accented syllables short, and as many unaccented syllables long, as the Greek. Neither do I think that there is any tendency in my countrymen to dwell long on the accented syllables. When, in reading Latin poetry, we come to the word "Thǎmyris," we give it, as I apprehend, the proper accent and quantity: the fault we commit in Latin poetry being, not that we dwell too long on the short syllables, but that we do not dwell enough on the long ones. So to the second syllable of "Mæonides" we rightly give a short quantity and an acute accent. Now when we make English words of these names, and read them so,

Blind Thámyris, and blind Mæónides,

do we dwell longer on the accented syllables than we did in Latin? Certainly not. The verse is purely accentual, and our ears are satisfied with finding the accent on the proper syllables, without any reference to quantity at all.

Dr. Foster indeed admits that the coincidence of the acute accent and long quantity in our language is not universal. He states as an instance, that the accent is on a short syllable in "prívy,' though on a long one in "prívate." (p. 25, note.) In giving an account of our poetry, Dr. Foster says:

Our common epic verse, consisting of five feet, is trimeter iambic brachycatalectic,

An honest man's the noblest work of God."-(p. 29.) He marks the line as a pure iambic. I appeal to

the reader's ear: dismiss all consideration of the elevation of syllables, and recite this line with the attention confined to their quantity, that is, to the time which each takes up, and mark them accordingly the result of my own ear's judgment is this:

An honest man's thě nōblēst work of Gŏd.

Other ears may differ in some syllables from mine, but how many will make it a pure iambic? Dr. Foster's admission that the coincidence of the acute accent and the long quantity in our language is not universal, and the instance which he selects as an exception, enable me further to show our poetry not to be iambic, by this test, that, provided the even syllables be accented, it is immaterial whether they be long or short:

He calls the pri-|-vate council sore displeased.

This Dr. Foster would call an iambic, and he would tell us, that the even syllables are long by the coincidence of the acute and the long quantity. Now for "private" substitute "privy," the first syllable of which he admits to be short. Is the verse less regular? Not at all. And why? Surely for no other reason, but because the verse is accentual, and not chronical, and since " "prívy" has the same accent as "private," it suits the verse as well, though its quantity be different. Dr. Foster in support of his proposition, that the essence of English metre is founded on quantity alone, uses an argument, upon which I am willing to

allow the truth of that proposition to rest, and to abide thereon the decision of any number of welleducated persons.

"Let a Scotchman take some verses of any of our poets, as these:

All human things are subject to decay,

And when fate summons, mōnarchs must obey.

He will pronounce them with the accent transposed thus:

All humán things are subject to decay,

And when fate summóns, mōnárchs must obey.

Now though he alters the tones, and transfers the acute from the beginning to the end of words, yet in this pronunciation the metre still essentially subsists, because founded in quantity, which is not violated by him. Did the metre depend on accent, it would be necessarily disturbed and destroyed by his transposition of that accent." (p. 36.)

Now I agree to this test: but I say, that the metre is disturbed and destroyed by such a pronunciation of humán, subjéct, summóns and monárch, as he, whether justly or not, has attributed to the Scotch; and I should be much surprised to find any Englishman, or any Scotchman well versed in English poetry, whose ear would not agree with mine in this particular. And in truth, the more we consider the subject, the more disposed shall we be to assent to Mr. Mitford's proposition, that "accent is the fundamental efficient of English versification." (p. 91.)

Perhaps this erroneous account of the quantity in the English language, coming as it does in the early part of the work, immediately after the chapter explaining the difference between accent and quantity, and before he touches on the accents of the Romans and Greeks, may have been one cause why Dr. Foster's admirable essay has had so little practical effect. If it be necessary to the apprehension of an argument, that two ideas should be carefully and constantly distinguished from each other, it is indeed important that we should begin by a clear definition of the terms by which each is to be represented but this is not enough we must also continue to preserve through the course of the argument the distinction with which we set out; and nothing can more effectually bring us back to error than the use of familiar illustrations, which assume the identity of the very two things which we have been labouring to distinguish.

Dr. Foster's theory, that the acute accent and long quantity coincide in the English, afford his opponents a good ground to infer that they coincide in the Greek too. Dr. Gally, after stating the question at issue between himself and Dr. Foster, says: "Now upon this state of the debate, which is the only true one, it is very obvious to observe, that by the acute accent we mean that accent which we moderns use in pronouncing our own language, and which doth in all cases sound the syllable over which it is placed long, and that

Mr. Foster means an accent which is not in use with us. In relation, therefore, to the accent which we mean, and which we all use, I really cannot see that there is any difference between us and Mr. Foster, if he abides by the principles which he hath laid down, and the concessions which he hath made. For he alloweth, that the accent which we use does make all syllables sound long to the ear, and that if the voice is retarded in some syllables, by what cause soever that delay be occasioned, there is truly and formally long quantity. But this is the very thing we contend for; and from which we strongly conclude, that therefore the Greek language ought not to be pronounced according to accents, meaning our acute accent." (Second Dissertation against Greek Accents, p. 79.) We here see what an advantage Foster's theory as to English quantity gives to his opponent in destroying the force of his argument. The best part perhaps of Foster's essay is that, in which he illustrates the different nature of accent and quantity, by reference to the principles of music, and the properties of the human voice, which in all nations are the same. But all this passes for mere theory, when we find that in our own language no such distinction is to be found, but that the acute accent and long time practically coincide; and, if in our own, then in most, if not all, of the other languages of Europe, in Italian, for instance, and German, and even in