Recollections of the Life of Lord Byron
Chapter X
RECOLLECTIONS
OF THE
LIFE OF LORD BYRON,
FROM THE YEAR
1808 TO THE END OF 1814;
EXHIBITING
HIS EARLY CHARACTER AND OPINIONS, DETAILING THE PROGRESS OF HIS
LITERARY CAREER, AND INCLUDING VARIOUS UNPUBLISHED
PASSAGES OF HIS WORKS.
TAKEN FROM AUTHENTIC DOCUMENTS.
IN THE POSSESSION OF THE AUTHOR.
BY THE LATE
R. C. DALLAS, Esq.
TO WHICH IS PREFIXED
AN ACCOUNT OF THE CIRCUMSTANCES LEADING TO THE SUPPRESSION
OF LORD
BYRON’S CORRESPONDENCE WITH THE AUTHOR,
AND HIS LETTERS TO HIS MOTHER,
LATELY
ANNOUNCED FOR PUBLICATION.
LONDON:
PRINTED FOR CHARLES KNIGHT, PALL-MALL-EAST.
MDCCCXXIV.
CHAPTER X.
SUPPRESSION OF THE SATIRE AND HINTS FROM
HORACE.—FIRST SALE OF NEWSTEAD—
PROPOSED NOVEL.
Though flattery had now deeply inoculated him with its poison,
he was at first unwilling to own its effects even to himself; and to me he declared that he
did not relish society, and was resolved never to mix with it. He made no resistance
however to its invitations, and in a very short time he not only willingly obeyed the
summons of fashion, but became a votary. One evening, seeing his carriage at the door in
St. James’s Street, I knocked, and found him at home. He was engaged to a party, but
it was not time to go, and I sat nearly an
hour with him. He had
been reading Childe Harold, and continued to
read some passages of it aloud,—he enjoyed it, and I enjoyed it doubly. On putting it
down, he talked of the parties he had been at, and of those to which he was invited, and
confessed an alteration in his mind; “I own,” said he, “I begin to
like them.”
Holland House, on which so much of the point of his satire had been
directed, being now one of his most flattering resorts, it was no longer difficult to
persuade him to suppress his satirical writings. The fifth edition of “English Bards and Scotch
Reviewers” was now ready to issue from the press; the
“Hints from
Horace” was far advanced; and the “Curse of Minerva” was in
preparation. He had not listened to me fully; but he had begun not only to be easy at the
delay of the printing of these poems, but to desire that delay, as if he had it already in
contemplation to
be guided by the reception of Childe Harold’s Pilgrimage. Yet even after this was clear, he did not
immediately decide upon the suppression of them; till some of his new friends requested it.
Upon this, the bookseller who was to publish them, Cawthorn, was apprised of the author’s intention, and was desired to
commit the whole of the new edition of “English Bards and Scotch Reviewers,” to the flames; and the
carrying this into execution was entrusted entirely to him.
The expenses of the edition being defrayed, as well as those attending
the other poems that were also stopped in the press, and the bookseller having reaped all
the profits of the four preceding editions, he had literally no right to complain on this
subject; but as far as respects the right attached to expectations raised, he had, perhaps,
cause to think himself ill used. He had undertaken to publish what had been
refused by other publishers; had risked making enemies, and had not
neglected the publication entrusted to him. He ought to have had the advantages attending
the circulation of the author’s other works. I wished it, and proposed it. Lord Byron had been directed to Miller as the publisher in fashion; and from motives I have already stated,
Cawthorn was deprived of a patronage, which he
reasonably expected. He naturally felt sore, but endeavoured to submit with a good grace.
The suppression of the satire was gratifying to Lord Byron’s new
friends; but it had the effect of raising the value of the copies that could be obtained.
An Irish edition was circulated unadvertized, but it did not appear to renew animosity. He
was completely forgiven as the venomous satirist, and embraced as the successful poet of
the Pilgrimage. I must not omit to say that he had some
occasional doubts, or rather mo-ments of assumed modesty, as to the
merit of his new poem, in spite of its success. “I may place a great deal of
it,” said he, “to being a lord.” And again,—“I
have made them afraid of me.” There may be something in both these remarks,
as they regard the celerity of his fame, and the readiness of the “all hail,”
that was given to him; but the impression made by Childe Harold
on reiterated perusals, and the nerve of his succeeding works, leave not a moment’s
doubt of his success being indeed the just meed of his genius.
I was now to see Lord Byron in a new
point of view. The town was full of company, as usual in the spring. Besides the speech he
had made on the Frame-breaking Bill, he again attracted notice on the Catholic Question,
which was agitated warmly by the peers in the beginning of April. His name was in every
mouth, and his poem in every hand. He converted criti-
cism to
adulation, and admiration to love. His stanzas abounded with passages which impressed on
the heart of his readers pity for the miserable feelings of a youth who could express so
admirably what he felt; and this pity, uniting with the delight proceeding from his poetry,
generated a general affection of which he knew not the value; for while the real fruits of
happiness clustered around him, he neglected them, and became absorbed in gratifications
that could only tend to injure the reputation he had gained. He professedly despised the
society of women, yet female adulation became the most captivating charm to his heart. He
had not admitted the ladies of his own family to any degree of intimacy; his aunts, his
cousins, were kept at a distance, and even his sister had hitherto shared the like fate.
Among the admirers who had paid their tribute in prose or verse to the muse of the Pilgrimage, I have already mentioned one who
asked for an acknowledgment of the receipt of her letter. He had treated that letter
lightly, and said he would not answer it. He was not able to keep his resolution; and on
finding his correspondent to be a fine young woman, and distinguished for eccentric
notions, he became so enraptured, so intoxicated, that his tune and thoughts were almost
entirely devoted to reading her letters and answering them. One morning he was so absorbed
in the composition of a letter to her, that he barely noticed me as I entered the room. I
said, “Pray go on;” and sat down at one side of the table at which he was
writing, where I looked over a newspaper for some time. Finding that he did not conclude, I
looked at him, and was astonished at the complete abstraction of his mind, and at the
emanation of his sentiments on his countenance. He had a peculiar smile on his lips; his
eyes beamed the pleasure he felt from what was passing from his
imagination to his paper; he looked at me and then at his writing, but I am persuaded he
did not see me, and that the thoughts with which he teemed prevented his discerning any
thing about him. I said, “I see you are deeply engaged.” His ear was as little
open to sound as his eye to vision. I got up; on which he said, “Pray
sit.” I answered that I would return. This roused him a little, and he said,
“I wish you would.” I do not think he knew what passed, or observed
my quitting him. This scene gave me great pain. I began to fear that his fame would be
dearly bought. Previous to the appearance of Childe
Harold’s Pilgrimage, his mind had gained some important conquests over his
senses; and I also thought he had barred his heart against the grosser attacks of the
passion of vanity. If these avenues of destruction to the soul were again to be thrown open
by the publication of the poem, it were better that it had never
been published. I called upon him the next day, when I found him in his usual good-humour.
He told me to whom he had been writing, and said he hoped I never thought him rude. I took
my usual liberty with him, and honestly warned him against his new dangers. While I was
with him the lady’s page brought him a new
letter. He was a fair-faced delicate boy of thirteen or fourteen years old, whom one might
have taken for the lady herself. He was dressed in a scarlet huzzar jacket and pantaloons,
trimmed in front in much the same manner with silver buttons, and twisted silver lace, with
which the narrow slit cuffs of his jacket were also embroidered. He had light hair curling
about his face; and held a feathered fancy hat in his hand, which completed the scenic
appearance of this urchin Pandarus. I could not but suspect at the
time that it was a disguise. If so, he never disclosed it to me, and as he had hitherto had
no reserve with me, the thought vanished with the object of it, and I do not precisely
recollect the mode of his exit. I wished it otherwise, but wishing was in vain.
Lord Byron passed the spring and summer of 1812
intoxicated with success, attentions of every kind, and fame. In the month of April he
again promised me the letters to his mother as a
pledge that he would not part with Newstead; but early in the autumn he told me that he was
urged by his man of business, and that Newstead must be sold. This lawyer appears to have
had an undue sway over him. Newstead was brought to the hammer at Garraway’s. I
attended the auction. Newstead was not sold, only 90,000l. being
offered for it. What I remember that day affected me considerably. The auctioneer was
ques-
tioned respecting the title; he answered, that the title was
a grant from Henry VIII. to an ancestor of Lord
Byron’s, and that the estate had ever since regularly descended in the
family. I rejoiced to think it had escaped that day; but my pleasure did not last long.
From Garraway’s I went to St. James’s Street, when he told me that he had made
a private agreement for it with Mr. Claughton, for
the sum of 140,000l. I saw the agreement—but some time after
it turned out that the purchaser could not complete the purchase, and forfeited, I think,
20,000l., the estate remaining Lord
Byron’s. It has been since sold, I know not for what sum, as I was
abroad at the time; and my correspondence with Lord Byron had ceased.
It is a legal maxim that, “the law abhors a perpetuity.” I have nothing to say
against opening the landed property of the kingdom to purchasers who may be more worthy of
it than the sellers, but there are two considerations which cannot
but affect the mind of a thinking man. It disgraces ancestry, and it robs posterity. A
property bestowed, like Newstead, for deeds of valour and loyalty, is a sacred gift; and
the inheritor that turns it into money commits a kind of sacrilege. He may have a legal,
but he has no moral, no honourable right to divert the transmission of it from the blood
that gained it. I cannot but think that the reviewer in the Edinburgh Review, who speaks of Newstead, has overshot his
aim in ornamenting the abbey with the bright reflections of its possessor’s genius;
in a poet, imagination requires the alliance of soul; without both, no man can be a whole
poet. Lord Byron should have ate his daily biscuit with his cup of tea
to preserve Newstead. The reviewer’s remarks
arose from a perusal of the account
given of it by Walpole. I
will here insert the account and the critique:
“As I returned,” says Walpole,
“I saw Newstead and Althorpe; I like both. The former is the very Abbey. The
great east window of the church remains, and connects with the house; the hall entire,
the refectory entire, the cloister untouched, with the ancient cistern of the convent,
and their arms on: it has a private chapel quite perfect. The park, which is still
charming, has not been so much unprofaned. The present lord has lost large sums, and
paid part in old oaks; five thousand pounds of which have been cut near the house. In
recompense, he has built two baby forts, to pay his country in castles for damage done
to the navy; and planted a handful of Scotch firs, that look like plough-boys dressed
in old family liveries
for a public day. In the hall is a very
good collection of pictures, all animals; the refectory, now the great drawing-room, is
full of Byrons; the vaulted roof remaining, but the windows have new dresses making for
them by a Venetian tailor.”
On this the reviewer
remarks:—
“This is a careless, but happy description, of one of the noblest mansions in
England; and it will now be read with a far deeper interest than
when it was written. Walpole saw the seat of the Byrons, old, majestic and venerable; but he saw
nothing of that magic beauty which Fame sheds over the habitations of genius, and which
now mantles every turret of Newstead Abbey. He saw it when Decay was doing its work on
the cloister, the refectory, and the chapel; and all its honours seemed mouldering into
oblivion. He could not know that a voice was soon to
go forth
from those antique cloisters that should be heard through all future ages, and cry,
‘Sleep no more’ to all the house. Whatever may be its future
fate, Newstead Abbey must henceforth be a memorable abode. Time may shed its wild
flowers on the walls, and let the fox in upon the court-yard and the chambers. It may
even pass into the hands of unlettered pride or plebeian opulence—but it has been
the mansion of a mighty poet. Its name is associated to glories that cannot perish, and
will go down to posterity in one of the proudest pages of our annals*.”
This is rather a poetical effusion than a sober criticism. I have heard
that the purchaser means to remove the Abbey as rubbish, and to build a modern villa upon
its site. It may be as well for the Poet’s fame;
for though his genius might mantle every stone from the foundations
to the pinnacles, it would not cover the sale of it*.
About this time Lord Byron began, I
cannot say to be cool,—for cool to me he never was,—but I thought to neglect
me; and I began to doubt whether I had most reason to be proud of, or to be mortified by,
my connexion and correspondence with him.
The pain arising from the mortification in this change was little,
compared to that which I felt in the disappointment of my hope, that his success would
elevate his character, as well as raise his fame. I saw that he was gone; and it made me
unhappy. With an imagination, learning, and language to exalt him to the highest character
of a poet, his mind seemed not sufficiently strong to raise him equally high in the not
adventitious character of a great man.
* We are glad to learn that the present
proprietor of Newstead has expended a large sum upon its repair, with a
good taste worthy its high associations.
|
In the autumn he took a place in the country, near Lord * * *’s, where he again became absorbed
for a few months, and where he wrote his first dedication (a poetical one) of Childe Harold’s Pilgrimage.
In the beginning of the year 1813 he seemed to be a little recovered
from his intoxication. He lived in a house in Bennet-street, St. James’s, where I saw
him almost every day, by his own desire, and his kindness and attentions seemed
uninterrupted. I confess I suspected that the independence of my opinions had had some
effect upon his mind. I have the copy of a letter by me, written to him in the Autumn of
1812, (August 19th,) when he was going to the country-house he had taken, as I have just
mentioned; and which I will insert here as another proof of that independence:—
“You talked of going out of town in a few days; pray
remember to leave St. Simon’s
works for me. I will call again, but you may be gone—if so, I shall be
glad to hear from you. Wherever you are I most sincerely wish you happy; but
let me, with my old sincerity, add, that I am confident you are not at present
in the road of happiness. Do not hate me for this, for be assured that no man,
nor woman either, more sincerely wishes you the enjoyment of every good, than
does.
He again became satiated with praise and pleasure, and turned his mind
to composition. I was highly gratified, allowing it even to be flattery, at his
acknowledgment of being pleased with the novels I had written; and I was still more
flattered when he proposed to me to write one jointly. I thought the proposal made on a
transient thought; and was rather surprised, when I next saw him, to
receive from him two folio sheets of paper, accompanied with these words, “Now, do
you go on.” On opening the paper I read, “Letter I. Darrell to G. Y.” and found it to be the
commencement of a novel. I was charmed to find his intention real; but my pleasure, which
continued through the perusal, forsook me when I reflected on the impossibility of my
adopting either the style or the objects he had in view, as he dwelled upon them. I told
him I saw that he meant to laugh at me, but I kept the manuscript, though, at the time, I
had no intention of using it; however, in writing another novel, I was tempted to build a
very different structure upon it than was originally planned, and it stands the first
letter in my novel of Sir Francis
Darrell.
LETTERS.
“—— Darrell to G.
Y.
[The first part of this letter is
lost.]
“* * * * * * so much for your present pursuits. I
will now resume the subject of my last. How I wish you were upon the spot; your
taste for the ridiculous would be fully gratified; and if you felt inclined for
more serious amusement, there is no ‘lack of argument.’ Within this
last week our guests have been doubled in number, some of them my old
acquaintance. Our host you already know—absurd as ever, but rather
duller, and I should conceive troublesome to such of his very good friends as
find his house more agreeable than its owner. I confine myself to observation,
and do not find him at all in the way, though Veramore and Asply are of a
different opinion. The former, in particular, imparts to me many pathetic
complaints on the want of opportunities (nothing else being wanting to the
success of the said Veramore,) created by
the
fractious and but ill-concealed jealousy of poor
Bramblebear, whose Penelope seems to have as many suitors as her
namesake, and for aught I can see to the contrary, with as much prospect of
carrying their point. In the mean time, I look on and laugh, or rather, I
should laugh were you present to share in it: Sackcloth and sorrow are
excellent wear for Soliloquy; but for a laugh there should be two, but not many
more, except at the first night of a modern tragedy.
“You are very much mistaken in the design you impute
to myself; I have none here or elsewhere. I am sick of old intrigues, and too
indolent to engage in new ones. Besides, I am, that is, I used to be, apt to
find my heart gone at the very time when you fastidious gentlemen begin to
recover yours. I agree with you that the world, as well as yourself, are of a
different opinion. I shall never be at the trouble to undeceive either; my
follies have seldom been of my own seeking. ‘Rebellion came in my way
and I found it.’ This may appear as coxcombical a speech as
Veramore could make, yet you partly know its truth. You talk to me too of
‘my cha-
racter,’ and yet it is one which you
and fifty others have been struggling these seven years to obtain for
yourselves. I wish you had it, you would make so much
better, that is
worse, use of it; relieve me,
and gratify an ambition which is unworthy of a man of sense. It has always
appeared to me extraordinary that you should value women so highly and yet love
them so little. The height of your gratification ceases with its
accomplishment; you bow—and you sigh—and you worship—and
abandon. For my part I regard them as a very beautiful but inferior animal. I
think them as much out of their place at our tables as they would be in our
senates. The whole present system, with regard to that sex, is a remnant of the
chivalrous barbarism of our ancestors; I look upon them as grown up children,
but, like a foolish mamma, am always the slave of some
only one. With a contempt for the race, I am ever attached to the
individual, in spite of
myself. You know, that though
not rude, I am inattentive; any thing but a ‘beau garçon.’ I
would not hand a woman out of her carriage, but I would leap into a river after
her. However, I grant you
that, as they must walk
oftener out of chariots than into the Thames, you gentlemen Servitors,
Cortejos, and Cicisbei, have a better
chance of being agreeable and useful;
you might, very
probably, do both; but, as you can’t swim, and I can, I recommend you to
invite me to your first water-party.
“Bramblebear’s
Lady Penelope puzzles me. She is very
beautiful, but not one of my beauties. You know I admire a different
complexion, but the figure is perfect. She is accomplished, if her mother and
music-master may be believed; amiable, if a soft voice and a sweet smile could
make her so; young, even by the register of her baptism; pious and chaste, and
doting on her husband, according to Bramblebear’s observation; equally loving, not of her husband, though rather less pious, and t’other thing, according to Veramore’s; and, if mine hath any
discernment, she detests the one, despises the other, and loves—herself.
That she dislikes Bramblebear is evident;
poor soul, I can’t blame her; she has found him out to be mighty weak,
and little-tempered; she has also discovered that she
married
too early to know what she liked, and that there
are many likeable people who would have been less discordant and more
creditable partners. Still she conducts herself well, and in point of
good-humour, to admiration.—A good deal of religion, (not enthusiasm, for
that leads the contrary way), a prying husband who never leaves her, and, as I
think, a very temperate pulse, will keep her out of scrapes. I am glad of it,
first, because, though Bramblebear is bad,
I don’t think Veramore much better;
and next, because Bramblebear is ridiculous
enough already, and it would only be
thrown away upon
him to make him more so; thirdly, it would be a pity, because no body
would pity him; and, fourthly, (as Scrub says) he would then become a melancholy and
sentimental harlequin, instead of a merry, fretful, pantaloon, and I like the
pantomime better as it is now cast.
“More in my next.
“Yours, truly,
“—— Darrell.”
Anonymous,
“Dallas’s Recollections of Lord Byron” in Gentleman’s Magazine
Vol. 94 (November 1824)
Mr. DALLAS, the author of the
“Recollections,” has
soon followed the subject of his work to the “bourne whence no traveller
returns.” He was at the time of his death 70 years of age, and was personally
connected with the Noble Lord’s family, his sister
having married the father of the present Peer. These circumstances led, at one period of his
Lordship’s life, to a degree of intimacy; in the course of which Mr.
Dallas not only became one of his Correspondents, but was entrusted with the
duty of an Editor to several of his poems, and lastly was made the depositary of many of his
Lordship’s confidential letters to his mother and other persons. Whether those letters
were or were not intended by Lord Byron to see the light at
a future period, is a matter of some doubt. We confess we think they were; but his executors
have restrained their publication. A long “preliminary statement,” of 97 pages,
drawn up by the Rev. A. R. C. Dallas, son of the Author,
is occupied with the disputes between his father and the executors, who obtained an injunction
from the Court of Chancery against the publication of the Letters. We pass over this, and come
to the “Recollections.” . . .
Anonymous,
“Dallas’s Recollections of Lord Byron” in Gentleman’s Magazine
Vol. 94 (November 1824)
In our review of Capt.
Medwin’s book (p. 436), we have observed, that the publication of Childe Harold was
“the crisis of Lord Byron’s fate as a
man and a poet.” The present volume sets this truth in the strongest light;
but it adds a fact so extraordinary, that if it were not related so circumstantially, we
own we should hesitate to give it credence—this fact is, that Lord
Byron himself was insensible to the value of Childe Harold, and could with difficulty be brought to
consent to its publication! He had written a very indifferent paraphrase of Horace’s Art of Poetry, and was anxious to have it
published. . . .
Anonymous,
“Dallas’s Recollections of Lord Byron” in Gentleman’s Magazine
Vol. 94 (November 1824)
Childe Harold, with all its moral
faults, is beyond a doubt the great work of Lord Byron. No
one, after reading it, can deny him to be a Poet. Yet was this production the ruin of his
Lordship’s mind. “The rapidity of the sale of the Poem,” says Mr. Dallas, “its reception, and the elution of the
author’s feelings were unparalleled.” This elation of feeling was the
outbreaking of an inordinate vanity which had at last found its food, and which led him in the
riotous intoxication of his passions to break down all the fences of morality, and to trample
on everything that restrained his excesses. Mr. Dallas rendered him
essential service, by persuading him to omit some very blamable stanzas: and when he could not
prevail on him to strike out all that was irreligious, he entered a written Protest against certain passages. This protest, which is a very curious document, is
preserved in p. 124 of the volume before us. Probably Lord Byron grew
weary of such lecturing; for in a few years he dropped his intimacy with Mr.
Dallas, and fell into other hands, which only accelerated his degradation. . . .
Anonymous,
“Dallas’s Recollections of Lord Byron” in Gentleman’s Magazine
Vol. 94 (November 1824)
It certainly does appear that Mr. Dallas,
from the first to the last of his intimacy with Lord Byron,
did every thing that a friend, with the feelings of a parent, could do to win his Lordship to
the cause of virtue, but unhappily in vain. . . .
Anonymous,
“Dallas’s Recollections of Lord Byron” in Gentleman’s Magazine
Vol. 94 (November 1824)
The concluding chapter of this book is written by Mr. Dallas, jun. to whom his father on his death-bed confided the task of
closing these “Recollections.” This Gentleman’s
reflections on the decided and lamentable turn which the publication of Childe Harold gave to Lord Byron’s character, are forcible and just. . . .
[John Cam Hobhouse],
“[Review of Dallas and Medwin on Byron]” in Westminster Review
Vol. 3 (January 1825)
Since
Orrery wrote his defamatory life of Swift, and since Mr.
Wyndham published Doddington’s diary, in order to expose the author of that strange record of venality, we are not
aware that the friends or family of any writer have deliberately set down to diminish his
fame and tarnish his character. Such, however, has been the case in the work before us. We
do not mean to say that such was the first object in view by the author or authors of this
volume. No; their first object was the laudable motive of putting money into their purses;
for it appears upon their own showing, that Mr. R. C. Dallas, having
made as much money as he could out of lord Byron in his life time,
resolved to pick up a decent livelihood (either in his own person or that of his son) out
of his friend’s remains when dead. . . .
[John Cam Hobhouse],
“[Review of Dallas and Medwin on Byron]” in Westminster Review
Vol. 3 (January 1825)
But it appears that Mr. R. C. Dallas
could not wait for his money so long as was requisite, and that in the year 1819 he became
a little impatient to touch something in his life time: accordingly, in an evil hour, he
writes a long long letter to lord Byron, containing a debtor and
creditor account between R. C. Dallas and his lordship; by which, when
duly balanced, it appeared that said lord Byron was still considerably
in arrears of friendship and obligation to said R. C. Dallas, and
ought to acquit himself by a remittance of materials (such is
Mr. R. C. Dallas’s own word, in his own letter, as will be
seen by and by) to his creditor Mr. R. C.
Dallas. . . .
[John Cam Hobhouse],
“[Review of Dallas and Medwin on Byron]” in Westminster Review
Vol. 3 (January 1825)
The death of lord Byron, of
course, seemed at once to promise this settlement: no sooner had he heard it, than he set
about copying the manuscripts; he wrote to Messrs.
Galignani at Paris, to know whether they would “enter into the speculation” of publishing some very interesting manuscripts
of lord Byron; he set off for London; he sold the volume to a London:
bookseller, and “he returned without loss of time to
France.” His worthy son has told us all this himself, at pages 94 and 96 of his
volume, and has actually printed the letter his father wrote to Messrs.
Galignani, to show, we suppose, how laudably alert Mr. R. C.
Dallas evinced himself to be on this interesting opportunity of securing his
lawful property. The booksellers, also, performed their part; they announced the “Private Correspondence” of lord Byron for
sale; and, as it also appears by this volume, were so active as to be prepared to bring
their goods to market before lord Byron’s funeral. . . .
[John Cam Hobhouse],
“[Review of Dallas and Medwin on Byron]” in Westminster Review
Vol. 3 (January 1825)
They thought
differently of the publication of private letters; and Mrs. Leigh
desired Mr. Hobhouse one of the executors, to write
to Mr. R. C. Dallas to say, that she should think the publication, in
question “quite unpardonable,” at least for the present, and unless
after a previous inspection by his lordship’s family. Unfortunately for Mr.
Dallas, it appears, according to this volume, that Mr.
Hobhouse did not in this letter, state that he was lord
Byron’s executor; but merely appealed to Mr. R. C.
Dallas’s “honour and feeling,” wishing
probably to try that topic first; and thinking it more respectful to do so, than to
threaten the author with legal interference at once. . . .
[John Cam Hobhouse],
“[Review of Dallas and Medwin on Byron]” in Westminster Review
Vol. 3 (January 1825)
Mr. Dallas was resolved upon getting his money, and wrote a very angry
letter, not to Mr. Hobhouse but to Mrs. Leigh
(which, his prudent son has also printed), containing menaces not unkilfully calculated to
intimidate that lady, especially considering that she must have been at that moment
peculiarly disposed to receive any unpleasant impressions—her brother’s corpse
lying yet unburied. For an author and seller of Remains the time was
not ill chosen—by a gentleman and a man, another moment, to say nothing of another
style, might perhaps have been selected. But no time was to be lost; the book must be out
on the 12th of July, and out it would have been had not the executors procured an
injunction against it on the 7th of the same month, and thus very seriously damaged, if not
ruined, Mr. R. C. Dallas’s “speculation.” . . .
[John Cam Hobhouse],
“[Review of Dallas and Medwin on Byron]” in Westminster Review
Vol. 3 (January 1825)
Ninety-seven
pages of the volume are taken up with a statement of the proceedings in Chancery, which
were so fatal to the “speculation.” In this statement, which is written by
Mr. Alexander Dallas, the son of Mr.
R. C. Dallas, who died before the volume could be published, it may easily
be supposed that all imaginable hard things are said of those who spoiled the speculation.
The executors, and lord Byron’s sister, are spoken of in terms
which, if noticed, would certainly very much increase those “expenses” of which the Rev. Alexander Dallas so
piteously complains; for we doubt if any jury would hesitate to return a verdict of libel
and slander against many passages which we could point out in the preliminary
statement. . . .
[John Cam Hobhouse],
“[Review of Dallas and Medwin on Byron]” in Westminster Review
Vol. 3 (January 1825)
Lord Byron was taken into Scotland by his mother and
father, and Mrs. Leigh was left in England with her
grandmother, to whom her father had consigned her on condition that she should provide for
her. They were thus separated from 1789 until lord Byron came to
England; when thy met as often as possible, although it was not easy to bring them
together, as Mrs. Byron, the mother of
lord Byron, had quarrelled with lady
Holdernesse. For the intercourse which did take place, the brother and
sister were indebted to the kind offices of lord
Carlisle. . . .
[John Cam Hobhouse],
“[Review of Dallas and Medwin on Byron]” in Westminster Review
Vol. 3 (January 1825)
That lord Byron might have dropt an
unguarded opinion as to relationship in general is possible, though such an error is
nothing in comparison with the atrocity of coolly recording that opinion as if it had been
an habitual sentiment, which we say it was not. We say that it is untrue that lord Byron declaimed against the ties of
consanguinity. It is untrue that he entirely withdrew from the
company of his sister during the period alluded to. It is untrue
that he “made advances” to a friendly intercourse with her only after the
publication of Childe Harold, and only at
the persuasion of Mr. R. C. Dallas. Mrs. Leigh corresponded with lord Byron at the very time
mentioned, and saw in lord Carlisle’s house in
the spring of 1809; after which he went abroad, and did not return until July 1811. . . .
[John Cam Hobhouse],
“[Review of Dallas and Medwin on Byron]” in Westminster Review
Vol. 3 (January 1825)
We speak from the same authority, when we say that what is said of
lord Carlisle, though there was, as all the world
knows, a difference between his lordship and lord Byron,
is also at variance with the facts. . . .
[John Cam Hobhouse],
“[Review of Dallas and Medwin on Byron]” in Westminster Review
Vol. 3 (January 1825)
Such was Mr. Alexander
Dallas’s letter to Mr.
Hobhouse; and that he should, after writing such a letter, make a statement
which he knew the production of that letter could positively contradict, is an instance of
confidence in the forbearance of others such as we never have happened before to witness.
We beg the reader to compare the words in italics from Mr.
Dallas’s statement with the words in capitals from Mr.
Dallas’s letter—and then to ask himself whether he thinks
lord Byron’s
reputation, or that of his relations and friends, has much to suffer or
fear from such a censor as the Reverend Alexander Dallas. In the
Statement, he tells the world that Mr. Hobhouse is mentioned in
lord Byron’s letters in the enumeration of his suite; and,
in a remark, that lord Byron was satisfied at being alone. In the
letter, he tells Mr. Hobhouse, that “he (Mr.
Hobhouse) is mentioned throughout the whole of the correspondence with great
affection.” . . .
[John Cam Hobhouse],
“[Review of Dallas and Medwin on Byron]” in Westminster Review
Vol. 3 (January 1825)
It answered the purpose of the editor to
deal in the strongest insinuations against Mr. Hobhouse; but,
unfortunately, his father had, in the course of his correspondence with lord
Byron, mentioned that gentleman in very different terms—what does
the honest editor do? he gives only the initial of the name, so that the eulogy, such
as it is, may serve for any Mr. H * *. Mr. R. C.
Dallas’s words are, “I gave Murray your note on M * *, to be placed in the page with Wingfield. He must have been a very extraordinary
young man, and I am sincerely sorry for H * *, for whom I have felt an
increased regard ever since I heard of his intimacy with my son at Cadiz, and that they
were mutually pleased” [p. 165]. The H * * stands for
Hobhouse, and the M * * whom R. C. Dallas
characterises here, “as an extraordinary young man,” becomes, in the hands
of his honest son, “an unhappy Atheist” [p. 325], whose name he mentions,
in another place, at full length, and characterises him in such a way as must give the
greatest pain to the surviving relations and friends of the deceased. . . .
[John Cam Hobhouse],
“[Review of Dallas and Medwin on Byron]” in Westminster Review
Vol. 3 (January 1825)
We now come to the reverend gentleman’s father, and as the death of
lord Byron did not prevent that person from writing
what we know to be unfounded of his lordship, we shall not refrain, because he also is
dead, from saying what we know to be founded of Mr. R. C.
Dallas. In performing this task we are, most luckily, furnished with a list
of Mr. Dallas’s pretensions, by Mr. Dallas
himself, in the shape of a letter written by that person to lord Byron
in 1819, of which the Reverend Alexander Dallas has
thought fit to publish a considerable portion. To this letter, or list of Mr. R.
C. Dallas’s brilliant virtues, and benefits conferred upon
lord Byron, we shall oppose an answer from a person, whom neither
Mr. R. C. Dallas nor his reverend son had ever dreamt could appear
against them again in this world—that person is lord Byron
himself. For it so happens, that although his lordship did not reply to the said letter by
writing to the author, yet he did transmit that epistle, with sundry notes of his own upon
it, to one of his correspondents in England. The letter itself, with lord
Byron’s notes, is now lying before us, and we shall proceed at once to
cite the passages which lord Byron has commented upon, all of which,
with one exception, to he noticed hereafter, have before been given to the public. . . .
[John Cam Hobhouse],
“[Review of Dallas and Medwin on Byron]” in Westminster Review
Vol. 3 (January 1825)
Across these passages, opposite the words “saving you from
perpetuating the enmity,” lord Byron has put
“the Devil you did?” and over the
words “rapid retrograde motion” lord Byron has
written “when did this happen? and how?”
. . .
[John Cam Hobhouse],
“[Review of Dallas and Medwin on Byron]” in Westminster Review
Vol. 3 (January 1825)
We have now to mention that, Mr. R. C.
Dallas after the words which conclude his letter, as given by his son,
namely, these words: “but my present anxiety is, to see you restored to your
station in this world, after trials that should induce you to look seriously into
futurity.”—after these words, we find in the original letter the
following— . . .
[John Cam Hobhouse],
“[Review of Dallas and Medwin on Byron]” in Westminster Review
Vol. 3 (January 1825)
The upshot of this letter appears to be, to obtain my sanction to
the publication of a volume about
Mr. Dallas and
myself, which I shall not allow. The letter has remained and will remain
unanswered. I never injured Mr. R. C. Dallas, but did him all
the good I could, and I am quite unconscious and ignorant of what he means by
reproaching me with ungenerous treatment; the facts will speak for themselves to
those who know them—the proof is easy. . . .
[John Cam Hobhouse],
“[Review of Dallas and Medwin on Byron]” in Westminster Review
Vol. 3 (January 1825)
These persons, whose work, or rather, whose conduct we are reviewing, have tried all the
common topics by which they think they may enlist the sympathy of their readers in their
favour, to the prejudice of their illustrious benefactor. They have bandied about the
clap-trap terms of atheism, scepticism, irreligion, immorality, &c. but the good sense,
nay more, the generosity, the humanity, and the true Christian spirit of their
fellow-countrymen, will reject such an unworthy fellowship. They may weep over the failings
of Byron; but they will cast from them, with scorn and reprobation,
detractors, whose censure bears on the face of it, the unquestionable marks of envy,
malice, and. all uncharitableness. Can anything be more unpardonable, anything more unfair,
for instance, than for the editor of this volume (the clergyman) to take for granted, that
the Conversations of Medwin are authentic, though he himself has given an
example of two gross mis-statements in them, which would alone throw a doubt over their
authenticity; and upon that supposition to charge lord Byron with being sunk to the lowest
depths of degradation? What are we to say to this person who, at the same time that he
assumes the general truth of the Conversations, makes an
exception against that part of them, which represents lord
Byron’s dislike of the anti-religious opinions of Mr. Shelley? . . .
[John Cam Hobhouse],
“[Review of Dallas and Medwin on Byron]” in Westminster Review
Vol. 3 (January 1825)
If the author of “Aubrey” had but read, or had not forgotten lord
Byron’s preface to the second edition of English Bards and Scotch Reviewers, he would have spared us
all this fine writing, for that preface explains that “phenomenon of the human mind, for which it is difficult to
account,” and which this poor writer has accounted for so
profoundly. . . .
[John Gibson Lockhart],
“Lord Byron” in Blackwood’s Edinburgh Magazine
Vol. 17
No. 97 (February 1825)
The story of his having said to his mother, when he and Mr
Hobhouse parted company on their travels, that he “was glad to be
alone,” amounts to nothing; for who is he, and above all, who is the poet, who does
not often feel the departure of his dearest friend as a temporary relief? The man
that was composing Childe Harold had other
things to entertain him than the conversation of any companion, however pleasant; and we
believe there are few pleasanter companions anywhere than Mr Hobhouse.
This story, however, has been magnified into a mighty matter by Mr Dallas, whose name has recently been rather wearisomely connected with
Lord Byron’s. . . .
[John Gibson Lockhart],
“Lord Byron” in Blackwood’s Edinburgh Magazine
Vol. 17
No. 97 (February 1825)
Old Mr Dallas appears to have been an
inveterate twaddler, and there are even worse things than twaddling alleged against him by
Mr Hobhouse, in the article we have been quoting.
The worst of these, however, his misstatement as to the amount of his pecuniary obligations to
Lord Byron, may perhaps be accounted for in a way much
more charitable than has found favour with Mr Hobhouse; and as to the son,
(Mr Alexander Dallas,) we assuredly think he has
done nothing, but what he supposed his filial duty bound him to, in the whole matter. Angry
people will take sneering and perverted views of the subject matter of dispute, without
subjecting themselves in the eyes of the disinterested world, to charges so heavy either as
Mr Hobhouse has thought fit to bring against Mr A.
Dallas, or as Mr A. Dallas has thought fit to bring against
Mr Hobhouse. As for the song of which so much has been said, what is it, after all, but a mere
joke— . . .
[John Gibson Lockhart],
“Lord Byron” in Blackwood’s Edinburgh Magazine
Vol. 17
No. 97 (February 1825)
Dallas’s book,
utterly feeble and drivelling as it is, contains certainly some very interesting
particulars as to his feelings when he was a very young author. The whole getting up of the
two first cantos of Childe Harold—the
diffidence—the fears —the hopes that alternately depressed and elevated his
spirits while the volume was printing, are exhibited, so as to form a picture that all
students of literature, at least, will never cease to prize. All the rest of the work is
more about old Dallas than young Byron, and is
utter trash. . . .
Leigh Hunt,
Lord Byron and Some of his Contemporaries (London: Henry Colburn, 1828)
The only publications that contained any thing at once new and true
respecting Lord Byron were, Dallas’s Recollections, the Conversations by
Captain Medwin, and Parry’s and Gamba’s Accounts of his Last Days. A good deal of the real
character of his Lordship, though not always as the writer viewed it, may be gathered from
most of them; particularly the first two. . . .
Leigh Hunt,
Lord Byron and Some of his Contemporaries (London: Henry Colburn, 1828)
Dallas, who was a sort of lay-priest, errs from
being half-witted. He must have tired Lord Byron to death with blind
beggings of the question, and solemn mistakes. The wild poet ran against him, and scattered
his faculties. To the last he does not seem to have made up his mind, whether his Lordship
was Christian or Atheist. I can settle at least a part of that dilemma. Christian he
certainly was not. He neither wrote nor talked, as any Christian, in the ordinary sense of
the word, would have done: and as to the rest, the strength of his belief probably varied
according to his humour, and was at all times as undecided and uneasy, as the lights
hitherto obtained by mere reason were calculated to render it. . . .
Leigh Hunt,
Lord Byron and Some of his Contemporaries (London: Henry Colburn, 1828)
Now, the passage here quoted was quoted by myself, one of those
“atheists and scoffers,” according to Mr.
Dallas, by whom “he was led into defiance of the sacred
writings.” . . .
Pietro Gamba,
A Narrative of Lord Byron’s Last Journey to Greece (London: John Murray, 1825)
Again, in order to prove the difficulty of living with Lord Byron, it is said, that “When Mr. Hobhouse and he travelled in Greece together, they
were generally a mile asunder.” I have the best authority for saying, that
this is not the fact: that two young men, who were continually together and slept in the
same room for many months, should not always have ridden side by side on their journey is
very likely; but when Lord Byron and Mr. Hobhouse
travelled in Greece, it would have been as little safe as comfortable to be
“generally a mile asunder;” and the truth is, they were generally
very near each other. . . .
James Cawthorne (1832 fl.)
London bookseller who published Byron's
English Bards and Scotch
Reviewers (1809); he had a shop at 132 Strand from 1810-32.
Thomas Claughton (1774 c.-1842)
Educated at Rugby, he was a Warrington solicitor and MP for Newton, Lancashire (1818-25)
who agreed to purchase Newstead Abbey in 1812 and then paid the forfeit. He was the father
of Thomas Legh Claughton (1808-1892), bishop of St Albans.
Henry Richard Fox, third baron Holland (1773-1840)
Whig politician and literary patron; Holland House was for many years the meeting place
for reform-minded politicians and writers. He also published translations from the Spanish
and Italian;
Memoirs of the Whig Party was published in 1852.
William Hazlitt (1778-1830)
English essayist and literary critic; author of
Characters of
Shakespeare's Plays (1817),
Lectures on the English Poets
(1818), and
The Spirit of the Age (1825).
Lady Caroline Lamb [née Ponsonby] (1785-1828)
Daughter of the third earl of Bessborough; she married the Hon. William Lamb (1779-1848)
and fictionalized her infatuation with Lord Byron in her first novel,
Glenarvon (1816).
William Richard Beckford Miller (1769-1844)
Albemarle-Street bookseller; he began publishing in 1790; shortly after he rejected
Byron's
Childe Harold in 1811 his stock and premises were purchased
by John Murray.
Thomas Wildman (1787-1859)
Schoolfellow of Byron's at Harrow, purchaser and preserver of Newstead Abbey; he served
in the Peninsular War under Sir John Moore and was equerry to the Duke of Sussex.