DEAR MR. PUNCH,--You are as fickle as the rest of your sex, I fear,
otherwise you would not have requited my devotion to you and your
interests in such an awful manner as you did in publishing my
husband's letter last week!--and _such_ a letter! Oh, I could write
such a _scathing_ reply to it!
Of course, it was jealousy on the part of Sir CHARLES at my literary
success--(setting aside the _wonderful_ tips)--which caused the
explosion that led to his writing to you, but I never--never--thought
you would insert his letter, especially as I slipped in a postscript
which to my mind explained _everything_--as, indeed, postscripts
_should_ do, or what is the good of writing a long letter about
nothing in front of them? The wretch confesses that he laughed at my
articles until he knew who wrote them, and then thought less of
them! Isn't that like a husband?--I won't say like a _man_, as so few
husbands _are_ men!--at least, in the eyes of their wives. The moment
a wife does something her husband can't do, he dislikes and pooh-poohs
it; whereas, the more accomplishments a husband displays, the more a
wife appreciates him, or _says_ so even if she doesn't!--which is a
noble falsehood, for how few women are large-minded enough to pretend
to admire qualities which they despise because they don't possess
them--I'm not sure that this is what I mean, nor do I quite understand
it, but it reads well, which is more than Sir CHARLES'S stuff does!
And then his impertinence in proposing to "edit" my letters!--as if
anyone could be more capable of doing that than _you_?--(you will
observe that it is solely on _your_ account that I am annoyed!)--I
could not brook such interference!--I don't know exactly the meaning
of "brooking" anything, but I know I wept enough tears of annoyance
to form a decent "brook" of themselves! I need hardly tell you that it
was a biting sarcasm on my part to suggest that he should finish his
letter with a "verse," as I always do--but there--men don't
understand sarcasm--(one of _our_ most frequently employed weapons of
offence!)--and the poor thing thought I was in earnest, and did it!
And _what_ a verse! I could write better with my left hand!
I need scarcely tell you that I have left him--(this is why my address
is not to be published)--as I consider my duty to the Public rendered
it imperative that I should do so, for I should not think much of any
woman who allowed a paltry consideration of domestic obligations to
weigh against the pursuit of a career of usefulness.
If, therefore, a vein of sadness and cynicism runs through this
letter, you will understand that it does _not_ proceed from any regret
at the "breaking up of the happy home," but rather from sorrow at the
thought that once again the intellectual superiority of one of the
softer sex has not been accepted in the right spirit by the possessor
of the weaker mind, to whom she owes obedience!
I trust I have done with Sir CHARLES for ever!--especially if
he speaks the truth in saying that "following my tips has ruined
him"--for why should any woman burden herself with an impecunious
husband? He does not know where I am, and I feel still more secure in
my retreat from having just heard that he has engaged the services of
several of the most prominent London Detectives to trace me!
Owing no devotion now to Sir CHARLES--who will appreciate the
following tender lines with which I close my letter--
O woman! in our hours of ease,
Thou art not _very_ hard to please!
Thou takest what the gods may send;
But, thwarted!--thou wilt turn and rend!