/
Here we dwell on the caesura, son just as long as it requires us to
pronounce either of the preceding or succeeding iambuses. Its value,
therefore, in this line, is that of three short syllables. In the
following dactylic line its value is that of four short syllables.
Pale as a / lily was / Emily / [Gray]. /
I have accented the caesura with brackets by way of expressing this
variability of value.
I observed just now that there could be no such foot as one of two
short syllables. What we start from in the very beginning of all
idea on the topic of verse, is quantity, length. Thus when we
enunciate an independent syllable it is long, as a matter of course.
If we enunciate two, dwelling on both we express equality in the
enunciation, or length, and have a right to call them two long
syllables. If we dwell on one more than the other, we have also a
right to call one short, because it is short in relation to the other.
But if we dwell on both equally, and with a tripping voice, saying
to ourselves here are two short syllables, the query might well be
asked of us- "in relation to what are they short?" Shortness is but
the negation of length. To say, then, that two syllables, placed
independently of any other syllable, are short, is merely to say
that they have no positive length, or enunciation- in other words,
that they are no syllables- that they do not exist at all.
Pages:
268
269
270
271
272
273
274
275
276
277
278
279
280
281
282
283
284
285
286
287
288
289
290
291
292