Volume II Part 14 (1/2)

MY DEAR POLLOCK,

In a late Box of books which I had from Mudie were Macmillan and Fraser, for 1869-1870. And in one of these--I am nearly sure, Macmillan--is an Article called 'Objects of Art' {145} which treats very well, I think, on the subject you and I talked of at Whitsun. . . .

My new Reader . . . has been reading to me Fields' 'Yesterdays with Authors,' Hawthorne, d.i.c.kens, Thackeray. The latter seems to me a Caricature: the d.i.c.kens has one wonderful bit about Macready in 1869, which ought not to have been printed during his Life, but which I will copy out for you if you have not seen it. Hawthorne seems to me the most of a Man of Genius America has produced in the way of Imagination: yet I have never found an Appet.i.te for his Books. Frederic Tennyson sent me Victor Hugo's 'Toilers of the Sea,' which he admires, I suppose; but I can't get up an Appet.i.te for that neither. I think the Scenes being laid in the Channel Islands may have something to do with old Frederic's Liking. . . .

The Daily News only tells me of Crisises in France, Floods in Italy, Insubordination of London Policemen, and Desertion from the British Army.

So I take refuge in other Topics. Do look for 'Objects of Art' among them.

Which are you for

Noi leggiavamo } or } un giorno per diletto? {146a} Noi leggevamo }

WOODBRIDGE: _Nov._ 28 [1872].

'Multae Epistolae pertransibunt et augebitur Scientia.' Our one Man of Books down here, Brooke, {146b} had told me that the old Editions on the whole favoured 'legg_ia_vamo.' Now I shall tell him that the Germans have decided on 'leggevamo.' But Brooke quotes one Copy (1502) which reads 'leggev_am_,' which I had also wished for, to get rid of a fifth (and superfluous) _o_ in the line. I suppose such a plural is as allowable as

Noi andav_am_ per lo solingo Piano, etc.

What is all this erudite Enquiry about? I was talking with Edwards one night of this pa.s.sage, and of this line in particular, which came into my head as a motto for a Device {146c} we were talking of; and hence all this precious fuss.

But I want to tell you what I forgot in my last letter; what d.i.c.kens himself says of his 'Holyday Romance' in a letter to Fields.

_July_ 25, 1867.

'I hope the Americans will see the joke of Holyday Romance. The writing seems to me so much like Children's, that dull folk (on _any_ side of _any_ water) might perhaps rate it accordingly. I should like to be beside you when you read it, and particularly when you read the Pirate's Story. It made me laugh to that extent that my people here thought I was out of my wits: until I gave it to them to read, when they did likewise.'

One thinks, what a delightful thing to be such an Author! Yet he died of his work, I suppose.

WOODBRIDGE, _Jan_, 5/73.

MY DEAR POLLOCK,

I don't know that I have anything to tell you, except a Story which I have already written to Donne and to Mrs. Kemble, all the way to Rome, out of a French Book. {147} I just now forget the name, and it is gone back to Mudie. About 1783, or a little later, a young _Danseur_ of the French Opera falls in love with a young _Danseuse_ of the same. She, however, takes up with a 'Militaire,' who indeed commands the Guard who are on Service at the Opera. The poor Danseur gets mad with jealousy: attacks the Militaire on his post; who just bids his Soldiers tie the poor Lad to a Column, without further Injury. The Lad, though otherwise unhurt, falls ill of Shame and Jealousy; and dies, after bequeathing his Skeleton to the Doctor attached to the Opera, with an understanding that the said Skeleton is to be kept in the Doctor's Room at the Opera.

Somehow, this Skeleton keeps its place through Revolutions, and Changes of Dynasty: and re-appears on the Scene when some Diablerie is on foot, as in Freischutz; where, says the Book, it still produces a certain effect. I forgot to say that the _Subject_ wished to be in that Doctor's Room in order that he might still be near his Beloved when she danced.

Now, is not this a capital piece of French all over?

In Sophie Gay's 'Salons de Paris' {148} I read that when Madlle Contat (the Predecessor of Mars) was learning under Preville and his Wife for the Stage, she gesticulated too much, as Novices do. So the Previlles confined her Arms like '_une Momie_' she says, and then set her off with a Scene. So long as no great Pa.s.sion, or Business, was needed, she felt pretty comfortable, she says: but when the Dialogue grew hot, then she could not help trying to get her hands free; and _that_, as the Previlles told her, sufficiently told her when Action should begin, and not till then, whether in Grave or Comic. This anecdote (told by Contat herself) has almost an exact counterpart in Mrs. Siddons' practice: who recited even Lear's Curse with her hands and arms close to her side like an Egyptian Figure, and Sir Walter Scott, {149a} who heard her, said nothing could be more terrible. . . .

The Egyptian Mummy reminds me of a clever, das.h.i.+ng, Book we are reading on the subject, by Mr. Zincke, Vicar of a Village {149b} near Ipswich.

Did you know, or do you believe, that the Mummy was wrapt up into its Chrysalis Shape as an Emblem of Future Existence; wrapt up, too, in bandages all inscribed with ritualistic directions for its intermediate stage, which was not one of total Sleep? I supposed that this might be a piece of ingenious Fancy: but Cowell, who has been over to see me, says it is probable.

I have brought my Eyes by careful nursing into sufficient strength to read Moliere, and Montaigne, and two or three more of my old 'Standards'

with all my old Relish. But I must not presume on this; and ought to spare your Eyes as well as my own in respect of this letter.

WOODBRIDGE, _Jan._ /73.

MY DEAR POLLOCK,