Chapter VII: Part 7

On examining the language, and comparing the practice of speaking among the yeomanry of this country, with the stile of Shakespear and Addison, I am constrained to declare that the people of America, in particular the English descendants, speak the most _pure English_ now known in the world. There is hardly a foreign idiom in their language; by which I mean, a _phrase_ that has not been used by the best English writers from the time of Chaucer. They retain a few obsolete _words_, which have been dropt by writers, probably from mere affectation, as those which are substituted are neither more melodious nor expressive. In many instances they retain correct phrases, instead of which the pretended refiners of the language have introduced those which are highly improper and absurd.

Let Englishmen take notice that when I speak of the American yeomanry, the latter are not to be compared to the illiterate peasantry of their own country. The yeomanry of this country consist of substantial independent freeholders, masters of their own persons and lords of their own soil. These men have considerable education. They not only learn to read, write and keep accounts; but a vast proportion of them read newspapers every week, and besides the Bible, which is found in all families, they read the best English sermons and treatises upon religion, ethics, geography and history; such as the works of Watts, Addison, Atterbury, Salmon, &c. In the eastern states, there are public schools sufficient to instruct every man's children, and most of the children are actually benefited by these institutions. The people of distant counties in England can hardly understand one another, so various are their dialects; but in the extent of twelve hundred miles in America, there are very few, I question whether a hundred words, except such as are used in employments wholly local, which are not universally intelligible.

But unless the rage for imitating foreign changes can be restrained, this agreeable and advantageous uniformity will be gradually destroyed. The standard writers abroad give us local practice, the momentary whims of the great, or their own arbitrary rules to direct our pronunciation; and we, the apes of fashion, submit to imitate any thing we hear and see. Sheridan has introduced or given sanction to more arbitrary and corrupt changes of pronunciation, within a few years, than had before taken place in a century; and in Perry's Dictionary, not to mention the errors in what he most arrogantly calls his "_Only sure Guide_ to the English Tongue," there are whole pages in which there are scarcely two or three words marked for a just pronunciation. There is no Dictionary yet published in Great Britain, in which so many of the analogies of the language and the just rules of pronunciation are preserved, as in the common practice of the well informed Americans, who have never consulted any foreign standard. Nor is there any grammatical treatise, except Dr. Priestley's, which has explained the real idioms of the language, as they are found in Addison's works, and which remain to this day in the American practice of speaking.

The result of the whole is, that we should adhere to our own practice and general customs, unless it can be made very obvious that such practice is wrong, and that a change will produce some considerable advantage.

FOOTNOTES:

[85] It is a dispute among grammarians, whether the interjection is a part of speech; and the question, like many others upon similar subjects, has employed more learning than common sense. The simple truth is this; the involuntary sounds produced by a sudden passion, are the language of nature which is subject only to nature's rules. They are, in some degree, similar among all nations. They do not belong to a grammatical treatise, any more than the looks of fear, surprise or any other passion. The words, ah me! oh me! are mere exclamations, as are bless me! my gracious! and numberless other sounds, which are uttered without any precise meaning, and are not reduceable to any rules.

[86] See Dr. Edwards on the Mohegan tongue. New Haven. 1788.

[87] _While_ is an old Saxon noun, signifying _time_; and it is still used in the same sense, _one while_, _all this while_. _Adown_ is of uncertain origin. The Saxon _aduna_ cannot easily be explained. _Above_ is from an old word, signifying _head_. _Among_ is from the Saxon _gemengan_ to mix. The etymology of the others is obvious.

[88] It has been remarked that _y_ and _g_ are gutturals which bear nearly the same affinity to each other as _b_ and _p_. Thus it happens that we find in old writings a _y_ in many words where _g_ is now used; as _ayen_, _ayenst_, for again, against. Thus _bayonet_ is pronounced _bagonet_.

[89] Four hundred years ago, the purest author wrote _sen_ or _sin_ which is now deemed vulgar:

"Sin thou art rightful juge, how may it be,
That thou wolt soffren innocence to spill,
And wicked folk to regne in prosperitee?"

Chaucer, Cant. Tales. 5234.

[90] _Out_ was originally a verb. So in the first line of the celebrated Chevy Chace,

"The Persé _owt_ of Northombarlande,
And a vow to God made he," &c.

I have, in one or two instances, observed the use of it still among the lower classes of people, in this country; and I find _outed_ in some good writers, as late as Charles I.

[91] Mr. Horne remarks that the French word _mais_ was formerly used in the sense of _more_, or _bot_. The English word _more_ was formerly often spelt _mo_.

"Telle me anon withouten wordes _mo_."

Chaucer, Prol. to Cant. Tales, 810.

Is it not possible that _mo_ or _more_ and the French _mais_ may be radically the same word?

The following passage will confirm the foregoing explanation of _beutan_. It is taken from the Saxon version of the Gospels.---- Luke, chap. 1. v. 74. of the original.

"Hæt we _butan_ ege of ure feonda handa alysede, him theowrian."

This version of the Gospels was doubtless as early as the tenth or eleventh century. In Wickliff's version, made about three centuries later, the passage stands thus: "That we _without_ drede, delyvered fro the hand of oure enemyes, serve to him." Where we find _butan_ and _without_ are synonimous.

The word _bot_ or _bote_ is still retained in the law language, as _fire-bote_, _house-bote_; where it is equivalent to _enough_ or _sufficiency_.

[92] So in Mandeville's works. "And right as the schip men taken here avys here, and govern hem _be_ the lode sterre, right so don schip men bezonde the parties, _be_ the sterre of the Southe, the which apperethe not to us."

[93] The French _oui_ is said to be a derivative or participle of the verb _ouir_ to hear. The mode of assent therefore is by the word _heard_; as what you say is _heard_; a mode equally expressive with the English.

[94] It is most probable that many of the English words beginning with _wh_ are from the same original as the Latin qui, quæ, quod; and both coeval with the Greek. Qui and who; quod and what; are from the same root, and a blending of the Greek ~kai ho~ and ~kai hoti~. This supposition is strongly supported by the ancient Scotch orthography of _what_, _where_, &c. which was _quhat_, _quhar_.

[95] The termination _ly_, from _liche_, added to _adjectives_, forms the part of speech called _adverbs_; as _great_, _greatly_; _gracious_, _graciously_. But when this termination is added to a noun, it forms an adjective, as God, _Godly_; heaven, _heavenly_; and these words are also used adverbially; for they will not admit the addition of another _ly_. _Godlily_, which has been sometimes used, that is, _Godlikelike_, and other similar words, are not admissible, on any principle whatever.

[96] _Do_ and _to_ are undoubtedly from the same root; _d_ and _t_ being convertible letters.

[97] This word is not used in modern French; but its derivatives, _avitailler_, _avitaillment_, &c. are still retained.

[98] Correspondence, letter 53.

[99] Some of these articles, in other languages, have names in the singular number, as in Latin, _forceps_, pincers; _forfex_, sheers or scissors; _follis_, bellows. In French, _souflet_ is singular, and _pincettes_, plural. A _bellows_ is sometimes heard in English, and is perfectly correct.

[100] Will the same authority justify our farmers in prefixing _pair_ to a sett of _bars_, and other people, in prefixing it to _stairs_, when there are five or six of the former, and perhaps twenty of the latter? A _pair of bars_, a _pair of stairs_, in strictness of speech, are very absurd phrases; but perhaps it is better to admit such anomalies, than attempt to change universal and immemorial practice.

[101] "The _King of England's court_, toto nempe illi aggregato. The _King of England_, tamquam uni substantivo potponitur litera formativa _s_."----Wallis.

[102] Second part of the Grammatical Institute. Tit. Notes.

[103] Chaucer's Works, Glossary, p. 151.

[104] The Editor of Chaucer's Works before mentioned, remarks, "that _a_, in composition with words of Saxon original, is an abbreviation of _as_ or _of_, _at_, _on_ or _in_; and often a corruption of the prepositive particle _ge_ or _y_." According to this writer, _a_ is any thing and every thing; it has so many derivations and uses, that it has no certain derivation or meaning at all. In the phrase _a coming_, _a_ seems now to be a mere expletive; but otherwise _a_, _one_, and _an_ have the same meaning in all cases.

[105] Lowth's Introduction. Tit. verb.

[106] _Run_, like many other verbs, may be used either transitively or intransitively. Simply _to run_, is intransitive; _to run a horse_, transitive.

[107] Lowth observes a distinction between the verb _to will_, and the auxiliary, _will_; the first being regularly inflected. _I will_, _thou willest_, _he wills_, and the latter, _I will_, _thou will_, _he will_. But altho this distinction actually exists in modern practice, yet the words are, in both cases, the same--derived from the same root, and still retaining nearly the same meaning.

[108] _If I were_, _thou wert_, _he were_, in the present hypothetical tense of the subjunctive mode, are not used in the indicative.

[109] It has been before observed, that the common people have not wholly lost this pronunciation, _woll_, to this day.

[110] See the second part of the Grammatical Institute. Appendix.

[111] It must be remembered that _be_ is the old original substantive verb, and belongs to the indicative. _Am_ and _art_ are of later introduction into English.

[112] Lowth's Introduction, p. 39. Note.

[113] "The present tense in English hath often the _sense of the future_; as _when do you go out of town?_ I go tomorrow: that is, when will you, shall you go? I shall go. _If you do well_, that is, shall do well, you will be rewarded: _As soon as_, or _when you come there_; that is, shall come, turn on your right hand: With these forms of speaking, the verb is always placed in the future in Latin, Greek and Hebrew."----Bayley's Intro. to Lan. Lit. and Phil. 99.

This critical writer has explained this mode of speaking with accuracy; but it would be more correct to call this form of the verb, an _elliptical future_, than to say, _the present tense has the sense of the future_.

[114] So in the law stile. "If a man _die_ intestate;" "if a man _die_ seised of an estate in fee;" "if Titius _enfeoff_ Gaius," &c. are future; and in most such phrases used in translations from the Latin and French, the verbs in the original are future. But in law the same form is used in the present very frequently, agreeable to the ancient practice. The reason may be, the convenience and necessity of copying words and phrases with great exactness. But Blackstone, the most accurate and elegant law writer, uses the other form, "if a man _has_ heirs;" "if a good or valuable consideration _appears_;" and too often, when the sense requires the future. He generally gives _be_ its subjunctive form, as it is called, and most other verbs the indicative.

[115] In some instances, the time is present, and the ellipsis may be supplied by _may_ or some other auxiliary.

[116] In the original, the participle of the present time is employed: ~hina kai echontes gynaikas, hôs mê echontes~; and so in the other instances. The Greek is correct; "those _having_ wives as _not having_ them." The translation is agreeable enough to the English idiom; but the verbs represent the present time.

[117] A similar use of the verb occurs after _wish_; "_I wish I had_ my estate _now_ in possession;" this would be expressed in Latin. _Utinam me habere_, using the present of the infinitive, or _Utinam ut haberem_; but this Imperfect tense of the Subjunctive, both in Latin and French, is used to convey the same ideas as English verbs after if; _if I had_, _si haberem_, _si j'aurois_, and whatever may be the name annexed to this form of the verb, it cannot, in the foregoing sense, have any reference to past time.

The common phrases, _I had rather_, _he had better_, are said to be a corruption of _I would rather_, _he would better_, rapidly pronounced, _I'd rather_. I am not satisfied that this is a just account of their origin; _would_ will not supply the place of _had_ in all cases. At any rate, the phrases have become good English.

[118] The following translation of a passage in Cicero is directly in point. "Vivo tamen in ea ambitione et labore tanquam id, quod non postulo, _expectem_."----Cicero ad Quintum. 2. 15.

"I live still in such a course of ambition and fatigue, as if _I were expecting_ what I do not really desire."----Middleton, Life of Cicero, vol. 2. p. 97.

Here _tanquam expectem_ are rendered very justly, "as if I _were_ expecting;" _now_, in present time, agreeable to the original. The words carry a negative: _if I were expecting_, implying, that _I do not expect_.

[119] This tense is not admitted to be good English; yet is often used in speaking; the _have_ being contracted or corrupted into _a_, _had a written_, _if he had a received_.

[120] We have derived our substantive verb from two radical verbs; _beon_, whence come the English _be_, and the German _bist_; and _weorthan_, to be or _become_, fieri; from which probably, the Danes have their _varer_, and the English their _were_.

[121] The great source of these errors is this: Grammarians have considered _that_ as a conjunction, and supposed that "conjunctions couple like cases and modes;" a Latin rule that does not always hold in English. But Mr. Horne Tooke has clearly proved the word _that_ to be always a relative pronoun: It always relates to a word or sentence; and the reason why grammarians have called it a conjunction, may be this; they could not find any word to govern it as a relative, and therefore did not know what to do with it. But it is in fact a relative word, thus, "two men have made a discovery;" this is one assertion. What discovery? "_that_ or _this_ is the discovery;" the word _that_ carrying the force of a complete affirmation; "there _was_ a God." Here we see the absurdity of Swift's declaration and the common notions of a subjunctive mode. There is no subjunctive; in strictness of speech, all sentences are resolvable into distinct declaratory phrases. "There _is_ a God;" "two young men have discovered _that_;" so the sentence should be written to show the true construction.

[122] A passage in Dr. Middleton's Life of Cicero, is remarkably accurate; "The celebrated orator, L. Cassius, died of the same disease (the pleurisy,) which might probably be then, as I _was_ told in Rome it _is now_, the peculiar distemper of the place." _Was_ refers to time completely _past_; but _is_ declares a fact that exists generally, at all times; the verb is therefore in the present tense, or as Harris terms it,[123] the _aorist of the present_. So also in Dr. Reid's Essays, vol. 1. p. 18. "Those philosophers _held_, that there _are_ three first principles of all things;" which is correct English. "Aristotle _thought_ every object of human understanding _enters_ at first by the senses."--Page 110. The following passage is equally correct. "There is a courage depending on nerves and blood, which _was_ improved to the highest pitch among the Greeks."----Gillies, Hist. of Greece, vol. 1. p. 248. This courage is derived from the constitution of the human body; it exists therefore at _all times_; and had our author said, "there _was_ a courage depending on nerves and blood, which the Greeks _improved_ to the highest pitch," the sense would have been left imperfect. Here then we see the indefinite use of this form of the present tense; for were the verb is, in the foregoing example, limited to time _now present_, it would make the author write nonsense; it being absurd to say, "the Greeks 2000 years ago _improved_ a courage which exists only _at the present time_." So that verbs, in the _present_ tense, express facts that have an uninterrupted existence in _past_, _present_, and _future_ time.

[123] Hermes, page 123.

[124] _Previous_ may be vindicated on another principle; viz. by considering it as qualifying the whole subsequent member of the sentence. "The resolutions of Congress could not be enforced by legal penalties; this _fact_ was _previous_ to the establishment," &c. But the other is the real construction.

DISSERTATION V.

_Of the Construction of English Verse.--Pauses.--Expression.--Of
reading Verse._

_Of the_ CONSTRUCTION _of_ ENGLISH VERSE.

As poetry has ever been numbered among the _fine arts_, and has employed the pens of the first geniuses in all nations, an investigation of the subject must be gratifying to readers of taste. And it must be the more agreeable, as it has been much neglected, and the nature and construction of English verse have frequently been misunderstood.

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 requisite 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.

But there are two kinds of emphasis; a natural emphasis, which arises from the importance of the idea conveyed by a word; and an accidental emphasis, which arises from the importance of a word in a particular situation.

The first or natural emphasis belongs to all nouns, verbs, participles and adjectives, and requires no elevation of voice; as,

"Not _half_ so _swift_ the _tremb_ling _doves_ can _fly_."

The last or accidental emphasis is laid on a word when it has some particular meaning, and when the force of a sentence depends on it; this therefore requires an elevation of voice; as,

"Perdition catch my soul--but I _do_ love thee."

So far the prosody of the English language seems to be settled; but the rules laid down for the construction of verse, seem to have been imperfect and disputed.

Writers have generally supposed that our heroic verse consists of five feet, all pure Iambics, except the first foot, which they allow may be a Trochee. In consequence of this opinion, they have expunged letters from words which were necessary; and curtailed feet in such a manner as to disfigure the beauty of printing, and in many instances, destroyed the harmony of our best poetry.

The truth is, so far is our heroic verse from being confined to the Iambic measure, that it admits of eight feet, and in some instances of nine. I will not perplex my readers with a number of hard names, but proceed to explain the several feet, and show in what places of the line they are admissible.

An Iambic foot, which is the ground of English numbers, consists of two syllables, the first _short_ and the second _long_. This foot is admitted into every place of the line. Example, all Iambics.

"Wh[)e]re sl[=a]ves [)o]nce m[=o]re th[)e]ir n[=a]t[)i]ve l[=a]nd
b[)e]h[=o]ld,
N[)o] fi[=e]nds t[)o]rm[=e]nt, n[)o] chr[=i]sti[)a]ns th[=i]rst,
f[)o]r g[=o]ld."

Pope.

The Trochee is a foot consisting of two syllables, the first _long_ and the second _short_. Example.

"_W[=a]rms_ [)i]n the sun, refreshes in the breeze,
_Glows in_ the stars, and blossoms in the trees."

Pope.

The Trochee is not admissible into the second place of the line; but in the third and fourth it may have beauty, when it creates a correspondence between the sound and sense.

"Eve rightly call'd _m[=o]th[)e]r_ of all mankind."

"And staggered by the stroke, _dr[=o]ps th[)e]_ large ox."

The Spondee is a foot consisting of two long syllables. This may be used in any place of the line.

1. "_G[=o]od l[=i]fe_ be now my task, my doubts are done."

Dryden.

2. "As some _l[=o]ne mo[=u]nt_ain's monstrous growth he stood."

Pope.

But it has a greater beauty, when preceded by a Trochee.

"L[=o]ad th[)e] _t[=a]ll b[=a]rk_ and launch into the main."

3. "The mountain goats _c[=a]me b[=o]und_ing o'er the lawn."

4. "He spoke, and speaking in _pr[=o]ud tr[=i]_umph spread,
The long contended honors of her head."

Pope.

5. "Singed are his brows, the scorching lids _gr[=o]w bl[=a]ck_."

Pope.

The Pyrrhic is a foot of two short syllables; it is graceful in the first and fourth places, and is admissible into the second and third.

1. "_N[)o]r [)i]n_ the helpless orphan dread a foe."

Pope.

2. ----"On they move,
Indis_s[)o]l[)u]_bly firm."----Milton.

3. "The two extremes appear like man and wife,
Coupled togeth_[)e]r f[)o]r_ the sake of strife."

Churchill.

But this foot is most graceful in the fourth place.

"The dying gales that pant _[)u]p[)o]n_ the trees."

"To farthest shores the ambrosial spirit flies,
Sweet to the world and grate_f[)u]l t[)o]_ the skies."

The Amphibrach is a foot of three syllables, the first and third short, and the second long. It is used in heroic verse only when we take the liberty to add a short syllable to a line.

"The piece you say is incorrect, _wh[)y] t[=a]ke [)i]t_,
I'm all submission, what you'd have _[)i]t, m[=a]ke [)i]t_."

This foot is hardly admissible in the solemn or sublime stile. Pope has indeed admitted it into his Essay on Man:

"What can ennoble sots or slaves [)o]r c[=o]w[)a]rds,
Alas! not all the blood of all th[)e] H[=o]w[)a]rds."

Again:

"To sigh for ribbands, if thou art s[)o] s[=i]ll[)y],
Mark how they grace Lord Umbra or S[)i]r B[=i]ll[)y]."

But these lines are of the high burlesque kind, and in this stile the Amphibrach closes lines with great beauty.

The Tribrach is a foot of three syllables, all short; and it may be used in the third and fourth places.

"And rolls impet_[)u]o[)u]s t[)o]_ the subject plain."

Or thus:

"And thunders down impet_[)u]o[)u]s t[)o]_ the plain."

The Dactyl, a foot of three syllables, the first long and the two last short, is used principally in the first place in the line.

"_F[=u]r[)i]o[)u]s_ he spoke, the angry chief replied."

"_M[=u]rm[)u]r[)i]ng_, and with him fled the shades of night."

The Anapæst, a foot consisting of three syllables, the two first short and the last long, is admissible into every place of the line.

"C[)a]n [)a] b[=o]s[)o]m s[)o] g[=e]ntl[)e] r[)e]m[=a]in,
Unmoved when her Corydon sighs?
Will a nymph that is fond of the plains,
These plains and these valleys despise?
Dear regions of silence and shade,
Soft scenes of contentment and ease,
Where I could have pleasingly stay'd,
If ought in her absence could please."

The trissyllabic feet have suffered most by the general ignorance of critics; most of them have been mutilated by apostrophes, in order to reduce them to the Iambic measure.

Thus in the line before repeated,

"_Murmuring_, and with him fled the shades of night,"

we find the word in the copy reduced to two syllables, _murm'ring_, and the beauty of the Dactyl is destroyed.

Thus in the following:

"On every side with shadowy squadrons deep,"

by apostrophizing _every_ and _shadowy_, the line loses its harmony. The same remark applies to the following:

"And hosts infuriate shake the shudd'ring plain."

"But fashion so directs, and moderns raise
On fashion's _mould'ring_ base, their transient praise."

Churchill.

Poetic lines which abound with these trissyllabic feet, are the most flowing and melodious of any in the language; and yet the poets themselves, or their printers, murder them with numberless unnecessary contractions.

It requires but little judgement and an ear indifferently accurate, to distinguish the contractions which are necessary, from those which are needless and injurious to the versification. In the following passage we find examples of both.

"She went from op'ra, park, assembly, play,
To morning walks and pray'rs three times a day;
To part her time 'twixt reading and bohea,
To muse and spill her solitary tea;
Or o'er cold coffee trifle with the spoon,
Count the slow clock, and dine exact at noon;
Divert her eyes with pictures in the fire,
Hum half a tune, tell stories to the 'squire;
Up to her godly garret after sev'n,
There starve and pray, for that's the way to heav'n."

Pope's Epistles.

Here _e_ in _opera_ ought not to be apostrophized, for such a contraction reduces an Amphibrachic foot to an Iambic. The words _prayers_, _seven_ and _heaven_ need not the apostrophe of _e_; for it makes no difference in the pronunciation. But the contraction of _over_ and _betwixt_ is necessary; for without it the measure would be imperfect.

PAUSES.

Having explained the several kinds of feet, and shown in what places of a verse they may be used, I proceed to another important article, the pauses. Of these there are two kinds, the _cesural_ pause, which divides the line into two equal or unequal parts; and the _final_ pause which closes the verse. These pauses are called _musical_, because their sole end is the melody of verse.

The pauses which mark the sense, and for this reason are denominated _sentential_, are the same in verse as in prose. They are marked by the usual stops, a comma, a semicolon, a colon, or a period, as the sense requires, and need no particular explanation.

The cesural pause is not essential to verse, for the shorter kinds of measure are without it; but it improves both the melody and the harmony.

Melody in music is derived from a succession of sounds; harmony from different sounds in concord. A single voice can produce melody; a union of voices is necessary to form harmony. In this sense harmony cannot be applied to verse, because poetry is recited by a single voice. But harmony may be used in a figurative sense, to express the effect produced by observing the proportion which the members of verse bear to each other.[125]

The cesural pause may be placed in any part of the verse; but has the finest effect upon the melody, when placed after the second or third foot, or in the middle of the third. After the second:

"In what retreat, inglorious and unknown,
Did genius sleep, when dulness seized the throne."

After the third:

"O say what stranger cause, yet unexplored,
Could make a gentle belle reject a lord?"

In the middle of the third:

"Great are his perils, in this stormy time,
Who rashly ventures, on a sea of rhime."

In these examples we find a great degree of melody, but not in all the same degree. In comparing the divisions of verse, we experience the most pleasure in viewing those which are equal; hence those verses which have the pause in the middle of the third foot, which is the middle of the verse, are the most melodious. Such is the third example above.

In lines where the pause is placed after the second foot, we perceive a smaller degree of melody, for the divisions are not equal; one containing four syllables, the other six, as in the first example.

But the melody in this example, is much superior to that of the verses which have the cesural pause after the third foot; for this obvious reason: When the pause bounds the second foot, the latter part of the verse is the greatest, and leaves the most forcible impression upon the mind; but when the pause is at the end of the third foot, the order is reversed. We are fond of proceeding from small to great, and a climax in sound, pleases the ear in the same manner as a climax in sense delights the mind. Such is the first example.

It must be observed further, that when the cesural pause falls after the second and third feet, both the final and cesural pauses are on accented syllables; whereas when the cesural pause falls in the middle of the third foot, this is on a weak syllable, and the final pause, on an accented syllable. This variety in the latter, is another cause of the superior pleasure we derive from verses divided into equal portions.

The pause may fall in the middle of the fourth foot; as,

"Let favor speak for others, worth for me;"

but the melody, in this case, is almost lost. At the close of the first foot, the pause has a more agreeable effect.

"That's vile, should we a parent's fault adore,
And err, because our fathers err'd before?"

In the middle of the second foot, the pause may be used, but produces little melody.

"And who but wishes to invert the laws
Of order, sins against the eternal cause."

Harmony is produced by a proportion between the members of the same verse, or between the members of different verses. Example.

"Thy forests, Windsor, and thy green retreats,
At once the monarch's, and the muse's seats,
Invite my lays. Be present sylvan maids,
Unlock your springs, and open all your shades."

Here we observe, the pause in the first couplet, is in the middle of the third foot; both verses are in this respect similar. In the last couplet, the pause falls after the second foot. In each couplet separately considered, there is a uniformity; but when one is compared with the other, there is a diversity. This variety produces a pleasing effect.[126] The variety is further encreased, when the first lines of several succeeding couplets are uniform as to themselves, and different from the last lines, which are also uniform as to themselves. Churchill, speaking of reason, lord chief justice in the court of man, has the following lines.

"Equally form'd to rule, in age and youth,
The friend of virtue, and the guide to youth;
To _her_ I bow, whose sacred power I feel;
To _her_ decision, make my last appeal;
Condemn'd by _her_, applauding worlds in vain
Should tempt me to take up my pen again;
By _her_ absolv'd, the course I'll still pursue;
If _Reason_'s for me, _God_ is for me too."

The first line of three of these couplets, has the pause after the second foot; in this consists their similarity. The last line in three of them, has the pause in the middle of the third foot; they are uniform as to themselves, but different from the foregoing lines. This passage, which on the whole is very beautiful, suffers much by the sixth line, which is not verse, but rather hobbling prose.[127]

The foregoing remarks are sufficient to illustrate the use and advantages of the cesural pause.

The final pause marks the close of a line or verse, whether there is a pause in the sense or not. Sentential pauses should be marked by a variation of tone; but the final pause, when the close of one line is intimately connected with the beginning of the next, should be merely a suspension of the voice without elevation or depression. Thus:

"Of man's first disobedience, and the fruit
Of that forbidden tree, whose mortal taste
Brought death into the world, and all our woe," &c.

When these lines are read without a pause after the words _fruit_ and _taste_, they degenerate into prose. Indeed in many instances, particularly in blank verse, the final pause is the only circumstance which distinguishes verse from prose.

EXPRESSION.

One article more in the construction of verse deserves our observation, which is _Expression_. Expression consists in such a choice and distribution of poetic feet as are best adapted to the subject, and best calculated to impress sentiments upon the mind. Those poetic feet, which end in an accented syllable, are the most forcible. Hence the Iambic measure is best adapted to solemn and sublime subjects. This is the measure of the Epic, of poems on grave moral subjects, of elegies, &c. The Spondee, a foot of two long syllables, when admitted into the Iambic measure, adds much to the solemnity of the movement.

"While the clear sun, rejoicing still to rise,
In pomp _rolls round_ immeasurable skies."

Dwight.

The Dactyl, _rolls round_, expresses beautifully the majesty of the sun in his course.

It is a general rule, that the more important syllables there are in a passage, whether of prose or verse, the more heavy is the stile. For example:

"A past, vamp'd, future, old, reviv'd new piece."

"Men, bearded, bald, cowl'd, uncowl'd, shod, unshod."

Such lines are destitute of melody and are admissible only when they suit the sound to the sense. In the high burlesque stile, of which kind is Pope's Dunciad, they give the sentiment an ironical air of importance, and from this circumstance derive a beauty. On the other hand, a large proportion of unaccented syllables or particles, deprives language of energy; and it is this circumstance principally which in prose constitutes the difference between the grave historical, and the familiar stile. The greatest number of long syllables ever admitted into a heroic verse, is seven, as in the foregoing; the smallest number is three.

"Or to a s[=a]d var[=i]ety of w[=o]e."

The Trochaic measure, in which every foot closes with a weak syllable, is well calculated for lively subjects.

"Softly sweet in Lydian measures
Soon he sooth'd his soul to pleasures;
War he sung is toil and trouble,
Honor but an empty bubble," &c.

The Anapæstic measure, in which there are two short syllables to one long, is best adapted to express the impetuosity of passion or action. Shenstone has used it to great advantage, in his inimitable pastoral ballad. It describes beautifully the strong and lively emotions which agitate the lover, and his anxiety to please, which continually hurries him from one object and one exertion to another.

"I have found out a gift for my fair,
I have found where the wood pigeons breed;
Yet let me that plunder forbear,
She will say 'twas a barbarous deed.
For he ne'er could prove true, she averr'd,
Who could rob a poor bird of her young:
And I lov'd her the more when I heard
Such tenderness fall from her tongue."

The Amphibrachic measure, in which there is a long syllable between two short ones, is best adapted to lively comic subjects; as in Addison's Rosamond.

"Since conjugal passion
Has come into fashion,
And marriage so blest on the throne is,
Like Venus I'll shine,
Be fond and be fine,
And Sir Trusty shall be my Adonis."

Such a measure gives sentiment a ludicrous air, and consequently is ill adapted to serious subjects.

Great art may be used by a poet in choosing words and feet adapted to his subject. Take the following specimen.

"Now here, now there, the warriors fall; amain
Groans murmur, armor sounds, and shouts convulse the plain."

The feet in the last line are happily chosen. The slow Spondee, in the beginning of the verse, fixes the mind upon the dismal scene of woe; the solemnity is heightened by the pauses in the middle of the second and at the end of the third foot. But when the poet comes to shake the plains, he closes the line with three forcible Iambics.

Of a similar beauty take the following example.

"She all night long, her amorous descant sung."

The poet here designs to describe the length of the night, and the music of the Nightingale's song. The first he does by two slow Spondees, and the last by four very rapid syllables.

The following lines, from Gray's Elegy, written in a country church yard, are distinguished by a happy choice of words.

"For who, to dumb forgetfulness a prey,
This pleasing anxious being e'er resign'd?
Left the warm precincts of the cheerful day,
Nor cast one _longing lingering_ look behind?"

The words _longing_ and _lingering_ express most forcibly the reluctance with which mankind quit this state of existence.

Pope has many beauties of this kind.

"And grace and reason, sense and virtue split,
With all the rash dexterity of wit."

The mute consonants, with which these lines end, express the idea of _rending asunder_, with great energy and effect. The words _rash_ and _dexterity_ are also judiciously chosen.

In describing the delicate sensations of the most refined love, he is remarkable for his choice of smooth flowing words. There are some passages in his Eloisa and Abelard, which are extended to considerable length, without a single mute consonant or harsh word.

_Of_ READING VERSE.

With respect to the art of reading verse, we can lay down but a few simple rules; but these may perhaps be useful.

1. Words should be pronounced as they are in prose and in conversation; for reading is but rehearsing another's conversation.

2. The emphasis should be observed as in prose. The voice should bound from accent to accent, and no stress should be laid on little unimportant words, nor on weak syllables.

3. The sentential pauses should be observed as in prose; these are not affected by the kind of writing, being regulated entirely by the sense. But as the cesural and final pauses are designed to encrease the melody of verse, the strictest attention must be paid to them in reading. They mark a suspension of voice without rising or falling.

To read prose well it is necessary to understand what is read; and to read poetry well, it is further necessary to understand the structure of verse. For want of this knowlege, most people read all verse like the Iambic measure. The following are pure Iambics.

"Above how high progressive life may go!
Around how wide, how deep extend below!"

It is so easy to lay an accent on every second syllable, that any school boy can read this measure with tolerable propriety. But the misfortune is, that when a habit of reading this kind of meter is once formed, persons do not vary their manner to suit other measures. Thus in reciting the following line,

"Load _the_ tall _bark_, and launch in_to_ the main,"

many people would lay the accent on every second syllable; and thus read, our poetry becomes the most monotonous and ridiculous of all poetry in the world.

Let the following line be repeated without its pauses, and it loses its principal beauty.

"Bold, as a hero,, as a virgin, mild."

So in the following.

"Reason, the card,, but passion, is the gale."

"From storms, a shelter,, and from heat, a shade."

The harmony is, in all these instances, improved much by the semipauses, and at the same time the sense is more clearly understood.

Considering the difficulty of reading verse, I am not surprised to find but few who are proficients in this art. A knowlege of the structure of verse, of the several kinds of feet, of the nature and use of the final, the cesural and the semicesural pauses, is essential to a graceful manner of reading poetry; and even this, without the best examples, will hardly effect the purpose. It is for this reason, that children should not be permitted to read poetry of the more difficult kind, without the best examples for them to imitate. They frequently contract, in early life, either a monotony or a sing song cant, which, when grown into a habit, is seldom ever eradicated.

FOOTNOTES:

[125] Sheridan's Art of Reading.

[126] Sheridan.

[127] Churchill has improved English versification, but was sometimes too incorrect. It is a remark of some writer, "That the greatest geniuses are seldom correct," and the remark is not without foundation. Homer, Shakespear, and Milton, were perhaps the greatest geniuses that ever lived, and they were certainly guilty of the greatest faults. Virgil and Pope were much inferior in point of genius, but excelled in accuracy. Churchill had genius, but his contempt of rules made him sometimes indulge a too great latitude of expression.

NOTES,

HISTORICAL AND CRITICAL.

[A], page 42, Text.

The author of the "Specimen of an Etymological Vocabulary," asserts that "the Celtic was demonstrably the origin of the Greek and Latin; of most, if not all the languages of Europe; of part of Africa and the two Tartaries."

Mons. Gebelin, who has, with great industry, investigated the origin of the European languages, is of opinion that the Celtic was spoken from the borders of the Hellespont to the ocean, and from Troy to Cape Finisterre and Ireland. "La langue Celtique, dans son sens le plus extendu, est la langue que parlerent les premiers habitans de l'Europe, depuis les rives de l'Hellespont & de la Mer Egée, jusques a celle de l'Ocean; depuis le cap Sigée aux portes de Troie, jusques au cap de Finisterre en Portugal, ou jusques en Irelande."----Dis. Prelim. art. 2.

From this language, he says, sprung the Greek or Pelasgic, prior to Hesiod and Homer--the Latin or that of Numa--the Etruscan, spoken in a considerable part of Italy--the Thracian, spoken on the Danube, from the Euxine to the Adriatic sea, which was the same as the Phrygian--the Teutonic or German, spoken from the Vistula to the Rhine--the Gaulish, spoken on the Alps, in Italy, on this side the Po, and from the Rhine to the Ocean, including France, the Low Countries, Switzerland, Alemain, and the two Bretagnes--also the Cantabrian, or ancient language of Spain--in short, the Runic, spoken in the North, Denmark, Sweden, &c.

The only pure remains of this primitive Celtic, the same author supposes, are found in Wales, Cornwall, and Brittany in France, where the people still speak dialects of a language which is proved to be the ancient British.

"Separes ainsi du reste de l'univers, ces debris des anciens Celtes ont conservé leurs anciens usages, & parlent une langue qui n'a aucun rapport a celles des peuples qui les ont subjugués, & qui s'est partagée en trois dialectes, le Gallois, le Cornouaillien, & le Bas Breton; dialectes qui ont entr'eux le plus grand rapport, & qui sont incontestablement les precieux restes de l'ancienne langue des Celtes ou des Gaulois."----Dis. Prelim.

"Separated from the rest of the world, these remains of the ancient Celts have preserved their ancient customs, and speak a language which _has no agreement with those of their conquerors_, and which is divided into three dialects, the Welsh, the Cornish, and the Armoric--dialects which have a close affinity with each other, and which are, beyond dispute, the precious remains of the ancient Celtic or Gaulish language."[128]

In this passage the author seems to contradict what he had just before advanced, that the Celtic was the primitive language of Europe, from which sprung the Gothic or German. Now the Franks, Normans and Saxons, who subdued Gaul and Britain, spoke dialects of the Gothic; consequently there must have been, upon our author's own hypothesis, some agreement between the ancient Celtic and the more modern languages of the Goths, Saxons, and other northern conquerors of the Celtic nations. This agreement will appear, when I come to collate a number of words in the different languages.

Many learned men have attempted to prove that the Northern Goths and Teutones, and the Celts who lived in Gaul and Britain, were originally the same people. Mons. Mallet, the celebrated historian, has composed his "Introduction to the History of Denmark" upon this hypothesis. His translator is of a different opinion, and has generally substituted the English word "Gothic" for the "Celtique" of the original. In a preface to his translation, he endeavors to confute the opinion of Mons. Mallet, Cluverius, Pellutier and others, and prove that the Gothic and Celtique nations were _ab origine_ two distinct races of men. Great erudition is displayed on both sides of the question, and those who have a taste for enquiries of this kind, will receive much satisfaction and improvement, in reading what these authors have written upon the subject.

After a close examination, I freely declare myself an advocate for the opinion of Mons. Mallet, Lhuyd, and Pellutier, who suppose the Celts and Goths to be descended from the same original stock. The separation however must have been very early, and probably as early as the first age after the flood. To say that the Gothic and Celtique languages have _no affinity_, would be to contradict the most positive proofs; yet the affinity is very small--discoverable only in a few words.

The modern English, Danish, Swedish and German are all unquestionably derived from the same language; they have been spoken by distinct tribes, probably not two thousand years, and almost one half of that period, the sounds have been in some measure fixed by written characters, yet the languages are become so different as to be unintelligible, each to those who speak the other. But, suppose two languages separated from the parent tongue, two thousand years earlier, and to be spoken, thro the whole of that time, by rude nations, unacquainted with writing, and perpetually roving in forests, changing their residence, and liable to petty conquests, and it is natural to think their affinity must become extremely obscure. This seems to have been the fact with respect to the Gothic and Celtic tongues. The common parent of both was the Phenician or Hebrew. This assertion is not made on the sole authority of Moses; profane history and etymology furnish strong arguments to prove the truth of the scripture account of the manner in which the world was peopled from one flock or family. Of these two ancient languages, the Celtic or British comes the nearest to the Hebrew, for which perhaps substantial reasons will be assigned. The Gothic bears a greater affinity to the Greek and Roman, as being derived through the ancient Ionic or Pelasgic, from the Phenician.

Lhuyd, a celebrated and profound antiquary, remarks, Arch. Brit. page 35. "It is a common error in etymology to endeavor the deriving all the radical words of our western European languages from the Latin and Greek; or indeed to derive constantly the primitives of any one language from any particular tongue. When we do this, we seem to forget that all have been subject to alterations; and that the greater and more polite any nation is, the more subject, (partly for improvement, and partly out of a luxurious wantonness) to new model their language. We must therefore necessarily allow, that whatever nations were of the neighborhood and of one common origin with the Greeks and Latins, when they began to distinguish themselves for politeness, they must have preserved their languages (which could differ from theirs only in dialects) much better than they; and consequently no absurdity to suppose a great many words of the language, spoken by the old aborigines, the Osci, the Læstrigones, the Ausonians, Ænotrians, Umbrians and Sabines, out of which the Latin was composed, to have been better preserved in the Celtic than in the Roman. "Lingua Hetrusca, Phrygia, Celtica (says the learned Stiernhelm) affines sunt omnes; ex uno fonte derivatæ. Nec Græca longe distat, Japheticæ sunt omnes; ergo et ipsa Latina. Non igitur mirium est innumera vocabula dictarum Linguarum communia esse cum Latinis." And that being granted, it must also be allowed that the Celtic (as well as all other languages) has been best preserved by such of their colonies, as, from the situation of their country, have been the least subject to foreign invasions. Whence it proceeds that we always find the ancient languages are best retained in mountains and islands."

The result of this doctrine is, that the primitive Celtic was preserved, in greatest purity, in Britain, before the Roman and Saxon conquests, and since those periods, in Wales and Cornwall. Hence the affinity between the Hebrew and British, which will afterward appear.

Wallis remarks that it is doubtful whether many words in the English and German languages are derived from the Latin, or the Latin from the Teutonic, or whether all were derived from the same stock. "Multas autem voces, quæ nobis cum Germanis fere sunt communes, dubium est an prisci olim Teutones a Latinis, an hi ab illis, aut denique utrique ab eodem commune fonte, acceperint."----Gram. Cap. 14.

But I presume that history, as well as etymology, will go far in solving the doubt, and incline us to believe that the Teutonic, Greek and Latin were all children of the same parent tongue.

We first hear of men in the mild climate of Asia Minor, and about the head of the Mediterranean. Soon after the flood, the inhabitants began to migrate into distant countries. Some of them went northward and settled in Bactriania and Hyrcania, thence extending westward along the shores of the Caspian sea into Armenia. From these Asiatic colonies, sprung the Scythians and the numerous tribes that afterwards covered the territory of modern Russia, Sweden and Denmark. The different tribes or hordes of these people were called Cimbri, (perhaps from Gomer) Galli, Umbri, &c. and settled the northern parts of Europe as far as the Rhine.

The northern Greek countries, Thrace and Mysia, were peopled by the descendants of Tiras or Thiras, a son of Japhet. The whole country from Thrace to Peloponnesus was inhabited by the posterity of Javan and Cittim; indeed Ionia, the ancient name of Greece, seems to be derived from Javan, _J_ or _I_ being anciently pronounced as liquid _i_, or _y_ consonant, and as it is still pronounced in the German _ja_, _yaw_. These settlements were made long before the Pelasgic migrations into Greece, which happened at least 2000 years before Christ. The original language of Greece was called _Ionic_, from _Javan_ or _Ion_. The Pelasgi were probably Phenicians; and ancient historians relate that they carried letters into Greece; but these must have been in a very rude state, so early after their invention;[129] nor do we find that they were ever much used; at least no records or inscriptions, in these characters, are mentioned by the Greek historians.

Cadmus introduced the Phenician letters into Greece 1494 years before Christ. These letters were introduced with some difficulty, and both Cadmus and his followers were obliged to adopt the _Ionic_ or original Japhetic language, which was afterwards written in his Phenician characters.

The Greeks, at different periods, sent colonies into distant parts of the country. These settled in Thrace, Macedon, on the banks of the Euxine, in Asia Minor, in Italy, Sicily and on the southern shore of the Mediterranean. This Ionic or Japhetic language was therefore the root of the Greek and Latin. It was also the root of the Gothic language, spoken in the north of Europe; and from which, after the revolution of ages, the shocks of war, and the improvements in science, no less than seven or eight different languages are derived.[130]

Profane history therefore warrants us in asserting that the Greek, Roman, and all the modern languages of the north of Europe, and the English, among the rest, had a common stock. But history alone would not silence our objections to this theory, were it not incontestibly proved by a number of radical words, common to all, which are not yet lost in the changes of time. Etymology therefore furnishes a demonstration of what is related in history. When one sees the words ~ginôskô~ and ~gnoô~ in Greek, _nosco_, and anciently, _gnosco_ in Latin, and _know_ in English, conveying the same idea, he is led to suspect that one nation borrowed the word from another. But when did the English borrow this word? The word was used by the Saxons, long before they could have had any knowlege of Greek or Roman authors. It furnishes therefore a strong presumption that all the streams came from the same fountain. But when we examin further, and find many, perhaps a hundred words or more, common to all these languages, the evidence of their common origin becomes irresistible. This in fact is the case.

The authors then who have labored to prove the Greek and Latin Languages to be derived from the _Celtic_, mistake the truth. The _Celtic_ was not _prior_ to the Greek and Latin, but a branch of the _same stock_; that is, cotemporary with those languages.

This Japhetic language, I take to be coeval with the Phenician or Hebrew; and there are some Hebrew words in the English language, which must have been derived thro the Saxon or Teutonic. But the old British, as I before remarked, retained the greatest affinity to the Hebrew. The reason which appears probable, has been already assigned; the Celts and Britons in the west of Europe, remained, till the times of Julius Cæsar, less disturbed by wars and revolutions, than the inhabitants of Asia, Egypt and Greece.