Reasoned rules on this topic should form a portion of all systems of rhythm.

»So as to produce harmony,« says the definition, »by the regular alternation,« etc. A regular alternation, as described, forms no part of any principle of versification. The arrangement of spondees and dactyls, for example, in the Greek hexameter, is an arrangement which may be termed at random. At least it is arbitrary. Without interference with the line as a whole, a dactyl may be substituted for a spondee, or the converse, at any point other than the ultimate and penultimate feet, of which the former is always a spondee, the latter nearly always a dactyl. Here, it is clear, we have no »regular alternation of syllables differing in quantity.«

»So as to produce harmony,« proceeds the definition, »by the regular alternation of syllables differing in quantity,« – in other words, by the alternation of long and short syllables; for in rhythm all syllables are necessarily either short or long. But not only do I deny the necessity of any regularity in the succession of feet and, by consequence, of syllables, but dispute the essentiality of any alternation, regular or irregular, of syllables long and short. Our author, observe, is now engaged in a definition of versification in general, not of English versification in particular. But the Greek and Latin metres abound in the spondee and pyrrhic – the former consisting of two long syllables, the latter of two short; and there are innumerable instances of the immediate succession of many spondees and many pyrrhics.

Here is a passage from Silius Italicus:

 

Fallis te mensas inter quod credis inermem

Tot bellis quæsita viro, tot cædibus armat

Majestas eterna ducem: si admoveris ora

Cannas et Trebium ante oculos Trasymenaque busta,

Et Pauli stare ingentem miraberis umbram.

 

Making the elisions demanded by the classic prosodies, we should scan these hexameters thus:

 

Fallis | te men | sas in | ter quod | credis in | ermem |

Tot bel | lis quæ | sita vi | ro tot | cædibus | armat |

Majes | tas e | terna du | cem s'ad | moveris | ora |

Cannas | et Trebi' | ant'ocu | los Trasy | menaque | busta |

Et Pau | li sta | r'ingen | tem mi | raberis | umbram |

 

It will be seen that, in the first and last of these lines, we have only two short syllables in thirteen, with an uninterrupted succession of no less than nine long syllables. But how are we to reconcile all this with a definition of versification which describes it as »the art of arranging words into lines of correspondent length so as to produce harmony by the regular alternation of syllables differing in quantity«?

It may be urged, however, that our prosodist's intention was to speak of the English metres alone, and that, by omitting all mention of the spondee and pyrrhic, he has virtually avowed their exclusion from our rhythms. A grammarian is never excusable on the ground of good intentions. We demand from him, if from any one, rigorous precision of style. But grant the design. Let us admit that our author, following the example of all authors on English Prosody, has, in defining versification at large, intended a definition merely of the English. All these prosodists, we will say, reject the spondee and pyrrhic. Still all admit the iambus, which consists of a short syllable followed by a long; the trochee, which is the converse of the iambus; the dactyl, formed of one long syllable followed by two short; and the anapæst – two short succeeded by a long. The spondee is improperly rejected, as I shall presently show. The pyrrhic is rightfully dismissed. Its existence in either ancient or modern rhythm is purely chimerical, and the insisting on so perplexing a nonentity as a foot of two short syllables, affords, perhaps, the best evidence of the gross irrationality and subservience to authority which characterize our Prosody. In the meantime the acknowledged dactyl and anapæst are enough to sustain my proposition about the ›alternation,‹ etc., without reference to feet which are assumed to exist in the Greek and Latin metres alone: for an anapæst and a dactyl may meet in the same line; when, of course, we shall have an uninterrupted succession of four short syllables. The meeting of these two feet, to be sure, is an accident not contemplated in the definition now discussed; for this definition, in demanding a »regular alternation of syllables differing in quantity,« insists on a regular succession of similar feet. But here is an example:

 

Sing to me | Isabelle.

 

This is the opening line of a little ballad now before me, which proceeds in the same rhythm – a peculiarly beautiful one. More than all this: English lines are often well composed, entirely, of a regular succession of syllables all of the same quantity – the first lines, for instance, of the following quatrain by Arthur C. Coxe:

 

March! march! march!

Making sounds as they tread.

Ho! ho! how they step,

Going down to the dead!

 

The line italicised is formed of three cæsuras. The cæsura, of which I have much to say hereafter, is rejected by the English Prosodies and grossly misrepresented in the classic. It is a perfect foot – the most important in all verse – and consists of a single long syllable; but the length of this syllable varies.

It has thus been made evident that there is not one point of the definition in question which does not involve an error. And for any thing more satisfactory or more intelligible we shall look in vain to any published treatise on the topic.

So general and so total a failure can be referred only to radical misconception. In fact the English Prosodists have blindly followed the pedants. These latter, like les moutons de Panurge, have been occupied in incessant tumbling into ditches, for the excellent reason that their leaders have so tumbled before. The Iliad, being taken as a starting-point, was made to stand in stead of Nature and common-sense.