of verses.  Nor are they free from important antagonisms.  “Emphasis,” as here spoken of, not only clashes with “accent,” but contradicts itself, by making some syllables long and some short; and, what is more mysteriously absurd, the author says, “It frequently happens that syllables long by QUANTITY become short by EMPHASIS.”—­Everett’s Eng.  Versif., 1st Ed., p. 99.  Of this, he takes the first syllable of the following line, namely, “the word bids,” to be an example: 

   “B~ids m~e l=ive b~ut t=o h=ope f~or p~ost=er~it~y’s pr=aise.”

OBS. 19.—­In the American Review, for May, 1848, Everett’s System of Versification is named as “an apology and occasion”—­not for a critical examination of this or any other scheme of prosody—­but for the promulgation of a new one, a rival theory of English metres, “the principles and laws” of which the writer promises, “at an other time” more fully “to develop.”  The article referred to is entitled, “The Art of Measuring Verses.”  The writer, being designated by his initials, “J.  D. W.,” is understood to be James D. Whelpley, editor of the Review.  Believing Everett’s principal doctrines to be radically erroneous, this critic nevertheless excuses them, because he thinks we have nothing better!  “The views supported in the work itself,” says his closing paragraph, “are not, indeed, such as we would subscribe to, nor can we admit the numerous analyses of the English metres which it contains to be correct; yet, as it is as complete in design and execution as anything that has yet appeared on the subject, and well calculated to excite the attention, and direct the inquiries, of English scholars, to the study of our own metres, we shall even pass it by without a word of criticism.”—­American Review, New Series, Vol.  I, p. 492.

OBS. 20.—­Everett, although, as we have seen, he thought proper to deny that the student of English versification had any well authorized “rules to guide him,” still argues that, “The laws of our verse are just as fixed, and may be as clearly laid down, if we but attend to the usage of the great Poets, as are the laws of our syntax.”—­Preface, p. 7.  But this critic, of the American Review, ingenious though he is in many of his remarks, flippantly denies that our English Prosody has either authorities or principles which one ought to respect; and accordingly cares so little whom he contradicts, that he is often inconsistent with himself.  Here is a sample:  “As there are no established authorities in this art, and, indeed, no acknowledged principles—­every rhymester being permitted to invent his own method, and write by instinct or imitation—­the critic feels quite at liberty to say just what he pleases, and offer his private observations as though these were really of some moment.”—­Am.  Rev., Vol. i, p. 484.  In respect to writing, “to invent,” and to “imitate,”