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

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