868. EBB to Richard Hengist Horne
As published in The Brownings’ Correspondence, 5, 162–163.
50 Wimpole Street
Nov. 4th 1841.
My head has ached so for two days (not my temper I assure you) that I thought it was beheading itself—and now, that ‘distracted globe’ [1] having come to a calm, I hasten to answer your letter. A bomb of a letter it is, to be sure!– Enough to give a dozen poets, a headache apiece! “No sex—no character—no physiognomy—no age—no Anno Domini”– A very volcano of a letter!–
After all, dear Mr Horne, your idea of revenge is not tragic enough for a great dramatist, & I may criticise back upon you, on such grounds!– Your vengeance is not tragic enough. But then again I spare you on others. You need’nt “try to recant”. I am not angry—dont even feel myself ill used—(that feeling of melancholy complacency!)—and beg you to extend your dramatic sceptre within reach of my subject hands, & with the “diagram” at the top of it!– [2]
When Socrates said that it was worse to suffer, being guilty than being innocent, [3] was’nt he right,—and am I not like Socrates?—in the sentiment .. which I am right in—not position .. which I am wrong in.
At the same time, it does seem hard,—hard even for Socrates,—to drink all this hemlock without making a speech—to die & make no sign. The general criticism is too true a one—absolutely true—but not equally, altogether true, perhaps, in everything. I think for instance that my Page—the Page-lady in the Page-romaunt—has some sex & physi[o]gnomy, however the anno domini may be mislaid, even in her case. Well—but it’s a true general criticism—& true particularly besides—& do send the diagram, dear Mr Horne—& be sure that however lightly I have spoken, I must always be gravely grateful to you for telling me all such truths. Miss Mitford came to town last thursday in her abundant affectionateness, just to see me, & returned home on saturday. I saw her for a good part of each of the days—& she asked far more about you than I was able to answer. She measures your dramatic stature by cubits!– She prefers your Cosmo to Gregory. So do I you know—altho’ the artistic power is greater in the Gregory– And—oh—she told me that the late struggle of the unacted authors has done good already in the theatres. “How” I asked. “Because it disproves the late idea of there being an immense deposit somewhere of excellent unacted dramatic works. People say to one another, ‘you see they cd find nothing more excellent than Martinuzzi’ [4] —& thus the theatres open their doors a little wider to the rare virtue![”]
But you cD [5] have found something more excellent than Martinuzzi– There, was the––
Well—but do send the diagram. I wish I cd “transfuse” into George, who talks of meeting you face to face this evening at Mrs Orme’s.
Truly yours
Elizabeth B Barrett–
Of course I could’nt object to listen to your arguments upon the title page, as long as they do not touch my “foregone conclusions”. [6] But those—pray, dear Mr Horne remember,—are fixed as Danton’s hat. [7]
Address: R H Horne Esqr
Publication: EBB-RHH, I, 39–42.
Manuscript: Pierpont Morgan Library.
1. Hamlet, I, 5, 97.
2. In explanation of this diagram, Horne noted: “Referring, probably, to certain geometric figures I had suggested as private ‘working’ illustrations for the ‘Psyche’.” (EBB-RHH, I, 40.)
3. Cf. Plato, Georgias, cap. 469, sections a–c.
4. This comment echoes the doubts of The Examiner as to the choice of Martinuzzi (see letter 854, note 7).
5. Underscored three times.
6. Cf. Othello, III, 3, 428.
7. Danton’s hat would, of course, no longer be fixed when the head that wore it was removed by the guillotine in 1794. EBB apparently suggests that her “foregone conclusions” are subject to modification in the light of changing circumstances.
___________________
