268. James Commeline, Jr. to EBB
As published in The Brownings’ Correspondence, 2, 68–75.
[Not all marks of stress and pronunciation have been reproduced in this transcript. They are all reproduced in the print volume.]
Cowley
June 1827
Dear Miss Barrett,
It would be in the highest degree ungrateful in me not to return my acknowledgements for your most obliging letter, & for the attention you have paid to my opinions in this harmonious controversy. That they have not converted you, neither surprises nor disappoints me;—it would be too vain to imagine that I am the literary Rinaldo, who can dissolve the spells of that “most enchanting wizard,” whose castle you have entered. [1] Nevertheless I am not without hopes that the day of your emancipation will arrive; & I am the more confirmed in these hopes by the tendency I observe in your letter to try this question by the application of the only real test—Musical Time. “Τεκμηριον μετρου ακοη” [2] is a principle, which, if sanely applied, will, I am positive, conduct you, as it has conducted me, to the conviction, that Accent does not give Time; with all the corollaries thereon depending. I say “conducted me,”—for I protest to you, that it was my heart’s desire to have continued, as I commenced, Mr Price’s disciple. There is so much easiness & simplicity in his theory—such a semblance of scholar-like allegiance in the undoubted maxim of “Salus metri suprema lex”, [3] —that at first sight it enlists under its banner both our indolent & our classical propensities. Mais le vraisemblable n’est pas toujours le vrai. [4] Mature reflection has convinced me, that Mr Price’s theory is founded on an assumption erroneous in its principle, & (as might be expected) indefensible in its consequences.
Your proposal to try the question “à la Psammetichus” has much amused me;—but in this age of learned lords & London Universities where shall we find the unsophisticated ears, on which the experiment may be made? If Sir William Curtis [5] should be heard of in the neighbourhood, & he can be caught without much expence, I have no objection to the trial. Then if the word “cel′ery” be propounded to him & on being asked by what the first syllable is distinguished from the others, he answers “by its Length”—do manus. [6] Whether on the contrary his Innate Ideas (& here by the way is a chance of solving that great metaphysical problem at the same time)—whether his innate ideas will supply him with the word “Stress or Accent,”—I do not pretend to say. Probably he will not answer at all—or begin a dissertation on the virtues of the plant in pea-soup.
Mais revenons a nos moutons [7] –– There can be no possible doubt that “the practice of pronunciatn must have been formed by the ear & critical rules from the practice of pronunciation.” But this still leaves the question in limine, [8] Does that marked sound, which every ear must distinguish in one syllable of every word, consisting of more than one, necessarily confer Length? that Length which was the Θεμελιον [9] of ancient Metre. The gratuitous assumption of this, is the source of what I humbly conceive to be the error of Mr Price & his disciple—for I believe that word must as yet be used in the singular number. “Hoc fonte derivata clades”. [10] One single consideration seems to me sufficient to refute this notion;—& that is, the variable nature of Accent, & the fixed nature of Quantity. In the ancient languages every syllable had a stated, settled, & recognized Quantity of Long or Short;—& the forms of metre being once arranged, these syllables could only be used in the places to which their intrinsic metrical value adapted them. This you must allow to have been the Rule & the Practice of ancient poetry. According to this principle, the syllable hos for instance, was considered innately & immutably Long—& could not be used in a place where a short syllable was required: in like manner sed was innately Short—& could only be employed in a Long place, when lengthened by the aggregation of consonants. Now can this be predicated of syllables, if their Quantity be held to depend upon Accent or Stress? Can any monosyllable be said to possess innate Quantity under this idea?– It cannot;—for Modern Accent or Stress is clearly relative; & therefore requires at least two syllables to evolve it. It is entirely indifferent to the metre whether we read
“Cast forth′ redounding smoke & ruddy flame” [11]
or
[“]Forth cast′ redounding smoke & ruddy flame”
& any syllable may be used in any place, or the same syllable in different places, provided the accent be given them which those places require. Is not this directly contrary to, & totally irreconcileable with the principles of Ancient Metre? Could such subs[t]itution take place in the line
Τῐ δη κατηφεις ομμα και δακρυρροεις; [12]
or in
Ης γαιης θανεειν ιμειρεται. ουδε νῠ σοι περ [13]
Among your numerous acquirements I have little doubt that you reckon some knowledge of Mathematics;—if so, you will be familiar with the method of estimating the similarity or difference of two quantities by the intervention of a third.
<…> [14]
Pray then for a moment “passez de l’autre côté” et pretez moi l’oreille destinée aux sciences synthetiques et demonstratives. [15] Comparing the structure of Modern Poetry with that of Ancient, I take as a third or intermediate, the monkish poetry composed in the “bas siecles” [16] —such verse for instance as
Dies iræ, dies illa
Sæclum solvet in favillâ [17]
On comparison of this with ancient & Modern metre respectively, I find it constructed on a principle totally differing from the former, & as decidedly the same with the latter. [18] If then of three quantities A be different from B, & B the same with C,—at Cambridge the conclusion would be allowed me, that A is different also from C.
With regard to the particular instances of false Quantity, which you bring forward as incompatible with my doctrine,—you must allow me to object to them a priori—as Exceptions to the General Rule, & therefore not to be tried by it’s enactments. For like all other rules the “Salus metri suprema lex” [3] has its exceptions—& like other rules is established by the existence of them. Suppose now in the course of ages our language to be extinguished,—& that a student of Colombia or Timbuctoo in the 40th century, having properly investigated & ascertained the structure of its versification, should be assailed with such a line as
“With impetuous recoil & jarring sound” [19]
as an argument against his general canon for the English heroic metre,—would not such an objector be palpably in the wrong?—& if he required the said line to be read conformably to the orthodox & general standard of that metre (which demands an accent on the first or second syllable) would he not even destroy an unspeakable beauty produced by this sublime departure from the salus metri?– When therefore an ancient poet chooses to make a false Quantity, I would read it as a false Quantity,—& I should look with suspicion on any system, which would compel me to read it as a true one. There is no subterfuge at least in this. You remember the famous case in point of John Kemble, who, in servile, not constitutional obedience to the Salus metri—took it into his head to pronounce the word “aches” as a dissyllable in some line of Shakespeare, which has escaped my memory. Metrically speaking he was fort en règle; [20] —but was very properly laughed at by his audience,—who rather chose that their favourite poet should be held to have made a false Quantity, than that the established sound of their language should be altered for his accomodation. We know that .. “poetis Quidlibet audendi semper fuit æqua potestas” [21] .. Permit me however to observe, that such instances of false Quantity in the middle of words as “αυτουσ δ’ελωρια” are exceedingly rare, compared with those at the end of them,—where you must agree on your own principles of harp music, that Time may be introduced by the intervention of a pause. And this (to come to your excellent illustration) is indeed the only way that a staccato instrument can accompany a sostenuto. Suppose a harp required to accompany an organ in the Dead March in Saul: The only way it could be done would be by long pauses between the chords. But would these pauses give length—“μηκος”—to the notes themselves? in other words does silence give length to sound? It is three miles from Ledbury to Hope End: but will it be contended thence that Ledbury is three miles long?– The notes then on a harp are intrinsically short—with whatever accent or emphasis they are played;—& the only way that Length can be supplied to them, is by a subsequent Rest. But in the middle of words such as nev′er ev′ery, do we, or can we interpose that rest after a syllable closed by a mute (i.e. a note on the harp) which is necessary to confer Long Time? We do not, & we can not. Dear Lady, do not hazard a re-appearance of the Enraged Musician, [22] by contending that a quaver without a rest is the same thing with a crotchet—in other words that volume νŏμίμα & πōῑμενα—tĭbí & vana—are the same feet.
You must pardon me if I think that your argument drawn from the substitution in English of the 3 first syllables of a choriambus for a dactyl makes clearly & decidedly agst your own position that English verse is regulated by Quantity. If it were so, the substitution might evidently take place; but, as you truly observe, when “rocks never” is substituted for “Solyma”, [“]all rhythm & metre disappear”. And why? Because the quick dissyllable, when detached from the first, regains a tonic accent, which every independent word of more than one syllable must possess. Remove the intrusive accent by tacking “never” to “rocks”, & pronouncing them as one word, like Andover, & the verse reappears. Now what is the case in Latin or Greek? The 3 first syllables of any choriambus may be substituted for any dactyl, without injury to the metre, because their verse depended upon Quantity! For “discolor” in the Adonic close of an hexameter, you may most legitimately substitute “Qui col′or.[”] But then does no change take place? Certainly,—in the accentual cadence—the former being adapted to the heroic, the latter to the familiar style;—& this distinction (as I have elsewhere intimated) by Mr Price’s system is entirely destroyed. Really Horace seems to have foreseen this dispute—& to have given us a specimen, par voie de fait, [23] of the heroic cadence as contra-distinguished from his own musa pedestris. [24] Sat: lib: 2.1.v.13.
.... nec enim quivis horrentia pilis
agmina, vel fractâ pereuntes cuspide Gallos,
aut labentis equo describat vulnera Parthi. [25]
What Horace has done for us in ancient Poetry, Dr Southey has kindly executed as to Modern—having, I should imagine, tolerably well satisfied the readers of his Vision of Judgement, that English verse, constructed on the principle of Quantity, has very small pretensions to that name. If our poetry depended upon Quantity, & Quantity upon accent, the Laureat’s hexameters adapted strictly to these principles would be the music of the spheres. Do not these facts strongly support my position, that ancient verse depended upon Quantity & was modified by Accent—on the contrary, that Modern verse depends upon Accent, & is modified by Quantity.
The total insensibility of my ears to any kind of harmony in French verse, disqualifies me from forming an opinion as to the value of any arguments connected with it;—& if your observation be correct as to the equality, or quasi-equality in length of the syllables of that language, I shall the less regret that I am “τυφλος τα τ' ωτα τον τε νουν[”] [26] to its poetical charms. The absence of any accentual rythm in that language is I believe universally allowed:—& a metrical one (one at least possessing any beauty) without a ratio of Long & Short syllables, cannot easily be conceived. This said to justify my own impression that their poetry is a mere tuneless “hubbub”—a kind of Limbo, removed from the Spheres both of Quantity & Accent. If to these deficiencies you add the want of a poetical dialect, the attractions of French poetry certainly lie within a very small compass.
I little thought that any thing would tempt me to write again on this “vexata quæstio”: [27] —but your letter is so ingenious, & at the same time so ingenuous, that I have been unable to resist the temptation of endeavouring to assist your disenchantment, by once more pointing out the source of Mr Price’s error. Because his ear, & the ear of every one, distinguishes a marked & prominent sound on the accented syllables of every word,—he has been hastily led to assume that the element of that marked sound is Quantity—“μηκος”; instead of what it really is, & always has been, δασυτης, or Stress. In his eager “willingness to be guided by the ear”, he has done what frequently happens to a fine high-bred foxhound (pardon the irreverence of the comparison) who with a similar eagerness to follow his nose (τεκμηριον θηριου οδμη) [28] gets upon a wrong scent, &, to use the technical term, “runs riot”. The Stagirite [29] would teach him that syllables differ “δασυτητι και ψιλοτητι (Latitude, Stress or Modern Accent) και μηκει και βραχυτητι (Longitude, Quantity) ετι δε και οξυτητι και βαρυτητι (Altitude, or the ancient Musical accent) περι ων καθ’εκαστον εν τοις μετρικοις προσηκει θεωρειν”. [30] It is for want of duly considering this simple & universal maxim—& hence confounding the nature of the first & second characteristics first mentioned,—that Mr P. has been led into the fatal delusion of supposing that the true rythm of ancient Poetry is restored, simply by accenting the Long syllables, & unaccenting the Short ones.
Now I am going to make a confession. Your arguments drawn from particular & anomalous instances of deviation from the established rules of ancient metre, I think I have adequately answered, by stating that they are Exceptions—& therefore cannot be taken into account in the consideration of a General Principle. “Salus metri suprema lex” [3] may be as absolute a government as you please;—but even the Grand Signor cannot enter the chamber of a Sultana, when a pair of slippers is laid before the door. But there does exist a phænomenon in Greek Poetry, which is a strong & legitimate argument against my view of the subject, & which, as such, I wonder has escaped your own & Mr Price’s observation. And this is, the fact that at the end of words, succeeded by others beginning with a vowel, a long vowel (even a circumflex or a dipthong) may be made short. Now this is a “legitimate” argument—because it is clearly from its general use, a principle in Greek poetry. Innumerable instances must be familiar to you as they occur in every line. I confess that I cannot satisfactorily reconcile with my doctrine as to the causes of Length, the fact that a long vowel or a dipthong may systematically be made short;—& I should be induced to abandon my own principles, however I might hesitate to embrace Mr Price’s as still more untenable,—but for the circumstance of this metamorphose being admissible only at the end of words & in a confluence of vowels,—where a species of Elision, subtractive of Quantity, may have taken place in recitation. Long vowels we know were anciently considered as Short ones doubled,—& were in fact written so;—& if we suppose the last of these short vowels to be absorbed by Elision in the succeeding word, the Quantity is restored. The ancient Elision is a part of the subject very little understood;—for to us there seems no reason for the regular & exclusive elision of the consonant m in Latin. These considerations however plausible & probable, do not (I admit) satisfactorily (because founded only on conjecture) get over this “triste embarras”, [31] which I have noticed to you, that at all events you may believe I am contending less for victory than for truth.
After this “last dying speech & confession” I have nothing further but to throw myself entirely on your mercy for thus unconscionably trespassing on your patience & condescension. If I am convicted of being a coxcomb & a bore, you must in common justice allow “benefit of Clergy” to a country Curate, who is seldom exposed to such extreme temptation.
With kind remembrance to all your circle at Hope End, I remain
Your much obliged & faithful
J. Commeline Junr
P.S. I don’t think “thyoon” or “thyone” a bad pronunciation for Θεων—the shortest of all iambi—being a short vowel pure. The Italian iambi pui qui, are pronounced nearly as monosyllables. Mais encore! Mille pardons!—
Publication: None traced.
Manuscript: Brown University.
1. Cf. Bk. I of Tasso’s Rinaldo (1562).
2. “Hearing is the proof of metre” (De Sublimitate, Fragmenta, III, 3).
3. “The soundness of the metre is the supreme law.”
4. “But the probable is not always the true.”
5. Sir William Curtis (1752–1829), Lord Mayor of London and member of Parliament. A business man, but poorly educated, he was a subject of much ridicule.
6. “I give hands.”
7. “But let us return to our sheep.” Originally used in Maître Pierre Pathelin, a 15th-century farce, line 1911.
8. “At the beginning.”
9. “Foundation.”
10. “From this source, disaster’s stream has overflowed” (Horace, Odes, III, vi, 19).
11. Paradise Lost, II, 889.
12. “Why then are your eyes downcast and your tears flowing?” (Euripides’ Medea, 1012).
13. “[But Odysseus, longing to see but the smoke] of his homeland, yearns to die. It is not in you, [Olympian]” (Odyssey, I, 59).
14. Two lines scored through by Commeline.
16. “Dark ages.”
17. “Day of wrath, fateful day / To dust will grind the universe.” Dies iræ, Tommaso da Celano (fl. 1250).
18. Writer put an asterisk here. At bottom of page he put another, followed by “Zephyr with Aurora playing … / as he met her once a maying.”
19. Paradise Lost, II, 880.
20. “Very much according to rule.” Leigh Hunt (1784–1859), in his Critical Essays on the Performers of the London Theatres (1807), said of Kemble “if he were to carry his dialect into private life, he would be either pitied or laughed at.... I could mispronounce much better than he, when I was a mere infant” (p. 15).
21. “Poets, you’ll say, have always had equal liberty of hazarding anything” (Horace, De Arte Poetica, 9–10).
22. Hogarth’s famous engraving (1741).
23. “By actual case.”
24. “Poetry bordering on prose” (Horace, Satires, II, vi, 17).
25. “Nor is it for every one to describe our battalions striking terror with their darts, the Gaul expiring on the shivered spear, or wounded Parthian falling from his steed.”
26. “Blind in mind and ears [as well as in your eyes]” (Sophocles’ Œdipus Tyrannos 371).
27. “This vexing question.”
28. “The smell is the sign of the beast.”
29. Aristotle, born at Stagira in Macedon.
30. “In metre, it is necessary and right to consider, one by one, the aspirated and smooth breathings, the length and shortness [of the feet], and even the sharpness and depth [of the pitch]” (Horace’s De Arte Poetica, XX, 6).
31. “Sad difficulty.”
___________________
