Arts and Letters

An Englishman who was Professor at Harvard and with whom I assisted at many funerals always had the same word to pronounce over the dead body, "his work is done." He could not have said that of William R. Thayer who passed away before he had reached the age of 65; and many of his years were those of inability to produce the work which he had at heart. In the centenary of Francis Parkman we have heard much of his heroic writing under great physical drawbacks, and our minds have reverted to William H. Prescott, who produced his many volumes under greatly impaired eyesight. Thayer's trouble was of the nervous system. Between The Dawn of Italian Independence, which was published in 1893, and The Life and Times of Cavour, published in 1911, he had an attack of nervous prostration which unfitted him for work on Italy for a number of years. He could not walk from his house to Harvard Square, a distance of less than half a mile, without being perturbed at some trifling affair which, when he was well, would have been looked upon as utterly commonplace. When his devoted wife went upon some errand, he would give her twenty minutes and, were she not back within the appointed time, he would have a nervous attack. He could not pursue his chosen work on the Risorgimento without such mental suffering as compelled him to desist. Therefore Thayer must be joined to Parkman and Prescott as another whose work was performed under physical limitations.

If one were asked about Thayer in 1911 one would say that, in addition to his labors as editor of the "Harvard Graduates' Magazine," he represented Italy in Cambridge, Massachusetts, that had been noted for her Italian scholars and lovers of Dante. His chosen theme was the Risorgimento,—the resurrection of Italy from the depths, until she became united and her capital was Rome. When the Life and Times of Cavour appeared, it was at first regarded as merely a step in the story of Italy; but it was only a little while before it came to be looked upon as a great story of a great man. Have you read Thayer's new book? was the common inquiry. He characterized Italy enthusiastically as "that Enchanted Land whose beauty is inexhaustible and whose boundless interests touch men and women who perceive the deepest concerns of the human soul." Cavour, with Lincoln and Bismarck, was regarded by him as one of the three great men of his time. But is the work impartial? asked one of the critics. "Absolutely judicial," was the reply of an admiring lawyer.

Of course Cavour was not "absolutely judicial," but when Thayer quit the high ground of impartiality he was almost always entrancing. His tendency to speak of matters of which his mind was full and on which he had decided ideas, but which perhaps had naught to do with the thread of his narrative, sometimes got him into trouble, but his friends know that his dicta came from no prejudice but from rare and complete intelligence.

We all looked upon Thayer as a radical, so were somewhat surprised that he took the conservative and opportunist Cavour instead of Garibaldi or Mazzini for his hero in the story of Italy's independence. As an English critic of the book remarked, Cavour admitted that "anyone who had done the things he had done for anything less than the cause he was championing would have been a rogue." Nevertheless Thayer in his preface spoke of the ''brilliant volumes" of Trevelyan on Garibaldi. Thayer and Trevelyan were an example of a literary friendship of a high order. One was devoted to Cavour, the other to Garibaldi, yet during their writing they exchanged manuscripts. They also criticized each other's work in print. When Trevelyan came to this country during the Great War, Thayer was foremost in entertaining him and was a powerful influence in inducing the Tavern Club to give him the high compliment of a dinner.

Thayer's successful Life and Times of Cavour was made more so by his knowledge of European affairs. As one reads the story, one is amazed at his varied information and the charm he has thrown upon the setting of his subject. He exhibits himself as the gentleman who has been much in Italy and has lost no opportunity of familiarizing himself with the friends and contemporaries of Cavour.

Having made the literary conquest of Italy he thought that he ought to use his talent in a study of his own country, and, an opportunity having been given him to write the life of John Hay, he counseled with me in regard to it. I advised him to stick to Italy, on which he was the greatest authority writing in English. He said he could not go on from where he left off in 1861. Up to that time he had a hero in Cavour who, in spite of doing things Thayer could not admire, nevertheless brought his great aim to pass. Subsequent to Cavour, Italy fell into the hands of designing politicians, who, as politicians are apt to be the world over, were unscrupulous and sometimes corrupt. Hay appealed to him as being a high-toned man in politics and therefore desirable to write about. In this study he grasped in his quest the original materials in manuscript, and showed historic qualities not dimmed by his work on Italy. His two chapters entitled "Letters to Henry Adams" are a marvel and exhibit Hay at his best. Adams was Hay's warmest friend, whom he at times addressed as "My cherished Livy;" and the letters themselves are an intimate story. In his search for material Thayer pulled all strings, social as well as scholastic, and the result is a life-like biography, from which even those who knew Haywell can learn much, through an author who never enjoyed a rare personal acquaintance.

After the Hay came the Roosevelt. Roosevelt died in January, 1919, and the book of 454 pages was written between that date and August of the same year. It was a wonderful piece of work to do in so brief a period. Thayer knew Roosevelt well, and this helped him much in the personal touches. The book is of great value in the glimpses one gets of Roosevelt, who spoke to Thayer with the utmost confidence. While engaged on this work he was attacked with impaired eyesight, so that he could not read the proof or correct some errors of detail into which he fell.

Thayer was also a stylist of no mean order, which is the reason his books were in such demand. I wondered where he got that virile expression until chance put a volume into my hands which he published in 1890. In this volume he printed what he considered the best plays of Marlowe, Ben Jonson, Beaumont and Fletcher, and Webster. He wrote a preface to them which may fitly be compared to James R. Lowell's lectures on the English Dramatists, and Thayer joins with Lowell in giving Webster a high rank. It is often said that had not the others been dominated by Shakespeare they would have achieved great literary fame. "Unsurpassed in the history of literature," wrote Thayer, "and equalled only once in Greece, the great poets of the Age of Elizabeth took all human nature" for their province. "From Marlowe to Webster is less than thirty years, less than an average lifetime; yet within that brief period the Elizabethan drama blossomed and withered." These citations will give an idea of the illuminating preface, which tells where Thayer got his virile style. The English critics find fault with his use of colloquialisms, that sometimes even degenerated into slang, and they do not see the strength beyond that. According to my idea they are right when they criticize Thayer for his colloquialisms, which he thought gave pungency to the written word, but if you eliminate the colloquialisms, what strength and fluency are still left! His splendid style came from communion with Shakespeare and the contemporary dramatists, and I could sympathize with his lament that, owing to his failing eyesight, he could not read them himself.

I am proud of my friendship with Thayer. He was a many-sided man, and to those whom he liked he was a true friend. I cannot fail to remember his characterization of the different men who walked the stage. He was a brilliant biographer, a good historian, and a learned man.