280. Uvedale Price to EBB
As published in The Brownings’ Correspondence, 2, 93–99.
[Not all marks of stress and pronunciation have been reproduced in this transcript. They are all reproduced in the print volume.]
Foxley
Decbr 11th 1827
Dear Ba
It gave me great pleasure to hear that you think so favorably of my Essay now that you have read the whole of it, & that what you had read in MS., has gained by being in print. I am not less obliged to you for your criticisms than for your praise: on them, however, as they touch a very vital part, I am afraid you will be troubled with a long comment. I shall begin by admitting, that the phrase, “there is an end of the dispute,” is, at so early a stage of it, an imprudent one; but as it would be worse than imprudent, if not well founded, I must try to shew that it is so; & I accept the challenge given by a supposed antagonist, but no other than “la cara mia nemica;[”] who, in literature, is a Bradamante, “tanto illa in giostra vale.” [1] She says, after certain favorable admissions, “yet there can be no end of the dispute, unless Mr Price prove the length to be caused by the accent, & the shortness by the privation of the accent–” here then we are at issue: for I at once allow, that unless I can do this, & clearly, I do nothing. You afterwards say to me in your own person, “in all your english examples except one, there is the long vowel in the accented syllable; & the exception (bereft) has that aggregation of consonants which is an acknowledged cause of length.” This is what I might have expected from many antagonists, but never should have expected from you: indeed I hardly understand what you mean by “the long vowel” in the syllables lone & reer; you of course cannot consider o or e as either long or short in our general usage, for they are as often the one, as the other; but, I imagine, speak of them as being positively & independently long in such syllables, & as not being made so by means of the accent. My notion, on the other hand is, that the vowel in such syllables is generally long, &, when long, always accented: but that if in compounds, the accent were to be on any other syllable, it would become short, & would, & must be so pronounced. There then the point of difference between us,—if I have justly conceived & stated your opinion—is clear; & it is my business to prove by examples the statement I have made. In lone, as a monosyllable, we dwell on the vowel, & it is long: in compounds, we usually dwell upon it, & it is likewise long: now such words as stone, bone, tone &cæ, have exactly the same length & cadence as lone, for they, (the length & cadence) belong to the three letters, o, n, e, which are common to them all. But what takes place in compounds, when the accent is not upon the simple? that which nearly, if not entirely seems to end the dispute; the first syllable,—as in free′stone, ring′bone, se′mitone &cæ,—is accented & long; the last unaccented & short. Now if alo′ne be an iambus, not on account of the accent, but of “the long vowel,” how is it that free′stone &cæ are trochees or dactyls, having equally “the long vowel” in the last syllable? can any other reason be assigned, than that in the one, the accent is on the last; in the others, on the first? & that therefore (to make use of your own expessions) “the length is caused by the accent, the shortness by the privation of the accent.” But supposing I could not have produced such examples of the actual changes as in free′stone ring′bone &cæ would it not have been sufficient to shew, that if the accentual mark were placed on the first—as a′lone, you must, by the laws & usages of our prosody, make the last short, in spite of the long syllable; & the first long, in spite of (what it has as good a right to be called) the short syllable; just as we do in a′bel, a′cre, & ai′lings; the ai being sounded simply like a. It is the same with reer as with lone: reer, rear, clear mere with different spellings have the same length; yet we say Hīgh′-clĕar, chān′tĭcleăr, Wīn′dĕrmĕre &cæ. In the line I quoted from Cowper, two anapæsts “ŏf thĕ co′ōl cŏlŏnna′dē,” [2] end an anapæstic rhythm; shift the accents, & two dactyls “ōf thĕ cŏol cōl′ŏnăde,” would form the end of a dactylic rhythm; & this supposed transposition of the accents, proves their effect as much as a real one; of which, however, it may be right to give an example or two. Made has the same cadence as nade; maid, with a different spelling, the same as made: now we have mermaid & house′maid & cook′-maid as trochees; & for dactyls (though the epithet would not be very appropriate) we might end a dactylic rhythm with “ō′f thĕ coŏl kīt′chĕn-măid.” I now come to the exception—bereft: & I ask myself, is it possible that my friend Ba can suppose that an aggregation of consonants has, in our pronunciation, any influence on the quantity of syllables? Let us take the verb cŏntrā′cts: the o is followed by no less than three consonants; yet we at once vault over them, in order to get to the accented syllable, & make the word an iambus. It is reckoned a feat, when a horseman, after having leaped over a stout hedge & ditch, turns round & leaps over it again from the opposite side: this feat we perform; & to shew our contempt of all barriers, & as if sporting with them, after having sprung over the first three consonants in cŏntrā′cts, spring over the three last in cōn′trăcts! The syllable ing, is, as I observed, very ill formed for a short one: yet,—what singularly proves our utter disregard for position, it is scarcly [sic] ever a long final in English; so that among the numerous trochees & dactyls in ing you will find few, if any, iambi or anapæsts with that final. I may add, that as many such words are either substantives, or used as such, & often in the plural number, a third consonant is added, & equally disregarded, as moanings darlings, underlings, wanderings &cæ &cæ. These short quantities in the teeth of position, tho’ they sound—or ought to sound—strangely to a classical ear, are established by usage in our living language, & of course must be short in pronunciation: but there are many greek & latin words in which all the three syllables are long, either by position, by the general rules of prosody, or by the authority of the best poets: & it is impossible they could have been pronounced otherwise than long in the best ages; yet in defiance of all this, we pronounce the first & last syllables short: as in δυστη′ νων, & cŏnstrin′gĕns. The first syllable of the greek word has the same barrier of consonants as the last of bereft: it’s last has, what may more properly be called “the long vowel” than the o in alone: the last syllable of the latin word has only two consonants; but in the first, the vowel is followed by no less than four; an aggregation seldom met with; but totally unable to secure the length of the syllable. You will know that in both words we accent the middle syllable only; you know our plea for so doing; & must know the result; namely (for I shall venture to speak positively on the point) that the true length of the middle syllable is preserved by means of the accent, & that the equally true length of the first & last is destroyed by the privation of the accent: in this case, as well as in those of the english examples, Cause & Effect appear to me so plain & obvious, that I doubt whether even your ingenuity can assign any other cause. I trust then that I have not been too bold in accepting your challenge, & that I have proved, what you required—“the length to be caused by the accent, & the shortness by the privation of the accent.” & consequently that I have gained your permission to retain the phrase you objected to, if I should choose to retain it.—— In regard to Lord Montboddo’s positions, [3] & what you call my defence, I think it lucky for me that you should have misconceiv’d my meaning, as it will teach me to express it more clearly, & so that it may not be mistaken whenever I publish. When I said of monosyllables, that “in all such words,—none of them having an accent—no comparison could be made between accented, & unaccented syllables,[”] [4] I meant, “having no accentual mark:” I ought to have said so, & to have added (what you have so justly conceived & expressed) “having no determinate & independent accent, but only a relative one,” could not be compared with words of more than one syllable; all of which have a settled mark in our dictionaries, & a determinate independent, & I may add unchanging accent. In words therefore of more than one syllable, accent regulates the structure of the verse; for the foot cannot alter it: whereas in Monosyllables, the structure, for the most part regulates the accent or quantity. Thus in the line you made & marked as an example,
The sun is up, and ’tis a morn of May, [5]
four of the monosyllables—sun, up, morn & May, would naturally be accented or made long by every reader from the structure of the verse: but some readers might choose to lay an accent on and & to say aňd ’tĭs ă mōrn ŏf Māy, changing the quantity of the two monosyllables: & he would be allowed to do so; neither of them having any determinate accent. If again the verse were
Thy sun is set, and ’tis forever set
He might either say “Thy sun,” or, with an accent & strong emphasis on the first word say
Thy sun is set, and ’tis for ever set
so that two of your monosyllables would change their quantity. Could we do this with words of more than one syllable? Could we say
Vĕngean′ce is up, or Rē′vĕnge is up?
No one could; tho’ the wrong accents do just as well for the metre; for the poet must make the structure of his verse accord with the true established accents. I therefore adhere to my original position, explained, not altered; “that no just comparison can be made between one set of words, which, having no mark of accent, or any determinate & constant accent or length, can hardly be said to have any at all, & another set, of which the accent, well known by its mark, is fixed & determined; & remains the same in all metres however constructed.[”]—— In the part where I have observed that “accent not only lengthens the accented syllable, but shortens (except in some cases of polysyllables) the unaccented,” you think the parenthesis does not accord with my principles; now it appears to me, after having attentively considered what we each of us have said, that the parenthesis, together with the necessary examples afterwards given, so far from being at variance with my principle, is required to guard & support it; as without the guard it would have been open to attack, without any means of defence. Suppose for instance,—omitting the parenthesis—I had said positively & without any exception, that “all words of more than one syllable in English have an accent on one syllable & on one only,” which means, according to my general doctrine, that one syllable in each word is long, & all the others short; Suppose then, that after this unguarded position, you had asked me whether the first syllable of disbelief was long or short; what could I have answered? had I said long, it would have contradicted my position, for as the last syllable liéf is notoriously accented & long, there would be another in the same word: yet had I said short, it would have contradicted the testimony of your ears, which so plainly tell you that dis is just as long as lief, & just as much accented, tho’ the accent is never marked in dictionaries: but if you now ask me the same question I at once say long. Agreeing with you therefore, “that according to my principle there can no more be such a thing as a long unaccented syllable, than a white black, or a square circle” I do not perceive how it applies to me; unless you can shew me some word in which we regularly pronounce a syllable long, although we do not lay an accent upon it. I hardly need say that the mark is out of the question; for as you justly observe, “we see every day in dictionaries that there may be a long syllable unmarked with any accent.” I therefore must be allowed to maintain, on the grounds I have just stated, that the parenthesis could not be dispensed with, & that it is not at variance with my principle. By means of your pros & contras, you have given a very clear view of Lord Montboddo’s confused & contradictory manner of treating the subject: I wonder indeed that his very just comment on Subáltern did not make him perceive, that as accents in the case he mentioned, & in such a number of at least equally strong cases, does give length in the very teeth of position, if his comment be right, his original assertion (that accent does not give length) must be wrong. [6] — The etymology of the pyrrhic foot from the pyrrhic dance, seems a very natural one, & the authority of Terentianus [7] is very high: I shall give it whenever I publish: & am obliged to you for having suggested it: I shall not, however, abandon the one I have given, as it seems to convey more of it’s chief characteristic lightness, than a dance in armour: tho’ I must own (what you, who are so quick at a risposte [sic], may have anticipated) that when Achilles tries on his Vulcanian arms, so far are they from weighing him down, that they become wings, & lift him from the ground.
Τω δ’ αυτε πτερα γινετ’ αειρε δε ποιμενα λαων. [8]
The common reading is ευτε, but Knight, from the Venetian copy, reads αυτε. This highly poetical conception of the effect of mental exultation, in changing the weight & unyielding hardness of metal, into the lightness & elastic buoyancy of feathers, has always struck me; yet I do not recollect having seen it remarked by any commentator.—— With regard to the distinctions you mention I have never turned them in mind, & therefore my opinion will be of little value. I am in general disposed to think highly of Homer’s accurate employment of words, in a language which, at that early period, seems to have united poetical grace & harmony with philosophical exactness: in my judgment you have stated the case with great clearness, & have very ably enforced & illustrated your statement by your quotations, & by your comments on them: I have looked at all the passages in Knight’s edition & do not see any thing that is at all at variance with your opinion, on the contrary. I have also looked at his notes, but find nothing that relates to the distinctions; I am very glad to have seen them, & shall always keep them in my mind, as long as my θρενες are εμπεδοι. [9] —— I need not answer your enquiries about Caroline as it is so long since you made them & as she has written to you herself. You may imagine what pleasure it gives me to see her well & in spirits & to hear her music every night as usual. I was very sorry to hear Mrs Barrett had been so ill & had suffered so much: but as at the time you wrote (& I am ashamed to think how long ago) nothing seemed to remain but a degree of weakness I trust that long before this time even that was nearly gone.— The part of the Foxley family that was left behind when the other part went to Eastnor Castle very reluctantly gave up a visit he had thought of with so much pleasure.— The moor-game, notwithstanding its long journey, brought with it no travelled airs: it was excellent, & we eat it with great pleasure & with great gratitude to the donors. Believe me, with all our kind regards
Most truly yours
U Price
I was very glad to hear from Caroline, that Mrs Barrett, by her last letter, seems in some degree to be recovering in mind as well as in body: she has had a severe trial; so have the whole family & we all most sincerely felt for you
Publication: None traced.
Manuscript: Armstrong Browning Library.
1. Bradamante, the bride of Ruggiero in Ariosto’s Orlando Furioso (1516), possessed a magic spear that unhorsed every knight it struck. The two Italian phrases translate as “My dear adversary” (Petrarch, Sonnets, 315, 2, 2) and “In jousting the equal of so many” (cf. Ariosto’s Orlando Furioso, XXXV, 76, 8).
2. Line 2 of Cowper’s “The Poplar Field.”
3. James Burnett, Lord Monboddo (1714–99), Scottish judge and man of letters, who wrote Of the Origin and Progress of Language (1773–92). Price quotes Monboddo’s opinion that accented syllables in English are only made louder, not longer, on page 1 of his Essay.
4. Price’s Essay, p. 4.
5. The first line of The Story of Rimini (1816) by Leigh Hunt (1784–1859).
6. In the work cited above, Monboddo wrote: “For the vowels among us, unless where they are used as diphthongs, have no fixed standard of quantity, nor are distinguished, as in Greek and Latin, into long and short; neither are they made long even by position, unless where there happens to be an accent upon the syllable, as in the word subaltern; where it is evident, that the syllable al ought to be long by position: but, nevertheless, as it is not accented, it is clearly pronounced very short” (II, 324).
7. Maurus Terentianus was the author of De Litteris Syllabis Pedibus et Metris, an ancient authority on metre.
8. “It was as a wing to him, and lifted up the shepherd of the host” (Iliad, XIX, 386). Knight’s alternative reading is found on p. 230 of his Carmina Homerica (1820).
9. “As long as my brains are steady.”
___________________
