cuted. The third part, which professes to be a large and plain account of Latin verse, &c. is my object, and I shall go through it with as much order and dispatch as possible. He begins properly enough by considering the hexameter, of which he gives a very meagre account, containing some inaccuracies which I shall not stop to point out, as there is better game in view. Nor shall I delay on his pentameters, except to make a few remarks on rhymed Latin, the consideration of which he here introduces, and shews he knows nothing about it. "The following verse of Ovid," he says, (p. 204.) "is spoiled by a rhyme, Quærebant flavos per nemus omne favos." Now there is no rhyme here; flávos accented on its first syllable and favós on its last, (which is the way they ought to be pronounced) rhyme no more than a mán rhymes with Háman, or promontory with spárkling story. Nor, with all deference to the learned author of Metronariston, do the verses which Lyne quotes after him, such as, O pater, O patria cura decusque tuæ, deserve the name of rhyme. They are merely homoteleutic, and of course do not rhyme any more than correct with direct, or causeway with highway, or James Hogg with hedge-hog. The author of Metronariston considers such verses as agreeable: to my ear they are very displeasing, if of any thing like frequent occurrence. Persius laughs at the poets of his day for using them, and crabbed as the satirist is, I own I prefer his authority to that of the master of Liskeard school, who declares them "soft and musical." True it is, there are limits to his admiration. Rhyme carried too far, he thinks spoils the dignity of some hymns in the Roman breviary, for instance, Nobis datus, nobis natus Et in mundo conversatus, Miro clausit ordine. Spoil the dignity of such a composition as this! Why, sir, it is not Latin verseat all. It is nothing but Latin words adapted to a foreign, or, as they them selves would say, a barbarous music and accentuation. They are sung as Trochaics thus: Nobis datus | nobis | natus||ex in- |-tactă | virgi- | ne without any regard to the true quantities. He might as well have quoted honest old Walter de Mapes's "Mihi est propositum in taberna mori," for a specimen of Latin verse, as this sample of the Roman breviary. We next come to a chapter on six small verses, parts of the hexameter. The second of these he exemplifies by a fragment of a line from the Æneid, by following which plan he might have treated us with a more copious variety of metres than any former prosodian, a great object of his ambition. Why did not he give examples of the verse, (the heroic hepthemimeris,) from authors-Prudentius, Boethius, Ausonius, &c.—who really used it as an entire line, instead of having recourse to Virgil, who, of course, intended to have finished it as a full hexameter? The same objection will apply to the example of his next metre; the tetrameter a priore, for which his authority is Horace, who unquestionably uses it only as part of a heptameter. For this division, I own, however, he may plead the authority of some commentators; but the account of the pherecratian, his fifth in this department, is entirely original. He tells us (p. 206) that it consists of the three last feet of the hexameter, but adds that the first foot might be a choree. This should, I think, have startled him a little as to it's origin from the hexameter; and the line, in fact, is choriambic. But what think you is the example he gives us of the initial ehoree? Catullus's Hýměn o Hymenæe! Hymen! 'run! a short! and the next sentence is just as bad," Catullus forms this trimeter not only with a choree in the first place, but a dactyl likewise in the last, which writers on this subject seem to have taken no account of, as Collisō Hě i- |-conii Cultor | ū‹ăni- | æ genǎs." I have heard of a blind man, who maintained that there was no such sense as sight, because he did not possess it; and we have an analogous instance here. Because our author could not see that two Glyconic verses were not Pherecratian, he wonders that every body else is not as blind as himself. The lines occur in the Epithalamium of Catullus, which appears sadly to have puzzled the poor prosodian. He complains (p. 232)" that it is not entirely consistent with itself, the stanza being for the most part, but sometimes not, composed of five Pherecratic trimeters, of which the first four are irregular, having a dactylic cadence, and the fifth more exact. In reality the first four are Glyconics, and the fifth only Pherecra tian. Having so happily got through the dactylic verses, he next falls foul of Iambics. Here he lays down, that the Cretic, Amphibrach, and Bacchius, may be admitted into any place in the Iambic of comedy, which is just as true as if he had said they might be admitted into a place at the coronation. Every line in which they appear to exist, must of necessity be corrupt; but he is not satisfied even with these auxiliaries, for his first example (p. 208) of the comic tetrameter is Quid est is ne ti- | -bi vide- | -turdix- | -i ĕquidem ubi mi- |-hi osten- | -disti il--lico. i équidem ŭbĭ mi! five short syllables in a foot. I recommend the discovery to the curious in strange scanning. Throw out mihi, and the line is right. He then discovers that as a tribrach, or proceleusmatic, may follow a dactyl, (which by the way a proceleusmatic can never do, as it is confined to the first foot) and precedes an anapest, there may be eight short syllables in succession in an iambic line. By the combination of these three feet we might have nine short successive syllables, thus vou 이 - 1. But I doubt whether such a line exists. Hermann, I know, holds that an entire trimeter of tribrachs, except the last foot, is allowable; a delicious combination, for which you may remember he was greeted with a smart line, constructed after his own model, by a Porsonian. 13 The dimeter and trimeter Iambics are fine classical verses, used by the first poets of Rome, and therefore we get as samples two bald affairs from the Romish Breviary, a beautiful Morning Hymn, and another on the conversion of Saint Paul, beginning with Egregie Doctor Paule mores instrue, 9 And so on, down to Per universa æternitatis sæcula. What taste! As for the beautiful Morning Hymn it is a poor thing, about as poetical as a Methodist canzonet, and what Lyne is ignorant of, written for rhyme. Jam lucis orto side-ré The poets of the age, in which this hymn was committed, rhymed, as the Spaniards do, by a similarity of vowel. Thus sideré and supplicés, (the accent falling on the last syllable) rhyme just as bana and espada in So Rio verde, rio verde, Quantos cuerpos en ti se bana Pope Damasus, in his hymn on Saint Agatha's day, Ethnica turba rogum fugiéns, Hujus et ipsa meretur opem. An attentive perusal of the Latin verses of that time, might, I think, throw some light on the origin of some of our metres, but this is no place for such a disquisition. Our author is so enraptured, however, with the breviary, that we have it again as an example of the Iambic dimeter brachycatalectic. Listen to the sweet music. 1. Vitam præsta puram, 8. Tribus honor unus. Lines 1, 3, 4, consist entirely of long syllables. Line 2 ends with a spondee. Line 6 has a spondee in even place, and 7 and 8 defy scansion; so that the fifth line is the only Iambic in this well chosen example! This stuff also was written without regard to ancient metres. The lines were probably intended for Trochaic and Spiri | tūi | Sancto, Vităm prestă | pūrăm, and Tribus | hōnor | ūnŭs were all excellent trochees in the mouths of the or, who hear that part of it, Tantum ergo sacramentum Veneremur cernui; singers. If meant for Iambic, all you Pange lingua gloriosi corporis mysterium, have to do is to alter the arsis, and sing Spiri | tui | săncto | &c. But, in fact, the ancients had no such verse as the Iambic dimeter brachycatalectic. At least no example of it is extant in the classics that have come down to us. This being so well dispatched, we next have an imperfect tetrameter Iambic acephalous, being a "noble hymn on the death of Christ." Pange lingua gloriosi lauream certaminis. But he afterwards admits, that the verse may be a trochaic, (as indeed it is,) and divisible into two, (which also is true enough,) not, however, as he asserts, into a Trochaic and Iambic, but into Trochaics of different denominations. As the verse is classical, he might, I think, have taken an example from a Roman poet, (as, for instance, from Catullus, Jussus est inermis ire, purus ire jussus est ;) instead of this noble hymn, which is nothing but a string of barbarous Latinity, where a continual straining at final assonance is observable. I give the last line as a specimen of the barbarity of the hymn, Unius trinique nomen laudet universitas ; and then add Lyne's observation, (p, 214.) "The author of this was Saint Ambrose, or Saint Austin, contemporaries in the fourth century, as some say; or Claudianus Mamercus, as Sidonius Apollinaris insists; it is quoted here from the Roman Breviary; and both this and those before, especially the Morning Hymn, written, I believe, by Saint Ambrose, the author of many hymns in that metre, are too beautiful to need commendation." Too beautiful to need commendation! Why, they are scarcely common language. The sacredness of the subjects on which they treat, makes us feel some respect for them; but, considered in a literary point of view, they are neither grammar nor metre. So far from agreeing with Lyne, that their dignity is spoiled by the addition of rhyme, I am decidedly of opinion, that when the authors of the Hymns in the Breviary consulted their own ears, and did not endeavour to write in metres which they could not manage, they succeeded best; and those who read the Et antiquum documentum Præstet fides supplementum sung to the divine music of Sebastian Bach, will agree with me, that it is, muddy attempts at imitating the claswithout comparison, superior to the sical poets, which shock the reader of taste in almost every service in the Breviary. In the rhymed hymns, we pardon an unclassical word or phrase, others, of more pretension, we are disas not expecting fine Latinity; in the gusted at having that pretension every moment frustrated. This, I confess, is a digression, but I am only wading after my guide. We next get to Trochaics, in which department we have a clever, and unexpected discovery. "In Catullus," quoth our prosodian, (p. 216,)" we find two sorts of mixed trochaics-in the Epithalamiun of Julia and Manlius,” a poem with which he has already shown such intimate acquaintance. Here they are, with his original scanning: Flamme- |-um vidě– | -Ō vě– | -nire. Un guen--tātĕglă– | -brīsmă-| -rīte. This passes the bounds of reasonable stupidity. The lines are glyconics, with a redundant syllable, cut off in the next line Flamme--um video | veni- | -re and the other line is of the same kind. Pretty mixed trochaics! We then arrive at the lyric verses, and first of Choriambics. Here also he is a discoverer of a fact hitherto unsuspected. After counting up (p. 217.) six species of choriambic verse, he informs us that Prudentius has thrown all of them together into one ode or stanza in the order Lyne has arranged them. Now, no Latin poet has ever written an ode containing six varieties of metre, and, on turning to Prudentius, you will find that he has only three choriambics together, not six. In this department the choriambic tetrameter, (as Omne nemus | cum fluviis omne canat | profundum, Claudian.) is omitted, though the Epichoriambic (No 5. in this arrangement) is only a harsh variety of that metre. I was going to make some remarks on the structure of choriambics here, but I am unwilling to trespass too much on your space. Then follows the class of Hendecasyllabics, where he is as luminous as in the former departments. Seneca, it appears, makes the second foot of the Sapphic, a dactyl: he might as well have said he made it a justice of peace. He cannot scan the line he quotes, Quæque ad hesperias jacet ora metas. Hesperias is a trissyllable, its two last vowels coalescing, as in omnia, alveo, &c. in Virgil. Why did not he tell us that Virgil concludes his lines with 8 dactyl, and quote -Quin protinus omnia, as proof? It would have been as wise. This section of Hendecasyllabics, i. e. verses of eleven syllables, he most appropriately concludes with the lesser alcaic, a line containing ten. For the honour of the Emerald Isle, I am happy to say, that this bull comes from England. The Anapæstic is next on the carpet, and he takes care to shew, by his first sentence, that he knows nothing about it. He calls it a lyric verse, and says, that it at first consisted of four anapasts, (p. 220.) Now, in fact, as I thought every dabbler in prosody knew, it consisted primarily of two anapests, which constitute the anapastic base, from which you can make dimeters, trimeters, tetrameters, metres of every co-efficient, taking care only of the synapheia, of which this learned Theban knows nothing. No Latin poet ever wrote lines necessarily consisting of four anapæsts; for the three or four exceptions in Seneca and Ausonius are not worth noticing; but, for the convenience of printing, they are so exhibited in editions. If it were equally convenient to the size of the page, they might have appeared as decameters, had that structure of verse pleased the eyes of the compositor. But it is in the succeeding chapter, the miscellaneous department, he is most eminent. He is peculiarly ambitious to be able to exhibit a larger assortment of metres than any former prosodian; and, to effect this purpose, he has pressed lines of all shapes and sizes into his service. Falstaff never had a more heterogeneous body of raVOL. X. gamuffins under his command than that which forms the elite of this chapter. Here we have an iambic monom. aceph. or, if you please, a trochaic monom. Cat. in Occidi-an iambic monom. Acat, in Quid illud est-a trochaic monom. hypercat. in Hominem sta illico-an anapæstic dipodia in Ad te ibam quidnam est-all fine names, but unfortunately mere fragments of comic verse. With the same judgment he raises an iambic trim. hypermeter -an iambic tetram. hypercat-a trochaic trim. and tetram. hypercat.grand and learned titles for some corrupt fines extracted from a miserable edition of Terence, " printed in 1560, Lugduni, apud Mathiam Bonhome, a most useful edition," says this great judge, with a most elegant phrase of panegyric, "which I advise him to make much whoever has it.” (p. 227.) As every reader, of any prosodial knowledge, well knows that no such lines are in Terence, I shall not take the trouble of copying his examples; suffice it to say, that they are all mere corruptions of the text, and scanned most barbarously. For instance, we have, p. 226. Agě dã | věnĭām | nē grå- | -vere, &c. with a false quantity in it. Even for a trochaic tetrameter, (for which a good example might be given,) he contrives to blunder on a couple of corrupt readings, which are of course no examples at all. Again, (p. 225,) we have another recruit in an anapæstic tripodia. "Dicam | non ědě- |-pol scio." Ædepol! This is ignorance with a vengeance. And the Anapæstic Tripodia! Even by his own scanning it is a glyconic, and when scanned correctly, a Dimeter Iambic. In the same spirit of enlistment, he divides the minor Ionic Tetrameter into two parts, and counts the fragment as one species, and the entire line itself as another, just to augment his list. For this division, he had, I confess, the authority of some unprosodial editors; but when he divides the Phalacian Pentameter (p. 225.) into three kinds of verse, the glory is entirely his own. It is a pity that he never read Boethius, whom he quotes, or he would have seen that Si quis Arcturi sidera nescit, and, Mergat que seras æquore flammas, are only two lines, not four-that they are of the same metre, the name 3 C of which he did not know,-and that Boethian Iambic, and Boethian Trochaic, penthemimers, owe their origin to his own fertile imagination. Nor can I allow him to pass the Molossic or Carcine, as distinct species of verse. The Molossic is only a species of Hexameter. Indeed he calls it Hexameter in p. 198; though in p. 228 he bids us scan it with four molossi ;-that is, we have a six foot line, consisting of four feet. Again, I must congratulate Ireland on the English origin of our author. The carcine is only a foolery that can be applied to all kinds of verse, and is not worth enumerating. En passant, I may remark, that somebody has been writing, in a late number of the New Monthly Magazine, on the subject of Carcines most ignorantly, as I could demonstrate, if it were worth while to do so. I am getting tired, like my read ers, of exposing this ignorant farrago, so shall only cull a few more posies, and conclude. The third foot of the major ionic tetrameter, we are told, (p. 223,) may be a second epitrit, which is merely impossible. The example he quotes from J. C. Scaliger, gives us a dichoree in that place, though our worthy metrographer has been so unfortunate as to scan him wrong. But it is with Catullus's Galliambi, (the metre of that fine poem the Atys, which I perceive by your Magazine the Hon. Mr Lambe has so eruelly doggrelized,) that he makes the saddest work. He lays down, that it consists of half a dozen random feet, which happen to suit the first line; and soon finding that his ridiculous canon cannot proceed through three lines correctly, he flounders through a number of attempts at scanning, and then gives it up in despair, confessing that it contains still more varieties. This is pitiable. He has not an idea how it should be scanned. But when he displays such astonishing ignorance as to exhibit Ego mu-|-liěr ē- | -go, &c. with the first of mulier, and the first of ego long, I do not know what to say, and stop in amazement, though I still leave a fine harvest of blunders unnoticed. And yet he is so well satisfied with himself, that it is a pity to laugh at him. It is manifest that he thinks himself a much deeper scholar in prosody than I. Vossius, (p. 231.) and and boasts most lustily of his superior diligence as a verse collector, (p. 195231.) But, of the seventy-five verses he has raked together, I must inform him twenty-nine are to be struck out,* as being identical with other linesor wrong scanned-or corrupt-or nonsensical; and that, nevertheless, he has omitted at least a dozen legitimate species of verse.† I have taken the trouble of examining this book, and pointing out its incredible errors, merely to shew, that if we wished to retort the sneers which some unfair critics in England heap upon us, we have ample means in our power. I confidently assert, that in Scotland there is no Latin teacher who could be so ignorant as to publish á book abounding with such mistakes and false quantities; or, if he did, that the Reviews of the country would not panegyrize it. Unfair, indeed, it would be to value the literature of England by the production of this unfortunate pedagogue. But is it not equally unfair in her critics not to extend to us a similar allowance? St Andrews, Sept. 13, 1821. I am, Sir, • He has, for instance, no less than 8 trimeter Iambics, given as varieties, on account of their containing different feet. By following this plan to its extent, he would have beaten out all competitors in number, for the comic tetrameter would have given him 98,750 varieties; and, if his own rule (p. 230,) was right, over half a million. This would be a fine body to march into the field. +Carey has 58, exactly a dozen more than Lyne's real metres. I cannot mention Dr Carey's prosody without strongly recommending it. No scholar, in fact, should be without it. But it would be much improved if a less egotistical style were adopted,— if the barefaced puffing of his own books were suppressed, and his own good-for-nothing poetry struck out. They who take the trouble of turning in his third edition, (London, 1819,) to pp. x. xiv. xix. 31. 37. 52. 55. 113. 140. 148. 150. 172. 187. 207. 222.223. 227. 297. (one of the grandest specimens extant of the puff-direct,) 355. 357. or any Jedediah Buxton, who will count how often the pronoun I occurs in the book, will be satisfied that I do not recommend an unnecessary alteration. |