#79

August 13, 1845.

Yes, I admit that it was stupid to read that word so wrong. I thought there was a mistake somewhere, but that it was yours, who had written one word, meaning to write another. ‘Cower’ puts it all right of course. But is there an English word of a significance different from ‘stamp,’ in ‘stomp?’ Does not the old word King Lud’s men stomped withal, claim identity with our ‘stamping.’ The a and o used to ‘change about,’ you know, in the old English writers — see Chaucer for it. Still the ‘stomp’ with the peculiar significance, is better of course than the ‘stamp’ even with a rhyme ready for it, and I dare say you are justified in daring to put this old wine into the new bottle; and we will drink to the health of the poem in it. It is ‘Italy in England’ — isn’t it? But I understand and understood perfectly, through it all, that it is unfinished, and in a rough state round the edges. I could not help seeing that, even if I were still blinder than when I read ‘Lower’ for ‘Cower.’

But do not, I ask of you, speak of my ‘kindness’  . . . my kindness! — mine! It is ‘wasteful and ridiculous excess’ and mis-application to use such words of me. And therefore, talking of ‘compacts’ and the ‘fas’ and ‘nefas’ of them, I entreat you to know for the future that whatever I write of your poetry, if it isn’t to be called ‘impertinence,’ isn’t to be called ‘kindness,’ any more,  . . . a fortiori, as people say when they are sure of an argument. Now, will you try to understand?

And talking still of compacts, how and where did I break any compact? I do not see.

It was very curious, the phenomenon about your ‘Only a Player-Girl.’ What an un-godlike indifference to your creatures though — your worlds, breathed away from you like soap bubbles, and dropping and breaking into russet portfolios unobserved! Only a god for the Epicurean, at best, can you be? That Miss Cushman went to Three Mile Cross the other day, and visited Miss Mitford, and pleased her a good deal, I fancied from what she said,  . . . and with reason, from what you say. And ‘Only a Fiddler,’ as I forgot to tell you yesterday, is announced, you may see in any newspaper, as about to issue from the English press by Mary Howitt’s editorship. So we need not go to America for it. But if you complain of George Sand for want of art, how could you bear Andersen, who can see a thing under his eyes and place it under yours, and take a thought separately into his soul and express it insularly, but has no sort of instinct towards wholeness and unity; and writes a book by putting so many pages together,  . . . just so! — For the rest, there can be no disagreeing with you about the comparative difficulty of novel-writing and drama-writing. I disagree a little, lower down in your letter, because I could not deny (in my own convictions) a certain proportion of genius to the author of ‘Ernest Maltravers,’ and ‘Alice’ (did you ever read those books?), even if he had more impotently tried (supposing it to be possible) for the dramatic laurel. In fact his poetry, dramatic or otherwise, is ‘nought’; but for the prose romances, and for ‘Ernest Maltravers’ above all, I must lift up my voice and cry. And I read the Athenæum about your Sir James Wylie who took you for an Italian . . ..

Ever your

E.B.B.