Reminiscences of a Literary Life
CHAP. VII
THOMAS MOORE
CHAPTER VII
THOMAS MOORE
The first time I met this usually merry man, he was in no
Anacreontic humour. It was in the spring of 1829, when he was mourning for the recent loss
of his only daughter. To all appearance this sorrow
did not last very long, but it was deep while it endured; and was, I believe, all the
deeper from the attempts he made to suppress or conceal it, and to keep his own as songster
and wit in fashionable and literary society.
“Give sorrow vent,” is an excellent maxim; and I think,
with Jeremy Taylor, we ought not to bear too
philosophically the extreme visitations of Providence, but should show by tears and
otherwise that we feel them at the heart’s core.
“All Solomon’s sea of brass and world of stone Is not so dear to Thee as one good groan.”* |
The place of our meeting was John
Murray’s Albemarle Street dining-room, by the fireside, and just under
the portrait of Lord Byron by Phillips, which then hung over the mantelpiece. I was at
my ease with Moore in a minute; and before we
parted, after a talk of nearly two hours, I felt as if we had been old familiar friends.
What Walter Scott says of him is perfectly true. Though
so fond of society and pleasure, and though so very small in person—smaller even than
myself—Moore was thoroughly a manly fellow, and except on certain
rare occasions, utterly devoid of pretension and affectation. He
68 | THOMAS MOORE |
[CHAP. VII |
was then engaged in editing the letters and writing the Life of Lord Byron, and most of our
conversation turned upon or round that subject. He asked me for some information about the
different parts of Italy where Childe Harold had
resided, and for some Italian anecdotes about him. I did my best, on the spur of the
moment, to satisfy him both ways. He inserted some of my anecdotes and omitted others. A
day or two after we met at John Murray’s hospitable table, at
that time frequented by some of the most amusing and best society of London. A little later
in the season I met Moore at one of Lady
Jersey’s “At Homes,” and before the season ended I
encountered him rather frequently in other places. I think that it was late in June that I
had with him a little adventure, which rather nettled me at the time, when I was young in
authorship, but at which I have often laughed since. Through Count Pecchio, who had met the philologist at Madrid, and had there taken
him for an active Member of Parliament, or for the head of a party, seeing the extent of
his political correspondence, I became acquainted with Bowring, at that time designated Doctor, and now—with your bene placet—Sir John Bowring,
Governor of Hong-Kong.
He was editing, for old Jeremy
Bentham, who paid the piper, the Westminster Review, which went the whole length and breadth of Utilitarianism
and Radicalism. He was living in that recondite nook of London, Queen Square. Though rather
in low water, John liked to make a display and give
soirées, whereat there was nothing but talk, and that talk
nearly all his own. His entertainments must have been cheap to his purse, but I fancy they
must have been very costly to the patience of his guests. One evening, Moore and I were dining at John Murray’s with a very choice and cheerful party. Just as we were
getting into full swing, at about ten o’clock, I rose to take my departure.
“Where are you going so
CHAP. VII] | A “SOIRÉE” AT BOWRING’S | 69 |
early?” said
King John II. I said that I had accepted an invitation to a soirée at Dr. Bowring’s.
“Dr. Bowring be d——d!” said His Majesty.
“Not so fast!” said Moore. “Remember,
he edits a Review, and has some influence on the sale of new books. He has invited me,
and I will go with Mac. If we don’t go, he
will take offence, and cut up my Life of
Byron and Mac’s book of travels.” “And if you do
go,” said Murray, “he will cut you both up all
the same. As a Radical he must hate MacFarlane’s politics,
and as a leveller he must hate Byron as a lord, and
hate you as having the entrée with society from which he is
excluded by his principles, manners, and eternal babbling.” I think that but
for Moore and the sure pleasure of his company, I should have stayed
where I was, but he ordered a hackney coach to the door, and we went. It was a tedious,
desolating affair, full of foreigners and political fugitives from all countries, and the
agreeable pastime was to hear the Doctor talking Magyar with a Hungarian, Slavonic with a
Pole, German with a German, and Spanish, Portuguese, Swedish, Danish, and Dutch with
representatives of these nations.
No doubt it was very wonderful—but at the same time it was quite as
ennuyant. I never saw such a display of
vanity, and never heard such volubility: the Doctor
was one continuous torrent of talk. His foreigners, as in duty bound, turned up their eyes,
clapped their hands, and expressed astonishment and enthusiastic admiration.
Neither Moore nor I could do this;
but I think that we behaved with discretion and politeness, and I know that we stood it all
for nearly the space of two hours. “Good heavens!” said Byron’s biographer, when we got out into the Square and
the streets, “was there ever such a talker as this! And nothing to wash it all
down with! People may well call him ‘Boring’! I am exhausted, quite done! I
must really have some sherry and water.” We
70 | THOMAS MOORE |
[CHAP. VII |
went into a
coffee-house near the British Museum, the first we found open; and there, over our
tumblers, discussed the pleasures of our soirée. But we were not
quit for this. Murray turned out to be a true
prophet. Only two mornings after our visit in Queen’s Square, out came the new number
of the Westminster, and in it two violent,
abusive articles, the one on
Moore’s “Life of Byron,” the other on
my first book, and both written
by the Doctor himself, who must have had them
printed and ready when he invited us, for the first time in our lives, to his house. I
confess that I was very angry, and though Moore treated it as a jest
and farce, I think he rather felt it, or at least that he inwardly resented
Bowring’s impertinent duplicity.
The man had almost been down on his knees to the poet to beg for the
“honour” of his company, and had extracted from him a positive promise that he
would be at the soirée. Murray laughed at us, and triumphed over us with little mercy. “I
told you how it would be! You had your warning, and yet you would leave me to go to
that Radical’s! There is one comfort: I don’t think his review will do
either of you much harm.” It certainly did not. After this, I was rather
frequently in the same room, or at the same party, as the Doctor, who would have been as free and familiar as ever; but though my
anger had subsided, my aversion to the man and to his rampant conceit remained, and I
always avoided him as much as it was possible to do consistently with the forbearance and
politeness to which one is bound in mixed society, or in chance meetings at the dinner
table. One summer evening in the next season (1830), I met him at a dinner party at
Henry Lytton Bulwer’s, who then had a house
in Hill Street. There were present, among others, Edward Lytton
Bulwer, the author, our host’s brother; one of the sons of Count Lieven, the Russian Ambassador; and Mr.
Fitzgerald—not he of
Freemason’s
CHAP. VII] | A DINNER AT BULWER’S | 71 |
Hall and Literary Fund Dinner
notoriety, but a minor poet, who wrote rather pretty vers de
société, and was on the whole an accomplished young man. Before the
soup was off the table, Boring took the lead of the talk, and he kept
it. How the two Bulwers, both of them rather impatient, impulsive men,
and both of them men of fashion if not quite dandies, stood it all, I could not imagine.
There is, however, this to be said: both were authors, the Doctor had lauded everything
that they had produced, and was quite ready to do the same by everything they might publish
hereafter. Henry certainly got out the value of the Doctor’s
share of his pudding, in praise. Young Lieven was quite obsédé, overpowered and crushed; and to create a
diversion, as we were sitting over the dessert, he proposed calling in and up a poor
Italian who was playing the guitar and singing, not unmelodiously, in the street. Our host
consented, and Lieven’s motion was carried nem. con. But at first the experiment seemed likely to
be unsuccessful, for Boring began firing off his Italian, in round
shot and grape, at the poor minstrel.
Lieven, however, started the guitar, and all we who were
anti-Boring kept the fellow going for a full
hour or more. Edward Lytton Bulwer was even then rather
deaf, and did not much enjoy the music, which was only just tolerable; he went into an
inner room, whither the Doctor followed him, and there, during all the time the minstrel
stayed, he pinned the novelist in the corner of a sofa, and kept entire possession of his
ear. When the party united, the man of many tongues was as full of tongue as ever. As I was
walking homeward with young Lieven, who had been educated in England
and was more than half an Englishman,he said to me: “Whereever did Bulwer pick up that eternal talker? Who is he?”
“They call him Dr. Boring,” I replied.
“And not without reason!” said the Russ. When I described this party
to Moore, he laid his hand upon
72 | THOMAS MOORE |
[CHAP. VII |
his breast, and said with mock solemnity, “My dear fellow! I pity you from my
heart!” In this season, or very late in the preceding autumn,
Moore kindly introduced me to Luttrell, then one of the greatest of our London wits, author of
“Advice to Julia,” and
of more bons mots and good things than could be
counted on a summer’s day.
I thought Luttrell’s manner
perfection itself, and his wit was of that quiet sort which I could best enjoy, being, like
Stewart Rose’s, blended with humour, and in
fact being on the whole rather humour than wit. I now regret that I did not see him more
often; I did not see him half so often as I might have done. It grieved me to hear how he
had gotten married in his old age, and quite broken up. Moore had an amazingly rich repertory of his sayings and good things, but I
do not see the best of them in Moore’s
letters and journals which Lord John Russell
has so mis-edited.
In spite of the vast deal of bad in the noble rhymer that had come to his
knowledge, in the famous autobiography which the executors withdrew from Moore and committed to the flames, in suppressed letters
and journals, and from numerous other sources, Moore seemed to me to
retain a strong affection for the memory of Lord Byron,
and to be averse to hearing any man speak ill of him. Leigh
Hunt’s
statements about the author of “Childe Harold” I believe to be, in the
main, correct and unexaggerated. Every detail he gives, and every bit of conversation he
quotes, is so like Byron, is “Byronic” all over. It will
be remembered that there was a feud between Hunt and
Moore, and hence it may be suspected that
Hunt would not report favourably the words that
Byron was accustomed to say of Moore! I am
happy to say that this feud was made up several years before the death of the Irish
melodist. Hunt declares that Byron used to
ridicule Moore’s tuft-hunting, or veneration for rank, and to
say:
CHAP. VII] | HIS INDEPENDENT SPIRIT | 73 |
“Tommy
dearly loves a lord!” Now, at Genoa, just before his departure for Greece,
Lord Byron used these very words to my friend T.
H.; and when in Greece, at Missolonghi, he repeated them more than once to
his physician and my friend, the late Dr. Milligen.
I have heard others taunt poor Moore and his memory with the same
foible; but if Moore loved a lord, it was, I think, indispensable that
the said lord should be a man of wit or ability, or be in possession of some endearing and
more solid quality than that of a mere title. The lords whom Moore
frequented, and the ladies at whose parties he joked, played the piano, and sang—no doubt
rather too frequently—were one and all highly accomplished persons. If talent, vivacity,
esprit, and a social humour happen to be
united with rank, I cannot see that they ought to be shunned or not courted on that
account. I am fain to confess that I admire them rather the more for their union with rank
and station, and I believe that nearly every man in England, if he would only be frank and
truthful, would make the same confession. I never saw, on the part of the melodist, any
toadying, subserviency, truckling, or meanness; he knew the world, and had too much taste
and tact for that. He would not have been in the society he frequented if he had insulted
its good sense and correct taste by sycophancy and flattery; he maintained his position in
it because he had a manly, independent spirit, and the proper self-respect of a scholar and
gentleman.
To within a very few years of his death, whenever not depressed by family
troubles, Moore’s spirit was most hilarious.
It was impossible to be with him and not be caught by it. His hearty, though not very loud
laugh, was irresistibly catching. I have been in his company at times when I was beginning
to feel, like himself, the heavy weight of family anxieties and worldly cares,
disappointments, and troubles, but I could never hear that laugh without joining in
74 | THOMAS MOORE |
[CHAP. VII |
it. Poor Tommy Moore! His harp grew mute at last,
and out went all the dazzling lights in his fancy’s hall! Not very long before his
death, my friend Creswick, the distinguished
landscape-painter, paid him a visit at his Wiltshire cottage, which rejoiced in the not
very poetical name of Sloperton.
He found the poet, much aged, walking in his limited grounds, which he had
rather abundantly planted with laurels. He appreciated Creswick’s exquisite talent in delineating rural, rocky, and watery
scenes; he was cordial, and for a short time rather cheerful; but the merry mirth-provoking
laugh was no longer to be heard. He made one joke; and, I think, only one. “You
find me,” said he, “reposing upon, or among, my laurels.”
The painter had heard that he was engaged on some work in prose. “No,”
said Moore with a tremulous voice, and with a cloud on the brow which
had so long reflected little else but fun, drollery, and wit, “no! I have done
with prose, and—what is worse!—with poetry too.”
Creswick set me right in one rather important
particular. I had long understood that the Marquis of
Lansdowne, to whom Sloperton Cottage and its little entourage belonged, had
placed the poet in it free of rent, and without the quarter-day’s annoyance—a small
matter for so wealthy a man and so near a country neighbour, and for one who had had the
closest intimacy with the poet, and was one of his most frequent hosts.
Moore was, and always had been, a paying tenant; the Marquis,
through his agent, received the rent. For the present, enough of Tommy Moore, of whose acquaintance I was proud, and whose
memory I shall cherish until the curtain drops upon me, as it has upon him.
Jeremy Bentham (1748-1832)
The founder of Utilitarianism; author of
Principles of Morals and
Legislation (1789).
Sir John Bowring (1792-1872)
Poet, linguist, MP, and editor of the
Westminster Review. He was
the secretary of the London Greek Committee (1823) through which he was wrongly accused of
having enriched himself.
Henry Lytton Earle Bulwer, baron Dalling and Bulwer (1801-1872)
English diplomat, the elder brother of the novelist Bulwer-Lytton; he was a member of the
London Greek Committee, ambassador to Florence (1843-8), the United States (1849), and
Constantinople (1858-65). He was raised to the peerage in 1871.
Thomas Creswick (1811-1869)
English landscape painter and illustrator who exhibited at the Royal Academy from 1828
and was elected a member in 1851.
William Thomas Fitzgerald (1759-1829)
A clerk in the Navy Office who for three decades supplied the newspapers and magazines
with patriotic effusions, many first performed orally at Literary Fund banquets.
George Herbert (1593-1633)
English clergyman and devotional poet; his poetry was posthumously published as
The Temple in 1633.
James Henry Leigh Hunt (1784-1859)
English poet, journalist, and man of letters; editor of
The
Examiner and
The Liberal; friend of Byron, Keats, and
Shelley.
Henry Luttrell (1768-1851)
English wit, dandy, and friend of Thomas Moore and Samuel Rogers; he was the author of
Advice to Julia, a Letter in Rhyme (1820).
Charles Macfarlane (1799-1858)
A traveler, historian, and miscellaneous writer who knew Shelley in Italy; he active in
the Royal Asiatic Society and worked for the publisher Charles Knight and the Society for
the Diffusion of Useful Knowledge. His
Reminiscences was published
in 1917.
Julius Michael Millingen (1800-1878)
Physician at Missolonghi and author of
Memoirs of the Affairs of Greece
with Anecdotes relating to Lord Byron (1831). In 1825 he joined the Turks and
spent the remainder of his days living in Constantinople.
Anastasia Moore (1813-1829)
Thomas Moore's only daughter who died shortly before her sixteenth birthday.
Thomas Moore (1779-1852)
Irish poet and biographer, author of the
Irish Melodies (1807-34),
The Fudge Family in Paris (1818), and
Lalla
Rookh (1817); he was Byron's close friend and designated biographer.
John Murray II (1778-1843)
The second John Murray began the
Quarterly Review in 1809 and
published works by Scott, Byron, Austen, Crabbe, and other literary notables.
Giuseppe Pecchio (1785-1835)
Italian man of letters and philhellene born in Milan, he emigrated to England following
the failure of the Italian uprising of 1821; in 1828 he married Philippa Brooksbank.
Thomas Phillips (1770-1845)
English painter who assisted Benjamin West, exhibited at the Royal Academy, and painted
portraits of English poets including Byron, Crabbe, Scott, Southey, and Coleridge.
William Stewart Rose (1775-1843)
Second son of George Rose, treasurer of the navy (1744-1818); he introduced Byron to
Frere's
Whistlecraft poems and translated Casti's
Animale parlante (1819).
John Russell, first earl Russell (1792-1878)
English statesman, son of John Russell sixth duke of Bedford (1766-1839); he was author
of
Essay on the English Constitution (1821) and
Memoirs of the Affairs of Europe (1824) and was Prime Minister (1865-66).
The Westminster Review. (1824-1914). A radically-inclined quarterly founded by James Mill in opposition to the
Edinburgh Review and
Quarterly Review.