The Grammar of English Grammars, Goold Brown [ebook reader for manga txt] 📗

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