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

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