333.7. Edmund Henry Barker to EBB
This late entry would have appeared in The Brownings’ Correspondence, vol. 2.
Thetford,
Febr. 7, 1829.
“Paetus having received orders to die, & appearing to be in some concern, Arria stabbed herself, & gave him the dagger, saying—Paete, non dolet:
Casta suo gladium cum traderet Arria Paeto,
Quem de visceribus traxerat ipsa suis,
Si qua fides, vulnus quod feci, non dolet, inquit,
Sed quod tu facies, hoc mihi, Paete, dolet.
Martial Epigr. 1, 14.
I believe it is impossible to make a good Epigram upon this story. The words, Paete, non dolet, cannot be paraphrased without losing much of their beauty. In the last line is expressed a tenderness & fondness, which does not well suit with that heroic love so strongly marked in Arria’s words & behaviour.” Dr Jortin.
Lord Chedworth, in a Letter to my friend, the Rev. Thos Crompton, made the following remarks on the above passage:—“The criticism, on the Epigram on Paetus & Arria, appears to me to be perfectly just. I once heard repeated a Translation of this Epigram made by old Stisted: I thought it exceedingly good. I remember the two last lines; they are these:
’Tis done, and trust me not a pang succeeds;
For Arria feels not till her Paetus bleeds.”
I shall comment on this criticism of Jortin, approved by Lord Chedworth, in the second volume of the Parriana. Does it meet your approbation? I think that you will like my comment.
When, in reference to the jury-question, you remark that ‘one voice may avert the doom pronounced by many voices,’ you must recollect that the argument cuts both ways, & that the obstinacy of one man may fix the doom of an innocent person, & it is better, you know, for 10 guilty persons to escape than for one innocent man to suffer. I doubt the truth of the remark, which you have heard, ‘that the obstinacy of an individual is almost undeviatingly on the side of mercy.’ We may lay down this as a general rule that no one person among the jury should have the power of forcing a verdict contrary to the evidence. If a single instance has ever occurred, it is sufficient to shew that the system is bad, & ought to be amended; for what has occurred once, may occur again. Do not say that this question is ‘out of your way’; for you have argued it very well, & your reasoning is acute enough to satisfy many clever persons.
In respect to the note in the Parriana, I discern in what you say, the same acuteness & ingenuity, & when I have explained a little, we shall not be found to differ so very widely. I am sorry that I did not so express myself in the note as to prevent any misconception. You ask if, it is not the object of my note to oppose Porson’s acquiremts to Parr’s? I answer, No—merely to contrast one great scholar with another, & to assign to each the praise which belongs to him. I only make Parr the geologist, & Porson the mineralogist, Parr the phililogist, Porson the critic; Parr the philosopher, Porson the grammarian. I did not mean to deny Porson’s general ability to construe Plutarch’s Greek; he would have construed it grammatically as well as any person; but it belongs to a philosophical mind like Parr’s to construe it both grammatically & philosophically. When Porson spoke of the difficulty of construing Plutarch, I consider him as referring, not to the corruptions of the text, (sadly numerous,) nor to the grammatical structure of the sentences, (often involved & puzzling,) but to the nice ethical & philosophical matter interspersed through his writings, the difficulty of understanding which Porson had felt so keenly as candidly to avow to Mr Taylor (a philosopher) that Plutarch was ‘too much’ for him; & so Plato, (a good part of him,) & Plotinus, & Aristotle were ‘too much’ for him, & ‘too much’ for any verbal critic, even for Dr Bentley himself, the ‘princeps criticorum’, but not ‘too much’ for Hermann, because he has a philosophical mind. Gray the Poet was an admirable scholar, but, though he translated a good deal of Plato, Mr Taylor will prove to you in the second vol. of the Parriana that he knew nothing of Plato’s philosophy. Plato, then, was ‘too much’ for Gray. The praise of general scholarship belongs to a man like Parr, & to a man like Hermann, & though both are very inferior to Porson as critics, yet they exhibit more mind, more reading, more extended scholarship. Hemsterhuis was a scholar vastly superior to Porson, but how inferior to him as a critic! When I sent Sir Uvedale Price’s book to Dr Coray, the modern Greek, & the most enlightened of men among scholars, he spoke of Sir Uvedale’s ‘vast knowledge.’ The worthy Baronet laughed heartily, because he is not a deep scholar. Excellence in any one department of scholarship naturally leads us to infer excellence in every other. So I might say that next to Bentley, Porson was the greatest critic of modern times, but I would not say of either that they were the best scholars; for Hemsterhuis, (facile princeps,) Ruhnken, & Valckenaer were better scholars in the best sense of the word. That Porson was perfectly well acquainted with Plutarch as far as relates to his quotations from Comic & Tragic writers, I admit; but I think it certain that he read Plutarch, not with a view to understand his writings or his philosophy, but only with a view to the illustration of the Tragedians: so he quotes Clemens Alexandrinus, but he knew nothing of & cared nothing for the deep theology of Clemens, which interested Parr. You must recollect too that all the quotations made by critics are not original; they have in very many instances been made by former critics. Perhaps I shall surprise you by this remark, viz. that Porson had very little biblical criticism in him. Indeed, you will say? How, then, came he to manifest so much in the Letters to Travis? I answer that he made himself master of the subject for the mere purpose of answering Travis, & by the aid of his vast diligence, memory, acuteness etc. soon displayed as much knowledge as if he had made biblical criticisms as much the study of his life as Parr had done. You will set all this down to the account of my free & unfettered way of reasoning. To have a mind free from prejudice & open to all truth, is the nearest approximation, which man can make to Deity; for virtue is only truth in action, & goodness is truth. I hope that I have satisfied you that there was no intention on my part to detract from the merits of Porson, & that I entertain a just sense of them in spite of my note!
I send to you Mr Taylor’s Life, or rather a sketch of it by Mr Welsh.
My definition of the Picturesque, (almost long enough for a description,) founded on Sir Uvedale’s book is this:—Picturesque objects are those, which from intricacy of parts or variety of colours,—from sudden diversity produced by roughness & irregularity,—from partial concealments & perpetual change, exciting pleasurable feelings & awakening lively curiosity, are very often selected by the landscape-painter for representation on his canvas. No shorter definition will convey a full idea of the word, & before you approve or censure it, you must turn over the leaves of Sir Uvedale’s book.
I remain, dear Madam, with respect & esteem,
Your friend & servant,
E. H. Barker
Addressed and franked by Robert Price on integral page: Miss Barrett / Hope End / Ledbury / Robert Price.
Publication: None traced.
Manuscript: Armstrong Browning Library.
___________________
