The Grammar of English Grammars by Gould Brown

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 _Caesura_, which is commonly a long syllable.” [499]

FOR EXAMPLE:–

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 orthoepist 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_,” (Sec.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_, Sec.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., Sec.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_. Sec.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 many a tale their music tells,’

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 _caesural 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 _toe 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._

OBS. 25.–The passage just cited represents “_accent_” or “_accents_” not only as partly constituting _quantity_, but as being, in its or their turn, “_the divisions of time_;”–as being also stops, pauses, or “_interruptions_” of sound else continuous;–as being of two sorts, “_metrical_” and “_prosaic_,” which “usually coincide,” though it is said, they “often differ,” and their “interference” is “very frequent;”–as being “the points” of stress “in the _feet_,” but not always such in “the _words_,” of verse;–as striking different feet differently, “each _iambic_ foot” on the latter syllable and every _trochee_ on the former, yet causing, in each line, only such waves of sound as conclude and begin “_alike_;”–as coinciding with the long quantities and “_the prosaic accents_,” in iambics and trochaics, yet not coinciding with these always;–as giving to verse “a part of its musical character,” yet _diminishing_ that character, by their usual coincidence with “_the prose accents_;”–as being kept distinct in Latin and Greek, “_the metrical” from “the prosaic_” and their “coincidence avoided,” to make poetry more poetical,–though the old prosodists, in all they say of accents, acute, grave, and circumflex, give no hint of this primary distinction! In all this elementary teaching, there seems to be a want of a clear, steady, and consistent notion of the things spoken of. The author’s theory led him to several strange combinations of words, some of which it is not easy, even with his whole explanation before us, to regard as other than _absurd_. With a few examples of his new phraseology, Italicized by myself, I dismiss the subject: “It frequently happens that _word and verse accent_ fall differently.”–P. 489. “The _verse syllables_, like _the verse feet_, differ _in the prosaic and_ [the] _metrical reading_ of the line.”–_Ib._ “If we read it by _the prosaic syllabication_, there will be no possibility of measuring the quantities.”–_Ib._ “The metrical are perfectly distinct from the _prosaic properties of verse_.”–_Ib._ “It may be called _an iambic dactyl_, formed by the substitution of two short for one long time in the last portion of the foot. _Iambic spondees and dactyls_ are to be distinguished by the _metrical accent_ falling on the last syllable.”–P. 491.

SECTION IV.–THE KINDS OF VERSE.

The principal kinds of verse, or orders of poetic numbers, as has already been stated, are four; namely, _Iambic, Trochaic, Anapestic_, and _Dactylic_. Besides these, which are sometimes called “_the simple orders_” being unmixed, or nearly so, some recognize several “_Composite orders_” or (with a better view of the matter) several kinds of mixed verse, which are said to constitute “_the Composite order_.” In these, one of the four principal kinds of feet must still be used as the basis, some other species being inserted therewith, in each line or stanza, with more or less regularity.

PRINCIPLES AND NAMES.

The diversification of any species of metre, by the occasional change of a foot, or, in certain cases, by the addition or omission of a short syllable, is not usually regarded as sufficient to change the denomination, or stated order, of the verse; and many critics suppose some variety of feet, as well as a studied diversity in the position of the caesural pause, essential to the highest excellence of poetic composition.

The dividing of verses into the feet which compose them, is called _Scanning_, or _Scansion_. In this, according to the technical language of the old prosodists, when a syllable is wanting, the verse is said to be _catalectic_; when the measure is exact, the line is _acatalectic_; when there is a redundant syllable, it forms _hypermeter_.

Since the equal recognition of so many feet as twelve, or even as eight, will often produce different modes of measuring the same lines; and since it is desirable to measure verses with uniformity, and always by the simplest process that will well answer the purpose; we usually scan by the principal feet, in preference to the secondary, where the syllables give us a choice of measures, or may be divided in different ways.

A single foot, especially a foot of only two syllables, can hardly be said to constitute a line, or to have rhythm in itself; yet we sometimes see a foot so placed, and rhyming as a line. Lines of two, three, four, five, six, or seven feet, are common; and these have received the technical denominations of _dim’eter, trim’eter, tetram’eter, pentam’eter, hexam’eter_, and _heptam’eter_. On a wide page, iambics and trochaics may possibly be written in _octom’eter_; but lines of this measure, being very long, are mostly abandoned for alternate tetrameters.

ORDER I.–IAMBIC VERSE.

In Iambic verse, the stress is laid on the even syllables, and the odd ones are short. Any short syllable added to a line of this order, is supernumerary; iambic rhymes, which are naturally single, being made double by one, and triple by two. But the adding of one short syllable, which is much practised in dramatic poetry, may be reckoned to convert the last foot into an amphibrach, though the adding of two cannot. Iambics consist of the following measures:–

MEASURE I.–IAMBIC OF EIGHT FEET, OR OCTOMETER.

_Psalm XLVII, 1 and 2_.

Each couplet of this verse is now commonly reduced to, or exchanged for, a simple stanza of four tetrameter lines, rhyming alternately, and each commencing with a capital; but sometimes, the second line and the fourth are still commenced with a small letter: as,

_An other Example_.

MEASURE II.–IAMBIC OF SEVEN FEET, OR HEPTAMETER.

_Example I.–Hat-Brims_.

_Example II.–Psalm XLII_, 1.

_Example III.–The Shepherd’s Hymn_.

_Example IV.–“The Far, Far Fast.”–First six Lines._

_Example V.–“Lament of the Slave.”–Eight Lines from thirty-four._

_Example VI.–“Greek Funeral Chant.”–First four of sixty-four Lines._

Everett observes, “The _Iliad_ was translated into this measure by CHAPMAN, and the _AEneid_ by PHAER.”–_Eng. Versif._, p. 68. Prior, who has a ballad of one hundred and eighty such lines, intimates in a note the great antiquity of the verse. Measures of this length, though not very uncommon, are much less frequently used than shorter ones. A practice has long prevailed of dividing this kind of verse into alternate lines of four and of three feet, thus:–

This, according to the critics, is the most soft and pleasing of our lyric measures. With the slight change of setting a capital at the head of each line, it becomes the regular ballad-metre of our language. Being also adapted to hymns, as well as to lighter songs, and, more particularly, to quaint details of no great length, this stanza, or a similar one more ornamented with rhymes, is found in many choice pieces of English poetry. The following are a few popular examples:–

The rhyming of this last stanza is irregular and remarkable, yet not unpleasant. It is contrary to rule, to omit any rhyme which the current of the verse leads the reader to expect. Yet here the word “_shore_” ending the first line, has no correspondent sound, where twelve examples of such correspondence had just preceded; while the third line, without previous example, is so rhymed within itself that one scarcely perceives the omission. Double rhymes are said by some to unfit this metre for serious subjects, and to adapt it only to what is meant to be burlesque, humorous, or satiric. The example above does not confirm this opinion, yet the rule, as a general one, may still be just. Ballad verse may in some degree imitate the language of a simpleton, and become popular by clownishness, more than by elegance: as,

Even the line of seven feet may still be lengthened a little by a double rhyme: as,

Of this length, T. O. Churchill reckons the following couplet; but by the general usage of the day, the final _ed_ is not made a separate syllable:–

MEASURE III.–IAMBIC OF SIX FEET, OR HEXAMETER.

_Example I.–A Couplet_.

_Example II.–From a Description of a Stag-Hunt_.

_Example III.–An Extract from Shakespeare_.

_Example IV.–The Ten Commandments Versified_.

This verse, consisting, when entirely regular, of twelve syllables in six iambs, is the _Alexandrine_; said to have been so named because it was “first used in a poem called _Alexander_.”–_Worcester’s Dict._ Such metre has sometimes been written, with little diversity, through an entire English poem, as in Drayton’s Polyolbion; but, couplets of this length being generally esteemed too clumsy for our language, the Alexandrine has been little used by English versifiers, except to complete certain stanzas beginning with shorter iambics, or, occasionally, to close a period in heroic rhyme. French heroics are similar to this; and if, as some assert, we have obtained it thence, the original poem was doubtless a French one, detailing the exploits of the hero “_Alexandre_.” The phrase, “_an Alexandrine verse_,” is, in French, “_un vers Alexandrin_.” Dr. Gregory, in his Dictionary of Arts and Sciences, copies Johnson’s Quarto Dictionary, which says, “ALEXANDRINE, a kind of verse borrowed from the French, first used in a poem called Alexander. They [Alexandrines] consist, among the French, of twelve and thirteen syllables, in alternate couplets; and, among us, of twelve.” Dr. Webster, in his American Dictionary, _improperly_ (as I think) gives to the name two forms, and seems also to acknowledge two sorts of the English verse: “ALEXAN’DRINE, or ALEXAN’DRIAN, _n._ A kind of verse, consisting of twelve syllables, or of twelve and thirteen alternately.” “The Pet-Lamb,” a modern pastoral, by Wordsworth, has sixty-eight lines, all probably meant for Alexandrines; most of which have twelve syllables, though some have thirteen, and others, fourteen. But it were a great pity, that versification so faulty and unsuitable should ever be imitated. About half of the said lines, as they appear in the poet’s royal octave, or “the First Complete American, from the Last London Edition,” are as sheer prose as can be written, it being quite impossible to read them into any proper rhythm. The poem being designed for children, the measure should have been reduced to iambic trimeter, and made exact at that. The story commences thus:–

All this is regular, with the exception of one foot; but who can make any thing but _prose_ of the following?

“Thy limbs will shortly be twice as stout as they are now, Then I’ll yoke thee to my cart like a pony in the plough.” “Here thou needest not dread the raven in the sky; Night and day thou art safe,–our cottage is hard by.” WORDSWORTH’S _Poems_, New-Haven Ed., 1836, p. 4.

In some very ancient English poetry, we find lines of twelve syllables combined in couplets with others of fourteen; that is, six iambic feet are alternated with seven, in lines that rhyme. The following is an example, taken from a piece of fifty lines, which Dr. Johnson ascribes to the _Earl of Surry_, one of the wits that flourished in the reign of Henry VIII:–

MEASURE IV.–IAMBIC OF FIVE FEET, OR PENTAMETER.

_Example I.–Hector to Andromache._

_Example II.–Angels’ Worship._

_Example III.–Deceptive Glosses_.

_Example IV.–Praise God_.

_Example V.–The Christian Spirit_.

_Example VI.–To London_.

This verse, the iambic pentameter, is the regular English _heroic_–a stately species, and that in which most of our great poems are composed, whether epic, dramatic, or descriptive. It is well adapted to rhyme, to the composition of sonnets, to the formation of stanzas of several sorts; and yet is, perhaps, the only measure suitable for blank verse–which latter form always demands a subject of some dignity or sublimity.

The _Elegiac Stanza_, or the form of verse most commonly used by elegists, consists of four heroics rhyming alternately; as,

Iambic verse is seldom continued perfectly pure through a long succession of lines. Among its most frequent diversifications, are the following; and others may perhaps be noticed hereafter:–

(1.) The first foot is often varied by a substitutional trochee; as,

(2.) By a synaeresis of the two short syllables, an anapest may sometimes be employed for an iambus; or a dactyl, for a trochee. This occurs chiefly where one unaccented vowel precedes an other in what we usually regard as separate syllables, and both are clearly heard, though uttered perhaps in so quick succession that both syllables may occupy only half the time of a long one. Some prosodists, however, choose to regard these substitutions as instances of trissyllabic feet mixed with the others; and, doubtless, it is in general easy to make them such, by an utterance that avoids, rather than favours, the coalescence. The following are examples:–

(3.) In plays, and light or humorous descriptions, the last foot of an iambic line is often varied or followed by an additional short syllable; and, sometimes, in verses of triple rhyme, there is an addition of two short syllables, after the principal rhyming syllable. Some prosodists call the variant foot, in die former instance, an _amphibrach_, and would probably, in the latter, suppose either an _additional pyrrhic_, or an amphibrach with still a _surplus syllable_; but others scan, in these cases, by the iambus only, calling what remains after the last long syllable _hypermeter_; and this is, I think, the better way. The following examples show these and some other variations from pure iambic measure:–

_Example I.–Grief._

_Example II.–A Wish to Please_.

MEASURE V.–IAMBIC OF FOUR FEET, OR TETRAMETER.

_Example I.–Presidents of the United States of America_.

_Example II.–The Shepherd Bard_.

_Example III.–Two Stanzas from Eighteen, Addressed to the Ettrick Shepherd_.

_Example IV.–“Elegiac Stanzas,” in Iambics of Four feet and Three_.

This line, the iambic tetrameter, is a favourite one, with many writers of English verse, and has been much used, both in couplets and in stanzas. Butler’s Hudibras, Gay’s Fables, and many allegories, most of Scott’s poetical works, and some of Byron’s, are written in couplets of this measure. It is liable to the same diversifications as the preceding metre. The frequent admission of an additional short syllable, forming double rhyme, seems admirably to adapt it to a familiar, humorous, or burlesque style. The following may suffice for an example:–

The following lines have _ten syllables_ in each, yet the measure is not iambic of five feet, but that of four with hypermeter:–

MEASURE VI.–IAMBIC OF THREE FEET, OR TRIMETER.

_Example.–To Evening_.

“Now teach | me, maid | compos’d
To breathe | some soft | -en’d strain.”–_Collins_, p. 39.

This short measure has seldom, if ever, been used alone in many successive couplets; but it is often found in stanzas, sometimes without other lengths, but most commonly with them. The following are a few examples:–

_Example I.–Two ancient Stanzas, out of Many_,

_Example II.–Acis and Galatea_.

_Example III.–“Mene, Mene, Tekel, Upharsin_.”

_Example IV.–Lyric Stanzas_.

_Example V.–Lyric Stanzas_.

_Example VI.–England’s Dead_.

The following examples have some of the common diversifications already noticed under the longer measures:–

_Example I.–“Languedocian Air_.”

_Example II.–From “a Portuguese Air_.”

_Example III.–Resignation_.

MEASURE VII.–IAMBIC OF TWO FEET, OR DIMETER.

_Example–A Scolding Wife_.

Iambic dimeter, like the metre of three iambs, is much less frequently used alone than in stanzas with longer lines; but the preceding example is a refutation of the idea, that no piece is ever composed wholly of this measure, or that the two feet cannot constitute a line. In Humphrey’s English Prosody, on page 16th, is the following paragraph; which is not only defective in style, but erroneous in all its averments:–

“Poems are never composed of lines of two [-] feet metre, in succession: they [combinations of two feet] are only used occasionally in poems, hymns, odes, &c. to diversify the metre; and are, in no case, lines of poetry, or verses; but hemistics, [_hemistichs_,] or half lines. The shortest metre of which iambic verse is composed, in lines successively, is that of three feet; and this is the shortest metre _which_ can be denominated lines, or verses; and _this is not frequently used_.”

In ballads, ditties, hymns, and versified psalms, scarcely any line is _more common_ than the iambic trimeter, here denied to be “frequently used;” of which species, there are about seventy lines among the examples above. Dr. Young’s poem entitled “Resignation,” has eight hundred and twenty such lines, and as many more of iambic tetrameter. His “Ocean” has one hundred and forty-five of the latter, and two hundred and ninety-two of the species now under consideration; i.e., iambic dimeter. But how can the metre which predominates by two to one, be called, in such a case, an occasional diversification of that which is less frequent?

Lines of two iambs are not very uncommon, even in psalmody; and, since we have some lines _yet shorter_, and the lengths of all are determined only by the act of measuring, there is, surely, no propriety in calling dimeters “hemistichs,” merely because they are short. The following are some examples of this measure combined with longer ones:–

_Example I.–From Psalm CXLVIII_.

_Example II.–From Psalm CXXXVI._

_Example III.–Gloria Patri_.

_Example IV.–Part of Psalm III_.

_Example V.–Six Lines of an “Air.”_

“As when | the dove
Laments | her love
All on | the na | -ked spray;

When he | returns,
No more | she mourns,
But loves | the live | -long day.” JOHN GAY: _British Poets_, Vol. vii, p. 377.

_Example VI.–Four Stanzas of an Ode_.

There is a line of five syllables and double rhyme, which is commonly regarded as iambic dimeter with a supernumerary short syllable; and which, though it is susceptible of two other divisions into two feet, we prefer to scan in this manner, because it usually alternates with pure iambics. Twelve such lines occur in the following extract:–

LOVE TRANSITORY

MEASURE VIII.–IAMBIC OF ONE FOOT, OR MONOMETER.

“The shortest form of the English Iambic,” says Lindley Murray, “consists of an Iambus with an additional short syllable: as,

Disdaining,
Complaining,
Consenting,
Repenting.

We have no poem of this measure, but it may be met with in stanzas. The Iambus, with this addition, coincides with the Amphibrach.”–_Murray’s Gram._, 12mo, p. 204; 8vo, p. 254. This, or the substance of it, has been repeated by many other authors. Everett varies the language and illustration, but teaches the same doctrine. See _E. Versif._, p. 15.

Now there are sundry examples which may be cited to show, that the iambus, without any additional syllable, and without the liability of being confounded with an other foot, may, and sometimes does, stand as a line, and sustain a regular rhyme. The following pieces contain instances of this sort:–

_Example I.–“How to Keep Lent.”_

Example II.–“To Mary Ann.”

[This singular arrangement of seventy-two separate iambic feet, I find _without intermediate points_, and leave it so. It seems intended to be read in three or more different ways, and the punctuation required by one mode of reading would not wholly suit an other.]

“Your face Your tongue Your wit So fair So sweet So sharp
First bent Then drew Then hit Mine eye Mine ear Mine heart

Mine eye Mine ear Mine heart To like To learn To love
Your face Your tongue Your wit Doth lead Doth teach Doth move

Your face Your tongue Your wit With beams With sound With art Doth blind Doth charm Doth rule Mine eye Mine ear Mine heart

Mine eye Mine ear Mine heart With life With hope With skill Your face Your tongue Your wit
Doth feed Doth feast Doth fill

O face O tongue O wit
With frowns With cheek With smart Wrong not Vex not Wound not
Mine eye Mine ear Mine heart

This eye This ear This heart Shall joy Shall bend Shall swear Your face Your tongue Your wit
To serve To trust To fear.”

ANONYMOUS: _Sundry American Newspapers_, in 1849.

_Example III.–Umbrellas._

“The late George Canning, of whom Byron said that ‘it was his happiness to be at once a wit, poet, orator, and statesman, and excellent in all,’ is the author of the following clever _jeu d’ esprit_:” [except three lines here added in brackets:]

_Example IV.–Shreds of a Song._

I. SPRING.

II. WINTER.

_Example V.–Puck’s Charm._

[_When he has uttered the fifth line, he squeezes a juice on Lysander’s eyes_.]

“On the ground,
_Sleep sound_;
I’ll apply
To your eye,
Gentle | lover, | remedy.
When thou wak’st,
_Thou tak’st_
True delight
In the sight
Of thy | former | lady’s eye.” [508] IDEM: _Midsummer-Night’s Dream_, Act iii, Sc. 2.

ORDER II.–TROCHAIC VERSE.

In Trochaic verse, the stress is laid on the odd syllables, and the even ones are short. Single-rhymed trochaic omits the final short syllable, that it may end with a long one; for the common doctrine of Murray, Chandler, Churchill, Bullions, Butler, Everett, Fowler, Weld, Wells, Mulligan, and others, that this chief rhyming syllable is “_additional_” to the real number of feet in the line, is manifestly incorrect. One long syllable is, in some instances, used _as a foot_; but it is one or more _short syllables_ only, that we can properly admit _as hypermeter_. Iambics and trochaics often occur in the same poem; but, in either order, written with exactness, the number of feet is always the number of the long syllables.

_Examples from Gray’s Bard._

(1.)

(2.)

The Grammar of English Grammars by Gould Brown (page 37)