- is iambic no longer. But trochaic, retrenched of its last short syllable, is trochaic still; and can no otherwise be made iambic, than by the prefixing of a short syllable to the line. Feet, and the orders of verse, are distinguished one from an other by two things, and in general by two only; the number of syllables taken as a foot, and the order of their quantities. Trochaic verse is always as distinguishable from iambic, as iambic is from any other. Yet have we several grammarians and prosodies who contrive to confound them—or who, at least, mistake catalectic trochaic for catalectic iambic; and that too, where the syllable wanting affects only the last foot, and makes it perhaps but a common and needful cæsura.
- To suppose that iambic verse may drop its initial short syllable,
and still be iambic, still be measured as before, is not only to take a
single long syllable for a foot, not only to recognize a pedal cæsura at
the beginning of each line, but utterly to destroy the only principles on
which iambics and trochaics can be discriminated. Yet Hiley, of Leeds, and
Wells, of Andover, while they are careful to treat separately of these two
orders of verse, not only teach that any order may take at the end "an
additional syllable," but also suggest that the iambic may drop a
syllable "from the first foot," without diminishing the number of
feet,—without changing the succession of quantities,—without disturbing
the mode of scansion! "Sometimes," say they, (in treating of iambics,) "a
syllable is cut off from the first foot; as,
Práise \ to Gód, \ immór\-tal práise,
Fór \ the lóve \ that crówns \ our dáys."[—BARBAULD.]
Hiley's E. Gram., Third Edition, London, p. 124;
Wells's, Third Edition, p. 198. - Now this couplet is the precise exemplar, not only of the thirty-six lines of which it is a part, but also of the most common of our trochaic metres; and if this may be thus scanned into iambic verse, so may all other trochaic lines in existence: distinction between the two orders must then be worse than useless. But I reject this doctrine, and trust that most readers will easily see its absurdity. A prosodist might just as well scan all iambics into trochaics, by pronouncing each initial short syllable to be hypermeter. For, surely, if deficiency may be discovered at the beginning of measurement, so may redundance. But if neither is to be looked for before the measurement ends, (which supposition is certainly more reasonable,) then is the distinction already vindicated, and the scansion above-cited is shown to be erroneous.
- But there are yet other objections to this doctrine, other errors
and inconsistencies in the teaching of it. Exactly the same kind of verse
as this, which is said to consist of "four iambuses" from one of which "a
syllable is cut off," is subsequently scanned by the same authors as
being composed of "three trochees and an additional syllable; as,
'Haste thee, \ Nymph, and \ bring with \ thee
Jest and \ youthful \ Jolli\-ty.'—MILTON."
Wells's School Grammar, p. 200.
"Vītăl \ spārk of \ heāv'nly \ flāme,
Qūit ŏh \ qūit thĭs \ mōrtăl \ frāme."[1][—POPE.]
Hiley's English Grammar, p. 126.There is, in the works here cited, not only the inconsistency of teaching two very different modes of scanning the same species of verse, but in each instance the scansion is wrong; for all the lines in question are trochaic of four feet,—single-rhymed, and, of course, catalectic, and ending with a cæsura, or elision. In no metre that lacks but one syllable, can this sort of foot occur at the beginning of a line; yet, as we see, it is sometimes imagined to be there, by those who have never been able to find it at the end, where it oftenest exists!
- I have hinted, in the main paragraph above, that it is a common
error of our prosodists, to underrate, by one foot, the measure of all
trochaic lines, when they terminate with single rhyme; an error into which
they are led by an other as gross, that of taking for hypermeter, or mere
surplus, the whole rhyme itself, the sound or syllable most indispensable
to the verse.
"(For rhyme the rudder is of verses,
With which, like ships, they steer their courses.)"—Hudibras.Iambics and trochaics, of corresponding metres, and exact in them, agree of course in both the number of feet and the number of syllables; but as the former are slightly redundant with double rhyme, so the latter are deficient as much, with single rhyme; yet, the number of feet may, and should, in these cases, be reckoned the same. An estimable author now living says, "Trochaic verse, with an additional long syllable, is the same as iambic verse, without the initial short syllable."—N. Butler's Practical Gram., p. 193. This instruction is not quite accurate. Nor would it be right, even if there could be "iambic verse without the initial short syllable," and if it were universally true, that, "Trochaic verse may take an additional long syllable."—Ibid. For the addition and subtraction here suggested, will inevitably make the difference of a foot, between the measures or verses said to be the same!
- "I doubt," says T. O. Churchill, "whether the trochaic can be considered as a legitimate English measure. All the examples of it given by Johnson have an additional long syllable at the end: but these are iambics, if we look upon the additional syllable to be at the beginning, which is much more agreeable to the analogy of music."—Churchill's New Gram., p. 390. This doubt, ridiculous as must be all reasoning in support of it, the author seriously endeavours to raise into a general conviction that we have no trochaic order of verse! It can hardly be worth while to notice here all his remarks. "An additional long syllable" Johnson never dreamed of—"at the
- ↑ [509] See exercises in Punctuation, on page 786, of this work.—G. B.
