The Life of Lord Byron
Henry Brougham's Review of Byron's Hours of Idleness
THE
LIFE
OF
LORD BYRON:
BY JOHN GALT, ESQ.
LONDON:
HENRY COLBURN AND RICHARD BENTLEY,
NEW BURLINGTON STREET.
1830.
“The poesy of this young lord belongs to the class which
neither God nor man are said to permit. Indeed we do not recollect to have seen a
quantity of verse with so few deviations in either direction from that exact
standard. His effusions are spread over a dead flat, and can no more get above or
below the level than if they were so much stagnant water. As an extenuation of this
offence, the noble author is peculiarly forward in pleading minority. We have it in
the titlepage, and on the very back of the volume; it follows his name like a
favourite part of his style. Much stress is laid upon it in
the preface; and the poems are connected with this general statement of his case by
particular dates, substantiating the age at which each was written. Now the law
upon the point of minority we hold to be perfectly clear. It is a plea available
only to the defendant; no plaintiff can offer it as a supplementary ground of
action. Thus, if any suit could be brought against Lord
Byron, for the purpose of compelling him to put into court a certain
quantity of poetry, and if judgment were given against him, it is highly probable
that an exception would be taken, were he to deliver for
poetry the contents of this volume. To this he might plead minority; but as he now makes voluntary tender of the
article, he hath
no right to sue on that ground for the price
in good current praise, should the goods be unmarketable. This is our view of the
law on the point; and we dare to say, so will it be ruled. Perhaps, however, in
reality, all that he tells us about his youth is rather with a view to increase our
wonder, than to soften our censures. He possibly means to say, ‘See how a
minor can write! This poem was actually composed by a young man of eighteen! and
this by one of only sixteen!’ But, alas, we all remember the poetry of
Cowley at ten, and Pope at twelve; and, so far from hearing with any
degree of surprise that very poor verses were written by a youth from his leaving
school to his leaving college inclusive, we really believe this to be the most
common of all occurrences;—that it happens in the life of nine men in ten who
are educated in England, and that the tenth man writes better verse than
Lord Byron.
“His other plea of privilege our author brings forward to
waive it. He certainly, however, does allude frequently to his family and
ancestors, sometimes in poetry, sometimes in notes; and while giving up his claim
on the score of rank, he takes care to remind us of Dr.
Johnson’s saying, that when a nobleman appears as an author,
his merit should be handsomely acknowledged. In truth, it is this consideration
only that induces us to give Lord Byron’s
poems a place in our Review, besides our desire to counsel him, that he do
forthwith abandon poetry, and turn his talents, which are considerable, and his
opportunities, which are great, to better account.
“With this view we must beg leave seriously to assure him,
that the mere rhyming of the final syllable, even when accompanied by the presence
of a certain number of feet; nay, although (which does not always happen) these
feet should scan regularly, and have been all counted upon the fingers, is not the
whole art of poetry. We would entreat him to believe, that a
certain portion of liveliness, somewhat of fancy, is necessary to constitute a
poem; and that a poem in the present day, to be read, must contain at least one
thought, even in a little degree different from the ideas of former writers, or
differently expressed. We put it to his candour, whether there is anything so
deserving the name of poetry, in verses like the following, written in 1806, and
whether, if a youth of eighteen could say anything so uninteresting to his
ancestors, a youth of nineteen should publish it:
Shades of heroes, farewell! your descendant, departing
From the seat of his ancestors, bids you adieu;
Abroad or at home, your remembrance imparting
New courage, he’ll think upon glory and you.
|
Though a tear dim his eye at this sad separation,
’Tis nature, not fear, that excites his regret;
Far distant he goes with the same emulation,
The fame of his fathers he ne’er can forget.
|
That fame and that memory still will he cherish,
He vows that he ne’er will disgrace your renown;
Like you will he live, or like you will he perish,
When decay’d, may he mingle his dust with your own.
|
“Now, we positively do assert, that there is nothing
better than these stanzas in the whole compass of the noble minor’s volume.
“Lord Byron should also
have a care of attempting what the greatest poets have done before him, for
comparisons (as he must have had occasion to see at his writing-master’s) are
odious. Gray’s Ode to Eton College should really have kept out
the ten hobbling stanzas on a distant view of the village and school at Harrow.
Where fancy yet joys to trace the resemblance
Of comrades in friendship or mischief allied,
How welcome to me your ne’er-fading remembrance,
Which rests in the bosom, though hope is denied.
|
“In like manner, the exquisite lines of Mr. Rogers, On a Tear, might have warned the noble author
of these premises, and spared us a whole dozen such stanzas as
the following:
Mild charity’s glow,
To us mortals below,
Shows the soul from barbarity clear;
Compassion will melt
Where the virtue is felt.
And its dew is diffused in a tear.
|
The man doom’d to sail
With the blast of the gale,
Through billows Atlantic to steer,
As he bends o’er the wave,
Which may soon be his grave,
The green sparkles bright with a tear.
|
“And so of instances in which former poets had failed.
Thus, we do not think Lord Byron was made for
translating, during his nonage, Adrian’s Address to his Soul, when Pope
succeeded indifferently in the attempt. If our readers, however, are of another
opinion, they may look at it.
Ah! gentle, fleeting, wav’ring sprite,
Friend and associate of this clay,
To what unknown region borne
Wilt thou now wing thy distant flight?
No more with wonted humour gay,
But pallid, cheerless, and forlorn.
|
“However, be this as it may, we fear his translations and
imitations are great favourities with Lord
Byron. We have them of all kinds, from Anacreon to Ossian; and,
viewing them as school-exercises, they may pass. Only, why print them after they
have had their day and served their turn? And why call the thing in p. 79 a
translation, where two words (θελο
λεγειν) of the original are expanded into four lines,
and the other thing in p. 81, where
μεσονυκτικις
ποθʹ ύραις is rendered by means of six
hobbling verses. As to his Ossian poesy, we are not very good
judges; being, in truth, so moderately skilled in that species of composition, that
we should, in all probability, be criticis-
ing some bit of
genuine Macpherson itself, were we to
express our opinion of Lord Byron’s rhapsodies. If,
then, the following beginning of a Song of Bards is by
his Lordship, we venture to object to it, as far as we can comprehend it;
‘What form rises on the roar of clouds, whose dark ghost gleams on the
red stream of tempests? His voice rolls on the thunder; ’tis Oila, the brown chief of Otchona. He
was,’ &c. After detaining this ‘brown chief’
some time, the bards conclude by giving him their advice to ‘raise his
fair locks’; then to ‘spread them on the arch of the
rainbow’; and to ‘smile through the tears of the
storm.’ Of this kind of thing there are no less than nine pages: and
we can so far venture an opinion in their favour, that they look very like
Macpherson; and we are positive they are pretty nearly as
stupid and tiresome.
“It is some sort of privilege of poets to be egotists; but
they should ‘use it as not abusing it’; and particularly one who piques
himself (though, indeed, at the ripe age of nineteen) on being an infant
bard—
The artless Helicon I boast is youth— |
should either not know, or should seem not to know, so much about his own
ancestry. Besides a poem, above cited, on the family-seat of the
Byrons, we have another of eleven pages on the selfsame
subject, introduced with an apology, ‘he certainly had no intention of
inserting it,’ but really ‘the particular request of some
friends,’ &c. &c. It concludes with five stanzas on himself,
‘the last and youngest of the noble line.’ There is also a
good deal about his maternal ancestors, in a poem on Lachion-y-Gair, a mountain,
where he spent part of his youth, and might have learned that pibroach is not a
bagpipe, any more than a duet means a fiddle.
“As the author has dedicated so large a part of his
volume to immortalize his employments at school and
college,
we cannot possibly dismiss it without presenting the reader with a specimen of
these ingenious effusions.
“In an ode, with a Greek motto, called Granta, we have the following magnificent stanzas:—
There, in apartments small and damp,
The candidate for college prizes
Sits poring by the midnight lamp,
Goes late to bed, yet early rises:
Who reads false quantities in Seale,
Or puzzles o’er the deep triangle,
Depriv’d of many a wholesome meal,
In barbarous Latin doomed to wrangle.
|
Renouncing every pleasing page
From authors of historic use;
Preferring to the letter’d sage
The square of the hypotenuse.
Still harmless are these occupations,
That hurt none but the hapless student,
Compared with other recreations
Which bring together the imprudent.
|
“We are sorry to hear so bad an account of the
college-psalmody, as is contained in the following attic stanzas
Our choir could scarcely be excused,
Even as a band of raw beginners;
All mercy now must be refused
To such a set of croaking sinners.
|
If David, when his toils were ended,
Had heard these blockheads sing before him,
To us his psalms had ne’er descended—
In furious mood he would have tore ’em.
|
“But whatever judgment may be passed on the poems of this
noble minor, it seems we must take them as we find them, and be content for they
are the last we shall ever have from him. He is at best, he says, but an intruder
into the groves of Parnassus; he never lived in a garret, like thorough-bred poets,
and though
he once roved a careless mountaineer in the
Highlands of Scotland, he has not of late enjoyed this advantage. Moreover, he
expects no profit from his publication; and whether it succeeds or not, it is
highly improbable, from his situation and pursuits, that he should again condescend
to become an author. Therefore, let us take what we get and be thankful. What right
have we poor devils to be nice? We are well off to have got so much from a man of
this lord’s station, who does not live in a garret, but has got the sway of
Newstead Abbey. Again we say, let us be thankful; and, with honest Sancho, bid God
bless the giver, nor look the gift-horse in the mouth.”
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— . . .
Anacreon (582 BC.-485 BC)
Greek lyric poet of whose writings little survives;
anacreontic
verse celebrates love and wine.
Abraham Cowley (1618-1667)
English royalist poet; his most enduring work was his posthumously-published
Essays (1668).
Thomas Gray (1716-1771)
English poet, author of “Ode on a Distant Prospect of Eton College,” “Elegy written in a
Country Churchyard,” and “The Bard”; he was professor of history at Cambridge
(1768).
Samuel Johnson (1709-1784)
English man of letters, among many other works he edited
A Dictionary
of the English Language (1755) and Shakespeare (1765), and wrote
Lives of the Poets (1779-81).
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).
Ossian (250 fl.)
Legendary blind bard of Gaelic story to whom James Macpherson attributed his poems
Fingal and
Temora.
Alexander Pope (1688-1744)
English poet and satirist; author of
The Rape of the Lock (1714)
and
The Dunciad (1728).
Samuel Rogers (1763-1855)
English poet, banker, and aesthete, author of the ever-popular
Pleasures of Memory (1792),
Columbus (1810),
Jaqueline (1814), and
Italy (1822-28).