"And indeed Divine if be our Substance.————
Is not the Verse quite destroy'd by this Alteration? And does it not appear to be so, because Indeed and Divine, which are Iambick Feet, are plac'd as if they were Trochaick, and Substance, which is a Trochaick Foot, is plac'd as if it were an Iambick? But I might have omitted the altering of this Line of Milton's, if I had thought of one in Cowley's Davideis, which is as barbarous as it is possible for the Wit of Man to make a Verse.
"To Divine Nobé directs then his Flight.
Lib. 3. v. 3.
[page 71]
Nobé, Mr. Cowley says in his Notes, he puts instead of Nob, because that Word seem'd to him to be unheroical. But that is not what I am chiefly to take notice of. Divine and Directs are both Iambicks, but Mr. Cowley has made them both Trochaicks, which makes this Line so terrible to the Ear.
It is plain that Vossius, who came into England when he was pretty much advanc'd in Years, and in all probability convers'd chiefly in Latin or French, knew nothing at all of the Pronunciation of English Words. We have as certainly Feet or Numbers in our Language, as in the Latin; and indeed the Latin seems to me to be rather more arbitrary in this respect than the English. What Reason can be given why ma in manus is short, and ma in manes long? Why is a in amens long, and a in amans short, and the like of other Words too numerous to relate?
That all English Verses are Iambick, appears most plainly by considering Monosyllable Lines. For Example:
"Arms and the Man I sing, who forc'd by Fate.