Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Free Download Electric Idol Robert Full Chapter PDF
Free Download Electric Idol Robert Full Chapter PDF
Happy reading!
Title Page
Copyright
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
Epilogue
Acknowledgments
Back Cover
To Jenny. It’s a pleasure to share an Id with you!
1
Psyche
FOOTNOTES:
[26] She was related to the President, General Jackson.
CHAPTER XXIII
“Nature has given us two ears, but only one mouth—why do not we
take the hint?” was a sentence which Macready wrote in his Diary
when suffering the consequences of some ill-advised, hasty
utterance. If only Miss Mitford, with her impulsiveness, had seen this
sentence and could have realized how wise was the advice
contained in it, she would have been a happier woman in many
respects. Too often her eagerness to champion the cause of one of
her friends led her to embitter and estrange another. Among her
neighbours was a family of the name of Merry, and one day, while
Talfourd was on a visit to the Mitford Cottage, Mr. Merry called and in
some way affronted the other. This vexed the hostess considerably
at the time, and was referred to later, when she and the Merrys met
at an afternoon function at Bearwood, the residence of Mr. Walter, of
the Times. There was a heated argument, and Miss Mitford took up
a resentful attitude, “certainly with too much violence,” as she
afterwards explained. The occasion was ill-chosen for such an
altercation, and Mr. Merry was deeply offended. Repenting at leisure,
Miss Mitford wrote him an apology, which he would not accept. For
six weeks he nursed his grievance, spreading the tale of Miss
Mitford’s offence among mutual friends. Realizing at last how deeply
she had offended, Miss Mitford sent her old friend the following letter,
which we quote as an instance of her wholehearted contrition.
“I cannot suffer you to leave our neighbourhood for weeks,
perhaps for months, without making one more effort to soften a
displeasure too justly excited—without once more acknowledging my
fault, and entreating your forgiveness. Do not again repulse me—
pray do not! Life is too short, too full of calamity, for an alienation
indefinitely prolonged—a pardon so long suspended. I know you
better, perhaps, than you know yourself, and am sure that, were I at
this moment suffering under any great affliction, you would be the
first—ay, the very first—to soothe and to succour me. If my father
(which may God in his mercy avert!) were dead; if I myself were on a
sick bed, or in prison, or in a workhouse (and you well know that this
is the destiny to which I always look forward), then you would come
to me—I am sure of it. You would be as ready to fly to my assistance
then as the angel of peace and mercy at your side”—[a tender
allusion to Mrs. Merry, who was deeply grieved at the estrangement].
—“But do not wait for that moment; do not, for an error which has
been sincerely and severely repented, deprive a melancholy and a
most anxious existence of one of its few consolations. Lonely and
desolate as I am—with no one belonging to me in the world but my
dear father—poor in every sense, earning with pain and difficulty a
livelihood which every day makes more precarious, I cannot afford
the loss of your sympathy. I say this without fear of misconstruction.
You will understand that what I regret is the friendship, and intimacy,
the everyday intercourse of mind and of heart, on which even you
yourself—so much more happily placed—did yet set some value.
You did like me once; try me again. You will find me—at least I hope
so—all the better for the rigorous discipline which my mind has lately
undergone, the salutary and unwonted course of self-examination
and self-abasement.
“At all events, do not go without a few words of peace and of
kindness. I send you the last flowers of my garden. Your flower
seems to have continued in blossom on purpose to assist in the work
of reconciliation. Do not scorn its sweet breath, or resist its mute
pleadings, but give me in exchange one bunch of the laurustinus for
which I used to ask you last winter, and let it be a token of the full
and perfect reconciliation for which I am a suppliant; and then I shall
cherish it—oh, I cannot tell you how much! Once again, forgive me—
and farewell.”
It is pleasant to record that this touching appeal had, as of course
it would, the desired effect, and the old happy relationship was
renewed.
The year was 1833 and, like many a previous one, it was full of
pecuniary worries and embarrassments. Dr. Mitford was again giving
trouble, seeking to augment his income by some doubtful investment
for which he had, as usual, the tip of some unscrupulous schemer, to
whose class he fell an easy prey. The matter fortunately came to
Miss Mitford’s knowledge, and she wrote off in great haste to William
Harness “to caution you in case you should receive any authority,
from any quarter, to sell out our money in the Funds, not to do so
without communicating with me. I have no doubt of my father’s
integrity, but I think him likely to be imposed on.”
This was a more serious matter than it at first appears. The money
in the Funds was left by Dr. Russell for his daughter and her
offspring and could not therefore be touched without authority from
Miss Mitford, who was her mother’s sole heir. How then did Dr.
Mitford propose to obtain its use? There is only one answer and it is
one which involves the integrity which Miss Mitford did not question.
Harness’s reply was plain and to the point. “Depend upon it the
money shall never be touched with my consent. It was consideration
for your future welfare which prevented my father’s consenting to its
being sold out some years ago, when you had been persuaded, and
wished to persuade him, to your own utter ruin.” [This was during the
stressful time at Bertram House when, with the consent of her
mother, Miss Mitford wrote to Dr. Harness imploring him to sell out
and give her father the use of the money.] “That £3,000 I consider as
the sheet-anchor of your independence, if age should ever render
literature irksome to you, or infirmity incapacitate you for exertion;
and, while your father lives, it shall never stir from its present post in
the Funds. After he has ceased (as all fathers must cease) to live,
my first object will be to consult with you and my most intelligent
money-managing friends, and discover the mode of making the
stock most profitable to your comfort, either by annuity or any other
mode that may be thought most advisable. Till then—from whatever
quarter the proposition may come—I have but one black, blank,
unqualified No for my answer. I do not doubt Dr. Mitford’s integrity,
but I have not the slightest confidence in his prudence; and I am fully
satisfied that if these three thousand and odd hundreds of pounds
were placed at his disposal to-day, they would fly the way so many
other thousands have gone before them, to-morrow. Excuse me
saying this; but I cannot help it.”
This letter stands to the lasting credit of its writer and affords
ample proof of his steadfast and unflinching devotion to his trust,
failing which the tragedy of Miss Mitford’s life would have been
deeper than it was. He alone had the power of drawing out the best
that was in Miss Mitford, in getting her to express the moral and
spiritual side of her nature. Art, literature, the Drama she could talk
and write upon to other people, but it was to William Harness that
she would pour out her convictions on the deeper things of life. He
sent her a book of his sermons, and although it reached her at
midnight (having been conveyed from her friend by Dr. Milman to her
father, whom he met at a dinner-party), she sat far into the night,
reading and studying it, and inditing a reply at three o’clock in the
morning while the mood was hot upon her.
“I have read it through—the second part twice through. That
second sermon would have done honour to Shakespeare, and I half
expected to find you quoting him. There would be a tacit hypocrisy, a
moral cowardice, if I were to stop here, and not to confess, what I
think you must suspect, although by no chance do I ever talk about it
—that I do not, or rather cannot, believe all that the Church requires.
I humbly hope that it is not necessary to do so, and that a devout
sense of the mercy of God, and an endeavour, however imperfectly
and feebly, to obey the great precepts of justice and kindness, may
be accepted in lieu of that entire faith which, in me, will not be
commanded. You will not suspect me of thoughtlessness in this
matter; neither, I trust, does it spring from intellectual pride. Few
persons have a deeper sense of their own weakness; few, indeed,
can have so much weakness of character to deplore and to strive
against. Do not answer this part of my letter. It has cost me a strong
effort to say this to you; but it would have been a concealment
amounting to a falsity if I had not, and falsehood must be wrong. Do
not notice it; a correspondence of controversy could only end in
alienation, and I could not afford to lose my oldest and kindest friend
—to break up the close intimacy in which I am so happy and of
which I am so proud.” This was in 1829. In the Spring of 1834 her old
friend sent another of his printed sermons, which again she read and
studied and which drew from her some pronouncements on
Disestablishment and Disendowment of the Church and on
questions of Social Reform which cannot but be read with interest to-
day.
“It is a very able and conciliatory plea for the Church. My opinion
(if an insignificant woman may presume to give one) is, that certain
reforms ought to be; that very gross cases of pluralities should be
abolished (it is too sweeping, I think, to say all pluralities); that some
few of the clergy are too rich, and that a great many are too poor; but
(although not holding all her doctrines) I heartily agree with you that,
as an establishment, the Church ought to remain; for, to say nothing
of the frightful precedent of sweeping away property, a precedent
which would not stop there, the country would be over-run with
fanatics, and, in the rural districts especially, a clergyman (provided
he be not a magistrate) is generally, in worldly, as well as spiritual
matters, a great comfort to the poor. But our wise legislators never
think of the rural districts—never. They legislate against gin-shops,
which are the evil of great towns, and encourage beer-shops, which
are the pest of the country, the cause of half the poverty and three-
fourths of the demoralization. But the Church must be (as many of
her members are) wisely tolerant; bishops must not wage war with
theatres, nor rectors with a Sunday evening game of cricket. If they
take up the arms of the Puritans, the Puritans will beat them.”
The reference in this letter to rectors and Sunday cricket is most
interesting in view of the fact that only a few miles away, in the
village of Eversley, there had just arrived a new curate who, as time
went on, became the rector; and who, among other things, shocked
some of his clerical brethren by actually encouraging manly sports,
such as cricket and quoits, on the village green in the intervals
between the Sunday services. His name was Charles Kingsley and
he was destined to be numbered among the very dear friends of
Miss Mitford in her declining days.
The refusal—the just refusal—of William Harness to entertain Dr.
Mitford’s idea regarding money matters, somewhat upset the latter’s
calculations, besides causing him to be more importunate in his
demands on his daughter. There were, of course, certain sums
coming in regularly from the various magazines, but these were not
sufficient, and so both father and daughter decided to take a bold
risk and endeavour to produce the prohibited play of Charles the
First at some theatre where the jurisdiction of the Lord Chamberlain
did not operate.
Dr. Mitford took the manuscript with him to London in the May of
1834, where, by the kindness of Mr. T. J. Serle—a noted playwright
and actor—he was introduced to Mr. Abbott, who, having left Covent
Garden Theatre and become Manager of the Victoria Theatre in the
Waterloo Road, was a likely person to take up the project. Mr. Abbott
immediately accepted the play and was extremely liberal in his terms
—£200 to be paid down and a fourth share of the profits if the play
ran for a certain number of nights. The negotiations were somewhat
prolonged, but by the end of June the whole matter had been
arranged and Miss Mitford went to town to superintend the
rehearsals. The play was produced in July, with Mr. Cathcart in the
cast and with the prologue both written and spoken by Mr. Serle. It
was a great success, despite the drawbacks attendant on its
production in a minor theatre on the Surrey side of the Thames.
Writing to her friend Miss Jephson, the delighted author said:—“The
papers will of course have told you that both I and my actor have
been successful ... the thing is admirably got up, the theatre
beautiful, and Cathcart’s acting refined, intellectual, powerful and
commanding beyond anything I ever witnessed.... They make a real
queen of me, and would certainly demolish my humility, if I were
happy enough to be humble, though I feel that over-praise, over-
estimation, is a far more humbling thing—a thing that sends you
back on your own mind to ask, ‘Have I deserved this?’ than anything
else that can be. For the first ten days I spent on an average from
four to six hours every morning in the Victoria Theatre, at hard
scolding, for the play has been entirely got up by me; then I dined
out amongst twenty or thirty eminent strangers every evening. Since
that I have been to operas and to pictures, and held a sort of
drawing-room every morning; so that I am so worn out, as to have,
for three days out of the last four, fainted dead away between four
and five o’clock, a fine-lady trick which I never played before, and
which teaches me I must return, as soon as I can, into the country, to
write another play and run again the same round of fatigue,
excitement and pleasure. After all, my primary object is, and has
been, to establish Mr. Cathcart.”
VARIOUS FRIENDSHIPS