4621. EBB to Isa Blagden
As published in The Brownings’ Correspondence, 27, 218–221.
[Rome]
Tuesday. [13 March 1860] [1]
Yes, I believe, dearest Isa– At the same time there are moments of temptation—& one has to say “Get thee behind me, Satan,” [2] very often– This Savoy business is painful—it opens out room for old imputations—imputations which had been triumphantly lived down.
But as to his withdrawing his troops & leaving Italy open to the enemy, that is not possible—no, not possible .. I am sure.
The English party here says & swears that what is wanted on the Savoy subject is exactly resistance on the part of the Powers—especially of Prussia, who is to be quarrelled with somehow in order to achieve a pretence for a siezure of the Rhine frontier. I perfectly disbelieve it—& yet it hurts one, to have a thing re-iterated .. which is at once a lie & a wrong.
The papal party says loudly, on the other hand, that the emperor & Cavour “s’entendent comme deux larrons”. [3] Robert, the night before last, repeated this opinion, as his own, before Odo Russell, … “who seemed to agree entirely”, Robert told me.
So that when I name the English party here, I did not mean to include Russell.
At the same time, Mr Cartwright (whom I do) told me yesterday that Lord John had had a quarrel with Persigny [4] about Savoy, & that the affair was considered generally “nefarious.” [5]
Certain things, objectionable to me in the Emperor’s speech, [6] were just the things probably which constituted the official crust of the question, & were intended to commend the essential substance of it to the gross senses of European statesmen. What we call in “spiritualism” the “natural presentation” of spiritual forms. For instance, not a word about the “will of the population” in the speech—while to my mind that’s the only term I could admit of as a reconciling one.
There can be no reasonable doubt of the result of universal suffrage in central Italy, being received & acceded to by France– The contrary would stand without excuse before us all–
The Dall’Ongaro letters [7] seem to me confirmed by certain things. For instance, I have heard it sworn to by one who seemed to know, that the Emperor did, less than a fortnight ago, offer the Marches to Naples on conditions .. referring of course to a liberalized government–
But, both there & here, the enemy holds out, in the madness which precedes destruction– [8] Are we to thank God for the sins of some men, as well as for the virtues of others? Dont cry out at me. I am not stating a dogma. Still less do I damn you to eternity for not holding it.
How the clouds gather. It appears to me there must be war. Austria may be said to stand compromised to a policy of violent intervention in the case of annexation—& I doubt much that the first armed foot set by Piedmont into Central Italy, will be the signal for a breaking of the peace– It is this which accounts for the apparent vacillation of France– I have the Blue Book containing the whole English portion of the official correspondence since Villafranca, [9] & am reading it through from beginning to end. (As Robert says, I “ought to understand the Italian question, from the attention[”] I have given to it.) On the naming of the Regency (Carignano’s) [10] Austria made a motion as to draw the sword, & France retorted “Cross the Po, & we declare war.” [11] A fact like this should be taken into consideration– Prussia & Russia dont strike me as being strictly speaking reliable– Lord John has spoken in a straightforward way enough, as to protesting against intervention– But then nothing of the sort was necessary,—since the emperor had resolved against it from the beginning, & repeated & re-repeated the word.
Here am I scribbling on—& the post, the post–
Dearest Isa, it was unkind of you to doubt us about Casa Guidi ‘in re Cobbe’– We should have been glad to have accom[m]odated you even in the person of your friends–
I am better. I have directed Chapman to send by post to you a copy of my poems. Robert confesses to having written something absurd about taking off a cover if it travelled more lightly– He was dreaming, [12] I think– If dishevelled sheets go to you, make Brecker bind them & remember me in the bill.
Isa dearest, send by Hatty a scudo’s worth of black & white clasping pins– They fasten with a hook or clasp– Among the black, must be some, (a few), large ones– The white must all be small– From two to three crazie each, I fancy. I will repay Hatty, if she will have the goodness to pay you–
Love from Robert—& love & kisses from Pen who is with me most tenderly grateful to you for your goodness in remembering his birthday. [13] A dull letter—but I will write again soon. I am so anxious about the election. [14]
Yours in heart’s love–
Ba–
Publication: B-IB, pp. 306–308.
Manuscript: Fitzwilliam Museum.
1. Dated by EBB’s reference, in the third to last paragraph, to letter 4617.
2. Matthew 16:23.
3. “Are thick as thieves”; literally, “are in agreement like two thieves.”
4. Jean Gilbert Fialin, Comte de Persigny (1808–72), was at this time the French ambassador to Great Britain.
5. A speech by Lord John Russell in the House of Commons on 26 March 1860 reveals the position that Persigny found objectionable: “Such an act as the annexation of Savoy will lead a nation so warlike as the French to call upon its Government from time to time to commit other acts of aggression … the powers of Europe, if they wish to maintain … peace, must respect each other’s rights, must respect each other’s limits, and above all restore and not disturb that commercial confidence which is the result of peace, which tends to peace, and which ultimately forms the happiness of nations” (The Times, 27 March 1860, p. 6).
6. His address to the National Assembly on 1 March (see letter 4614, note 5).
7. i.e., the letters from Charles Fauvety (see letter 4616, note 2).
8. Cf. James Dupont (1606–79), Homer Gnomologia (1660), p. 282: “Whom God would destroy He first makes mad.”
9. Correspondence Respecting the Affairs of Italy, from the Signature of the Preliminaries of Villafranca to the Postponement of the Congress (1860).
10. See letter 4536, note 11. Evidently, Austria opposed the appointment of Buoncompagni as Regent. In the dispatch to Lord John Russell, described in letter 4612, note 8, Lord Cowley reported that Prince Metternich had communicated to Napoleon III that the Austrian government, “on learning the nomination of M. B[u]oncompagni to be Regent of Central Italy, had desired him to inform the Emperor that, under such circumstances, Austria would not meet a Sardinian Plenipotentiary in Congress” (Correspondence, p. 200).
13. His eleventh, on 9 March.
14. i.e., the plebiscite (see letter 4622, note 3).
___________________
