LETTER VIII. SIR, I T has been faid by feveral Perfons, especially by Foreigners, that there is no fuch thing as Meafure or Feet, or long and fhort Syllables in English Words. This Miftake, I believe, is chiefly owing to Voffius, who has advanc'd it in his Treatife De Poematum Cantu, &c. As alfo, that the French Language is more fit for Heroick Verfe than the English. To examine one or both of thefe Points will be the Subject of this Letter. That our Language does not abound with Dactyls and Spondees is very true; but that we have Words enough which are perfect Iambick and Trochaick Feet is very certain, and this naturally makes our Verse Iambick. Divine, Attend, Directs, are as perfect Iambicks as any Latin Words of two Syllables, and fo are moft of our Monofyllable Nouns with their Particles. The Lord, The Man, The Rock. Every one must perceive that in all these Words, the last Syllable ftrikes the Ear more than the firft, or, in other Words, the laft is longer than the firft, which is all that makes an Iambick Latin Foot. The following Words, People, Subftance, Angels, Chearful, and the like, are all Trochaick Feet; for F 3 it it is eafily obferv'd, that the first Syllable dwells longer on the Ear than the latter. I wonder that Voffius, who was a Canon of Windfor, did not perceive this in the Metre which he could not but often have heard at Church. "All People that on Earth do dwell Sing to the Lord with chearful Voice. Suppose these two Lines were alter'd thus, *All ye People that on Earth dwell, Here the natural Sound of the Words People and Chearful is very much alter'd, by their being wrong plac'd; or rather, the Verfe is quite destroy'd: But to chufe an Example from Milton. And if our Subftance be indeed Divine. Let this be alter'd, And indeed Divine if be our Subftance. Is not the Verfe quite destroy'd by this Alteration? And does it not appear to be fo, because Indeed and Divine, which are Iambick Feet, are plac'd as if they were Trochaick, and Substance, which is a Trochaick Foot, is plac'd as if it were an Iambick? But I might have omitted the altering of this Line of Milton's, if I had thought of one in Corley's Davideis, which is as barbarous as it is poffible for the Wit of Man to make a Verse. "To Divine Nobé directs then his Flight... Lib. 3. v. 3. Nobé, Nobé, Mr. Cowley fays in his Notes, he puts inftead of Nob, because that Word feem'd to him to be unberoical. But that is not what I am chiefly to take notice of. Divine and Directs are both Iambicks, but Mr. Cowley has made them both Trochaicks, which makes this Line fo terrible to the Ear. It is plain that Voffius, who came into England when he was pretty much advanc'd in Years, and in all probability convers'd chiefly in Latin or French, knew nothing at all of the Pronunciation of English Words. We have as certainly Feet or Numbers in our Language, as in the Latin; and indeed the Latin feems to me to be rather more arbitrary in this refpect than the English. What Reafon can be given why ma in manus is fhort, and ma in manes long? Why is a in amens long, and a in amans fhort, and the like of other Words too numerous to relate? That all English Verfes are Iambick, appears moft plainly by confidering Monofyllable Lines. For Example: "Arms and the Man I fing, who forc'd by Fate. Here Arms, the, I, who, by, appear to be fhorter in their Sound than and, man, fing, forc'd, fate. Again, * Breathe foft or loud, and wave your Tops, ye Pines. In this Line the fame Difference is perceiv'd between breathe, or, your, ye; and foft, loud, wave, tops, pines. F 4 Whence Whence it is evident that these Lines are perfectly Iambick. The Particle and, as well as fome other Monofyllables, may be faid to be common, like many Words in Latin; they fubmit themselves to be alter'd by the Voice in reading, and may be pronounced either long or fhort: But this is not fo in other Words. And here it may be proper to obferve, that Milton has a very artful Way of varying his Numbers, by putting a Trochaick Foot at the Beginning of a Verfe; and the Reason why he could do it, is, that the Verfe is not enough form'd in that place for the Ear to perceive the Want of the proper Measure. The Examples of this kind are very numerous: I will mention but two. "Angels, for ye behold him, and with Song. And again, Fountains, and ye that warble as ye flow. Nov. 27. 1736. I am, SIR, &c. LET LETTER IX. SIR, Ti O reply to the Opinion that Voffius has given in favour of French Verfe compared with English, I would obferve in the firft Place that what the French call Heroick Verfe, is the very worst Sort of Verse that can be contriv'd. If the Excellence of Verse confifts chiefly in varying the Fause, as I have fhewn it does in the Latin, and could do the fame in the Greek and other Languages; what must be thought of that Sort of Verfification in which the Paufe is moft ftrictly preferv'd in the fame Place in every Line, be it for 10 or 20 thoufand together, especially in Verfes of 12 Syllables? Perhaps an Englishman may not be a very proper Perfon to make this Objection to French Verfe: I will therefore produce the Opinion of several of their own Writers. Ronfard, in the Preface to his Franciade, owns that their Alexandrine Lines have too much prattle (ils ont trop de caquet) and that it is a Fault in their Poetry that one Line does not run into another, and therefore he wrote his Franciade in Verfes of ten Syllables, and broke the Measure. The Author of the Hiftory of French Poetry confeffes, that the conftant Paufe in their Lines makes the Poetry te dious; |