The Life of Lord Byron
Chapter II
CHAPTER II.
Moral effects of local scenery; a peculiarity in taste.—Early
love.—Impressions and traditions.
Before I proceed to the regular narrative of the character and
adventures of Lord Byron, it seems necessary to consider the
probable effects of his residence, during his boyhood, in Scotland. It is generally agreed,
that while a schoolboy in Aberdeen, he evinced a lively spirit, and sharpness enough to have
equalled any of his schoolfellows, had he given sufficient application. In the few
reminiscences preserved of his childhood, it is remarkable that he appears in this period,
commonly of innocence and playfulness, rarely to have evinced any symptom of generous feeling.
Silent rages, moody sullenness, and revenge are the general characteristics of his conduct as a
boy.
He was, undoubtedly, delicately susceptible of impressions from the beauties
of nature, for he retained recollections of the scenes which interested his childish wonder,
fresh and glowing, to his latest days; nor have there been wanting plausible theories to
ascribe the formation of his poetical character to the contemplation of those romantic scenes.
But, whoever has attended to the influential causes of character will reject such theories as
shallow, and betraying great ignorance of human nature. Genius of every kind belongs to some
innate temperament; it does not necessarily imply a particular bent, because that may possibly
be the effect of circumstances; but,
without question, the peculiar
quality is inborn, and particular to the individual. All hear and see much alike; but there is
an undefinable though wide difference between the ear of the musician, or the eye of the
painter, compared with the hearing and seeing organs of ordinary men; and it is in something
like that difference in which genius consists. Genius is, however, an ingredient of mind more
easily described by its effects than by its qualities. It is as the fragrance, independent of
the freshness and complexion of the rose; as the light on the cloud; as the bloom on the cheek
of beauty, of which the possessor is unconscious until the charm has been seen by its influence
on others; it is the internal golden flame of the opal; a something which may be abstracted
from the thing in which it appears, without changing the quality of its substance, its form, or
its affinities. I am not, therefore, disposed to consider the idle and reckless childhood of
Byron as unfavourable to the development of his genius;
but, on the contrary, inclined to think, that the indulgence of his mother, leaving him so much
to the accidents of undisciplined impression, was calculated to cherish associations which
rendered them, in the maturity of his powers, ingredients of spell that ruled his memory.
It is singular, and I am not aware it has been before noticed, that with all
his tender and impassioned apostrophes to beauty and love, Byron has in no instance, not even in the freest passages of Don Juan, associated either the one or the other with sensual
images. The extravagance of Shakespeare’s Juliet, when she
speaks of Romeo being cut after his death into stars, that
all the world may be in love with night, is flame and ecstasy compared to the icy metaphysical
glitter of Byron’s amorous allusions. The verses beginning with
She walks in beauty like the light Of eastern climes and starry skies, |
is a perfect example of what I have conceived of his bodiless admiration
of beauty, and objectless enthusiasm of love. The sentiment itself is unquestionably in the
highest mood of the intellectual sense of beauty; the simile is, however, any thing but such an
image as the beauty of woman would suggest. It is only the remembrance of some impression or
imagination of the loveliness of a twilight applied to an object that awakened the same
abstract general idea of beauty. The fancy which could conceive in its passion the charms of a
female to be like the glow of the evening, or the general effect of the midnight stars, must
have been enamoured of some beautiful abstraction, rather than aught of flesh and blood. Poets
and lovers have compared the complexion of their mistresses to the hues of the morning or of
the evening, and their eyes to the dewdrops and the stars; but it has no place in the feelings
of man to think of female charms in the sense of admiration which the beauties of the morning
or the evening awaken. It is to make the simile the principal. Perhaps, however, it may be as
well to defer the criticism to which this peculiar characteristic of
Byron’s amatory effusions gives rise, until we shall come to
estimate his general powers as a poet. There is upon the subject of love, no doubt, much
beautiful composition throughout his works; but not one line in all the thousands which shows a
sexual feeling of female attraction—all is vague and passionless, save in the delicious
rhythm of the verse.
But these remarks, though premature as criticisms, are not uncalled for here,
even while we are speaking of a child not more than ten years old. Before Byron had attained that age, he describes himself as having felt
the passion. Dante is said as early as nine years old to
have fallen in love with Beatrice; Alfieri, who was himself precocious in the passion, considered
such early sensibility to be an unerring sign of a soul formed for the fine arts; and Canova
used to say that he was in love when but five years old. But these
instances, however, prove nothing. Calf-love, as it is called in the country, is common; and in
Italy it may arise earlier than in the bleak and barren regions of Lochynagar. This movement of
juvenile sentiment is not, however, love—that strong masculine avidity, which, in its
highest excitement, is unrestrained, by the laws alike of God and man. In truth, the feeling of
this kind of love is the very reverse of the irrepressible passion it is a mean shrinking,
stealthy awe, and in no one of its symptoms, at least in none of those which
Byron describes, has it the slightest resemblance to that bold energy
which has prompted men to undertake the most improbable adventures.
He was not quite eight years old when, according to his own account, he formed
an impassioned attachment to Mary Duff; and he gives the
following account of his recollection of her, nineteen years afterwards.
“I have been thinking lately a good deal of Mary
Duff. How very odd that I should have been so devotedly fond of that girl,
at an age when I could neither feel passion, nor know the meaning of the word and the
effect! My mother used always to rally me about this
childish amour, and at last, many years after, when I was sixteen, she told me one day,
‘O Byron, I have had a letter from Edinburgh, and your
old sweetheart, Mary Duff, is married to Mr.
C****.’ And what was my answer? I really cannot explain or
account for my feelings at that moment, but they nearly threw me into convulsions, and
alarmed my mother so much, that after I grew better she generally avoided the
subject—to me—and contented herself with telling it to
all her acquaintance.” But was this agitation the effect of natural feeling, or
of something in the manner in which his mother may have
told the news? He
proceeds to inquire. “Now what could this be? I had never seen her since her
mother’s faux pas at Aberdeen had been the cause of her
removal to her grandmother’s at Banff. We were both the merest children. I had, and
have been, attached fifty times since that period; yet I recollect all we said to each
other, all our caresses, her features, my restlessness, sleeplessness, my tormenting my
mother’s maid to write for me to her, which she at last did to quiet me. Poor
Nancy thought I was wild, and, as I could not write for myself,
became my secretary. I remember too our walks, and the happiness of sitting by
Mary, in the children’s apartment, at their house, not far
from the Plainstones, at Aberdeen, while her lesser sister, Helen,
played with the doll, and we sat gravely making love in our own way.
“How the deuce did all this occur so early? Where could it originate? I certainly had
no sexual ideas for years afterward, and yet my misery, my love for that girl, were so
violent, that I sometimes doubt if I have ever been really attached since. Be that as it
may, hearing of her marriage, several years afterward, was as a thunderstroke. It nearly
choked me, to the horror of my mother, and the astonishment and almost incredulity of
everybody; and it is a phenomenon in my existence, for I was not eight years old, which has
puzzled and will puzzle me to the latest hour of it. And, lately, I know not why, the recollection (not the attachment) has
recurred as forcibly as ever: I wonder if she can have the least remembrance of it or me,
or remember pitying her sister Helen, for not having an admirer too.
How very pretty is the perfect image of her in my memory. Her dark brown hair and hazel
eyes, her very dress—I should be quite grieved to see her now. The reality, however
beautiful, would destroy, or at least confuse, the features of the lovely
Peri, which then existed in her, and still lives in my imagination, at
the distance of more than sixteen years.”
Such precocious and sympathetic affections are, as I have already mentioned,
common among children, and is something very different from the love of riper years; but the
extract is curious, and shows how truly little and vague Byron’s experience of the passion must have been. In his recollection of
the girl, be it observed, there is no circumstance noticed which shows, however strong the
mutual sympathy, the slightest influence of particular attraction. He recollects the colour of
her hair, the hue of her eyes, her very dress, and he remembers her as a Peri, a spirit; nor
does it appear that his sleepless restlessness, in which the thought of her was ever uppermost,
was produced by jealousy, or doubt, or fear, or any other concomitant of the passion.
There is another most important circumstance in what may be called the
Aberdonian epoch of Lord Byron’s life.
That Byron, in his boyhood, was possessed
of lively sensibilities, is sufficiently clear; that he enjoyed the advantage of indulging his
humour and temper without restraint, is not disputable; and that his natural temperament made
him sensible, in no ordinary degree, to the beauties of nature, is also abundantly manifest in
all his productions; but it is surprising that this admiration of the beauties of nature is but
an ingredient in Byron’s poetry, and not its most remarkable
characteristic. Deep feelings of dissatisfaction and disappointment are far more obvious; they
constitute, indeed, the very spirit of his works, and a spirit of such qualities is the least
of all likely to have arisen from the contemplation of magnificent nature, or to have been
inspired by studying her storms or serenity; for dissatisfaction and disappointment are the
offspring of moral experience, and have no natural as-
sociation with the
forms of external things. The habit of associating morose sentiments with any particular kind
of scenery only shows that the sources of the sullenness arose in similar visible
circumstances. It is from these premises I would infer, that the seeds of
Byron’s misanthropic tendencies were implanted during the
“silent rages” of his childhood, and that the effect of mountain scenery, which
continued so strong upon him after he left Scotland, producing the sentiments with which he has
imbued his heroes in the wild circumstances in which he places them, was mere reminiscence and
association. For although the sullen tone of his mind was not fully brought out until he wrote
Childe Harold, it is yet evident from his
Hours of Idleness that he was tuned to that
key before he went abroad. The dark colouring of his mind was plainly imbibed in a mountainous
region, from sombre heaths, and in the midst of rudeness and grandeur. He had no taste for more
cheerful images, and there are neither rural objects nor villagery in the scenes he describes,
but only loneness and the solemnity of mountains.
To those who are acquainted with the Scottish character, it is unnecessary to
suggest how very probable it is that Mrs. Byron and her
associates were addicted to the oral legends of the district and of her ancestors, and that the
early fancy of the poet was nourished with the shadowy descriptions in the tales o’ the
olden time;—at last this is manifest, that although Byron shows little of the melancholy and mourning of Ossian, he was yet evidently influenced by some strong bias and congeniality of
taste to brood and cogitate on topics of the same character as those of that bard. Moreover,
besides the probability of his imagination having been early tinged with the sullen hue of the
local traditions, it is remarkable, that the longest of his juvenile poems is an imitation of
the manner of the Homer of Morven.
In addition to a natural temperament, kept in a state of continual
excitement, by unhappy domestic incidents, and the lurid legends of the past, there were other
causes in operation around the young poet that could not but greatly affect the formation of
his character.
Descended of a distinguished family, counting among its ancestors the fated
line of the Scottish kings, and reduced almost to extreme poverty, it is highly probable, both
from the violence of her temper, and the pride of blood, that Mrs.
Byron would complain of the almost mendicant condition to which she was reduced,
especially so long as there was reason to fear that her son was not likely to succeed to the
family estates and dignity. Of his father’s lineage few traditions were perhaps
preserved, compared with those of his mother’s family; but still enough was known to
impress the imagination. Mr. Moore, struck with this
circumstance, has remarked, that “in reviewing the ancestors, both near and remote, of
Lord Byron, it cannot fail to be remarked how
strikingly he combined in his own nature some of the best, and perhaps worst qualities that
lie scattered through the various characters of his predecessors.” But still it
is to his mother’s traditions of her ancestors that I would ascribe the conception of the
dark and guilty beings which he delighted to describe. And though it may be contended that
there was little in her conduct to exalt poetical sentiment, still there was a great deal in
her condition calculated to affect and impel an impassioned disposition. I can imagine few
situations more likely to produce lasting recollections of interest and affection, than that in
which Mrs. Byron, with her only child, was placed in Aberdeen. Whatever
might have been the violence of her temper, or the improprieties of her afterlife, the fond and
mournful caresses with which she used to hang over her lame and helpless orphan, must have
greatly contributed to the
formation of that morbid sensibility which
became the chief characteristic of his life. At the same time, if it did contribute to fill his
days with anguish and anxieties, it also undoubtedly assisted the development of his powers;
and I am therefore disposed to conclude, that although, with respect to the character of the
man, the time he spent in Aberdeen can only be contemplated with pity, mingled with sorrow,
still it must have been richly fraught with incidents of inconceivable value to the genius of
the poet.
Leigh Hunt,
Lord Byron and Some of his Contemporaries (London: Henry Colburn, 1828)
An article was
written in “The Westminster
Review” (Medwin says
by Mr. Hobhouse) to show that the Conversations were altogether unworthy of
credit. There are doubtless many inaccuracies in the latter; but the spirit remains
undoubted; and the author of the criticism was only vexed, that such was the fact. He
assumes, that Lord Byron could not have made this or that statement to
Captain Medwin, because the statement was erroneous or untrue; but
an anonymous author has no right to be believed in preference to one who speaks in his own
name: there is nothing to show that Mr. Hobhouse might not have been
as mistaken about a date or an epigram as Mr. Medwin; and when we find
him giving us his own version of a fact, and Mr. Medwin asserting that
Lord Byron gave him another, the only impression left upon the
mind of any body who knew his Lordship is, that the fault most probably lay in the loose
corners of the noble Poet’s vivacity. Such is the impression made upon the author of
an unpublished Letter to Mr.
Hobhouse, which has been shown me in print; and he had a right to it. The
reviewer, to my knowledge, is mistaken upon some points, as well as the person he reviews.
The assumption, that nobody can know any thing about Lord Byron but
two or three persons who were conversant with him for a certain space of time, and whom he
spoke of with as little ceremony, and would hardly treat with more confidence than he did a
hundred others, is ludicrous; and can only end, as the criticism has done, in doing no good
either to him or them. . . .
John Galt,
“Pot versus Kettle” in Fraser’s Magazine
Vol. 2
No. 11 (December 1830)
“Dear Sir;—Amongst the
agreeable things which you say of me in your life of Lord Byron, you conjecture that I
‘condemned’
Childe Harold
previously to its publication. There is not the slightest foundation for this
supposition—nor is it true as you state, ‘that I was the only person
who had seen the poem in manuscript, as I was with Lord
Byron whilst he was writing it.’ I had left
Lord Byron before he had finished the two cantos, and,
excepting a few fragments, I had never seen them until they were printed. My own
persuasion is, that the story told in Dallas’s Recollections of some
person, name unknown, having dissuaded Lord Byron from
publishing Childe Harold, is a
mere fabrication, for it is at complete variance with all Lord
Byron himself told me on the subject. At any rate, I was not that
person; if I had been, it is not very likely that the poem which I had endeavoured
to stifle in its birth, should, in its complete, or, as Lord
Byron says, in its ‘concluded state,’ be dedicated to
me. I must, therefore, request you will take the earliest opportunity of relieving
me from this imputation, which, so far as a man can be written down by any other
author than himself, cannot fail to produce a very prejudicial effect, and to give
me more uneasiness than I think it can be your wish to inflict on any man who has
never given you provocation or excuse for injustice. . . .
John Galt,
“Pot versus Kettle” in Fraser’s Magazine
Vol. 2
No. 11 (December 1830)
I am glad to find my college
stories administered relief to your nerves, when we were together in the Malta
packet some one and twenty years ago; and I am not sorry that my wearing a red
coat at Cagliari, and cutting my finger in the quarries of Pentelicus, should
have furnished materials for your present volume; but to repay me for having
supplied these timely episodes, as well as for your copious extracts from my
travels in Albania, and also for inserting my note about Madame Guiccioli without my leave, you must
positively cancel the passage respecting Childe Harold
in page 161 of your little volume. . . .
John Galt,
“Pot versus Kettle” in Fraser’s Magazine
Vol. 2
No. 11 (December 1830)
I wonder that even common policy did not induce you to be
more cautious in making statements which might be so easily disproved, and
which have, indeed, been already incontrovertibly refuted. The very
conversation, which you have judiciously selected from Medwin, as one of those parts of his trumpery book to the truth of which you
can speak, I know to be a lie; for I never went the tour of the lake of Geneva
with Lord Byron. . . .
John Galt,
“Pot versus Kettle” in Fraser’s Magazine
Vol. 2
No. 11 (December 1830)
You tell me that your wish has
been to give only an outline of his intellectual character. I am at a loss to
understand how your gossip about him and me, and the silly anecdotes you have
copied from very discreditable authorities, can be said to be fairly comprised
in such an outline. But your plan ought certainly to have compelled you to make
yourself thoroughly acquainted with his poetry, and to quote him just as he
wrote. Nevertheless, you have misrepresented him at least nine times in the ten
stanzas of that poem which you call the last, and which was not the last, he
ever wrote. Oh, for shame! stick to your acknowledged fictions—there you
are safe—you may deal with Leddy
Grippy and Laurie Todd as
you please, but not with those who have really lived, or who are still
alive. . . .
[John Wilson et. al.],
“Noctes Ambrosianae XVII” in Blackwood’s Edinburgh Magazine
Vol. 16
No. 94 (November 1824)
And there was another funny thing o’ his, till a queer looking lad, one
Mr. Skeffington, that wrote a tragedy, that was called
“The Mysterious Bride,” the whilk
thing made the Times newspaper for once witty—for it
said no more o’t, than just “Last night a play called The Mysterious
Bride, by the Honorable Mr. Skeffington, was performed at Drury Lane.
The piece was damned.” Weel, ye see it happened that there was a masquerade some nights after,
and Mr. Cam Hobhouse gaed till’t in the disguise
o’ a Spanish nun, that had been ravished by the French army— . . .
Vittorio Alfieri (1749-1803)
Italian tragic poet, author of
Saul (1782),
Antigone (1783), and
Maria Stuart (1804); he was the
consort of Louisa, (Jacobite) countess of Albany.
Antonio Canova (1757-1822)
Italian neoclassical sculptor who worked at Rome.
Mary Cockburn [née Duff] (1788-1858)
Byron's distant cousin and object of his affection as a boy at Aberdeen; in 1805 she
married Robert Cockburn, a wine-merchant.
Dante Alighieri (1265-1321)
Florentine poet, the author of the
Divine Comedy and other
works.
James Macpherson (1736-1796)
Scottish poet who attributed his adaptations of Gaelic poetry to the blind bard Ossian;
author of the prose epics
Fingal (1761) and
Temora (1763).
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.
George Gordon Byron, sixth Baron Byron (1788-1824)
Don Juan. (London: 1819-1824). A burlesque poem in ottava rima published in installments: Cantos I and II published in
1819, III, IV and V in 1821, VI, VII, and VIII in 1823, IX, X, and XI in 1823, XII, XIII,
and XIV in 1823, and XV and XVI in 1824.