5191. RB to William Wetmore Story & Emelyn Story
As published in The Brownings’ Correspondence, 30, 217–218.
Paris,
March 27. ’63.
Dearest Friends,
While I was away, Arthur Russell [1] called this morning bringing your letter & leaving word that he will start tonight for Rome: I must send a scrap,—together with such thoughts!—along with him. I & Pen have spent nearly a fortnight here—only with my Father & sister—and in two days,—on the 29th we return for our four-months’ work. You should not talk so, & tempt so—it cannot be, you know—for Pen must really work hard for Balliol which is the reading College, and its examination (even for entering) “no sham in any sense” as Jowett writes to a friend of mine: [2] I believe we shall manage it very well, but not unless we try—that’s certain—& we mean to try,—wherefore, no Rome, no you—except in remembrance & hope. I was vexed not to see a minute of Mrs Sturgis in London: tell her how I sympathise with what must be her delight just now: even here, the weather is magnificent.
Now about this new “manifestation” of our friend’s: [3] I weigh my words when I say it does not astonish me one whit nor in the least degree add to my acquaintance with that very peculiar mind which I had reasons of my own for thoroughly studying long ago: I dare affirm that I know that character in enough of its ins and outs, turns & twists,—and you, of course, remember that I did know it of old,—those who did not, have all this novelty to learn, & admire. Of the story you tell me,—that is, of her charges against the poor fellow; I do not believe one syllable, nor that the “paper” is other than either a forgery or, just as likely, an acknowledgement extorted on false pretences from his miserable folly—which thus meets its punishment—some punishment being proper enough. I am in no doubt that by those cheating “manifestations” of which I have heard him speak, she could have prevailed on him to sign seal & attest anything: by such means she was in the habit of pushing & shoving him wherever it suited her purpose: and such was his infatuation that I really think he did not believe in her at the bottom of his heart, though in his prodigious passion for her, he was determined to believe: he would really have given up soul & body for her. I am sure he has never been “false” to her—except in suppressing the grain of common sense which, as I say, at bottom of his heart, led him to disbelieve in her,—never “false” in the most microscopic degree. It is, on her part, wickedness enjoying & turning to account, something like insanity but not quite: she might be insane, and probably will be, but was not, at least when I knew her. Surely the husband’s friends will counsel him to let her go to the devil: I don’t expect he will, however. I did not know they were still in England—fancied you spoke of them as in Rome: you must have meant the others of the name. [4] Mr R: [5] will never be imposed on by the story, if he considers a little. But don’t ask me to write or enquire or testify, I who am no sicker of her in my soul than I was four years ago.
Now I have done: we go in August, if all be well, to some quiet seaside place, just as before—Pen’s health & growth seeming to call for a couple of months of that life,—probably we shall return to Pornic. I have much work to do,—bring out my new Edition presently, the new things in the autumn. [6] I rejoice in William’s various successes: his “Roba” has done capitally & is like to do—you see the new Edition. [7] As for “Saul” I expect great things and enjoy them before-hand. Won’t you write? It is only too pleasant: and Edie—she will write for old love’s sake, tell her: Pen is out but I shall gratify him by sending his best love to you all—with mine, who am
Ever yours affectionately
Robert Browning.
All regard to friends,—Hatty, the Bruens & Perkins, my friends at the Studio.
Publication: BAF, pp. 120–122.
Manuscript: Newberry Library.
1. Arthur John Edward Russell (1825–92).
2. Either Edward Twisleton (see letter 5183) or the other of the “two friends” who had helped RB (see letter 5190).
3. Sophia Eckley, who, as RB implies, accused her husband, David, of infidelity. The Eckleys soon separated but never divorced.
4. Possibly David Eckley’s sister, Fanny Eckley, and other relatives.
5. Perhaps, RB has Russell Sturgis in mind; see the second paragraph in letter 5206.
6. The “new things” refers to Dramatis Personæ, which was published in late May of the following year. The “new Edition” is Poetical Works (1863).
7. A Chapman and Hall advertisement in The Athenæum of 7 March 1863 (no. 1845, p. 320) announced that a second edition of Roba di Roma was “in the press.” Three weeks later the publisher advertised that it was ready “this day” (The Athenæum, 28 March 1863, no. 1848, p. 416).
___________________
