4607. EBB to Isa Blagden
As published in The Brownings’ Correspondence, 27, 185–189.
28. Via Tritone
Thursday. [16 February 1860] [1]
My dearest Isa, have I missed two days indeed? And I might have told you how your books came, [2] & how we were grateful, & how Mrs Stowe came & we (at least I [3] ) were ashamed, comparing our claims on her and the gigantic box! [4] But thank you, thank you, dear dearest Isa, for all your goodness & all your trouble. Mrs Stowe called here. I certainly like her. I was not alone or I might have heard of visions and the like. I shall tell her honestly that I disbelieve in the medium, [5] if such things are told me– In fact the more I go back over my recollections with new lights, the more mud I find–
But I have come to see the Mr Hazard I spoke to you of, & like him decidedly– (Have I a right to like any body now?) It is strange but here is a Mr Apthorp, with his family [6] —so averse to spiritualism that he hates to hear it named, & who travels in company with Theodore Parker. Well—this Mr Apthorp has known Hazard during twenty six years, & speaks of him as men may speak of angels. High minded, unworldly, veracious, unexcitable upon subjects in general, & not credulous. That’s his testimony towards the man, while the views are rejected– And this Hazard, so spoken of, talks, walks, looks in the face of spirits, (he says)—has convictions, & ideas based on them, most calm apparently, & worthy of reception. He sate with me an hour two days ago, & has promised to come often. Robert likes him much too—& is “confident of his sincerity–”
Mr Hazard says that the notion of the subject dying away, is quite a mistake. All his correspondence from America (& he is devoted to this one subject) assures him of the contrary, precisely– People dont talk so much of it or so loudly .. neither do they of the electric telegraph, said he, nor of any novelty passed to the state of experience– But enough of Hazard–
After all, I think most of Venetia. I am uneasy, Isa– Also, the more I think, & the more I am uneasy, the greater is my irritation against the English government, for putting in that clause upon Venice. [7] Why? How was it necessary. “Because England never made the war & does’nt mean to make it now,” say English politicians here. (Mr Cartwright—). But why mention Venetia? Why not leave the name in a blank? England might have joined France to establish the Italian government in Central Italy & so ended– But no—we too must have a Villafranca, .. or a worse than Villafranca .. if Piedmont & France are both sworn (that is) from giving any help to all eternity. France, I observe, objects on the simple ground that “in case of Austria wishing” &c &c– Never mind the ground, as long as she objects—as long as she does not swallow that clause. My belief in the Emperor remains great—so great, that I cant believe in the possibility of his accepting such a clause unless as he accepted the disarmament before the war, or Villafranca conditions afterwards .. with the conviction (from his wonderful insight) that the carrying out would fail. Still, men are men—& the emperor, even in his insights, may err now & then like a man—and I feel uneasy, I confess, very– His game in securing England’s appoggiamento [8] is excellent in this respect, that with this alliance he would not have to fear attacks from Prussia & Germany, whatever he might find himself “constrained” to do for Mantua & Venice– England’s “moral influence”, as it is called, (I call it immoral influence) strengthens against Prussia & Germany & there’s the good of England just now– But if she forces on us guarantees about Venetia, she spoils all her doings as far as the Italian cause is concerned.
See how this Savoy cry works. I know very well that annexation to France has been a floating question among those populations for years– Still it is a bad service to bring it up to the light just now—a bad service to France, I mean. Lord Shaftesbury is an imbecile [9] —and this Savoyard address to England (got up of course by English influence) is an infamy on the four & twenty persons who give their signatures– [10] The flattery to England, after her conduct during the war––the ungrateful insult to France, .. the distrust of the king’s government .. all, infamous– But, I am sorry the subject was ever mooted. It has been the Patrie & the Siecle (staunch friends to Italy & to the democracy generally) who have spoken strongest; the “nationality movement” being at the bottom of all: but the manner & the moment were a mistake. L.N. has given “explanations”—and Cavour, denials [11] —which go for nothing, it seems. O this world!
So my Isa you speak in mysteries to Miss Cushman—from which however she understands that you are coming, so I forgive them & you– Come—do! I am stronger & better—have been tormented rather with ear-ache—but it seems past. Last proof went yesterday. [12] Macmillan [13] became visible in a vision of Fields male & female. [14] Fields good & pretty .. (particularly as they brought letters from Florence) but Macmillans bad, in whatever company– Also we have seen the second number of Thackeray’s Cornhill. O Isa, Isa, do you really care much for ‘Tithonus’? [15] Said musically & with the lips of a poet—expression Tennyson’s own—but no conception, nothing given & left with you! not worthy, we think, of either subject or poet. We like ‘Sea Dreams’ better [16] —& even that, not fanatically.
Mr Trollope’s novel is admirable [17] —worth twenty of Thackeray’s own, which seems to me falling to pieces & at no point of time organized. [18] He grows stronger, broader, more vivid. I wish I had seen him when he was in Florence. [19]
Alexandre Dumas has been here, travelling with a private secretary of singularly low stature & slight figure—& whom he did’nt like to leave alone in the evening.. (benevolent Dumas!) & was too discreet to take out with him into mixed society– [20] So Robert missed Dumas one evening at Pantaleoni’s where they were invited to meet—but had his revenge on a certain morning, & heard him talk a three volume romance in two hours– Dumas is an improvisatore in fluency & brilliancy, & a novelist in the rest– His subject was Napoleon & the Italian war—& Robert swears that I could’nt have borne it– But I could– Anything from Dumas. Only he would have been just Dumas to me & not an historiographer. He abused the emperor ‘comme quâtre,’ [21] & turned every sort of fact upon its head in speaking of it—said that the emperor Nicholas poisoned himself to get out of a scrape [22] —that Napoleon was jealous of Garibaldi—was’nt brave .. was’nt clever .. no, not he—had nothing in him in truth except just “audace”, which told with the French– Said all the fighting was badly done in Lombardy .. quite ridiculous indeed .. for how could they fight without generals? & where was Lamoricière [23] &c &c &c– Said the Orleans princes [24] had money enough to “do a great deal of good”—but they had no ‘audace’ though brave, .. &, worse than all, they were fond of fishing– Fishing ruined the cause–
Not a word could anyone throw in through a crevice– If a lip stirred … “Ecoutez, ecoutez”, [25] said he .. & another chapter began.
Robert met him in the street afterwards in company with “monsieur mon secretaire”––a little common-looking creature by no means apparently worthy of so much surveillance. Dumas was in Rome only a few days—but he talks of returning on the fifteenth of April,—for what reason Heaven knows– I wanted very much to see him .. went so far as to offer to receive “M. mon secretaire,” (which Mdam Pantaleoni refused to do) .. nay, would have embraced “ce dernier” [26] (is that grammar, Isa?) on both cheeks, if I could but have seen the prodigious Master—only Robert seemed to me quite abashed, (roared down to the condition of a “shy man”) so that he did’nt dare press an invitation in that quarter. The carnival goes on darkly, .. without the Romans. The government pays for carriages to go in the Corso– [27] This I know—for three friends of Ferdinando were furnished with carriages & forced to accept this morning—& the one who spoke of it had tears of mortification in his eyes–
Not a word more– Write. Tell me everything– We are so glad you are kind to Mr Landor– And Kate too– True love to her– Remember us affectionately to all our friends– I mean to write to Sophia Cottrell– Robert & Pen join in love with
your ever loving
Ba
Publication: B-IB, pp. 288–293.
Manuscript: Fitzwilliam Museum.
1. Dated by EBB’s statement in the sixth paragraph: “Last proof went yesterday” (see note 12 below).
2. One of these was Villari’s history of Savonarola (see letter 4600).
3. Underscored twice.
4. Containing Wild’s portrait of Pen on his pony.
5. Sophia Eckley; see the third to last paragraph in letter 4595.
7. EBB refers to a five-point plan that England submitted to France for the purpose of settling the Italian Question. The Morning Post of 6 February 1860 carried a report from Paris that listed the five points: “1. The principle of non-intervention to be applied in an absolute sense. 2. Venetia to remain aside from all negotiations concerning new territorial arrangements, and to continue under the Austrian rule. 3. The inhabitants of Central Italy to be again invited to vote on their own constitution. Should they pronounce themselves for annexation with Sardinia, the latter Power to be authorised to accomplish their wishes. 4. Sardinia to abstain from every measure destined to favour the annexation until the new vote of the Italian States has taken place. 5. France to withdraw her troops from Rome, and from the other parts of Italy” (p. 5).
8. “Support.”
9. Anthony Ashley Cooper, 7th Earl of Shaftesbury (1801–85), evangelical reformer and son-in-law to Palmerston, had on 7 February addressed the House of Lords on the subject of the French annexation of Nice and Savoy. The Times of the following day, reported his speech. Among the statements that EBB may have considered imbecilic were: “Is not this one step towards making the whole Mediterranean a French lake? … We have heard much about national boundaries; but we are now, according to the new doctrine which has been propounded, to claim as a right conterminous nations speaking the same language. In that case the smaller nation speaking the language of the greater must invariably be absorbed. … If this new principle be good … can any person who has lately been in Geneva doubt that an expression of sympathy might with great facility be got up there in favour of annexation with France? (Hear, hear.) If this principle be good, see how it will act on the public mind of Europe! (Hear, hear.) I want to know, for instance, why Germany should not demand the Baltic provinces from Russia, and why Russia should be hindered from claiming the Slavonic provinces of Austria (Cheers)” (p. 6).
10. The Times for 10 February 1860 carried a letter from “Savoy to the English People,” which was headed by an explanatory note: “We have received from Chambery under date of the 7th of February the following appeal to the English people against the annexation of Savoy to France. It is signed by 24 of the leading men of the capital of Savoy” (p. 10).
12. Final proof was sent by RB to Chapman with letter 4605.
13. i.e., Macmillan’s Magazine, a monthly literary journal launched in November 1859.
14. The Fieldses’ visit to the Brownings on 14 February was recorded by Annie Fields in her diary; see SD2340.
17. The first three chapters of Anthony Trollope’s Framley Parsonage (1861) were published in the first issue of The Cornhill Magazine (January 1860, pp. 1–25).
18. Chapter one of Thackeray’s Lovel the Widower (1861) also appeared in the first issue of The Cornhill Magazine (pp. 44–60).
19. Trollope had been in Florence the previous autumn, travelling in Italy with his family from 24 September to 4 November.
20. Emilie Cordier (1840–1906), or “the Admiral,” as she was known, was Dumas’s companion. “Under her frail appearance she hid a spirit which astonished and fascinated him. She finally became his mistress and the mother of his third recognised illegitimate child” (Arnold Craig Bell, Alexandre Dumas: A Biography and Study, 1950, p. 320).
21. “Excessively”; literally “like four.”
22. Czar Nicholas I (1796–1855) died of pneumonia.
23. Christophe Louis Léon Juchault de Lamoricière (1806–65), one of the most outspoken opponents of the policies of Napoleon III, had lived in forced exile from 1852 to 1857. In 1860 he accepted command of the papal army.
24. A reference to Louis Philippe, Comte de Paris (1838–94)—see letter 2722, note 9—and his brother Robert Philippe, Duc de Chartres (1840–1910), grandsons of Louis Philippe, King of France from 1830 to 1848.
25. “Listen, listen.”
26. “The latter”; i.e., “M. mon secretaire.”
27. In a dispatch of 22 February 1860, Odo Russell described the politics of the situation: “As it was understood that following the line of carriages in the Corso during Carnival hours was a demonstration of loyalty to the Sovereign Pontiff, the national party determined to absent themselves altogether from the Corso and to express their sympathy for liberty by driving and walking quietly along the road of Porta Pia. … At last it was thought necessary to send gendarmes to watch the movement and authorities at the gates of Rome reported that upwards of twenty-six thousand persons had joined in their pacific demonstration. To counteract it, the government hired carriages and sent poor people in fancy dresses to the Corso who by buffooning and pelting each other with flowers and confetti were to give proof of their loyal devotion to the Papacy. Notwithstanding, however, the exertions of the faithful, the Corso looked dreary and deserted” (The Roman Question, ed. Noel Blakiston, 1962, pp. 90–91).
___________________
