This page needs to be proofread.
- 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,[1] 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.
- 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,[2] 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!"
- 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
- ↑ [501] Murray has here a marginal note, as follows: "Movement and measure are thus distinguished. Movement expresses the progressive order of sounds, whether from strong to weak, from long to short, or vice versa. Measure signifies the proportion of time, both in sounds and pauses."—Octavo Gram., p. 259. This distinction is neither usual nor accurate; though Humphrey adopts it, with slight variations. Without some species of measure,—Iambic, Trochaic, Anapestic, Dactylic, or some other,—there can be no regular movement, no "progressive order of sounds." Measure is therefore too essential to movement to be in contrast with it. And the movement "from strong to weak, from long to short," is but one and the same, a trochaic movement; its reverse, the movement, "vice versa," from weak to strong, or from short to long, is, of course, that of iambic measure. But Murray's doctrine is, that strong and long, weak and short, may be separated; that strong may be short, and weak be long; so that the movement from weak to strong may be from long to short, and vice versa: as if a trochaic movement might arise from iambic measure, and an iambic movement from trochaic feet! This absurdity comes of attempting to regulate the movement of verse by accent, and not by quantity, while it is admitted that quantity, and not accent, forms the measure, which "signifies the proportion of time." The idea that pauses belong to measure, is an other radical error of the foregoing note. There are more pauses in poetry than in prose, but none of them are properly "parts" of either. Humphrey says truly, "Feet are the constituent parts of verse."—English Prosody, p. 8. But L. Murray says, "Feet and pauses are the constituent parts of verse."—Octavo Gram., p. 252. Here Sheridan gave bias. Intending to treat of verse, and "the pauses peculiarly belonging to it," the "Cæsural" pause and the "Final," the rhetorician had improperly said, "The constituent parts of verse are, feet, and pauses."—Sheridan's Rhetorical Gram., p. 64.
- ↑ [502] "But as many Ways as Quantities may be varied by Composition and Transposition, so many different Feet have the Greek Poets contriv'd, and that under distinct Names, from two to six Syllables, to the Number of 124. But it is the Opinion of some Learned Men in this Way, that Poetic Numbers may be sufficiently explain'd by those of two or three Syllables, into which the rest are to be resolv'd."—Brightland's Grammar, 7th Ed., p. 161.
