[ 362 ] 



Faber, Dacier, Pearce, Clarke and others ; but from the latter 

 it is neceffary to quote an obfervation or two to prepare us 

 for an application of the fadls hereafter to be mentioned. 

 The very learned author, after contending for the antiquity of 

 the accents, totally condemns the rule which has been mentioned, 

 that we are to read by accent in profe and quantity in verfe, 

 obferving truly, that it is not very p; obahle that any people Jhould 

 have had two pronunciations ejfentially differ ent^ one for profe, and 

 another for verfe. He equally condemns the pofition that profe as 

 well as verfe in Greek mud be read by quantity, that is, as 

 he fays, by the Latin accent, and thinking that the Greek ac- 

 centual marks exprefs the true fpeaking tones of the language, 

 propofes rules of recitation on the bold fuppofition that tone was 

 not always laid on conneBed words, where the accentual marks 

 appear ; whofe pofition however was not changed, to prevent 

 the confulion which would follow from making; the pofition 

 of the written mark different in conneded, from what it is in 

 ifolated words : and he juftly cenfurcs the printing of books un- 

 accented, one of which, an edition of Theocritus, had efcaped 

 from the Clarendon prefs. He holds that though in placing ac- 

 cent, regard is had to quantity *, euphonise gratia, and though 

 it therefore may be a fymptom of quantity, it is never a caufe 



of 



* For, f^ys he, the general found of the word will be more or lefs agreeable, 

 according as fylhbles at certain diftances from the feat of the acute accent are 

 )ong or fhort. Hence, if accent were placed without any regard to quantity, 

 it would often feduce the fpeaker into a violation of quantity, for the fake of the 

 general euphony of the word. 



