This page needs to be proofread.
- "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.[1] 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.
- Accent and quantity are distinct things;[2] 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.
- 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
- ↑ [487] It is common, at any rate, for prosodists to speak of "the movement of the voice," as do Sheridan, Murray, Humphrey, and Everett; but Kames, in treating of the Beauty of Language from Resemblance, says "There is no resemblance of sound to motion, nor of sound to sentiment."—Elements of Criticism, Vol. ii, p. 63. This usage, however, is admitted by the critic, had cited to show how, "causes that have no resemblance may produce resembling effects."—Ib. 64. "By a number of syllables in succession, an emotion is sometimes raised extremely similar to that raised by successive motion: which may be evident even to those who are defective in taste, from the following fact, that the term movement in all languages is equally applied to both."—Ib. ii. 66.
- ↑ [488] "From what has been said of accent and quantity in our own language, we may conclude them to be essentially distinct and perfectly separable: nor is it to be doubted that they were equally separable in the learned languages."—Walkers's Observations on Gr. and Lat. Accent and Quantity, §20; Key, p. 326. In the speculative essay here cited, Walker meant by accent the rising or the falling inflection,—an upward or a downward slide of the voice: and by quantity, nothing but the open or close sound of some vowel; as of "the a in scatter" and in "skater," the initial syllables of which words be supposed to differ in quantity as much as any two syllables can!—Ib., §24; Key, p. 331. With these views of the things, it is perhaps the less to be wondered at, that Walker, who appears to have been a candid and courteous writer, charges "that excellent scholar Mr. Forster—with a total ignorance of the accent and quantity of his own language," (Ib., Note on §8; Key, p. 317;) and, in regard to accent, ancient or modern, elsewhere confesses his own ignorance, and that of every body else, to be as "total." See marginal note on Obs. 4th below.
