The Grammar of English Grammars by Goold Brown (read books for money TXT) 📖

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 'Télémaque' 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 Télémaque. 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