No CrossRef data available.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 11 February 2009
In C.Q. XXVI, pp. 35 sqq., Mr. H. D. Broadhead comments unfavourably on my essay, ‘Prose-Rhythm and the Comparative Method’ (C.Q. XXIV, pp. 164 sqq.; XXV, pp. 12 sqq.). I wish my reply to be explanatory rather than controversial. In a few places Mr. Broadhead has mistaken my wording, and he has, I fear, a poor opinion of my aesthetics. But those are personal matters; I will try in this article to defend my position generally, illustrating my remarks on the classical languages with some English analogies, and meeting, I hope, in the course of the argument the more important of Mr. Broadhead's objections.
page 46 note 1 No syllable can be anctps in actual speech.
page 47 note 1 I suppose Mr. Broadhead would admit as much for Antisthenes.
page 47 note 2 The normal percentages are respectively 17·2, 7·4, 2·9, 2·4.
page 48 note 1 Latin Prose Rhythm, p. 66. ‘The second volume (Der Constructive Rhythmus), though it was the logical outcome of his earlier work, exhibits even more conspicuously the weaknesses inherent in his method.’
page 50 note 1 De Groot is also engaged at present on an investigation of rhythm in general. The first part of this work has already appeared (Neophilologus XVII, pp. 81–100).