and a very expressive one from the _Theogony_—
Νικησαντες χερσιν ὑπερθυμους περ εοντας
Page 54. By laying our accent wherever the Romans laid theirs, and
nowhere else, we have left them but one dissyllabic foot in the
language. Should we not, even by the misapplied accentual rule, give the
Romans one or two iambi? It appears so; if there be any correctness in a
note attached to my edition of Foster, where I find an extract from
Ælius Donatus (supported by Victorinus) who makes some exceptions to the
general rule of the accent falling on the _first_ of dissyllables “pro
causa discretionis, ut in adverbio _pone_, ideo ne verbum putetur
imperativi modi:—ut in ea particula quæ est _ergo_.” From which, it
appears that our measure of absurdity is not yet filled up; that accent
(or rather, as you would say, _quantity_, under its name) having turned
so many iambi into trochees, has to do now; pro causa discretionis; the
very different office of turning trochees into iambi; or else cry
peccavi,—_pro causa discretionis_ indeed! This is a case analogous to
that you mentioned to Mr. Commeline, of Θοαι and _diu_, and which he
tried to get rid of by the adoption of a monosyllabic pronunciation. But
such a measure, could it be admitted in that case, is no _panacea_,—as
is obvious from the present case of _pone_ and _ergo_.
Page 81. You observe relatively to the first lines of Virgil, first
eclogue, that if an advocate for the system gave a length to _tu_ and
_nos_ for the sake of expression “he would do wrong in respect to his
system and its rules,—one of which is that all unaccented syllables
should be quickly passed over to the next accented one.” I will submit
to you with deference whether you do not rather _beg the question_ by
calling _tu_ and _nos_ “unaccented syllables.” You are well aware of the
old rule so simply and clearly stated by Franciscus Sanctius,—“accentum
in se monosyllaba dictio ponit;” and tho’ the rule be, in practice,
modified by the doctrine of atonics, yet I have some doubts,—and, _a
fortiori_, an advocate of the system might possibly have,—whether such
discriminating monosyllables should not in recitation be _separated_
from the neighbouring words, on account of the expression; and so claim
a _length_ even on accentual principles. This is an impression which
perhaps I should not have felt but for want of better information, and
which I certainly should not communicate to you but in desire of it.
You have now the whole history of my doubts and difficulties; as I have
reported them very faithfully in obedience to your desire. The obedience
was at least a proof of my confidence in your kindness; and in that
light I hope you will consider it; for I have run a great risk in
passing such an _Ægæan_ in such a _scaphula_. My _general_ debt of
information, to you, is put down among those singular debts which are
pleasant to think of, and which the debtor can never be expected to
repay, but I must be allowed to thank you in particular for that
_percussion vers le fin_ you give the _Abbate Scopha_. It is extremely
forcible and entertaining,—and presents an example of your peculiar
manner of amusing your readers—by _convincing_ them. You have indeed
made it abundantly clear that the Abbate for his system’s credit should
have been _muet_ as his French _e_. But, tho’ I have put off making the
charge so long, my poetical conscience wont let me rest till I accuse
you of committing heinous profanation in page 48; first by quoting _Wīll
ŏ thĕ Wīsp_ contemptuously as “a little phrase,” and secondly by
introducing it to your readers in such company as _Jāck ĭn ă bōx´_ |
_Mōuse ĭn ă chēese´_, Būg ĭn ă rūg´, &c. And should you really feel
“some regret” if it became the fashion to say _Wĭll ō thĕ Wĭsp_—Bŭg īn ă
rūg &c.? Our poets, from Milton upwards and downwards, who have
sanctified the first of those “little phrases” in their melodious
verses, would sympathize feelingly in your regret; and might beg you at
the same time to disengage Will o’ the wisp from Bug in a rug forthwith.
Could not rīddle mĕ rēe do your business as well, without sacrificing
such an Iphigenia?
I have done reading your correspondence with Mr. Commeline; and with all
your adversary’s ingenuity, am considerably confirmed in my convictions
on your side. I thought it odd that an article of the Edinburgh Review
should be referred to, on a philological subject; and, on looking into
the one which Mr. Commeline calls the ‘Manual of his heresy,’ I was
surprised to find us accused there of subverting the true metrical
structure of Latin hexameters, even according to the accentual system
“by _not_ laying our accent on the _long_ syllable, and by laying it on
the short ones.” The Reviewer seems confused in his speculations: but
that passage is so decidedly in favour of your position that I think you
can hardly have seen the article or would have retorted Mr. Commeline’s
own _Manual_ on himself.
Papa was very glad to see you at Hereford, and _I_ was very glad to hear
from him, _nomine mutato_, exactly what you have since said of _his_
good looks. We hope to have favorable accounts of you all; dear Miss
Price in particular, and, with our best regards,
Believe me
Your grateful
E. B. BARRETT.[1]
Footnote 1:
Mrs. Browning’s name was Elizabeth Barrett Barrett before her
marriage.
_Of this letter twenty-five copies only
have been privately printed by Clement
Shorter for distribution among his
friends._
_London. December 1916._
------------------------------------------------------------------------