The Life of Lord Byron
Chapter V
CHAPTER V.
Character at Harrow.—Political predilections.—Byron at
Cambridge.—His “Hours of Idleness.”
In reconsidering the four years which Byron spent at Harrow, while we can clearly trace the development of the
sensibilities of his character, and an increased tension of his susceptibility, by which
impressions became more acute and delicate, it seems impossible not to perceive by the records
which he has himself left of his feelings, that something morbid was induced upon them. Had he
not afterwards so magnificently distinguished himself as a poet, it is not probable that he
would have been recollected by his schoolfellows as having been in any respect different from
the common herd. His activity and spirit, in their controversies and quarrels, were but the
outbreakings of that temperament which the discipline of riper years, and the natural awe of
the world, afterward reduced into his hereditary cast of character, in which so much of
sullenness and misanthropy was exhibited. I cannot, however, think that there was anything
either in the nature of his pastimes, or his studies, unfavourable to the formation of the
poetical character. His amusements were active; his reading, though without method, was yet
congenial to his impassioned imagination; and the phantom of an enthusiastic attachment, of
which Miss Chaworth was not the only object (for it was
altogether intellectual, and shared with others), were circum-
stances
calculated to open various sources of reflection, and to concentrate the elements of an
energetic and original mind.
But it is no easy matter to sketch what may have been the outline of a young
poet’s education. The supposition that poets must be dreamers, because there is often
much dreaminess in poesy, is a mere hypothesis. Of all the professors of metaphysical
discernment, poets require the finest tact; and contemplation is with them a sign of inward
abstract reflection, more than of any process of mind by which resemblance is traced, and
associations awakened. There is no account of any great poet, whose genius was of that dreamy
cartilaginous kind, which hath its being in haze, and draws its nourishment from lights and
shadows; which ponders over the mysteries of trees, and interprets the oracles of babbling
waters. They have all been men—worldly men, different only from others in reasoning more
by feeling than induction. Directed by impulse, in a greater degree than other men, poets are
apt to be betrayed into actions which make them singular, as compared by those who are less
imaginative; but the effects of earnestness should never be confounded with the qualities of
talent.
No greater misconception has ever been obtruded upon the world as philosophic
criticism, than the theory of poets being the offspring of “capering lambkins and
cooing doves”; for they differ in no respect from other men of high endowment,
but in the single circumstance of the objects to which their taste is attracted.* The most
vigorous poets, those who have
* “The greatest poets that ever lived,” says the
tasteful
author of an
Introduction to the Greek Classic Poets,
“have, without exception, been the wisest men of their time;” and he
adds, “the knowledge of the mind and its powers—of the passions and
their springs—the love and study of the beautiful forms of the visible
creation, this it is which can alone teach a man to think in sympathy with the
great body of his fellow-creatures,
influenced longest and are most quoted, have indeed been all men of great
shrewdness of remark, and anything but your chin-on-hand contemplators. To adduce many
instances is unnecessary. Are there any symptoms of the gelatinous character of the effusions
of the Lakers in the compositions of Homer? The London Gazette does not tell us things more like facts than the
narratives of Homer, and it often states facts that are much more like
fictions than his most poetical inventions. So much is this the case with the works of all the
higher poets, that as they recede from that worldly standard which is found in the Epics of
Homer, they sink in the scale of poets. In what does the inferiority
of Virgil, for example, consist, but in his having hatched
fancies in his contemplations which the calm mind rejects as absurdities. Then Tasso, with his enchanted forests and his other
improbabilities; are they more than childish tales? tales, too, not in fancy to be compared
with those of that venerable dry-nurse, Mother Bunch.
Compare the poets that babble of green fields with those who deal in the actions and
passions of men, such as Shakspeare, and it must be
confessed that it is not those who have looked at external nature who are the true poets, but
those who have seen and considered most about the business and bosom of man. It may be an
advantage that a poet should have the benefit of landscapes and storms, as children are the
better for country air and enable him to draw back the veil which different manners and various costume
have spread over the unchangeable face of humanity. In this sense, it is not true
that
Homer and
Dante and
Milton were
learned in an extraordinary degree; but more than all
Shakspeare:
“On the tip of his subduing tongue,
All kinds of arguments and questions deep,
All replication prompt and reason strong,
For his advantage still did wake and sleep,
To make the weeper laugh—the laugher weep!”
and cow’s milk; but the true scene of their manly work and business
is in the populous city. Inasmuch as Byron was a lover of solitude, he was
deficient as an observer of men.
The barrenest portion as to materials for biography in the life of this
interesting man, is the period he spent at the University of Cambridge. Like that of most young
men, it is probable the major part of his time was passed between the metropolis and the
university. Still it was in that period he composed the different poems which make up the
little volume of The Hours of Idleness; a work
which will ever be regarded, more by its consequences than its importance, as of great
influence on the character and career of the poet.
It has been supposed, I see not how justly, that there was affectation in the
title. It is probable that Byron intended no more by it than
to imply that its contents were sketches of leisure. This is the less doubtful, as he was at
that period particularly sensitive concerning the opinion that might be entertained of his
works. Before he made the collection, many of the pieces had been circulated, and he had
gathered opinions as to their merits with a degree of solicitude that can only be conceived by
those who were acquainted with the constantly excited sensibility of his mind. When he did
publish the collection, nothing appeared in the style and form of the publication that
indicated any arrogance of merit. On the contrary, it was brought forward with a degree of
diffidence, which, if it did not deserve the epithet of modesty, could incur nothing harsher
than that of bashfulness. It was printed at the obscure market-town press of Newark, was
altogether a very homely, rustic work, and no attempt was made to bespeak for it a good name
from the critics. It was truly an innocent affair and an unpretending performance. But
notwithstanding these, at least seeming, qualities of young doubtfulness and timidity, they did
not soften the austere nature
of the bleak and blighting criticism which
was then characteristic of Edinburgh.
A copy was somehow communicated to one of the critics in that city, and was reviewed by him in the Edinburgh Review in an article replete with satire and insinuations calculated to prey upon the
author’s feelings, while the injustice of the estimate which was made of his talent and
originality, could not but be as iron in his heart. Owing to the deep and severe impression
which it left, it ought to be preserved in every memoir which treats of the development of his
genius and character; and for this reason I insert it entire, as one of the most influential
documents perhaps in the whole extent of biography.
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— . . .
Henry Peter Brougham, first baron Brougham and Vaux (1778-1868)
Educated at Edinburgh University, he was a founder of the
Edinburgh
Review in which he chastised Byron's
Hours of Idleness; he
defended Queen Caroline in her trial for adultery (1820), established the London University
(1828), and was appointed lord chancellor (1830).
Henry Nelson Coleridge (1798-1843)
The nephew and literary executor of Samuel Taylor Coleridge; he was a barrister and
reviewer for the
British Critic and
Quarterly
Review.
Dante Alighieri (1265-1321)
Florentine poet, the author of the
Divine Comedy and other
works.
Homer (850 BC fl.)
Poet of the
Iliad and
Odyssey.
John Milton (1608-1674)
English poet and controversialist; author of
Comus (1634),
Lycidas (1638),
Areopagitica (1644),
Paradise Lost (1667), and other works.
Mary Ann Musters [née Chaworth] (1785-1832)
The grand-niece of the Chaworth who was killed by “Wicked Jack” Byron; she was the object
of Byron's affections before and after she married John Musters in 1805.
Torquato Tasso (1554-1595)
Italian poet, author of
Aminta (1573), a pastoral drama, and
Jerusalem Delivered (1580).
Virgil (70 BC-19 BC)
Roman epic poet; author of
Eclogues,
Georgics, and the
Aenead.