By
pronouncing each of the syllables e and lais twice as rapidly as the
syllable sy, or the syllable in, or any other short syllable, they
could bring the two of them, taken together, to the length, that is to
say to the time, of any one short syllable. This consideration enabled
them to effect the agreeable variation of three syllables in place
of the uniform two. And variation was the object-variation to the ear.
What sense is there, then, in supposing this object rendered null by
the blending of the two syllables so as to render them, in absolute
effect, one? Of course, there must be no blending. Each syllable
must be pronounced as distinctly as possible (or the variation is
lost), but with twice the rapidity in which the ordinary short
syllable is enunciated. That the syllables elais ea do not compose
an anapaest is evident, and the signs of their accentuation are
erroneous. The foot might be written with inverted crescents
expressing double quick time; and might be called a bastard iambus.
Here is a trochaic line:
See the / delicate-footed / rain-deer.
The prosodies- that is to say the most considerate of them- would
here decide that "delicate" is a dactyl used in place of a trochee,
and would refer to what they call their "rule, for justification.
Others, varying the stupidity, would insist upon a Procrustean
adjustment thus (del'cate) an adjustment recommended to all such words
as silvery, murmuring.
Pages:
257
258
259
260
261
262
263
264
265
266
267
268
269
270
271
272
273
274
275
276
277
278
279
280
281