834. EBB to Mary Russell Mitford
As published in The Brownings’ Correspondence, 5, 94–96.
[Torquay]
July 26. 1841
My beloved friend,
I have seen the Literary Gazette, [1] and cannot help telling you the whole truth of my thought in regard to Miss Sedgewick’s memoires pour servir–! [2]
Well then!– I really do think that some bad taste constitutes the head & front of the offending—that she meant all reverence to you, even while she counted upon her fingers your men-servants & maid servants,—& that the general impression of what she has said must be felt to be pleasing, among those who admire & love you most. [3] She is evidently not a person abounding in refinement & delicacy—and as evidently, of warm feeling turned warmly towards you. Forgive her my dearest friend! And just smile at what you shrank from at first. Dr Mitford takes my side, I see, for “he laughed” long ago!––She sent you the book– To be sure she did!– It never entered into her dreams that you cd be vexed by one word in it,—that you cd take these details any other way than as proofs of the high estimation & deep interest in which you are held, not simply by herself & her family, but by that great new world whose large listening ears stand erect to hear all about you, through Niagara!–
I am at once surprised & relieved by this Literary Gazette revelation—feeling absolutely certain that no human being cd look with uncharmed eyes or irreverent thought at this little picture of you & yours—whatever coarse Dutch lines be in it. [4] The sin of them (if sin be not too stern a word—& indeed my dearest friend, it is!–) & the shame of the sin, both together rest with the artist & not the subject. It is natural that you shd be sensitive. It is natural that I [5] shd be so, if the least shadow of a shadow fell upon you the wrong way—even to the injury of your picturesqueness. But I have read this paragraph scrutinizingly & jealously—& I dont feel sensitive any more– Do not you, dearest Miss Mitford—do not you! And as to the Duke of Bedford––why I will just tell you what my physician Dr Scully, an intelligent sensible man though no man of letters, said the other day, when I was talking over the Athenæum article with him. He began the subject,—& of course I did not enter into detail with him upon it. But I said that you, with other of Miss Sedgewick’s victims had been vexed, by her giving you to the public piece meal,—& leaving the same public to suppose that she had everything from authority—that you (for instance) had said to her .. “Here am I, a near relation of the Duke of Bedford besides being so & so, doing such & such things for my father”! He smiled & answered instantly—“No, Miss Barrett. Nobody cd say such a thing!– It is obvious to everybody that the Duke of Bedford is more likely to boast of being related to Miss Mitford, than Miss Mitford of being related to him”. [6]
And that is the obvious truth! It quite amused me while I read your fear upon that especial point. And although I am (they say) a republican, & take republican measure of such things, people who live under a monarchy wd agree with me to an inch. The honor, as Dr Scully said, is all the Duke of Bedford’s.
I fear there are worse sins in this book than the one against you. It is apprehended that she may have endangered the safety of the Italian patriots, by her unreserved communications—!!– [7]
After all, was dear Mr Kenyon justified in the active thrust of his heroic dagger? Because do you know, I cannot at all think so. [8]
Proof sheets are private papers—are they not?–
The bride-cake simile is admirable [9] —too good!– I wish it were not so good!– For I have a true regard for him–
Ever your most affectionate
EBB—
Do give my love to Dr Mitford—& say particularly how you both are—& .. that you are not angry with me for not being angry enough with poor Miss Sedgewick!–
Publication: EBB-MRM, I, 249–251.
Manuscript: Wellesley College.
1. The Literary Gazette of 10 July 1841 (no. 1277, pp. 433–436) contained a review, with extensive extracts, of Letters from Abroad to Kindred at Home by Catharine Maria Sedgwick.
2. Literally “recollections to be of service”; in view of EBB’s indignation at Miss Sedgwick’s remarks about Miss Mitford, it is obvious that some derogatory slant is intended, suggesting “ingratiating” or “self-serving.”
3. Miss Mitford had probably taken exception to Miss Sedgwick’s having discussed her with the coachman, who “professed an acquaintance of some twenty years’ standing with Miss M., and assured us that she was one of the ‘cleverest women in England,’ and ‘the Doctor,’ (her father) ‘an ’earty old boy.’ And when he reined his horses up to her door, and she appeared to receive us, he said, ‘Now you would not take that little body there for the great author, would you?’” After describing Miss Mitford as “dressed a little quaintly” with “hair as white as snow,” Miss Sedgwick spoke of a voice with “a sweet low tone” and a manner of “naturalness, frankness, and affectionateness.” Later, Miss Sedgwick recounted that Miss Mitford “keeps two men-servants (one a gardener), two or three maid-servants, and two horses. In this very humble home … she receives on equal terms the best in the land.”
4. Taken to be a reference to the exactness of detail and truthfulness that characterized the Dutch School of painters.
5. Underscored twice.
6. The book was also reviewed in The Athenæum of 10 July (no. 715, pp. 516–518), again with copious extracts, although those referring to Miss Mitford were considerably shorter than those in The Literary Gazette, making no reference to the number of her servants or to the remarks of the coachman.
The Athenæum made no reference to the Duke of Bedford, but the Gazette had said (p. 435): “Her literary reputation might have gained for her this elevation, but she started on vantage-ground, being allied by blood to the Duke of Bedford’s family” (i.e., the Russells). The connection was through Miss Mitford’s maternal grandfather, Dr. Richard Russell, Vicar of Overton and Ash, a descendant of one of the collateral branches, but we have been unable to establish the exact degree of kinship with the Duke.
7. In the second volume, Miss Sedgwick refers (p. 65) to a visit paid to “Madame T.” and mentions this lady speaking freely of forbidden topics and of “the petty and irritating annoyances” suffered under Austrian rule.
8. Despite Kenyon’s desire to protect friends from Miss Sedgwick’s revealing scrutiny, EBB obviously disapproves of his self-imposed task of censorship (see letter 830).
9. Miss Mitford’s simile is lost to us; in the Roman wedding ceremony for the patrician class the bride cake, a mixture of flour, salt and water, was partaken of by the contracting parties in the presence of ten witnesses.
___________________
