The Grammar of English Grammars

by Goold Brown

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 orthoëpy. 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!" Absurdity akin to this, and still more worthy to be criticised, has since been propagated by Sheridan, by Walker, and by Lindley Murray, with a host of followers, as Alger, D. Blair, Comly, Cooper, Cutler, Davenport, Felton, Fowler, Frost, Guy, Jaudon, Parker and Fox, Picket, Pond, Putnam, Russell, Smith, and others.

OBS. 8.—Sheridan was an able and practical teacher of English pronunciation, and one who appears to have gained reputation by all he undertook, whether as an actor, as an elocutionist, or as a lexicographer. His publications that refer to that subject, though now mostly superseded by others of later date, are still worthy to be consulted. The chief of them are, his Lectures on Elocution, his Lectures on the Art of Reading, his Rhetorical Grammar, his Elements of English, and his English Dictionary. His third lecture on Elocution, and many pages of the Rhetorical Grammar, are devoted to accent and quantity—subjects which he conceived to have been greatly misrepresented by other writers up to his time.[495] To this author, as it would seem, we owe the invention of that absurd doctrine, since copied into a great multitude of our English grammars, that the accent on a syllable of two or more letters, belongs, not to the whole of it, but only to some ONE LETTER; and that according to the character of this letter, as vowel or consonant, the same stress serves to lengthen or shorten the syllable's quantity! Of this matter, he speaks thus: "The great distinction of our accent depends upon its seat; which may be either upon a vowel or a consonant. Upon a vowel, as in the words, glóry, fáther, hóly. Upon a consonant, as in the words, hab'it, bor'row, bat'tle. When the accent is on the vowel, the syllable is long; because the accent is made by dwelling upon the vowel. When it is on the consonant, the syllable is short;[496] because the accent is made by passing rapidly over the vowel, and giving a smart stroke of the voice to the following consonant. Obvious as this point is, it has wholly escaped the observation of all our grammarians and compilers of dictionaries; who, instead of examining the peculiar genius of our tongue, implicitly and pedantically have followed the Greek method of always placing the accentual mark over a vowel."—Sheridan's Rhetorical Gram., p. 51. The author's reprehension of the old mode of accentuation, is not without reason; but his "great distinction" of short and long syllables is only fit to puzzle or mislead the reader. For it is plain, that the first syllables of hab'it, bor'row, and bat'tle, are twice as long as the last; and, in poetry, these words are trochees, as well as the other three, glo'ry, fa'ther, and ho'ly.

OBS. 9.—The only important distinction in our accent, is that of the primary and the secondary, the latter species occurring when it is necessary to enforce more syllables of a word than one; but Sheridan, as we see above, after rejecting all the old distinctions of rising and falling, raising and depressing, acute and grave, sharp and base, long and short, contrived a new one still more vain, which he founded on that of vowels and consonants, but "referred to time, or quantity." He recognized, in fact, a vowel accent and a consonant accent; or, in reference to quantity, a lengthening accent and a shortening accent. The discrimination of these was with him "THE GREAT DISTINCTION of our accent." He has accordingly mentioned it in several different places of his works, and not always with that regard to consistency which becomes a precise theorist. It led him to new and variant ways of defining accent; some of which seem to imply a division of consonants from their vowels in utterance, or to suggest that syllables are not the least parts of spoken words. And no sooner has he told us that our accent is but one single mode of distinguishing a syllable, than he proceeds to declare it two. Compare the following citations: "As the pronunciation of English words is chiefly regulated by accent, it will be necessary to have a precise idea of that term. Accent with us means no more than a certain stress of the voice upon one letter of a syllable, which distinguishes it from all the other letters in a word."—Sheridan's Rhetorical Gram., p. 39. Again: "Accent, in the English language, means a certain stress of the voice upon a particular letter of a syllable which distinguishes it from the rest, and, at the same time, distinguishes the syllable itself to which it belongs from the others which compose the word."—Same work, p. 50. Again: "But as our accent consists in stress only, it can just as well be placed on a consonant as [on] a vowel."—Same, p. 51. Again: "By the word accent, is meant the stress of the voice on one letter in a syllable."—Sheridan's Elements of English, p. 55. Again: "The term [accent] with us has no reference to inflexions of the voice, or musical notes, but only means a peculiar manner of distinguishing one syllable of a word from the rest, denominated by us accent; and the term for that reason [is] used by us in the singular number.—This distinction is made by us in two ways; either by dwelling longer upon one syllable than the rest; or by giving it a smarter percussion of the voice in utterance. Of the first of these, we have instances in the words, gl=ory, f=ather, h=oly; of the last, in bat'tle, hab'it, bor'row. So that accent, with us, is not referred to tune, but to time; to quantity, not quality; to the more equable or precipitate motion of the voice, not to the variation of notes or inflexions."—Sheridan's Lectures on Elocution, p. 56; Flint's Murray's Gram., p. 85.

OBS. 10.—How "precise" was Sheridan's idea of accent, the reader may well judge from the foregoing quotations; in four of which, he describes it as "a certain stress," "the stress," and "stress only," which enforces some "letter;" while, in the other, it is whimsically made to consist in two different modes of pronouncing "syllables"—namely, with equability, and with precipitance—with "dwelling longer," and with "smarter percussion"—which terms the author very improperly supposes to be opposites: saying, "For the two ways of distinguishing syllables by accent, as mentioned before, are directly opposite, and produce quite contrary effects; the one, by dwelling on the syllable, necessarily makes it long; the other, by the smart percussion—of the voice, as necessarily makes it short"—Ib., p. 57. Now it is all a mistake, however common, to suppose that our accent, consisting as it does, in stress, enforcement, or "percussion of voice," can ever shorten the syllable on which it is laid; because what increases the quantum of a vocal sound, cannot diminish its length; and a syllable accented will always be found longer as well as louder, than any unaccented one immediately before or after it. Though weak sounds may possibly be protracted, and shorter ones be exploded loudly, it is not the custom of our speech, so to deal with the sounds of syllables.

OBS. 11.—Sheridan admitted that some syllables are naturally and necessarily short, but denied that any are naturally and necessarily long. In this, since syllabic length and shortness are relative to each other, and to the cause of each, he was, perhaps, hardly consistent. He might have done better, to have denied both, or neither. Bating his new division of accent to subject it sometimes to short quantity, he recognized very fully the dependence of quantity, long or short, whether in syllables or only in vowels, upon the presence or absence of accent or emphasis. In this he differed considerably from most of the grammarians of his day; and many since have continued to uphold other views. He says, "It is an infallible rule in our tongue that no vowel ever has a long sound in an unaccented syllable."—Lectures on Elocution, p. 60. Again: "In treating of the simple elements or letters, I have shown that some, both vowels and consonants, are naturally short; that is, whose sounds cannot possibly be prolonged; and these are the [short or shut] sounds of ~e, ~i, and ~u, of vocal sounds; and three pure mutes, k, p, t, of the consonant; as in the words beck, lip, cut. I have shown also, that the sounds of all the other vowels, and of the consonant semivowels, may be prolonged to what degree we please; but at the same time it is to be observed, that all these may also be reduced to a short quantity, and are capable of being uttered in as short a space of time as those which are naturally short. So that they who speak of syllables as absolutely in their own nature long, the common cant of prosodians, speak of a nonentity: for though, as I have shown above, there are syllables absolutely short, which cannot possibly be prolonged by any effort of the speaker, yet it is in his power to shorten or prolong the others to what degree he pleases."—Sheridan's Rhetorical Gram., p. 52. And again: "I have already mentioned that when the accent is on the vowel, it of course makes the syllable long; and when the accent is on the consonant, the syllable may be either long or short, according to the nature of the consonant, or will of the speakers. And as all unaccented syllables are short, the quantity of our syllables is adjusted by the easiest and simplest rule in the world, and in the exactest proportion."—Lect. on Elocution, p. 66.

OBS. 12.—This praise of our rule for the adjustment of quantity, would have been much more appropriate, had not the rule itself been greatly mistaken, perplexed, and misrepresented by the author. If it appear, on inspection, that "beck, lip, cut," and the like syllables, are twice as long when under the accent, as they are when not accented, so that, with a short syllable annexed or a long one prefixed, they may form trochees; then is it not true, that such syllables are either always necessarily and inherently short, or always, "by the smart percussion of the voice, as necessarily made short;" both of which inconsistent ideas are above affirmed of them. They may not be so long as some other long syllables; but, if they are twice as long as the accompanying short ones, they are not short. And, if not short, then that remarkable distinction in accent, which assumes that they are so, is as needless as it is absurd and perplexing. Now let the words, beck'on, lip'ping, cut'ter, be properly pronounced, and their syllables be compared with each other, or with those of lim'beck, fil'lip, Dr=a'cut; and it cannot but be perceived, that beck, lip, and cut, like other syllables in general, are lengthened by the accent, and shortened only in its absence; so that all these words are manifestly trochees, as all similar words are found to be, in our versification. To suppose "as many words as we hear accents," or that "it is the laying of an accent on one syllable, which constitutes a word," and then say, that "no unaccented syllable or vowel is ever to be accounted long," as this enthusiastic author does in fact, is to make strange scansion of a very large portion of the trissyllables and polysyllables which occur in verse. An other great error in Sheridan's doctrine of quantity, is his notion that all monosyllables, except a few small particles, are accented; and that their quantity is determined to be long or short by the seat or the mode of the accent, as before stated. Now, as our poetry abounds with monosyllables, the relative time of which is adjusted by emphasis and cadence, according to the nature and importance of the terms, and according to the requirements of rhythm, with no reference to this factitious principle, no conformity thereto but what is accidental, it cannot but be a puzzling exercise, when these difficulties come to be summed up, to attempt the application of a doctrine so vainly conceived to be "the easiest and simplest rule in the world!"

OBS. 13.—Lindley Murray's principles of accent and quantity, which later grammarians have so extensively copied, were mostly extracted from Sheridan's; and, as the compiler appears to have been aware of but few, if any, of his predecessor's errors, he has adopted and greatly spread well-nigh all that have just been pointed out; while, in regard to some points, he has considerably increased the number. His scheme, as he at last fixed it, appears to consist essentially of propositions already refuted, or objected to, above; as any reader may see, who will turn to his definition of accent, and his rules for the determination of quantity. In opposition to Sheridan, who not very consistently says, that, "All unaccented syllables are short," this author appears to have adopted the greater error of Fisher, who supposed that the vowel sounds called long and short, are just the same as the long and short syllabic quantities. By this rule, thousands of syllables will be called long, which are in fact short, being always so uttered in both prose and poetry; and, by the other, some will occasionally be called short, which are in fact long, being made so by the poet, under a slight secondary accent, or perhaps none. Again, in supposing our numerous monosyllables to be accented, and their quantity to be thereby fixed, without excepting "the particles, such as a, the, to, in, &c.," which were excepted by Sheridan, Murray has much augmented the multitude of errors which necessarily flow from the original rule. This principle, indeed, he adopted timidly; saying, as though he hardly believed the assertion true: "And some writers assert, that every monosyllable of two or more letters, has one of its letters thus distinguished."—Murray's Gram., 8vo, p. 236; 12mo, 189. But still he adopted it, and adopted it fully, in his section on Quantity; for, of his twelve words, exemplifying syllabic time so regulated, no fewer than nine are monosyllables. It is observable, however, that, in some instances, it is not one letter, but two, that he marks; as in the words, "m=o=od, h=o=use."—Ib., p. 239; 12mo, 192. And again, it should be observed, that generally, wherever he marks accent, he follows the old mode, which Sheridan and Webster so justly condemn; so that, even when he is speaking of "the accent on the consonant," the sign of stress, as that of time, is set over a vowel: as, "Sádly, róbber."—Ib., 8vo, 240; 12mo, 193. So in his Spelling-Book, where words are often falsely divided: as, "Vé nice," for Ven'-ice; "Há no ver," for Han'o-ver; &c.—See p. 101.

OBS. 14.—In consideration of the great authority of this grammarian, now backed by a score or two of copyists and modifiers, it may be expedient to be yet more explicit. Of accent Murray published about as many different definitions, as did Sheridan; which, as they show what notions he had at different times, it may not be amiss for some, who hold him always in the right, to compare. In one, he describes it thus: "Accent signifies that stress of the voice, which is laid on one syllable, to distinguish it from the rest."—Murray's Spelling-Book, p. 138. He should here have said, (as by his examples it would appear that he meant,) "on one syllable of a word;" for, as the phrase now stands, it may include stress on a monosyllable in a sentence; and it is a matter of dispute, whether this can properly be called accent. Walker and Webster say, it is emphasis, and not accent. Again, in an other definition, which was written before he adopted the notion of accent on consonants, of accent on monosyllables, or of accent for quantity in the formation of verse, he used these words: "Accent is the laying of a peculiar stress of the voice on a certain vowel or syllable in a word, that it may be better heard than the rest, or distinguished from them; as, in the word presúme, the stress of the voice must be on the second syllable, súme, which takes the accent."—Murray's Gram., Second Edition, 12mo, p. 161. In this edition, which was published at York, in 1796, his chief rules of quantity say nothing about accent, but are thus expressed: [1.] "A vowel or syllable is long, when the vowel or vowels contained in it are slowly joined in pronunciation with the following letters; as, 'F=all, b=ale, m=o=od, h=o=use, f=eature.' [2.] A syllable is short, when the vowel is quickly joined to the succeeding letter; as, '~art, b~onn~et, h~ung~er.'"—Ib., p. 166. Besides the absurdity of representing "a vowel" as having "vowels contained in it," these rules are made up of great faults. They confound syllabic quantities with vowel sounds. They suppose quantity to be, not the time of a whole syllable, but the quick or slow junction of some of its parts. They apply to no syllable that ends with a vowel sound. The former applies to none that ends with one consonant only; as, "mood" or the first of "feat-ure." In fact, it does not apply to any of the examples given; the final letter in each of the other words being silent. The latter rule is worse yet: it misrepresents the examples; for "bonnet" and "hunger" are trochees, and "art," with any stress on it, is long.

OBS. 15.—In all late editions of L. Murray's Grammar, and many modifications of it, accent is defined thus: "Accent is the laying of a peculiar stress of the voice, on a certain letter OR syllable in a word, that it may be better heard than the rest, or distinguished from them; as, in the word presúme, the stress of the voice must be on the letter u, AND [the] second syllable, sume, which takes the accent."—Murray's Gram., 8vo, p. 235; 12mo, 188; 18mo, 57; Alger's, 72; Bacon's, 52; Comly's, 168; Cooper's, 176; Davenport's, 121; Felton's, 134; Frost's El., 50; Fisk's, 32; Merchant's, 145; Parker and Fox's, iii, 44; Pond's, 197; Putnam's, 96; Russell's, 106; R. O. Smith's, 186. Here we see a curious jumble of the common idea of accent, as "stress laid on some particular syllable of a word," with Sheridan's doctrine of accenting always "a particular letter of a syllable,"—an idle doctrine, contrived solely for the accommodation of short quantity with long, under the accent. When this definition was adopted, Murray's scheme of quantity was also revised, and materially altered. The principles of his main text, to which his copiers all confine themselves, then took the following form:

"The quantity of a syllable, is that time which is occupied in pronouncing it. It is considered as LONG or SHORT.

"A vowel or syllable is long, when the accent is on the vowel; which occasions it to be slowly joined in pronunciation with the following letters: as, 'F=all, b=ale, m=o=od, h=o=use, f=eature.'

"A syllable is short, when the accent is on the consonant; which occasions the vowel to be quickly joined to the succeeding letter: as, '~ant, b=onn~et, h=ung~er.'

"A long syllable generally requires double the time of a short one in pronouncing it: thus, 'M=ate' and 'N=ote' should be pronounced as slowly again as 'M~at' and 'N~ot.'"—Murray's Gram., 8vo, p. 239; 12mo, 192; 18mo, 57; Alger's, 72; D. C. Allen's, 86; Bacon's, 52; Comly's, 168; Cooper's, 176; Cutler's, 165; Davenport's, 121; Felton's, 134; Frost's El., 50; Fisk's, 32; Maltby's, 115; Parker and Fox's, iii, 47; Pond's, 198; S. Putnam's, 96; R. C. Smith's, 187; Rev. T. Smith's, 68.

Here we see a revival and an abundant propagation of Sheridan's erroneous doctrine, that our accent produces both short quantity and long, according to its seat; and since none of all these grammars, but the first two of Murray's, give any other rules for the discrimination of quantities, we must infer, that these were judged sufficient. Now, of all the principles on which any have ever pretended to determine the quantity of syllables, none, so far as I know, are more defective or fallacious than these. They are liable to more objections than it is worth while to specify. Suffice it to observe, that they divide certain accented syllables into long and short, and say nothing of the unaccented; whereas it is plain, and acknowledged even by Murray and Sheridan themselves, that in "ant, bonnet, hunger" and the like, the unaccented syllables are the only short ones: the rest can be, and here are, lengthened.[497]

OBS. 16.—The foregoing principles, differently expressed, and perchance in some instances more fitly, are found in many other grammars, and in some of the very latest; but they are everywhere a mere dead letter, a record which, if it is not always untrue, is seldom understood, and never applied in any way to practice. The following are examples:

(1.) "In a long syllable, the vowel is accented; in a short syllable [,] the consonant; as [,] r=oll, p=oll; t~op, c~ut."—Rev. W. Allen's Gram., p. 222. (2.) "A syllable or word is long, when the accent is on the vowel: as n=o, l=ine, l=a, m=e; and short, when on the consonant: as n~ot, l~in, L~atin, m~et."—S. Barrett's Grammar, ("Principles of Language,") p. 112.

(3.) "A syllable is long when the accent is on the vowel, as, P=all, s=ale, m=o=use, cr=eature. A syllable is short when the accent is placed on the consonant; as great´, let´ter, mas´ter."—Rev. D. Blair's Practical Gram., p. 117.

(4.) "When the stress is on the vowel, the measure of quantity is long: as, Máte, fáte, complàin, pláyful, un der míne. When the stress is on a consonant, the quantity is short: as, Mat´, fat´, com pel´, prog´ress, dis man´tle."—Pardon Davis's Practical Gram., p. 125.

(5.) "The quantity of a syllable is considered as long or short. It is long when the accent is on the vowel; as, F=all, b=ale, m=ood, ho=use, f=eature. It is short when the accent is placed on the consonant; as, Mas´ter, let´ter."—Guy's School Gram., p. 118; Picket's Analytical School Gram., 2d Ed., p. 224.

(6.) "A syllable is long when the accent is on the vowel; and short, when the accent is on the consonant. A long syllable requires twice the time in pronouncing it that a short one does. Long syllables are marked thus =; as, t=ube; short syllables, thus ~; as, m~an."—Hiley's English Gram., p. 120.

(7.) "When the accent is on a vowel, the syllable is generally long; as =aleho=use, am=usement, f=eatures. But when the accent is on a consonant, the syllable is mostly short; as, h~ap'py, m~an'ner. A long syllable requires twice as much time in the pronunciation, as a short one; as, h=ate, h~at; n=ote, n~ot; c=ane, c~an; f=ine, f~in."—Jaudon's Union Gram., p. 173.

(8.) "If the syllable be long, the accent is on the vowel; as, in b=ale, m=o=od, educ=ation; &c. If short, the accent is on the consonant; as, in ~ant, b~onnet, h~unger, &c."—Merchant's American School Gram., p. 145.

The quantity of our unaccented syllables, none of these authors, except Allen, thought it worth his while to notice. But among their accented syllables, they all include words of one syllable, though most of them thereby pointedly contradict their own definitions of accent. To find in our language no short syllables but such as are accented, is certainly a very strange and very great oversight. Frazee says, "The pronunciation of an accented syllable requires double the time of that of an unaccented one."—Frazee's Improved Gram., p. 180. If so, our poetical quantities are greatly misrepresented by the rules above cited. Allen truly says, "Unaccented syllables are generally short; as, r~etúrn, túrn~er."— Elements of E. Gram., p. 222. But how it was ever found out, that in these words we accent only the vowel u, and in such as hunter and bluntly, some one of the consonants only, he does not inform us.

OBS. 17.—As might be expected, it is not well agreed among those who accent single consonants and vowels, what particular letter should receive the stress and the mark. The word or syllable "ant," for example, is marked "an´t" by Alger, Bacon, and others, to enforce the n; "ant´" by Frost, Putnam, and others, to enforce the t; "~ant" by Murray, Russell, and others, to show, as they say, "the accent on the consonant!" But, in "A´NTLER," Dr. Johnson accented the a; and, to mark the same pronunciation, Worcester now writes, "~ANT´LER;" while almost any prosodist, in scanning, would mark this word "~antl~er" and call it a trochee.[498] Churchill, who is in general a judicious observer, writes thus: "The leading feature in the English language, on which it's melody both in prose and verse chiefly depends, is it's accent. Every word in it of more than one syllable has one of it's syllables distinguished by this from the rest; the accent being in some cases on the vowel, in others on the consonant that closes the syllable; on the vowel, when it has it's long sound; on the consonant, when the vowel is short."—Churchill's New Gram., p. 181. But to this, as a rule of accentuation, no attention is in fact paid nowadays. Syllables that have long vowels not final, very properly take the sign of stress on or after a consonant or a mute vowel; as, =an´gel, ch=am´ber, sl=ay´er, b=ead´roll, sl=ea´zy, sl=e=ep´er, sl=e=eve´less, l=ive´ly, m=ind´ful, sl=ight´ly, sl=id´ing, b=old´ness, gr=oss´ly, wh=ol´ly, =use´less.—See Worcester's Dict.

OBS. 18.—It has been seen, that Murray's principles of quantity were greatly altered by himself, after the first appearance of his grammar. To have a full and correct view of them, it is necessary to notice something more than his main text, as revised, 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.