by Thomas Moore
“I had a letter (not of the same kind, but in French and flattery) from a Madame Sophie Gail, of Paris, whom I take to be the spouse of a Gallo-Greek of that name. Who is she? and what is she? and how came she to take an interest in my poeshie or its author? If you know her, tell her, with my compliments, that, as I only read French, I have not answered her letter; but would have done so in Italian, if I had not thought it would look like an affectation. I have just been scolding my monkey for tearing the seal of her letter, and spoiling a mock book, in which I put rose leaves. I had a civet-cat the other day, too; but it ran away, after scratching my monkey’s cheek, and I am in search of it still. It was the fiercest beast I ever saw, and like * * in the face and manner.
“I have a world of things to say; but, as they are not come to a dénouement, I don’t care to begin their history till it is wound up. After you went, I had a fever, but got well again without bark. Sir Humphry Davy was here the other day, and liked Ravenna very much. He will tell you any thing you may wish to know about the place and your humble servitor.
“Your apprehensions (arising from Scott’s) were unfounded. There are no damages in this country, but there will probably be a separation between them, as her family, which is a principal one, by its connections, are very much against him, for the whole of his conduct; — and he is old and obstinate, and she is young and a woman, determined to sacrifice every thing to her affections. I have given her the best advice, viz. to stay with him, — pointing out the state of a separated woman, (for the priests won’t let lovers live openly together, unless the husband sanctions it,) and making the most exquisite moral reflections, — but to no purpose. She says, ‘I will stay with him, if he will let you remain with me. It is hard that I should be the only woman in Romagna who is not to have her Amico; but, if not, I will not live with him; and as for the consequences, love, &c. &c. &c.’ — you know how females reason on such occasions.
“He says he has let it go on till he can do so no longer. But he wants her to stay, and dismiss me; for he doesn’t like to pay back her dowry and to make an alimony. Her relations are rather for the separation, as they detest him, — indeed, so does every body. The populace and the women are, as usual, all for those who are in the wrong, viz. the lady and her lover. I should have retreated, but honour, and an erysipelas which has attacked her, prevent me, — to say nothing of love, for I love her most entirely, though not enough to persuade her to sacrifice every thing to a frenzy. ‘I see how it will end; she will be the sixteenth Mrs. Shuffleton.’
“My paper is finished, and so must this letter.
“Yours ever, B.
“P.S. I regret that you have not completed the Italian Fudges. Pray, how come you to be still in Paris? Murray has four or five things of mine in hand — the new Don Juan, which his back-shop synod don’t admire; — a translation of the first Canto of Pulci’s Morgante Maggiore, excellent; — short ditto from Dante, not so much approved; the Prophecy of Dante, very grand and worthy, &c. &c. &c.; — a furious prose answer to Blackwood’s Observations on Don Juan, with a savage Defence of Pope — likely to make a row. The opinions above I quote from Murray and his Utican senate; — you will form your own, when you see the things.
“You will have no great chance of seeing me, for I begin to think I must finish in Italy. But, if you come my way, you shall have a tureen of macaroni. Pray tell me about yourself, and your intents.
“My trustees are going to lend Earl Blessington sixty thousand pounds (at six per cent.) on a Dublin mortgage. Only think of my becoming an Irish absentee!”
LETTER 375. TO MR. HOPPNER.
“Ravenna, May 25. 1820.
“A German named Ruppsecht has sent me, heaven knows why, several Deutsche Gazettes, of all which I understand neither word nor letter. I have sent you the enclosed to beg you to translate to me some remarks, which appear to be Goethe’s upon Manfred — and if I may judge by two notes of admiration (generally put after something ridiculous by us) and the word ‘hypocondrisch,’ are any thing but favourable. I shall regret this, for I should have been proud of Goethe’s good word; but I sha’n’t alter my opinion of him, even though he should be savage.
“Will you excuse this trouble, and do me this favour? — Never mind — soften nothing — I am literary proof — having had good and evil said in most modern languages.
“Believe me,” &c.
LETTER 376. TO MR. MOORE.
“Ravenna, June 1. 1820,
“I have received a Parisian letter from W.W., which I prefer answering through you, if that worthy be still at Paris, and, as he says, an occasional visiter of yours. In November last he wrote to me a well-meaning letter, stating, for some reasons of his own, his belief that a re-union might be effected between Lady B. and myself. To this I answered as usual; and he sent me a second letter, repeating his notions, which letter I have never answered, having had a thousand other things to think of. He now writes as if he believed that he had offended me by touching on the topic; and I wish you to assure him that I am not at all so, — but, on the contrary, obliged by his good nature. At the same time acquaint him the thing is impossible. You know this, as well as I, — and there let it end.
“I believe that I showed you his epistle in autumn last. He asks me if I have heard of my ‘laureat’ at Paris, — somebody who has written ‘a most sanguinary Epître’ against me; but whether in French, or Dutch, or on what score, I know not, and he don’t say, — except that (for my satisfaction) he says it is the best thing in the fellow’s volume. If there is any thing of the kind that I ought to know, you will doubtless tell me. I suppose it to be something of the usual sort; — he says, he don’t remember the author’s name.
“I wrote to you some ten days ago, and expect an answer at your leisure.
“The separation business still continues, and all the world are implicated, including priests and cardinals. The public opinion is furious against him, because he ought to have cut the matter short at first, and not waited twelve months to begin. He has been trying at evidence, but can get none sufficient; for what would make fifty divorces in England won’t do here — there must be the most decided proofs.
“It is the first cause of the kind attempted in Ravenna for these two hundred years; for, though they often separate, they assign a different motive. You know that the continental incontinent are more delicate than the English, and don’t like proclaiming their coronation in a court, even when nobody doubts it.
“All her relations are furious against him. The father has challenged him — a superfluous valour, for he don’t fight, though suspected of two assassinations — one of the famous Monzoni of Forli. Warning was given me not to take such long rides in the Pine Forest without being on my guard; so I take my stiletto and a pair of pistols in my pocket during my daily rides.
“I won’t stir from this place till the matter is settled one way or the other. She is as femininely firm as possible; and the opinion is so much against him, that the advocates decline to undertake his cause, because they say that he is either a fool or a rogue — fool, if he did not discover the liaison till now; and rogue, if he did know it, and waited, for some bad end, to divulge it. In short, there has been nothing like it since the days of Guido di Polenta’s family, in these parts.
“If the man has me taken off, like Polonius ‘say, he made a good end,’ — for a melodrama. The principal security is, that he has not the courage to spend twenty scudi — the average price of a clean-handed bravo — otherwise there is no want of opportunity, for I ride about the woods every evening, with one servant, and sometimes an acquaintance, who latterly looks a little queer in solitary bits of bushes.
“Good bye. — Write to yours ever,” &c.
LETTER 377. TO MR. MURRAY.
“Ravenna, June 7. 1820.
“Enclosed is something which will interest you, to wit, the opinion of the greatest man of Germany — perhaps of Europe — upon one of the great men of your advertisements, (all ‘famous
hands,’ as Jacob Tonson used to say of his ragamuffins,) — in short, a critique of Goethe’s upon Manfred. There is the original, an English translation, and an Italian one; keep them all in your archives, — for the opinions of such a man as Goethe, whether favourable or not, are always interesting — and this is more so, as favourable. His Faust I never read, for I don’t know German; but Matthew Monk Lewis, in 1816, at Coligny, translated most of it to me vivâ voce, and I was naturally much struck with it; but it was the Steinbach and the Jungfrau, and something else, much more than Faustus, that made me write Manfred. The first scene, however, and that of Faustus are very similar. Acknowledge this letter.
“Yours ever.
“P.S. I have received Ivanhoe; — good. Pray send me some tooth-powder and tincture of myrrh, by Waite, &c. Ricciardetto should have been translated literally, or not at all. As to puffing Whistlecraft, it won’t do. I’ll tell you why some day or other. Cornwall’s a poet, but spoilt by the detestable schools of the day. Mrs. Hemans is a poet also, but too stiltified and apostrophic, — and quite wrong. Men died calmly before the Christian era, and since, without Christianity: witness the Romans, and, lately, Thistlewood, Sandt, and Lovel — men who ought to have been weighed down with their crimes, even had they believed. A deathbed is a matter of nerves and constitution, and not of religion. Voltaire was frightened, Frederick of Prussia not: Christians the same, according to their strength rather than their creed. What does H * * H * * mean by his stanza? which is octave got drunk or gone mad. He ought to have his ears boxed with Thor’s hammer for rhyming so fantastically.”
The following is the article from Goethe’s “Kunst und Alterthum,” enclosed in this letter. The grave confidence with which the venerable critic traces the fancies of his brother poet to real persons and events, making no difficulty even of a double murder at Florence to furnish grounds for his theory, affords an amusing instance of the disposition so prevalent throughout Europe, to picture Byron as a man of marvels and mysteries, as well in his life as his poetry. To these exaggerated, or wholly false notions of him, the numerous fictions palmed upon the world of his romantic tours and wonderful adventures in places he never saw, and with persons that never existed, have, no doubt, considerably contributed; and the consequence is, so utterly out of truth and nature are the representations of his life and character long current upon the Continent, that it may be questioned whether the real “flesh and blood” hero of these pages, — the social, practical-minded, and, with all his faults and eccentricities, English Lord Byron, — may not, to the over-exalted imaginations of most of his foreign admirers, appear but an ordinary, unromantic, and prosaic personage.
GOETHE ON MANFRED.
[1820.]
“Byron’s tragedy, Manfred, was to me a wonderful phenomenon, and one that closely touched me. This singular intellectual poet has taken my Faustus to himself, and extracted from it the strongest nourishment for his hypochondriac humour. He has made use of the impelling principles in his own way, for his own purposes, so that no one of them remains the same; and it is particularly on this account that I cannot enough admire his genius. The whole is in this way so completely formed anew, that it would be an interesting task for the critic to point out not only the alterations he has made, but their degree of resemblance with, or dissimilarity to, the original: in the course of which I cannot deny that the gloomy heat of an unbounded and exuberant despair becomes at last oppressive to us. Yet is the dissatisfaction we feel always connected with esteem and admiration.
“We find thus in this tragedy the quintessence of the most astonishing talent born to be its own tormentor. The character of Lord Byron’s life and poetry hardly permits a just and equitable appreciation. He has often enough confessed what it is that torments him. He has repeatedly pourtrayed it; and scarcely any one feels compassion for this intolerable suffering, over which he is ever laboriously ruminating. There are, properly speaking, two females whose phantoms for ever haunt him, and which, in this piece also, perform principal parts — one under the name of Astarte, the other without form or actual presence, and merely a voice. Of the horrid occurrence which took place with the former, the following is related: — When a bold and enterprising young man, he won the affections of a Florentine lady. Her husband discovered the amour, and murdered his wife; but the murderer was the same night found dead in the street, and there was no one on whom any suspicion could be attached. Lord Byron removed from Florence, and these spirits haunted him all his life after.
“This romantic incident is rendered highly probable by innumerable allusions to it in his poems. As, for instance, when turning his sad contemplations inwards, he applies to himself the fatal history of the king of Sparta. It is as follows: — Pausanias, a Lacedemonian general, acquires glory by the important victory at Platæa, but afterwards forfeits the confidence of his countrymen through his arrogance, obstinacy, and secret intrigues with the enemies of his country. This man draws upon himself the heavy guilt of innocent blood, which attends him to his end; for, while commanding the fleet of the allied Greeks, in the Black Sea, he is inflamed with a violent passion for a Byzantine maiden. After long resistance, he at length obtains her from her parents, and she is to be delivered up to him at night. She modestly desires the servant to put out the lamp, and, while groping her way in the dark, she overturns it. Pausanias is awakened from his sleep — apprehensive of an attack from murderers, he seizes his sword, and destroys his mistress. The horrid sight never leaves him. Her shade pursues him unceasingly, and he implores for aid in vain from the gods and the exorcising priests.
“That poet must have a lacerated heart who selects such a scene from antiquity, appropriates it to himself, and burdens his tragic image with it. The following soliloquy, which is overladen with gloom and a weariness of life, is, by this remark, rendered intelligible. We recommend it as an exercise to all friends of declamation. Hamlet’s soliloquy appears improved upon here.”
LETTER 378. TO MR. MOORE.
“Ravenna, June 9. 1820.
“Galignani has just sent me the Paris edition of your works (which I wrote to order), and I am glad to see my old friends with a French face. I have been skimming and dipping, in and over them, like a swallow, and as pleased as one. It is the first time that I had seen the Melodies without music; and, I don’t know how, but I can’t read in a music-book — the crotchets confound the words in my head, though I recollect them perfectly when sung. Music assists my memory through the ear, not through the eye; I mean, that her quavers perplex me upon paper, but they are a help when heard. And thus I was glad to see the words without their borrowed robes; — to my mind they look none the worse for their nudity.
“The biographer has made a botch of your life — calling your father ‘a venerable old gentleman,’ and prattling of ‘Addison,’ and ‘dowager countesses.’ If that damned fellow was to write my life, I would certainly take his. And then, at the Dublin dinner, you have ‘made a speech’ (do you recollect, at Douglas K.’s, ‘Sir, he made me a speech?’) too complimentary to the ‘living poets,’ and somewhat redolent of universal praise. I am but too well off in it, but * * *.
“You have not sent me any poetical or personal news of yourself. Why don’t you complete an Italian Tour of the Fudges? I have just been turning over Little, which I knew by heart in 1803, being then in my fifteenth summer. Heigho! I believe all the mischief I have ever done, or sung, has been owing to that confounded book of yours.
“In my last I told you of a cargo of ‘Poeshie,’ which I had sent to M. at his own impatient desire; — and, now he has got it, he don’t like it, and demurs. Perhaps he is right. I have no great opinion of any of my last shipment, except a translation from Pulci, which is word for word, and verse for verse.
“I am in the third Act of a Tragedy; but whether it will be finished or not, I know not: I have, at this present, too many passions of my own on hand to do justice to those of the dead. Besides the vexations mentioned in my last, I have incurred a
quarrel with the Pope’s carabiniers, or gens d’armerie, who have petitioned the Cardinal against my liveries, as resembling too nearly their own lousy uniform. They particularly object to the epaulettes, which all the world with us have on upon gala days. My liveries are of the colours conforming to my arms, and have been the family hue since the year 1066.
“I have sent a tranchant reply, as you may suppose; and have given to understand that, if any soldados of that respectable corps insult my servants, I will do likewise by their gallant commanders; and I have directed my ragamuffins, six in number, who are tolerably savage, to defend themselves, in case of aggression; and, on holidays and gaudy days, I shall arm the whole set, including myself, in case of accidents or treachery. I used to play pretty well at the broad-sword, once upon a time, at Angelo’s; but I should like the pistol, our national buccaneer weapon, better, though I am out of practice at present. However, I can ‘wink and hold out mine iron.’ It makes me think (the whole thing does) of Romeo and Juliet— ‘now, Gregory, remember thy swashing blow.’
“All these feuds, however, with the Cavalier for his wife, and the troopers for my liveries, are very tiresome to a quiet man, who does his best to please all the world, and longs for fellowship and good will. Pray write. I am yours,” &c.
