Thomas Moore- Collected Poetical Works

by Thomas Moore

  I have mentioned the circumstance merely for the purpose of remarking, that with a sensibility vulnerable at so many points as his was, and acted upon by an imagination so long practised in self-tormenting, it is only wonderful that, thinking constantly, as his letters prove him to have been, of distant friends, and receiving from few or none equal proofs of thoughtfulness in return, he should not more frequently have broken out into such sallies against the absent and “unreplying.” For myself, I can only say that, from the moment I began to unravel his character, the most slighting and even acrimonious expressions that I could have heard he had, in a fit of spleen, uttered against me, would have no more altered my opinion of his disposition, nor disturbed my affection for him, than the momentary clouding over of a bright sky could leave an impression on the mind of gloom, after its shadow had passed away.

  LETTER 336. TO MR. MURRAY.

  “Ravenna, August 9. 1819.

  “Talking of blunders reminds me of Ireland — Ireland of Moore. What is this I see in Galignani about ‘Bermuda — agent — deputy — appeal — attachment,’ &c.? What is the matter? Is it any thing in which his friends can be of use to him? Pray inform me.

  “Of Don Juan I hear nothing further from you; * * *, but the papers don’t seem so fierce as the letter you sent me seemed to anticipate, by their extracts at least in Galignani’s Messenger. I never saw such a set of fellows as you are! And then the pains taken to exculpate the modest publisher — he remonstrated, forsooth! I will write a preface that shall exculpate you and * * *, &c. completely, on that point; but, at the same time, I will cut you up, like gourds. You have no more soul than the Count de Caylus, (who assured his friends, on his death-bed, that he had none, and that he must know better than they whether he had one or no,) and no more blood than a water-melon! And I see there hath been asterisks, and what Perry used to called ‘domned cutting and slashing’ — but, never mind.

  “I write in haste. To-morrow I set off for Bologna. I write to you with thunder, lightning, &c. and all the winds of heaven whistling through my hair, and the racket of preparation to boot. ‘My mistress dear, who hath fed my heart upon smiles and wine’ for the last two months, set off with her husband for Bologna this morning, and it seems that I follow him at three to-morrow morning. I cannot tell how our romance will end, but it hath gone on hitherto most erotically. Such perils and escapes! Juan’s are as child’s play in comparison. The fools think that all my poeshie is always allusive to my own adventures: I have had at one time or another better and more extraordinary and perilous and pleasant than these, every day of the week, if I might tell them; but that must never be.

  “I hope Mrs. M. has accouched.

  “Yours ever.”

  LETTER 337. TO MR. MURRAY.

  “Bologna, August 12. 1819.

  “I do not know how far I may be able to reply to your letter, for I am not very well to-day. Last night I went to the representation of Alfieri’s Mirra, the two last acts of which threw me into convulsions. I do not mean by that word a lady’s hysterics, but the agony of reluctant tears, and the choking shudder, which I do not often undergo for fiction. This is but the second time for any thing under reality: the first was on seeing Kean’s Sir Giles Overreach. The worst was, that the ‘Dama’ in whose box I was, went off in the same way, I really believe more from fright than any other sympathy — at least with the players: but she has been ill, and I have been ill, and we are all languid and pathetic this morning, with great expenditure of sal volatile. But, to return to your letter of the 23d of July.

  “You are right, Gifford is right, Crabbe is right, Hobhouse is right — you are all right, and I am all wrong; but do, pray, let me have that pleasure. Cut me up root and branch; quarter me in the Quarterly; send round my ‘disjecti membra poetæ,’ like those of the Levite’s concubine; make me, if you will, a spectacle to men and angels; but don’t ask me to alter, for I won’t: — I am obstinate and lazy — and there’s the truth.

  “But, nevertheless, I will answer your friend P * *, who objects to the quick succession of fun and gravity, as if in that case the gravity did not (in intention, at least) heighten the fun. His metaphor is, that ‘we are never scorched and drenched at the same time.’ Blessings on his experience! Ask him these questions about ‘scorching and drenching.’ Did he never play at cricket, or walk a mile in hot weather? Did he never spill a dish of tea over himself in handing the cup to his charmer, to the great shame of his nankeen breeches? Did he never swim in the sea at noonday with the sun in his eyes and on his head, which all the foam of ocean could not cool? Did he never draw his foot out of too hot water, d —— ning his eyes and his valet’s? Did he never tumble into a river or lake, fishing, and sit in his wet clothes in the boat, or on the bank, afterwards ‘scorched and drenched,’ like a true sportsman? ‘Oh for breath to utter!’ — but make him my compliments; he is a clever fellow for all that — a very clever fellow.

  “You ask me for the plan of Donny Johnny: I have no plan; I had no plan; but I had or have materials; though if, like Tony Lumpkin, ‘I am to be snubbed so when I am in spirits,’ the poem will be naught, and the poet turn serious again. If it don’t take, I will leave it off where it is, with all due respect to the public; but if continued, it must be in my own way. You might as well make Hamlet (or Diggory) ‘act mad’ in a strait waistcoat as trammel my buffoonery, if I am to be a buffoon; their gestures and my thoughts would only be pitiably absurd and ludicrously constrained. Why, man, the soul of such writing is its licence; at least the liberty of that licence, if one likes — not that one should abuse it. It is like Trial by Jury and Peerage and the Habeas Corpus — a very fine thing, but chiefly in the reversion; because no one wishes to be tried for the mere pleasure of proving his possession of the privilege.

  “But a truce with these reflections. You are too earnest and eager about a work never intended to be serious. Do you suppose that I could have any intention but to giggle and make giggle? — a playful satire, with as little poetry as could be helped, was what I meant. And as to the indecency, do, pray, read in Boswell what Johnson, the sullen moralist, says of Prior and Paulo Purgante.

  “Will you get a favour done for me? You can, by your government friends, Croker, Canning, or my old schoolfellow Peel, and I can’t. Here it is. Will you ask them to appoint (without salary or emolument) a noble Italian (whom I will name afterwards) consul or vice-consul for Ravenna? He is a man of very large property, — noble, too; but he wishes to have a British protection, in case of changes. Ravenna is near the sea. He wants no emolument whatever. That his office might be useful, I know; as I lately sent off from Ravenna to Trieste a poor devil of an English sailor, who had remained there sick, sorry, and pennyless (having been set ashore in 1814), from the want of any accredited agent able or willing to help him homewards. Will you get this done? If you do, I will then send his name and condition, subject, of course, to rejection, if not approved when known.

  “I know that in the Levant you make consuls and vice-consuls, perpetually, of foreigners. This man is a patrician, and has twelve thousand a year. His motive is a British protection in case of new invasions. Don’t you think Croker would do it for us? To be sure, my interest is rare!! but, perhaps, a brother wit in the Tory line might do a good turn at the request of so harmless and long absent a Whig, particularly as there is no salary or burden of any sort to be annexed to the office.

  “I can assure you, I should look upon it as a great obligation; but, alas! that very circumstance may, very probably, operate to the contrary — indeed, it ought; but I have, at least, been an honest and an open enemy. Amongst your many splendid government connections, could not you, think you, get our Bibulus made a Consul? or make me one, that I may make him my Vice. You may be assured that, in case of accidents in Italy, he would be no feeble adjunct — as you would think, if you knew his patrimony.

  “What is all this about Tom Moore? but why do I ask? since the state of my own affairs would not permit me to be
of use to him, though they are greatly improved since 1816, and may, with some more luck and a little prudence, become quite clear. It seems his claimants are American merchants? There goes Nemesis! Moore abused America. It is always thus in the long run: — Time, the Avenger. You have seen every trampler down, in turn, from Buonaparte to the simplest individuals. You saw how some were avenged even upon my insignificance, and how in turn * * * paid for his atrocity. It is an odd world; but the watch has its mainspring, after all.

  “So the Prince has been repealing Lord Edward Fitzgerald’s forfeiture? Ecco un’ sonetto!

  “To be the father of the fatherless, To stretch the hand from the throne’s height, and raise His offspring, who expired in other days To make thy sire’s sway by a kingdom less, — This is to be a monarch, and repress Envy into unutterable praise. Dismiss thy guard, and trust thee to such traits, For who would lift a hand, except to bless? Were it not easy, sir, and is’t not sweet To make thyself beloved? and to be Omnipotent by Mercy’s means? for thus Thy sovereignty would grow but more complete, A despot thou, and yet thy people free, And by the heart, not hand, enslaving us.

  “There, you dogs! there’s a sonnet for you: you won’t have such as that in a hurry from Mr. Fitzgerald. You may publish it with my name, an’ ye wool. He deserves all praise, bad and good; it was a very noble piece of principality. Would you like an epigram — a translation?

  “If for silver, or for gold, You could melt ten thousand pimples Into half a dozen dimples, Then your face we might behold, Looking, doubtless, much more snugly, Yet ev’n then ’twould be d —— d ugly.

  “This was written on some Frenchwoman, by Rulhieres, I believe. Yours.”

  LETTER 338. TO MR. MURRAY.

  “Bologna, August 23. 1819.

  “I send you a letter to R * *ts, signed Wortley Clutterbuck, which you may publish in what form you please, in answer to his article. I have had many proofs of men’s absurdity, but he beats all in folly. Why, the wolf in sheep’s clothing has tumbled into the very trap! We’ll strip him. The letter is written in great haste, and amidst a thousand vexations. Your letter only came yesterday, so that there is no time to polish: the post goes out to-morrow. The date is ‘Little Piddlington.’ Let * * * * correct the press: he knows and can read the handwriting. Continue to keep the anonymous about ‘Juan;’ it helps us to fight against overwhelming numbers. I have a thousand distractions at present; so excuse haste, and wonder I can act or write at all. Answer by post, as usual.

  “Yours.

  “P.S. If I had had time, and been quieter and nearer, I would have cut him to hash; but as it is, you can judge for yourselves.”

  The letter to the Reviewer, here mentioned, had its origin in rather an amusing circumstance. In the first Canto of Don Juan appeared the following passage: —

  “For fear some prudish readers should grow skittish, I’ve bribed My Grandmother’s Review, — the British!

  “I sent it in a letter to the editor, Who thank’d me duly by return of post — I’m for a handsome article his creditor; Yet if my gentle Muse he please to roast, And break a promise after having made it her, Denying the receipt of what it cost, And smear his page with gall instead of honey, All I can say is — that he had the money.”

  On the appearance of the poem, the learned editor of the Review in question allowed himself to be decoyed into the ineffable absurdity of taking the charge as serious, and, in his succeeding number, came forth with an indignant contradiction of it. To this tempting subject the letter, written so hastily off at Bologna, related; but, though printed for Mr. Murray, in a pamphlet consisting of twenty-three pages, it was never published by him. Being valuable, however, as one of the best specimens we have of Lord Byron’s simple and thoroughly English prose, I shall here preserve some extracts from it.

  TO THE EDITOR OF THE BRITISH REVIEW.

  “My dear R —— ts,

  “As a believer in the Church of England — to say nothing of the State — I have been an occasional reader, and great admirer, though not a subscriber, to your Review. But I do not know that any article of its contents ever gave me much surprise till the eleventh of your late twenty-seventh number made its appearance. You have there most manfully refuted a calumnious accusation of bribery and corruption, the credence of which in the public mind might not only have damaged your reputation as a clergyman and an editor, but, what would have been still worse, have injured the circulation of your journal; which, I regret to hear, is not so extensive as the ‘purity (as you well observe) of its, &c. &c.’ and the present taste for propriety, would induce us to expect. The charge itself is of a solemn nature; and, although in verse, is couched in terms of such circumstantial gravity as to induce a belief little short of that generally accorded to the thirty-nine articles, to which you so generously subscribed on taking your degrees. It is a charge the most revolting to the heart of man from its frequent occurrence; to the mind of a statesman from its occasional truth; and to the soul of an editor from its moral impossibility. You are charged then in the last line of one octave stanza, and the whole eight lines of the next, viz. 209th and 210th of the first Canto of that ‘pestilent poem,’ Don Juan, with receiving, and still more foolishly acknowledging, the receipt of certain moneys to eulogise the unknown author, who by this account must be known to you, if to nobody else. An impeachment of this nature, so seriously made, there is but one way of refuting; and it is my firm persuasion, that whether you did or did not (and I believe that you did not) receive the said moneys, of which I wish that he had specified the sum, you are quite right in denying all knowledge of the transaction. If charges of this nefarious description are to go forth, sanctioned by all the solemnity of circumstance, and guaranteed by the veracity of verse (as Counsellor Phillips would say), what is to become of readers hitherto implicitly confident in the not less veracious prose of our critical journals? what is to become of the reviews; and, if the reviews fail, what is to become of the editors? It is common cause, and you have done well to sound the alarm. I myself, in my humble sphere, will be one of your echoes. In the words of the tragedian Liston, ‘I love a row,’ and you seem justly determined to make one.

  “It is barely possible, certainly improbable, that the writer might have been in jest; but this only aggravates his crime. A joke, the proverb says, ‘breaks no bones;’ but it may break a bookseller, or it may be the cause of bones being broken. The jest is but a bad one at the best for the author, and might have been a still worse one for you, if your copious contradiction did not certify to all whom it may concern your own indignant innocence, and the immaculate purity of the British Review. I do not doubt your word, my dear R —— ts, yet I cannot help wishing that, in a case of such vital importance, it had assumed the more substantial shape of an affidavit sworn before the Lord Mayor Atkins, who readily receives any deposition; and doubtless would have brought it in some way as evidence of the designs of the Reformers to set fire to London, at the same time that he himself meditates the same good office towards the river Thames.

  “I recollect hearing, soon after the publication, this subject discussed at the tea-table of Mr. * * * the poet, — and Mrs. and the Misses * * * * * being in a corner of the room perusing the proof sheets of Mr. * * *’s poems, the male part of the conversazione were at liberty to make some observations on the poem and passage in question, and there was a difference of opinion. Some thought the allusion was to the ‘British Critic;’ others, that by the expression ‘My Grandmother’s Review,’ it was intimated that ‘my grandmother’ was not the reader of the review, but actually the writer; thereby insinuating, my dear Mr. R —— ts, that you were an old woman; because, as people often say, ‘Jeffrey’s Review,” ‘Gifford’s Review,’ in lieu of Edinburgh and Quarterly, so ‘My Grandmother’s Review’ and R —— ts’s might be also synonymous. Now, whatever colour this insinuation might derive from the circumstance of your wearing a gown, as well as from your time of life, your general style, and various passages of your wr
itings, — I will take upon myself to exculpate you from all suspicion of the kind, and assert, without calling Mrs. R —— ts in testimony, that if ever you should be chosen Pope, you will pass through all the previous ceremonies with as much credit as any pontiff since the parturition of Joan. It is very unfair to judge of sex from writings, particularly from those of the British Review. We are all liable to be deceived, and it is an indisputable fact that many of the best articles in your journal, which were attributed to a veteran female, were actually written by you yourself, and yet to this day there are people who could never find out the difference. But let us return to the more immediate question.

  “I agree with you that it is impossible Lord B. should be the author, not only because, as a British peer and a British poet, it would be impracticable for him to have recourse to such facetious fiction, but for some other reasons which you have omitted to state. In the first place, his Lordship has no grandmother. Now the author — and we may believe him in this — doth expressly state that the ‘British’ is his ‘Grandmother’s Review;’ and if, as I think I have distinctly proved, this was not a mere figurative allusion to your supposed intellectual age and sex, my dear friend, it follows, whether you be she or no, that there is such an elderly lady still extant.