length of the penultima as well as of the elevation of the antepenultima, why was not that long quantity also marked? It was surely as important an ingredient in the pronunciation as the accent. And although the letter omega might in such a word show the quantity, yet what do you say to such words as λελόγχασι, τύψασα, and the like — the quantity of the penultima of which is not marked to the eye at all? Besides, can we altogether disregard the practice of the modern Greeks? Their confusion of accent and quantity in verse is of course a barbarism, though a very old one, as the versus politici of John Tzetzes in the twelfth century and * See his Chiliads. The sort of verses to which Mr. Coleridge alluded are the following, which those who consider the scansion to be accentual, take for tetrameter catalectic iambics, like (ὡς ἡδὺ και [ νοῖς πράγμασιν ¦ καὶ δεξιοῖς | ὁμιλεῖν —) ὁπόσον δύ | ναιτο λαβεῖν | ἐκέλευε | χρυσίον. the Anacreontics prefixed to Proclus will show; but these very examples prove a fortiori what the common pronunciation in prose then was. Ἡ Ερεχθέως Πρόκρις τε καὶ Πραξιθέας κόρη. Chil. I. I'll climb the frost | y mountains high |, and there I'll coin the weather; I'll tear the rain | bow from the sky |, and tie both ends together. Some critics, however, maintain these verses to be trochaics, although very loose and faulty. See Foster, p. 113. A curious instance of the early confusion of accent and quantity may be seen in Prudentius, who shortens the penultima in eremus and idola, from ἔρημος and εἴδωλα. Cui jejuna eremi saxa loquacibus Exundant scatebris, &c. Cathemer. V. 89. cognatumque malum, pigmenta, Camœnas, Idola, conflavit fallendi trina potestas. Cont. Symm. 47.- ED. I AM never very forward in offering spiritual consolation to any one in distress or disease. I believe that such resources, to be of any service, must be self-evolved in the first instance. I am something of the Quaker's mind in this, and am inclined to wait for the spirit. The most common effect of this mock evangelical spirit, especially with young women, is self-inflation and busy-bodyism. How strange and awful is the synthesis of life and death in the gusty winds and falling leaves of an autumnal day! ROSETTI August 25. 1833. ON DANTE. LAUGHTER: FARCE AND TRAGEDY. ROSETTI's view of Dante's meaning is in great part just, but he has pushed it beyond all bounds of common sense. How could a poet and such a poet as Dante - have written the details of the allegory as conjectured by Rosetti? The boundaries between his allegory and his pure picturesque are plain enough, I think, at first reading. To resolve laughter into an expression of contempt is contrary to fact, and laughable enough. Laughter is a convulsion of the nerves; and it seems as if nature cut short the rapid thrill of pleasure on the nerves by a sudden convulsion of them, to prevent the sensation becoming painful. Aristotle's de finition is as good as can be:- surprise at perceiving any thing out of its usual place, when the unusualness is not accompanied by a sense of serious danger. Such surprise is always pleasurable; and it is observable that surprise accompanied with circumstances of danger becomes tragic. Hence farce may often border on tragedy; indeed, farce is nearer tragedy in its essence than comedy is. August 28. 1833. BARON VON HUMBOLDT.-MODERN DIPLOMATISTS. BARON VON HUMBOLDT, brother of the great traveller, paid me the following compliment at Rome. "I confess, Mr. Coleridge, I had my suspicions that you were here in a political capacity of some sort or other; but upon reflection I acquit you. For in Germany and, I believe, elsewhere on |