<h2> LETTER XL </h2>
<p>MISS CLARISSA HARLOWE, TO MISS HOWE [In continuation of the subject in
Letter XXXVIII.]</p>
<p>I will now, though midnight (for I have no sleep in my eyes) resume the
subject I was forced so abruptly to quit, and will obey yours, Miss
Lloyd's, Miss Campion's, and Miss Biddulph's call, with as much temper as
my divided thought will admit. The dead stillness of this solemn hour
will, I hope, contribute to calm my disturbed mind.</p>
<p>In order to acquit myself of so heavy a charge as that of having reserves
to so dear a friend, I will acknowledge (and I thought I had
over-and-over) that it is owing to my particular situation, if Mr.
Lovelace appears to me in a tolerable light: and I take upon me to say,
that had they opposed to him a man of sense, of virtue, of generosity; one
who enjoyed his fortune with credit, who had a tenderness in his nature
for the calamities of others, which would have given a moral assurance,
that he would have been still less wanting in grateful returns to an
obliging spirit:—had they opposed such a man as this to Mr.
Lovelace, and been as earnest to have me married, as now they are, I do
not know myself, if they would have had reason to tax me with that
invincible obstinacy which they lay to my charge: and this whatever had
been the figure of the man; since the heart is what we women should judge
by in the choice we make, as the best security for the party's good
behaviour in every relation of life.</p>
<p>But, situated as I am, thus persecuted and driven, I own to you, that I
have now-and-then had a little more difficulty than I wished for, in
passing by Mr. Lovelace's tolerable qualities, to keep up my dislike to
him for his others.</p>
<p>You say, I must have argued with myself in his favour, and in his
disfavour, on a supposition, that I might possibly be one day his. I own
that I have: and thus called upon by my dearest friend, I will set before
you both parts of the argument.</p>
<p>And first, what occurred to me in his favour.</p>
<p>At his introduction into our family, his negative virtues were insisted
upon:—He was no gamester; no horse-racer; no fox-hunter; no drinker:
my poor aunt Hervey had, in confidence, given us to apprehend much
disagreeable evil (especially to a wife of the least delicacy) from a
wine-lover: and common sense instructed us, that sobriety in a man is no
small point to be secured, when so many mischiefs happen daily from
excess. I remember, that my sister made the most of this favourable
circumstance in his character while she had any hopes of him.</p>
<p>He was never thought to be a niggard; not even ungenerous: nor when his
conduct came to be inquired into, an extravagant, a squanderer: his pride
[so far was it a laudable pride] secured him from that. Then he was ever
ready to own his errors. He was no jester upon sacred things: poor Mr.
Wyerley's fault; who seemed to think there was wit in saying bold things,
which would shock a serious mind. His conversation with us was always
unexceptionable, even chastely so; which, be his actions what they would,
shewed him capable of being influenced by decent company; and that he
might probably therefore be a led man, rather than a leader, in other
company. And one late instance, so late as last Saturday evening, has
raised him not a little in my opinion, with regard to this point of good
(and at the same time, of manly) behaviour.</p>
<p>As to the advantage of birth, that is of his side, above any man who has
been found out for me. If we may judge by that expression of his, which
you were pleased with at the time; 'That upon true quality, and hereditary
distinction, if good sense were not wanting, humour sat as easy as his
glove;' that, with as familiar an air, was his familiar expression; 'while
none but the prosperous upstart, MUSHROOMED into rank, (another of his
peculiars,) was arrogantly proud of it.'—If, I say, we may judge of
him by this, we shall conclude in his favour, that he knows what sort of
behaviour is to be expected from persons of birth, whether he act up to it
or not. Conviction is half way to amendment.</p>
<p>His fortunes in possession are handsome; in expectation, splendid: so
nothing need be said on that subject.</p>
<p>But it is impossible, say some, that he should make a tender or kind
husband. Those who are for imposing upon me such a man as Mr. Solmes, and
by methods so violent, are not entitled to make this objection. But now,
on this subject, let me tell you how I have argued with myself—for
still you must remember, that I am upon the extenuating part of his
character.</p>
<p>A great deal of the treatment a wife may expect from him, will possibly
depend upon herself. Perhaps she must practise as well as promise
obedience, to a man so little used to controul; and must be careful to
oblige. And what husband expects not this?—The more perhaps if he
had not reason to assure himself of the preferable love of his wife before
she became such. And how much easier and pleasanter to obey the man of her
choice, if he should be even more unreasonable sometimes, than one she
would not have had, could she have avoided it? Then, I think, as the men
were the framers of the matrimonial office, and made obedience a part of
the woman's vow, she ought not, even in policy, to shew him, that she can
break through her part of the contract, (however lightly she may think of
the instance,) lest he should take it into his head (himself is judge) to
think as lightly of other points, which she may hold more important—but,
indeed, no point so solemnly vowed can be slight.</p>
<p>Thus principled, and acting accordingly, what a wretch must that husband
be, who could treat such a wife brutally!—Will Lovelace's wife be
the only person to whom he will not pay the grateful debt of civility and
good manners? He is allowed to be brave: Who ever knew a brave man, if a
brave man of sense, an universally base man? And how much the gentleness
of our sex, and the manner of our training up and education, make us need
the protection of the brave, and the countenance of the generous, let the
general approbation, which we are all so naturally inclined to give to men
of that character, testify.</p>
<p>At worst, will he confine me prisoner to my chamber? Will he deny me the
visits of my dearest friend, and forbid me to correspond with her? Will he
take from me the mistressly management, which I had not faultily
discharged? Will he set a servant over me, with license to insult me? Will
he, as he has not a sister, permit his cousins Montague, or would either
of those ladies accept of a permission, to insult and tyrannize over me?—It
cannot be.—Why then, think I often, do you tempt me, O my cruel
friends, to try the difference?</p>
<p>And then has the secret pleasure intruded itself, to be able to reclaim
such a man to the paths of virtue and honour: to be a secondary means, if
I were to be his, of saving him, and preventing the mischiefs so
enterprising a creature might otherwise be guilty of, if he be such a one.</p>
<p>When I have thought of him in these lights, (and that as a man of sense he
will sooner see his errors, than another,) I own to you, that I have had
some difficulty to avoid taking the path they so violently endeavour to
make me shun: and all that command of my passions which has been
attributed to me as my greatest praise, and, in so young a creature, as my
distinction, has hardly been sufficient for me.</p>
<p>And let me add, that the favour of his relations (all but himself
unexceptionable) has made a good deal of additional weight, thrown in the
same scale.</p>
<p>But now, in his disfavour. When I have reflected upon the prohibition of
my parents; the giddy appearance, disgraceful to our sex, that such a
preference would have: that there is no manner of likelihood, enflamed by
the rencounter, and upheld by art and ambition on my brother's side, that
ever the animosity will be got over: that I must therefore be at perpetual
variance with all my own family: that I must go to him, and to his, as an
obliged and half-fortuned person: that his aversion to them all is as
strong as theirs to him: that his whole family are hated for his sake;
they hating ours in return: that he has a very immoral character as to
women: that knowing this, it is a high degree of impurity to think of
joining in wedlock with such a man: that he is young, unbroken, his
passions unsubdued: that he is violent in his temper, yet artful; I am
afraid vindictive too: that such a husband might unsettle me in all my own
principles, and hazard my future hopes: that his own relations, two
excellent aunts, and an uncle, from whom he has such large expectations,
have no influence upon him: that what tolerable qualities he has, are
founded more in pride than in virtue: that allowing, as he does, the
excellency of moral precepts, and believing the doctrine of future rewards
and punishments, he can live as if he despised the one, and defied the
other: the probability that the taint arising from such free principles,
may go down into the manners of posterity: that I knowing these things,
and the importance of them, should be more inexcusable than one who knows
them not; since an error against judgment is worse, infinitely worse, than
an error in judgment. Reflecting upon these things, I cannot help
conjuring you, my dear, to pray with me, and to pray for me, that I may
not be pushed upon such indiscreet measures, as will render me inexcusable
to myself: for that is the test, after all. The world's opinion ought to
be but a secondary consideration.</p>
<p>I have said in his praise, that he is extremely ready to own his errors:
but I have sometimes made a great drawback upon this article, in his
disfavour; having been ready to apprehend, that this ingenuousness may
possibly be attributable to two causes, neither of them, by any means,
creditable to him. The one, that his vices are so much his masters, that
he attempts not to conquer them; the other, that he may think it policy,
to give up one half of his character to save the other, when the whole may
be blamable: by this means, silencing by acknowledgment the objections he
cannot answer; which may give him the praise of ingenuousness, when he can
obtain no other, and when the challenged proof might bring out, upon
discussion, other evils. These, you will allow, are severe constructions;
but every thing his enemies say of him cannot be false.</p>
<p>I will proceed by-and-by.</p>
<p>***</p>
<p>Sometimes we have both thought him one of the most undesigning merely
witty men we ever knew; at other times one of the deepest creatures we
ever conversed with. So that when in one visit we have imagined we
fathomed him, in the next he has made us ready to give him up as
impenetrable. This impenetrableness, my dear, is to be put among the
shades in his character. Yet, upon the whole, you have been so far of his
party, that you have contested that his principal fault is over-frankness,
and too much regardlessness of appearances, and that he is too giddy to be
very artful: you would have it, that at the time he says any thing good,
he means what he speaks; that his variableness and levity are
constitutional, owing to sound health, and to a soul and body [that was
your observation] fitted for and pleased with each other. And hence you
concluded, that could this consentaneousness [as you call it] of corporal
and animal faculties be pointed by discretion; that is to say, could his
vivacity be confined within the pale of but moral obligations, he would be
far from being rejectable as a companion for life.</p>
<p>But I used then to say, and I still am of opinion, that he wants a heart:
and if he does, he wants every thing. A wrong head may be convinced, may
have a right turn given it: but who is able to give a heart, if a heart be
wanting? Divine Grace, working a miracle, or next to a miracle, can only
change a bad heart. Should not one fly the man who is but suspected of
such a one? What, O what, do parents do, when they endeavour to force a
child's inclination, but make her think better than otherwise she would
think of a man obnoxious to themselves, and perhaps whose character will
not stand examination?</p>
<p>I have said, that I think Mr. Lovelace a vindictive man: upon my word, I
have sometimes doubted, whether his perseverance in his addresses to me
has not been the more obstinate, since he has found himself so
disagreeable to my friends. From that time I verily think he has been the
more fervent in them; yet courts them not, but sets them at defiance. For
this indeed he pleads disinterestedness [I am sure he cannot politeness];
and the more plausibly, as he is apprized of the ability they have to make
it worth his while to court them. 'Tis true he has declared, and with too
much reason, (or there would be no bearing him,) that the lowest
submissions on his part would not be accepted; and to oblige me, has
offered to seek a reconciliation with them, if I would give him hope of
success.</p>
<p>As to his behaviour at church, the Sunday before last, I lay no stress
upon that, because I doubt there was too much outward pride in his
intentional humility, or Shorey, who is not his enemy, could not have
mistaken it.</p>
<p>I do not think him so deeply learned in human nature, or in ethics, as
some have thought him. Don't you remember how he stared at the following
trite observations, which every moralist could have furnished him with?
Complaining as he did, in a half-menacing strain, of the obloquies raised
against him—'That if he were innocent, he should despise the
obloquy: if not, revenge would not wipe off his guilt.' 'That nobody ever
thought of turning a sword into a sponge!' 'That it was in his own power
by reformation of an error laid to his charge by an enemy, to make that
enemy one of his best friends; and (which was the noblest revenge in the
world) against his will; since an enemy would not wish him to be without
the faults he taxed him with.'</p>
<p>But the intention, he said, was the wound.</p>
<p>How so, I asked him, when that cannot wound without the application? 'That
the adversary only held the sword: he himself pointed it to his breast:—And
why should he mortally resent that malice, which he might be the better
for as long as he lived?'—What could be the reading he has been said
to be master of, to wonder, as he did, at these observations?</p>
<p>But, indeed, he must take pleasure in revenge; and yet holds others to be
inexcusable for the same fault. He is not, however, the only one who can
see how truly blamable those errors are in another, which they hardly
think such in themselves.</p>
<p>From these considerations, from these over-balances, it was, that I said,
in a former, that I would not be in love with this man for the world: and
it was going further than prudence would warrant, when I was for
compounding with you, by the words conditional liking, which you so
humourously rally.</p>
<p>Well but, methinks you say, what is all this to the purpose? This is still
but reasoning: but, if you are in love, you are: and love, like the
vapours, is the deeper rooted for having no sufficient cause assignable
for its hold. And so you call upon me again to have no reserves, and
so-forth.</p>
<p>Why then, my dear, if you will have it, I think, that, with all his
preponderating faults, I like him better than I ever thought I should like
him; and, those faults considered, better perhaps than I ought to like
him. And I believe, it is possible for the persecution I labour under to
induce me to like him still more—especially while I can recollect to
his advantage our last interview, and as every day produces stronger
instances of tyranny, I will call it, on the other side.—In a word,
I will frankly own (since you cannot think any thing I say too explicit)
that were he now but a moral man, I would prefer him to all the men I ever
saw.</p>
<p>So that this is but conditional liking still, you'll say: nor, I hope, is
it more. I never was in love as it is called; and whether this be it, or
not, I must submit to you. But will venture to think it, if it be, no such
mighty monarch, no such unconquerable power, as I have heard it
represented; and it must have met with greater encouragement than I think
I have given it, to be absolutely unconquerable—since I am
persuaded, that I could yet, without a throb, most willingly give up the
one man to get rid of the other.</p>
<p>But now to be a little more serious with you: if, my dear, my
particularly-unhappy situation had driven (or led me, if you please) into
a liking of the man; and if that liking had, in your opinion, inclined me
to love him, should you, whose mind is susceptible of the most friendly
impressions, who have such high notions of the delicacy which ought to be
observed by our sex in these matters, and who actually do enter so deeply
into the distresses of one you love—should you have pushed so far
that unhappy friend on so very nice a subject?—Especially, when I
aimed not (as you could prove by fifty instances, it seems) to guard
against being found out. Had you rallied me by word of mouth in the manner
you do, it might have been more in character; especially, if your friend's
distresses had been surmounted, and if she had affected prudish airs in
revolving the subject: but to sit down to write it, as methinks I see you,
with a gladdened eye, and with all the archness of exultation—indeed,
my dear, (and I take notice of it, rather for the sake of your own
generosity, than for my sake, for, as I have said, I love your raillery,)
it is not so very pretty; the delicacy of the subject, and the delicacy of
your own mind, considered.</p>
<p>I lay down my pen here, that you may consider of it a little, if you
please.</p>
<p>***</p>
<p>I resume, to give you my opinion of the force which figure or person ought
to have upon our sex: and this I shall do both generally as to the other
sex, and particularly as to this man; whence you will be able to collect
how far my friends are in the right, or in the wrong, when they attribute
a good deal of prejudice in favour of one man, and in disfavour of the
other, on the score of figure. But, first, let me observe, that they see
abundant reason, on comparing Mr. Lovelace and Mr. Solmes together, to
believe that this may be a consideration with me; and therefore they
believe it is.</p>
<p>There is certainly something very plausible and attractive, as well as
creditable to a woman's choice, in figure. It gives a favourable
impression at first sight, in which we wish to be confirmed: and if, upon
further acquaintance, we find reason to be so, we are pleased with our
judgment, and like the person the better, for having given us cause to
compliment our own sagacity, in our first-sighted impressions. But,
nevertheless, it has been generally a rule with me, to suspect a fine
figure, both in man and woman; and I have had a good deal of reason to
approve my rule;—with regard to men especially, who ought to value
themselves rather upon their intellectual than personal qualities. For, as
to our sex, if a fine woman should be led by the opinion of the world, to
be vain and conceited upon her form and features; and that to such a
degree, as to have neglected the more material and more durable
recommendations, the world will be ready to excuse her; since a pretty
fool, in all she says, and in all she does, will please, we know not why.</p>
<p>But who would grudge this pretty fool her short day! Since, with her
summer's sun, when her butterfly flutters are over, and the winter of age
and furrows arrives, she will feel the just effects of having neglected to
cultivate her better faculties: for then, lie another Helen, she will be
unable to bear the reflection even of her own glass, and being sunk into
the insignificance of a mere old woman, she will be entitled to the
contempts which follow that character. While the discreet matron, who
carries up [we will not, in such a one's case, say down] into advanced
life, the ever-amiable character of virtuous prudence and useful
experience, finds solid veneration take place of airy admiration, and more
than supply the want of it.</p>
<p>But for a man to be vain of his person, how effeminate! If such a one
happens to have genius, it seldom strikes deep into intellectual subjects.
His outside usually runs away with him. To adorn, and perhaps, intending
to adorn, to render ridiculous that person, takes up all his attention.
All he does is personal; that is to say, for himself: all he admires, is
himself: and in spite of the correction of the stage, which so often and
so justly exposes a coxcomb, he usually dwindles down, and sinks into that
character; and, of consequence, becomes the scorn of one sex, and the jest
of the other.</p>
<p>This is generally the case of your fine figures of men, and of those who
value themselves on dress and outward appearance: whence it is, that I
repeat, that mere person in a man is a despicable consideration. But if a
man, besides figure, has learning, and such talents as would have
distinguished him, whatever were his form, then indeed person is an
addition: and if he has not run too egregiously into self-admiration, and
if he has preserved his morals, he is truly a valuable being.</p>
<p>Mr. Lovelace has certainly taste; and, as far as I am able to determine,
he has judgment in most of the politer arts. But although he has a
humourous way of carrying it off, yet one may see that he values himself
not a little, both on his person and his parts, and even upon his dress;
and yet he has so happy an ease in the latter, that it seems to be the
least part of his study. And as to the former, I should hold myself
inexcusable, if I were to add to his vanity by shewing the least regard
for what is too evidently so much his.</p>
<p>And now, my dear, let me ask you, Have I come up to your expectation? If I
have not, when my mind is more at ease, I will endeavour to please you
better. For, methinks, my sentences drag, my style creeps, my imagination
is sunk, my spirits serve me not, only to tell you, that whether I have
more or less, I am wholly devoted to the commands of my dear Miss Howe.</p>
<p>P.S. The insolent Betty Barnes has just now fired me anew, by reporting to
me the following expressions of the hideous creature, Solmes—'That
he is sure of the coy girl; and that with little labour to himself. That
be I ever so averse to him beforehand, he can depend upon my principles;
and it will be a pleasure to him to see by what pretty degrees I shall
come to.' [Horrid wretch!] 'That it was Sir Oliver's observation, who knew
the world perfectly well, that fear was a better security than love, for a
woman's good behaviour to her husband; although, for his part, to such a
fine creature [truly] he would try what love would do, for a few weeks at
least; being unwilling to believe what the old knight used to aver, that
fondness spoils more wives than it makes good.'</p>
<p>What think you, my dear, of such a wretch as this! tutored, too, by that
old surly misogynist, as he was deemed, Sir Oliver?—</p>
<p><SPAN name="link2H_4_0045" id="link2H_4_0045"></SPAN></p>
<div style="break-after:column;"></div><br />