4637. EBB to Isa Blagden
As published in The Brownings’ Correspondence, 27, 250–252.
[Rome]
Friday– [30 March 1860] [1]
My ever dearest Isa, I am scarcely in heart yet for writing letters, & did not mean to write today. You heard of the unexpected event which brought me the loss of a very dear friend .. dear, dear Mrs Jameson. It was of course, a shock to me, as such things are meant to be–
Then my Peni was in bed the whole of the day before yesterday, with synapisms [2] to his feet .. from a slight sun-stroke when out riding on the campagna– That was not cheering to me—though Pantaleoni whom we sent for at once reassured us, & prophecied that he would be convalescent next day, which proved to be the case. Still, even yesterday, & even today, we have had to be gentle in the administration of lessons, & to keep him quiet– He has an appetite however [‘]à faire frémir’ [3] (particularly with a disposition to fever) and is going out to be present at a matinée at the Storys where Mr Newton, the accomplished English consul is to lecture on Eastern remains &c. I was pressed to go, but have no courage–
And now I come to what makes me tax you with a dull letter, I feeling so dully—& dear .. it is with dismay I have to tell you that the letter you addressed under cover to Mr Russell has never reached us– Till your last communication (this moment received) I had hoped that the contents of it might have been less important than O.–papers [4] must be. What is to be done, or thought? I beseech you to write & tell me if harm is likely to follow from this siezure. The other inclosure came to me quite safely, because it came by the government messenger. I think you sent it through Corbet[t]– But Mr Russell’s post letters are as liable to opening as mine are: his name is no security– Whenever you send a Nazione newspaper through him, it never reaches us, though we receive our Monitore through him regularly. Why? Because in his position he is allowed to have newspapers for his own use. He takes in for himself no Monitore .. so ours goes to his account: but he does take in a Nazione, .. therefore our’s is siezed, as being plainly for other hands than his own licensed ones.
I am very much grieved about this loss of your letter & its contents. First, there’s my fear lest harm should come of this,—& then there’s my own personal mulcting of what would have been of such deep interest to me. I am “revelling”?– See how little.
Robert wrote in a playful vein to Kate [5] .. & you must not, & will not care for that. He had understood from your letter that you & the majority had all, like the Athenæum, understood the ‘Curse for a Nation’ to be directed against England. Robert was furious about the Athenæum—no other word describes him: & I thought that both I & Mr Chorley would perish together—seeing that even the accusation (such a one!) made me infamous, it seemed–
The curious thing is that it was at Robert’s suggestion that that particular poem was re-printed there—(it never had appeared in England—) though “Barkis was willing”, [6] —I had no manner of objection—I never have, to justice–
Mr Chorley’s review is objectionable to me because unjust. A reviewer should read the book he gives judgement on: & he could not have read from beginning to end the particular poem in question, & have expounded its significance so– I wrote a letter on the subject to the Athenæum to correct the mis-statement, [7] which I cared for chiefly on Robert’s account.
In fact, I [8] cursed neither England nor America– I leave such things to our Holy Father here: the poem only pointed out how the curse was involved in the action of slave-holding–
I never saw Robert so enraged about a criticism. He is better now, let me add.
In the matter of Savoy, it has vexed & vexes me, I do confess to you– Its a handle given to various kinds of dirty hands—it spoils the beauty & glory of much, the uncontested admiration of which would have done good to the world.
At the same time, as long as Piedmont & Savoy agree in the annexation to France, there is nothing to object to—not to object to with a reasonable mind. And it seems to be understood—(it is stated in fact,)—that the cession is under condition of the assent of the populations– [9] The Vote is necessary to the honor of France. I do not doubt that it will be consulted. Meantime there is too much haste, I think. There is a haste somewhat indelicate, in the introduction of French garrisons into Savoy, previous to the popular conclusion being known– There should have been mixed garrisons, French & Piedmontese, till the vote was taken– Napoleon should have been more particular in Savoy than he was even in Central Italy, as to the avoidance of any occasion of the current charge of “pressure.”
Altogether the subject is an anxious one,—would be, even if less rancorous violence on the part of his enemies, were wreaked upon it. The English tories are using it with the phrenzy of despair—& no wonder!
Lamoricière’s arrival [10] is another proof of the internal coalition against the Empire–
Now I must end, Robert says, or I shall lose the post. My true best love & Robert’s—& Peni’s.
Write to me, do, dearest Isa, & tell me if the mss. sent were nuisibles. [11] The Excommunication just out, is said to include the Emperor– [12]
Your ever loving Ba–
Publication: B-IB, pp. 317–320.
Manuscript: Fitzwilliam Museum.
1. Dating based on EBB’s reference to the death of Anna Jameson. 30 March 1860 was the first Friday after letter 4633, in which RB first reported her death to Isa.
2. Sic for “sinapisms,” which are mustard plasters.
3. “To make you shudder.”
4. i.e., “Ongaro-papers,” the letters from Charles Fauvety to Francesco Dall’Ongaro (see letter 4616, note 2).
6. Cf. Dickens, David Copperfield (1850), chap. 5.
8. Underscored twice.
9. The formal treaty ceding Nice and Savoy to France was signed on 24 March. Plebiscites were held the following month.
10. Lamoricière arrived in Ancona on 29 March 1860, proceeding to Rome on 2 April 1860 (see The Roman Question, ed. Noel Blakiston, 1962, pp. 96–97). Without consulting Napoleon III, he had earlier in March accepted command of the papal army (see letter 4607, note 23). Napoleon III’s opposition in France included republicans, Legitimists, Orleanists, and conservative Catholics.
11. “Harmful.”
12. The letter of excommunication, issued on 26 March, was printed in The Times of 6 April 1860. It began: “The punishment of major excommunication is inflicted on the invaders and usurpers of some of our pontifical provinces” (p. 7). As the rest of the letter makes clear, Pius IX had Piedmont especially in mind: “The Sardinian Government has not only despised our admonition and complaints and our religious resentment, but, by persevering in its wickedness by force, money, threats, terror, and other cunning means, they obtained the universal vote in their favour, and dared to invade our provinces, to occupy them, and to subject them to their power” (p. 7). Although neither Napoleon III nor the French government was excommunicated by name, “all those who in the remotest manner … participated” in the loss of papal territory were to be punished (p. 7).
___________________
