have long entertained doubts_. I

am inclined to suspect that the English mode of reading verse _is

analogous_ to that of the ancient Greeks and Romans. Dion. Hal., _de Comp.,

Verb_. §xi, speaks of the _rhythm of verse differing_ from the proper

measure of the syllables, and often reversing it: does not this imply, that

the ancients, contrary to the opinion of the learned author of

Metronariston, read verse as we do?"--_Churchill's New Gram._, p. 393, note

329.

OBS. 11.--The nature, chief sources, and true distinction of _quantity_, at

least as it pertains to our language, I have set forth with clearness,

first in the short chapter on Utterance, and again, more fully in this,

which treats of Versification; but that the syllables, long and short, of

the old Greek and Latin poets, or the feet they made of them, are to be

expounded on precisely the same principles that apply to ours. I have not

deemed it necessary to affirm or to deny. So far as the same laws are

applicable, let them be applied. This important property of

syllables,--their _quantity_, or relative time,--which is the basis of all

rhythm, is, as my readers have seen, very variously treated, and in general

but ill appreciated, by our English prosodists, who ought, at least in this

their own province, to understand it all alike, and as it is; and so common

among the erudite is the confession of Walker, that "the accent and

quantity of the ancients" are, to modern readers, "obscure and mysterious,"

that it will be taken as a sign of arrogance and superficiality, to pretend

to a very certain knowledge of them. Nor is the difficulty confined to

Latin and Greek verse: the poetry of our own ancestors, from any remote

period, is not easy of scansion. Dr. Johnson, in his History of the English

Language, gave examples, with this remark: "Of the _Saxon_ poetry some

specimen is necessary, though our ignorance of the laws of their metre and

the quantities of their syllables, _which it would be very difficult,

perhaps impossible, to recover_, excludes us from that pleasure which the

old bards undoubtedly gave to their contemporaries."

OBS. 12.--The imperfect measures of "the father of English poetry," are

said by Dryden to have been _adapted to the ears_ of the rude age which

produced them. "The verse of Chaucer," says he, "I confess, is not

harmonious to us; but it is like the eloquence of one whom Tacitus

commends, it was _auribus istius temporis accommodata_:' they who lived

with him, and sometime after him, thought it musical; and it continues so

even in our judgment, if compared with the numbers of Lidgate and Gower,

his contemporaries: there is the rude sweetness of a Scotch tune in it,

which is natural and pleasing, though not perfect. It is true, I cannot go

so far as he who published the last edition of him; for he would make us

believe that the fault is in _our ears_, and that there were really ten

syllables in a verse where we find but nine: but this opinion is not worth

confuting; it is so gross and obvious an error, that common sense (which is

a rule in every thing but matters of faith and revelation) must convince

the reader that equality of numbers in every verse, which we call Heroic,

was either not known, or not always practised in Chaucer's age. It were an

easy matter to produce some thousands of his verses, which are lame for

want of half a foot, and sometimes a whole one, and which no pronunciation

can make otherwise. We can only say, that he lived in the infancy of our

poetry, and that nothing is brought to perfection at the first."--_British

Poets_, Vol. iii, p. 171.

OBS. 13.--Dryden appears to have had more faith in the ears of his own age

than in those of an earlier one; but Poe, of our time, himself an ingenious

versifier, in his Notes upon English Verse, conveys the idea that all ears

are alike competent to appreciate the elements of metre. "Quantity,"

according to his dogmatism, "is a point in the investigation of which the

lumber of mere learning may be dispensed with, if ever in any. _Its

appreciation_" says he, "_is universal_. It appertains to no region, nor

race, nor era in especial. To melody and to harmony the Greeks hearkened

with ears precisely similar to those which we employ, for similar purposes,

at present; and a pendulum at Athens would have vibrated much after the

same fashion as does a pendulum in the city of Penn."--_The Pioneer_, Vol.

i. p. 103. Supposing here not even the oscillations of the same pendulum to

be more uniform than are the nature and just estimation of quantity the

world over, this author soon after expounds his idea of the thing as

follows: "I have already said that all syllables, in metre, are either long

or short. Our usual prosodies maintain that a long syllable is equal, in

its time, to two short ones; this, however, is but an approach to the

truth. It should be here observed that the quantity of an English syllable

_has no dependence upon_ the sound of its vowel or dipthong [diphthong],

but [depends] chiefly upon _accentuation_. Monosyllables are exceedingly

variable, and, for the most part, may be either long or short, to suit the

demand of the rhythm. In polysyllables, the accented _ones_ [say,

_syllables_] are always long, while those which immediately precede or

succeed them, are always short. _Emphasis_ will render any short syllable

long."--_Ibid._, p. 105. In penning the last four sentences, the writer

must have had Brown's Institutes of English Grammar before him, and open at

page 235.

OBS. 14.--Sheridan, in his Rhetorical Grammar, written about 1780, after

asserting that a distinction of accent, and not of quantity, marks the

movement of English verse, proceeds as follows: "From not having examined

the peculiar genius of our tongue, our Prosodians have fallen into a

variety of errors; some having adopted the rules of our neighbours, the

French; and others having had recourse to those of the ancients; though

neither of them, in reality, would square with our tongue, on account of an

essential difference _between them_. [He means, "_between each language and

ours_," and should have said so.] With regard to the French, they measured

verses by the number of syllables whereof they were composed, on account of

a constitutional defect in their tongue, which rendered it incapable of

numbers formed by poetic feet. For it has neither accent nor quantity

suited to the purpose; the syllables of their words being for the most part

equally accented; and the number of long syllables being out of all

proportion greater than that of the short. Hence for a long time it was

supposed, _as it is by most people at present_, that our verses were

composed, not of feet, but syllables; and accordingly they _are

denominated_ verses often, eight, six, or four syllables, _even to this

day_. Thus have we lost sight of the great advantage which our language has

given us over the French, in point of poetic numbers, by its being capable

of a geometrical proportion, on which the harmony of versification depends;

and blindly reduced ourselves to that of the arithmetical kind which

contains no natural power of pleasing the ear. And hence like the French,

our chief pleasure in verse arises from the poor ornament of

rhyme."--_Sheridan's Rhetorical Gram._, p. 64.

OBS. 15.--In a recent work on this subject, Sheridan is particularly

excepted, and he alone, where Hallam, Johnson, Lord Kames, and other

"Prosodians" in general, are charged with "astonishing ignorance of the

first principles of our verse;" and, at the same time, he is as

particularly commended of having "especially insisted on the subject of

Quantity."--_Everett's English Versification, Preface_, p. 6. That the

rhetorician was but slenderly entitled to these compliments, may plainly

appear from the next paragraph of his Grammar just cited; for therein he

mistakingly represents it as a central error, to regard our poetic feet as

being "formed by quantity" at all. "Some few of our Prosodians," says he,

"finding this to be an error, and that our verses were really composed of

feet, not syllables, without farther examination, boldly applied all the

rules of the Latin prosody to our versification; though scarce any of them

answered exactly, and some of them were utterly incompatible with the

genius of our tongue. _Thus because the Roman feet were formed by quantity,

they asserted the same of ours, denominating all the accented syllables

long; whereas I have formerly shewn, that the accent, in some cases, as

certainly makes the syllable on which it is laid, short, as in others it

makes it long_. And their whole theory of quantity, borrowed from the

Roman, in which they endeavour to establish the proportion of long and

short, as immutably fixed to the syllables of words constructed in a

certain way, at once falls to the ground; when it is shewn, that the

quantity of our syllables is _perpetually varying with the sense_, and is

_for the most part regulated by_ EMPHASIS: which has been fully proved in

the course of Lectures on the Art of reading Verse; where it has been also

shewn, that _this very circumstance_ has given us an _amazing advantage

over the ancients_ in the point of poetic numbers."--_Sheridan's

Rhetorical Gram._, p. 64.

OBS. 16.--The lexicographer here claims to have "_shewn_" or "_proved_,"

what he had only _affirmed_, or _asserted_. Erroneously taking the quality

of the vowel for the quantity of the syllable, he had suggested, in his

confident way, that short quantity springs from the accenting of

_consonants_, and long quantity, from the accenting of _vowels_--a doctrine

which has been amply noticed and refuted in a preceding section of the

present chapter. Nor is he, in what is here cited, consistent with himself.

For, in the first place, nothing comes nearer than this doctrine of his, to

an "endeavour to establish the proportion of long and short, as immutably

fixed to the syllables of words constructed in a certain way"! Next,

although he elsewhere contrasts accent and emphasis, and supposes them

different, he either confounds them in reference to verse, or contradicts

himself by ascribing to each the chief control over quantity. And, lastly,

if our poetic feet are not quantitative, not formed of syllables long and

short, as were the Roman, what "advantage over the ancients," can we derive

from the fact, that quantity is regulated by stress, whether accent or

emphasis?

OBS. 17.--We have, I think, no prosodial treatise of higher pretensions

than Erastus Everett's "System of English Versification," first published

in 1848. This gentleman professes to have borrowed no idea but what he has

regularly quoted. "He mentions this, that it may not be supposed that this

work is a compilation. It will be seen," says he, "how great a share of it

is original; and the author, having deduced his rules from the usage of the

great poets, has the best reason for being confident of their

correctness."--_Preface_, p. 5. Of the place to be filled by this System,

he has the following conception: "It is thought to supply an important

desideratum. It is a matter of surprise to the foreign student, who

attempts the study of English poetry and the structure of its verse, to

find that _we have no work on which he can rely as authority on this

subject_. In the other modern languages, the most learned philologers have

treated of the subject of versification, in all its parts. In English

alone, in a language which possesses a body of poetical literature more

extensive, as well as more valuable than any other modern language, not

excepting the Italian, _the student has no rules to guide him_, but a few

meagre and incorrect outlines appended to elementary text-books." Then

follows this singularly inconsistent exception: "We must except from this

remark two works, published in the latter part of the sixteenth century.

But as they were written before the poetical language of the English tongue

was fixed, and as the rules of verse were not then settled, these works can

be of little practical utility."--_Preface_, p. 1. The works thus excepted

as of _reliable authority without practical utility_, are "a short tract by

_Gascoyne_," doubtless _George Gascoigne's_ 'Notes of Instruction

concerning the making of Verse or Rhyme in English,' published in 1575, and

Webbe's 'Discourse of English Poetry,' dated 1586, neither of which does

the kind exceptor appear to have ever seen! Mention is next made,

successively, of Dr. Carey, of Dryden, of Dr. Johnson, of Blair, and of

Lord Kames. "To these _guides_," or at least to the last two, "the author

is indebted for many valuable hints;" yet he scruples not to say, "Blair

betrays a paucity of knowledge on this subject;"--"Lord Kames has slurred

over the subject of Quantity," and "shown an unpardonable ignorance of the

first principles of Quantity in our verse;"--and, "Even Dr. Johnson speaks

of syllables in such a manner as would lead us to suppose that he was in

the same error as Kames. These inaccuracies," it is added, "can be

accounted for only from the fact that Prosodians have not thought

_Quantity_ of sufficient importance to merit their attention."--See

_Preface_, p. 4-6.

OBS. 18.--Everett's Versification consists of seventeen chapters, numbered

consecutively, but divided into two parts, under the two titles Quantity

and Construction. Its specimens of verse are numerous, various, and

beautiful. Its modes of scansion--the things chiefly to be taught--though

perhaps generally correct, are sometimes questionable, and not always

consonant with the writer's own rules of quantity. From the citations

above, one might expect from this author such an exposition of quantity, as

nobody could either mistake or gainsay; but, as the following platform will

show, his treatment of this point is singularly curt and incomplete. He is

so sparing of words as not even to have given a _definition_ of quantity.

He opens his subject thus: "VERSIFICATION is the proper arrangement of

words in _a line_ according to _their quantity_, and the disposition of

_these lines in_ couplets, stanzas, or in blank verse, in such order, and

according to such rules, as are sanctioned by usage.--A FOOT is a

combination of two or _more_ syllables, whether long or short.--A LINE is

one foot, or more than one.--The QUANTITY of each _word_ depends on its

_accent_. In words of more than one syllable, all accented syllables are

long, and all unaccented syllables are short. Monosyllables are long or

short, according to the following Rules:--1st. All Nouns, Adjectives,

Verbs, and Participles are long.--2nd. The articles are always short.--3rd,

The Pronouns are long or short, according to _emphasis_.--4th.

Interjections and Adverbs are generally long, but sometimes _made short by

emphasis_.--5th. Prepositions and Conjunctions are almost always _short_,

but sometimes _made long by emphasis_."--_English Versification_, p. 13.

None of these principles of quantity are unexceptionable; and whoever

follows them implicitly, will often differ not only from what is right, but

from their author himself in the analysis of verses. Nor are they free from

important antagonisms. "Emphasis," as here spoken of, not only clashes with

"accent," but contradicts itself, by making some syllables long and some

short; and, what is more mysteriously absurd, the author says, "It

_frequently happens_ that syllables _long by_ QUANTITY become _short by_

EMPHASIS."--_Everett's Eng. Versif._, 1st Ed., p. 99. Of this, he takes the

first syllable of the following line, namely, "the word _bids_," to be an

example:

"B~ids m~e l=ive b~ut t=o h=ope f~or p~ost=er~it~y's pr=aise."

OBS. 19.--In the American Review, for May, 1848, Everett's System of

Versification is named as "an apology and occasion"--not for a critical

examination of this or any other scheme of prosody--but for the

promulgation of a new one, a rival theory of English metres, "the

principles and laws" of which the writer promises, "at an other time" more

fully "to develop." The article referred to is entitled, "_The Art of

Measuring Verses_." The writer, being designated by his initials, "J. D.

W.," is understood to be James D. Whelpley, editor of the Review. Believing

Everett's principal doctrines to be radically erroneous, this critic

nevertheless excuses them, because he thinks we have nothing better! "The

views supported in the work itself," says his closing paragraph, "_are not,

indeed, such as we would subscribe to, nor can we admit the numerous

analyses of the English metres which it contains to be correct_; yet, as it

is as complete in design and execution as anything that has yet appeared on

the subject, and well calculated to excite the attention, and direct the

inquiries, of English scholars, to the study of our own metres, we shall

even pass it by without a word of criticism."--_American Review, New

Series_, Vol. I, p. 492.

OBS. 20.--Everett, although, as we have seen, he thought proper to deny

that the student of English versification had any well authorized "rules to

guide him," still argues that, "The laws of our verse are just as fixed,

and may be as clearly laid down, if we but attend to the usage of the great

Poets, as are the laws of our syntax."--_Preface_, p. 7. But this critic,

of the American Review, ingenious though he is in many of his remarks,

flippantly denies that our English Prosody has either authorities or

principles which one ought to respect; and accordingly cares so little whom

he contradicts, that he is often inconsistent with himself. Here is a

sample: "As there are _no established authorities_ in this art, and,

indeed, _no acknowledged principles_--every rhymester being permitted to

_invent_ his own _method_, and write by _instinct_ or _imitation_--the

critic feels quite at liberty to say just what he pleases, and _offer his

private observations_ as though these were really of some moment."--_Am.

Rev._, Vol. i, p. 484. In respect to writing, "_to invent_," and _to

"imitate_," are repugnant ideas; and so are, _after a "method_," and "_by

instinct_." Again, what sense is there in making the "liberty" of

publishing one's "private observations" to depend on the presumed absence

of rivals? That the author did not lack confidence in the general

applicability of his speculations, subversive though they are of the best

and most popular teaching on this subject, is evident from the following

sentence: "We intend, also, that if these principles, with the others

previously expressed, are true in the given instances, _they are equally

true for all languages and all varieties of metre_, even to the denial that

_any_ poetic metres, founded on other principles, can properly

exist."--_Ib._, p. 491

OBS. 21.--J. D. W. is not one of those who discard quantity and supply

accent in expounding the nature of metre; and yet he does not coincide very

nearly with any of those who have heretofore made quantity the basis of

poetic numbers. His views of the rhythmical elements being in several

respects _peculiar_, I purpose briefly to notice them here, though some of

the peculiarities of this new "_Art of Measuring Verses_," should rather be

quoted under the head of _Scanning_, to which they more properly belong.

"Of every species of beauty," says this author, "and more especially of the

beauty of sounds, _continuousness_ is the _first element_; a succession of

_pulses_ of sound becomes agreeable, only when the breaks or intervals

cease to be heard." Again: "Quantity, or the _division into measures of

time_, is a _second element_ of verse; each line must be _stuffed out with

sounds_, to a certain fullness and plumpness, that will sustain the voice,

and force it to dwell upon the sounds."--_Rev._, p. 485. The first of these

positions is subsequently contradicted, or very largely qualified, by the

following: "So, the line of significant sounds, in a verse, is also marked

by _accents_, or _pulses_, and divided into portions called _feet_. These

are necessary and natural for the very simple reason that _continuity by

itself is tedious_; and the greatest pleasure arises from the union of

continuity with _variety_. [That is, with "_interruption_," as he elsewhere

calls it!] In the line,

'Full màny a tàle theír mùsic tèlls,'

there are at least four accents or stresses of the voice, with faint

_pauses_ after them, just enough to separate the continuous stream of sound

into these four parts, to be read thus:

Fullman--yataleth--eirmus--ictells,[503]

by which, new combinations of sound are produced, of a singularly musical

character. It is evident from the inspection of the above line, that the

division of the feet by the accents is quite independent of the division of

words by the sense. The sounds are melted into continuity, and _re-divided

again_ in a manner agreeable to the musical ear."--_Ib._, p. 486.

Undoubtedly, the due formation of our poetic feet occasions both a blending

of some words and a dividing of others, in a manner unknown to prose; but

still we have the authority of this writer, as well as of earlier ones, for

saying, "Good verse requires to be read _with the natural quantites

[sic--KTH] of the syllables_," (p. 487,) a doctrine with which that of the

_redivision_ appears to clash. If the example given be read with any regard

to the _cæsural pause_, as undoubtedly it should be, the _th_ of _their_

cannot be joined, as above, to the word _tale_; nor do I see any propriety

in joining the _s_ of _music_ to the third foot rather than to the fourth.

Can a theory which turns topsyturvy the whole plan of syllabication, fail

to affect "the _natural quantities_ of syllables?"

OBS. 22--Different modes of reading verse, may, without doubt, change the

quantities of very many syllables. Hence a correct mode of reading, as well

as a just theory of measure, is essential to correct scansion, or a just

discrimination of the poetic feet. It is a very common opinion, that

English verse has but few spondees; and the doctrine of Brightland has been

rarely disputed, that, "_Heroic Verses_ consist of five _short_, and five

_long_ Syllables _intermixt_, but not so very strictly as never to alter

that order."--_Gram._, 7th Ed., p. 160.[504] J. D. W., being a heavy

reader, will have each line so "_stuffed out with sounds_," and the

consonants so syllabled after the vowels, as to give to our heroics three

spondees for every two iambuses; and lines like the following, which, with

the elisions, I should resolve into four iambuses, and without them, into

three iambuses and one anapest, he supposes to consist severally of four

spondees:--

"'When coldness wraps this suffering clay,

Ah! whither strays the immortal mind?'

[These are] to be read," according to this prosodian,

"Whencoldn--esswrapsth--issuff'r--ingclay,

Ah! whith--erstraysth'--immort--almind?"

"The verse," he contends, "is perceived to consist of _six_ [probably he

meant to say _eight_] heavy syllables, each composed of a vowel followed by

a group of consonantal sounds, the whole measured into four equal feet. The

movement is what is called spondaic, a spondee being a foot of two heavy

sounds. The absence of short syllables gives the line a peculiar weight and

solemnity suited to the sentiment, and doubtless prompted by

it."--_American Review_, Vol. i, p. 487. Of his theory, he subsequently

says: "It maintains that good English verse is as thoroughly quantitative

as the Greek, though it be _much more heavy and spondaic_."--_Ib._, p.

491.[505]

OBS. 23--For the determining of quantities and feet, this author borrows

from some old Latin grammar three or four rules, commonly thought

inapplicable to our tongue, and, mixing them up with other speculations,

satisfies himself with stating that the "Art of Measuring Verses" requires

yet the production of many more such! But, these things being the essence

of his principles, it is proper to state them _in his own words_: "A short

vowel sound followed by a double consonantal sound, usually makes a _long_

quantity;[506] so also does a long vowel like _y_ in _beauty_, before a

consonant. The _metrical accents_, which _often differ from the prosaic_,

mostly fall upon the heavy sounds; _which must also be prolonged in

reading_, and never slurred or lightened, unless to help out a bad verse.

In our language _the groupings of the consonants furnish a great number of

spondaic feet_, and give the language, especially its more ancient forms,

as in the verse of Milton and the prose of Lord Bacon, a grand and solemn

character. One vowel followed by another, unless the first be _naturally

made long_ in the reading, makes a short quantity, as in _th[=e] old_. So,

also, a short vowel followed by a single short consonant, gives a short

_time_ or _quantity_, as in _tö give_. [Fist] A great variety of rules for

the detection of long and short quantities _have yet to be invented_, or

applied from the Greek and Latin prosody. _In all languages they are of

course the same_, making due allowance for difference of organization; but

it is as absurd to suppose that the Greeks should have a system of prosody

differing in principle from our own, as that their rules of musical harmony

should be different from the modern. Both result from the nature of the ear

and of _the organ of speech_, and are consequently _the same_ in all ages

and nations."--_Am. Rev._, Vol. i, p. 488.

OBS. 24.--QUANTITY is here represented as "_time_" only. In this author's

first mention of it, it is called, rather less accurately, "_the division

into measures of time_." With too little regard for either of these

conceptions, he next speaks of it as including both "_time and accent_."

But I have already shown that "_accents_ or _stresses_" cannot pertain to

_short_ syllables, and therefore cannot be ingredients of quantity. The

whole article lacks that _clearness_ which is a prime requisite of a sound

theory. Take all of the writer's next paragraph as an example of this

defect: "The two elements of musical metre, _time_ and _accent_, both

together constituting _quantity_, are _equally_ elements of the metre of

verse. Each _iambic_ foot or metre, is marked by a swell of the voice,

concluding abruptly in an _accent_, or _interruption_, on the _last sound_

of the foot; or, [omit this 'or:' it is improper,] in metres of the

_trochaic_ order, in such words as _dandy, handy, bottle, favor, labor_, it

[the foot] begins with a heavy accented sound, and declines to a faint or

light one at the close. The line is thus composed of a series of swells or

waves of sound, _concluding and beginning alike_. The _accents_, or points

at which the voice is most forcibly exerted in the feet, _being the

divisions of time_, by which a part of its musical character is given to

the verse, are _usually made to coincide_, in our language, with the

accents of the words as they are spoken; which [coincidence] diminishes the

musical character of our verse. In Greek hexameters and Latin hexameters,

on the contrary, this coincidence is avoided, as tending to monotony and a

prosaic character."--_Ibid._