28 



written : the argument however more properly belongs to Pfalmenazar, 

 who had ufed it before, as indeed mofl of thofe who oppofed Le Clerc, 

 had likewife done. The argument, as they have put it, may be re- 

 duced to this : " becaufe the rhime cannot be traced in the alphabetic, 

 or acroflic verfes, therefore it cannot be found in verfes of another cad." 

 As well might the advocates of the rhime turn it the other way, and 

 argue, that " becaufe the alphabetic order cannot be traced in the rhiming 

 verfes, therefore, dare id vincitur, it cannot be found in verfes whofe 

 claufulje rejeft the rhime." The faft, indeed, we know to be other- 

 wife : but the fupporters of the ono^»^lX'.v^«, being e-qually convinced of the 

 exiftence of the rhime, as its oppugners are of that of the ay.^^riym, they 

 have an equal right to the benefit of the argument. If any confequence, 

 however, can be drawn from the reafoning of the learned profeffor, it 

 ftrikes me to be the very oppofite of what he intended, viz : that the 

 rhime receded where the acroflic was employed : for that the alphabe- 

 tical verfes, which the Pr£Ele£tions themfelves afliire us were contrived 

 memorix juvandm caufd (Prxl. 3. J rendered the prefence of the rhime 

 unneceflary ; but that when this mode was difregarded, the memory, 

 not being aided at the ai^fov, or beginning of the verfe, might fometimes 

 require to be alTifted at the -n-Kiwim, or clofe : or, to condenfe the argument, 

 and to fpeak technically, that the acroftic, as the word imports, was the 

 initial, the rhime the ^nal impreffion of the verfe. Or, perhaps, the 

 acroftic might have been a fpecies of verfe, purpofely defigned, and in- 

 vented to encreafe the difficulty of the compofition, by the exclufion of 

 the rhime, whofe recurrence we have feen, was almoft unavoidable. 

 And fliould this be allowed me, both the previous exiftence, and the 

 proof itfelf of the rhime, follow as of courfe. But I infift on nothing : 

 it is a mere conjefture of my own ; and the admirers of Do£lor Lowth 

 will I hope forgive me. 



The Ay.fonx" was common to moft of the oriental nations ; and among 

 the Hindoos, the Syrians, the Arabians, and the Perfians, continues to 

 be ufed even to the prefent day. But we know rhime to have been 

 their invariable charafterl the acroftic, then, not e.xcluding the rhime 



from 



