which suited Mrs. Browning made him, after the first excitement of delight, grow nervous and dispirited. They hastened away to Padua, drove to Arqua, “for Petrarch’s sake,” passed through Brescia in a flood of white moonlight, and having reached Milan climbed–the invalid of Wimpole Street and her husband–to the topmost point of the cathedral. From the Italian lakes they crossed by the St Gothard to Switzerland, and omitting part of their original scheme of wandering, journeyed in twenty-four hours without stopping from Strasburg to Paris.
In Paris they loitered for three weeks. Mrs. Browning during the short visit which followed her marriage had hardly seen the city. Bright shop-windows, before which little Wiedemann would scream with pleasure, restaurants and dinners _a la carte_, full-foliaged trees and gardens in the heart of the town were a not unwelcome exchange for Italian church-interiors and altar-pieces. Even “disreputable prints and fascinating hats and caps” were appreciated as proper to the genius of the place, and the writer of _Casa Guidi Windows_ had the happiness of seeing her hero, M. le President, “in a cocked hat, and with a train of cavalry, passing like a rocket along the boulevards to an occasional yell from the Red.” By a happy chance they lighted in Paris upon Tennyson, now Poet-laureate, whom Mrs. Browning had hitherto known only through his poems; he was in the friendliest mood, and urged that they should make use of his house and servants during their stay in England, an offer which was not refused, though there was no intention of actually taking advantage of the kindness. As for England, the thought of it, with her father’s heart and her father’s door closed against her, was bitter as wormwood to Mrs. Browning. “It’s only Robert,” she wrote, “who is a patriot now, of us two.”
English soil as they stepped ashore was a puddle, and English air a fog. London lodgings were taken at 26 Devonshire Street, and, although Mrs. Browning suffered from the climate, they were soon dizzied and dazzled by the whirl of pleasant hospitalities. An evening with Carlyle (“one of the greatest sights in England”), a dinner given by Forster at Thames Ditton, “in sight of the swans,” a breakfast with Rogers, daily visits of Barry Cornwall, cordial companionship of Mrs. Jameson, a performance by the Literary Guild actors, a reading of _Hamlet_ by Fanny Kemble–with these distractions and such as these the two months flew quickly. It was in some ways a relief when Pen’s faithful maid Wilson went for a fortnight to see her kinsfolk, and Mrs. Browning had to take her place and substitute for social racketing domestic cares. The one central sorrow remained and in some respects was intensified. She had written to her father, and Browning himself wrote–“a manly, true, straight-forward letter,” she informs a friend, “… everywhere generous and conciliating.” A violent and unsparing reply was made, and with it came all the letters that his undutiful daughter had written to Mr. Barrett; not one had been read or opened. He returned them now, because he had not previously known how he could be relieved of the obnoxious documents. “God takes it all into his own hands,” wrote Mrs. Browning, “and I wait.” Something, however, was gained; her brothers were reconciled; Arabella Barrett was constant in kindness; and Henrietta journeyed from Taunton to London to enjoy a week in her company.
It was at Devonshire Street that Bayard Taylor, the distinguished American poet and critic, made the acquaintance of the Brownings, and the record of his visit gives a picture of Browning at the age of thirty-nine, so clearly and firmly drawn that it ought not to be omitted here: “In a small drawing-room on the first floor I met Browning, who received me with great cordiality. In his lively, cheerful manner, quick voice, and perfect self-possession, he made the impression of an American rather than an Englishman. He was then, I should judge, about thirty-seven years of age, but his dark hair was already streaked with gray about the temples. His complexion was fair, with perhaps the faintest olive tinge, eyes large, clear, and gray, nose strong and well cut, mouth full and rather broad, and chin pointed, though not prominent. His forehead broadened rapidly upwards from the outer angle of the eyes, slightly retreating. The strong individuality which marks his poetry was expressed not only in his face and head, but in his whole demeanour. He was about the medium height, strong in the shoulders, but slender at the waist, and his movements expressed a combination of vigour and elasticity.” Mrs Browning with her slight figure, pale face, shaded by chestnut curls, and grave eyes of bluish gray, is also described; and presently entered to the American visitor Pen, a blue-eyed, golden-haired boy, who babbled his little sentences in Italian.
When, towards the close of September, Browning and his wife left London for Paris, Carlyle by his own request was their companion on the journey. Mrs Browning feared that his irritable nerves would suffer from the vivacities of little Pen, but it was not so; he accepted with good humour the fact that the small boy had not yet learned, like his own Teufelsdroeckh, the Eternal No: “Why, sir,” exclaimed Carlyle, “you have as many aspirations as Napoleon!”[47] At Dieppe, Browning, as Carlyle records, “did everything, fought for us, and we–that is, the woman, the child and I–had only to wait and be silent.” At Paris in the midst of “a crowding, jangling, vociferous tumult, the brave Browning fought for us, leaving me to sit beside the woman.” An apartment was found on the sunny side of the Avenue des Champs-Elysees, “pretty, cheerful, carpeted rooms,” far brighter and better than those of Devonshire Street, and when, to Browning’s amusement, his wife had moved every chair and table into the new and absolutely right position, they could rest and be thankful. Carlyle spent several evenings with them, and repaid the assistance which he received in various difficulties from Browning’s command of the language, by picturesque conversations in his native speech: “You come to understand perfectly,” wrote Mrs Browning, “when you know him, that his bitterness is only melancholy, and his scorn sensibility.” A little later Browning’s father and sister spent some weeks in Paris. Here, at all events, were perfect relations between the members of a family group; the daughter here was her father’s comrade with something even of a maternal instinct; and the grandfather discovered to his great satisfaction that his own talent for drawing had descended to his grandchild.
The time was one when the surface of life in Paris showed an unruffled aspect; but under the surface were heavings of inward agitation. On the morning of December 2nd the great stroke against the Republic was delivered; the _coup d’etat_ was an accomplished fact. Later in the day Louis Napoleon rode under the windows of the apartment in the Avenue des Champs-Elysees, from the Carrousel to the Arc de l’Etoile. To Mrs Browning it seemed the grandest of spectacles–“he rode there in the name of the people after all.” She and her husband had witnessed revolutions in Florence, and political upheavals did not seem so very formidable. On the Thursday of bloodshed in the streets–December 4th–Pen was taken out for his usual walk, though not without certain precautions; as the day advanced the excitement grew tense, and when night fell the distant firing on the boulevards kept Mrs. Browning from her bed till one o’clock. On Saturday they took a carriage and drove to see the field of action; the crowds moved to and fro, discussing the situation, but of real disturbance there was none; next day the theatres had their customary spectators and the Champs-Elysees its promenaders. For the dishonoured “Liberte, Egalite, Fraternite,” as Mrs. Browning heard it suggested, might now be inscribed “Infanterie, Cavallerie, Artillerie.”
Such may have been her husband’s opinion, but such was not hers. Her faith in the President had been now and again shaken; her faith in the Emperor became as time went on an enthusiasm of hero-worship. The display of force on December 2nd impressed her imagination; there was a dramatic completeness in the whole performance; Napoleon represented the people; a democrat, she thought, should be logical and thorough; the vote of the millions entirely justified their chief. Browning viewed affairs more critically, more sceptically. “Robert and I,” writes his wife jestingly, “have had some domestic _emeutes_, because he hates some imperial names.” He detested all Buonapartes, he would say, past, present, and to come,–an outbreak explained by Mrs Browning to her satisfaction, as being only his self-willed way of dismissing a subject with which he refused to occupy his thoughts, a mere escapade of feeling and known to him as such. When all the logic and good sense were on the woman’s side, how could she be disturbed by such masculine infirmities? Though only a very little lower than the angels, he was after all that humorous being–a man.
FOOTNOTES:
[Footnote 47: “Mrs Orr’s Life and Letters of R.B.,” 173.]
Chapter VIII
1851 to 1855
It was during the month of the _coup d’etat_ that Browning went back in thought to the poet of his youthful love, and wrote that essay which was prefixed to the volume of forged letters published as Shelley’s by Moxon in 1852. The essay is interesting as Browning’s only considerable piece of prose, and also as an utterance made not through the mask of any _dramatis persona_, but openly and directly from his own lips. Though not without value as a contribution to the study of Shelley’s genius, it is perhaps chiefly of importance as an exposition of some of Browning’s own views concerning his art. He distinguishes between two kinds or types of poet: the poet who like Shakespeare is primarily the “fashioner” of things independent of his own personality, artistic creations which embody some fact or reality, leaving it to others to interpret, as best they are able, its significance; and secondly the poet who is rather a “seer” than a fashioner, who attempts to exhibit in imaginative form his own conceptions of absolute truth, conceptions far from entire adequacy, yet struggling towards completeness; the poet who would shadow forth, as he himself apprehends them, _Ideas_, to use the word of Plato, “seeds of creation lying burningly on the Divine Hand”–which Ideas he discovers not so often in the external world as in his own soul, this being for him “the nearest reflex of the absolute Mind.” What a poet of this second kind produces, as Browning finely states it, will be less a work than an effluence. He is attracted among external phenomena chiefly by those which summon forth his inner light and power, “he selects that silence of the earth and sea in which he can best hear the beating of his individual heart, and leaves the noisy, complex, yet imperfect exhibitions of nature in the manifold experience of man around him, which serve only to distract and suppress the working of his brain.” To this latter class of poets, although in _The Cenci_ and _Julian and Maddalo_ he is eminent as a “fashioner,” Shelley conspicuously belongs. Mankind cannot wisely dispense with the services of either type of poet; at one time it chiefly needs to have that which is already known interpreted into its highest meanings; and at another, when the virtue of these interpretations has been appropriated and exhausted, it needs a fresh study and exploration of the facts of life and nature–for “the world is not to be learned and thrown aside, but reverted to and relearned.” The truest and highest point of view from which to regard the poetry of Shelley is that which shows it as a “sublime fragmentary essay towards a presentment of the correspondency of the universe to Deity, of the natural to the spiritual, and of the actual to the ideal.”
For Browning the poet of _Prometheus Unbound_ was not that beautiful and ineffectual angel of Matthew Arnold’s fancy, beating in the void his luminous wings. A great moral purpose looked forth from Shelley’s work, as it does, Browning would add, from all lofty works of art. And it may be remarked that the criticism of Browning’s own writings which considers not only their artistic methods and artistic success or failure, but also their ethical and spiritual purport, is entirely in accord with his thoughts in this essay. Far from regarding Shelley as unpractical, he notes–and with perfect justice–“the peculiar practicalness” of Shelley’s mind, which in his earlier years acted injuriously upon both his conduct and his art. His power to perceive the defects of society was accompanied by as precocious a fertility to contrive remedies; but his crudeness in theorising and his inexperience in practice resulted in not a few youthful errors. Gradually he left behind him “this low practical dexterity”; gradually he learnt that “the best way of removing abuses is to stand fast by truth. Truth is one, as they are manifold; and innumerable negative effects are produced by the upholding of one positive principle.” Browning urges that Shelley, before the close, had passed from his doctrinaire atheism to what was virtually a theistic faith. “I shall say what I think,” he adds–“had Shelley lived he would have finally ranged himself with the Christians…. The preliminary step to following Christ is the leaving the dead to bury their dead.” Perhaps this hypothetical anticipation is to be classed with the surmise of Cardinal Wiseman (if Father Prout rightly attributed to that eminent ecclesiastic a review of _Men and Women_ in _The Rambler_) that Browning himself would one day be found in the ranks of converts to Catholicism. In each case a wish was father to the thought; Browning recognised the fact that Shelley assigned a place to love, side by side with power, among the forces which determine the life and development of humanity, and with Browning himself “power” was a synonym for the Divine will, and “love” was often an equivalent for God manifest in Jesus Christ. One or two other passages of the essay may be noted as illustrating certain characteristics of the writer’s modes of thought and feeling: “Everywhere is apparent Shelley’s belief in the existence of Good, to which Evil is an accident”–it is an optimist here, though of a subtler doctrine than Shelley’s, who is applauding optimism. “Shelley was tender, though tenderness is not always the characteristic of very sincere natures; he was eminently both tender and sincere.” Was Browning consulting his own heart, which was always sincere, and could be tender, but whose tenderness sometimes disappeared in explosions of indignant wrath? The principle, again, by which he determined an artist’s rank is in harmony with Browning’s general feeling that men are to be judged less by their actual achievements than by the possibilities that lie unfolded within them, and the ends to which they aspire, even though such ends be unattained: “In the hierarchy of creative minds, it is the presence of the highest faculty that gives first rank, in virtue of its kind, not degree; no pretension of a lower nature, whatever the completeness of development or variety of effect, impeding the precedency of the rarer endowment though only in the germ.” And, last, of the tardy recognition of Shelley’s genius as a poet, Browning wrote in words which though, as he himself says, he had always good praisers, no doubt express a thought that helped to sustain him against the indifference of the public to his poetry: “The misapprehensiveness of his age is exactly what a poet is sent to remedy: and the interval between his operation and the generally perceptible effect of it, is no greater, less indeed than in many other departments of the great human effort. The ‘E pur si muove’ of the astronomer was as bitter a word as any uttered before or since by a poet over his rejected living work, in that depth of conviction which is so like despair.” The volume in which Browning’s essay appeared was withdrawn from circulation on the discovery of the fraudulent nature of its contents. He had himself no opportunity of inspecting the forged manuscripts, and no question of authenticity was raised until several copies of the book had passed into circulation.[48]
During the nine months spent in Paris, from September 1851 to June 1852, Browning enlarged the circle of his friends and made some new and interesting acquaintances. Chief among friendships was that with Joseph Milsand of Dijon, whose name is connected with _Sordello_ in the edition of Browning’s “Poetical Works” of the year 1863. Under the title “La Poesie Anglaise depuis Byron,” two articles by Milsand were contributed to the “Revue des Deux Mondes,” the first on Tennyson, the second (published 15th August 1851) a little before the poet’s arrival in Paris, on Robert Browning. “Of all the poets known to me,” wrote his French critic, “he is the most capable of summing up the conceptions of the religion, the ethics, and the theoretic knowledge of our period in forms which embody the beauty proper to such abstractions.” Such criticism by a thoughtful student of our literature could not but prepare the way pleasantly for personal acquaintance. Milsand, we are told by his friend Th. Bentzon (Mme. Blanc), having hesitated as to the propriety of printing a passage in an article as yet unpublished, in which he had spoken of the great sorrow of Mrs Browning’s early life–the death of her brother, went straight to Browning, who was then in Paris, and declared that he was ready to cancel what he had written if it would cause her pain. “Only a Frenchman,” exclaimed Browning, grasping both hands of his visitor, “would have done this.” So began a friendship of an intimate and most helpful kind, which closed only with Milsand’s death in 1886. To his memory is dedicated the volume published soon after his death, _Parleyings with certain People of Importance_. “I never knew or shall know his like among men,” wrote Browning; and again: “No words can express the love I have for him.” And in _Red Cotton Nightcap Country_ it is Milsand who is characterised in the lines:
He knows more and loves better than the world That never heard his name and never may, … What hinders that my heart relieve itself, O friend! who makest warm my wintry world, And wise my heaven, if there we consort too.
In the correction of Browning’s proof-sheets, and especially in regulating the punctuation of his poems, Milsand’s friendly services were of high value. In 1858 when Browning happened to be at Dijon, and had reason to believe, though in fact erroneously, that his friend was absent in Paris, he went twice “in a passion of friendship,” as his wife tells a correspondent, to stand before Maison Milsand, and muse, and bless the threshold.[49]
Browning desired much to know Victor Hugo, but his wish was never gratified. After December 2nd Paris could not contain a spirit so fiery as Hugo’s was in hostility to the new regime and its chief representative. Balzac, whom it would have been a happiness even to look at, was dead. Lamartine promised a visit, but for a time his coming was delayed. By a mischance Alfred de Musset failed to appear when Browning, expecting to meet him, was the guest of M. Buloz. But Beranger was to be seen “in his white hat wandering along the asphalte.” The blind historian Thierry begged Browning and his wife to call upon him. At the house of Ary Scheffer, the painter, they heard Mme. Viardot sing; and receptions given by Lady Elgin and Mme. Mohl were means of introduction to much that was interesting in the social life of Paris. At the theatre they saw with the deepest excitement “La Dame aux Camelias,” which was running its hundred nights. Caricatures in the streets exhibited the occupants of the pit protected by umbrellas from the rain of tears that fell from the boxes. Tears, indeed, ran down Browning’s cheeks, though he had believed himself hardened against theatrical pathos. Mrs Browning cried herself ill, and pronounced the play painful but profoundly moral.
Mrs Browning’s admiration of the writings of George Sand was so great that it would have been a sore disappointment to her if George Sand were to prove inaccessible. A letter of introduction to her had been obtained from Mazzini. “Ah, I am so vexed about George Sand,” Mrs Browning wrote on Christmas Eve; “she came, she has gone, and we haven’t met.” In February she again was known to be for a few days in Paris; Browning was not eager to push through difficulties on the chance of obtaining an interview, but his wife was all impatience: “‘ No,’ said I, ‘you _shan’t_ be proud, and I _won’t_ be proud, and we _will_ see her. I won’t die, if I can help it, without seeing George Sand.'” A gracious reply and an appointment came in response to their joint-petition which accompanied Mazzini’s letter. On the appointed Sunday Browning and Mrs Browning–she wearing a respirator and smothered in furs–drove to render their thanks and homage to the most illustrious of Frenchwomen. Mrs Browning with beating heart stooped and kissed her hand. They found in George Sand’s face no sweetness, but great moral and intellectual capacities; in manners and conversation she was absolutely simple. Young men formed the company, to whom she addressed counsel and command with the utmost freedom and a conscious authority. Through all her speech a certain undercurrent of scorn, a half-veiled touch of disdain, was perceptible. At their parting she invited the English visitors to come again, kissed Mrs Browning on the lips, and received Browning’s kiss upon her hand. The second call upon her was less agreeable. She sat warming her feet in a circle of eight or nine ill-bred men, representatives of “the ragged Red diluted with the lower theatrical.” If any other mistress of a house had behaved so unceremoniously, Browning declared that he would have walked out of the room; and Mrs Browning left with the impression–“she does not care for me.” They had exerted themselves to please her, but felt that it was in vain; “we couldn’t penetrate, couldn’t really _touch_ her.” Once Browning met her near the Tuileries and walked the length of the gardens with her arm upon his. If nothing further was to come of it, at least they had seen a wonderful piece of work, which not to have been blest withal would have discredited their travel. Only to Mrs Browning’s mortification the spectacle wanted one detail indispensable to its completeness–the characteristic cigarette was absent: “Ah, but I didn’t see her smoke.” Life leaves us always something to desire.
Before the close of June 1852 they were again in London, and found comfortable rooms at 58 Welbeck Street. When the turmoil of the first days had subsided, they visited “Kenyon the Magnificent”–so named by Browning–at Wimbledon, at whose table Landor, abounding in life and passionate energy as in earlier days, was loud in his applause of the genius of Louis Napoleon. Mazzini, his “intense eyes full of melancholy illusions,” called at their lodgings in company with Mrs Carlyle, who seemed to Mrs Browning not only remarkable for her play of ideas but attaching through her feelings and her character.[50] Florence Nightingale was also a welcome visitor, and her visit was followed by a gift of flowers. Invitations from country houses came in sheaves, and the thought of green fields is seductive in a London month of July; but to remain in London was to be faithful to Penini–and to the much-travelled Flush. Once the whole household, with Flush included, breathed rural air for two days with friends at Farnham, and Browning had there the pleasure of meeting Charles Kingsley, whose Christian Socialism seemed wild and unpractical enough, but as for the man himself, brave, bold, original, full of a genial kindliness, Mrs Browning assures a correspondent that he could not be other than “good and noble let him say or dream what he will.” It is stated by Mr W.M. Rossetti that Browning first became acquainted with his brother Dante Gabriel in the course of this summer. Coventry Patmore gave him the manuscript of his unpublished poems of 1853 to read. And Ruskin was now added to the number of his personal acquaintances. “We went to Denmark Hill yesterday, by agreement,” wrote Mrs Browning in September, “to see the Turners–which, by the way, are divine. I like Mr Ruskin much, and so does Robert. Very gentle, yet earnest–refined and truthful.” At Lord Stanhope’s they were introduced to the latest toy of fashionable occultism, the crystal ball, in which the seer beheld Oremus, the spirit of the sun; the supernatural was qualified for the faithful with luncheon and lobster salad; “I love the marvellous,” Mrs Browning frankly declares. And of terrestrial wonders, with heaven lying about them, and also India muslin and Brussels lace, two were seen in the babies of Monckton Milnes and Alfred Tennyson. Pen, because he was “troppo grande,” declined to kiss the first of these new-christened wonders, but Pen’s father, who went alone to the baptism of Hallam Tennyson, distinguished himself by nursing for some ten minutes and with accomplished dexterity, the future Governor-General of Australia.
Yet with all these distractions, perhaps in part because of them, the visit to England was not one of Browning’s happiest times. The autumn weather confined Mrs Browning to her rooms. He was anxious, vexed, and worn.[51] It was a happiness when Welbeck Street was left behind, and they were on the way by Paris to their resting-place at Casa Guidi. From a balcony overlooking one of the Paris boulevards they witnessed, in a blaze of autumnal sunshine, which glorified much military and civic pomp, the reception of the new Emperor. Mrs Browning’s handkerchief waved frantically while she prayed that God might bless the people in this the chosen representative of a democracy. What were Browning’s thoughts on that memorable Saturday is not recorded, but we may be sure that they were less enthusiastic. Yet he enjoyed the stir and animation of Paris, and after the palpitating life of the boulevards found Florence dull and dead–no change, no variety. The journey by the Mont Cenis route had not been without its trying incidents. At Genoa, during several days he was deeply depressed by the illness of his wife, who lay on the sofa and seemed to waste away. But Casa Guidi was reached at last, where it was more like summer than November; the pleasant nest had its own peculiar welcome for wanderers; again they enjoyed the sunsets over the Arno, and Mrs Browning was able to report herself free from cough and feeling very well and very happy: “You can’t think how we have caught up our ancient traditions just where we left them, and relapsed into our former soundless, stirless, hermit life. Robert has not passed an evening from home since we came–just as if we had never known Paris.”[52]
The political condition of Italy was, indeed, a grief to both husband and wife. It was a state of utter prostration–on all sides “the unanimity of despair.” The Grand Duke, the emancipator, had acquired a respect and affection for the bayonets of Austria. The Pope was “wriggling his venom into the heart of all possibilities of free-thought and action.” Browning groaned “How long, O Lord, how long?” His home-thoughts of England in contrast with Italy were those of patriotism and pride. His wife was more detached, more critical towards her native land. The best symptom for Italian freedom was that if Italy had not energy to act, she yet had energy to hate. To be happy now they both must turn to imaginative work, and gain all the gains possible from private friendships. Browning was already occupied with the poems included afterwards in the volumes of _Men and Women_. Mrs Browning was already engaged upon _Aurora Leigh_. “We neither of us show our work to one another,” she wrote, “till it is finished. An artist must, I fancy, either find or _make_ a solitude to work in, if it is to be good work at all.” But as her husband’s poems, one by one, were completed, she saw them, and they seemed to her as fine as anything he had done. Away in England _Colombe’s Birthday_ was given on the stage, with Helen Faucit in the leading part. It was at least an indication that the public had not forgotten that Browning was a poet. Here in Florence, although the hermit life was happy, new friends–the gift of England–added to its happiness. Frederick Tennyson, the Laureate’s brother, and himself a true poet in his degree, “a dreamy, shy, speculative man,” simple withal and truthful, had married an Italian wife and was settled for a time in Florence. To him Browning became attached with genuine affection. Mrs Browning was a student of the writings of Swedenborg, and she tells much of her new friend in a single Swedenborgian word–“selfhood, the _proprium_, is not in him.” Frederick Tennyson, though left in a state of bewilderment by Browning’s poetry, found the writer of the poetry “a man of infinite learning, jest and bonhommie, and moreover a sterling heart that reverbs no hollowness.”[53] Another intimate who charmed them much was one of the attaches of the English embassy, and a poet of unquestionable faculty, very young, very gentle and refined, delicate and excitable, full of sensibility, “full of all sorts of goodness and nobleness,” but somewhat dreamy and unpractical, “visionary enough,” writes Mrs Browning, “to suit me,” interested moreover in spiritualism, which suited her well, “never,” she unwisely prophesied, “to be a great diplomatist.” It was hardly, Mr Kenyon, the editor of her letters, observes, a successful horoscope of the destiny of Lord Lytton, the future Ambassador at Paris and Viceroy of India.[54]
Early in 1853 Mrs Browning became much interested in the reports which reached her–many of these from America–of the “rapping spirits,” who in the ‘fifties were busy in instructing chairs and tables to walk in the way they should not go. “You know I am rather a visionary,” she wrote to Miss Mitford, “and inclined to knock round at all the doors of the present world to try to get out.” Her Swedenborgian studies had prepared her to believe that there were communities of life in the visible and the invisible worlds which did not permit of the one being wholly estranged from the other. A clever person who loves the marvellous will soon find by the sheer force of logic that marvels are the most natural things in the world. Should we not credit human testimony? Should we not evict prejudice from our understandings? Should we not investigate alleged facts? Should we not keep an open mind? We cannot but feel a certain sympathy with a woman of ardent nature who fails to observe the bounds of intellectual prudence. Browning himself with all his audacities was pre-eminently prudent. He did not actively enter into politics; he did not dabble in pseudo-science; he was an artist and a thinker; and he made poems, and amused himself with drawing, modelling in clay, and the study of music. Mrs Browning squandered her enthusiasms with less discretion. A good dose of stupidity or an indignant energy of common-sense, impatient of the nonsense of the thing, may be the salvation of the average man. It is often the clever people who would be entirely rational and unprejudiced that best succeed in duping themselves at once by their reason and their folly. A fine old crusted prejudice commonly stands for a thousand acts of judgment amassed into a convenient working result; a single act of an individual understanding, or several of such acts, will seldom contain an equal sum of wisdom. Scientific discovery is not advanced by a multitude of curious and ingenious amateurs in learned folly. Whether the claims of spiritualism are warrantable or fallacious, Mrs Browning, gifted as she was with rare powers of mind, was not qualified to investigate those claims; it was a waste of energy, from which she could not but suffer serious risks and certain loss.
Before she had seen anything for herself she was a believer–a believer, as she describes it, on testimony. The fact of communication with the invisible world appeared to her more important than anything that had been communicated. The spirits themselves “seem abundantly foolish, one must admit.” Yet it was clear to her that mankind was being prepared for some great development of truth. She would keep her eyes wide open to facts and her soul lifted up in reverential expectation. By-and-by she felt the dumb wood of the table panting and shivering with human emotion. The dogmatism of Faraday in an inadequate theory was simply unscientific, a piece of intellectual tyranny. The American medium Home, she learnt from her friends, was “turning the world upside down in London with this spiritual influx.” Two months later, in July 1855, Mrs Browning and her husband were themselves in London, and witnessed Home’s performances during a seance at Ealing. Miss de Gaudrion (afterwards Mrs Merrifield), who was present on that occasion, and who was convinced that the “manifestations” were a fraud, wrote to Mrs Browning for an expression of her opinion. The reply, as might be expected, declared the writer’s belief in the genuine character of the phenomena; such manifestations, she admitted, in the undeveloped state of the subject were “apt to be low”; but they were, she was assured, “the beginning of access from a spiritual world, of which we shall presently learn more perhaps.” A letter volunteered by Browning accompanied that of his wife. He had, he said, to overcome a real repugnance in recalling the subject; he could hardly understand how another opinion was possible than that “the whole display of ‘hands,’ ‘spirit utterances,’ etc., was a cheat and imposture.” It was all “melancholy stuff,” which a grain of worldly wisdom would dispose of in a minute. “Mr Browning,” the letter goes on, “has, however, abundant experience that the best and rarest of natures may begin by the proper mistrust of the more ordinary results of reasoning when employed in such investigations as these, go on to an abnegation of the regular tests of truth and rationality in favour of these particular experiments, and end in a voluntary prostration of the whole intelligence before what is assumed to transcend all intelligence. Once arrived at this point, no trick is too gross–absurdities are referred to ‘low spirits,’ falsehoods to ‘personating spirits’–and the one terribly apparent spirit, the Father of Lies, has it all his own way.” These interesting letters were communicated to _The Times_ by Mr Merrifield (_Literary Supplement_, Nov. 28, 1902), and they called forth a short additional letter from Mr R. Barrett Browning, the “Penini” of earlier days. He mentions that his father had himself on one occasion detected Home in a vulgar fraud; that Home had called at the house of the Brownings, and was turned out of it. Mr Browning adds: “What, however, I am more desirous of stating is that towards the end of her life my mother’s views on ‘spiritual manifestations’ were much modified. This change was brought about, in great measure, by the discovery that she had been duped by a friend in whom she had blind faith. The pain of the disillusion was great, but her eyes were opened and she saw clearly.”[55] It must be added, that letters written by Mrs Browning six months before her death give no indication of this change of feeling, but she admits that “sublime communications” from the other world are “decidedly absent,” and that while no truth can be dangerous, unsettled minds may lose their balance, and may do wisely to avoid altogether the subject of spiritualism.
Browning’s hostility arose primarily from his conviction that the so-called “manifestations” were, as he says, a cheat and imposture. He had grasped Home’s leg under the table while at work in producing “phenomena.” He had visited his friend, Seymour Kirkup, had found the old man assisting at the trance of a peasant girl named Mariana; and when Kirkup withdrew for a moment, the entranced Mariana relieved herself from the fatigue of her posturing, at the same time inviting Browning with a wink to be a charitable confederate in the joke by which she profited in admiration and in pelf. Browning, who would have waged immitigable war against the London dog-stealers, and opposed all treaty with such rogues, even at the cost of an unrecovered Flush, could not but oppose the new trade of elaborate deception. But his feeling was intensified by the personal repulsiveness of the professional medium. The vain, sleek, vulgar, emasculated, neurotic type of creature, who became the petted oracle of the dim-lighted room, was loathsome in his eyes. And his respect for his wife’s genius made him feel that there was a certain desecration in the neighbourhood to her of men whom he regarded as verminous impostors. Yet he recognised her right to think for herself, and she, on the other hand, regarded his scepticism as rather his misfortune than his crime.
It was a considerable time after his wife’s death that Browning’s study of the impostor of the spiritualist circles, “Mr Sludge the Medium,” appeared in the _Dramatis Personae_ of 1864; the date of its composition is Rome, 1859-60; but the observations which that study sums up were accumulated during earlier years, and if Mr Sludge is not a portrait of Home, that eminent member of the tribe of Sludge no doubt supplied suggestions for the poet’s character-study. Browning evidently wrote the poem with a peculiar zest; its intellectual energy never flags; its imaginative grip never slackens. If the Bishop, who orders his tomb at St Praxed’s, serves to represent the sensuous glory and the moral void of one phase of the Italian Renaissance, so, and with equal fidelity, does Mr Sludge represent a phase of nineteenth century materialism and moral grossness, which cannot extinguish the cravings of the soul but would vulgarise and degrade them with coarse illusions. Unhappily the later poem differs from the earlier in being uglier in its theme and of inordinate length. Browning, somewhat in the manner of Ben Jonson when he wrote _The Alchemist_, could not be satisfied until he had exhausted the subject to the dregs. The writer’s zeal from first to last knows no abatement, but it is not every reader who cares to bend over the dissecting-table, with its sick effluvia, during so prolonged a demonstration.
“Mr Sludge the Medium” is not a mere attack on spiritualism; it is a dramatic scene in the history of a soul; and Browning, with his democratic feeling in things of the mind, held that every soul however mean is worth understanding. If the poem is a satire, it is so only in a way that is inevitable. Browning’s desire is to be absolutely just, but sometimes truth itself becomes perforce a satire. He takes an impostor at the moment of extreme disadvantage; the “medium” is caught in the very act of cheating; he will make a clean breast of it; and his confession is made as nearly as possible a vindication. The most contemptible of creatures, in desperate straits, makes excellent play with targe and dagger; the poetry of the piece is to be found in the lithe attitudes, absolutely the best possible under the circumstances, by which he maintains both defence and attack. Half of the long _apologia_ is a criticism not of those who feast fools in their folly, but of the fools who require a caterer for the feast; it is a study of the methods by which dupes solicit and educate a knave. The other half is Sludge’s plea that, knave though he be, he is not wholly knave; and Browning, while absolutely rejecting the doctrine of so called spiritualism, is prepared to admit that in the composition of a Sludge there enters a certain portion of truth, low in degree, perverted in kind, inoperative to the ends of truth, yet a fragment of that without which life itself were impossible even for the meanest organism in the shape of man.
Cowardly, cunning, insolent, greedy, effeminately sensual, playing upon the vanity of his patrons, playing upon their vulgar sentimentality, playing upon their vulgar pietisms and their vulgar materialism, Sludge after all is less the wronger than the wronged. Who made him what he is? Who, keen and clear-sighted enough in fields which they had not selected as their special parade-ground for self-conceit, trained him on to knavery and self-degradation? Who helped him through his blunders with ingenious excuses–“the manifestations are at first so weak”; or “Sludge is himself disturbed by the strange phenomena”; or “a doubter is in the company, and the spirits have grown confused in their communications”? Who proceeded to exhibit him as a lawful prize and possession, staking their vanity on the success of his imposture? Who awakened in him the artist’s joy in rare invention? Who urged him forward from modest to magnificent lies? Who fed and flattered him? What ladies bestowed their soft caresses on Sludge? And now and again in his course of fraud did he not turn a wistful eye towards any reckless tatterdemalion, if only the vagrant lived in freedom and in truth?
It’s too bad, I say,
Ruining a soul so!
And in the midst of gulls who persistently refuse to be undeceived cheating is so “cruel easy.” The difficulty is rather that the cheating, even when acknowledged, should ever be credited for what it is. The medium has confessed! Yes, and to cheat may be part of the medium nature; none the less he has the medium’s gift of acting as a conductor between the visible and the invisible worlds. Has he not told secrets of the lives of his wondering clients which could not have been known by natural means? And Sludge chuckles “could not?”–could not be known by him who in his seeming passivity is alive at every nerve with the instinct of the detective, by him whose trade was
Throwing thus
His sense out, like an ant-eater’s long tongue, Soft, innocent, warm, moist, impassible, And when ’twas crusted o’er with creatures–slick, Their juice enriched his palate. “Could not Sludge!”
Haunters of the seance of every species are his aiders and abettors–the unbeliever, whom believers overwhelm or bribe to acquiescence, the fair votaries who find prurient suggestions characteristic of the genuine medium, the lover of the lie through the natural love of it, the amateur, incapable of a real conviction, who plays safely with superstition, the literary man who welcomes a new flavour for the narrative or the novel, the philosophic diner-out, who wants the chopping-block of a disputable doctrine on which to try the edge of his faculty. Is it his part, Sludge asks indignantly, to be grateful to the patrons who have corrupted and debased him?
Gratitude to these?
The gratitude, forsooth, of a prostitute To the greenhorn and the bully.
The truculence of Sludge is not without warrant; it is indeed no other than the truculence of Robert Browning, “shaking his mane,” as Dante Rossetti described him in his outbreaks against the spiritualists, “with occasional foamings at the mouth.”[56]
Where then is the little grain of truth which has vitality amid the putrefaction of Sludge’s nature? Liar and cheat as he is, he cannot be sure “but there was something in it, tricks and all.” The spiritual world, he feels, is as real as the material world; the supernatural interpenetrates the natural at every point; in little things, as in great things, God is present. Sludge is aware of the invisible powers at every nerve:
I guess what’s going on outside the veil, Just as the prisoned crane feels pairing-time In the islands where his kind are, so must fall To capering by himself some shiny night As if your back yard were a plot of spice.
He cheats; yes, but he also apprehends a truth which the world is blind to. Or, after all, is this cheating when every lie is quick with a germ of truth? Is not such lying as this a self-desecration, if you will; but still more a strange, sweet self-sacrifice in the service of truth? At the lowest is it not required by the very conditions of our poor mortal life, which remains so sorry a thing, so imperfect, so unendurable until it is brought into fruitful connection with a future existence? This world of ours is a cruel, blundering, unintelligible world; but let it be pervaded by an influx from the next world, how quickly it rights itself! how intelligible it all grows! And is the faculty of imagination, the faculty which discovers the things of the spirit–put to his own uses by the poet and even the historian–is this a power which cheats its possessor, or cheats those for whose advantage he gives it play?
Browning’s design is to exhibit even in this Sludge the rudiments–coarse, perverted, abnormally directed and ineffective for moral good–of that sublime spiritual wisdom, which, turned to its proper ends and aided by the highest intellectual powers, is present–to take a lofty exemplar–in his Pope of _The Ring and the Book_. It is not through spiritualism so-called that Sludge has received his little grain of truth; that has only darkened the glimmer of true light which was in him. Yet liar and cheat and coward, he is saved from a purely phantasmal existence by this fibre of reality which was part of his original structure. The epilogue–Sludge’s outbreak against his corrupter and tormentor–stands as evidence of the fact that no purifying, no cleansing, no really illuminating power remains in what is now only a putrescent luminosity within him. His rage is natural and dramatically true; a noble rage would be to his honour. This is a base and poisonous passion with no virtue in it, and the passion, flaring for a moment, sinks idly into as base a fingering of Sludge’s disgraceful gains.
[Illustration: THE VIA BOCCA DI LEONE, ROME, IN WHICH THE BROWNINGS STAYED.
_From a photograph._]
The summer and early autumn of 1853 were spent by Browning and his wife, as they had spent the same season four years previously, at the Baths of Lucca. Their house among the hills was shut in by a row of plane-trees in which by day the cicale were shrill; at evening fireflies lit up their garden. The green rushing river–“a flashing scimitar that cuts through the mountain”–the chestnut woods, the sheep-walks, “the villages on the peaks of the mountains like wild eagles,” renewed their former delights.
On the longer excursions Browning slackened his footsteps to keep pace with his wife’s donkey; basins of strawberries and cream refreshed the wanderers after their exertion. “Oh those jagged mountains,” exclaims Mrs Browning, “rolled together like pre-Adamite beasts, and setting their teeth against the sky…. You may as well guess at a lion by a lady’s lap-dog as at Nature by what you see in England. All honour to England, lanes and meadowland, notwithstanding. To the great trees above all.” The sculptor Story and his family, whose acquaintance they had made in Florence before Casa Guidi had become their home, were their neighbours at the Baths, and Robert Lytton was for a time their guest. Browning worked at his _Men and Women_, of which his wife was able to report in the autumn that it was in an advanced state. _In a Balcony_ was the most important achievement of the summer. “The scene of the declaration in _By the Fireside_” Mrs Orr informs us, “was laid in a little adjacent mountain-gorge to which Browning walked or rode.”
Only a few weeks were given to Florence. In perfect autumnal weather the occupants of Casa Guidi started for Rome. The delightful journey occupied eight days, and on the way the church of Assisi was seen, and the falls of Terni–“that passion of the waters,”–so Mrs Browning describes it, “which makes the human heart seem so still.” They entered Rome in a radiant mood.–“Robert and Penini singing.” An apartment had been taken for them by their friends the Storys in the Via Bocca di Leone, and all was bright, warm, and full of comfort. Next morning a shadow fell upon their happiness–the Storys’ little boy was seized with convulsions; in the evening he was dead.[57] A second child–a girl–was taken ill in the Brownings’ house, and could not be moved from where she lay in a room below their apartment. Mrs Browning was in a panic for her own boy, though his apple-red cheeks spoke of health. Rome, for a time, was darkened with grief and anxiety; nor did the city itself impress her as she had expected: “It’s a palimpsest Rome,” she writes, “a watering-place written over the antique.” The chief gains of these Roman months were those of friendship and pleasant acquaintances added to those already given by Italy. In rooms under those occupied by the Brownings was Page the American artist, who painted in colours then regarded as “Venetian,” now almost darkened out of existence, as a gift for Mrs Browning, the portrait of Robert Browning exhibited in the Royal Academy of 1856. Browning himself wrote to Story with enthusiasm of Page’s work. “I am much disappointed in it,” wrote Dante Rossetti to Allingham, “and shall advise its non-exhibition.” A second portrait painted at this time–that by Fisher–is familiar to us through a reproduction in the second volume of _The Letters of Mrs Browning_. A rash act of the morning of the day on which he entered Rome had deplorably altered Browning’s appearance. In what his wife calls a fit of suicidal impatience, he perpetrated the high crime and misdemeanour, and appeared before her wholly unworthy of portraiture with clean-shaven cheeks and chin. “I cried when I saw him,” she tells his sister, “I was so horror-struck.” To mark the sin, his beard, when once again he recovered his good looks, was gray, but Mrs Browning cherished the opinion that the argentine touch, as she terms it, gave “a character of elevation and thought to his whole physiognomy.” To complete this history, it may be added that in 1859 the moustache of his later portraits was first doubtfully permitted and was presently approved with decision as picturesque.[58]
Under all disadvantages of appearance Browning made his way triumphantly in the English and American society of Rome. The studios were open to him. In Gibson’s he saw the tinted Venus–“rather a grisette than a goddess,” pronounced Mrs Browning. Harriet Hosmer, the young American sculptress, working with true independence, high aims and right woman’s manliness, was both admired and loved. Thackeray, with his daughters, called at the apartment in the Bocca di Leone, bringing small-talk in “handfuls of glittering dust swept out of salons.” Lockhart, snow-white in aspect, snow-cold in manner, gave Browning emphatic commendation, though of a negative kind–“He isn’t at all,” declared Lockhart, “like a damned literary man.” But of many interesting acquaintances perhaps the most highly valued were Fanny Kemble and her sister Adelaide Sartoris–Fanny Kemble magnificent, “with her black hair and radiant smile,” her sympathetic voice, “her eyes and eyelids full of utterance”–a very noble creature indeed; Mrs Sartoris, genial and generous, more tolerant than Fanny of Mrs Browning’s wayward enthusiasms, eloquent in talk and passionate in song. “The Kembles,” writes Mrs Browning, “were our gain in Rome.”
Towards the end of May 1854 farewells were said, and the Brownings returned from Rome, to Florence by vettura. They had hoped to visit England, or if this should prove impracticable, to take shelter among the mountains from the summer heat. But needful coin on which they had reckoned did not arrive; and they resolved in prudence to sit still at Florence and eat their bread and macaroni as poor sensible folk should do. And Florence looked more beautiful than ever after Rome; the nightingales sang around the olive-trees and vineyards, not only by starlight and fire-fly-light but in the daytime. “I love the very stones of Florence,” exclaims Mrs Browning. Her friend Miss Mitford, now in England, and sadly failing in health, hinted at a loan of money; but the answer was a prompt, “Oh no! My husband has a family likeness to Lucifer in being proud.” There followed a tranquil and a happy time, and both _Men and Women_ and _Aurora Leigh_ maintained in the writers a deep inward excitement of the kind that leaves an enduring result. A little joint publication; _Two Poems by E.B.B. and R.B_., containing _A Plea for the Ragged Schools of London_ and _The Twins_, was sold at Miss Arabella Barrett’s Ragged School bazaar in 1854. It is now a waif of literature which collectors prize. There is special significance in the _Date_ and _Dabitur_, the twins of Browning’s poem, when we bear in mind the occasion with which it was originally connected.
In the early weeks of 1855 Mrs Browning was seriously ill; through feverish nights of coughing, she had in her husband a devoted nurse. His sleepless hours were troubled not only by anxiety on her account but by a passionate interest in the heroisms and miseries, of his fellow countrymen during the Crimean winter: “when he is mild _he_ wishes the ministry to be torn to pieces in the streets, limb from limb.” Gradually his wife regained health, but she had not long recovered when tidings of the death of Miss Mitford came to sadden her. Not until April did she feel once more a leap into life. Browning was now actively at work in anticipation of printing his new volumes during the approaching visit to England. “He is four hours a day,” his wife tells a correspondent, “engaged in dictating to a friend of ours who transcribes for him.” And a little later she reports that they will take to England between them some sixteen thousand lines of verse, “eight on one side, eight on the other,” her husband’s total being already completed, her own still short of the sum by a thousand lines. Allowance, as she pleads, had to be made for time spent in seeing that “Penini’s little trousers are creditably frilled and tucked.” On the whole, notwithstanding illness and wrath directed against English ministerial blunders, this year of life in Florence had been rich in happiness–a “still dream-life, where if one is over-busy ever, the old tapestries on the walls and the pre-Giotto pictures … surround us, ready to quiet us again.”[59] London lodgings did not look inviting from the distance of Italy; but the summons north was a summons to work, and could not be set aside.
The midsummer of 1855 found Browning and his wife in 13 Dorset Street, London, and Browning’s sister was with them. The faithful Wilson, Mrs Browning’s maid, had married a Florentine, Ferdinando Romagnoli, and the husband also was now in their service. The weeks until mid-October were occupied with social pleasures and close proof-reading of the sheets of _Men and Women_[60] Browning took his young friend the artist Leighton to visit Ruskin, and was graciously received. Carlyle was, as formerly, “in great force, particularly in the damnatory clauses.” But the weather was drooping, the skies misty, the air oppressive, and Mrs Browning, apart from these, had special causes of depression. Her married sister Henrietta was away in Taunton, and the cost of travel prevented the sisters from meeting. Arabella Barrett–“my one light in London” is Mrs Browning’s word–was too soon obliged to depart to Eastbourne. And the Barrett household was disturbed by the undutifulness of a son who had been guilty of the unpardonable crime of marriage, and in consequence was now exiled from Wimpole Street. In body and soul Mrs Browning felt strong yearnings for the calm of Casa Guidi.
The year 1855 was a fortunate year for English poetry. _Men and Women_ was published in the autumn; the beautiful epilogue, addressed to E.B.B., “There they are, my fifty men and women,” was written in Dorset Street. Tennyson’s _Maud_ had preceded Browning’s volumes by some months. It bewildered the critics, but his brother poet did justice to Tennyson’s passionate sequence of dramatic lyrics. And though London in mid-autumn had emptied itself Tennyson happened for a few days to be in town. Two evenings he gave to the Brownings, “dined with us,” writes Mrs Browning, “smoked with us, opened his heart to us (and the second bottle of port), and ended by reading _Maud_ through from end to end, and going away at half-past two in the morning.” His delightful frankness and simplicity charmed his hostess. “Think of his stopping in _Maud_,” she goes on, “every now and then–‘There’s a wonderful touch! That’s very tender! How beautiful that is!’ Yes and it _was_ wonderful, tender, beautiful, and he read exquisitely in a voice like an organ, rather music than speech.”
One of the few persons who were invited to meet Tennyson on this occasion, Mr W.M. Rossetti, is still living, and his record of that memorable evening ought not to be omitted. “The audience was a small one, the privilege accorded to each individual all the higher: Mr and Mrs Browning, Miss Browning, my brother, and myself, and I think there was one more–either Madox Brown or else [Holman] Hunt or Woolner … Tennyson, seated on a sofa in a characteristic attitude, and holding the volume near his eyes … read _Maud_ right through. My brother made two pen-and-ink sketches of him, and gave one of them to Browning. So far as I remember, the Poet-Laureate neither saw what Dante was doing, nor knew of it afterwards. His deep grand voice, with slightly chaunting intonation, was a noble vehicle for the perusal of mighty verse. On it rolled, sonorous and emotional. Dante Rossetti, according to Mr Hall Caine, spoke of the incident in these terms: ‘I once heard Tennyson read _Maud_; and, whilst the fiery passages were delivered with a voice and vehemence which he alone of living men can compass, the softer passages and the songs made the tears course down his cheeks.’ … After Tennyson and _Maud_ came Browning and _Fra Lippo Lippi_–read with as much sprightly variation as there was in Tennyson of sustained continuity. Truly a night of the gods, not to be remembered without pride and pang.”[61] A quotation from a letter of Dante Rossetti to Allingham gives praise to Mrs Browning of a kind which resembles Lockhart’s commendation of her husband: “What a delightful unliterary person Mrs Browning is to meet! During two evenings when Tennyson was at their house in London, Mrs Browning left Tennyson with her husband and William and me (who were the fortunate remnant of the male party) to discuss the universe, and gave all her attention to some certainly not very exciting ladies in the next room.”[62] Without detracting from Mrs Browning’s “unliterary” merits, one may conjecture that the ladies who proved unexciting to Rossetti were Arabella Barrett and Sarianna Browning.
FOOTNOTES:
[Footnote 48: Browning’s Essay on Shelley was reprinted by Dr Furnivall in “The Browning Society’s Papers,” 1881-84, Part I.]
[Footnote 49: Letters of E.B.B. ii. 284. On Milsand, the article “A French friend of Browning,” by Th. Bentzon, is valuable and interesting.]
[Footnote 50: Mrs Orr says that Browning always thought Mrs Carlyle “a hard and unlovable woman”; she adds, “I believe little liking was lost between them.” Mrs Ritchie, in her “Records of Tennyson, Ruskin, and Browning” (pp. 250, 251), tells with spirit the story of Browning and Mrs Carlyle’s kettle, which, on being told to “put it down,” in an absent mood he planted upon her new carpet. “Ye should have been more explicit,” said Carlyle to his wife.]
[Footnote 51: See Letters of E.B.B. ii. 127.]
[Footnote 52: Letters of E.B.B. ii. 99.]
[Footnote 53: Letter of F. Tennyson, in Memoir of Alfred Tennyson, by his son, chapter xviii.]
[Footnote 54: Mr Kenyon’s note, vol. ii. 142 of Letters of E.B.B.]
[Footnote 55: _Times Lit. Supplement_, Dec. 5, 1902.]
[Footnote 56: Miss Cobbe’s testimony is similar, and Lehmann says that at Home’s name Browning would grow pale with passion.]
[Footnote 57: See “Story and his Friends,” by Henry James, 1903, vol. i. pp. 284, 285.]
[Footnote 58: Letters of E.B.B., ii. 345.]
[Footnote 59: E.B.B. to Ruskin, _Letters_, ii. 199.]
[Footnote 60: Which, however, did not prevent certain errors noted in a letter of Browning to Dante Rossetti.]
[Footnote 61: Dante Gabriel Rossetti. His “Family Letters,” i. 190, 191.]
[Footnote 62: Letters of D.G. Rossetti to William Allingham, 162. See Mrs Browning’s letter to Mrs Tennyson in Memoir of Tennyson by his son, I vol. edition, p. 329.]
[Illustration: PORTRAIT OF FILIPPO LIPPI.
_By himself. A detail from the fresco in the Cathedral at Praia from a photograph by_ ALINARI.]
Chapter IX
Men and Women
Rossetti expresses his first enthusiasm about _Men and Women_ in a word when he calls the poems “my Elixir of Life.” To Ruskin these, with other pieces which he now read for the first time, were as he declared in a rebellious mood, a mass of conundrums. “He compelled me,” Rossetti adds, “to sit down before him and lay siege for one whole night; the result of which was that he sent me next morning a bulky letter to be forwarded to Browning, in which I trust he told him he was the greatest man since Shakespeare.” The poems of the two new volumes were the gradual growth of a considerable number of years; since 1845 their author had published no group of short poems, and now, at the age of forty-three, he had attained the fulness of intellectual and imaginative power, varied experience of life and the artistic culture of Italy. The _Dramatis Personae_ of 1864 exhibits no decline from the high level reached in the volumes of 1855; but is there any later volume of miscellaneous poetry by Browning which, taken as a whole, approaches in excellence the collections of 1855 and 1864?
There is no need now to “lay siege” to the poems of _Men and Women_; they have expounded themselves, if ever they needed exposition; and the truth is that they are by no means nut-shells into which mottoes meant for the construing of the intellect have been inserted, but fruits rich in colour and perfume, a feast for the imagination, the passions, the spirit in sense, and also for the faculty of thought which lives in the heart of these. If a criticism or a doctrine of life lies in them–and that it should do so means that the poet’s total mind has been taken up into his art–Browning conveys his doctrine not as such but as an enthusiasm of living; his generalized truth saturates a medium of passion and of beauty. In the Prologue to _Fifine at the Fair_ he compares the joy of poetry to a swimmer’s joy in the sea: the vigour that such disport in sun and sea communicates is the vigour of joyous play; afterwards, if we please, we can ascertain the constituents of sea-water by a chemical analysis; but the analysis will not convey to us the sensations of the sunshine and the dancing brine. One of the blank-verse pieces of _Men and Women_ rebukes a youthful poet of the transcendental school whose ambition is to set forth “stark-naked thought” in poetry. Why take the harp to his breast “only to speak dry words across the strings”? Better hollo abstract ideas through the six-foot Alpine horn of prose. Boys may desire the interpretation into bare ideas of those thronging objects which obsess their senses and their feelings; men need art for the delight of it, and the strength which comes through delight. Better than the meaning of a rose is the rose itself with its spirit enveloped in colour and perfume. And so the poet for men will resemble that old mage John of Halberstadt:
He with a ‘look you!’ vents a brace of rhymes, And in there breaks the sudden rose herself, Over us, under, round us every side,
* * * * *
Buries us with a glory, young once more, Pouring heaven into this shut house of life.
Browning in _Men and Women_ is in truth a John of Halberstadt; he enriches life with colour, warmth, music, romance, not dissociated from thought and intellectual energy, rather possessing and being possessed by these. Not a single poem is “stark-naked thought”; not a single poem is addressed solely to the intellect; even _Bishop Blougram_ is rather a presentation of character than a train of argument or a chain of ideas.
In few of these poems does Browning speak in his own person; the verses addressed to his wife, which present her with “his fifty men and women” and tell of mysteries of love that can never be told, the lines, _Memorabilia_, addressed to one who had seen Shelley, and _Old Pictures in Florence_, are perhaps the only exceptions to the dramatic character of the contents of the two volumes. Yet through them all Browning’s mind is clearly discernible; and even his central convictions, his working creed of life, can with no sense of uncertainty be gathered from them. To attribute to the writer the opinions and the feelings of his _dramatis personae_ would of course be the crudest of mistakes. But when an idea persists through many poems written at various times and seasons, when it appears and reappears under various clothings of circumstance, when it is employed as if it had a crucial value, when it becomes a test or touchstone of character, we cannot doubt that it is an intimate possession of the writer’s mind. Such an idea is not a mere playmate but rather a confidant. When, again, after a tangle of casuistic reasoning or an embroilment of contending feelings, some idea suddenly flashes forth, and like a sword sunders truth from falsehood and darkness from light, we may be assured that it has more than a dramatic value. And, once more, if again and again the same idea shows its power over the feelings and inspires elevated lyrical utterance, or if in pieces of casuistical brain-work it enters as a passionate element and domineers by its own authority, if it originates not debate but song or that from which song is made, we know that the writer’s heart has embraced it as a truth of the emotions.
Because Browning had his own well-defined view of truth, he could confidently lend his mind away to his fifty or his hundred men and women. They served to give his ideas a concrete body. By sympathy and by intelligence he widened the basis of his own existence. If the poet loses himself to find himself again through sympathy with external nature, how much more and in how many enriching ways through sympathy with humanity! Thus new combinations of thought and feeling are effected. Thus a kind of experiment is made with our own ideas by watching how they behave when brought into connection with these new combinations. Truth is relative, and the best truth of our own is worth testing under various conditions and circumstances. The truth or falsehood which is not our own has a right to say the best for itself that can be said. Let truth and falsehood grapple. Let us hear the counter-truth or the rival falsehood which is the complement or the criticism of our own, and hear it stated with the utmost skill. A Luther would surely be the wiser for an evening spent in company with a Blougram; and Blougram has things to tell us which Luther never knew. But precisely because truth is relative we must finally adhere to our own perceptions; they constitute the light for us; and the justice we would do to others we must also render to ourselves. A wide survey may be made from a fixed centre. “Universal sympathies,” Miss Barrett wrote in one of the letters to her future husband, “cannot make a man inconsistent, but on the contrary sublimely consistent. A church tower may stand between the mountains and the sea, looking to either, and stand fast: but the willow tree at the gable-end blown now toward the north and now toward the south, while its natural leaning is due east or west, is different altogether … _as_ different as a willow tree from a church tower.”[63]
The fifty poems of _Men and Women_, with a few exceptions, fall into three principal groups–those which interpret various careers or moods or moments of love; those which deal with the fine arts–painting, poetry, music–and with these we may class, as kindred in spirit, that poem which has for its subject the passionate pursuit of knowledge, _A Grammarian’s Funeral_; and thirdly, those which are connected with religious thought and feeling, or present scenes from the history of religions. Two poems may be called descriptive; both are Italian; both are founded upon a rivalry of contrasts, but one, _Up at a Villa–Down in the City_, is made up of humorous observations of Italian city and country life, expressing the mundane tastes and prudent economies of an Italian person of quality; the other, “_De Gustibus_–,” which contrasts the happy quietudes of English landscape with the passionate landscape of the South, has romance at the heart of its realism and an ardour of sentiment underlying its pictorial vividness. _The Patriot_ is again Italian, suggested perhaps by the swift revolutions and restorations which Browning had witnessed in Florence, and again it uses with striking effect the principle of contrast; the patriot who a year ago had his intoxicating triumph is now on his way to the scaffold. His year’s toil for the good of his people has turned into a year’s misdeeds, his life is a failure; but Browning characteristically wrings a victory out of defeat; the crowd at the shambles’ gate may hoot; it is better so, for now the martyr can throw himself upon God, the Paymaster of all his labourers at the close of day. The most remarkable of these poems, which refuse to take their places in a group, is that forlorn romance of weary and depressed heroism, _Childe Roland to the Dark Tower came_. It is in the main a fantaisie of description; but involved with the descriptive study is a romantic motive. The external suggestions for the poem were no more than the words from _King Lear_ which form the title, a tower seen in the Carrara mountains, a painting seen in Paris, and the figure of a horse in the tapestry of the drawing-room of Casa Guidi.[64] In his own mind Browning may have put the question: Of all the feats of knight-errantry which is the hardest? Not to combat with dragons, or robbers, or salvage men; not to bear down rival champions in a rapture of battle. Not these, but to cling to a purpose amid all that depresses the senses at a time when the heart within us is also failing; to advance where there is nothing to arouse energy by opposition, and everything without and within to sap the very life of the soul. Childe Roland is himself hopeless and almost heartless; the plain to which the leering cripple had pointed and over which he rides is created in the utter indigence of nature–a very nightmare of poverty and mean repulsiveness. And yet he endures the test, and halts only when he faces the Dark Tower and blows the blast upon his horn. Browning was wise to carry his romance no further; the one moment of action is enough; it is the breaking of the spell, the waking from the nightmare, and at that point the long-enduring quester may be left. We are defrauded of nothing by the abrupt conclusion.
In the poems which treat of the love of man and woman Browning regards the union of soul with soul as the capital achievement of life, and also as affording one of its chief tests. When we have formed these into a group we perceive that the group falls in the main into two divisions–poems which tell of attainment, and poems which tell of failure or defeat. Certain persons whose centre is a little hard kernel of egoism may be wholly disqualified for the test created by a generous passion. Browning does not belabour with heavy invective the _Pretty Woman_ of his poem, who is born without a heart; she is a flower-like creature and of her kind is perfect; only the flower is to be gazed at, not gathered; or, if it must be gathered, then at last to be thrown away. The chief distinction between the love of man and the love of woman, implied in various poems, is this–the man at his most blissful moment cries “What treasures I have obtained!” the woman cries “What treasures have I to surrender and bestow?” Hence the singleness and finality in the election of passion made by a woman as compared with a man’s acquisitiveness of delight. The unequal exchange of a transitory for an enduring surrender of self is the sorrow which pulsates through the lines of _In a Year_, as swift and broken with pauses as the beating of a heart:
Dear, the pang is brief,
Do thy part,
Have thy pleasure! How perplexed
Grows belief!
Well, this cold clay clod
Was man’s heart:
Crumble it and what comes next?
Is it God?
And with no chilling of love on the man’s part, this is the point of central pain, in that poem of exquisite and pathetic distrust at the heart of trust and admiration, _Any Wife to any Husband_; noble and faithful as the husband has been, still he is only a man. But elsewhere Browning does justice to the pure chivalry of a man’s devotion. Caponsacchi’s joy is the joy of a saviour who himself is saved; the great event of his life by which he is lifted above self is single and ultimate; his soul is delivered from careless egoism once and for ever; the grace of love is here what the theologians called invincible grace, and invincible grace, we know, results in final perseverance. Even here in _Men and Women_ two contrasted poems assure us that, while the passion of a man may be no more than _Love in a Life_, it may also be an unweariable _Life in a Love_.
Of the poems of attainment one–_Respectability_–has the spirit of youth and gaiety in it. Here love makes its gallant bid for freedom, fires up for lawlessness, if need be, and at least sets convention at defiance:
The world’s good word!–the Institute! Guizot receives Montalembert!
Eh? Down the court three lampions flare: Set forward your best foot!
But, after all, this love may be no more than an adventure of the boulevard and the attic in the manner of Beranger’s gay Bohemianism. The distance is wide between such elan of youthful passion and the fidelity which is inevitable, and on which age has set its seal, in that poem of perfect attainment, _By the Fireside_. This is the love which completes the individual life and at the same time incorporates it with the life of humanity, which unites as one the past and the present, and which, owing no allegiance of a servile kind to time, becomes a pledge for futurity. Browning’s personal experience is here taken up into his imagination and transfigured, but its substance remains what it had been in literal fact.
The poems of failure are more numerous, and they range through various degrees and kinds of failure. It is not death which can bring the sense of failure to love. In _Evelyn Hope_ all the passion has been on the man’s side; all possibilities of love in the virginal heart of the dead girl, all her warmth and sweetness, had been folded in the bud. But death, in the mood of infinite tenderness and unfulfilled aspiration which the poem expresses, seems no bar to some far-off attainment, of which the speaker’s passion, breaking through time, is the assurance, an attainment the nature of which he cannot divine but which will surely explain the meaning of things that are now obscure. Perhaps the saddest and the most hopeless kind of failure is that in which, to borrow an image from the old allegory, the arrow of love all but flies to the mark and yet just misses it. This is the subject of a poem equally admirable in its descriptive and its emotional passages, _Two in the Campagna_. The line “One near one is too far,” might serve as its motto. Satisfaction is all but reached and never can be reached. Two hearts touch and never can unite. One drop of the salt estranging sea is as unplumbed as the whole ocean. And the only possible end is
Infinite passion, and the pain
Of finite hearts that yearn.[65]
Compared with such a failure as this an offer of love rejected, rejected with decision but not ungenerously, may be accounted a success. There is something tonic to a brave heart in the putting forth of will, even though it encounter an obstacle which cannot be removed. Such is the mood which is presented in _One Way of Love_; the foiled lover has at least made his supreme effort; it has been fruitless, but he thinks with satisfaction that he has played boldly for the prize, and never can he say that it was not worth risking all on the bare chance of success:
She will not give me heaven? ‘Tis well! Lose who may–I still can say
Those who win heaven, blest are they!
So, too, in _The Last Ride together_, the lover is defeated but he is not cast down, and he remains magnanimous throughout the grief of defeat. Who in this our life–he reflects–statesman or soldier, sculptor or poet, attains his complete ideal? He has been granted the grace of one hour by his mistress’ side, and he will carry the grateful recollection of this with him into the future as his inalienable and his best possession. With these generous rejections and magnanimous acceptances of failure stands in contrast _A Serenade at the Villa_, where the lover’s devotion is met only by obdurate insensibility or, worse, by an irritated sense of the persecution and plague of such love, and where all things seem to conspire to leave his pain mere pain, bitter and unredeemed.
In these examples, though love has been frustrated in its aim, the cause of failure did not lie in any infirmity of the lover’s heart or will. But what if the will itself be supine, what if it dallies and delays, consults the convenience of occasions, observes the indications of a shallow prudence, slackens its pace towards the goal, and meanwhile the passion languishes and grows pale from day to day, until the day of love has waned, and the passion dies in a twilight hour through mere inanition? Such a failure as this seems to Browning to mean the perishing of a soul, or of more souls than one. He takes in _The Statue and the Bust_ a case where the fulfilment of passion would have been a crime. The lady is a bride of the Riccardi; to win her, now a wedded wife, would be to violate the law of God and man. Nevertheless it is her face which has “filled the empty sheath of a man” with a blade for a knight’s adventure–The
Duke grew straightway brave and wise.
And then follow delays of convenience, excuses, postponements, and the Duke’s flood of passion dwindles to a thread, and is lost in the sandy flats of life:
So weeks grew months, years; gleam by gleam The glory dropped from their youth and love, And both perceived they had dreamed a dream.
Their end was a crime, but Browning’s contention is that a crime may serve for a test as well as a virtue; in that test the Duke and the lady had alike failed through mere languor of soul:
And the sin I impute to each frustrate ghost Is–the unlit lamp and the ungirt loin, Though the end in sight was a vice, I say.
Had Tennyson treated the same subject he would probably have glorified their action as a victorious obedience to the law of self-reverence and self-control.
The reunion and the severance of lovers are presented in three poems. Winter, chill without but warm within, with its pastimes of passion, the energies of joy breaking forth in play, is contrasted in _A Lovers’ Quarrel_ with springtime, all gladness without and a strange void and shiver at the heart of things, because alienation has taken the place of camaraderie between the lover and his mistress. The mass and intensity of colour in the stanza which dashes in a sketch of the Pampas, with its leagues of sunflowers, and a wild horse, “black neck and eyeballs keen” appearing through them, almost afflict the reader’s sense of sight. There is a fine irony in the title of the other poem of contention, _A Womans Last Word_: In a quarrel a woman will have the last word, and here it is–the need of quietude for a little while that she may recover from the bewildering stroke of pain, and then entire oblivion of the wrong with unmeasured self-surrender. The poem of union, _Love among the Ruins_, is constructed in a triple contrast; the endless pastures prolonged to the edge of sunset, with their infinity of calm, are contrasted with the vast and magnificent animation of the city which once occupied the plain and the mountain slopes. The lover keeps at arm’s-length from his heart and brain what yet fills them all the while; here in this placid pasture-land is one vivid point of intensest life; here where once were the grandeur and tumult of the enormous city is that which in a moment can abolish for the lover all its glories and its shames. His eager anticipation of meeting his beloved, face to face and heart to heart, is not sung, after the manner of Burns, as a jet of unmingled joy; he delays his rapture to make its arrival more entirely rapturous; he uses his imagination to check and to enhance his passion; and the poem, though not a simple cry of the heart, is entirely true as a rendering of emotion which has taken imagination into its service. In like manner _By the Fireside, A Serenade at the Villa_, and _Two in the Campagna_, include certain studies of nature and its moods, sometimes with a curiously minute observation of details; and these serve as the overture to some intense moment of joy or pain, or form the orchestration which sustains or reinforces a human voice.
Of the pieces relating to art those connected with the art of poetry are the least valuable. _Transcendentalism_ sets forth the old doctrine that poetry must be sensuous and passionate, leaving it to philosophy to deal with the naked abstractions of the intellect. _How it strikes a Contemporary_ shows by a humorous example how a poet’s character and private life may be misconceived and misrepresented by those among whom he moves. _Popularity_ maintains that the poet who is in the highest sense original, an inventor of new things, may be wholly disregarded for long, while his followers and imitators secure both the porridge and the praise; one day God’s hand, which holds him, will open and let out all the beauty. The thought is an obvious one enough, but the image of the fisher and the murex, in which the thought is embodied, affords opportunity for stanzas glowing with colour. Two poems, and each of them a remarkable poem, are interpretations of music. One, _Master Hugues of Saxe-Gotha_, is a singularly successful _tour de force_, if it is no more. Poetry inspired by music is almost invariably the rendering of a sentiment or a mood which the music is supposed to express; but here, in dealing with the fugue of his imaginary German composer, Browning finds his inspiration not in the sentiment but in the structure of the composition; he competes, as it were, in language with the art or science of the contrapuntist, and evolves an idea of his own from its complexity and elaboration. The poem of Italian music, _A Toccata of Galuppi’s_, wholly subordinates the science to the sentiment of the piece. It is steeped in the melancholy of pleasure; Venice of the eighteenth century lives before us with its mundane joys, its transitory passions, its voluptuous hours; and in the midst of its warmth and colour a chill creeps upon our senses and we shiver. Browning’s artistic self-restraint is admirable; he has his own truth to utter aloud if he should please; but here he will not play the prophet; the life of eighteenth-century Venice is dust and ashes; the poet will say not a word more than the musician has said in his toccata; the ruthlessness of time and death make him a little remorseful; it is enough, and too much, that through this music of the hours of love and pleasure we should hear, as it were, the fall of the clay upon a coffin-lid.
Shelley was more impressed by the sculpture than the paintings of Italy. There are few evidences of the influence of the most ideal of the arts that appeal to the mind through the eye in Browning’s poetry; and his sympathies would be more apt to respond to such work as Michael Angelo’s, which sends the spectator beyond itself, than to the classical work which has the absoluteness and the calm of attained perfection.[66] The sensuous and the spiritual qualities of colour were vividly felt by him; a yellowing old marble seemed perhaps to impose itself with a cold authority upon the imagination. But the suggestion of two portrait busts of the period of classical decadence, one in marble representing a boy, and the other the powerful head of a man in granite, gave rise to _Protus_, one of the few flawless poems of Browning. His mastery over the rhymed couplet is nowhere seen to greater advantage, unless it be in a few passages of _Sordello_. The poem is, however, more a page from history than a study in the fine arts; and Browning’s imagination has made it a page which lives in our memory through a pathos veiled under strong objective touches, never protruding itself sentimentally in quest of tenderness or pity.
“I spent some most delightful time,” Rossetti wrote to Allingham shortly after the publication of _Men and Women_, “with Browning at Paris, both in the evenings and at the Louvre, where (and throughout conversation) I found his knowledge of early Italian art beyond that of any one I ever met–_encyclopedically_ beyond that of Ruskin himself.” The poem _Old Pictures at Florence_, which Rossetti calls “a jolly thing,” and which is that and much more, is full of Browning’s learned enthusiasm for the early Italian painters, and it gives a reason for the strong attraction which their adventures after new beauty and passion had for him as compared with the faultless achievements of classical sculpture. Greek art, according to Browning, by presenting unattainable ideals of material and mundane perfection, taught men to submit. Early Christian art, even by faultily presenting spiritual ideals, not to be attained on earth but to be pursued through an immortal life, taught men to aspire. The aim of these painters was not to exhibit strength or grace, joy or grief, rage or love in their complete earthly attainment, but rather to
Make new hopes shine through the flesh they fray, New fears aggrandize the rags and tatters: To bring the invisible full into play! Let the visible go to the dogs–what matters?
[Illustration: ANDREA DEL SARTO.
_From a print after the portrait by himself in the Uffizi Gallery, Florence_.]
The prophecy with which the poem concludes, of a great revival of Italian art consequent on the advent of political and intellectual liberty, has not obtained fulfilment in the course of the half century that has elapsed since it was uttered. Browning’s doctrine that aspiration towards what is higher is more to be valued in art than the attainment of what is lower is a leading motive in the admirable dramatic monologue placed in the lips of Andrea del Sarto, the faultless painter. His craftsmanship is unerring; whatever he imagines he can achieve; nothing in line or in colour is other than it ought to be; and yet precisely because he has succeeded, his failure is profound and irretrievable:
Ah, but a man’s reach should exceed his grasp, Or what’s a heaven for? All is silver-grey Placid and perfect with my art: the worse!
He could set right the arm which is wrongly put in Rafael’s work that fronts him; but “all the play, the insight and the stretch” of Rafael are lacking in his own faultless lines. He looks back regretfully to his kingly days at Fontainebleau with the royal Francis, when what seemed a veritable fire was in his heart. And he tries to find an excuse for his failure as artist and as man in the coldness of his beautiful Lucrezia–for he who has failed in the higher art has also failed in the higher love–Lucrezia, who values his work only by the coins it brings in, and who needs those coins just now for one whose whistle invites her away. All might be so much better otherwise! Yet otherwise he cannot choose that it should be; his art must remain what it is–not golden but silver-grey; and his Lucrezia may attend to the Cousin’s whistle if only she retains the charm, not to be evaded, of her beauty.[67]
Browning does not mean that art in its passionate pursuit of the highest ends should be indifferent to the means, or that things spiritual do not require as adequate a sensuous embodiment as they are capable of receiving from the painter’s brush or the poet’s pen. Were art a mere symbol or suggestion, two bits of sticks nailed crosswise might claim to be art as admirable as any. What is the eye for, if not to see with vivid exactness? what is the hand for, if not to fashion things as nature made them? It is through body that we reach after the soul; and the passion for truth and reality is a passion for the invisible which is expressed in and through these. Such is the pleading of Fra Lippo Lippi, the tonsured painter caught out of bounds, in that poem in which the dramatic monologue of Browning attains its perfection of life and energy. Fra Lippo is intoxicated by the mere forms and colours of things, and he is assured that these mean intensely and mean well:
The beauty and the wonder and the power, The shapes of things, their colours, lights and shades, Changes, surprises–and God made it all!
These are the gospel to preach which he girds loin and lights the lamp, though he may perforce indulge a patron in shallower pieties of the conventional order, and though it is not all gospel with him, for now and again, when the moon shines and girls go skipping and singing down Florence streets–“Zooks, sir, flesh and blood, that’s all I’m made of!” Fra Lippo with his outbreaks of frank sensuality is far nearer to Browning’s kingdom of heaven than is the faultless painter; he presses with ardour towards his proper goal in art; he has full faith in the ideal, but with him it is to be sought only through the real; or rather it need not be sought at all, for one who captures any fragment of reality captures also undesignedly and inevitably its divine significance.[68]
The same doctrine which is applied to art in _Old Pictures in Florence_, that high aims, though unattained, are of more worth than a lower achievement, is applied, and with a fine lyrical enthusiasm, to the pursuit of knowledge in _A Grammarian’s Funeral_. The time is “shortly after the Revival of Learning in Europe”; the place–
a tall mountain, citied to the top, Crowded with culture!–
is imagined to suit the idea of the poem. The dead scholar, borne to the summit for burial on the shoulders of his disciples, had been possessed by the aspiration of Paracelsus–to know; and, unlike Paracelsus, he had never sought on earth both to know and to enjoy. He has been the saint and the martyr of Renaissance philology. For the genius of such a writer as the author of _Hudibras_, with his positive intellect and dense common sense, there could hardly have been found a fitter object for mockery than this remorseless and indefatigable pedant. Browning, through the singing voices of the dead master’s disciples, exalts him to an eminence of honour and splendid fame. To a scholar Greek particles may serve as the fittest test of virtue; this glorious pedant has postponed life and the enjoyments of life to future cycles of existence; here on earth he expends a desperate passion–upon what? Upon the dryasdust intricacies of grammar; and it is not as though he had already attained; he only desperately follows after:
That low man seeks a little thing to do, Sees it and does it:
This high man, with a great thing to pursue, Dies ere he knows it.
But again the grammarian, like the painter, does not strive after a vague, transcendental ideal; he is not as one that beateth the air; his quest for knowledge is definite and positive enough; he throws all care for infinite things, except the infinite of philological accuracy, upon God; and the viaticum of his last moments is one more point of grammar.
Two of the poems of _Men and Women_ are pages tragic-grotesque and pathetic-grotesque from the history of religion. In _The Heretic s Tragedy_ John, Master of the Temple, burns alive in Paris square for his sins against the faith and Holy Church; the glow of the blazing larch and pine almost reaches the reader of the stanzas; the great petals of this red rose of flame bend towards him; the gust of sulphur offends his nostrils. And the rage of piety is hotter than the fire; it is a mingled passion, compounded of delight in the fierce spectacle, a thrilling ecstacy at the sight of a fellow-creature tortured, the self-complacency of conscious orthodoxy, and the horrible zeal of the Lord’s house. Yet though the event is sung by one of the rejoicing orthodox, somehow we are made to feel that when John the apostate, bound in the flames and gagged, prays to Jesus Christ to save him, that prayer may have been answered. This passage from the story of the age of faith was not selected with a view to please the mediaeval revivalists of the nineteenth century, but in truth its chief value is not theological or historical but artistic. _Holy Cross Day_, a second fragment from history, does not fall from the sublime to the ridiculous but rises from the ridiculous to the sublime. The picture of the close-packed Jews tumbling or sidling churchwards to hear the Christian sermon (for He saith “Compel them to come in”) and to partake of heavenly grace has in it something of Rembrandt united with something of Callot. Such a crew of devout impostors is at once comic and piteous. But while they are cared for in the merciful bowels of the Church, and groan out the expected compunction, their ancient piety is not extinct; their hearts burn in them with the memory of Jacob’s House and of Jerusalem. Christ at least was of their kindred, and if they wronged Him in past time, they will not wrong Him now by naming these who outrage and insult them after His name.
The historical distortions of the religion of Christ do not, however, disturb the faith of Browning in the Christian revelation of Divine love. In _Cleon_ he exhibits the failure of Paganism, even in its forms of highest culture, to solve the riddle of life and to answer the requirements of the human spirit. All that regal power liberally and wisely used can confer belongs to Protus in his Tyranny; all that genius, and learning and art can confer is the possession of Cleon; and a profound discouragement has settled down upon the soul of each. The race progresses from point to point; self-consciousness is deepened and quickened as generation succeeds generation; the sympathies of the individual are multiplied and extended. But he that increases knowledge, increases sorrow; most progress is most failure; the soul climbs the heights only to perish there. Every day the sense of joy grows more acute; every day the soul grows more enlarged; and every day the power to put our best attainments to use diminishes. “And how dieth the wise man? As the fool. Therefore I hated life; yea, I hated all my labour that I had taken under the sun.” The poem is, indeed, an Ecclesiastes of pagan religion. The assurance of extinction is the worm which gnaws at the heart of the rose:
It is so horrible
I dare at times imagine to my need Some future state revealed to us by Zeus, Unlimited in capability
For joy, as this is in desire for joy.
But this is no better than a dream; Zeus could not but have revealed it, were it possible. Browning does not bring his Cleon, as Pater brings his Marius, into the Christian catacombs, where the image of the Shepherd bearing his lamb might interpret the mystery of death, nor to that house of Cecilia where Marius sees a new joy illuminating every face. Cleon has heard of Paulus and of Christus, but who can suppose that a mere barbarian Jew
Hath access to a secret shut from us?
The doctrine of Christ, preached on the island by certain slaves, is reported by an intelligent listener to be one which no sane man can accept. And Cleon will not squander the time that might be well employed in studying the proportions of a man or in combining the moods of music–the later hours of a philosopher and a poet–on the futile creed of slaves.
Immortality and Divine love–these were the great words pronounced by Paul and by Christ. _Cleon_ is the despairing cry of Pagan culture for the life beyond the grave which would attune to harmony the dissonances of earth, and render intelligible its mournful obscurities. _Saul_, in the completed form of 1855, and _An Epistle of Karshish_ are, the one a prophecy, the other a divination, of the mystery of the love of God in the life and death of his Son. The culminating moment in the effort of David by which he rouses to life the sunken soul of the King, the moment towards which all others tend, is that in which he finds in his own nature love as God’s ultimate gift, and assured that in this, as in other gifts, the creature cannot surpass the Creator, he breaks forth into a prophecy of God’s love made perfect in weakness:
O Saul, it shall be
A Face like my face that receives thee; a Man like to me Thou shalt love and be loved by, for ever: a Hand like this hand Shall throw open the gates of new life to thee! See the Christ stand!
What follows in the poem is only the awe, the solemnity of this discovery which has come not through any processes of reasoning but by a passionate interpretation of the enthusiasm of love and self-sacrifice in David’s own heart; only this awe, and the seeming extension of his throbbing emotion and pent knowledge over the face of external nature, until night passes and with the dawn earth and heaven resume their wonted ways. The case of Lazarus as studied by Karshish the Arabian physician results not in a rapturous prophecy like that of David, but in a stupendous conjecture of the heart which all the scepticism of the brain of a man of science cannot banish or reduce to insignificance. The unaccountable fascination of this case of mania, subinduced by epilepsy, is not to be resisted; Karshish would write, if he could, of more important matters than the madman of Bethany; he would record his discoveries in scalp-disease, describe the peculiar qualities of Judea’s gum-tragacanth, and disclose the secret of those virtues derived from the mottled spiders of the tombs. But the face of Lazarus, patient or joyous, the strange remoteness in his gaze, his singular valuations of objects and events, his great ardour, his great calm, his possession of some secret which gives new meanings to all things, the perfect logic of his irrationality, his unexampled gentleness and love–these are memories which the keen-sighted Arabian physician is unable to put by, so curious, so attaching a potency lies in the person of this man who holds that he was dead and rose again, Karshish has a certain sense of shame that he, a man learned in all the wisdom of his day, should be so deeply moved. And yet how the thought of the secret possessed by this Judean maniac–it is the secret of Jesus–fills and expands the soul!
The very God! think, Abib: dost thou think? So, the All-Great were the All-Loving too– So through the thunder comes a human voice Saying “O heart I made, a heart beats here! Face, my hands fashioned, see it in myself! Thou hast no power nor mayst conceive of mine, But love I gave thee, with myself to love, And thou must love me who have died for thee!”
Science has at least something to consider in a thought so strangely potent.
A nineteenth-century sceptic’s exposition of his Christian faith is the paradoxical subject of _Bishop Blougram’s Apology_, and it is one which admirably suited that side of Browning’s genius which leaned towards intellectual casuistry. But the poem is not only skilful casuistry–and casuistry, let it be remembered, is not properly the art of defending falsehood but of determining truth,–it is also a character-study chosen from the age of doubt; a dramatic monologue with an appropriate _mise en scene_; a display of fence and thrust which as a piece of art and wit rewards an intelligent spectator. That Cardinal Wiseman sat for the Bishop’s portrait is a matter of little consequence; the merit of the study is independent of any connection with an individual; it answers delightfully the cynical–yet not wholly cynical–question: How, for our gain in both worlds, can we best economise our scepticism and make a little belief go far?[69] The nineteenth century is not precisely the age of the martyrs, or, if we are to find them, we must in general turn to politics and to science; Bishop Blougram does not pique himself on a genius for martyrdom; if he fights with beasts, it is on this occasion with a very small one, a lynx of the literary tribe, and in the arena of his own dining-room over the after-dinner wine. He is pre-eminently a man of his time, when the cross and its doctrine can be comfortably borne; both he and his table-companion, honoured for this one occasion only with the episcopal invitation, appreciate the good things of this world, but the Bishop has a vast advantage over the maker of “lively lightsome articles” for the reviews, and he uses his advantage, it must be confessed, to the full. We are in company with no petty man while we read the poem and hear the great Bishop roll out, with easy affluence, his long crumpled mind. He is delightfully frank and delightfully subtle; concealing himself by self-disclosure; opulent in ideas; shifting the pea of truth dexterously under the three gilded thimbles; blandly condescending and amiably contemptuous; a little feline, for he allows his adversary a moment’s freedom to escape and then pounces upon him with the soft-furred claws; assured of his superiority in the game, yet using only half his mind; fencing with one arm pinioned; chess-playing with a rook and pawn given to his antagonist; or shall we say chess-playing blindfold and seeing every piece upon the board? Is _Bishop Blougram’s Apology_ a poem at all? some literary critics may ask. And the answer is that through it we make acquaintance with one of Browning’s most genial inventions–the great Bishop himself, and that if Gigadibs were not present we could never have seen him at the particular angle at which he presents himself in his condescending play with truths and half-truths and quarter-truths, adapted to a smaller mind than his own. The sixteenth century gave us a Montaigne, and the seventeenth century a Pascal. Why should not the nineteenth century of mundane comforts, of doubt troubled by faith, and faith troubled by doubt, produce a new type–serious yet humorous–in an episcopal Pascal-Montaigne?
Browning’s moral sympathies, we may rest assured, do not go with one who like Blougram finds satisfaction in things realised on earth; one who declines–at least as he represents himself for the purposes of argument–to press forward to things which he cannot attain but might nobly follow after. But Browning’s intellectual interest is great in seeing all that a Blougram can say for himself; and as a destructive piece of criticism directed against the position of a Gigadibs what he says may really be effective. The Bishop frankly admits that the unqualified believer, the enthusiast, is more fortunate than he; he, Sylvester Blougram, is what he is, and all that he can do is to make the most of the nature allotted to him. That there has been a divine revelation he cannot absolutely believe; but neither can he absolutely disbelieve. Unbelief is sterile; belief is fruitful, certainly for this world, probably for the next, and he elects to believe. Having chosen to believe, he cannot be too pronounced and decisive in his faith; he will never attempt to eliminate certain articles of the _credenda_, and so “decrassify” his faith, for to this process, if once begun, there is no end; having donned his uniform, he will wear it, laces and spangles and all. True, he has at times his chill fits of doubt; but is not this the probation of faith? Does not a life evince the ultimate reality that is within us? Are not acts the evidence of a final choice, of a deepest conviction? And has he not given his vote for the Christian religion?
With me faith means perpetual unbelief Kept quiet like the snake ‘neath Michael’s foot, Who stands calm just because he feels it writhe.
When the time arrives for a beatific vision Blougram will be ready to adapt himself to the new state of things. Is not the best pledge of his capacity for future adaptation to a new environment this–that being in the world he is worldly? We must not lose the training of each successive stage of evolution by for ever projecting ourselves half way into the next. So rolls on the argument to its triumphant conclusion–
Fool or knave?
Why needs a bishop be a fool or knave When there’s a thousand diamond weights between?
Only at the last, were it not that we know that there is a firmer ground for Blougram than this on which he takes his stand in after-dinner controversy, we might be inclined to close the subject by adapting to its uses the title of a pamphlet connected with the Kingsley and Newman debate–“But was not Mr Gigadibs right after all?” Worsted in sword-play he certainly was; but the soul may have its say, and the soul, armed with its instincts of truth, is a formidable challenger.
FOOTNOTES:
[Footnote 63: Letters of R.B. and E.B.B., i. 388.]
[Footnote 64: Mrs Orr’s Handbook to Browning’s Works, 266, note. For the horse, see stanzas xiii. xiv. of the poem.]
[Footnote 65: This poem is sometimes expounded as a sigh for the infinite, which no human love can satisfy. But the simpler conception of it as expressing a love almost but not altogether complete seems the truer.]
[Footnote 66: Browning’s delight a few years later in modelling in clay was great.]
[Footnote 67: Mrs Andrew Crosse, in her article, “John Kenyon and his Friends” (_Temple Bar Magazine_, April 1900), writes: “When the Brownings were living in Florence, Kenyon had begged them to procure for him a copy of the portrait in the Pitti of Andrea del Sarto and his wife. Mr Browning was unable to get the copy made with any promise of satisfaction, and so wrote the exquisite poem of Andrea del Sarto–and sent it to Kenyon!”]
[Footnote 68: The writer of this volume many years ago pointed out to Browning his transposition of the chronological places of Fra Lippo Lippi and Masaccio (“Hulking Tom”) in the history of Italian art. Browning vigorously maintained that he was in the right; but recent students do not support his contention. At the same time an error in _Transcendentalism_, where Browning spoke of “Swedish Boehme,” was indicated. He acknowledged the error and altered the text to “German Boehme.”]
[Footnote 69: Browning maintained to Gavan Duffy that his treatment of the Cardinal was generous.]
Chapter X
Close of Mrs Browning’s Life
When _Men and Women_ was published in the autumn of 1855 the Brownings were again in Paris. An impulsive friend had taken an apartment for them in the Rue de Grenelle, facing east, and in all that concerned comfort splendidly mendacious. After some weeks of misery and illness Mrs Browning was conveyed to less glittering but more hospitable rooms in the Rue du Colisee by a desperate husband–“That darling Robert carried me into the carriage, swathed past possible breathing, over face and respirator in woollen shawls. No, he wouldn’t set me down even to walk up the fiacre steps, but shoved me in upside down in a struggling bundle.”[70] Happily the winter was of a miraculous mildness. Mrs Browning worked _Aurora Leigh_ in “a sort of _furia_,” and Browning set himself to the task–a fruitless one as it proved–of rehandling and revising _Sordello_: “I lately gave time and pains,” he afterwards told Milsand in his published dedication of the poem, “to turn my work into what the many might,–instead of what the few must–like: but after all I imagined another thing at first, and therefore leave as I find it”–proud but warrantable words. Some of his leisure was given to vigorous and not unsuccessful efforts in drawing. At the theatre he saw Ristori as Medea and admired her, but with qualifications. At Monckton Milnes’s dinner-table he met Mignet and Cavour, and George Sand crowned with an ivy-wreath and “looking like herself.” Mrs Browning records with pleasure that her husband’s hostility to the French government had waned; at least he admitted that he was sick of the Opposition.
In May 1856 tidings from London of the illness of Kenyon caused him serious anxiety; he would gladly have hastened to attend upon so true and dear a friend, but this Kenyon would not permit. A month later he and Mrs Browning were in occupation of Kenyon’s house in Devonshire Place, which he had lent to them for the summer, but the invalid had sought for restoration of his health in the Isle of Wight. On the day that Mr Barrett heard of his daughter’s arrival he ordered his family away from London. Mrs Browning once more wrote to him, but the letter received no answer. “Mama,” said little Pen earnestly, “if you’ve been very, very naughty I advise you to go into the room and say,’_Papa, I’ll be dood_.'” But the situation, as Mrs Browning sadly confesses, was hopeless. Some companionship with her sister Arabel and her brothers was gained by a swift departure from London in August for Ventnor whither the Wimpole Street household, leaving its master behind, had been banished, and there “a happy sorrowful two weeks” were spent. At Cowes a grief awaited Browning and his wife, for they found Kenyon kind as ever but grievously broken in health and depressed in spirits. A short visit to Mrs Browning’s married sister at Taunton closed the summer and autumn in England. Before the end of October they were on their way to Florence. “The Brownings are long gone back now,” wrote Dante Rossetti in December, “and with them one of my delights–an evening resort where I never felt unhappy. How large a part of the real world, I wonder, are those two small people?–taking meanwhile so little room in any railway carriage and hardly needing a double bed at the inn.”
The great event of the autumn for the Brownings and for the lovers of English poetry was the publication of _Aurora Leigh_. Its popularity was instantaneous; within a fortnight a second edition was called for; there was no time to alter even a comma. “That golden-hearted Robert,” writes Mrs Browning, “is in ecstasies about it–far more than if it all related to a book of his own.” The volume was dedicated to John Kenyon; but before the year was at an end Kenyon was dead. Since the birth of their son he had enlarged the somewhat slender incomings of his friends by the annual gift of one hundred pounds, “in order,” says the editor of Mrs Browning’s Letters, “that they might be more free to follow their art for its own sake only.” By his will he placed them for the future above all possibility of straitened means. To Browning he left 6,500 _l_., to Mrs Browning 4,500 _l_. “These,” adds Mr F.G. Kenyon, “were the largest legacies in a very generous will–the fitting end to a life passed in acts of generosity and kindness to those in need.” The gain to the Brownings was shadowed by a sense of loss. “Christmas came,” says Mrs Browning, “like a cloud.” For the length of three winter months she did not stir out of doors. Then arrived spring and sunshine, carnival time and universal madness in Florence, with streets “one gigantic pantomime.” Penini begged importunately for a domino, and could not be refused; and Penini’s father and mother were for once drawn into the vortex of Italian gaiety. When at the great opera ball a little figure in mask and domino was struck on the shoulder with the salutation “Bella mascherina!” it was Mrs Browning who received the stroke, with her husband, also in domino, by her side. The absence of real coarseness in the midst of so much seeming license, and the perfect social equality gave her a gratifying impression of her Florentines.
In April it was summer weather; the drives of former days in the Cascine and to Bellosguardo, where a warm-hearted friend, Miss Isa Blagden, occupied a villa, were resumed. An American authoress of wider fame since her book of 1852 than even the authoress of _Aurora Leigh_, Mrs Beecher Stowe, was in Florence, and somewhat to their surprise she charmed both Browning and his wife by her simplicity and earnestness, her gentle voice and refinement of manner–“never,” says Mrs Browning, “did lioness roar more softly.” All pointed to renewed happiness; but before April was over pain of a kind that had a peculiar sting left Mrs Browning for a time incapable of any other feeling. Her father was dead, and no word of affection had been uttered at the last; if there was water in the rock it never welled forth. The kindly meant effort of a relative to reopen friendly communications between Mr Barrett and his daughters, not many months previously, had for its only result the declaration that they had disgraced the family.[71] At first Mrs Browning was crushed and could shed no tear; she remained for many days in a state of miserable prostration; it was two months before she could write a letter to anyone outside the circle of her nearest kinsfolk.
Once more the July heat in Florence–“a composition of Gehenna and Paradise”–drove the Brownings to the Baths of Lucca. Miss Blagden followed them, and also young Lytton came, ailing, it was thought, from exposure to the sun. His indisposition soon grew serious and declared itself as a gastric fever. For eight nights Isa Blagden sat by his bedside as nurse; for eight other nights Browning took her place. His own health remained vigorous. Each morning he bathed in a rapid mountain stream; each evening and morning he rode a mountain pony; and in due time he had the happiness of seeing the patient, although still weak and hollow cheeked, convalescent and beginning to think of “poems and apple puddings,” as Mrs Browning declares, “in a manner other than celestial.” It had been a summer, she said in September, full of blots, vexations, anxieties. Three days after these words were written a new and grave anxiety troubled her and her husband, for their son, who had been looking like a rose–“like a rose possessed by a fairy” is his mother’s description–was attacked in the same way as Lytton. “Don’t be unhappy for _me_” said Pen; “think it’s a poor little boy in the street, and be just only a little sorry, and not unhappy at all.” Within less than a fortnight he was well enough to have “agonising visions of beefsteak pies and buttered toast seen in _mirage_”; but his mother mourned for the rosy cheeks and round fat little shoulders, and confessed that she herself was worn out in body and soul.
The winter at Florence was the coldest for many years; the edges of the Arno were frozen; and in the spring of 1858 Mrs Browning felt that her powers of resistance, weakened by a year of troubles and anxieties, had fallen low. Browning himself was in vigorous health. When he called in June on Hawthorne he looked younger and even handsomer than he had looked two years previously, and his gray hairs seemed fewer. “He talked,” Hawthorne goes on, “a wonderful quantity in a little time.” That evening the Hawthornes spent at Casa Guidi. Mrs Browning is described by the American novelist as if she were one of the singular creatures of his own imagination–no earthly woman but one of the elfin race, yet sweetly disposed towards human beings; a wonder of charm in littleness; with a shrill yet sweet tenuity of voice; “there is not such another figure in the world; and her black ringlets cluster into her neck, and make her face look whiter by their sable perfection.” Browning himself was “very efficient in keeping up conversation with everybody, and seemed to be in all parts of the room and in every group at the same moment; a most vivid and quick-thoughted person–logical and common-sensible, as, I presume, poets generally are in their daily talk.” “His conversation,” says Hawthorne, speaking of a visit to Miss Blagden at Bellosguardo, “has the effervescent aroma which you cannot catch even if you get the very words that seem to be imbued with it…. His nonsense is of very genuine and excellent quality, the true babble and effervescence of a bright and powerful mind; and he lets it play among his friends with the faith and simplicity of a child.”
When summer came it was decided to join Browning’s father and sister in Paris, and accompany them to some French seaside resort, where Mrs Browning could have the benefit of a course of warm salt-water baths. To her the sea was a terror, but railway-travelling was repose, and Browning suggested on the way from Marseilles to Paris that they might “ride, ride together, for ever ride” during the remainder of their lives in a first-class carriage with for-ever renewed supplies of French novels and _Galignanis_. They reached Paris on the elder Mr Browning’s birthday, and found him radiant at the meeting with his son and grandson, looking, indeed, ten years younger than when they had last seen his face. Paris, Mrs Browning declares, was her “weakness,” Italy her “passion”; Florence itself was her “chimney-corner,” where she “could sulk and be happy.” The life of the brilliant city, which “murmurs so of the fountain of intellectual youth for ever and ever,” quickened her heart-beats; its new architectural splendours told of the magnificence in design and in its accomplishment of her hero the Emperor. And here she and her husband met their helpful friend of former days, Father Prout, and they were both grieved and cheered by the sight of Lady Elgin, a paralytic, in her garden-chair, not able to articulate a word, but bright and gracious as ever, “the eloquent soul full and radiant, alive to both worlds.” The happiness in presence of such a victory of the spirit was greater than the pain.
Having failed to find agreeable quarters at Etretat, where Browning in a “fine phrenzy” had hired a wholly unsuitable house with a potato-patch for view, and escaped from his bad bargain, a loser of some francs, at his wife’s entreaty, they settled for a short time at Havre–“detestable place,” Mrs Browning calls it–in a house close to the sea and surrounded by a garden. On a bench by the shore Mrs Browning could sit and win back a little strength in the bright August air. The stay at Havre, depressing to Browning’s spirits, was for some eight weeks. In October they were again in Paris, where Mrs Browning’s sister, Arabel, was their companion. The year was far advanced and a visit to England was not in contemplation. Towards the middle of the month they were once more in motion, journeying by slow stages to Florence. A day was spent at Chambery “for the sake of les Charmettes and Rousseau.” When Casa Guidi was at length reached, it was only a halting-place on the way to Rome. Winter had suddenly rushed in and buried all Italy in snow; but when they started for Rome in a carriage kindly lent by their American friends, the Eckleys, it was again like summer. The adventures of the way were chiefly of a negative kind–occasioned by precipices over which they were not thrown, and banditti who never came in sight; but in a quarrel between oxen-drivers, one of whom attacked the other with a knife, Browning with characteristic energy dashed between them to the terror of the rest of the party; his garments were the only serious sufferers from his zeal as mediator.
The apartment engaged at Rome was that of the earlier visit of 1853-54, in the Via Bocca di Leone, “rooms swimming all day in sunshine.” On Christmas morning Mrs Browning was able to accompany her husband to St Peter’s to hear the silver trumpets. But January froze the fountains, and the north wind blew with force. Mrs Browning had just completed a careful revision _of Aurora Leigh_, and now she could rest, enjoy the sunshine streaming through their six windows, or give herself up to the excitement of Italian politics as seen through the newspapers in the opening of a most eventful year. “Robert and I,” she wrote on the eve of the declaration of war between Austria and Victor Emmanuel, “have been of one mind lately on these things, which comforts me much.” She had also the satisfaction of health enjoyed at least by proxy, for her husband had never been more full of vigour and the spirit of enjoyment. In the freezing days of January he was out of his bed at six o’clock, and away for a brisk morning walk with Mr Eckley. The loaf at breakfast diminished “by Gargantuan slices.” Into the social life of Rome he threw himself with ardour. For a fortnight immediately after Christmas he was out every night, sometimes with double and treble engagements. “Dissipations,” says Mrs Browning, “decidedly agree with Robert, there’s no denying that, though he’s horribly hypocritical, and ‘prefers an evening with me at home.'” He gathered various coloured fragments of life from the outer world and brought them home to brighten her hours of imprisonment.
When they returned to Florence in May the Grand Duke had withdrawn, the