The Life of Lord Byron
Chapter VII
CHAPTER VII.
Effect of the criticism in the Edinburgh
Review.—English Bards and Scotch
Reviewers.—His satiety—Intention to travel.—Publishes his
satire.—Takes his seat in the House of Lords.—Departs for Lisbon; thence to
Gibraltar.
The impression which the criticism of the Edinburgh Review produced upon the juvenile poet was deep and envenomed. It stung
his heart, and prompted him to excess. But the paroxysms did not endure long; strong volitions
of revenge succeeded, and the grasps of his mind were filled, as it were, with writhing adders.
All the world knows, that this unquenchable indignation found relief in the composition of
English Bards and Scotch Reviewers; a satire which, in many passages, equals, in fervour and
force, the most vigorous in the language.
It was during the summer of 1808, while the poet was residing at Newstead,
that English Bards and Scotch Reviewers was
principally written. He bestowed more pains upon it than perhaps on any other of his works;
and, though different from them all, it still exhibits strong indications of the misanthropy
with which, after quitting Cambridge, he became more and more possessed. It is painful to
reflect, in considering the splendid energy displayed in the poem, that the unprovoked malice
which directed him to make the satire so general, was, perhaps, the main cause of that
disposition to wither his reputation, which was afterwards so fervently roused. He could not
but
expect, that, in stigmatizing with contempt and ridicule so many
persons by name, some of them would retaliate. Nor could he complain of injustice if they did;
for his attack was so wilful, that the rage of it can only be explained by supposing he was
instigated to “the one fell swoop,” by a resentful conviction, that his impillory
in the Edinburgh Review had amused them all.
I do not conceive, that the generality of the satire can be well extenuated;
but I am not inclined to regard it as having been a very heinous offence. The ability displayed
in it is a sufficient compensation. The beauty of the serpent’s skin appeases the
aversion to its nature. Moreover, a toothless satire is verse without poetry—the most
odious of all respectable things.
But, without regard to the merits or delinquency of the poem, to the acumen of
its animadversions, or to the polish of the lines, it possesses, in the biography of the
author, a value of the most interesting kind. It was the first burst of that dark, diseased
ichor, which afterwards coloured his effusions; the overflowing suppuration of that satiety and
loathing, which rendered Childe Harold, in
particular, so original, incomprehensible, and antisocial; and bears testimony to the state of
his feelings at that important epoch, while he was yet upon the threshold of the world, and was
entering it with a sense of failure and humiliation, and premature disgust. For,
notwithstanding his unnecessary expositions concerning his dissipation, it is beyond
controversy, that at no time could it be said he was a dissipated young man. That he indulged
in occasional excesses is true; but his habits were never libertine, nor did his health or
stamina permit him to be distinguished in licentiousness. The declaration in which he first
discloses his sobriety, contains more truth than all his pretensions to his father’s
qualities. “I took my gradations in the vices,” says he, in that remarkable
confession, “with great promptitude, but they were not to my taste; for my early
passions, though
violent in the extreme, were concentrated, and hated
division or spreading abroad. I could have left or lost the whole world with or for that
which I loved; but, though my temperament was naturally burning, I could not share in the
common libertinism of the place and time without disgust; and yet this very disgust, and my
heart thrown back upon itself, threw me into excesses perhaps more fatal than those from
which I shrunk, as fixing upon one at a time the passions, which, spread among many, would
have hurt only myself.” This is vague and metaphysical enough; but it bears
corroborative intimations, that the impression which he early made upon me was not incorrect.
He was vain of his experiments in profligacy, but they never grew to habitude.
While he was engaged in the composition of his satire, he formed a plan of
travelling; but there was a great shortcoming between the intention and the performance. He
first thought of Persia; he afterwards resolved to sail for India; and had so far matured this
project, as to write for information to the Arabic
professor at Cambridge; and to his mother, who was not then with him at
Newstead, to inquire of a friend, who had resided in India, what things would be necessary for
the voyage. He formed his plan of travelling upon different reasons from those which he
afterward gave out, and which have been imputed to him. He then thought that all men should in
some period of their lives travel; he had at that time no tie to prevent him; he conceived that
when he returned home he might be induced to enter into political life, to which his having
travelled would be an advantage; and he wished to know the world by sight, and to judge of men
by experience.
When his satire was ready for the press, he carried it with him to London. He
was then just come of age, or about to be so; and one of his objects in this visit to the
metropolis was, to take his seat in the House of
Lords before going
abroad; but, in advancing to this proud distinction, so soothing to the self-importance of
youth, he was destined to suffer a mortification which probably wounded him as deeply as the
sarcasms of the Edinburgh Review. Before the
meeting of Parliament, he wrote to his relation and guardian, the Earl
of Carlisle, to remind him that he should be of age at the commencement of the
Session, in the natural hope that his Lordship would make an offer to introduce him to the
House, but he was disappointed. He only received a formal reply, acquainting him with the
technical mode of proceeding, and the etiquette to be observed on such occasions. It is
therefore not wonderful that he should have resented such treatment; and he avenged it by those
lines in his satire, for which he afterwards expressed his regret in the third canto of Childe Harold.
Deserted by his guardian at a crisis so interesting, he was prevented for some
time from taking his seat in Parliament; being obliged to procure affidavits in proof of his
grandfather’s marriage with Miss Trevannion, which having taken place in a private chapel
at Carhais, no regular certificate of the ceremony could be produced. At length, all the
necessary evidence having been obtained, on the 13th of March, 1809, he presented himself in
the House of Lords alone—a proceeding consonant to his character, for he was not so
friendless nor unknown, but that he might have procured some peer to have gone with him. It,
however, served to make his introduction remarkable.
On entering the House, he is described to have appeared abashed and pale: he
passed the woolsack without looking round, and advanced to the table where the proper officer
was attending to administer the oaths. When he had gone through them, the chancellor quitted
his seat, and went towards him with a smile, putting out his hand in a friendly manner to
welcome him, but he made a stiff bow, and only touched with
the tip of his
fingers the chancellor’s hand, who immediately returned to his seat. Such is the account
given of this important incident by Mr. Dallas, who went
with him to the bar; but a characteristic circumstance is wanting. When Lord Eldon advanced with the cordiality described, he expressed
with becoming courtesy his regret that the rules of the House had obliged him to call for the
evidence of his grandfather’s marriage.—“Your Lordship has done your duty,
and no more,” was the cold reply, in the words of Tom
Thumb, and which probably was the cause of the marked manner of the
chancellor’s cool return to his seat.
The satire was published anonymously, and immediately attracted attention;
the sale was rapid, and a new edition being called for, Byron revised it. The preparations for his travels being completed, he then
embarked in July of the same year, with Mr. Hobhouse,
for Lisbon, and thence proceeded by the southern provinces of Spain to Gibraltar.
In the account of his adventures during this journey, he seems to have felt,
to an exaggerated degree, the hazards to which he was exposed. But many of his descriptions are
given with a bright pen. That of Lisbon has always been admired for its justness, and the
mixture of force and familiarity.
What beauties doth Lisboa’s port unfold!
Her image floating on that noble tide,
Which poets vainly pave with sands of gold,
But now whereon a thousand keels did ride,
Of mighty strength since Albion was allied,
And to the Lusians did her aid afford.
A nation swoln with ignorance and pride,
Who lick, yet loathe, the hand that waves the sword
To save them from the wrath of Gaul’s unsparing lord.
|
But whoso entereth within this town,
That sheening for celestial seems to be,
Disconsolate will wander up and down,
’Mid many things unsightly strange to see,
For hut and palace show like filthily
|
The dingy denizens are reared in dirt;
No personage of high or mean degree
Doth care for cleanness of surtout and shirt,
Though shent with Egypt’s plague, unkempt, unwash’d, unhurt.
|
Considering the interest which he afterwards took in the affairs of Greece,
it is remarkable that he should have passed through Spain, at the period he has described,
without feeling any sympathy with the spirit which then animated that nation. Intent, however,
on his travels, pressing onward to an unknown goal, he paused not to inquire as to the
earnestness of the patriotic zeal of the Spaniards, nor once dreamed, even for adventure, of
taking a part in their heroic cause.
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.
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.
John Cam Hobhouse, baron Broughton (1786-1869)
Founder of the Cambridge Whig Club; traveled with Byron in the orient, radical MP for
Westminster (1820); Byron's executor; after a long career in politics published
Some Account of a Long Life (1865) later augmented as
Recollections of a Long Life, 6 vols (1909-1911).
Frederick Howard, fifth earl of Carlisle (1748-1825)
The Earl of Carlisle was appointed Lord Byron's guardian in 1799; they did not get along.
He published a volume of
Poems (1773) that included a translation
from Dante.
John Palmer (1769-1840)
Fellow of St John's College and Sir Thomas Adams Professor of Arabic at Cambridge
(1804-19).
John Scott, first earl of Eldon (1751-1838)
Lord chancellor (1801-27); he was legal counsel to the Prince of Wales and an active
opponent of the Reform Bill.