4651. EBB to George Goodin Moulton-Barrett
As published in The Brownings’ Correspondence, 27, 282–287.
28 Via del Tritone
Wednesday [18 April 1860] [1]
My dearest George, .. Everybody holding up their hands against me in “deprecation,” do you say?–
You mean imprecation, I think. Such attacks as the Saturday Review’s, for instance, & Blackwood’s, almost overstep certain limits. They write to us from Florence that a Saturday reviewer, alive & in the flesh, has been there during three weeks. [2] Certain of my friends who were furious at the criticism in question reproached him with it,—on which he said he was “very sorry, & that it was a brutal article certainly.” On which[,] replied my friend properly, .. “that he (the reviewer) should be most sorry, not for that particular paper, which was a consistent deduction from the general ideas of the journal, but for the general ideas themselves, & that such a line should be taken by a leading English newspaper–” Let me add that this said Saturday reviewer after his three weeks residence in Florence, avowed, “that his opinions on the French emperor were modified, .. though he still thought him not good for England.”
What, in my mind, is still worse for England, is this ignoble madness into which you have all run: For it is not the “madness” of “great wits”—but the low consequence of some feline bite– You understand nothing– As for me, my dearest George, you rightly supposed me to be prepared for the reception of my book– If it had been otherwise received, it’s application would have been doubtful in my own opinion even–
Except for the Athenæum’s mis[s]tatement, I was prepared for everything,—& in fact, the weight given to the book, which besides the three columns of abuse for instance in the Saturday Review was referred to in three or four political articles of the same journal, [3] has on the whole rather flattered me than otherwise– Odo Russell observed to Robert yesterday that he (who by metier has to do with newspapers) saw the book everywhere struck at, & that “the sensation made by it was extraordinary–” Now, observe—there is no friendship between Mr Russell & me, & no peculiar sympathy: he is very English and very Russell .. only with keen perceptions & a wide experience– He added to Robert—“It is curious, the state of the English mind, just now. Mon[c]kton Milnes said a clever thing at Paris the other day, which was entirely true– Some Frenchmen exclaimed to him .. “But what do you English want, after all”?– “Why, we want,” said Milnes, “first, that the Austrians should beat you thoroughly—then we want that Italy should be free,—and then we want that the Italians should be grateful to us for doing nothing towards it–”
Excellently seen & spoken, Monkton Milnes– But you wont have the courage & patriotism to repeat this clever & true speech from your place in Parliament– No– You probably belong to a rifle-club like the rest, & will hold up your hands in “deprecation” over ‘Poems in Congress’–
Whatever may be the defect of that book, George, it is at least conscientious & honest—nor do I believe that it will fail to touch some generous chords in minds open to such an influence– Facts have been sacred things with me, & the very pressure of the time & the locality is on the verses. The heroine of the ‘Dance’ was the Marchioness Laiatico. The Court Lady was founded on the general fact of the ladies of Milan going in full-dress & open carriages to visit the hospitals– Macmahon did “take up the child on his saddlehorn”– Cavour did say, “It is the Emperor who ‘did it all’”– If my poetry falls below my own mark, it is strange. Never did I write anything with a fuller heart. Nor is your opinion my dear George, shared by some persons of considerable judgement in these things– Robert would not have let me print what he considered below my own mark—& I have letters from persons who pass with us as excellent judges in poetry, & who place these poems above anything I have written in their scale & proportion [4] —that is, except Aurora Leigh. Do you not think that your distaste to the opinions, produced a repulsion to the medium? Anyhow I am very sorry, yes, vexed a little, at your thinking these poems unworthy of my reputation as an artist– Otherwise, I could not expect your sympathy & did not– It must be very difficult for any man who gets his views of Italian affairs from such newspapers as I read, to come to other conclusions than you have come to–
Only, if I were you & thought as you do in some respects, perhaps I might ask myself sometimes, .. “what makes Ba hold these opinions so tenaciously, she who is honest, as women go, loves Italy & the people, & has peculiar opportunities of judging the real state of the case”? May not, after all, these “political mistakes” of her’s, as I call them, be nearer the truth than we fancy? May she not know the real colour of things better in Tuscany & in Rome than Mr So & So who sees them at Brompton? or even than Mr thus & thus, who takes a thousand a year from the Times to be its “own correspondent,” at Florence, & is cut by the Italian patriots in consequence of his amount of lying–? [5] And .. if the Athenæum & a whole train of newspapers following its lead, makes a gross mistake about the reference of a particular poem, [6] (which no one of common intelligence could read through conscientiously & mistake!) … what if it should be possible for the same persons to make a mistake about the bearing of an action .... such as the Italian war, for instance .. or even the annexation of Savoy–”?! I believe I might ask myself such questions.
As to Savoy .. annexing Savoy will make too long a letter .. but I must ask you, as you say so much about it, why my Samaritan may not give away his “signet-ring” if he pleases, & without convicting his neighbour to whom he gives it, of a crime– If he gives it, does the neighbour “rob” him? Which however is considering the question according to your figure, & the red tape & “legitimate” way of disposing of nations. For this signet ring has in it the right of giving itself a right recognized on the present occasion, by both giver & receiver– If pressure were exercised on the populations, if their vote were not consulted, I should cry out loudly, I also—as loudly almost, as England ought to have cried when Austria swallowed Cracow– [7] But what Victor Emmanuel parts with is simply his claim to the allegiance of the populations .. whatever that may be worth in the eyes of the old European governments—he frees them into the right of choice, to be expressed by a plebescito–
France has neither siezed Savoy, nor meant to sieze Savoy– There will be no troops on either side to exercise pressure– The peoples will vote as our Italians have voted. And why you should be pleased to represent them as victims, is only accountable on the principle upon which our Holy Father here & the Ex-Grand Duke of Florence go on to represent the oppression of the victim-voters in Romagna & the “beloved Tuscany”– I do consider that England may bestow her sympathy & compassion where they are more required than by Savoy. She may have been as loud in her pity for Florence, for instance, when Florence was under Austria– The hypocrisy of all this outcry would be ridiculous but for consequences & influences– The cession of Savoy is not the price of the war—it is the condition (a little prematurely arranged—but this will be obvious presently) of the ultimate re-constitution of Italy as a great nation– France never said that she required defences against 12 millions of Italians—she said .. “against a number exceeding twelve millions”—& the meaning of the phrase perfectly understood by us all here, pointed to Italy the nation,—in respect to which & with reference to the future of the world, the Head of the French nation had to think– He who had “done it all,” had to be wise for France as well as Italy– There was no treaty, nor family compact—but there was a “sous entendre’[’] [8] between the emperor & the Piedmontese government that the re-constitution of Italy would involve the permitted return of Savoy to France in case the populations of that district preferred it so—and for years it has been difficult for Piedmont to rule them, so strong have been their straining & sympathy towards France. Cavour called Savoy, Piedmont’s Ireland, from the dissaffection [sic] there—— For if there are no “natural frontiers” there are at least natural barriers, & the Alps are one of them, presenting impediments to direct trade & easy government.
It was understood therefore that Savoy should be permitted its choice, when Italy became a great nation—but, after the misfortune of Villafranca, Napoleon withdrew his claim, & was prepared to carry out the inferences of the treaty logically & in good faith– At the same time, they led ad absurdam .. & he knew it– And now that a higher ground is attained by means of the constancy of Italy, which he has protected all this while until she is able to protect herself, & will sustain to the end, .. now it is the turn of Savoy– Nobody doubts what the decision of those peoples is & will be– After which the alliance is rivetted– And the next moves will find King Victor Emmanuel, still extending his territory. Cavour’s eye is onward– The Neapolitan & the remaining Roman States will not remain as now– Before a year we expect to have Venetia. France will hold the shield—& perhaps the sword—but she will be true to her task to the end– The emperor has braved more than guns for Italy– Wale[w]ski told him once he would sacrifice his dynasty for Italy, & he has certainly risked it– There is a coalition in France against him, (on the papal question), of the Orleanistes (more shame to them) & other opposing parties,—& if there is not yet a European coalition, it is’nt Lord Derby’s fault .. at least—nor Mess[rs] Kinglake & Horseman’s. [9]
What makes him hateful to all these fossil politicians, is the fact which has recommended him to me––that he is the Head in Europe of democratic progress & national ideas. ‘Deep calleth unto deep’ [10] —yes, it is true– One ransomed people leads to the ransoming of another. But it is a great Head—it respects Law & Peace– War is a very unwelcome means to him.
Twelve months ago, when I was eager & sanguine, I did not expect that at this hour we should have such a consequence of the “war of liberation” as we see around us. The Italian people are grateful therefore—& they may well be–
My dearest George, the worst consequence to you of your letter, is this long one—for I must end by assuring you that I have not a touch of wrath against you .. that, on the contrary, in venturing to give you my book, I might have expected a harsher reprimand, & that I feel through your reproofs the affectionateness behind them–
Also your good account of our darling Arabel would leave me your debtor, & so much the happier, even if you had sworn at me—which you did’nt, you know–! Let me tell you George, I had a letter of “thanks” for my “courage & justice” from the Editor of the Atlas [11] —who proved his sincerity, by reviewing me– You are not all mad, poor people!—— Then the Daily News from its point of view was very generous– [12] Did you see that article– But I am enraged with the Daily News just now, who gave a shameful notice of Cavour the other day– [13] That great & noble man!– Cavour, Azeglio, Farini .. we have civic heroes here! Garibaldi is a hero of the camp only. Let us honor him—though he has no head .. between you & me. I am very sorry for Garibaldi in the Nice question—it seems hard– But not only the majority has rights,—but Italy goes before the noblest of her sons. And, be it known in England, where little is known, Garibaldi is not the noblest of those sons, though he is noble.
We leave Rome at the end of May I suppose, but we hear that the roads are not safe. So says Mr Russell– A diligence, stopped, & man killed, just now– We shall be cautious–
Mr Chorley has twice offended me by not putting in my letter. Now it seems as if I had taken fright & recanted meanly– “My English readers will be glad”– My English readers go to the D__!! I am very vexed with him for not printing my temperate letter– I dont want to please anybody—only God, by speaking the truth as far as I could. I corrected the Athenæum because it misstated simply. I have written my mind to Mr Chorley. I was more vexed with his correction than the first offence—for giving me an appearance of meanness—before the Eng & American public.
Poor darling Arabel– But dearest George I am very sorry for her loss in Mr Stratten [14] —very sorry for him too, if people have behaved ill to him, as I fear– Mr Russell told Robert he should cease to take in the Saturday Review, which had become intolerable to him. Not for my sake, observe–
We have had no fires for a month, yet it is gloomy weather for Rome.
Put in your head that central Italy is only a nucleus of Italy that shall be– Such letters from Florence describing the King’s entrance. [15] Dearest George, we send you all our love. Robert, Pen, & your loving Ba.
Address: Angleterre / George Moulton Barrett Esqre / 2. Tanfield Court / Temple / London.
Publication: B-GB, pp. 224–233.
Manuscript: Pierpont Morgan Library.
1. This letter is postmarked 19 April 1860, a Thursday.
2. Charles Bowen (see letter 4648, note 16).
4. One of these was from William Michael Rossetti; See letter 4635.
5. Antonio Gallenga; see the third paragraph in letter 4595.
6. “A Curse for a Nation.”
8. “An understanding.”
9. Both Edward Horsman (see letter 4642, note 7) and Alexander Kinglake (1809–91), M.P. for Bridgwater, had been vocal in their disapproval of France’s annexation of Nice and Savoy. In the House of Commons on 6 March 1860, Kinglake, who had previously informed the House of the impending annexation, introduced a motion that an “address be presented to Her Majesty … expressing … the deep concern with which this House has heard of the contemplated annexation of Savoy and Nice to the empire of France, and assuring Her Majesty of the satisfaction with which this House would learn that Her Majesty had invited the other Powers who were parties to the abovementioned ‘Treaties of alliance and friendship’ to join with Her Majesty in endeavouring to avert the realization of a project which has excited distrust and alarm in Europe” (The Times, 7 March 1860, p. 6). On 26 March, Horsman criticized the Palmerston government for its inaction in the face of Kinglake’s disclosures and statements regarding the annexation: “The accuracy of my hon. friend, his early information, his predictions of danger to be apprehended, the consequences which he said might follow, but which might be averted, the warnings he gave of events that have since occurred, combined with the earnestness and moderation of his statements, all, I think, contrast most favourably with the conduct of the Government” (The Times, 27 March 1860, p. 6).
10. Psalm 42:7.
11. Edmund Ollier; see letter 4641, note 1.
13. The Daily News, in response to the loss of Savoy and Nice without the expected outcome for Venetia, blamed Cavour for capitulating to Napoleon III: “The tone of Cavour’s note on this subject, so different from the resolute and manly language of his despatch on the affairs of Central Italy, sufficiently indicates the pressure of the Tuileries. It would have been pleasanter for the minister as well as for his countrymen to have told the world plainly that he acted under irresistible compulsion; but the sacrifice must needs be proffered with smiles, and decked with flowers, to be acceptable to this inexorable divinity” (15 March 1860, p. 5).
___________________
