FIGURE XV.--APOPHASIS, OR PARALIPSIS.

I say nothing of the notorious profligacy of his character; nothing of the reckless extravagance with which he has wasted an ample fortune; nothing of the disgusting intemperance which has sometimes caused him to reel in our streets;--but I aver that he has not been faithful to our interests,--has not exhibited either probity or ability in the important office which he holds.

FIGURE XVI.--ONOMATOPOEIA.

[Fist][The following lines, from Swift's Poems, satirically mimick the imitative music of a violin.]

"Now slowly move your fiddle-stick; Now, tantan, tantantivi, quick; Now trembling, shivering, quivering, quaking, Set hoping hearts of Lovers aching."

"Now sweep, sweep the deep.

See Celia, Celia dies, While true Lovers' eyes Weeping sleep, Sleeping weep, Weeping sleep, Bo-peep, bo-peep."

CHAPTER IV.--VERSIFICATION.

Versification is the forming of that species of literary composition which is called _verse_; that is, _poetry_, or _poetic numbers_.

SECTION I.--OF VERSE.

Verse, in opposition to prose, is language arranged into metrical lines of some determinate length and rhythm--language so ordered as to produce harmony, by a due succession of poetic feet, or of syllables differing in quantity or stress.

DEFINITIONS AND PRINCIPLES.

The _rhythm_ of verse is its relation of quantities; the modulation of its numbers; or, the kind of metre, measure, or movement, of which it consists, or by which it is particularly distinguished.

The _quantity_ of a syllable, as commonly explained, is the relative portion of time occupied in uttering it. In poetry, every syllable is considered to be either long or short. A long syllable is usually reckoned to be equal to two short ones.

In the construction of English verse, long quantity coincides always with the primary accent, generally also with the secondary, as well as with emphasis; and short quantity, as reckoned by the poets, is found only in unaccented syllables, and unemphatical monosyllabic words.[483]

The quantity of a syllable, whether long or short, does not depend on what is called the long or the short sound of a vowel or diphthong, or on a supposed distinction of accent as affecting vowels in some cases and consonants in others, but principally on the degree of energy or loudness with which the syllable is uttered, whereby a greater or less portion of time is employed.

The open vowel sounds, which are commonly but not very accurately termed _long_, are those which are the most easily protracted, yet they often occur in the shortest and feeblest syllables; while, on the other hand, no vowel sound, that occurs under the usual stress of accent or of emphasis, is either so short in its own nature, or is so "quickly joined to the succeeding letter," that the syllable is not one of long quantity.

Most monosyllables, in English, are variable in quantity, and may be made either long or short, as strong or weak sounds suit the sense and rhythm; but words of greater length are, for the most part, fixed, their accented syllables being always long, and a syllable immediately before or after the accent almost always short.

One of the most obvious distinctions in poetry, is that of rhyme and blank verse. _Rhyme_ is a similarity of sound, combined with a difference: occurring usually between the last syllables of different lines, but sometimes at other intervals; and so ordered that the rhyming syllables begin differently and end alike. _Blank verse_ is verse without rhyme.

The principal rhyming syllables are almost always long. Double rhyme adds one short syllable; triple rhyme, two. Such syllables are redundant in iambic and anapestic verses; in lines of any other sort, they are generally, if not always, included in the measure.

A _Stanza_ is a combination of several verses, or lines, which, taken together, make a regular division of a poem. It is the common practice of good versifiers, to form all stanzas of the same poem after one model. The possible variety of stanzas is infinite; and the actual variety met with in print is far too great for detail.

OBSERVATIONS.

OBS. 1.--Verse, in the broadest acceptation of the term, is poetry, or metrical language, in general. This, to the eye, is usually distinguished from prose by the manner in which it is written and printed. For, in very many instances, if this were not the case, the reader would be puzzled to discern the difference. The division of poetry into its peculiar lines, is therefore not a mere accident. The word _verse_, from the Latin _versus_, literally signifies a _turning_. Each full line of metre is accordingly called a verse; because, when its measure is complete, the writer _turns_ to place another under it. A _verse_, then, in the primary sense of the word with us, is, "A _line_ consisting of a certain succession of sounds, and number of syllables."--_Johnson, Walker, Todd, Bottes_, and others. Or, according to _Webster_, it is, "A poetic _line_, consisting of a certain number of long and short syllables, disposed according to the rules of the species of poetry which the author intends to compose."--See _American Dict._, 8vo.

OBS. 2.--If to settle the theory of English verse on true and consistent principles, is as difficult a matter, as the manifold contrarieties of doctrine among our prosodists would indicate, there can be no great hope of any scheme entirely satisfactory to the intelligent examiner. The very elements of the subject are much perplexed by the incompatible dogmas of authors deemed skillful to elucidate it. It will scarcely be thought a hard matter to distinguish true verse from prose, yet is it not well agreed, wherein the difference consists: what the generality regard as the most essential elements or characteristics of the former, some respectable authors dismiss entirely from their definitions of both verse and versification. The existence of quantity in our language; the dependence of our rhythms on the division of syllables into long and short; the concurrence of our accent, (except in some rare and questionable instances,) with long quantity only; the constant effect of emphasis to lengthen quantity; the limitation of quantity to mere duration of sound; the doctrine that quantity pertains to all _syllables_ as such, and not merely to vowel sounds; the recognition of the same general principles of syllabication in poetry as in prose; the supposition that accent pertains not to certain _letters_ in particular, but to certain _syllables_ as such; the limitation of accent to stress, or percussion, only; the conversion of short syllables into long, and long into short, by a change of accent; our frequent formation of long syllables with what are called short vowels; our more frequent formation of short syllables with what are called long or open vowels; the necessity of some order in the succession of feet or syllables to form a rhythm; the need of framing each line to correspond with some other line or lines in length; the propriety of always making each line susceptible of scansion by itself: all these points, so essential to a true explanation of the nature of English verse, though, for the most part, well maintained by some prosodists, are nevertheless denied by some, so that opposite opinions may be cited concerning them all. I would not suggest that all or any of these points are thereby made _doubtful_; for there may be opposite judgements in a dozen cases, and yet concurrence enough (if concurrence _can_ do it) to establish them every one.

OBS. 3.--An ingenious poet and prosodist now living,[484] Edgar Allan Poe, (to whom I owe a word or two of reply,) in his "Notes upon English Verse,"

with great self-complacency, represents, that, "While much has been written upon the structure of the Greek and Latin rhythms, comparatively _nothing_ has been done as regards the English;" that, "It may be said, indeed, we are _without a treatise_ upon our own versification;" that "The very best"

_definition_ of versification[485] to be found in any of "_our ordinary treatises_ on the topic," has "_not a single point_ which does not involve an error;" that, "A _leading deft_ in each of these treatises is the confining of the subject to mere _versification_, while metre, or rhythm, in general, is the real question at issue;" that, "Versification is _not_ the art, but the _act_'--of making verses;" that, "A correspondence in the _length_ of lines is by no means essential;" that "_Harmony_" produced "by the regular alternation of syllables differing in quantity," does not include "_melody_;" that "A _regular alternation_, as described, forms _no part_ of the principle of metre:" that "There is no necessity of _any regularity_ in the succession of _feet_;" that, "By consequence," he ventures to "dispute the _essentiality_ of any alternation, regular or irregular, of _syllables_ long and short:" that, "For _anything more intelligible_ or _more satisfactory_ than this definition [i. e., G.

Brown's former definition of versification,] we shall look in vain in _any published_ treatise upon the subject;" that, "So general and _so total a failure_ can be referred only to some _radical misconception_;" that, "The word _verse_ is derived (through _versus_ from the Latin _verto, I turn_,) and * * * * it can be nothing but _this derivation_, which has led to _the error_ of our writers upon prosody;" that, "_It is this_ which _has seduced them_ into regarding the _line_ itself--the _versus_, or turning--as an essential, or principle of metre;" that, "Hence the term _versification_ has been employed as sufficiently general, or inclusive, for treatises upon rhythm in general;" that, "Hence, also, [comes] the precise catalogue of a few varieties of English _lines_, when these varieties are, in fact, almost without limit;" that, "_I_," the aforesaid Edgar Allan Poe, "_shall dismiss entirely_, from the consideration of the principle of _rhythm_, the idea of _versification_, or the construction of verse;" that, "In so doing, _we_ shall avoid _a world of confusion_;" that, "_Verse_ is, indeed, an _afterthought_, or an _embellishment_, or an _improvement_, rather than an element of rhythm;" that, "_This fact_ has induced the easy admission, into the realms of Poesy, of _such works_ as the 'Telemaque' of Fenelon;"

because, forsooth, "In the elaborate modulation of their sentences, THEY FULFIL THE IDEA OF METRE."--_The Pioneer, a Literary and Critical Magazine_ (Boston, March, 1843,) Vol. I, p. 102 to 105.

OBS. 4.--"Holding these things in view," continues this sharp connoisseur, "the prosodist who rightly examines that which constitutes the external, or most immediately _recognisable_, form of Poetry, will commence with the definition of _Rhythm_. Now _rhythm_, from the Greek [_Greek: arithmos_], _number_, is a term which, in its present application, very nearly _conveys its own idea_. No more _proper_ word could be employed to present _the conception intended_; for _rhythm_, in prosody, is, in its _last analysis_, identical with _time_ in music. _For this reason_," says he, "I have used, throughout this article, as synonymous with _rhythm_, the word _metre_ from [Greek: metron], _measure_. Either the one or the other may be defined as _the arrangement of words into two or more consecutive, equal, pulsations of time_. These pulsations are _feet_. Two feet, at least, are requisite to constitute a _rhythm_; just as, in mathematics, two units are necessary to form [a] _number_.[486] The syllables of which the foot consists, when the foot is not a syllable in itself, are subdivisions of the pulsations. No equality is demanded in these subdivisions. It is only required that, so far as regards two consecutive feet at least, the sum of the times of the syllables in one, shall be equal to the sum of the times of the syllables in the other. Beyond two pulsations there is no necessity for equality of time. All beyond is arbitrary or conventional. A third or fourth pulsation may embody half, or double, or any proportion of the time occupied in the two first. Rhythm being thus understood, the prosodist should proceed to define _versification_ as _the making of verses_, and _verse_ as _the arbitrary or conventional isolation of rhythm into masses of greater or less extent_."--_Ib._, p. 105.

OBS. 5.--No marvel that all usual conceptions and definitions of rhythm, of versification, and of verse, should be found dissatisfactory to the critic whose idea of _metre_ is fulfilled by the pompous _prose_ of Fenelon's Telemaque. No right or real examination of this matter can ever make the most immediately _recognizable_ form of poetry to be any thing else than the form of _verse_--the form of writing in _specific lines_, ordered by number and chime of syllables, and not squared by gage of the composing-stick. And as to the derivation and primitive signification of _rhythm_, it is plain that in the extract above, both are misrepresented.

The etymology there given is a gross error; for, "the Greek [_Greek: arithmos_], _number_," would make, in English, not _rhythm_, but _arithm_, as in _arithmetic_. Between the two combinations, there is the palpable difference of three or four letters in either six; for neither of these forms can be varied to the other, but by dropping one letter, and adding an other, and changing a third, and moving a fourth. _Rhythm_ is derived, not thence, but from the Greek [_Greek: rhythmos_]; which, according to the lexicons, is a primitive word, and means, _rhythmus, rhythm, concinnity, modulation, measured tune_, or _regular flow_, and _not "number_."

OBS. 6.--_Rhythm_, of course, like every other word not misapplied, "conveys _its own idea_;" and that, not qualifiedly, or "_very nearly_,"

but _exactly_. That this idea, however, was originally that of arithmetical _number_, or is nearly so now, is about as fanciful a notion, as the happy suggestion added above, that _rhythm_ in lieu of _arithm_ or _number_, is the fittest of words, _because_ "rhythm in prosody is _time_ in music!" Without dispute, it is important to the prosodist, and also to the poet or versifier, to have as accurate an idea as possible of the import of this common term, though it is observable that many of our grammarians make little or no use of it. That it has some relation to _numbers_, is undeniable. But what is it? Poetic numbers, and numbers in arithmetic, and numbers in grammar, are three totally different sorts of things. _Rhythm_ is related only to the first. Of the signification of this word, a recent expositor gives the following brief explanation: "RHYTHM, _n._ Metre; verse; _numbers_. Proportion applied to any motion whatever."--_Bolles's Dictionary_, 8vo. To this definition, Worcester prefixes the following: "The consonance of measure and time in poetry, _prose composition_, and music;--also in dancing."--_Universal and Critical Dict._ In verse, the proportion which forms rhythm--that is, the chime of quantities--is applied to the _sounds_ of syllables. Sounds, however, may be considered as a species of _motion_, especially those which are rhythmical or musical.[487] It seems more strictly correct, to regard rhythm as a _property_ of poetic numbers, than to identify it with them. It is their proportion or modulation, rather than the numbers themselves.

According to Dr. Webster, "RHYTHM, or RHYTHMUS, in _music_ [is] variety in the movement as to quickness or slowness, or length and shortness of the notes; or _rather_ the proportion which the parts of the motion have to each other."--_American Dict._ The "_last analysis_" of rhythm can be nothing else than the reduction of it to its _least parts_. And if, in this reduction, it is "identical with _time_," then it is here the same thing as _quantity_, whether prosodical or musical; for, "The _time_ of a note, or syllable, is called _quantity_. The time of a _rest_ is also called quantity; because _rests_, as well as notes are a constituent of rhythm."--_Comstock's Elocution_, p. 64. But rhythm is, in fact, neither time nor quantity; for the analysis which would make it such, destroys the relation in which the thing consists.

SECTION II.--OF ACCENT AND QUANTITY.

Accent and Quantity have already been briefly explained in the second chapter of Prosody, as items coming under the head of Pronunciation. What we have to say of them here, will be thrown into the form of _critical observations_; in the progress of which, many quotations from other writers on these subjects, will be presented, showing what has been most popularly taught.

OBSERVATIONS.

OBS. 1.--Accent and quantity are distinct things;[488] the former being the stress, force, loudness, or percussion of voice, that distinguishes certain syllables from others; and the latter, the _time_, distinguished as _long_ or _short_, in which a syllable is uttered. But, as the _great_ sounds which we utter, naturally take more time than the _small_ ones, there is a necessary connexion between quantity and accent in English,--a connexion which is sometimes expounded as being the mere relation of _cause and effect_; nor is it in fact much different from that. "As no utterance can be agreeable to the ear, which is void of proportion; and as _all quantity_, or proportion of time in utterance, depends upon a due observation of the _accent_; it is a matter of absolute necessity to all, who would arrive at a good and graceful delivery, to be master of that point. Nor is the use of _accent_ in our language confined to _quantity_ alone; but it is also the chief mark by which words are distinguished from mere syllables. Or rather I may say, it is the _very essence_ of words, which without that, would be only so many collections of syllables."--_Sheridan's Lectures on Elocution_, p. 61. "As no utterance _which is void of proportion_, can be agreeable to the ear; and as quantity, or proportion of time in utterance, _greatly_ depends _on_ a due _attention_ to the _accent_; it is _absolutely necessary for every person_, who would attain a _just_ and _pleasing_ delivery, to be master of that point."--_Murray's Gram._, 8vo, p. 241; 12mo, 194.

OBS. 2.--In the first observation on Prosody, at page 770, and in its marginal notes, was reference made to the fact, that the nature and principles of _accent_ and _quantity_ are involved in difficulty, by reason of the different views of authors concerning them. To this source of embarrassment, it seems necessary here again to advert; because it is upon the distinction of syllables in respect to quantity, or accent, or both, that every system of versification, except his who merely counts, is based.

And further, it is not only requisite that the principle of distinction which we adopt should be clearly made known, but also proper to consider which of these three modes is the best or most popular foundation for a theory of versification. Whether or wherein the accent and quantity of the ancient languages, Latin and Greek, differed from those of our present English, we need not now inquire. From the definitions which the learned lexicographers Littleton and Ainsworth give to _prosodia_, prosody, it would seem that, with them, "the art of _accenting_" was nothing else than the art of giving to syllables their right _quantity_, "whether long or short." And some have charged it as a glaring error, long prevalent among English grammarians, and still a fruitful source of disputes, to confound accent with quantity in our language.[489] This charge, however, there is reason to believe, is sometimes, if not in most cases, made on grounds rather fanciful than real; for some have evidently mistaken the notion of concurrence or coincidence for that of identity. But, to affirm that the stress which we call accent, coincides always and only with long quantity, does not necessarily make accent and quantity to be one and the same thing.

The greater force or loudness which causes the accented syllable to occupy more time than any other, is in itself something different from time.

Besides, quantity is divisible,--being either _long_ or _short_: these two species of it are acknowledged on all sides, and some few prosodists will have a third, which they call "common." [490] But, of our English accent, the word being taken in its usual acceptation, no _such_ division is ever, with any propriety, made; for even the stress which we call _secondary accent_, pertains to _long_ syllables rather than to short ones; and the mere absence of stress, which produces short quantity, we do not call _accent_.[491]

OBS. 3.--The impropriety of affirming _quantity_ to be the same as _accent_, when its most frequent species occurs only in the absence of accent, must be obvious to every body; and those writers who anywhere suggest this identity, must either have written absurdly, or have taken _accent_ in some sense which includes the sounds of our _unaccented_ syllables. The word sometimes means, "The _modulation_ of the voice in speaking."--_Worcester's Dict., w. Accent_. In this sense, the lighter as well as the more impressive sounds are included; but still, whether both together, considered as accents, can be reckoned the same as long and short quantities, is questionable. Some say, they cannot; and insist that they are yet as different, as the variable tones of a _trumpet_, which swell and fall, are different from the merely loud and soft notes of the monotonous _drum_. This illustration of the "easy Distinction betwixt _Quantity_ and _Accent_" is cited with commendation, in Brightland's Grammar, on page 157th;[492] the author of which grammar, _seems_ to have understood _Accent_, or _Accents_, to be the same as _Inflections_--though these are still unlike to quantities, if he did so. (See an explanation of Inflections in Chap. II, Sec. iii, Art. 3, above.) His exposition is this: "_Accent_ is the _rising_ and _falling_ of the Voice, above or under its usual _Tone_. There are three Sorts of Accents, an _Acute_, a _Grave_, and an _Inflex_, which is also call'd a _Circumflex_. The _Acute_, or _Sharp_, naturally _raises_ the Voice; and the _Grave_, or _Base_, as naturally _falls_ it. The _Circumflex_ is a kind of _Undulation_, or _Waving_ of the Voice."--_Brightland's Gram._, Seventh Ed., Lond., 1746, p. 156.

OBS. 4.--Dr. Johnson, whose great authority could not fail to carry some others with him, too evidently identifies accent with quantity, at the commencement of his Prosody. "PRONUNCIATION is just," says he, "when every letter has its proper sound, and when every syllable has its proper accent, or which in English versification is _the same_, its proper quantity."-- _Johnson's Gram._, before Dict., 4to, p. 13; _John Burn's Gram._, p. 240; _Jones's Prosodial Gram._, before Dict., p. 10. Now our most common notion of _accent_--the sole notion with many--and that which the accentuation of Johnson himself everywhere inculcates--is, that it belongs _not_ to "_every syllable_," but only to some particular syllables, being either "a _stress of voice_ on a certain syllable," or a _small mark_ to denote such stress.--See _Scott's Dict._, or _Worcester's_. But Dr. Johnson, in the passage above, must have understood the word _accent_ agreeably to his own imperfect definition of it; to wit, as "_the sound given to the syllable pronounced_."--_Joh. Dict._ An _unaccented_ syllable must have been to him a syllable unpronounced. In short he does not appear to have recognized any syllables as being unaccented. The word _unaccented_ had no place in his lexicography, nor could have any without inconsistencey. [sic--KTH] It was unaptly added to his text, after sixty years, by one of his amenders, Todd or Chalmers; who still blindly neglected to amend his definition of _accent_. In these particulars, Walker's dictionaries exhibit the same deficiencies as Johnson's; and yet no author has more frequently used the words _accent_ and _unaccented_, than did Walker.[493] Mason's Supplement, first published in 1801, must have suggested to the revisers of Johnson the addition of the latter term, as appears by the authority cited for it: "UNA'CCENTED, _adj._ Not accented. 'It being enough to make a syllable long, if it be accented, and short, if it be _unaccented_.' _Harris's Philological Inquiries_."--_Mason's Sup._

OBS. 5--This doctrine of Harris's, that long quantity accompanies the accent, and unaccented syllables are short, is far from confounding or identifying accent with quantity, as has already been shown; and, though it plainly contradicts some of the elementary teaching of Johnson, Sheridan, Walker, Murray, Webster, Latham, Fowler, and others, in regard to the length or shortness of certain syllables, it has been clearly maintained by many excellent authors, so that no opposite theory is better supported by authority. On this point, our language stands not alone; for the accent controls quantity in some others.[494] G H. Noehden, a writer of uncommon ability, in his German Grammar for Englishmen, defines accent to be, as we see it is in English, "that _stress_ which marks a particular syllable in speaking;" and recognizing, as we do, both a full accent and a partial one, or "demi-accent," presents the syllables of his language as being of three conditions: the "_accented_," which "cannot be used otherwise than as _long_;" the "_half-accented_" which "must be regarded as ambiguous, or common;" and the "_accentless_," which "are in their nature _short_."--See _Noehden's Gram._, p. 87. His middle class, however, our prosodists in general very properly dispense with. In Fiske's History of Greek Literature, which is among the additions to the Manual of Classical Literature from the German of Eschenburg, are the following passages: "The _tone_ [i.e. accent] in Greek is placed upon short syllables as well as long; in German, it accompanies regularly only long syllables."--"In giving an accent to a syllable in an English word we _thereby_ render it a long syllable, whatever may be the sound given to its vowel, and in whatever way the syllable may be composed; so that as above stated in relation to the German, an English accent, or stress in pronunciation, accompanies only a long syllable."--_Manual of Class. Lit._, p. 437. With these extracts, accords the doctrine of some of the ablest of our English grammarians. "In the English Pronunciation," says William Ward, "there is a certain Stress of the Voice laid on some one syllable at least, of every Word of two or more Syllables; and that Syllable on which the Stress is laid may be considered _long_. Our Grammarians have agreed to consider this Stress of the Voice as _the Accent_ in English; and therefore the Accent and long Quantity coincide in our Language."--_Ward's Practical Gram._, p. 155. As to the vowel sounds, with the quantity of which many prosodists have greatly puzzled both themselves and their readers, this writer says, "they may be made as long, or as short, as the Speaker pleases."--_Ib._, p. 4.

OBS. 6.--From the absurd and contradictory nature of many of the _principles usually laid down_ by our grammarians, for the discrimination of long quantity and short, it is quite apparent, that but very few of them have well understood either the distinction itself or their own rules concerning it. Take Fisher for an example. In Fisher's Practical Grammar, first published in London in 1753,--a work not unsuccessful, since Wells quotes the "_28th edition_" as appearing in 1795, and this was not the last--we find, in the first place, the vowel sounds distinguished as long or short thus: "_Q._ How many Sounds has a Vowel? _A._ Two in general, viz.

1. A LONG SOUND, When the Syllable ends with a Vowel, either in Monosyllables, or in Words of more Syllables; as, _t=ake, w=e, =I, g=o, n=il_; or, as, _N=ature, N=ero, N=itre, N=ovice, N=uisance_. 2. A SHORT SOUND, When the Syllable ends with a Consonant, either in Monosyllables, or others; as _H~at, h~er, b~it, r~ob, T~un_; or, as _B~arber, b~itten, B~utton_."--See p. 5. To this rule, the author makes needless exceptions of all such words as _balance_ and _banish_, wherein a single consonant between two vowels goes to the former; because, like Johnson, Murray, and most of our old grammarians, he divides on the vowel; falsely calls the accented syllable short; and imagines the consonant to be heard _twice_, or to have "_a double Accent_." On page 35th, he tells us that, "_Long and short Vowels_, and _long and short Syllables_, are _synonimous_ [--_synonymous_, from [Greek: synonymos]--] Terms;" and so indeed have they been most erroneously considered by sundry subsequent writers; and the consequence is, that all who judge by their criteria, mistake the poetic quantity, or prosodical value, of perhaps one half the syllables in the language. Let each syllable be reckoned long that "ends with a Vowel," and each short that "ends with a Consonant," and the decision will probably be oftener wrong than right; for more syllables end with consonants than with vowels, and of the latter class a majority are without stress and therefore short. Thus the foregoing principle, contrary to the universal practice of the poets, determines many _accented_ syllables to be "_short_;" as the first in "_barber, bitten, button, balance, banish_;--" and many _unaccented_ ones to be "_long_;" as the last in _sofa, specie, noble, metre, sorrow, daisy, valley, nature, native_; or the first in _around, before, delay, divide, remove, seclude, obey, cocoon, presume, propose_, and other words innumerable.

OBS. 7.--Fisher's conceptions of accent and quantity, as constituting prosody, were much truer to the original and etymological sense of the words, than to any just or useful view of English versification: in short, this latter subject was not even mentioned by him; for prosody, in his scheme, was nothing but the right pronunciation of words, or what we now call _orthoepy._ This part of his Grammar commences with the following questions and answers:

"_Q._ What is the Meaning of the Word PROSODY? _A._ It is a Word borrowed from the Greek; which, in Latin, is rendered _Accentus_, and in English _Accent_. "_Q._ What do you mean by _Accent_? _A._ Accent originally signified a Modulation of the Voice, or chanting to a musical Instrument; but is now generally used to signify _Due Pronunciatian_, i.e. the pronouncing [of] a syllable according to its Quantity, (whether it be long or short,) with a stronger Force or Stress of Voice than the other Syllables in the same Word; as, _a_ in _able, o_ in _above_, &c. "_Q._ What is _Quantity_? _A._ Quantity is the different Measure of _Time_ in pronouncing Syllables, from whence they are called long or short. "_Q._ What is the _Proportion_ between a long and a short Syllable? _A._ Two to one; that is, a long Syllable is twice as long in pronouncing as a short one; as, _Hate, Hat_. This mark (=) set over a Syllable, shows that it is long, and this (~) that it is short; as, r=ecord, r~ecord. "_Q_. How do you _know_ long and short Syllables? _A_. A Syllable is long or short according to the Situation of the Vowel, i.e. it is generally long when it ends with a Vowel, and short when with a Consonant; as, _F=a_- in _Favour_, and _M~an_- in _Manner_."--_Fisher's Practical Gram._, p. 34.

Now one grand mistake of this is, that it supposes syllabication to fix the quantity, and quantity to determine the accent; whereas it is plain, that accent controls quantity, so far at least that, in the construction of verse, a syllable fully accented cannot be reckoned short. And this mistake is practical; for we see, that, in three of his examples, out of the four above, the author himself misstates the quantity, because he disregards the accent: the verb _re-cord'_, being accented on the second syllable, is an _iambus_; and the nouns _rec'-ord_ and _man'-ner_, being accented on the first, are _trochees_; and just as plainly so, as is the word _f=av~our_.

But a still greater blunder here observable is, that, as a "_due pronunciation_" necessarily includes the utterance of every syllable, the explanation above stolidly supposes _all_ our syllables to be _accented_, each "according to its Quantity, (whether it be long or short,)" and each "_with a stronger Force or Stress of Voice_, than _the other_ Syllables!"