278. James Commeline, Jr. to EBB
As published in The Brownings’ Correspondence, 2, 87–91.
[Not all marks of stress and pronunciation have been reproduced in this transcript. They are all reproduced in the print volume.]
Cowley
1. Decr 1827
Dear Miss Barrett
Together with Mr Price’s book, allow me to return you my best thanks for the perusal of it. Though written (& how could it be otherwise?) with great elegance & felicity of composition, it really strikes me as a remarkable specimen of that order of architecture, in which many ingenious minds have delighted—& of which all the parts are perfect in their kind, except the foundation. Not a single attempt (worthy at least of the name of argument) is made to establish the position, on which the whole theory confessedly rests; viz: that Length is conferred by Emphasis, instead of what the Carthusians assert—& I have not the slightest doubt, most correctly—by the dipthongal sound of the Long Vowels,—or Position, distinctly preserved. That Emphasis is not the Cause of Length, Mr P. may be convinced (if he chooses) by singing the first bar (eight ascending semiquavers) of that pretty song “Haste my Nannette”, to the words λεγομενα λεγομενα: [1] —which he will find may be accented in the strongest possible way on any syllable without the least effect upon the Time. But in Mr Prices system, not the slightest consideration is bestowed on the obvious & unerring test of Musical Time:—tho’ ancient Poetry was professedly adapted to it no attempt is made to account for the fixed value of syllables in ancient Poetry, & their convertible value in Modern—a fact alone destructive of the Idea, that Quantity is the Essence of both:—no solution is given to the supposed phænomenon of a different pronunciation of the same words according to the exigencies of the metre, as in “Hoc erǎt in votis” [2] and in Tantæ molis erat′ Romanam condere gentem, [3] la phænomenon which infers that a Roman, unacquainted with the mysteries of Arsis & Thesis, could not read his own poets. Such are a few of the slight objections to “the system”—for certainly Mr Price’s theory has as much right to that distinctive appellation as the vulgar mode, however defective. In Mr Price’s investigation too of French & Italian pronuniciation, there seems to be a singular inattention to (for I cannot suppose it ignorance of) the different power of the Open & Close Vowels—the legitimate descendants & representatives (I think it cannot be doubted) of the old Short & Long. [4] Thus (p.229) he talks of the sound of o being destroyed in our “κορ´υν” & mor´row”;—whereas it is exactly the same with the open o of the modern Romans—into whose city you enter by the “Por´ta del Pop´olo”—pronounced respectively, as in our “pórt,”—& “popúlar”. This sound (υο of the omicron[)] (a short “au” as Mr P. calls it) is distinctly preserved to us in the word Βλοψ,ᾁ Βλοψ [5] —representing the dropping of water from a clepsydra, which cannot be mistaken.
My vanity is, I confess, a little flattered by having been led by my own cogitations on the subject, to the same conclusion with the learned gentlemen of the Charterhouse—of whose mode of recitation I had never heard, till your brother read to me at Hope End,—tho’ by Mr Price’s account, it “has of late years much prevailed”. I cannot but think, that in his attack upon this, Mr P. has made use of a most unfair weapon, in describing their system of pronouncing short syllables, by our double consonants, the latter of which have no sound at all to the ear—but when written, have a cumbersome & ludicrous appearance to the eye:—as in the verse
Hoc err′at in votis modd′us agri non itt′a magnus. [6]
This manœuvre of Mr Price’s, tho’ it affords him an opportunity for some very laughable rapprochemen’s [7] founded on English associations; as an argument is perfectly nugatory—& worse than nugatory—for it is disingenuous,—depending entirely on that “eye service”, which Mr P. complains of as the besetting sin of modern recitation. In the same spirit he professes to distinguish with difficulty between ǎn´us and an′nus—which with his good ear, & familiarity with Italian pronunciation, I must really ascribe to that voluntary deafness, which of all others is thought to be the least curable. There are many other matters to which I could advert, & new objections to “the system” which occur to me every day;—but am quite averse to any further discussion of this thread bare subject. I cannot help regretting, in the name of literature, the precious time & labour Mr Price has wasted on this ειδωλον [8] —(for such it is in every sense of the word) & wish heartily he had taken up the pen of Longinus or Burke, instead of that of Hephæstion or Foster. The character of the present work I think may be summed up in Quintilians remark upon Seneca—“velles eum suo ingenio dixisse, alieno judicio”. [9]
I had almost forgotten;—you requested my opinion on the Chapter of Elision. It is I think by far the best part of the book—& I entirely subscribe to Mr Ps opinion of the necessity of some alteration in this respect in our reading of Latin—tho’ I do not know that I am prepared to go quite as far as Mr P. & do away the elided syllable entirely if refractory; which I think would be often productive of harshness, & sometimes of ambiguity. Take as instances of each, two lines which Mr P. has himself proposed for such alteration.
Primus ib’ ant’omnes—clear
Nec mihi jam patri’ antiquam spes ulla ardent [10]
equivoque
I should be inclined to imitate as nearly as possible, the method intimated by Quintilian with regard to the Latin m (Mr P. page 64) & read as it were
Primus ib y’ant y’omnes”—
where our English “y” very well supports the rôle of the “cujusdam novæ litteræ,” and “tantum aliquid inter duas vocales velut nota est, ne ipsæ coeant”. [11] Unless I mistake,—this is nearly akin to the Italian mode of reading such lines.
“Succhi amari ingannato intanto ei beve”, [12]
where the superfluous syllables & time are got rid of by a graceful slur, or semi-elision. The |basic|
Succh’ amar’ ingannat’ intant’ e’ beve,
would not be tolerated. The Latin m tho’ a liquid, is certainly a tough morsel: what shall we say to the old elision of the S, which is a mute, & therefore still more intractable? Since however the attainder against him has been classically reversed, & he is again “rectus in curiâ” [13] we have no concern with old grievances.
You mentioned (I think) that the work of Dionysius Halicarn: is not in your possession; which has induced me to transcribe his characters of the different feet. By the way, strictly speaking no word of more than three syllables is a foot (“numerus est, non pes”—Quintil) [14]
Pyrrhic —ουτε μεγαλοπρεπης ουτε σεμνος
Spondee —αξιωμα εχει μεγα και σεμνοτητα πολλην
Iambus —ουκ εστιν ουκ αγενης
Trochee —μαλακωτερος ιαμβου και αγενεστερος
Choreus (˘ ˘ ˘) ταπεινος και ασεμνος και αγενης, και ουδεν εξ αυτου γενοιτο γενναιον
Molossus––υψηλος τε και αξιωματικος και διαβεβηκως ως επι πολυ
Amphibrachys —ου σφοδρα των ευσχημονων εστι μετρων αλλα διακεκλασται τε και πολυ το θηλυ και αγενες.
Anapæst —σεμνοτητα εχει πολλην, και ενθα δει μεγεθος περι θειναι τοις πραγμασιν η παθος επιτηδειος εστι παραλαμβανεσθαι
Dactyl ––πανυ σεμνος, και εις καλλος αρμονιας αξιολογωτατος, και το γε ηρωικον μετρον απο τουτω κοσμειται ως επι το πολυ
Creticus — (–˘–) ουκ αγενης
Bacchius (––˘) ανδρωδες, σεμνολογον
Hypobacchius (˘––) αξιωμα εχει και μεγεθος [15]
Pray excuse this hasty & slovenly scrawl & believe me
Dear Miss Barrett
most sincerely yours
J. Commeline Junr
I have been truly concerned to hear of the serious indisposition of Mrs Barrett. Pray give my kind regards to your whole fire-side.
Publication: None traced.
Manuscript: Brown University.
1. “Statements.”
2. “This was in my prayers” (Horace, Satires, II, vi. 1).
3. “So great was the struggle to found the Roman state” (Vergil, Æneid, I, 33).
4. Mr. Commeline wrote “Long & Short,” then transposed the words by placing numerals 2 and 1 over “Long” and “Short” respectively.
5. An onomatopoeic word of no real meaning, denoting, as stated, the dripping of water in a clepsydra.
6. A continuation of the quotation of note 2, with doubled consonants. The additional phrase means “a portion of land not so very large.”
7. Commeline apparently meant to write “rapprochements,” meaning “comparisons.”
8. “Phantom.”
9. “You could wish that he had spoken with his own intelligence but with the judgement of others” (Institutio Oratoria, X, 130).
10. These two lines are from the Æneid, II, lines 40 and 137. They translate as “There foremost of all” and “And now for me there is no hope of seeing my old country.”
11. Both these quotations come from Institutio Oratoria, IX, 4, 40. They mean, respectively, “Of some new letter” and “Only something between two vowels, just as a symbol, to prevent their coalescence.”
12. “Bitter juice hidden with drink” (Torquato Tasso’s La Gerusalemme Liberata, I, 3, 7).
13. “Upright in court” (i.e., with clean hands).
14. “It’s a measure, not a foot” (Institutio Oratoria, IX, 4, 95).
15. In Chapter XVII of De Compositione Verborum Dionysius Halicarnassus describes the characteristics of the different rhythmical feet. Mr. Commeline has given the essence of these remarks, without copying them exactly. The attributes of the feet translate as:
Pyrrhic: neither magnificent nor stately
Spondee: it has great honour and much dignity
Iambus: not unworthy
Trochee: weaker than the iambus and less noble
Choreus: base, undignified, and ignoble, and nothing high-minded may come of it
Molossus: extremely lofty, dignified and spacious
Amphibrachys: not an especially decorous measure, but enervated and excessively feminine and ignoble
Anapaest: has great stateliness and so imparts importance to things or is appropriate in connection with emotion
Dactyl: extremely stately and most important in the arrangement of beautiful harmony, and on account of this most employed in heroic metre
Creticus; not ignoble
Bacchius: manly, solemn speed
Hypobacchius: has dignity and greatness
___________________
