283. EBB to Hugh Stuart Boyd
As published in The Brownings’ Correspondence, 2, 102–105.
Hope End.
Jany 12th 1828.
Sir,
Sir Uvedale Price is very brief in his remarks on the musical nature of ancient accent, & does not enter into any critical discussion on its peculiarities & application. In the quotation on his title page he makes use of accents: their omission in the body of his work arises from a fear of confusing his necessary marks by their introduction,—and I never heard him desire their expulsion from editions of Greek books.
Notwithstanding all you say respecting your adoration of a great critic, and notwithstanding all the great critic said respecting the indispensability of accents, I cannot suspect your mind of submission to the ipse dixit [1] of any man,—tho’ the ipse should be Porson. If it were necessary to prove this independance, I might refer to your preface to St Gregory’s epitaphs, [2] —but indeed it requires as little proof, as it does defence. Surely even your friend Bishop Berkeley, or your disputant Lady Olivia Sparrow, [3] would not insist upon applying the doctrine of passive obedience to the Republic of letters! Agreeing, as you do, that as far as relates to pronunciation, accents are unprofitable, the argument drawn from the circumstance of their distinguishing the different meanings of words “spelt exactly alike,” seems to be nearly the only argument in favor of their practical utility,—which you can legitimately use. This is met by Dr Gally in his learned tho’ not infallible dissertation against Foster and the Greek accents. He there observes—“a careful reader will distinguish words of the same form and sound, by the context, without the help of accents, as readily & by the same means, that he will distinguish the different senses of any word, which, with the same accent, carrieth different senses.” He goes on to instance το´κος,—which with one & the same accent on the penultimate, has three distinct senses,—and ἦν,—which with one & the same accent, has five distinct senses. And setting aside this consideration, he observes—“words which carry such different senses are very few in comparison with the whole vocabulary of the Greek language, which is a very copious one. But accents are placed upon all words,—they are placed where they are not wanted,—and where they can be of no manner of use.” [4] These remarks really appear to my mind sensible & judicious,—and not unworthy of your attention. I am sorry you think the new method unlikely to be generally adopted: the reasons you give for this opinion are only too convincing. If indeed some of the heads of the public schools had their ears about them instead of their prejudices, a great deal might be done—for their pulchrè! would be followed by the benè! rectè! [5] of the multitude.
I never meant to charge the Muses with having blue hair. Had I even contemplated such poetical high treason,—which I assure you I would not have done for the world,—I should scarcely have the impertinence to solicit their assistance again. Your explanation of Pindar’s epithet ιοπλοκομοι [sic, for ιοπλοκαμοι], [6] is ingenious and plausible: but what can you do when you come to such an epithet as ιοβλεφαρος? [7] Can you consider that epithet to be expressive of an eyebrow wreathed with violets—or an eyebrow perfumed with the odour of violets? I think you cannot: and yet there is certainly no tolerating a dark blue eyebrow. Perhaps in both these cases, the darkness and gloss of the violet,—not its distinctive coloring,—are meant to be apprehended; as in Anacreon’s beautiful painting, where he describes
Ελεφαντινον μετωπον
Υπο πορφυραισι χαιταις. [8]
Here the marked epithet can only be intended to convey the brilliancy and depth peculiar to the colour of purple (or crimson.) not the colour itself,—the poet having taken care to state in some immediately preceding verses, that the Lady’s hair is quite black. If however it should still be insisted that ιοπλοκομος [sic, for ιοπλοκαμος] and ιοβλεφαρος express a distinct colour, I would attempt to maintain that the ancient word which we translate violet, was probably applied by the ancients to a different flower, or to a different species of the same flower. Virgils violæ were black—
Et nigræ violæ sunt, et vaccinia nigra. [9] Ecl:X.39.
And now having done my duty as an “interminable” disputer, I am ready to give back the golden locks to your personification, with good will,—that she may have and hold them in right of King Apollo. I did not intend a serious objection to the classical yellow, and I dare say you are correct in it to a hair.
Your verdict upon the cause, Lucretius versus Basil, is a verdict from which there are no means of appealing: the solution is undoubtedly a natural one, tho’ perhaps not more natural than the one I proposed respecting a translation. But you seem quite determined to make the Epicurean suffer with the saint—if you permit the saint to suffer at all—and therefore I give up my prosecution. Speaking of paralellisms, there is a curious one between Shakespeare in Macbeth, and Æschylus in the Choëphorœ: it is I think nearly equally striking with yours between Shakespeare & St Chrysostom.
Could all great Neptune’s ocean wash this blood
Clean from my hand? No– [10]
ποροι τε παντες εκ μιας ῾οδου
βαινοντες χειρομυση φονον
καθαιροντες λουσειαν ματην. [11] Choë: 64. Bothe.
You produce in your note two anticipations of Shakespeare’s “sea of troubles” [12] by Æschylus in his Prometheus and Persœ: but there is another anticipation of that expression, in the Supplices,—which I fell upon quite accidentally a day or two ago, and must mention to you. In it, the sea is coupled with an expressive & characteristic epithet—ατης δ' αβυσσον πελαγος. [13]
I am much gratified by the flattering manner in which you have recieved my verses, and shall certainly do myself the pleasure of acknowledging Mr Boyd’s name, in print, whenever I have an opportunity. He thinks fit to say a great deal about vanity: I will therefore take the liberty of wondering where he can have imagined mine to have been, all this time—particularly as I don’t wear the œs triplex circa pectus, [14] and am neither willing nor able to question his sincerity. Your oriental manner of complimenting half inclines me to reply in the same style—“May you live a thousand years!” Certainly (not being Cæsar) I should not put away the crown, offered to me in the case of your publishing again,—but I may & must observe that the Public would not have such strong reasons for forgiving your too indulgent judgement, as I have for being obliged to it—and that the poetical merit would probably be considered as much a dream as the “wit and vivacity.”
You are not likely to wish, this time, that my letter were “much longer”: nevertheless I must lengthen it by thanking you for your explanation of the idiom, which is very calculated to be useful to me. I understood distinctly the meaning of the passage,—but took the two negatives together in order to enforce the negation, and never should have thought of putting μη with δρασαι. [15] So much for my slovenly mode of translating! I wish to explain that your questions had not the property of “teazing” which you attribute to them,—tho’ the person to whom they were addressed, is of the “irritabile” as well as of the “mutabile genus.” Waiving every privilege of the latter, I beg to be considered
Most respectfully & sincerely yours—
E B Barrett.
I had almost forgotten some items in your letter. To the question, “Am I not right?” I answer in the negative. I know very little Hebrew, & have indeed only read a few chapters in the original scriptures. I have even laid aside the study, for the present—as Hebrew roots require a great deal of ground to grow in, and my time is continually engaged either in writing, or in reading that I may write.
I am glad to hear you say that you converse in a slovenly manner—by which I understand that you don’t think it worth your while to follow the example of some persons, who not only talk in print but talk as if they were correcting the press. I never could bear an Elzevir edition [16] of familiar conversation—and prefer, a thousand times, the freedom & animation of nature—errata & all!
My Brothers know Mr Chapman, [17] but are unacquainted with his family.
Address, on integral page: Hugh Stuart Boyd Esqr / Ruby Cottage / Malvern Wells.
Publication: EBB-HSB, pp. 17–20 (in part).
Manuscript: Wellesley College.
1. “He himself has said,” i.e., a dogmatic statement.
2. On p. xi of his Tributes to the Dead (1826), Boyd wrote “My literary friends can all bear witness, that at all times I have venerated, I had almost said, idolized, Professor Porson. I therefore trust, I shall be considered as speaking in the extreme of modesty and diffidence, when I say, that on one occasion that great scholar spoke, or rather wrote, without due reflection.”
3. Olivia, daughter of the 1st Earl of Gosford, wife of Brig.-Gen. Robert Bernard Sparrow, and sister of the 2nd Earl of Gosford. Ethel Colburn Mayne, in The Life and Letters of Anne Isabella, Lady Noel Byron (1929), records that “Lord Gosford … was thrall to his formidable sister, Lady Olivia Sparrow, a great light among the Evangelicals” (p. 243).
4. A Dissertation Against Pronouncing the Greek Language According to Accents (1754). The passages to which EBB refers occur on pp. 85–92.
5. “Fine! good! perfect!” (Horace, De Arte Poetica, 428).
6. “With violet locks.”
7. “Violet eyed; with violet eyelids.”
8. EBB has transposed lines 11 and 12 of Anacreon’s Ode XXVIII, “On His Mistress”: “Beneath her hair, of ebon hue, / An ivory forehead let me view!” (John Broderick Roche’s 1827 translation). A note in Roche’s edition indicates that Joshua Barnes, in his 1705 edition of Anacreon, had translated the phrase as “the ivory forehead, beneath purple hair.”
9. “And violets are black, and blueberries too.”
10. Macbeth, II, 2, 57.
11. Lines 64–66 of the “Choëphorœ” in Bothe’s Æschyli Dramata Quae Supersunt (1805). The passage translates as “And all ways come from one to cleanse the hand-defiling murder, washed in vain.”
12. Hamlet, III, 1, 58. EBB refers to a note on p. 25 of Boyd’s Agamemnon (1823).
13. “A bottomless sea of folly” (Æschylus, Supplices, 470).
14. “Triple bronze around the breast” (Horace, Odes, I, iii, 9–10).
15. In line 443 of Antigone, previously discussed (see letter 256, note 6).
16. Works produced by 17th century Dutch publishers and printers, renowned for their elegance.
17. Probably William Herbert Chapman, Assistant Master at Charterhouse.
___________________
