Whilst the reviewer thinks he is strengthening one point, he is
palpably weakening another. She would not have been "mortally afraid
of the Doctor's coming," if she had already thrown him off and
finally broken with him? That she was afraid, and had reason to be
so, is quite consistent with my theory, quite inconsistent with Lord
Macaulay's and the critic's. Johnson's letter (No. 3) is that of a
coarse man who had always been permitted to lecture and dictate with
impunity. Her letter (No. 4) is that of a sensitive woman, who, for
the first time, resents with firmness and retorts with dignity. The
sentences I have printed in italics speak volumes. "Never did I
oppose your will, or control your wish, nor can your unmitigated
severity itself lessen my regard." There is a shade of submissiveness
in her reply, yet, on receiving it, he felt as a falcon might feel if
a partridge were to shew fight. Nothing short of habitual deference
on her part, and unrepressed indulgence of temper on _his_, can
account for or excuse his not writing before this unexpected check as
he wrote after it. If he had not been systematically humoured and
flattered, he would have seen at a glance that he had "no pretence to
resent," and have been ready at once to make the best return in his
power for "that kindness which soothed twenty years of a life
radically wretched." She wrote him a kind and affectionate farewell;
and there (so far as we know) ended their correspondence. But in
"Thraliana" she sets down:
"_Milan, 27th Nov_.
Pages:
226
227
228
229
230
231
232
233
234
235
236
237
238
239
240
241
242
243
244
245
246
247
248
249
250