poor flock have found their doctoring and shepherding at other hands: their ‘bulb-food and fiddle,’ that she petitioned for, to keep them from a complete shaving off their patch of bog and scrub soil, without any perception of the tremulous transatlantic magnification of the fiddle, and the splitting discord of its latest inspiriting jig.
And she will not have the consequences of the ‘weariful old Irish duel between Honour and Hunger judged by bread and butter juries.’
She had need to be beautiful to be tolerable in days when Englishmen stood more openly for the strong arm to maintain the Union. Her troop of enemies was of her summoning.
Ordinarily her topics were of wider range, and those of a woman who mixed hearing with reading, and observation with her musings. She has no doleful ejaculatory notes, of the kind peculiar to women at war, containing one-third of speculative substance to two of sentimental—a feminine plea for comprehension and a squire; and it was probably the reason (as there is no reason to suppose an emotional cause) why she exercised her evident sway over the mind of so plain and straightforward an Englishman as Henry Wilmers. She told him that she read rapidly, ‘a great deal at one gulp,’ and thought in flashes—a way with the makers of phrases. She wrote, she confessed, laboriously. The desire to prune, compress, overcharge, was a torment to the nervous woman writing under a sharp necessity for payment. Her songs were shot off on the impulsion; prose was the heavy task. ‘To be pointedly rational,’ she said, ‘is a greater difficulty for me than a fine delirium.’ She did not talk as if it would have been so, he remarks. One is not astonished at her appearing an ‘actress’ to the flat-minded. But the basis of her woman’s nature was pointed flame: In the fulness of her history we perceive nothing histrionic. Capricious or enthusiastic in her youth, she never trifled with feeling; and if she did so with some showy phrases and occasionally proffered commonplaces in gilt, as she was much excited to do, her moods of reflection were direct, always large and honest, universal as well as feminine.
Her saying that ‘A woman in the pillory restores the original bark of brotherhood to mankind,’ is no more than a cry of personal anguish. She has golden apples in her apron. She says of life: ‘When I fail to cherish it in every fibre the fires within are waning,’ and that drives like rain to the roots. She says of the world, generously, if with tapering idea: ‘From the point of vision of the angels, this ugly monster, only half out of slime, must appear our one constant hero.’ It can be read maliciously, but abstain.
She says of Romance: ‘The young who avoid that region escape the title of Fool at the cost of a celestial crown.’ Of Poetry: ‘Those that have souls meet their fellows there.’
But she would have us away with sentimentalism. Sentimental people, in her phrase, ‘fiddle harmonics on the strings of sensualism,’ to the delight of a world gaping for marvels of musical execution rather than for music. For our world is all but a sensational world at present, in maternal travail of a soberer, a braver, a brighter-eyed. Her reflections are thus to be interpreted, it seems to me. She says, ‘The vices of the world’s nobler half in this day are feminine.’ We have to guard against ‘half-conceptions of wisdom, hysterical goodness, an impatient charity’—against the elementary state of the altruistic virtues, distinguishable as the sickness and writhings of our egoism to cast its first slough. Idea is there. The funny part of it is our finding it in books of fiction composed for payment. Manifestly this lady did not ‘chameleon’ her pen from the colour of her audience: she was not of the uniformed rank and file marching to drum and fife as gallant interpreters of popular appetite, and going or gone to soundlessness and the icy shades.
Touches inward are not absent: ‘To have the sense of the eternal in life is a short flight for the soul. To have had it, is the soul’s vitality.’ And also: ‘Palliation of a sin is the hunted creature’s refuge and final temptation. Our battle is ever between spirit and flesh. Spirit must brand the flesh, that it may live.’
You are entreated to repress alarm. She was by preference light-handed; and her saying of oratory, that ‘It is always the more impressive for the spice of temper which renders it untrustworthy,’ is light enough. On Politics she is rhetorical and swings: she wrote to spur a junior politician: ‘It is the first business of men, the school to mediocrity, to the covetously ambitious a sty, to the dullard his amphitheatre, arms of Titans to the desperately enterprising, Olympus to the genius.’ What a woman thinks of women, is the test of her nature. She saw their existing posture clearly, yet believed, as men disincline to do, that they grow. She says, that ‘In their judgements upon women men are females, voices of the present (sexual) dilemma.’ They desire to have ‘a still woman; who can make a constant society of her pins and needles.’ They create by stoppage a volcano, and are amazed at its eruptiveness. ‘We live alone, and do not much feel it till we are visited.’ Love is presumably the visitor. Of the greater loneliness of women, she says: ‘It is due to the prescribed circumscription of their minds, of which they become aware in agitation. Were the walls about them beaten down, they would understand that solitariness is a common human fate and the one chance of growth, like space for timber.’ As to the sensations of women after the beating down of the walls, she owns that the multitude of the timorous would yearn in shivering affright for the old prison-nest, according to the sage prognostic of men; but the flying of a valiant few would form a vanguard. And we are informed that the beginning of a motive life with women must be in the head, equally with men (by no means a truism when she wrote). Also that ‘men do not so much fear to lose the hearts of thoughtful women as their strict attention to their graces.’ The present market is what men are for preserving: an observation of still reverberating force. Generally in her character of the feminine combatant there is a turn of phrase, like a dimple near the lips showing her knowledge that she was uttering but a tart measure of the truth. She had always too much lambent humour to be the dupe of the passion wherewith, as she says, ‘we lash ourselves into the persuasive speech distinguishing us from the animals.’
The instances of her drollery are rather hinted by the Diarists for the benefit of those who had met her and could inhale the atmosphere at a word. Drolleries, humours, reputed witticisms, are like odours of roast meats, past with the picking of the joint. Idea is the only vital breath. They have it rarely, or it eludes the chronicler. To say of the great erratic and forsaken Lady A****, after she had accepted the consolations of Bacchus, that her name was properly signified in asterisks ‘as she was now nightly an Ariadne in heaven through her God,’ sounds to us a roundabout, with wit somewhere and fun nowhere. Sitting at the roast we might have thought differently. Perry Wilkinson is not happier in citing her reply to his compliment on the reviewers’ unanimous eulogy of her humour and pathos:—the ‘merry clown and poor pantaloon demanded of us in every work of fiction,’ she says, lamenting the writer’s compulsion to go on producing them for applause until it is extremest age that knocks their knees. We are informed by Lady Pennon of ‘the most amusing description of the first impressions of a pretty English simpleton in Paris’; and here is an opportunity for ludicrous contrast of the French and English styles of pushing flatteries—‘piping to the charmed animal,’ as Mrs. Warwick terms it in another place: but Lady Pennon was acquainted with the silly woman of the piece, and found her amusement in the ‘wonderful truth’ of that representation.
Diarists of amusing passages are under an obligation to paint us a realistic revival of the time, or we miss the relish. The odour of the roast, and more, a slice of it is required, unless the humorous thing be preternaturally spirited to walk the earth as one immortal among a number less numerous than the mythic Gods. ‘He gives good dinners,’ a candid old critic said, when asked how it was that he could praise a certain poet. In an island of chills and fogs, coelum crebris imbribus ac nebulis foedum, the comic and other perceptions are dependent on the stirring of the gastric juices. And such a revival by any of us would be impolitic, were it a possible attempt, before our systems shall have been fortified by philosophy. Then may it be allowed to the Diarist simply to relate, and we can copy from him.
Then, ah! then, moreover, will the novelist’s Art, now neither blushless infant nor executive man, have attained its majority. We can then be veraciously historical,
