1270. EBB to Mary Russell Mitford
As published in The Brownings’ Correspondence, 7, 163–165.
[London]
June 1st 1843
My dearest friend you mistake a little in your view of the Austen controversy. I thought you wd know what I meant by denying the beauty. I meant of course, the poet’s beauty, the ideal! that which Mr Kenyon denies to the Neighbours, & wd not deny, if he read the book through. [1]
Ah—you talk of ‘Persuasion’!—& you may well talk of ‘Persuasion’—because there is more of the Beautiful in an intense sense, in that work, than in all the rest of Jane Austen’s writings. It is in fact an exception, and proves the rule.
My very dear friend, I no more think of denying her perfection in her sphere, than I deny the rainyness of this May .. or rather of that May—for suddenly I remember that it has struck June! She is perfect in what she attempts—she is admirable in all that she undertakes: but the excellence lies, I do hold, rather in the execution than the aspiration. It is a narrow, earthly, & essentially unpoetical view of life: it is only half a true view. Her human creatures never look up; and when they look within it is not deeply. We rise from her books, .. amused, pleased .. charmed, if you like it .. but elevated & purified in soul, we never rise. Now is not this the true statement? Conventional Life is not the Inward Life .. and a writer who is not one-sided, must comprehend both in his view of Humanity. Jane Austen is one-sided—and her side is the inferior & darkest side. God, Nature, the Soul … what does she say, or suggest of these? what proof does she give of consciousness of these? She is, I must repeat my persuasion, essentially unpoetical, … & does not even approach so nearly to Ideal beauty, as Natural picturesqueness! In her works we do not discern even “the trees” … much less, the voice of God stirring them.
Shakespeare!!
Moreover, as you seem fixed in resolve never to read the “Neighbours”, I must correct (out of justice .. to say nothing of love to Frederica Bremer) certain impressions of yours my dearest Miss Mitford, which are not altogether accurate. She is not an imitator—& least of all is she an imitator of any English writer. What the Athenæum said was simply to this effect––“We have had no such vivid details of life, since Jane Austen & Galt.” [2] Your name was not mentioned. There is no possible ground for a foundation of such a charge as imitation—no similarity, either to yourself, Jane Austen, or Galt—only it naturally strikes the observer that she is of one mind with Jane Austen in her fondness for & success in minute descriptions of domestic & social middle life, .. while, unlike Jane Austen, she comprehends with a sweet & holy simplicity, the deeper Inward Life. Indeed, I wish I cd persuade you to read the books, ‘Neighbours’ & ‘Home’, & consent to be pleased by them. If you trust so much to popularity, you shd do it on this occasion—for all the reviewers & almost all the readers have canonized these volumes: their success has been very great. For my own part, you know what I think in general about popularity. And yet I think, that books addressed to the people .. written for popular uses & sympathies .. like these of Frederica Bremer’s,—are properly to be judged by the contemporaneous public, .. & that such a judgment on such a subject, is worthy of acceptation. In regard to deeper works .. & more especially in regard to poetry .. I certainly cannot choose but believe firmly that you are wrong, & that facts past & present contradict your view.
As to Mary Howitt, she does not write elegant or even good English prose—but she writes beautiful English ballads, [3] & deserves, I must think, her fame. “Chére mére” was no deed of her’s, you know [4] —& Miss Bremer meant it only for a “pet name”, in which character you ought to forgive it.
Ah—but, I am not going to quarrel quite to the end of this letter: I stop here (altho’ I see the Revd Robert [Montgomery] coupled with Bulwer) … leaving the “vinigar” to make up for what I might say more. I send three bottles of this vinegar, my dearest friend, .. and, I hope, Mr Horne’s epic .. & I sigh, not to have the chocolate to put up with the rest. We quarrel dreadfully about books, it seems to me .. I being generally counsel for the defendant! And yet Mr Kenyon says I am “fastidious”. The truth is, that I expect a great deal,—& forgive a great deal.
Dearest friend, I wish you had told me to get something for you here in the way of furniture. I shd have liked to have bought the chintz for your drawingro[o]m, for instance: but when you mentioned it, it seemed too late .. & I was innocent of the knowledge [5] of the desirable colour & quantity. Fire irons I would have sent—only Crow began to wonder what Miss Mitford wd think of my oddity in offering her a poker & a pair of tongs, .. & we came to a stand-still about the dimensions of the fender. My dearest friend, tell me something to do for you!– Can you send back the chintz, & let me be in time? Let me send you some chintz, .. for you & Flushie!–
There is nothing peculiar in Mr Eagles’s calligraphy—& Professor Norton’s, I shd fancy, to be the writing, of no very refined person—nor of ‘a genius’!– But it is a kind pleasing letter .. & I like it too much to be at my ease in drawing nativities from it. [6]
Mrs Dupuy’s trial does not come on (by a new arrangement) until tomorrow, friday—& I hear that her mind is distracted a little from that anxiety, by the approaching publication of a book of costumes ... or did I tell you this before? [7]
Mr Kenyon is shut up with his guests.
May God bless you .. I end as unwillingly as I dare say Methuselah did. [8]
Ever your attached
EBB.
Address: Miss Mitford / Three Mile Cross / Near Reading.
Publication: EBB-MRM, II, 238–240.
Manuscript: Eton College Library and Wellesley College.
1. EBB is clarifying remarks made in letter 1266.
2. For The Athenæum’s comments, see letter 1258, note 17.
3. Mrs. Howitt had published The Desolation of Eyam, and Other Poems in 1827, Tales in Verse in 1836 and Hymns and Fireside Verses in 1839.
4. i.e., the use of the French (“Beloved mother”) was the author’s, not the translator’s.
5. Macbeth, III, 2, 45.
6. Andrews Norton (1786–1853), Professor of Sacred Literature at Harvard 1819–30, was the author of Evidences of the Genuineness of the Gospels (1837–44).
7. EBB had mentioned Mrs. Dupuy’s book in letter 1266.
8. i.e., his presumed reluctance to face death, even after living for 969 years (Genesis, 5:27).
___________________
