The Life of Lord Byron
Chapter XXVI
CHAPTER XXVI.
The libel in the Scourge.—The general impression
of his Character.—Improvement in his manners, as his merit was acknowledged by the
public.—His address in management.—His first speech in Parliament.—The
publication of Childe Harold.—Its reception and effect.
During the first winter after Lord Byron had
returned to England, I was frequently with him. Childe
Harold was not then published; and although the impression of his satire, English Bards and Scotch Reviewers, was still
strong upon the public, he could not well be said to have been then a celebrated character. At
that time the strongest feeling by which he appeared to be actuated was indignation against a
writer in a scurrilous publication, called The Scourge; in which he was not only treated with
unjustifiable malignity, but charged with being, as he told me himself, the illegitimate son of
a murderer. I had not read the work; but the writer who could make such an absurd accusation,
must have been strangely ignorant of the very circumstances from which he derived the materials
of his own libel. When Lord Byron mentioned the subject to
me, and that he was consulting Sir Vickery Gibbs, with
the intention of prosecuting the publisher and the author, I advised him, as well as I could,
to desist, simply because the allegation referred to well-known occurrences. His grand-uncle’s duel with Mr.
Chaworth, and the order of the House of Peers to produce evidence of his
grandfather’s marriage with Miss Trevannion; the facts of which being matter of history
and public record, superseded the necessity of any proceeding.
Knowing how deeply this affair agitated him at that time, I was not surprised
at the sequestration in which he held himself—and which made those who were not
acquainted with his shy and mystical nature, apply to him the description of his own Lara:
The chief of Lara is return’d again,
And why had Lara cross’d the bounding
main?—
Left by his sire too young such loss to know,
Lord of himself;—that heritage of woe.
In him, inexplicably mix’d, appear’d
Much to be loved and hated, sought and fear’d,
Opinion varying o’er his hidden lot,
In praise or railing ne’er his name forgot.
His silence form’d a theme for others’ prate;
They guess’d, they gazed, they fain would know his fate,
What had he been? what was he, thus unknown,
Who walk’d their world, his lineage only known?
A hater of his kind? yet some would say,
With them he could seem gay amid the gay;
But own’d that smile, if oft observed and near
Waned in its mirth and wither’d to a sneer;
That smile might reach his lip, but pass’d not by;
None e’er could trace its laughter to his eye:
Yet there was softness, too, in his regard,
At times a heart is not by nature hard.
But once perceived, his spirit seem’d to hide
Such weakness as unworthy of its pride,
And stretch’d itself as scorning to redeem
One doubt from others’ half-withheld esteem;
In self-inflicted penance of a breast
Which tenderness might once have wrung from rest,
In vigilance of grief that would compel
The soul to hate for having loved too well.
There was in him a vital scorn of all,
As if the worst had fall’n which could befall.
He stood a stranger in this breathing world,
An erring spirit from another hurl’d;
A thing of dark imaginings, that shaped
By choice the perils he by chance escaped.
|
Such was Byron to common observance on his
return. I recollect one night meeting him at the Opera.
Seeing me with a
gentleman whom he did not know, and to whom he was unknown, he addressed me in Italian, and we
continued to converse for some time in that language. My friend, who in the meanwhile had been
observing him with curiosity, conceiving him to be a foreigner, inquired in the course of the
evening who he was, remarking that he had never seen a man with such a
Cain-like mark on the forehead before, alluding to that singular scowl
which struck me so forcibly when I first saw him, and which appears to have made a stronger
impression upon me than it did upon many others. I never, in fact, could overcome entirely the
prejudice of the first impression, although I ought to have been gratified by the friendship
and confidence with which he always appeared disposed to treat me. When Childe Harold was printed, he sent me a quarto copy before the
publication; a favour and distinction I have always prized; and the copy which he gave me of
The Bride of Abydos was one he had prepared
for a new edition, and which contains, in his own writing, these six lines in no other copy:
Bless’d—as the Muezzin’s strain from Mecca’s wall
To pilgrims pure and prostrate at his call,
Soft—as the melody of youthful days
That steals the trembling tear of speechless praise,
Sweet—as his native song to exile’s ears
Shall sound each tone thy long-loved voice endears.
|
He had not, it is true, at the period of which I am speaking, gathered much
of his fame; but the gale was rising—and though the vessel was evidently yielding to the
breeze, she was neither crank nor unsteady. On the contrary, the more he became an object of
public interest, the less did he indulge his capricious humour. About the time when The Bride of Abydos was published, he appeared
disposed to settle into a consistent character—especially after the first sale of
Newstead. Before that particular event, he was often so disturbed
in his
mind, that he could not conceal his unhappiness, and frequently spoke of leaving England for
ever.
Although few men were more under the impulses of passion than Lord Byron, there was yet a curious kind of management about him
which showed that he was well aware how much of the world’s favour was to be won by it.
Long before Childe Harold appeared, it was
generally known that he had a poem in the press, and various surmises to stimulate curiosity
were circulated concerning it: I do not say that these were by his orders, or under his
directions, but on one occasion I did fancy that I could discern a touch of his own hand in a
paragraph in the Morning Post, in which he was
mentioned as having returned from an excursion into the interior of Africa; and when I alluded
to it, my suspicion was confirmed by his embarrassment.
I mention this incident not in the spirit of detraction; for in the paragraph
there was nothing of puff, though certainly something of oddity—but as a tint of
character, indicative of the appetite for distinction by which, about this period, he became so
powerfully incited, that at last it grew into a diseased crave, and to such a degree, that were
the figure allowable, it might be said, the mouth being incapable of supplying adequate means
to appease it—every pore became another mouth greedy of nourishment. I am, however,
hastening on too fast. Lord Byron was, at that time, far
indeed from being ruled by any such inordinate passion; the fears, the timidity, and
bashfulness of young desire still clung to him, and he was throbbing with doubt if he should be
found worthy of the high prize for which he was about to offer himself a candidate. The course
he adopted on the occasion, whether dictated by management, or the effect of accident, was,
however, well calculated to attract attention to his debut as a public man.
When Childe Harold was ready
for publication, he
determined to make his first appearance as an orator
in the House of Lords: the occasion was judiciously chosen, being a debate on the Nottingham
frame-breaking bill; a subject on which it was natural to suppose he possessed some local
knowledge that might bear upon a question directed so exclusively against transactions in his
own county. He prepared himself as the best orators do in their first essays, not only by
composing, but writing down, the whole of his speech beforehand. The reception he met with was
flattering; he was complimented warmly by some of the speakers on his own side; but it must be
confessed that his debut was more showy than promising. It lacked weight in metal, as was
observed at the time, and the mode of delivery was more like a schoolboy’s recital than a
masculine grapple with an argument. It was, moreover, full of rhetorical exaggerations, and
disfigured with conceits. Still it scintillated with talent, and justified the opinion that he
was an extraordinary young man, probably destined to distinction, though he might not be a
statesman.
Mr. Dallas gives a lively account of his elation on the
occasion. “When he left the great chamber,” says that gentleman, “I went
and met him in the passage; he was glowing with success, and much agitated. I had an
umbrella in my right hand, not expecting that he would put out his hand to me; in my haste
to take it when offered, I had advanced my left hand: ‘What!’ said he,
‘give your friend your left hand upon such an occasion?’ I showed the
cause, and immediately changing the umbrella to the other, I gave him my right hand, which
he shook and pressed warmly. He was greatly elated, and repeated some of the compliments
which had been paid him, and mentioned one or two of the peers who had desired to be
introduced to him. He concluded by saying, that he had, by his speech, given me the best
advertisement for Childe Harold’s
Pilgrimage.”
It is upon this latter circumstance, that I have ven-
tured to state my suspicion, that there was a degree of worldly management in making his
first appearance in the House of Lords, so immediately preceding the publication of his poem.
The speech was, indeed, a splendid advertisement, but the greater and brighter merits of the
poem soon proved that it was not requisite, for the speech made no impression, but the poem was
at once hailed with delight and admiration. It filled a vacancy in the public mind, which the
excitement and inflation arising from the mighty events of the age, had created. The world, in
its condition and circumstances, was prepared to receive a work, so original, vigorous, and
beautiful; and the reception was such that there was no undue extravagance in the noble author
saying in his memorandum, “I awoke one morning and found myself famous.”
But he was not to be allowed to revel in such triumphant success with
impunity. If the great spirits of the time were smitten with astonishment at the splendour of
the rising fire, the imps and elves of malignity and malice fluttered their bat-wings in all
directions. Those whom the poet had afflicted in his satire, and who had remained quietly
crouching with lacerated shoulders in the hope that their flagellation would be forgotten, and
that the avenging demon who had so punished their imbecility would pass away, were terrified
from their obscurity. They came like moths to the candle, and sarcasms in the satire which had
long been unheeded, in the belief that they would soon be forgotten, were felt to have been
barbed with irremediable venom, when they beheld the avenger
Towering in his pride of place. |
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— . . .
Admiral John Byron [Foulweather Jack] (1723-1786)
In 1741 Byron was shipwrecked while serving as a midshipman in the Pacific under
Commodore Anson, an account of which he published as
The Narrative of the
Hon. John Byron (1768).
Sophia Byron [née Trevannion] (1758 fl.)
The daughter of John Trevannion of Carhays, Cornwall who married Admiral John Byron 8
September 1748; their two sons were both captains in the Royal Navy.
William Chaworth (1726-1765)
He was killed in a dispute with the fifth Lord Byron, who was convicted but not punished
for the crime.
Hewson Clarke (1787-1845 fl.)
The Cambridge-educated son of a barber, the editor of
The Scourge
(1811-12) and contributor to
The Satirist (1807-14) was an early
mocker of Lord Byron; later in life he published a continuation of Hume's
History of England, 2 vols (1832).
Robert Charles Dallas (1754-1824)
English poet, novelist, and translator who corresponded with Byron. His sister Charlotte
Henrietta Dallas (d. 1793) married Captain George Anson Byron (1758-1793); their son George
Anson Byron (1789-1868) inherited Byron's title in 1824.
Sir Vicary Gibbs (1751-1820)
Tory MP and attorney-general during the Portland and Perceval governments (1807-12); from
1812 he was a judge in the court of common pleas.
Morning Post. (1772-1937). A large-circulation London daily that published verse by many of the prominent poets of
the romantic era. John Taylor (1750–1826), Daniel Stuart (1766-1846), and Nicholas Byrne
(d. 1833) were among its editors.