The London Mercury, Vol. I, Nos. 1-6, November 1919 to April 1920Various
General
The London Mercury, Vol. I, Nos. 1-6, November 1919 to April 1920
Various
English literature -- Periodicals; London (England) -- Periodicals
Walpole, indeed, broke through his habit of public decorum in his
persecution of the Duke; and he tells how on one occasion at a ball
at Bedford House he and Brand and George Selwyn plagued the pitiful
old creature, who "wriggled, and shuffled, and lisped, and winked, and
spied" his way through the company, with a conversation at his expense
carried on in stage whispers. There was never a more loyal son than
Horace Walpole. He offered up a Prime Minister daily as a sacrifice at
Sir Robert's tomb.
At the same time, his aversions were not always assumed as part of a
family inheritance. He had by temperament a small opinion of men and
women outside the circle of his affections. It was his first instinct
to disparage. He even described his great friend Madame du Deffand, at
the first time of meeting her, as "an old blind debauchée of wit." His
comments on the men of genius of his time are almost all written in a
vein of satirical intolerance. He spoke ill of Sterne and Dr. Johnson,
of Fielding and Richardson, of Boswell and Goldsmith. Goldsmith he
found "silly"; he was "an idiot with once or twice a fit of parts."
Boswell's _Tour of the Hebrides_ was "the story of a mountebank and
his zany." Walpole felt doubly justified in disliking Johnson owing
to the criticism of Gray in the _Lives of the Poets_. He would not
even, when Johnson died, subscribe to a monument. A circular letter
asking for a subscription was sent to him, signed by Burke, Boswell,
and Reynolds. "I would not deign to write an answer," Walpole told the
Miss Berrys, "but sent down word by my footman, as I would have done
to parish officers with a brief, that I would not subscribe." Walpole
does not appear in this incident the "sweet-tempered creature" he had
earlier claimed to be. His pose is that of a school-girl in a cutting
mood. At the same time his judgment of Johnson has an element of truth
in it. "Though he was good-natured at bottom," he said of him, "he was
very ill-natured at top." It has often been said of Walpole that, in
his attitude to contemporary men of genius, he was influenced mainly
by their position in society--that he regarded an author who was not a
gentleman as being necessarily an inferior author. This is hardly fair.
The contemporary of whom he thought most highly was Gray, the son of a
money broker. He did not spare Lady Mary Wortley Montagu any more than
Richardson. If he found an author offensive, it was more likely to be
owing to a fastidious distaste for low life than to an aristocratic
distaste for low birth; and to him Bohemianism was the lowest of low
life. It was certainly Fielding's Bohemianism that disgusted him. He
relates how two of his friends called on Fielding one evening and found
him "banqueting with a blind man, a woman, and three Irishmen, on some
cold mutton and a bone of ham, both in one dish, and the dirtiest
cloth." Horace Walpole's daintiness recoiled from the spirit of an
author who did not know how to sup decently.
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account