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 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.