1788. EBB to Mary Russell Mitford
As published in The Brownings’ Correspondence, 9, 278–283.
[London]
Monday, Dec 16 1844.
Yes, but my dearest friend, do I not agree with you in much? Did I not say in my letter that I would not, if I could, have mesmerism put down, or any truth put down, or any power of nature put down? Did I not say so from the beginning? Moreover & when experiment shall have sufficiently proved the extent & character of the power, I would not confine its uses as you would,—& I do not at all see what reason you have for saying of this mysterious power, .. which, according to the evidence received of it, works both in the spiritual & physical departments of human nature, .. that it ought to be limited to the physical. What reason can you have for saying that it should be used only as a remedial agent? Surely the most utilitarian of Utilitarians could not, even according to their own chief dogma, decide so, logically. Why if this is a new faculty or a newly educed faculty, it belongs surely & in the first degree, to the moral philosopher! If this faculty gives prescience, insight & a vision of things unspeakable, besides suggesting cures for deseases, .. surely you have no right to say .. “it shall be available for the last & not for the first,—for the body & not for the soul’[’]—for the less thing & not for the greater. Moreover, if the object be to attain a clear idea of the nature of the subject & the power, surely it does not appear the most obvious & clear means of doing so, to take one’s experiments from persons in a deseased state rather than in a healthy state—both deseased & healthy persons being susceptible of the influence. Do you think it is? Therefore, .. absolutely agreeing with you in thinking that Mesmerism ought not to be put down, if it could—but on the contrary investigated to the utmost, .. I, as absolutely, venture to disagree with you on the other head, of its being applied as a remedial agent in indiscriminate cases of sickness only, .. & without waiting for the result of investigation. If I were a man of medical science, I should shrink from advising a patient of mine to take that leap in the dark, [1] .. which the appliance of mesmerism, in the present state of blank ignorance of its nature & operations, must be admitted to be—except where my patient might be in a hopeless state otherwise, & with such a desire of the experiment, as wd free me from the responsibility. There are many medical men, who believe in the power, & yet forswear themselves seven times a day in denying it, [2] simply because they conceive of it also that it is highly injurious in some cases to the nervous system of the patient, &, in some cases, of fatal influence. I do not say that they are right in their conjecture—and I know that they are wrong in their lie. The blind obstinacy of the whole body of medical men, as a body, in refusing the assent of their understanding to evidence, & in laughing to scorn [3] what they should rather make it their business & duty to test & investigate, appears to me in the highest degree dishonoring to them. But if in the present state of things, they practised mesmerism indiscriminately among their patients, they would be to blame in another way, & that, perhaps, a still more dangerous way. Now, do you see what I mean? And will you not admit that there is reason in it? What Miss Martineau says of the agency being used with prudence as a remedial agency, strikes me as a mistaken expression—because there can be no prudence where everything is experimental. Prudence is the practical use of knowledge. Where there is no knowledge at all, there may be indeed the cautious trying of an experiment, but the prudent treatment of a patient there cannot be, according to the common acceptation of words.
As to Mesmerism, it may be for good or for evil—I do not know. My feeling of repulsion is so strong about it, that I would willingly disbelieve it if I could. That is just the truth. But I believe in it, and agree with you that it ought to be investigated thoroughly,—& (going farther than you) in all its bearings. What I dwell upon most, is precisely what you try to reject—but which you cannot reject, try as you may, because it is a part of the truth, & carries with it as broad evidence as the rest. Of course, the subject has been making way for a long time—only Harriet Martineau’s testimony, as the testimony of an honest & able woman, is strong & impulsive to belief still further. What I admire in her is her courage in speaking the truth at the expense of the personal exposure, which, if she is a woman at all, must be painful to her—a more miserable exposure, I deeply agree with you, than Godiva’s own. And is it possible that you have no admiration for Godiva? Could not even Tennyson teach you any?
As for the Athenæum papers, I do not extol the judgment shown in the whole publication,—nor the logic of the latter parts. There are inconsequences in many places, & infelicitous expressions in still more. But to speak the truth as she apprehends it, at such a cost, & to bear the penalty so highheartedly, does strike me as worthy of Harriet Martineau, & of all our admirations—even of yours!
But she was magnetized by a woman. I thought of what you tell me—I know that such things are attributed .. which is one of the minor causes, by the way, of my repulsions, .. —but she was magnetized by a woman; & her statement makes it clear. How dared they say it then?
Did you read her own account of “her speech at the American meeting,” [4] absurdly so called?– Why you might have made such a speech yourself at such a meeting, & be none the less a loveable woman–!
For the population doctrines, I am aware how things can be misconceived, & misrepresented. I am aware how men speak—& how women speak. The advocacy of a woman’s rights, also, will at any time disprove the theory of the advocate, by a great cry of horrified women on all sides—and she has suffered from this, in addition to the other. Think of a female friend writing to me the other day from the country, .. a woman of intelligence & refinement .. “I do not like Mrs Jameson. She is uneasy because women are not as wicked as men.” Such are the thanks of our sex to such women as advocate what they call our rights<—such understanding is given to their arguments>! [5] & from such observations comes my full conviction, that women have quite as many rights already, as they know how to use without wrongs. When I said lightly to Mr Boyd one day that the difference between men & women aro<se> from the inferiority of the education of the latter, he asked me why the education was inferior, & so brought the argument to an end. I shd not dare to write so to a common woman,—but you, who are a woman & man in one, will judge if it is’nt a hard & difficult process for a woman to get forgiven for her strength by her grace. You who have accomplished this, know it is hard—& every woman of letters knows it is hard. Sometimes there is too much strength in proportion to the grace—and then .. O miserable woman!– [6] The abuse which even I, with my narrow notions of society, have heard lavished on that poor, noble Harriet Martineau, is beyond my repeating! And the why!—the why!– And surely we do owe, as women, our righteous indignation to such “villanie,” .. as old Chaucer wd call it righteously.
No—I have not seen the letter of Wordsworth—nor heard of it. I saw the sonnet, which you of course saw, & which gave me so much offence by the prose note attached to it beginning .. “This is not mere poetry, but truth”—or something to that effect! [7] So unworthy of a poet, as giving into the vulgar notion of poetry & truth being different things!! Also, I saw Mon[c]kton Milnes’s sonnet in reply—very good—but not one of his best sonnets. [8] Certainly, if Mr Wordsworth wrote such a letter as was described to you, & the writing of which I cannot help doubting, it is not only unworthy of him but an abnegation of his whole poetical life. To oppose the establishing of the railroad was wrong, but to use the argument in question, was atrocious. I cannot believe that he ever used it. If he did, it certainly was as Laureat, & not as poet. [9]
Have you read the Conseiller d’Etat by Soulié? [10] I mean to dun you a little about Soulié.
Be sure that we agree on mesmerism, more than appears. Only I believe more than you do—that is clear. And you are more inclined to a rash practising upon deseases, than I am inclined to admit—that is clear. Also you recoil less than I, with the shrinking of horror in the blood—but that is the effect of your believing less than I. And so we go on in a circle.
My voice is still too low for Lear. [11] But the frost has gone & the wind may change some day. What joy, to see you! What kindness to think of coming! I am happy in the very expectation.
My beloved friend, may God bless you. Are dogs susceptible to the mesmeric influence? I want to interrogate Flush’s soul. I am delighted that your aristocraticalness is “oozing out.” I had a sonnet from Gutter Lane the other day! [12] Oh this pen—this pen!–
My fingers ache with making it mark in spite of itself.
Your most affectionate
EBB–
Thanks for Mr Horne’s letter. There are tender thoughts in it of the Hayward, [13] I admit. Do you remember Leigh Hunt’s translation of Redi the Italian rhapsodist, in relation to the new instrument which is to [be] made available near the “sensibility” of the certain pianoforte—I write from memory—but it runs thus, I think–
Arianeeny,
My quaintie, my queeny,
Sing to me, play to me—do!
On the vió,
On the vió
On the vióla—cocorocoo!
Cocorocoo!
Cocorocoo!
On the vióla—cocorocoo–
Baccho in Toscana [14]
Arianeeny being Ariadne!
Address: Miss Mitford, Three Mile Cross / near Reading.
Publication: EBB-MRM, III, 35–40.
Manuscript: Wellesley College.
2. Cf. The Hippocratic Oath.
3. Cf. Isaiah 37:22.
4. Probably the speech Miss Martineau made to the ladies’ Anti-slavery Society in Boston on 18 November 1835. EBB may be referring to the passage about the speech in Miss Martineau’s Retrospect of Western Travel (1838), pp. 162–165.
5. Bracketed passage is inserted above the line.
6. Cf. Paradise Lost, I, 500.
7. Wordsworth’s “Sonnet on the Projected Kendal and Winandermere Railway” had been published in The Morning Post on 16 October 1844; it was followed by a short note (dated 12 October) that began: “Let not the above be considered as merely a poetical effusion.”
9. EBB is referring to Wordsworth’s letter printed in The Morning Post on 11 December 1844, in which he stated that “the imperfectly educated classes are not likely to draw much good from rare visits to the Lakes” during the hurried excursions that would result from railway service to the region.
10. Published in 1835.
11. Cf. King Lear, V, 3, 273–274.
13. A reference to a Miss Hayward mentioned in letters 1715 and 1793. In a letter to Miss Mitford, dated 27 November 1844, Horne writes from Cologne: “Some of the young ladies play on the pianoforte very finely; but I prefer the playing of Miss Hayward to any of them. She has more expression, and grace of meaning, as well as tenderness” (ms at Harvard). Presumably, this was the letter Miss Mitford shared with EBB.
14. EBB quotes, somewhat inaccurately, from Leigh Hunt’s translation of Bacchus in Tuscany, A Dithyrambic Poem, From the Italian of Francesco Redi with Notes Original and Select (1825). Francesco Redi (1626–97) was a scientist and court physician to Ferdinand II, grand duke of Tuscany.
___________________
