Correspondence

246.5.  EBB to Uvedale Price

This late entry would have appeared in The Brownings’ Correspondence, vol. 2.

Hope End.

Jany 26. 1827.

My dear Sir

You will be surprised to hear Dr Russell’s “wishes” & “rights” kept such a dos à dos position with regard to your ms., that we were obliged to apply again before we could get it returned. In my last letter I did not mention the detention, because I then conjectured it might very possibly be owing to a waiting for thanks or some such motive. All delay is now however at an end; I have had your ms. in my custody since last night, & will keep it according to your direction till you desire differently. While I am writing about this paper I may as well mention what I should have taken courage to mention before, if my memory had not dealt treacherously by me; but my last letter was written & sent away so hurriedly from my wish to let you have the earliest intelligence of Dr Russell’s doing as Menelaus did—

 

ηςκε δἀς'`Εητως–

Αυτας ὸτἐξοπισω ανεχαζετο, λειπε σε—μετςον

that I quite forgot to explain some scruples of mine relating to a note in your dissertation. You observe (speaking of ínfándúm) 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, and on that account, were there no other ought to be strongly marked in recitation.” And afterwards “we most preposterously give the whole length & stress to the second syllable, & in such words as infélicie impavioos αθανατος in which the privation of good or the exemption from evil is clearly indicated by the privatives, our attention is directed to the idea of happiness, or on the other hand to those of terror & destruction.” Will you forgive my saying that in spite of the ingenuity and beauty of this extract, I scarcely think it as well fortified as your arguments usually are? I wish, for the sake of all expression, that the additional modifying syllable had that general claim to a stress for which you seem to contend, but I cannot do in this instance what I manage to accomplish in many everyday points—believe what I wish. For it appears to me that the practice of language is rather against the general claim of the modifying syllable, however sentiment may be in its favour; & that if any one were to mark in recitation the privatives of “αεκονῑας ἑταιφος”. “in amœnaque regna”—“cor infelice”—“Helpless immortal”—upon the plea (of course “on no other”) that according to the usual accentuation the attention would be directed to ideas of willingness, fertility, happiness, power, & mortality, you might be apt to visit both the innovation & its plea with your epithet “preposterous”– I don’t know whether I have explained my doubts clearly, or whether, after having once spoken to you of your manuscript, I ought to have explained them here at all. But I like to be quite frank about any scruples that may venture to be entertained by me, that when I speak of my convictions I may do so without reserve. Only pray do not trouble yourself with answering what you allow me to remark, for I should feel it a very bitter manner of punishing my presumption if you suffered me to interrupt your occupations. Your supplement to the Charterhouse paper has great force & justice; & I may mention, by the way, that κοςὺν deserves all you think fit to say of it. I am extremely obliged to you both for that supplement, & for giving me so much of your opinion about the σεινη οσμη. Perhaps the most terrible of all the terrible circumstances connected with Lucretius’s description of the plague, is the stench of the unburied corpses, which scares even the birds & beasts of prey from their livid feast—

 

Mustagne numi zuom inhumata jacerent corposa supra

Cosponibus, tamen alituum genus atgne prarum

Aut mocul avsilubat ut acrem esciret adorem—

Aut uvi gustaral, sanguebat morte moningrià.

I have been thinking that Burke’s observation—“no smells or tastes can produce a grand sensation except excessive bitters & intolerable stenches”. A remark of yours (in your Dialogue) relating to “objects peculiarly & strikingly ugly”—& the position of moral mercy in good or evil, being essential to poetical character—form altogether a most interesting analogy.

It only remains to me to thank you, dear sir, for adding ὑδασιν ὑδως—for the kindness you mean to repeat in sending me another manuscript– I may say (as a pendant to your Augustus versus Cinna)

 

“Malgrè ma surprise et mon insuffisance”

I must say again & again that I have to thank you not only for many gratifications and for great benefit every way; I should pass severe censure on my capabilities & improving it I could not say so with truth. Believe me, most sincerely

Your grateful

E. B. Barrett.

Publication:None traced.

Source: Author’s draft at Armstrong Browning Library.

___________________

National Endowment for the Humanities - Logo

Editorial work on The Brownings’ Correspondence is supported by the National Endowment for the Humanities.

This website was last updated on 3-28-2024.

Copyright © 2024 Wedgestone Press. All rights reserved.

Back To Top