∞∞∞∞∞∞∞
DR. LARDNER’S LECTURE.
WE did not chance to hear Dr. Lardner's excellent and amusing lecture on the “London literati,” etc., but the report of it in the “Republic” has scraped the moss from one corner of our memory, and we may, perhaps, aid in the true portraiture of one or two distinguished men by showing a shade or two in which our observation of them differed from that of the Doctor. We may remark here, that Dr. Lardner has been conversant with all the wits and scholars of England for the last two or three lustrums, and we would suggest to him that, with the freedom given him by withdrawal from their sphere, he might give us a book of anecdotical biography that would have a prosperous sale and be both instructive and amusing. We shall not poach upon the Doctor's manor, by the way, if we give our impression of one of these literati — himself — as he appeared to us, once in very distinguished company, in England. We were in a ball in the height of the season, at Brighton. Somewhere about the later hours, we chanced to be in attendance upon a noble-lady, in company with two celebrated men. Mr. Ricardo and Horace Smith, (the author of Brambletye House, and Rejected Addresses, Lady Stepney, authoress of the New Road to Ruin,” approached our charming centre of attraction with a proposition to present to her the celebrated Dr. Lardner. “Yes, my dear! I should like to know him of all things!” was the reply, and the Doctor was conjured forthwith into the magic circle. He bowed “with spectacles on nose,” but no other extraneous mark of philosopher or scholar. We shall not offend the Doctor by stating that, on this evening, he was a very different looking person from his present practical exterior. With showy waistcoat, black tights, fancy stockings and small patent-leather shoes, he appeared to us an elegant of very bright water, smacking not at all, in manner no more than in dress, of the smutch and toil of the laboratory. We looked at and listened to him, we remember, with great interest and curiosity. He left us to dance a quadrille, and finding ourself accidentally in the same set, we looked at his ornamental and lover-like acquittal of himself with a kind of wonder at what Minerva would say! This was just before the Doctor left England. We may add our expression of pleasure that the Protean facility of our accomplished and learned friend has served him in this country — making of him the best lecturer on all subjects, and the carver out of prosperity under a wholly new meridian.
But, to revert to the report of the lecture:
“The Doctor gave some very amusing descriptions of the personal peculiarities of Bulwer and D’Israeli, the author of ‘Coningsby,’ observing that those who have read the works of the former, would naturally conclude him to be very fascinating in private society. Such, however, was not the case. He had not a particle of conversational facility, and could not utter twelve sentences free from hesitation and embarrassment. In fact, Bulwer was only Bulwer when his pen was in his hand and his meerschaum in his mouth. He is intimate with Count D’Orsay, one of the handsomest men of the day, and in his excessive admiration of that gentleman has adopted his style of dress, which is adapted admirably to the figure of the second Beau Brummell, but sits strangely on the feeble, rickety and skeleton form, of the man of genius.”
Now it struck us, on the contrary, that there was no more playful, animated, facile creature in London society than Bulwer. He seemed to have a horror of stilted topics, it is true, and never mingled in general conversation unless merrily. But at Lady Blessing-ton's, where there was but one woman, present, (herself,) and where, consequently, there could be no têtes-a-têtes, Bulwer's entrance was the certain precursor of fun. He was a brilliant rattle, and as to any “hesitation and embarrassment,” we never saw a symptom of it. At evening parties in other houses, Bulwer's powers of conversation could scarce be fairly judged, for his system of attention is very concentrative, and he was generally deep in conversation, with some one beautiful woman whom he could engross. We differ from the Doctor, too, as to his style of dandyism. Spready upper works, trousers closely fitting to the leg, a broad-brimmed hat and cornucopial whiskers, distinguished D’Orsay, while Bulwer wore always the loose French pantaloon, a measurable hat-brim and whiskers carefully limited to the cheek. We pronounce the Doctor's astrology (as to these stars) based upon an error in “observation.” The reporter adds: —
“D’Israeli he described as an affected coxcomb, with a restless desire to appear witty; yet he never remembered him to have said a good thing in his life except one, and that was generally repeated with the preface, ‘Disraeli has said a good thing at last.’ ”
That Disraeli is not a “bon-mot” man, is doubtless true. It never struck us that he manifested a “desire to appear witty.” He is very silent in the general melée of conversation, but we have never yet seen him leave a room before he had made an impression by some burst in the way of monologue — either an eloquent description or a dashing new absurdity, [column 2:] an anecdote or a criticism. He sits indolently with his head on his breast, taking I sight through his eyebrows till he finds his cue to break in, and as far as our observation goes, nobody was ever willing to interrupt him. The Doctor calls him an “affected coxcomb,” but it is only of his dress that this is any way true. No schoolboy is more frank in his manners. This is true, even since D’Israeli's “gobble up” of the million with a widow. When we were first in London, he was the immortal tenant of one room and a recess, and with manners indolently pensive. Three years after, returning to England, we found him master of a lordly establishment on Hyde Park, and, except that he looked of a less lively melancholy, his manners were as untroubled with affectation as before. We do not in the least doubt the sincerity of the Doctor's report, but it shows how even acute observers (we two are that, Doctor!) will see the same thing with different eyes. This article is too long.
∞∞∞∞∞∞∞
Notes:
This review was specifically rejected as being by Poe by W. D. Hull.
∞∞∞∞∞∞∞
[S:0 - NYEM, 1844] - Edgar Allan Poe Society of Baltimore - Works - Criticism - Review of Dr. Lardner's Lecture (Willis ?, 1844)