276.5. EBB to Uvedale Price
Addendum to The Brownings’ Correspondence, vol. 2.
Hope End.
Novr 27th 1826 [sic, for 1827]. [1]
My dear Sir,
I began a letter to you several weeks ago, & before I had written many lines, was forced by some unpleasant & imperative circumstances to put it out of my hands & thoughts for a time. As I am always glad to talk to you,—even over a sheet of paper,—this interruption was annoying to me in one way; not in another,—for I was quite sure that you would not have it in your power to impute neglect or coldness to any feeling of mine towards you. As to your book, I will not repeat the thanks I expressed to you on first receiving it, tho’ very strongly tempted into such a tediousness by my stricter intimacy with its merits. What I had had in manuscript I like still better in print than I did out of it: the matter is everywhere extremely clear & admirable,—& with regard to the manner I can only say “Cicero est semper Ciceronianus.” I will now write down one or two remarks in order to diversify my pulchrè—benè—rectè—& save my character as a reader, with Horace; or rather to give a proof of the willingness of my submission to your flattering desire you yourself were kind enough to express.
On page 3 (for I stumble at your premier pas) you give examples of English iambi alóne beréft caréer—of English anapœsts serenáde legatée & proposing them as convenient standards for the pronunciation of such feet in Greek & Latin you deny that the quantity of such feet could be more truly expressed: upon the supposed admission of which principle you contend that “then accented syllables in such English words are decidedly longer than the unaccented, & there is an end of the dispute.” I am afraid this is something like Dr Milner’s End of Controversy,—who certainly begins at the wrong end: what you call the end of the dispute seems to be exactly its commencement. An antagonist would probably observe that tho’ Mr Price’s English examples be received as standards in Latin & Greek,—that tho’ the accented syllables in those examples be decidedly longer than the unaccented, yet that there can be no ‘end of the dispute’ unless Mr Price could prove that length to be caused by the accent, & the shortness by the privation of the accent. In all your English examples, except one, there is the long vowel in the accented syllables; & the exception (bereft’) has that duplication of consonants which is an acknowledged cause of length: and therefore by those examples, the precise effect of the accent cannot be determined. Assuredly either the passage, or my comprehension of it, must be confused–
On page 4 you write down Lord Monboddo’s position—“You may alter the length of syllables in English verse without injuring the metre”—which position, by the bye, & his reasonings upon it, are founded upon a petitio principii—an assumption of the cause of length. In opposition you very properly bring forward the laxity of our prosody as compared with the strictness of that of the ancients”;—&, I think not quite so properly,—you rest some of your defence on this circumstance .. that when a shorter syllable is substituted in our verses for a longer one, the substitution most commonly takes place in lines where there are many monosyllables,—as in such words, none of them having an accent, no comparison can be made between accented & unaccented syllables”[.]
Now I wish to submit to you, whether,—tho’ monosyllables have assuredly no determinate & independant accent in our language,—they may not have a relative accent, & whether, without it, they could ever constitute of themselves an English verse—as in
oís
In this line you must admit on your principle that the subscribed monosyllables are long,—& further, on your principle, that they are accented syllables; for as accent produces length, so length must involve accent. There is no perceptible difference in the metre of a line composed of monosyllables & the metre of a line polysyllabically composed,—which leads Dr Clarke speaking of the lengthening by position of Greek syllables, observes eagerly “non omnes neque omni in poritu, sed certä quädam cie constanti ratione”. I am afraid we cannot say of those English words whose quantity we change by position, that we do so “constanti ratione,” but I believe we may say of them “non omnes neque omni in poritu.” I desire no better example of the lines which you quote as introducing ‘July’ trochaized by Mrs Greville, & which I refer to, to prove that July has decided anti trochaic propensities. You are a little severe on July on the occasion, & very justly if she had any hand in the matter, but it is quite evident from the ill grace with which she comes forward, that she has not as poor Malvolio observes “some have greatness thrust upon them.” If I might take the liberty, I should call Mrs Greville “picky” & her dissyllable “unruly”. The ludicrousness of the lines seem to me to depend entirely on the eccentricity of the rhymes—as in Butler’s
“I scorned to hurt his recreant carcase,
Or ill entreat his fiddle ōr căse.”
the worse the quantities, the better the joke.
I made inexcusably free with Chaucer in bringing forward his lines for the purpose of proving a circumstance so inconsistent with his spondaic dignity as the introduction of a trochee before the last foot. It was very negligent not to have applied to them the recollection of those just remarks, contained in one of the first letters I had the happiness of receiving from you. The impression of your statement remains strongly on my mind,—but, having been long used to pronounce ‘rou’ & ‘making’ in that place, as trochees, my ear forgot to ask questions of my judgement. The very circumstance however of the ear’s forgetting to ask questions—the very circumstance of our being able to pronounce Chaucer’s spondees, in that place, as trochees, strongly proves that, in doing so, we do not outrage the general propriety of our prosody. I am glad you allow the trochaic cadence to be “an agreable relief from the monotony of our usual heroic structure:” I do not recall my “avowal” because I admit the justice of your general position. In Pope’s school especially, the monotony is unquestionable, with reference to that school, the whole of your observations seem to me strictly accurate, tho’ with reference to our freer poets—to Milton & our dramatists, I am not willing to accede to some of them. Your grounds for objecting to my quotation from Lycidas are very tenable; &, as I have been so unsuccessful in my examples of my favorite trochaic cadence, I must try to give some better chosen ones. One from Fletcher’s “Christ’s Victory in Heaven”—
“Sending his eyes to Heav’n, swīmmĭng with tears–”
from Beaumont & Fletcher’s “Philastes”
“Heaven bless your loves, your nights, āll yŏur desires”.
& from Milton’s “Ode at a solemn musick” which has something like a spondee to boot.
“Dead things with īnbreāthed sense, āblĕ to pierce”.
I will not defend what I fear is indefensible—the independance of my dactyl—that is to say, I will not insist, against proof that it is other than a halting one, when deprived of its supporting long syllable. There was more zeal than judiciousness in my compound of the Greek hexameter & English heroic line—for I could hardly have found a better way of putting our dactyls to the blush, if I had tried. Your statement of their imperfection is indubitable. Such as they are, however, we are not unwilling to entertain them; & I cannot agree that the admission of two successive ones, as in
“Light, as the lightening of heav’n, they ran, they flew–”
which you have altered from Milton, “discordant with our style of versification.[”] In this alteration you have tried the dactylic structure by fire, for you employ two confessedly bad dactyls, the second of which contains the termination ng, justly observed by you to be “of a most retarding mind.” Let us hear Milton himself—
“Hārsh ănd ŏf dīssŏnănt mōod from his complaint.”
These dactyls are as bad as yours, but with a better excuse, because they are intended to represent harshness & dissonance. The example serves to oppose your position “that, in our heroic metre, the dactyl is not considered as a foot, but must be resolvable into dissyllabic feet, or the verse will not scan”—for, in this instance, one dactyl must be considered as a foot, “or the verse will not scan.” In the next line also, in a different construction, the dactyl must be considered a foot—
“Īnfămŏus hills & sandy pērĭlous wilds.”
With regard to the existance of dissyllabic pyrrhics in our language, there are certainly none according to our habitual pronunciation; but I see no just cause or impediment why they should not be treated by position, if bolstered up on each side by a stout long syllable. “Very,” “ever,” “over,” & some others appear to me to have pyrrhic capabilities, & might help to make a dactyl in an extremity.
The English pseudo hexameters are almost too contemptible for consideration—guarda e papa—& nothing could be more absurd than Sir Philip Sidney’s experiment,—except Mr Southey’s imitation of it. The attempt makes us dependant without enriching us: it places us “on the backs of the ancients” without enabling us to “look over their shoulders”. I acknowledge with you that “we have not proper or sufficient materials” to build palaces, & that the “splendour of the ancient marbles” is strange to our soil; but I must be allowed to add that we have noble stone quarries, & stand in no need of the French “brique.” If Voltaire thought of his Henriade as well as of his own language, when he made that remark, he was a better poetical critic than I ever gave him credit for being.
I rejoice for Dante—& am very glad that you have admitted into your circus “Dryden’s less presumptuous car”—his
διφςονχςυσεον ἐν πτεςοι
–σιν τ ἀκαμαντας ἱππθς
What a fine specimen of the ancient marbles, & how beautifully does the appreciation of your system clear it of the dust!– I have read somewhere—I believe in Hobhouse—of a strikingly poetical superstition prevalent among the Greeks, who believe, or believed not long ago, that their glorious statues once had life, & were only stone-bound till the reveillie of freedom. You have cast the spell from Pelops’ face & winged steeds! We hear their impetuosity—& think that Pelops ought to thank you as much as Pindar’s readers must do.
I read with great delight your observations on Dryden’s ode,—& found in them that sympathy with the poet, so seldom to be met with in the critic. If I had found any thing that seemed questionable, I should, indeed, have taken the liberty of questioning it, as you desired me to do so: but I am afraid after this very free letter, you will need no assurance on the subject. It will be harder to persuade you that, tho’ I could not annoy you by saying so at every sentence, all I have advanced has been advanced with great deference & some apprehension: nevertheless I hope the persuasion will not be very hard, on account of the encouragement you have given. At least believe, dear Sir, how earnestly I am
Your grateful
E. B. Barrett.
Publication: None traced.
Source: Author’s copy at Armstrong Browning Library.
1. Year provided by author’s draft at ABL.
___________________
