12.  An Antibacchy, or Hypobacchy, is a poetic foot consisting of two long syllables and a short one; as, kn=ight-s=erv~ice, gl=obe-d=ais~y, gr=ape-flow~er, g=old-b=eat~er.

Among the variegations of verse, one emphatic syllable is sometimes counted for a foot.  “When a single syllable is [thus] taken by itself, it is called a Caesura, which is commonly a long syllable.” [499]

FOR EXAMPLE:—­

   “Keeping | time, | time, | time,
    In a | sort of | Runic | rhyme,
    To the | tintin| -nabu| -lation that so | musi| -cally | wells
    From the | bells, | bells, | bells, | bells,
    Bells, | bells, | bells.”
        —­EDGAR A. POE:  Union Magazine, for Nov. 1849; Literary World,
          No. 143.

OBSERVATIONS.

OBS. 1.—­In defining our poetic feet, many late grammarians substitute the terms accented and unaccented for long and short, as did Murray, after some of the earlier editions of his grammar; the only feet recognized in his second edition being the Iambus, the Trochee, the Dactyl, and the Anapest, and all these being formed by quantities only.  This change has been made on the supposition, that accent and long quantity, as well as their opposites, nonaccent and short quantity, may oppose each other; and that the basis of English verse is not, like that of Latin or Greek poetry, a distinction in the time of syllables, not a difference in quantity, but such a course of accenting and nonaccenting as overrides all relations of this sort, and makes both length and shortness compatible alike with stress or no stress.  Such a theory, I am persuaded, is untenable.  Great authority, however, may be quoted for it, or for its principal features.  Besides the several later grammarians who give it countenance, even “the judicious Walker,” who, in his Pronouncing Dictionary, as before cited, very properly suggests a difference between “that quantity which constitutes poetry,” and the mere “length or shortness of vowels,” when he comes to explain our English accent and quantity, in his “Observations on the Greek and Latin Accent and Quantity,” finds “accent perfectly compatible with either long or short quantity;” (Key, p. 312;) repudiates that vulgar accent of Sheridan and others, which “is only a greater force upon one syllable than another;” (Key, p. 313;) prefers the doctrine which “makes the elevation or depression of the voice inseparable from accent;” (Key, p. 314;) holds that, “unaccented vowels are frequently pronounced long when the accented vowels are short;” (Key, p. 312;) takes long or short vowels and long or short syllables to be things everywhere tantamount; saying, “We have no conception of quantity arising from