Thank you, my dearest cousin, for your kind little note, which I run the chance of answering by that Wednesday’s post you think you may wait for.  So (via your table) I set about writing to you, and the first word, of course, must be an expression of my contentment with the ‘Examiner’ review.  Indeed, I am more than contented—­delighted with it.  I had some dread, vaguely fashioned, about the ‘Examiner’; the very delay looked ominous.  And then, I thought to myself, though I did not say, that if Mr. Forster praised the verses on Flush to you, it was just because he had no sympathy for anything else.  But it is all the contrary, you see, and I am the more pleased for the want of previous expectation; and I must add that if you were so kind as to be glad of being associated with me by Mr. Forster’s reference, I was so human as to be very very glad of being associated with you by the same.  Also you shall criticise ‘Geraldine’ exactly as you like—­mind, I don’t think it all so rough as the extracts appear to be, and some variety is attained by that playing at ball with the pause, which causes the apparent roughness—­still you shall criticise ‘Geraldine’ exactly as you like.  I have a great fancy for writing some day a longer poem of a like class—­a poem comprehending the aspect and manners of modern life, and flinching at nothing of the conventional.  I think it might be done with good effect.  You said once that Tennyson had done it in ‘Locksley Hall,’ and I half agreed with you.  But looking at ‘Locksley Hall’ again, I find that not much has been done in that way, noble and passionate and full as the poem is in other ways.  But there is no story, no manners, no modern allusion, except in the grand general adjuration to the ‘Mother-age,’ and no approach to the treatment of a conventionality.  But Crabbe, as you say, has done it, and Campbell in his ‘Theodore’ in a few touches was near to do it; but Hayley clearly apprehends the species of poem in his ‘Triumphs of Temper’ and ‘Triumphs of Music,’ and so did Miss Seward, who called it the ‘poetical novel.’  Now I do think that a true poetical novel—­modern, and on the level of the manners of the day—­might be as good a poem as any other, and much more popular besides.  Do you not think so?

I had a letter from dear Miss Mitford this morning, with yours, but I can find nothing in it that you will care to hear again.  She complains of the vagueness of ‘Coningsby,’ and praises the French writers—­a sympathy between us, that last, which we wear hidden in our sleeves for the sake of propriety.  Not a word of coming to London, though I asked.  Neither have I heard again from Miss Martineau....

Ever most affectionately and gratefully yours,
E.B.B.

[Footnote 114:  It will be remembered that ‘Punch’ had only been in existence for three years at this time, which will account for this apparently superfluous advice.]