Thomas Moore- Collected Poetical Works

by Thomas Moore

  “I am in a very fierce humour at not having Scott’s Monastery. You are too liberal in quantity, and somewhat careless of the quality, of your missives. All the Quarterlies (four in number) I had had before from you, and two of the Edinburgh; but no matter; we shall have new ones by and by. No more Keats, I entreat: — flay him alive; if some of you don’t, I must skin him myself. There is no bearing the drivelling idiotism of the manikin.

  “I don’t feel inclined to care further about ‘Don Juan.’ What do you think a very pretty Italian lady said to me the other day? She had read it in the French, and paid me some compliments, with due DRAWBACKS, upon it. I answered that what she said was true, but that I suspected it would live longer than Childe Harold. ‘Ah but’ (said she). ‘I would rather have the fame of Childe Harold for three years than an IMMORTALITY of Don Juan!’ The truth is that it is TOO TRUE, and the women hate many things which strip off the tinsel of sentiment; and they are right, as it would rob them of their weapons. I never knew a woman who did not hate De Grammont’s Memoirs for the same reason: even Lady * * used to abuse them.

  “Rose’s work I never received. It was seized at Venice. Such is the liberality of the Huns, with their two hundred thousand men, that they dare not let such a volume as his circulate.”

  LETTER 392. TO MR. MURRAY.

  “Ravenna, 8bre 16°, 1820.

  “The Abbot has just arrived; many thanks; as also for the Monastery — when you send it!!!

  “The Abbot will have a more than ordinary interest for me, for an ancestor of mine by the mother’s side, Sir J. Gordon of Gight, the handsomest of his day, died on a scaffold at Aberdeen for his loyalty to Mary, of whom he was an imputed paramour as well as her relation. His fate was much commented on in the Chronicles of the times. If I mistake not, he had something to do with her escape from Loch Leven, or with her captivity there. But this you will know better than I.

  “I recollect Loch Leven as it were but yesterday. I saw it in my way to England in 1798, being then ten years of age. My mother, who was as haughty as Lucifer with her descent from the Stuarts, and her right line from the old Gordons, not the Seyton Gordons, as she disdainfully termed the ducal branch, told me the story, always reminding me how superior her Gordons were to the southern Byrons, notwithstanding our Norman, and always masculine descent, which has never lapsed into a female, as my mother’s Gordons had done in her own person.

  “I have written to you so often lately, that the brevity of this will be welcome. Yours,” &c.

  LETTER 393. TO MR. MURRAY.

  “Ravenna, 8bre 17°, 1820.

  “Enclosed is the Dedication of Marino Faliero to Goethe. Query, — is his title Baron or not? I think yes. Let me know your opinion, and so forth.

  “P.S. Let me know what Mr. Hobhouse and you have decided about the two prose letters and their publication.

  “I enclose you an Italian abstract of the German translator of Manfred’s Appendix, in which you will perceive quoted what Goethe says of the whole body of English poetry (and not of me in particular). On this the Dedication is founded, as you will perceive, though I had thought of it before, for I look upon him as a great man.”

  The very singular Dedication transmitted with this letter has never before been published, nor, as far as I can learn, ever reached the hands of the illustrious German. It is written in the poet’s most whimsical and mocking mood; and the unmeasured severity poured out in it upon the two favourite objects of his wrath and ridicule compels me to deprive the reader of some of its most amusing passages.

  DEDICATION TO BARON GOETHE, &c. &c. &c.

  “Sir, — In the Appendix to an English work lately translated into German and published at Leipsic, a judgment of yours upon English poetry is quoted as follows: ‘That in English poetry, great genius, universal power, a feeling of profundity, with sufficient tenderness and force, are to be found; but that altogether these do not constitute poets,’ &c. &c.

  “I regret to see a great man falling into a great mistake. This opinion of yours only proves that the ‘Dictionary of ten thousand living English Authors’ has not been translated into German. You will have read, in your friend Schlegel’s version, the dialogue in Macbeth —

  “‘There are ten thousand! Macbeth. Geese, villain? Answer. Authors, sir.’

  Now, of these ‘ten thousand authors,’ there are actually nineteen hundred and eighty-seven poets, all alive at this moment, whatever their works may be, as their booksellers well know; and amongst these there are several who possess a far greater reputation than mine, although considerably less than yours. It is owing to this neglect on the part of your German translators that you are not aware of the works of * * *.

  “There is also another, named * * * *

  “I mention these poets by way of sample to enlighten you. They form but two bricks of our Babel, (WINDSOR bricks, by the way,) but may serve for a specimen of the building.

  “It is, moreover, asserted that ‘the predominant character of the whole body of the present English poetry is a disgust and contempt for life.’ But I rather suspect that, by one single work of prose, you yourself have excited a greater contempt for life than all the English volumes of poesy that ever were written. Madame de Staël says, that ‘Werther has occasioned more suicides than the most beautiful woman;’ and I really believe that he has put more individuals out of this world than Napoleon himself, except in the way of his profession. Perhaps, Illustrious Sir, the acrimonious judgment passed by a celebrated northern journal upon you in particular, and the Germans in general, has rather indisposed you towards English poetry as well as criticism. But you must not regard our critics, who are at bottom good-natured fellows, considering their two professions, — taking up the law in court, and laying it down out of it. No one can more lament their hasty and unfair judgment, in your particular, than I do; and I so expressed myself to your friend Schlegel, in 1816, at Coppet.

  “In behalf of my ‘ten thousand’ living brethren, and of myself, I have thus far taken notice of an opinion expressed with regard to ‘English poetry’ in general, and which merited notice, because it was YOURS.

  “My principal object in addressing you was to testify my sincere respect and admiration of a man, who, for half a century, has led the literature of a great nation, and will go down to posterity as the first literary character of his age.

  “You have been fortunate, Sir, not only in the writings which have illustrated your name, but in the name itself, as being sufficiently musical for the articulation of posterity. In this you have the advantage of some of your countrymen, whose names would perhaps be immortal also — if any body could pronounce them.

  “It may, perhaps, be supposed, by this apparent tone of levity, that I am wanting in intentional respect towards you; but this will be a mistake: I am always flippant in prose. Considering you, as I really and warmly do, in common with all your own, and with most other nations, to be by far the first literary character which has existed in Europe since the death of Voltaire, I felt, and feel, desirous to inscribe to you the following work, — not as being either a tragedy or a poem, (for I cannot pronounce upon its pretensions to be either one or the other, or both, or neither,) but as a mark of esteem and admiration from a foreigner to the man who has been hailed in Germany ‘THE GREAT GOETHE.’

  “I have the honour to be,

  “With the truest respect,

  “Your most obedient and

  “Very humble servant,

  “BYRON.

  “Ravenna, 8bre 14°, 1820.

  “P.S. I perceive that in Germany, as well as in Italy, there is a great struggle about what they call ‘Classical’ and ‘Romantic,’ — terms which were not subjects of classification in England, at least when I left it four or five years ago. Some of the English scribblers, it is true, abused Pope and Swift, but the reason was that they themselves did not know how to write either prose or verse; but nobody thought them worth making a sect of. Perhaps there may be something of the kind
sprung up lately, but I have not heard much about it, and it would be such bad taste that I shall be very sorry to believe it.”

  VOLUME V.

  LETTER 394. TO MR. MOORE.

  “Ravenna, October 17. 1820.

  “You owe me two letters — pay them. I want to know what you are about. The summer is over, and you will be back to Paris. Apropos of Paris, it was not Sophia Gail, but Sophia Gay — the English word Gay — who was my correspondent. Can you tell who she is, as you did of the defunct * *?

  “Have you gone on with your Poem? I have received the French of mine. Only think of being traduced into a foreign language in such an abominable travesty! It is useless to rail, but one can’t help it.

  “Have you got my Memoir copied? I have begun a continuation. Shall I send it you, as far as it is gone?

  “I can’t say any thing to you about Italy, for the Government here look upon me with a suspicious eye, as I am well informed. Pretty fellows! — as if I, a solitary stranger, could do any mischief. It is because I am fond of rifle and pistol shooting, I believe; for they took the alarm at the quantity of cartridges I consumed, — the wiseacres!

  “You don’t deserve a long letter — nor a letter at all — for your silence. You have got a new Bourbon, it seems, whom they have christened ‘Dieu-donné;’ — perhaps the honour of the present may be disputed. Did you write the good lines on —— , the Laker? * *

  “The Queen has made a pretty theme for the journals. Was there ever such evidence published? Why, it is worse than ‘Little’s Poems’ or ‘Don Juan.’ If you don’t write soon, I will ‘make you a speech.’ Yours,” &c.

  LETTER 395. TO MR. MURRAY.

  “Ravenna, 8bre 25°, 1820.

  “Pray forward the enclosed to Lady Byron. It is on business.

  “In thanking you for the Abbot, I made four grand mistakes, Sir John Gordon was not of Gight, but of Bogagicht, and a son of Huntley’s. He suffered not for his loyalty, but in an insurrection. He had nothing to do with Loch Leven, having been dead some time at the period of the Queen’s confinement: and, fourthly, I am not sure that he was the Queen’s paramour or no, for Robertson does not allude to this, though Walter Scott does, in the list he gives of her admirers (as unfortunate) at the close of ‘The Abbot.’

  “I must have made all these mistakes in recollecting my mother’s account of the matter, although she was more accurate than I am, being precise upon points of genealogy, like all the aristocratical Scotch. She had a long list of ancestors, like Sir Lucius O’Trigger’s, most of whom are to be found in the old Scotch Chronicles, Spalding, &c. in arms and doing mischief. I remember well passing Loch Leven, as well as the Queen’s Ferry: we were on our way to England in 1798.

  “Yours.

  “You had better not publish Blackwood and the Roberts’ prose, except what regards Pope; — you have let the time slip by.”

  The Pamphlet in answer to Blackwood’s Magazine, here mentioned, was occasioned by an article in that work, entitled “Remarks on Don Juan,” and though put to press by Mr. Murray, was never published. The writer in the Magazine having, in reference to certain passages in Don Juan, taken occasion to pass some severe strictures on the author’s matrimonial conduct, Lord Byron, in his reply, enters at some length into that painful subject; and the following extracts from his defence, — if defence it can be called, where there has never yet been any definite charge, — will be perused with strong interest: —

  “My learned brother proceeds to observe, that ‘it is in vain for Lord B. to attempt in any way to justify his own behaviour in that affair: and now that he has so openly and audaciously invited enquiry and reproach, we do not see any good reason why he should not be plainly told so by the voice of his countrymen.’ How far the ‘openness’ of an anonymous poem, and the ‘audacity’ of an imaginary character, which the writer supposes to be meant for Lady B. may be deemed to merit this formidable denunciation from their ‘most sweet voices,’ I neither know nor care; but when he tells me that I cannot ‘in any way justify my own behaviour in that affair,’ I acquiesce, because no man can ‘justify’ himself until he knows of what he is accused; and I have never had — and, God knows, my whole desire has ever been to obtain it — any specific charge, in a tangible shape, submitted to me by the adversary, nor by others, unless the atrocities of public rumour and the mysterious silence of the lady’s legal advisers may be deemed such. But is not the writer content with what has been already said and done? Has not ‘the general voice of his countrymen’ long ago pronounced upon the subject — sentence without trial, and condemnation without a charge? Have I not been exiled by ostracism, except that the shells which proscribed me were anonymous? Is the writer ignorant of the public opinion and the public conduct upon that occasion? If he is, I am not: the public will forget both long before I shall cease to remember either.

  “The man who is exiled by a faction has the consolation of thinking that he is a martyr; he is upheld by hope and the dignity of his cause, real or imaginary: he who withdraws from the pressure of debt may indulge in the thought that time and prudence will retrieve his circumstances: he who is condemned by the law has a term to his banishment, or a dream of its abbreviation; or, it may be, the knowledge or the belief of some injustice of the law or of its administration in his own particular: but he who is outlawed by general opinion, without the intervention of hostile politics, illegal judgment, or embarrassed circumstances, whether he be innocent or guilty, must undergo all the bitterness of exile, without hope, without pride, without alleviation. This case was mine. Upon what grounds the public founded their opinion, I am not aware; but it was general, and it was decisive. Of me or of mine they knew little, except that I had written what is called poetry, was a nobleman, had married, became a father, and was involved in differences with my wife and her relatives, no one knew why, because the persons complaining refused to state their grievances. The fashionable world was divided into parties, mine consisting of a very small minority; the reasonable world was naturally on the stronger side, which happened to be the lady’s, as was most proper and polite. The press was active and scurrilous; and such was the rage of the day, that the unfortunate publication of two copies of verses rather complimentary than otherwise to the subjects, of both, was tortured into a species of crime, or constructive petty treason. I was accused of every monstrous vice by public rumour and private rancour: my name, which had been a knightly or a noble one since my fathers helped to conquer the kingdom for William the Norman, was tainted. I felt that, if what was whispered, and muttered, and murmured, was true, I was unfit for England; if false, England was unfit for me. I withdrew: but this was not enough. In other countries, in Switzerland, in the shadow of the Alps, and by the blue depth of the lakes, I was pursued and breathed upon by the same blight. I crossed the mountains, but it was the same; so I went a little farther, and settled myself by the waves of the Adriatic, like the stag at bay, who betakes him to the waters.

  “If I may judge by the statements of the few friends who gathered round me, the outcry of the period to which I allude was beyond all precedent, all parallel, even in those cases where political motives have sharpened slander and doubled enmity. I was advised not to go to the theatres, lest I should be hissed, nor to my duty in parliament, lest I should be insulted by the way; even on the day of my departure, my most intimate friend told me afterwards that he was under apprehensions of violence from the people who might be assembled at the door of the carriage. However, I was not deterred by these counsels from seeing Kean in his best characters, nor from voting according to my principles; and, with regard to the third and last apprehensions of my friends, I could not share in them, not being made acquainted with their extent till some time after I had crossed the Channel. Even if I had been so, I am not of a nature to be much affected by men’s anger, though I may feel hurt by their aversion. Against all individual outrage, I could protect or redress myself; and against that of a crowd, I should probably have been enabled t
o defend myself, with the assistance of others, as has been done on similar occasions.

  “I retired from the country, perceiving that I was the object of general obloquy; I did not indeed imagine, like Jean Jacques Rousseau, that all mankind was in a conspiracy against me, though I had perhaps as good grounds for such a chimera as ever he had; but I perceived that I had to a great extent become personally obnoxious in England, perhaps through my own fault, but the fact was indisputable; the public in general would hardly have been so much excited against a more popular character, without at least an accusation or a charge of some kind actually expressed or substantiated; for I can hardly conceive that the common and every-day occurrence of a separation between man and wife could in itself produce so great a ferment. I shall say nothing of the usual complaints of ‘being prejudged,’ ‘condemned unheard,’ ‘unfairness,’ ‘partiality,’ and so forth, the usual changes rung by parties who have had, or are to have, a trial; but I was a little surprised to find myself condemned without being favoured with the act of accusation, and to perceive in the absence of this portentous charge or charges, whatever it or they were to be, that every possible or impossible crime was rumoured to supply its place, and taken for granted. This could only occur in the case of a person very much disliked, and I knew no remedy, having already used to their extent whatever little powers I might possess of pleasing in society. I had no party in fashion, though I was afterwards told that there was one — but it was not of my formation, nor did I then know of its existence — none in literature; and in politics I had voted with the Whigs, with precisely that importance which a Whig vote possesses in these Tory days, and with such personal acquaintance with the leaders in both houses as the society in which I lived sanctioned, but without claim or expectation of anything like friendship from any one, except a few young men of my own age and standing, and a few others more advanced in life, which last it had been my fortune to serve in circumstances of difficulty. This was, in fact, to stand alone: and I recollect, some time after, Madame de Staël said to me in Switzerland, ‘You should not have warred with the world — it will not do — it is too strong always for any individual: I myself once tried it in early life, but it will not do.’ I perfectly acquiesce in the truth of this remark; but the world had done me the honour to begin the war; and, assuredly, if peace is only to be obtained by courting and paying tribute to it, I am not qualified to obtain its countenance. I thought, in the words of Campbell,