365. EBB to Hugh Stuart Boyd
As published in The Brownings’ Correspondence, 2, 232–233.
[Hope End]
Wednesday. [6 January 1830] [1]
My dear friend,
Unfortunately or fortunately (which shall I say?) I cannot give you an opportunity of criticizing my answer to Mrs Mushet, as I did not take any copy of it. I, and Arabel, who had the impertinent curiosity to look over me while I was writing, have been trying hard to recollect what I wrote, for your benefit; but it is all in vain—we have not been able to make out more than a few words, between us. It was not a long letter: it stated facts almost barely. One circumstance you seem to have neglected to observe,—namely, Mrs Mushet’s intention of paying five per cent upon the loan. I dont pretend to understand much about this kind of thing; but would not such an interest be something considerable for her to give,—& not “all gammon”?
I have more reason to thank you for the epigram than she would have, (if I were to send it “by permission”;) but I am not sure that I have a much higher opinion of its justice than she would have. I certainly agree with you about the mystery. It is quite Eleusinian,—& a very injudicious accompanyment to such an application.
As soon as we escape from this snow prison, I do hope I shall have the happiness of seeing you; but the present weather is not practicable—at least, it would not be thought so generally, whatever I [2] might think. The next time I go to see you, it will be for a visit of the usual length; & then, when I have proved that I can come away at the right time, I may venture like a good politician on the Great Question. [3] Besides, there seems to be a doubt just now, if Mrs Boyd & Ann are or are not going to Miss Cockburn’s. [4]
Chrysostom has been staggering me lately by his commentary on those passages of the Epistles to the Corinthians, which relate to the Lord’s supper. [5] I have felt every now & then, that he must hold transubstantiation,—& then I look at your pencil marks upon those very passages, & recollect your opinion of his holding no such doctrine—& then I am in perplexity, & wonder how you can possibly reconcile some of his expressions with your opinion!
Today I finished Longinus’s treatise, [6] & Euripides’s Rhesus. I read them regularly thro’, which would have been incredible & impossible, if I had not known you. It is doubtful with me whether Longinus should be called the philosopher or: the poet among critics. If the philosopher—he is not of the schools but of Nature: if the poet—the very reverse of the character which he most unjustly attributes to Euripides, may be attributed to himself—he is a poet, not tees sunthesioos but tou nou: [7] his style is very rough. As to Rhesus, I know what Porson says about its not being a genuine work. [8] Tho’, as a whole, it is worth its weight in lead, yet it has beautiful passages—one somniferous one, which I will quote to you the very next time you orationize me about getting up late in the morning.
Your sincere friend
E B Barrett.
Did it ever strike you that the first few scenes of the Rhesus, appear to be by a different hand?—that they are marked by evident imitations of Æschylus’s metaphorical daring?
I have had an opportunity of writing this postscript by the snow coming on so violently as to prevent anyone’s going to Ledbury; so that, not being able to send my letter, I was able to open & write in it. I am so anxious for the snow to go!—— Hughes, in his preface to Chrysostom’s Priesthood, says hyper-pathetically—Dolui—vehementer dolui—expectavi—diu expectavi! [9] If I were to say the same thing; instead of exaggerating my feeling, I should fall short of it—I should be hypo, instead of hyper. Good-bye, once more!——
Address, on integral page: Hugh Stuart Boyd Esqr
Publication: EBB-HSB, pp. 93–95.
Manuscript: Wellesley College.
1. Dated by the further reference to Mrs. Mushet’s letter to EBB.
2. Underscored twice.
3. i.e., asking her father for permission to stay a few days at Boyd’s house.
4. A friend of Mrs. Boyd, who ran a small boarding house at Charlton Villa, Cheltenham.
5. Chrysostom’s “In Epistolarum primam ad Corinthos” contains several observations on the Lord’s supper, primarily in caps. 2–5 (MPG, 61, 227–232).
6. De Sublimitate.
7. Not “of construction” but “of the mind.”
8. The Rhesus is now almost universally recognized as spurious (EB). Porson commented briefly on this work in his Prælectio in Euripidem (1828).
9. “I was grieved, deeply grieved; I have hoped, I have hoped for a long time.” EBB refers to S. Joannis Chrysostomi de Sacerdotio ed. John Hughes (1710), her copy of which, given her by Boyd, sold as lot 571 of Browning Collections (Reconstruction, A650).
___________________
