1711. EBB to Julia Martin
As published in The Brownings’ Correspondence, 9, 132–134.
[London]
Sept– 10– 1844.
My dearest Mrs Martin, I will not lose a post in assuring you that I was not silent because of any disappointment from your previous letter. I could only feel the kindness of that letter—and this was certainly the chief & uppermost feeling, at the time of reading it & since– Your preference of the ‘Seraphim,’ one other person besides yourself, has acknowledged to me in the same manner [1] —and although I myself, .. perhaps from the natural leaning to last works, & perhaps from a wise recognition of the complete failure of the poem called the ‘Seraphim’, do disagree with you, yet I can easily forgive you for such a thought, & believe that you see sufficient grounds for entertaining it. More & more I congratulate myself (at any rate) for the decision I came to at the last moment, & in the face of some persuasions, to call the book ‘Poems,’ instead of trusting its responsibility to the drama, by such a title as a “Drama of Exile & poems.” It is plain, as I anticipated, that for one person who is ever so little pleased with the Drama, fifty, at least, will like the smaller poems. And perhaps they are right. The longer sustaining of a subject requires of course more power—and I may have failed in it altogether.
Yes—I think I may say that I am satisfied so far, with the aspect of things in relation to the book. You see there has scarcely been time yet to give any, except a sanguine or despondent judgement,——I mean, there is scarcely room yet for forming a very rational inference of what will ultimately be,—without the presentiments of hope or fear. The book came out too late in August, for any chance of a mention in the September magazines—& at the dead time of year,—when the very critics were thinking more of holiday-innocence than of their carnivorous instincts. This will not hurt it ultimately, although it might have hurt a novel– The regular critics will come back to it,—& in the meantime the newspaper critics are noticing it all round, with more or less admissions to its advantage. The ‘Atlas’ is the best of the newspapers for literary notices, [2] —& it spoke graciously on the whole,—though I do protest against being violently attached to a “school.” I have faults enough, I know; but it is just to say that they are at least my own– Well, then! It is true that the Westminster Review says briefly what is great praise, & promises to take the earliest opportunity of reviewing me “at large.” [3] So that with regard to the critics, there seems to be a good prospect. Then I have had some very pleasant private letters—one from Carlyle—an oath from Miss Martineau to give her whole mind to the work & tell me her free & full opinion .. which I have not received yet [4] —: an assurance from an acquaintance of Mrs Jameson that she was much pleased. But the letter which pleased me most was addressed to me by a professional critic, personally unknown to me, who wrote to say that he had traced me up, step by step, ever since I began to print, & that my last volumes were so much better than any preceding them, & were such living books, that they restored to him the impulses of his youth & constrained him to thank me for the pleasant emotions they had excited– I cannot say the name of the writer of this letter, because he asked me not to do so [5] —but of course it was very pleasant to read– Now you will not call me vain for speaking of this. I would not speak of it,—only I want (you see) to prove to you how faithfully & gratefully I have a trust in your kindness & sympathy. It is certainly the best kindness to speak the truth to me– I have written those poems as well as I could—and I hope to write others better. I have not reached my own ideal,—& I cannot expect to have satisfied other people’s expectation. But it is (as I sometimes say) the least ignoble part of me, .. that I love poetry better than I love my own successes in it–
I am glad that you like the ‘Lost Bower.’ The scene of that poem is the wood above the garden at Hope End– [6]
It is very true my dearest Mrs Martin, all that you say about the voyage to Alexandria. And I do not feel the anxiety I thought I should– In fact, I am surprised to feel so little anxiety. Still, when they are at home again, I shall be happier than I am now—that, I feel strongly besides!
What I missed most in your first letter, was what I do not miss in the second, the good news of dear Mr Martin– Both he & you are very vain-glorious, I suppose, about O’Connell; but although I was delighted on every account at his late victory, or rather at the late victory of justice & constitutional law, .. he never was a hero of mine & is not likely to become one. If he had been (by the way) a hero of mine, I shd have been quite ashamed of him for being so unequal to his grand position as was demonstrated by the speech from the balcony. Such poetry in the position—& such prose in the speech! [7] He has not the stuff in him of which heroes are made. There is a thread of cotton everywhere, crossing the silk–
How do you mean to let your land? as potatoe land? or for cottages? I hope that no interest of the sort will incline either of you to stay in Herefordshire through November– I do hope not. You are very kind to George,—and he wd receive kindness as willingly from scarcely any one as from you– By the way—or rather, .. quite out of the way .. how is your new post office arranged? Is Great Malvern your post town now? and is Colwall Green your “Branch office”? We have been holding a council of high deliberation over the postmarks of your envelope. With our united love to both of you,
Ever, dearest Mrs Martin,
most affectionately yours
Ba
Oh—Lord Brougham! I forgot! You are very severe! I forgot to say that I do think you the severest of critics, for that insinuation.
Publication: LEBB, I, 193–196 (in part).
Manuscript: Wellesley College.
1. Thomas Westwood also expressed a preference for “The Seraphim” over “A Drama of Exile” (see letter 1694).
2. For the text of this review, see pp. 326–330.
3. See letter 1707, note 5.
4. See letter 1693 for Miss Martineau’s promise to give a complete opinion, which she fulfills in letter 1717.
5. i.e., Chorley, as previously mentioned (see letter 1705, note 4).
6. In letter 1729, EBB tells Boyd that “The Lost Bower” was “an actual fact of my childhood.” However, EBB had previously told Boyd that the poem was “about nothing at all in particular” (see letter 1157).
7. On 4 September, the House of Lords reversed the judgment against Daniel O’Connell for conspiracy that had been passed earlier in 1844 in Ireland. After his release from prison on the evening of 6 September, O’Connell spoke from the balcony of his house. According to The Times for 9 September 1844, O’Connell said that “in other countries it was generally rogues and vagabonds that were sent to gaol, which was not the case in Ireland, as they were all aware that he and his brother martyrs were doomed to imprisonment for endeavouring to make their fellow-men free.”
___________________
