prepositions, which may be traced back through every century to the times of the Heptarchy. In giving the many extracts I have quoted, I have scrupulously adhered to the spelling of my authors, or rather of their editors: Tyrwhitt's Chaucer, Steevens's Shakespeare, and Todd's Milton have been chiefly referred to, Tonson's Spenser, and either Gifford's or Tonson's Ben Jonson. CHAPTER IV. ACCENT, As the word is now used, means the stress which is laid upon a syllable during pronunciation; and in a more restricted sense, that particular stress, which defines the rhythm of a verse or sentence. The latter might perhaps be termed the rhythmical accent. It is of merely relative importance, and may be either one of the strong or one of the weak accents in the sentence; but must be stronger than that of any syllable immediately adjoining. We shall mark the rhythmical accent, as in the last chapter, by placing a vertical line after the accented syllable. It has been matter of dispute, what constitutes the stress which thus distinguishes the accented syllable. Mitford, who deserves attention both as a musician and a man of sense, has entered deeply into this inquiry, and concludes with much confidence that it is merely an increased sharpness of tone. Wallis, who is at least an equal authority, assumes it to be an increase of loudness. I cannot help thinking that the latter opinion is the sounder one. There are two reasons, which weigh strongly in my mind against the conclusion of Mitford. It is admitted on all hands, that the Scots give to the accented syllable a grave tone. Now, if our English accent consisted merely in sharpness of tone, it would follow that in the mouth of a Scotchman our accents would be misplaced. This, however, is not so; the accents follow in their proper place, and our verses still keep their rhythm, though pronounced with the strange intonations of a Fifeshire dialect. Again, in a whisper there can be neither gravity nor sharpness of tone, as the voice is absent; yet even in a whisper the rhythm of a verse or sentence may be distinctly traced. I do not see what answer can be given to either of these objections. But though an increase of loudness be the only thing essential to our English accent, yet it is in almost every instance accompanied by an increased sharpness of tone. This, of course, applies only to the prevailing dialect. The Scotchman, we have seen, pronounces his accented syllable with a grave tone, and in some of our counties I have met with what appeared to be the circumflex. But the Englishman of education marks the accented syllable with a sharp tone; and that in all cases, excepting those in which the laws of emphasis require a different intonation. Besides the increase of loudness, and the sharper tone which distinguishes the accented syllable, there is also a tendency to dwell upon it, or, in other words, to lengthen its quantity. We cannot increase the loudness or the sharpness of a tone without a certain degree of muscular action; and to put the muscles in motion requires time. It would seem, that the time required for producing a perceptible increase in the loudness or sharpness of a tone, is greater than that of pronouncing some of our shorter syllables. If we attempt, for instance, to throw the accent on the first syllable of the verb become, we must either lengthen the vowel, and pronounce the word bee come, or add the adjoining consonant to the first syllable, and so pronounce the word become. We often find it covenient to lengthen the quantity even of the longer syllables, when we wish to give them a very strong and marked accent. Hence, no doubt, arose the vulgar notion, that accent always lengthens the quantity of a syllable. It is astonishing how widely this notion has misled men, whose judgment, in most other matters of criticism, it would be very unsafe to question. Our earlier writers, almost to a man, confound accent with quantity; and Johnson could not have had much clearer views on the subject when he told his reader that in some of Milton's verses, "the accent is equally upon two syllables together and upon both strong,-as Thus at their shady lodge arrived, both stood, Both turn'd, and under open sky adored The God that made both sky, air, earth and heaven." Every reader of taste would pronounce the words stood, turn'd, with a greater stress, than that which falls upon the words preceding them. But these words are at least equal to them in quantity; and Johnson fell into the mistake, at that time so prevalent, of considering quantity as identical with accent. Even of late years, when sounder notions have prevailed, one who is both critic and poet, has declared the word Egypt to be the only spondee in our language. Surely every one would throw a stronger accent on the first syllable than on the second! In every word of two or more syllables there is one, which receives a stronger accent than any of the others. This may be called the verbal accent, as upon it depends the accentual importance of the word. When the word e contains two or more syllables there may be a second accent; this, of course, must be subordinate to the first, and is commonly called the secondary accent. When a word of three syllables has its primary accent on the first, our poets have, in all ages, taken the liberty of giving a secondary accent to the third syllable, if their rhythm required it. Thus harmony, victory, and many others of the same kind, are often found in our poetry with the last syllable accented. The rule applies to words of any number of syllables, provided the chief accent falls on the last syllable but two. An ignorance of this principle has led the Danish phi lologist Rask, into much false criticism. He objects to the Anglo-Saxon couplet, because the first verse has but one accent; and supposes that heah, or some such word, may have been omitted by the transcriber. The verse, however, has two accents, for a secondary one falls on the last syllable de. He pronounces another verse, consisting in like manner of one dele word, elmiht-ne, to be faulty, and for the same reason; he even ventures to deny the existence of such a word in the language, and would substitute almightig-ne. Now, in the first place, almight-ne may well form a verse of two accents, supposing a secondary accent to fall on the last syllable; and secondly, there are two adjectives almight and almighty; the first is rare in Anglo-Saxon, but is often met with in old English, and beyond a doubt is used in the verse last quoted. A word of four syllables can hardly escape a secondary accent, unless the primary accent is on one of the middle syllables, when it falls under the same rule as the trisyllable. If it end in ble, it is occasionally pronounced with one accent, as disputable; but I think the more general usage is, to place a secondary accent on the last syllable, disputable. A word of five syllables, if accented on the first, cannot have less than two, and may have three, accents. We may pronounce the following word with two accents, in consolable, or with three in consolable. When the accent falls on one of the middle syllables, the word may, in some instances, take only one accent, as indis|putable. When two syllables are separated by a pause, each of them may receive the accent, the pause filling the place of a syllable. In the verses Virtue, beau tie and speech: did strike-wound|—charm |