246. Uvedale Price to EBB
As published in The Brownings’ Correspondence, 2, 6–22.
[Not all marks of stress and pronunciation have been reproduced in this transcript. They are all reproduced in the print volume.]
[Foxley]
[ca. January 1827] [1]
The original of this letter was returned to Mr Price
by his desire: as it was his intention to introduce
some of its statements into his essay. [2]
This letter will be entirely on the Charterhouse pronunciation of the iambus & pyrrhic; & tho the subject thus shortly announced seems to lie in a narrow compass, yet its bearings are so various & embrace so many points of consequence in recitation that the discussion will I foresee be a long one: & I am desirous of explaining fully & regularly what I occasionally threw out in conversation. I must make some preliminary statements in order to clear my way: & if I repeat some part of what I said in my last letter, it is that you may be able to consider the whole chain of argument at one view. First what we call accent is under that misleading name, simply & merely quantity: accented syllables being long, unaccented short: in fact the only way we have of marking a long syllable is by placing an accent over it, the only way of indicating a short syllable is the omission of the accent.
This indeed is a controverted point which I have considered & placed in a variety of lights: there is however, one short proof which alone seems to me decisive. It is that the ancient marks of long & short, & the accentual mark we make use of, are convertible. Thus if for instance, in an English line, you place the mark of long where we lay our accent, & the mark of short where we do not, our usual pronunciation will be no less clearly indicated than by the accentual mark; as
Ōh thŏu Gōddĕss
Thōū dĭvīne nātūre, hōw thȳsēlf thŏu blāzŏnst
Iň thēse tŵo prīncely bōys! [3]
I must observe, however, that this method can only be certain with respect to words of more than one syllable: our monosyllables having no accent, & being often made long or short according to the taste & judgment of the reciter. On the other hand our accentual mark placed on all the long syllables in a Greek or Latin line, & on them only (the unaccented being of course, as in English, considered short) will guide you to the true quantity & rhythm, just as well as the ancient marks on each syllable. When we pronounce a syllable rightly,—by no means a common case, as it only happens when all the finals, the last excepted, are short—the accentual marks & those of long & short exactly coincide,—as in
Αῡ′τῐς επει′ τᾰ πεδō′νδε κῡλῐ′νδετŏ λᾱ′ᾰς ᾰνᾱι′δης. [4]
Where we pronounce the verse wrong—a very common case; an accent on every long syllable at once corrects the false quantities & restores the true: as in a line at the beginning of the Iliad, which, in our usual way of reciting it, is, till you come to the Adonic, the most wretched prose, having five successive trochees from the beginning–
Νōουσŏν ᾰνᾱ στρατŏν ωρσε κᾰκην, ŏλεκōντŏ δε λᾱοι. [5]
When the right quantity; which will now be indicated by the accentual marks; is duly observed, & the iambus is joined to the pyrrhic, as it ought always to be in such cases; nearly as forming one word—ανάστρατον; this flat hobbling verse becomes as noble a one in point of sound, as any in Homer; being indeed of the same structure & rhythm (who could suppose it from one trochaic pronunciation?) as Αυ′τις επε′ιτα
Νου′σον αν′αστρατον ω′ρσε κακη′ν ολεκο′ντο δε λα′οι
As in our dictionaries, no word is marked with more than one accent tho’ in many words we lay an accent on two syllables as dísbeliéf únconcérned &cæ, it will appear strange to see two & even three or more on the same word: but that strangeness may awaken attention, which the ancient marks, from our being used to see & not mind them, fail to do.
Ińfándúm [6] Régínæ jubés renováre dolórem. [7]
Secondly the rule & practice of our system is to lay our accent wherever the Romans laid theirs. Now as they laid it indifferently on long & short syllables (their acute merely raising the pitch of the voice on whatever syllables it was laid, without affecting their quantity) it is evident that when we lay our acute which does give length, on any short syllable we must make a false quantity: & again, as we avoid laying it on any final, we also make a false quantity wherever there is a long one; the two together (& they are not the only sources) furnish an ample list. Thirdly: By means of our system every final syllable throughout the Latin language, & throughout the Greek, with a comparatively few exceptions, is made short: this is what few I believe are aware of, & is indeed scarcely credible; for if you were to be told of a language in which all the finals are invariably of the same length, whether long or short; you would naturally conclude that the monotony of such a language must be intolerable. Fourthly. It is evident that according to this rule there cannot in our recitation be any latin spondee or iambus: & as we lay our accent on the first of every dissyllable & make it long, there can be no pyrrhic: & then as if we had studied how to destroy all variety, we have reduced the four ancient dissyllabic feet,—each having its appropriate character, use, & effect, on the judicious intermixture of which, the varied harmony of rhythm so much depends,—to one single foot—the trochee. Fifthly. Our language possesses (but with no cause to be proud of it) what the Italian does not; two distinct sets of accented syllables; one of them less long than the other, but longer than the unaccented. The long accent as it may be called, is where we stop & rest upon the vowel, as in précept; or where we do indeed pass over it, but to a consonant followed by one of a different kind which therefore we are obliged to keep separate in pronunciation, as peŕfect. The short accent is where we pass over the vowel to a single consonant, as presént—, or,—what makes no difference, as we never separate them,—to a consonant followed by another of the same kind, as presśing. This only takes place in dissyllables where the accent is on the first: where it is on the last, that syllable is always positively long; & the other positively short as preseńt. The Italians never pass over the vowel to a single consonant, & when there are two of the same kind they separate them so that you distinctly percieve the sound of each, as in pres′so: this difference between their utterance & ours will more strongly appear by taking two English & two Italian words, the same in sound (barring that difference) tho’ not in spelling—as cherr′y ferr′y cer′ri fer′ri. [8]
After these long but necessary preliminary articles, I come to the two feet in question; the iambus & the pyrrhic; & to the change—very widely adopted,—which has been made in what had been the usual pronunciation. It is very clear that in English the first syllable of pre′cept is long, & equally clear that the first of pres′ent is less so, & the same in a number of our dissyllables as bod′y berr′y mon′ey ver′y &cæ—& it not unfrequently happens that two words of different meanings are distinguished from each other merely by the position of the accent as clea′ver, clev′er; put the accent after the vowel cle′ver (as the Scotch pronounce it) has the same sound as clea′ver: read′y and ree′dy. From the one accented syllable being comparatively short it has been concieved to be positively short, & that all such words as bod′y berr′y mon′ey ver′y &cæ are true pyrrhics, & standards for the pronunciation of that foot in Greek & Latin. Admitting this (I need not add for argument’s sake) they cannot also be standards for the iambus; as it involves a manifest contradiction that the final syllable should with the same pronunciation be short ăm′ŏr when a pyrrhic yet long in ăm′ōr when an iambus. But admitting again, first, what no one will deny; that χα′ρις & all dissyllables so accented are in our recitation positive trochees, & also what will not be so readily granted; that by shifting the accent to the consonant χαρ′ις becomes as positive a pyrrhic, yet what is to be done with such words as θε′α di′u mi′hi tu′a &cæ—where the one vowel is followed by another? These cannot be altered according to the standard; they must be accented on the vowel, & many verses will present the strange incongruous mixture of pyrrhics, acknowledged to be false, with others, pretended, at least, to be true,—as
Quam tu′a te fortuna sin′et; vi′a prima salutis!– [9]
All the various inconsistencies & incongruities arise I believe in a great measure from there being no dissyllabic standard for the pyrrhic: standards for the iambus in great numbers, & of the most perfect kind, we have in our own language, as ago′ afa′r joco′se mora′ss refe′r &cæ—& should any one question their being true iambi & exact standards, it would be incumbent on him to shew how the pronunciation of them could be altered so as to accord more exactly with the true quantity & cadence of the iambus. Why then, till within these few years, have we always pronounced nearly the same words in Greek & Latin α′γω & a′go α′φαρjo′cos mo′ras re′fer? On account of a rule founded on the grossest error; namely, that we must not lay our accent on any final syllable in Latin, & on very few in Greek, because the Romans (not the Greeks) never did! We have of late years (still in obedience to the same rule, but the place of the accent being shifted) been taught to say αφ′αρjoc′osαχ′ω [sic, for αγ′ω] & ag′o, mor′as ref′er, adding to false quantity a little cacophony. Now by making our English iambic standards for the pronunciation of the ancient, all such inconsistencies incongruities & false quantities whether acknowledged or denied would be completely put an end to; we should then say αγω′ & ago′ joco′s refe′r & likewise (how could we pronounce them otherwise[)] deo′s & θεων: this last having in the first syllable which we avowedly make long, the visibly short vowel—the epsilon; followed also by another vowel; & in the second the omega followed by a consonant, &,—what, if possible,is strongest of all,—having that which includes the acute, & is never placed but on a long syllable—the circumflex. All this is most striking & obvious; & it does seem strange that any person of learning & talents, who was desirous of correcting the notorious false quantities in our pronunciation of the ancient iambi, should not have adopted a method which obviated every difficulty, was suited to all cases, & in unison with our habits in our own language, instead of one that created many difficulties, & was at variance with our habits & associations. This, if I may venture to assign what appear to be the most probable causes, may not have arisen solely from a sort of deference & attachment to the rule, but from a very real difficulty & embarassment respecting the new fangled pyrrhic as connected with the new fangled iambus: thus for instance when in our usual method we pronounce the iambus ma′ri & the pyrrhic ma′re both of them, tho’ equally false quantities, kept each other in countenance: & so in the new mode, tho’ likewise false quantities, do mar′i & mar′e: but if any one were to pronounce the iambus with an accent on the last syllable, as it evidently ought to be pronounced, & the pyrrhic with it on the first, there could be no doubt that one of them must be wrong, & as little doubt which of them, especially if both the words were in the same line as in
Nam Ven′us orta mari′ tu′tum mar′e præstat eu′nti [10]
Who after hearing the first syllable of mari so decidedly short, so exactly of the same cadence with den′y rel′y &cæ could endure mar′i as an iambus? whoever did, might very well endure den′y & rel′y in English. Had there been any English dissyllables, possessing as decidedly & convincingly the quantity cadence & true character of the pyrrhic, as those I have mentioned do of the iambus, perhaps in regard to these two feet at least, the rule might have been dispensed with; & possibly from the manifest advantage of such a change in part of the system, similar changes might gradually have been made, till the whole met with the fate it deserves. The true sound of the pyrrhic, is, on various accounts, a matter of importance in recitation; & it is one, that I am well convinced has never been given to any dissyllable, since the time that the Latin ceased to be spoken in any degree of purity & accuracy; & that in an age
When all was ignorance, & all was night, [11]
modern accent usurped the rights of ancient quantity. I think however that its true sound may be recovered; that standards for it may be produced of the most satisfactory kind, as being founded on our own pronunciation of the foot, altho’, as it is somewhat in disguise, we pronounce it unconsciously. I must now endeavour to bring such proofs as may support the boldness & I believe the novelty of my assertion. My first position—which will hardly be controverted,—is that the two last syllables of every dactyl however composed whether of one word or of more, must constitute a pyrrhic; & that if the dactyl have its true quantity & cadence in recitation, so likewise must the pyrrhic. Where that foot in Latin is a dissyllable (& in most cases where it is such in Greek) we destroy it in limine, [12] by what must necessarily destroy it; an accent on the first syllable. This must be carefully guarded against; & for that purpose I shall place a mark on the last of all such feet; as on colōr: the mark is of a negative kind; it is to warn the reader that he is not as he usually does, to lay an accent on the first syllable, but to pass quickly over it to the last; on which he is to touch as shortly & lightly as possible, just enough for articulation, & instantly to quit it. This direction, if duly attended to & practised, would, I believe, be a sufficient guide to the true sound & cadence of every pyrrhic; but it will be very much assisted by a few examples. Cŏlŏr then is a pyrrhic: in my younger days it was universally pronounced col′or a perfect trochee: it is now very much pronounced col′or an imperfect one: now were any person to shift the accent from the first to the second in dis′color & say discol′or, what a screaming there would be at such a false quantity! Would discolo′r be less screamed at, or less deserve it? On the other hand when everybody said “Qui co′lor albus e′rat,” nobody screamed: & “Qui col′or albus er′at” is heard with as little emotion: yet can any one give a good reason why qui co′lor or qui col′or is not just as much a false quantity as disco′lor or discol′or? Again, to take another word, we say
Im′piger extre′mos curr′it merca′tor ad In′dos [13]
Yet, when the pyrrhic is disjoined, no one says “non sum pigēr usque sequa′r te” but “non sum pi′ger (or pig′er) usque se′quar (or sequ′ar) te.” Would it not be more advisable to quit pig′ or pidge, & say su′m-pigēr just as we say im′piger? Were it possible to admit that the new mode of pronouncing does not sin against quantity metre & euphony, still it sins, no less than the old one, against rhythm. I have shewn the beauty & harmoniously varied & connected flow of rhythm in
Νούσον ανά στρατον ώρσε κακήν ολεκοντο δε λάοι
Compare it then with
Νου′σον αν′α στρατ′ον ωρ′σε κακ′ην ολ′εκον′το δε λα′οι [14]
Have not these last five unconnected monotonous dissyllables all the same uniform cadence, with a pause after each? Have they not all the cadence of trochees, & no other? Is it not equally the case where there are six of them? as
Ἡ′και εμ′οι ταδ′ε παν′τα μελ′ει γυν′αι αλλ′α μαλ᾿ αι′νως [15]
αλλ′α (connected indeed with μαλ᾿) making a seventh. In the following line there are eight of them tho’ not in succession.
Οιδα δ ὀτ′ι σύ μεν εσθ′λος εγώ δε σεθ′εν πολύ χε′ιρων [16]
I must add one more, & it is the ne plus ultra [17] —where there are nine of them, & in succession!
Fi′et ape′r mod′o av′is mod′o sax′um ét cum vol′et ar′bor. [18]
While you continue, in obedience to the rule, to pronounce distinctly the elided, & therefore redundant syllables (this last a fruitful source of immeasurable verses, & various sins against versification) you are obliged to separate every dissyllable in succession, however numerous, & equally whether you say κα′κην or κακ′ην, pi′ger or pig′er. These surely are most flagrant sins against metre & rhythm: there are others of a less extensive range, hardly less injurious to both, & arising from a combination of the two feet particularly in question; that of an iambus followed by a pyrrhic. Where the full length & stress are given to the last syllable of the iambus, &, thence recieving its spring, the pyrrhic is shortly & lightly passed over; when likewise the two words are nearly pronounced as one, & immediately precede the adonic, a dactylic impetus is given in a remarkable degree to that part of the verse; as in a most impressive line in the description of the phalanx,
Ασπις αρ᾿ ασπιδ᾿ ερειδε κορυς-κορύv, ανερα δ᾿ ανηρ [19]
On the other hand in our usual mode, the verse falters, & almost stops, where it should firmly & quickly advance
Ασπις αρ᾿ ασπιδ᾿ ερειδε-κο′ρυς κο′ρυv ανερα δ᾿ ανηρ.
In the new mode: to parody a distich in Churchill’s Rosciad
When the swift Dactyl’s in it’s full career.
How vilely κορ′υς κορ′υν grates the ear! [20]
The good or bad effect of right or wrong pronunciation (in such cases[)], is still more striking where the poet’s manifest intention was to indicate rapid motion as in the footrace, [21] where Ulysses presses close to the heels of Ajax Oileus
Ικνια τυπτε ποδεσσι παρος κονίν αμφιχυθηαι. [22]
The three first words go off rapidly in our recitation, there being no long final, & no pyrrhic; & then—like a race-horse that falls dead lame just at the winning post—the verse at once breaks down.
Ικ′νια τυπ′τε ποδεσ′σι παρ′ος κονι′ν-αμφιχυθηναι.
“παρ′ος κον′ιν” is twin brother to κορ′υς κορ′υν of the same spurious breed: I shall produce a few more of these accentual bastards, all as like one another as they can stare. The 23d Book abounds with them, many relating to rapid motion. In the chariot race Achilles puts a stop to an idle quarrel by desiring the disputants to stay till the competitors come near to the goal
Ως φᾱτŏ Τῠδειδην δε μᾰλᾰ σκεδŏν ηλθε δῐωκως [23]
where with our accents, till you come to the usual part—the adonic, there is neither metre nor rhythm nor any dactyl, tho’ there are realy four of them. Some lines afterwards, Diomed leaps from his chariot
Αυτος δ’ εκ διφροιο χαμαι-θορε παμφαναωντος [sic, for παμφανοωντος] [24]
“χαμ′αι θορ′ε” is any thing but an active leap; it is a false step & a tumble. I shall next give an example of the same two feet employed in the same part of the verse, but with a very different sort of expression: I shall take it from Virgil’s 3d Eclogue, & shall put down the preceding line, partly for the sake of connection, but more for that of shewing how quickly & lightly the rhythm goes off, when the elided syllables are omitted, how heavily it drops when they are distinctly pronounced & the quantity disregarded. I shall first put down the lines as they must have been, then as they are pronounced—
Phyllid’ am’ant’ alias, nam me decedere flevit,
Et longum formose vale vale, inquit, Iola:
Phy′llida a′mo an′te a′lias, nam me′ dece′dere fle′vit,
Et lon′gum formo′se va′le va′le, in′quit, Io′la: [25]
Metre absolutely requires, & rhythm in a great degree, that the two syllables of every spondee should be long & equally long; no less so in recitation than in structure: but to make such a spondee as longum a trochee, is sinning at once against metre rhythm, sense & expression: instead of shortening the last syllable, we ought, as guided by the ictus not only to give it length but stress. This however, tho’ I did not choose to pass over it, is not to my present point; the iambus & pyrrhic are, & very strikingly so. When the last syllable of the iambus has its due length & stress, & is pronounced in rather a full & high tone; & when we appear to linger on it, & then connect it with the pyrrhic nearly as one word—vale vale, the last farewell being breathed out in a weaker & lower tone, seems a faint echo of the first, & in my mind is very happily suited to the expression. I cannot percieve in what way the pronunciation of vale′-valē could be altered so as to be more exactly suited to the quantity cadence & genuine character of the two feet, whether jointly or separately; va′le va′le are avowedly trochees, & perfect: val′e val′e are also; tho’ not avowedly—trochees, but imperfect; both therefore are equally unsuited to the metre & the rhythm. We had always been used to lay the accent after the vowel; we are now taught to lay it after the consonant; in either way the two feet—the sound being the very same,—can have no distinction. Their cadence too, in the latest mode is that which had uniformly been given to vall′e, as
Hic in reducta vall′e canic′ulæ. [26]
The trochee as we pronounce it has a short accent: but we do not (a distinction which should never be lost sight of) make a false but imperfect quantity. Now if it be true that the first syllable of val′e or vall′e (for the sound is the same) is really short, & such a passing over of the vowel, the proper method of giving shortness, we ought consistently to say can′icul′æ, a ditrochee answering precisely to val′e-val′e, while cani′culæ no less precisely answers to vale′-valē. There is a line in Virgil’s Eclogue where the idea of an echo—the iambus & pyrrhic being in the same position—is more immediately & forcibly suggested by the subject.
His adjungit Hyl′am nau′ta quo fo′nte relic′tum
Clamassent: ut litua [sic, for litus] Hyl′a Hyl′a om′ne sona′ret [27]
We may apply to this verse the same sort of comparison as to the other; litus Hyla. Hylā answers to “condis amabile;” litus Hyl′a Hyl′a, to condis am′abil′e; the choice can hardly be doubtful. The dipthongal sound that belongs to our i, & that we commonly give to it (differently from other nations in Europe & probably from the Greek & Romans) does very well in regard to quantity in long syllables as Ι'λαδον Piére Ι′ρι i′te; but where the syllable is short (as the first Hyla), as both are in ῐθῐ the diphthong must check the speed of the pyrrhic, & consequently of the dactyl in βασκ’ιθῑ, however careful we might be to avoid laying any accent on the pyrrhic, & to press quickly over it: but when the first syllable is accented, & the voice stops upon the i diphthong, there is an end of dactyl, pyrrhic, metre & rhythm. In the new mode, βασκ’ιθί would have the vowel sound of the i but to little purpose, for an accent, however placed, unavoidably turns the pyrrhic into a trochee, the dactyl into an amphibrach: “βασκ’ι′θι,” or “βασκ’ιθί.” This is immediately felt if you accent the second syllable (i.e. the first of the pyrrhic) in any trissyllabic dactyl, as Ομνυ’θι or Ομνυθ’ι, & your ear, in such cases, at once tells you so, tho’ in the others it is rendered callous by habit. I shall put down the line I allude to, first with the marks of the ictus & of the pyrrhic to shew that it has really five dactyls; afterwards with the accentual mark over the syllables on which we lay the accent, to shew how we contrive to destroy three out of the five, & how much murder may be committed between a dactyl at the beginning & an adonic at the end,—both of which we pronounce right.
Ομνυθι μη μεν εκων το εμον δολω αρμα πεδησαι [28]
Ομ′νυθι μη′ μεν εκ′ων το εμ′ον δολ′ω αρ′μα πεδησαι
If you have a mind to see how the slaughter may be continued along the whole of the line, change an accent & a word or two—
Ον κυθ′ε μη μεν εκ′ων το εμ′ον δολ′ω αρ′μα πεδ′ας πε′ρ
An advocate for the system may well be shocked at seeing what a rhythm it may lead to; but might object; tho’ without any just grounds; to the changes that have purposely been made; let him consider then how he pronounces & must pronounce according to his rules, verses in which no change has been made
Ως φᾱτ′ŏ την δ’ ōυτĭ πρōσ′εφη νεφ′εληγερ′ετᾰ Ζευς. [29]
Or a Latin one of a different structure
Si pēt′erĕt pĕr a′mĭcītĭăm pāt′rĭs āt′qŭe sū′ăm nī′l [30]
Another again, a line or two further on, varying in structure, but not less full of enormities
Ūs′qŭe ăd ma′lă īt′ĕrārĭt Ī′ŏ Bācc′hĕ mōd′ŏ sūm′ma
Vo′ce mod′o hac. [31]
Having got a little out of my direct road, I must be allowed to wander somewhat further; & I am tempted by the molossus clāmāssēnt at the beginning of one of the quoted lines to make a few remarks on it. We lay an accent on the middle syllable of every molossus, converting it into an amphibrach, a foot remarkably opposed to its slow & dignified character. Whenever then a verse begins with one as they frequently do, & as the one in question does, we constantly make that monster, a headless hexameter; & not less truly a monster, because certain verses in Homer have been distinguished by the sounding name of acephalous: By shortening the first syllable of the hexameter we break a fundamental rule of that metre, & by shortening the third syllable of the molossus, break another, namely that after a complete foot, whether dactyl or spondee, in whatever part of the verse, the subsequent syllable must invariably be long. The advocates for accentual pronunciation, as it is called, are not unwilling to acknowledge the two peccadillos of false quantity & false metre, but maintain that they are amply compensated by superiority in the rhythm & expression: this claim I have very fully examined in a M.S. you have not yet seen; I must now slightly touch upon it. They might say & plausibly that one long accented syllable as in clămāssĕnt was more suited to the expression than three equally long syllables according to quantity as clāmāssēnt; & so it would, if all the three were to be uttered with the same equality of tone as of length: but here the Ictus Metricus, on which I shewed you a few pages that had had the approbation of Dr Parr, is a most useful ally. The first syllable of the hexameter, as being the first of the foot, always recieves it, &, in this case, the third syllable also, being that of the molossus: if then you lay a strong emphasis on the first, none on the second, & another not quite so strong as the first, on the third, you will give to the molossus, without altering its real quantity, something of the sound of the amphimacer, clāmāssēnt, & in my opinion a sound much better suited to the continued clamour after the lost youth than the single halloo of clamāssent; were there no objections to the last on the score of quantity. In other parts of the verse it often happens that our accent & the ictus are both on the second syllable of the molossus, in which case it is necessary to attend to one very material difference in their effects & to guard against our habits: accent always making the other two syllables short, ictus never affecting their quantity. By the method I have proposed under the immediate sanction of the ictus, the inherent monotony of the molossus may on various occasions be diminished, while the expression is encreased; yet not on all; for there are occasions; as in solemn subjects, in those of melancholy & dejection; where the monotony is characteristic & expressive.
All that has just been said may be applied to the spondee; the sameness of which may be varied by the same means: when the ictus is on the first syllable, you may give to the foot, without at all altering the quantity, something of a trochaic cast,—when on the last, of an iambic. After this, I hope not useless digression, I return to the main subject.
One of the first things that strikes one in the change from the old pronunciation of the iambus & pyrrhic, is, the ambiguity produced by the new; e′rat becomes err′at, as in
Hŏc err′ăt ĭn vō′tĭs mōd′ŭs a′grĭ nŏn ită māg′nus [32]
& equally when it is an iambus, as
Non formosus err′at sed err′at facundus Ulysses [33]
which last has a kind of nonsensical meaning. Tĕrĕs an epithet applied to beauty; even to the neck of Venus; becomes terr′es: “totus terr′es atque rotundus.” [34] Penelope in Ovid’s epistle is afraid lest Ulysses at his return should think her changed from a girl—not as we now pronounce it, into an old woman; but into a year—facta videbor ann′us; [35] & Horace tells Lyce that she is growing into one
“fis ann′us et tam′en
Ludisque et bi′bis impudens.[”] [36]
These ambiguities however have been guarded against; for while we are taught to pronounce ănŭs exactly as we had been used to pronounce ann′us, we are also taught at the same time to give to an′nus the italian utterance, by separating (as indicated by the place of the accent) the two consonants. This last change from our usual pronunciation is a most excellent one; & I no less heartily wish it may be universally adopted, than that the first may be abandoned; in which case we should gain a very essential advantage in respect to the pronunciation of a number of long syllables at the beginning & in the middle of words. The Italian utterance if carefully practised would certainly make a distinction between er′rat & er′at, an′nus & an′us, tho’ the old association would be apt to recur: but there are many associations with words in our own language created by the new mode,which indeed would form no material objection to it were there no other, but would often if they occured to the hearers, have a ludicrous effect; as στιχ′η sil′e φιλ′ε sil′eas—several in us, as rub′us cur′ius dec′us Mar′ius dam′us: then βελ′ε with its associates; sup′er (with an odd bill of fare) sam′on, κυν′ε (coney) γαμ′ον pat′i Mar′o scel′ere μαλ′αν; cel′er, but with no liqu′or except περ′ι: There is however a very appropriate epithet to a gay Damsel at a supper mentioned by Horace “Damalismer′i.” Swift in his ludicrous etymologies has supposed the name of Hector’s wife to have been given to her from her father Andrew Mackay, a well known Scotch pedlar: [37] the old pronunciation μα′χη did not at all suit it: the new one μαχ′η as exactly as Swift could have wished. The new mode furnishes plenty of Christian names, αν′α αλ′ις dol′e καρ′η φαν′ε sal′e ger′e τομ′η rog′er διχ′η. This last familiar diminutive ill accords with the august person of Justice,
ἡ συνοικος των κατω θεῶν Διχη [38]
In this line our trochaic propensity is peculiarly unlucky as the iambus is figuratively said to have an antipathy to the trochee, & we end the verse (proh nefas!) [39] with three in succession: in our old way we pronounced them κα′τω θε′ων Δι′χη three perfect trochees; in the new, the first & last are now changed to κατ′ω & Διχ′η; the middle one remains as it was, the new mode having no hold on it. Among the numerous & crying sins against quantity metre & rhythm, produced by our system, our pronunciation of θεων, I must repeat is perhaps the most flagrant; & our excuse for committing it, is, if possible, more disgraceful than the sin itself: it is (for there can be but one) that the Romans laid their acute on the first of every dissyllable, never on the last of any word; & this as far as relates to latin words, has, at least, something like the shadow of an excuse; but in respect to Greek words, has not even that shadow. The Greeks did not lay their acute on the first syllable of the word in question; they did lay it on the last; for it is included in the circumflex, which if placed over any syllable, is a certain mark of its being long, & of the longest kind: observe then the double enormity we are guilty of; we lengthen the epsilon, tho’ followed by another vowel; we shorten the omega tho’ followed by a consonant, & circumflexed. As to κα′τω & Διχ′η they have the same trochaic rhythm as κα′τω & Δι′χη, but with a harsh abrupt cadence, & the last with a ludicrous association. I may well ask in a line from Catullus, itself no bad specimen of the torture we inflict on Iambics,
Quis hoc pōt′ĕst vĭdērĕ, quĭs pōt′ĕst pāt′ĭ? [40]
We have been in the constant habit of applying our accent to the ancient languages, just as we use it in our own,—& in so doing have been led into numberless errors of the grossest kind. Accent however is not to blame, but only the mode of applying it: change the mode, & there cannot be a safer or a more effectual guide. The manner of changing it, is the simplest & easiest possible: instead of laying it as we now do, on those syllables whether long or short upon which the Romans laid theirs, let it be laid on every long syllable; & never on any short one; the accented syllables would then as in English, be long; the unaccented, short. Were we to follow this plain rule & likewise—till the habit was firmly acquired—to place the accentual mark over the syllables on which we were to lay them, & to obey their guidance, we could never make a false quantity. It would be highly proper however in addition, to adopt the ancient guide of recitation the Ictus metricus, & to place the mark of it, for distinction’s sake below the syllable on which the ancients laid it: this would act in cooperation with the accent; never in opposition to it: & would indicate what the accent could not, the syllables on which the ancients laid a stress. It would be advisable also, for the reasons I have mentioned, to place the little mark over the last syllables of pyrrhics. This mode & these marks would ensure the great essential points in recitation; those of quantity metre & the genuine rhythm; & with them many others, as variety, harmony, connection, expression, ease, & distinctness of articulation. Of each of these I could give many striking examples, but for the present shall content myself with putting down a few lines, just to shew the effects of the different modes. In Hector’s challenge to the Greeks, the line in which he supposes his antagonist to be victorious has not a very flowing or exulting rhythm: it begins with three long monosyllables; but with the proper accents has the ὲ to have
Εί μεν κεν εμε κεινος ελη τανυήκει [sic, for ταναήκει] χαλ′κω [41]
in our way of laying the accents it has no rhythm whatever till you come to the adonic, & is clogged at every step.
Εί μεν κεν εμε κείνος ελ′η τανυη′κει χαλ′κω
A few lines onwards the Trojan hero speaks of himself as the Victor, & his Greek antagonist as vanquished & slain: then the whole goes off triumphantly
Είδε κ′ εγώ τον ελώ δωή δε μοι εύχος Απολ′λων. [42]
In this mode of marking & pronouncing, the long finals have their due length & stress; the “celeres iambi” are restored to their character & functions; the principal word ελώ is at the cæsura where the voice rests, & the sense of the first hemistich ends, the ictus being also on the final; & the two omegas have their full & open sound. In the second hemistich, the long final of the spondee δώή having also the ictus, bears onwards the two short syllables of the dactyl to meet that of the adonic. I shall lastly; & it is full time to conclude; give an example of an hexameter & pentameter: they are the two concluding lines of an epigram on a beautiful female musician, from whose various charms there was no escaping. I shall put down the two preceding lines, but in them shall only mark the right quantities.
Πόι σε φυγώ; πάντή με περισ′τη′σάσιν ερώτες
Ουδ’ οσον αμπ′νευσάι βάιον εούσι χρονόν
Η’ γάρ μόι μόρ′ φή βαλ′λει ποθον ή παλι μόυσα
Η’ χαρις ή; τι λεγώ; παν′τα πυρ′ι φλεγομάι [43]
Many things in these lines will strike the attentive reader, judging only from the marks & their evident effect: first the variety given to the words themselves & to the whole rhythm by the intermixture of long & short finals; secondly the connection that is produced by means of the long ones; thirdly the perfect dactyls which are formed by means of the pyrrhics, where they have their true cadence, & the preceding syllables their due length. In the last pentameter, the first as well as the second hemistich, begins with two successive dactyls which are formed by nearly the same means. All this will strike him much more strongly when he compares the two last distichs & its marks, with the same distichs as I shall now mark them:
Η γăρ μοĭ μōρ′φη βāλ′λεĭ πōθ′ŏν η πāλ′ĭ μōυ′σα
Η χāρ′ĭς η′ τĭ λεγ′ω; πāν′τă πυρ′ĭ φλεγ′ŏμăι.
In these as they are marked there is not a vestige of metre or rhythm from beginning to end: there is neither spondee nor dactyl, except indeed the reversed anapæst φλεγŏμαĭ, which will hardly be claimed. To my ear the frequent recurrence of the sound of a consonant on the first syllable as ποθ′οv παλ′ι χαρ′ις λεγ′ω πυρ′ι φλεγ′ομαι is at once both harsh & monstrous: & to my judgment; which, at least, has not been hastily formed; equally destructive of metre & rhythm. I gladly return to the two excellent changes; the one I have mentioned, & that of stopping on the vowel as in a′ridus e′ruet Ti′tyre o’ mine &cæ; & am much pleased to think that they have been successfully carried into practice, especially that of separating the two consonants, as it is much against our habits. This is a great point gained; but the two changes as well as the whole of our recitation would recieve a very material improvement were we also to adopt from the Italians the sound which they give to their vowels; wholly in Latin; but in Greek with the exception of the upsilon, in regard to which there are doubts & difficulties. Such there are likewise both in the English & Italian pronunciation respecting some of the diphthongs, & several of the consonants: these tho’ of minor yet not of slight importance, should in case of a general reform, be, at least, so far settled, as not to affect metre or perspicuity. Should all that has been stated be carried into general practice, our recitation of the ancient languages would be so improved in all the essential & many subordinate points, as scarcely; with the means we possess, to admit of any further improvement. As to restoring the Greek accentuation, in any just & comprehensive sense of the word; (for no one seems to have thought of restoring the Latin)—I cannot but consider it as a useless attempt, or, indeed, worse than useless.
Most truly yours
U Price
Publication: None traced.
Source: Copy in EBB’s hand at Armstrong Browning Library.
1. The continuation of Price’s comments on the Charterhouse mode of pronunciation places this letter soon after the preceding one.
2. Many did appear, word for word or only slightly altered, in the published Essay.
3. Cymbeline, IV, 2, 169–171, slightly misquoted.
4. “And again earthward rolls the pitiless stone” (Odyssey, XI, 598).
5. “He sent an evil plague upon the army, and the host perished” (Iliad, I, 10).
6. Price has inserted the following note: “I may here observe by the way that in such compound molossi, as likewise in compound choriambi of the same kind, the additional syllable at the beginning is that which reverses enforces changes or in some sort modifies the sense of the simple; & on that account, were there no other,—ought to be strongly marked in recitation. But in addition to this, the molossus at the beginning of an hexameter, & the choriambus in every part of it, have the Ictus metricus on the first syllable; which therefore together with the due length, ought to recieve a marked stroke or emphasis. We most preposterously give the whole length & stress to the second syllable; & in such words as in-fe′lix im-pa′vidos αθάνατους in which the privation of good or the exemption from evil is clearly indicated by the privation, our attention is directed to the idea of happiness, or on the other hand, to those of terror or destruction.”
7. “O queen, unspeakable is the grief you command me to renew” (Æneid, II, 3).
8. See letter 241, note 1. Price has inserted the following note: “I have placed the mark, as you will of course have observed, immediately after the vowel when we stop upon it: between the consonants when we detach them; after a single consonant when we pass over the vowel to it; & after two consonants when we do not detach them. This I think would be a useful method in dictionaries especially to foreigners. Johnson, in all cases, puts the mark after the vowel.”
9. “[Face them more boldly] than thy fortune shall allow thee; thy path of safety …” (Æneid, VI, 96).
10. “For Venus who rose from the sea offers a safe sea to the one who travels it” (Ovid, Heroides, XV, 213, slightly misquoted).
11. Line 30 of Gray’s “Hymn to Ignorance,” slightly misquoted.
12. “At the outset.”
13. “The industrious merchant hurries to the furthest Indies” (Horace, Epistles, I, i, 45).
14. See note 5 above. EBB has here added this note in her copy of Price’s letter: “At the Charterhouse they read Greek by the Greek rule of accents, not the Latin. Mr. Price has here therefore written under a mistake; but mutatâ linguâ his argument holds good. EBB.”
15. “I know all this, woman, but I have too much shame” (Iliad, VI, 441).
16. “I know that you are worthy, and that I am far inferior to you” (Iliad, XX, 434).
17. “Ultimate.”
18. “He will turn into a boar, then into a bird, then into a rock, or, if he wishes, a tree” (Horace, Satires, II, iii, 73).
19. “Shield clashed with shield, helmet with helmet, and man with man” (Iliad, XIII, 131).
20. The lines parodied read “When hot impatience is in full career, / How vilely ‘Hark’e! Hark’e!’ grates the ear” (lines 347–348).
21. Price has inserted the following note: “Iliad B 23. Li 764.”
22. “He trod in his tracks before the dust could settle in them.” Ajax, son of Oileus, was drowned at Troy by Poseidon.
23. “Thus he spoke, and Tydeus’ son came hurrying near.” Price has inserted the following note: “Iliad B 23 L 499.”
24. “And he leapt from his gleaming chariot to the ground.” Price has inserted the following note: “Iliad Do L 509.”
25. “I love Phyllida more than all others, for she wept when I left, saying farewell, farewell handsome Iolas, for a long time” (Eclogues, III, 78–79).
26. “Here in a remote valley, the dog-star’s [heat shalt thou escape]” (Horace, Odes, I, xvii, 17).
27. “To these he adds the story of the spring where Hylas was left, and how the sailors called him, till all the shore echoed Hylas, Hylas!” (Eclogues, VI, 43–44).
28. “Swear thou didst not willingly impede my chariot by trickery” (Iliad, XXIII, 585).
29. “So she spoke, but cloud-gathering Zeus said nothing” (Iliad, I, 511).
30. “If he should beg him by his father’s friendship and his own, no [headway could he make]” (Horace, Satires, I, iii, 5).
31. “[From the egg-course] to the fruit he would keep chanting Ho Bacchus, now with the highest voice, now the lowest” (Horace, Satires, I, iii, 7–8).
32. “This was in my prayers, a portion of land not so very large” (Horace, Satires, II, vi, 1).
33. “Ulysses was not handsome, but he was eloquent” (Ovid, Ars Amatoria, II, 123).
34. “The whole smooth and rounded” (Horace, Satires, II, vii, 86). Doubling the consonantal sound substitutes “you frighten” for “smooth.”
35. Heriodes, I, 115–116.
36. Horace’s lines (Odes, IV, xiii, 2–4) read: “Thou art becoming an old woman, and yet thou joinest in the merriment and drinkest hard.” “Annus” substitutes “a year” for “an old woman.”
37. Swift’s punning reference to Andromache is cited on p. 229 of Price’s Essay. It derives from “A Discourse to Prove the Antiquity of the English Tongue” (The Works of Dr. Jonathan Swift, 1766, XVII, 23).
38. “Justice, the neighbour of the gods below.”
39. “Oh! monstrous.”
40. “Who can bear to watch this, who can endure it?” (Carmina, XXIX, 1).
41. “If he should slay me with the long-edged bronze.” Price has inserted the following note: “Iliad B 7 L 77.”
42. “But if I slay him, and Apollo give me glory” (Iliad, VII, 81).
43. “Where shall I flee you? Your charms are everywhere around me and give me not even a little time to breathe. Your form fills me with yearning, your music again, your grace, your—— But what am I saying? I am all afire.” We do not know the source of this epigram.
___________________
