Since our poets are having a private conversation on August 11, 1846, let's scoot back to August 11, 1845 and have a look at a rather chatty letter from Browning. He begins by discussing the flowers he sent her--without a card--a few days before:
"How good you are to the smallest thing I try and do—(to show I would
please you for an instant if I could, rather than from any hope such poor
efforts as I am restricted to, can please you or ought.) And that you should
care for the note that was not there!—But I was surprised by the summons to seal
and deliver, since time and the carrier were peremptory—and so, I dared divine,
almost, I should hear from you by our mid-day post—which happened—and the answer
to that, you received on Friday night, did you not? I had to go to
Holborn, of all places,—not to pluck strawberries in the Bishop's Garden like
Richard Crouchback, but to get a book—and there I carried my note, thinking to
expedite its delivery: this notelet of yours, quite as little in its kind as my
blue flowers,—this came last evening—and here are my thanks, dear E.B.B.—dear
friend.
In the former note there is a phrase I must not forget to call on you to
account for—that where it confesses to having done 'some work—only nothing worth
speaking of.' Just see,—will you be first and only compact-breaker? Nor
misunderstand me here, please, ... as I said, I am quite rejoiced that you go
out now, 'walk about' now, and put off the writing that will follow thrice as
abundantly, all because of the stopping to gather strength ... so I want no new
word, not to say poem, not to say the romance-poem—let the 'finches in the
shrubberies grow restless in the dark'—I am inside with the lights and
music: but what is done, is done, pas vrai [not true]? And 'worth' is, dear my
friend, pardon me, not in your arbitration quite."
He does have a point here. She does not share her work with him. He reads her older works but she seldom shares new work with him. All of the focus in this correspondence is on his work. Who is wooing who here?
"Let me tell you an odd thing that happened at Chorley's the other night. I
must have mentioned to you that I forget my own verses so surely after they are
once on paper, that I ought, without affectation, to mend them infinitely
better, able as I am to bring fresh eyes to bear on them—(when I say 'once on
paper' that is just what I mean and no more, for after the sad revising begins
they do leave their mark, distinctly or less so according to circumstances).
Well, Miss Cushman, the new American actress (clever and truthful-looking) was
talking of a new novel by the Dane Andersen [Hans Christian], he of the 'Improvisatore,' which
will reach us, it should seem, in translation, viâ America—she had looked
over two or three proofs of the work in the press, and Chorley was anxious to
know something about its character. The title, she said, was capital—'Only a
Fiddler!'—and she enlarged on that word, 'Only,' and its significance, so put:
and I quite agreed with her for several minutes, till first one reminiscence
flitted to me, then another and at last I was obliged to stop my praises and say
'but, now I think of it, I seem to have written something with a similar
title—nay, a play, I believe—yes, and in five acts—'Only an Actress'—and from
that time, some two years or more ago to this, I have been every way relieved of
it'!—And when I got home, next morning, I made a dark pocket in my russet horror
of a portfolio give up its dead, and there fronted me 'Only a Player-girl' (the
real title) and the sayings and doings of her, and the others—such others! So I
made haste and just tore out one sample-page, being Scene the First, and sent it
to our friend as earnest and proof I had not been purely dreaming, as might seem
to be the case. And what makes me recall it now is, that it was Russian, and
about a fair on the Neva, and booths and droshkies and fish-pies and so forth,
with the Palaces in the back ground. And in Chorley's Athenæum of
yesterday you may read a paper of very simple moony stuff about the death
of Alexander, and that Sir James Wylie I have seen at St. Petersburg (where he
chose to mistake me for an Italian—'M. l'Italien' he said another time, looking
up from his cards).... So I think to tell you."
Sounds kind of interesting in a Russian kind of way. But the thing that interests me here is that he got home 'next morning'. He's out drinking all night again! And then he comes home and writes letters. And a very chatty letter it is too.
"Now I may leave off—I shall see you start, on Tuesday—hear perhaps something
definite about your travelling."
He is referring here to the possibility that Miss Barrett might be permitted to go to Italy at the behest of her doctors. But more on that in later letters. Next he comments on reading George Sand's novel 'Consuelo':
"Do you know, 'Consuelo' wearies me—oh, wearies—and the fourth volume I have
all but stopped at—there lie the three following, but who cares about Consuelo
after that horrible evening with the Venetian scamp, (where he bullies her, and
it does answer, after all she says) as we say? And Albert wearies too—it seems
all false, all writing—not the first part, though. And what easy work these
novelists have of it! a Dramatic poet has to make you love or admire his
men and women,—they must do and say all that you are to see and
hear—really do it in your face, say it in your ears, and it is wholly for
you, in your power, to name, characterize and so praise or
blame, what is so said and done ... if you don't perceive of yourself,
there is no standing by, for the Author, and telling you. But with these
novelists, a scrape of the pen—out blurting of a phrase, and the miracle is
achieved—'Consuelo possessed to perfection this and the other gift'—what would
you more? Or, to leave dear George Sand, pray think of Bulwer's beginning a
'character' by informing you that Ione, or somebody in 'Pompeii,' 'was endowed
with perfect genius'—'genius'! What though the obliging informer might
write his fingers off before he gave the pitifullest proof that the poorest
spark of that same, that genius, had ever visited him? Ione has it
'perfectly'—perfectly—and that is enough! Zeus with the scales? with the
false weights!"
I think he really has been drinking. He is in a huff about the difficult lot of poets who have to think of words that run in a rhythm and a rhyme and describe things at the same time! He should consider lowering himself to the rung of prose writer and be a wealthy novelist rather than a penniless poet. And I don't think he did himself any favors criticising Miss Barrett's literary heroine: George Sand is Miss Barrett's idol.
"And now—till Tuesday good-bye, and be willing to get well as (letting me send
porter instead of flowers—and beefsteaks too!) soon as may be! and may
God bless you, ever dear friend."
Miss Barrett in the mean time responds to his previous letter:
"But if it 'hurts' you to read and write ever so little, why should I be asked
to write ... for instance ... 'before Tuesday?' And I did mean to say before
to-day, that I wish you never would write to me when you are not quite
well, as once or twice you have done if not much oftener; because there is
not a necessity, ... and I do not choose that there should ever be, or
seem a necessity, ... do you understand? And as a matter of personal
preference, it is natural for me to like the silence that does not hurt you,
better than the speech that does. And so, remember.
And talking of what may 'hurt' you and me, you would smile, as I have often
done in the midst of my vexation, if you knew the persecution I have been
subjected to by the people who call themselves (lucus a non lucendo*) 'the
faculty,' and set themselves against the exercise of other people's faculties,
as a sure way to death and destruction. The modesty and simplicity with which
one's physicians tell one not to think or feel, just as they would tell one not
to walk out in the dew, would be quite amusing, if it were not too tryingly
stupid sometimes. I had a doctor once who thought he had done everything because
he had carried the inkstand out of the room—'Now,' he said, 'you will have such
a pulse to-morrow.' He gravely thought poetry a sort of disease—a sort of fungus
of the brain—and held as a serious opinion, that nobody could be properly well
who exercised it as an art—which was true (he maintained) even of men—he had
studied the physiology of poets, 'quotha'—but that for women, it was a mortal
malady and incompatible with any common show of health under any circumstances.
And then came the damnatory clause in his experience ... that he had never known
'a system' approaching mine in 'excitability' ... except Miss Garrow's ... a
young lady who wrote verses for Lady Blessington's annuals ... and who was the
only other female rhymer he had had the misfortune of attending. And she was to
die in two years, though she was dancing quadrilles then (and has lived to do
the same by the polka), and I, of course, much sooner, if I did not
ponder these things, and amend my ways, and take to reading 'a course of
history'!! Indeed I do not exaggerate. And just so, for a long while I was
persecuted and pestered ... vexed thoroughly sometimes ... my own family,
instructed to sing the burden out all day long—until the time when the subject
was suddenly changed by my heart being broken by that great stone that fell out
of Heaven. Afterwards I was let do anything I could best ... which was very
little, until last year—and the working, last year, did much for me in giving me
stronger roots down into life, ... much. But think of that absurd reasoning that
went before!—the niaiserie [silliness] of it! For, granting all the premises all
round, it is not the utterance of a thought that can hurt anybody;
while only the utterance is dependent on the will; and so, what can the taking
away of an inkstand do? Those physicians are such metaphysicians! It's curious
to listen to them. And it's wise to leave off listening: though I have met with
excessive kindness among them, ... and do not refer to Dr. Chambers in any of
this, of course."
Isn't that fascinating? Take away the one thing a person loves to facilitate them becoming less nervous. Yes, brilliant. But I must observe that despite all the brilliant science in 21st Century medicine there are still physicians who have crazy ideas about the origin and treatment of illness.
"I am very glad you went to Chelsea—and it seemed finer afterwards, on purpose
to make room for the divine philosophy. Which reminds me (the going to Chelsea)
that my brother Henry confessed to me yesterday, with shame and confusion of
face, to having mistaken and taken your umbrella for another belonging to a
cousin of ours then in the house. He saw you ... without conjecturing, just at
the moment, who you were. Do you conjecture sometimes that I live all
alone here like Mariana in the moated Grange? It is not quite so—: but where
there are many, as with us, every one is apt to follow his own devices—and my
father is out all day and my brothers and sisters are in and out, and with too
large a public of noisy friends for me to bear, ... and I see them only at
certain hours, ... except, of course, my sisters. And then as you have 'a
reputation' and are opined to talk generally in blank verse, it is not likely
that there should be much irreverent rushing into this room when you are known
to be in it.
The flowers are ... so beautiful! Indeed it was wrong, though, to send me the
last. It was not just to the lawful possessors and enjoyers of them. That it was
kind to me I do not forget.
You are too teachable a pupil in the art of obliterating—and omne ignotum
pro terrifico [the unknown is ever terrifying]... and therefore I won't frighten you by walking to meet you
for fear of being frightened myself.
So good-bye until Tuesday. I ought not to make you read all this, I know,
whether you like to read it or not: and I ought not to have written it, having
no better reason than because I like to write on and on. You have better
reasons for thinking me very weak—and I, too good ones for not being able to
reproach you for that natural and necessary opinion.
Remember that he scratched out what he really wanted to say in his previous letter, making the point that he was not permitted to write what he really wanted to, despite her appeal to him to always tell her the truth. Here she mildly teazes him that she is frightened at what he might do if they met. They are teetering on the brink....
*"From late 4th-century grammarian Honoratus Maurus, who sought to mock implausible word origins such as those proposed by Priscian. A pun based on the word lucus (dark grove) having a similar appearance to the verb lucere (to shine), arguing that the former word is derived from the latter word because of a lack of light in wooded groves. Often used as an example of absurd etymoloy." (From Wiki) In other words, an aburdity.
No comments:
Post a Comment