[NOTE. – Mr Berry of St James’s Street has courteously drawn my attention to the fact that Beau Brummell certainly visited England in 1822. He came to the famous wine-shop on 26th July 1822 and was weighed as usual. His weight was then 10 stones 13 pounds. On the previous occasion, 6th July 1815, his weight was 12 stones 10 pounds. Mr Berry adds that there is no record of his coming after 1822.]4

  III

  MARY WOLLSTONECRAFT

  Great wars are strangely intermittent in their effects. The French Revolution took some people and tore them asunder; others it passed over without disturbing a hair of their heads. Jane Austen, it is said, never mentioned it; Charles Lamb ignored it; Beau Brummell never gave the matter a thought. But to Wordsworth and to Godwin it was the dawn; unmistakably they saw

  France standing on the top of golden hours,

  And human nature seeming born again.1

  Thus it would be easy for a picturesque historian to lay side by side the most glaring contrasts – here in Chesterfield Street was Beau Brummell letting his chin fall carefully upon his cravat and discussing in a tone studiously free from vulgar emphasis the proper cut of the lapel of a coat; and here in Somers Town was a party of ill-dressed, excited young men, one with a head too big for his body and a nose too long for his face, holding forth day by day over the tea-cups upon human perfectibility, ideal unity, and the rights of man. There was also a woman present with very bright eyes and a very eager tongue, and the young men, who had middle-class names, like Barlow and Holcroft and Godwin,2 called her simply ‘Wollstonecraft’, as if it did not matter whether she were married or unmarried, as if she were a young man like themselves.

  Such glaring discords among intelligent people – for Charles Lamb and Godwin, Jane Austen and Mary Wollstonecraft were all highly intelligent – suggest how much influence circumstances have upon opinions. If Godwin had been brought up in the precincts of the Temple and had drunk deep of antiquity and old letters at Christ’s Hospital,3 he might never have cared a straw for the future of man and his rights in general. If Jane Austen had lain as a child on the landing to prevent her father from thrashing her mother, her soul might have burnt with such a passion against tyranny that all her novels might have been consumed in one cry for justice.

  Such had been Mary Wollstonecraft’s first experience of the joys of married life. And then her sister Everina had been married miserably and had bitten her wedding ring to pieces in the coach. Her brother had been a burden on her; her father’s farm had failed, and in order to start that disreputable man with the red face and the violent temper and the dirty hair in life again she had gone into bondage among the aristocracy as a governess – in short, she had never known what happiness was, and, in its default, had fabricated a creed fitted to meet the sordid misery of real human life. The staple of her doctrine was that nothing mattered save independence. ‘Every obligation we receive from our fellow-creatures is a new shackle, takes from our native freedom, and debases the mind.’4 Independence was the first necessity for a woman; not grace or charm, but energy and courage and the power to put her will into effect, were her necessary qualities. It was her highest boast to be able to say, ‘I never yet resolved to do anything of consequence that I did not adhere readily to it’.5 Certainly Mary could say this with truth. When she was a little more than thirty she could look back upon a series of actions which she had carried out in the teeth of opposition. She had taken a house by prodigious efforts for her friend Fanny, only to find that Fanny’s mind was changed and she did not want a house after all. She had started a school. She had persuaded Fanny into marrying Mr Skeys. She had thrown up her school and gone to Lisbon alone to nurse Fanny when she died. On the voyage back she had forced the captain of the ship to rescue a wrecked French vessel by threatening to expose him if he refused. And when, overcome by a passion for Fuseli, she declared her wish to live with him and been refused flatly by his wife, she had put her principle of decisive action instantly into effect, and had gone to Paris determined to make her living by her pen.

  The Revolution thus was not merely an event that had happened outside her; it was an active agent in her own blood. She had been in revolt all her life – against tyranny, against law, against convention. The reformer’s love of humanity, which has so much of hatred in it as well as love, fermented within her. The outbreak of revolution in France expressed some of her deepest theories and convictions, and she dashed off in the heat of that extraordinary moment those two eloquent and daring books – the Reply to Burke and the Vindication of the Rights of Woman,6 which are so true that they seem now to contain nothing new in them – their originality has become our commonplace. But when she was in Paris lodging by herself in a great house, and saw with her own eyes the King whom she despised driving past surrounded by National Guards and holding himself with greater dignity than she expected, then, ‘I can scarcely tell you why’, the tears came to her eyes. ‘I am going to bed,’ the letter ended, ‘and, for the first time in my life, I cannot put out the candle.’7 Things were not so simple after all. She could not understand even her own feelings. She saw the most cherished of her convictions put into practice – and her eyes filled with tears. She had won fame and independence and the right to live her own life – and she wanted something different. ‘I do not want to be loved like a goddess,’ she wrote, ‘but I wish to be necessary to you.’8 For Imlay, the fascinating American to whom her letter was addressed, had been very good to her. Indeed, she had fallen passionately in love with him. But it was one of her theories that love should be free – ‘that mutual affection was marriage and that the marriage tie should not bind after the death of love, if love should die’.9 And yet at the same time that she wanted freedom she wanted certainty. ‘I like the word affection,’ she wrote, ‘because it signifies something habitual.’10

  The conflict of all these contradictions shows itself in her face, at once so resolute and so dreamy, so sensual and so intelligent, and beautiful into the bargain with its great coils of hair and the large bright eyes that Southey thought the most expressive he had ever seen.11 The life of such a woman was bound to be tempestuous. Every day she made theories by which life should be lived; and every day she came smack against the rock of other people’s prejudices. Every day too – for she was no pedant, no cold-blooded theorist – something was born in her that thrust aside her theories and forced her to model them afresh. She acted upon her theory that she had no legal claim upon Imlay; she refused to marry him; but when he left her alone week after week with the child she had borne him her agony was unendurable.

  Thus distracted, thus puzzling even to herself, the plausible and treacherous Imlay cannot be altogether blamed for failing to follow the rapidity of her changes and the alternate reason and unreason of her moods. Even friends whose liking was impartial were disturbed by her discrepancies. Mary had a passionate, an exuberant, love of Nature, and yet one night when the colours in the sky were so exquisite that Madeleine Schweizer could not help saying to her, ‘Come, Mary – come, nature-lover – and enjoy this wonderful spectacle – this constant transition from colour to colour’, Mary never took her eyes off the Baron de Wolzogen. ‘I must confess,’ wrote Madame Schweizer, ‘that this erotic absorption made such a disagreeable impression on me, that all my pleasure vanished.’12 But if the sentimental Swiss was disconcerted by Mary’s sensuality, Imlay, the shrewd man of business, was exasperated by her intelligence. Whenever her saw her he yielded to her charm, but then her quickness, her penetration, her uncompromising idealism harassed him. She saw through his excuses; she met all his reasons; she was even capable of managing his business. There was no peace with her – he must be off again. And then her letters followed him, torturing him with their sincerity and their insight. They were so outspoken; they pleaded so passionately to be told the truth; they showed such a contempt for soap and alum and wealth and comfort; they repeated, as he suspected, so truthfully that he had only to say the word, ‘and you shall never hear of me more’,13 that he could not endure it. Tickling minnows he had hooked a dolphin, and the creature rushed him through the waters till he was dizzy and only wanted to escape. After all, though he had played at theory-making too, he was a business man, he depended upon soap and alum; ‘the secondary pleasures of life’, he had to admit, ‘are very necessary to my comfort’.14 And among them was one that for ever evaded Mary’s jealous scrutiny. Was it business, was it politics, was it a woman, that perpetually took him away from her? He shillied and shallied; he was very charming when they met; then he disappeared again. Exasperated at last, and half insane with suspicion, she forced the truth from the cook. A little actress in a strolling company was his mistress, she learnt. True to her own creed of decisive action, Mary at once soaked her skirts so that she might sink unfailingly, and threw herself from Putney Bridge. But she was rescued; after unspeakable agony she recovered, and then her ‘unconquerable greatness of mind’,15 her girlish creed of independence, asserted itself again, and she determined to make another bid for happiness and to earn her living without taking a penny from Imlay for herself or their child.

  It was in this crisis that she again saw Godwin, the little man with the big head, whom she had met when the French Revolution was making the young men in Somers Town think that a new world was being born. She met him – but that is a euphemism, for in fact Mary Wollstonecraft actually visited him in his own house. Was it the effect of the French Revolution? Was it the blood she had seen spilt on the pavement and the cries of the furious crowd that had rung in her ears that made it seem a matter of no importance whether she put on her cloak and went to visit Godwin in Somers Town, or waited in Judd Street West for Godwin to come to her? And what strange upheaval of human life was it that inspired that curious man, who was so queer a mixture of meanness and magnanimity, of coldness and deep feeling – for the memoir of his wife could not have been written without unusual depth of heart – to hold the view that she did right – that he respected Mary for trampling upon the idiotic convention by which women’s lives were tied down? He held the most extraordinary views on many subjects, and upon the relations of the sexes in particular. He thought that reason should influence even the love between men and women. He thought that there was something spiritual in their relationship. He had written that ‘marriage is a law, and the worst of all laws … marriage is an affair of property, and the worst of all properties’.16 He held the belief that if two people of the opposite sex like each other, they should live together without any ceremony, or, for living together is apt to blunt love, twenty doors off, say, in the same street. And he went further; he said that if another man liked your wife ‘this will create no difficulty. We may all enjoy her conversation, and we shall all be wise enough to consider the sensual intercourse a very trivial object.’17 True, when he wrote those words he had never been in love; now for the first time he was to experience that sensation. It came very quietly and naturally, growing ‘with equal advances in the mind of each’18 from those talks in Somers Town, from those discussions upon everything under the sun which they had held so improperly alone in his rooms. ‘It was friendship melting into love . . .’, he wrote. ‘When, in the course of things, the disclosure came, there was nothing in a manner for either party to disclose to the other.’19 Certainly they were in agreement upon the most essential points; they were both of opinion, for instance, that marriage was unnecessary. They would continue to live apart. Only when Nature again intervened, and Mary found herself with child, was it worth while to lose valued friends, she asked, for the sake of a theory? She thought not, and they were married. And then that other theory – that it is best for husband and wife to live apart – was not that also incompatible with other feelings that were coming to birth in her? ‘A husband is a convenient part of the furniture of the house’,20 she wrote. Indeed, she discovered that she was passionately domestic. Why not, then, revise that theory too, and share the same roof. Godwin should have a room some doors off to work in; and they should dine out separately if they liked – their work, their friends, should be separate. Thus they settled it, and the plan worked admirably. The arrangement combined ‘the novelty and lively sensation of a visit with the more delicious and heart-felt pleasures of domestic life’.21 Mary admitted that she was happy; Godwin confessed that, after all one’s philosophy, it was ‘extremely gratifying’ to find that ‘there is someone who takes an interest in one’s happiness’.22 All sorts of powers and emotions were liberated in Mary by her new satisfaction. Trifles gave her an exquisite pleasure – the sight of Godwin and Imlay’s child playing together; the thought of their own child who was to be born; a day’s jaunt into the country. One day, meeting Imlay in the New Road, she greeted him without bitterness. But, as Godwin wrote, ‘Ours is not an idle happiness, a paradise of selfish and transitory pleasures’.23 No, it too was an experiment, as Mary’s life had been an experiment from the start, an attempt to make human conventions conform more closely to human needs. And their marriage was only a beginning; all sorts of things were to follow after. Mary was going to have a child. She was going to write a book to be called The Wrongs of Women.24 She was going to reform education. She was going to come down to dinner the day after her child was born. She was going to employ a midwife and not a doctor at her confinement – but that experiment was her last. She died in child-birth. She whose sense of her own existence was so intense, who had cried out even in her misery, ‘I cannot bear to think of being no more – of losing myself – nay, it appears to me impossible that I should cease to exist’,25 died at the age of thirty-six. But she has her revenge. Many millions have died and been forgotten in the hundred and thirty years that have passed since she was buried: and yet as we read her letters and listen to her arguments and consider her experiments, above all, that most fruitful experiment, her relation with Godwin, and realise the high-handed and hot-blooded manner in which she cut her way to the quick of life, one form of immortality is hers undoubtedly: she is alive and active, she argues and experiments, we hear her voice and trace her influence even now among the living.

  IV

  DOROTHY WORDSWORTH

  Two highly incongruous travellers, Mary Wollstonecraft and Dorothy Wordsworth, followed close upon each other’s footsteps. Mary was in Altona on the Elbe in 1795 with her baby; three years later Dorothy came there with her brother and Coleridge. Both kept a record of their travels; both saw the same places, but the eyes with which they saw them were very different. Whatever Mary saw served to start her mind upon some theory, upon the effect of government, upon the state of the people, upon the mystery of her own soul. The beat of the oars on the waves made her ask, ‘Life, what are you? Where goes this breath? This I so much alive? In what element will it mix, giving and receiving fresh energy?’1 And sometimes she forgot to look at the sunset and looked instead at the Baron Wolzogen. Dorothy, on the other hand, noted what was before her accurately, literally, and with prosaic precision. ‘The walk very pleasing between Hamburgh and Altona. A large piece of ground planted with trees, and intersected by gravel walks … The ground on the opposite side of the Elbe appears marshy.’2 Dorothy never railed against ‘the cloven hoof of despotism’.3 Dorothy never asked ‘men’s questions’ about exports and imports; Dorothy never confused her own soul with the sky. This ‘I so much alive’ was ruthlessly subordinated to the trees and the grass. For if she let ‘I’ and its rights and its wrongs and its passions and its suffering get beteeen her and the object, she would be calling the moon ‘the Queen of the Night’4; she would be talking of dawn’s ‘orient beams’5; she would be soaring into reveries and rhapsodies and forgetting to find the exact phrase for the ripple of moonlight upon the lake. It was like ‘herrings in the water’6 – she could not have said that if she had been thinking about herself. So while Mary dashed her head against wall after wall, and cried out, ‘Surely something resides in this heart that is not perishable – and life is more than a dream’,7 Dorothy went on methodically at Alfoxden noting the approach of spring. ‘The sloe in blossom, the hawthorn green, the larches in the park changed from black to green, in two or three days.’8 And next day, 14th April 1798, ‘the evening very stormy, so we staid indoors. Mary Wollstonecraft’s life, &c., came.’9 And the day after they walked in the squire’s grounds and noticed that ‘Nature was very successfully striving to make beautiful what art had deformed – ruins, hermitages, &c., &c.’.10 There is no reference to Mary Wollstonecraft; it seems as if her life and all its storms had been swept away in one of those compendious et ceteras, and yet the next sentence reads like an unconscious comment. ‘Happily we cannot shape the huge hills, or carve out the valleys according to our fancy.’11 No, we cannot re-form, we must not rebel; we can only accept and try to understand the message of Nature. And so the notes go on.