Recollections of the Life of Lord Byron
Chapter XI
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LITERARY CAREER, AND INCLUDING VARIOUS UNPUBLISHED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 XI.
THE CORSAIR—CHARGE AGAINST LORD
BYRON
IN THE PUBLIC PAPERS.
I again enjoyed his friendship and his company, with a pleasure
sweet to my memory, and not easily expressed. He was in the habit of reading his poems to
me as he wrote them. In the spring of the year 1813, he read me the Giaour—he assured me that the verse containing
the simile of the Scorpion was imagined in his sleep, except the last four lines. At this
time, I thought him a good deal depressed in spirits, and I lamented that he had abandoned
every idea of being a statesman. He talked of going abroad again, and requested me to
keep in mind, that he had a presentiment that he should never
return. He now renewed a promise which he had made me, of concluding Childe Harold and giving it to me, and requested me to
print all his works after his death. I considered all this as the effects of
depression—his genius had but begun the long and lofty flight it was about to take,
and he was soon awakened to the charm of occasional augmentations of fame. It was some time
before he determined on publishing the Giaour. I believe not till
Mr. Gifford sent him a message, calling on him
not to give up his time to slight compositions, as he had genius to send him to the latest
posterity with Milton and Spenser. Meanwhile, he had written the Bride of Abydos. Towards the end of the year, his publisher
wrote him a letter, offering a thousand guineas for these two poems, which he did not
accept, but suffered him to publish them. He was so pleased with the
flattery he received from that quarter, that he forgot his dignity; and once he even said
to me, that money levelled distinction.
The American government had this year sent a special embassy to the Court
of Petersburgh. Mr. Gallatin was the Ambassador, and
my nephew, George Mifflin Dallas, was his Secretary.
When the business in Russia was finished, they came to England. My nephew had brought over
with him an American Poem. American
literature rated very low. The Edinburgh
Review says, “the Americans have none—no native literature we
mean. It is all imported. They had a Franklin
indeed; and may afford to live half a century on his fame. There is, or was, a
Mr. Dwight, who wrote some poems; and his
baptismal name was Timothy. There is also a small account of
Virginia, by Jefferson, and an Epic, by
Joel Barlow—and some pieces of
pleasantry, by Mr.
Irving. But why should the Americans write books, when a six weeks passage
brings them, in their own tongue, our sense, science, and genius, in bales and
hogsheads?*” Much cannot be said for the liberality of this criticism. Some
names, it is true, have been doomed by the spirit of ridicule to mockery; Lord Byron himself exclaims against both baptismal and
surname— To fill the speaking-trump of future fame! |
So when it suited his Satire, he split the southern smooth monosyllable of Brougham into the rough northern dissyllable of Brough-am: Beware, lest blundering Brough-am spoil the
sale, Turn beef to bannocks, cauliflowers to kail— |
Yet we know, that very unsonorous names have, by greatness of mind, by talents and
by virtues, been exalted to the highest pitch of admiration.
Pitt, and Fox, and Petty, owe their grandeur to
the men who have borne them. Tom Spratt, and
Tom Tickell, were English poets and celebrated
characters. President Dwight was no writer of poetry, but had he
written the Seasons, he would have been a far-famed poet in spite of his name being
Timothy; and the theological works which he has written, and of
which the Edinburgh Reviewer seems to be totally ignorant, will immortalize his name though
it were ever so cacaphonic. The reasoning is equally unintelligible, when the Reviewer
decides it to be sufficient for the Americans to import sense, science, and genius, in
bales and hogsheads. Might not the Americans as reasonably ask why the lawyers of Edinburgh
should write Reviews, when three days bring them, in the tongue they write in, all the
criticism of England, in brown-paper packages? Poetical genius is a
heavenly spark, with which it pleases the Almighty to gift some men. It has shone forth in
the other quarters of the globe—if it be bestowed on an American, the ability of
importing English and Scotch poems is no good reason why it should be smothered. The poem
which my nephew brought to England was one of those pieces of pleasantry by an American gentleman*. It was a burlesque of a fine poem of one of our most celebrated poets,
and as a specimen of a promising nature, it was reprinted in London. With this motive, only
the ingenuity of the writer was considered. It could not be thought more injurious to the
real Bard, than Cotton’s burlesque to Virgil; nor could the
American hostility to a gallant British
* The gentleman to whom it was attributed has since
distinguished himself in the literary world, and is now said not to be the author
of it. It was not denied at the time: the Americans in London ascribed it to him.
|
commander be suspected of giving a moment’s pain—at
least I did not think so.
I believe that the nature of this American poem was known to the proprietor of the Quarterly
Review. So far as it was a burlesque on the Lay of the Last Minstrel, I know it was; yet was he, as a publisher, so anxious
to get it, that he engaged Lord Byron to use his utmost
influence with me to obtain it for him, and his Lordship wrote me a most pressing letter
upon the occasion. He asked me to let Mr. Murray (who was in despair
about it) have the publication of this poem, as the greatest possible favour.
The following was my answer, dated Worton-House, December 19th,
1813:—
“I would not hesitate a moment to lay aside the kind
of resentment I feel against Mr. Murray,
for the pleasure of complying with the desire you so strongly express, if
it were in my power;—but judge of the
impracticability, when I assure you that a considerable portion of the poem is
in the
printer’s hands, and that
the publication will soon make its appearance. It has indeed been
morally impossible for me to do it for some time. I
think I need not protest very eagerly to be believed, when I say that I should
be happy to do what you could esteem a favour. I wish for no triumph over
Murray.—The post of this morning brought me a
letter from him.—I shall probably answer it at my leisure some way or
other.—I wish you a good night, and ever am,
In less than a fortnight, the current of satisfaction which had run thus
high and thus strong in favour of his publisher, ebbed with equal rapidity; and became so
low, that in addition to the loss of
this coveted American poem, the
publication of his Lordship’s future works had nearly gone into a different channel.
On the 28th of December, I called in the morning on Lord
Byron, whom I found composing “The Corsair.” He had been working upon it but a few
days, and he read me the portion he had written. After some observations, he said,
“I have a great mind—I will.” He then added, that he should
finish it soon, and asked me to accept of the copyright. I was much surprised. He had,
before he was aware of the value of his works, declared he never would take money for them;
and that I should have the whole advantage of all he wrote. This declaration became morally
void, when the question was about thousands instead of a few hundreds; and I perfectly
agree with the admired and admirable author of Waverly, that “the wise and good accept not gifts which are made in heat of blood, and which may be after repented
of*.” I felt this on the sale of Childe Harold, and observed it to him. The copyright of the Giaour and the Bride
of Abydos remained undisposed of, though the poems were selling rapidly; nor had
I the slightest notion that he would ever again give me a copyright. But as he continued in
the resolution of not appropriating the sale of his works to his own use, I did not scruple
to accept that of the Corsair; and I thanked him. He asked me to
call and hear the portions read as he wrote them. I went every morning, and was astonished
at the rapidity of his composition. He gave me the poem complete on New Year’s Day,
1814, saying, that my acceptance of it gave him great pleasure; and that I was fully at
liberty to publish it with any bookseller I pleased. Independent of the profit, I was
highly delighted with
this confidential renewal of kindness and he seemed pleased that I
felt it so. I must, however, own, that I found kindness to me was not the sole motive of
the gift. I asked him if he wished me to publish it through his
publisher.—“Not at all,” said he, “do exactly as you please;
he has had the assurance to give me his advice as to writing, and to tell me that I
should outwrite myself. I would rather you would publish it by some other
bookseller.”
The circumstance, however, lowered the pride of wealth; a submissive
letter was written, containing some flattery, and, in spite of an awkward apology,
Lord Byron was appeased. He requested me to let the
publisher of the former poems have the copyright, to which I of course agreed.
While the Corsair was in the press Lord Byron dedicated it
to Mr. Moore, and at the end of the poem he added,
“Stanzas
on a Lady weeping.” These were
printed without my knowledge. They no sooner appeared, acknowledged by his name in the
title page, than he was violently assailed in the leading newspapers, in verse and in
prose: his life, his sentiments, his works. The suppressed Satire, with the names of his new friends at length, was
re-printed, in great portions, in the Courier,
Post, and other papers. Among other things,
an attempt was made to mortify him, by assertions of his receiving large sums of money for
his writings. He was extremely galled—and indeed the daily-continued attempts to
overwhelm him were enough to gall him. There was no cessation of the fire opened upon him.
I was exceedingly hurt, but he had brought it upon himself, after having by his genius
conquered all his enemies. He did not relish the ecraser system, when it was turned upon himself; and he derived no aid
from those who had got him into the scrape. In the goading it
occasioned he wrote to me.
His feelings upon this subject were clearly manifested, but he expressed
himself in the kindest manner towards me; and though Mr.
Murray was going to contradict the statement made in the Courier and other papers, he desired that my name should not be
mentioned. Immediately on receiving Lord Byron’s
letter, I sat down to write one to be published in the morning-papers, and while I was
writing it, I received another note from him. It had been determined that Mr.
Murray should say nothing upon the subject, and Lord
Byron determined to take no notice of it himself. He therefore wished me not
to involve myself in the squabble by any public statement.
In the first of these letters it was very evident that Lord Byron wished me to interfere, though he was too delicate
to ask it; and in the second letter, nothing can
be clearer than
that he was hurt at the determination which had been taken, that his publisher should say
nothing. I therefore resolved to publish the letter I had written, but, at the same time,
to have his concurrence; in consequence I took it to town and read it to him. He was
greatly pleased, but urged me to do nothing disagreeable to my feelings. I assured him that
it was, on the contrary, extremely agreeable to them, and I immediately carried it to the
proprietor of the Morning Post, with whom I was acquainted. I sent copies to the Morning Chronicle and other papers, and I had
the satisfaction of finding the persecution discontinued. The following is the
letter:—
I have seen the paragraph in an evening
paper, in which Lord Byron is accused of “re-
ceiving and
pocketing” large sums for his works. I believe no one who knows him has
the slightest suspicion of this kind, but the assertion being public, I think
it a justice I owe to Lord Byron to contradict it
publicly. I address this letter to you for that purpose, and I am happy that it
gives me an opportunity, at this moment, to make some observations which I have
for several days been anxious to do publicly, but from which I have been
restrained by an apprehension that I should be suspected of being prompted by
his Lordship.
I take upon me to affirm that Lord Byron never received a shilling for any of
his works. To my certain knowledge the profits of the Satire were left entirely
to the publisher of it. The gift of the copyright of Childe Harold’s
Pilgrimage I have already publicly acknowledged, in the
Dedication of the new edition of my novels; and I now add my acknowledgment for
that of the Corsair, not only for the profitable part of it, but for
the delicate and delightful manner of bestowing it, while yet unpublished. With
respect to his two other poems, the Giaour and the Bride of Abydos,
Mr. Murray, the publisher of them,
can truly attest
that no part of the sale of those has
ever touched his hands, or been disposed of for his use. Having said thus much
as to facts, I cannot but express my surprise, that it should ever be deemed a
matter of reproach that he should appropriate the pecuniary returns of his
works. Neither rank nor fortune seems to me to place any man above this; for
what difference does it make in honour and noble feelings, whether a copyright
be bestowed, or its value employed in beneficent purposes. I differ with my
Lord Byron on this subject as well as some others; and
he has constantly, both by word and action, shown his aversion to receiving
money for his productions.
The pen in my hand, and affection and
grateful feelings in my heart, I cannot refrain from touching upon a subject of
a painful nature, delicate as it is, and fearful as I am that I shall be unable
to manage it with a propriety of which it is susceptible, but of which the
execution is not easy. One reflection encourages me, for if magnanimity be the
attendant of rank, (and all that I have published proves such a prepossession
in my mind,) then have I the less to fear from the most
illustrious,
in undertaking to throw, into its proper point of view,
a circumstance which has been completely misrepresented or misunderstood.
I do not purpose to defend the publication of the two stanzas at the end of the
Corsair, which has
given rise to such a torrent of abuse, and of the insertion of which I was not
aware till the Poem was published; but most surely they have been placed in a
light which never entered the mind of the author, and in which men of
dispassionate minds cannot see them. It is absurd to talk seriously of their
ever being meant to disunite the parent and the child, or to libel the
sovereign. It is very easy to descant upon such assumed enormities; but the
assumption of them, if not a loyal error, is an atrocious crime. Lord Byron never contemplated the horrors that
have been attributed to him. The lines alluded to were an impromptu, upon a
single well-known fact; I mean the failure in the endeavour to form an
administration in the year 1812, according to the wishes of the author’s
friends; on which it was reported that tears were shed by an illustrious female. The very words in the
context show the verses to be confined
to that one
circumstance, for they are in the singular number,
disgrace,
fault. What disgrace?—What fault? Those (says the verse) of not
saving a sinking realm (and let the date be remembered, March, 1812), by taking
the writer’s friends to support it. Never was there a more simple
political sentiment expressed in rhyme. If this be libel, if this be the
undermining of filial affection, where shall we find a term for the language
often heard in both houses of Parliament?
While I hope that I have said enough to show the hasty
misrepresentation of the lines in question, I must take care not to be
misunderstood myself. The little part I take in conversing on politics is well
known, among my friends, to differ completely from the political sentiments
which dictated these verses; but knowing their author better than most who
pretend to judge of him, and with motives of affection, veneration, and
admiration, I am shocked to think that the hasty collecting of a few scattered
poems, to be placed at the end of a volume, should have raised such a
clamour.—I am, Sir, your obedient Servant,
I was delighted, and Lord Byron was
pleased with the effect of my public letter. I passed a very pleasant morning with him a
day or two after it appeared, and he read me several letters he had received upon it.
The Corsair had an immediate and rapid sale. As soon as it was printed,
the publisher sent it to a gentleman of fortune and of talent, who supported his Review; informing him, at the same time, that he
had sold several thousand copies of the Poem on the first day.
In the original manuscript of the Corsair, the chief female character
was called Francesca, in whose person he meant to
delineate one of his acquaintance; but, before the Poem went to the press, he changed the
name to Medora.
Through the winter, and during the spring of 1814, he maintained an open
and friendly intercourse with me. I saw him very frequently.
In May he began his Poem of Lara; on the 19th I called upon him, when he read the
beginning of it to me. I immediately said that it was a continuation of the Corsair.
He was now so frank and kind that I again ventured to talk to him of
Newtead Abbey, which brought to his mind his promise of the pledge; and, on June 10, 1814,
after reading the continuation of Lara, he renewed the resolution of never parting with the
Abbey. In confirmation of this he gave me all the letters he had written to his mother, from the time of his forming the resolution to go
abroad till his return to England in July, 1811. The one he originally meant as a pledge
for the preservation of Newstead, is that of the 6th March, 1809. In giving them to me, he
said, they might one day be looked upon as curiosities, and that they were mine to do as I
pleased with.
I remained of opinion that Lara was
the Corsair disguised, or, rather, that Conrad was
Lara returned, after having embraced the life of a
Corsair in consequence of his crime. He had not determined the catastrophe when I left
him—I wrote and urged it. This was my letter on the subject:—
“The beauties of your new Poem equal, some of them
perhaps excel, what we have enjoyed in your preceding tales. With respect to
the narrative, the interest, as far as you have read, is completely sustained.
Yet, to render Lara ultimately as interesting as Conrad, he ought, I think, to be
developed of his mystery in the conclusion of the Poem. Sequels to tales have
seldom been favourites, and I see you are disposed to avoid one in Lara, but such a sequel as you
would make, with what you have begun, could not fail of success. Slay him in
your proposed battle, and let Calad’s
lamentation over his body discover in him the Corsair,
and in his page the wretched Gulnare. For
all
this gloom pray give us after this a happy
tale.”
He chose to leave it to the reader’s determination; but, I think,
it is easy to be traced in the scene under the line where Lara, mortally wounded, is attended by Kaled:—
“His dying tones are in that other tongue,
To which some strange remembrance wildly clung.
They spoke of other scenes, but what—is known
To Kaled, whom their meaning reached alone;
And, he replied, though faintly, to their sound,
While gazed the rest in dumb amazement round :
They seemed e’n then—that twain—unto the last
To half forget the present in the past;
To share between themselves some separate fate,
Whose darkness none beside should penetrate.”
Canto II. Stanz. 18
|
In the next stanza, also, he speaks of remembered scenes. In the 21st
stanza the sex of Kaled is revealed.—In the 22d
the reader is led to conclude that Kaled was Gulnare—though
“—that wild tale she brook’d not to unfold.” |
Lara was finished on the 24th of June, 1814.
He read it over to me, and while I was with him that day he made me a present of four proof
prints taken from Westall’s picture of him. He
also gave me the small engraving which was taken from the portrait painted by Phillips. These portraits combine all that depends upon
the pencil to transmit of personal resemblance, and all of mind that it can catch for
posterity or the stranger. The effect of utterance, and the living grace of motion, must
still be left to the imagination of those who have not had opportunities of observing them;
but the power with which no pencil is endowed is displayed by
the pen of Byron himself, and to this must these
pictures be indebted for the completion of their effect. I have seen him again and again in
both the views given by the artists. That of Mr. Phillips is simply
the portrait of a gentleman—it is very like; but the sentiment which appears to me to
predominate in it is haughtiness. If I judge aright, I am not the less of opinion, that
there is no error attributable to the pencil by which the sentiment was marked. I have seen
Lord Byron assume it on some occasions, and I have no doubt that
the feeling which produced it was a fluctuation from his natural, easy, flexible look, to
one ofntended dignity. Whether there be more of dignity or of haughtiness in the
countenance, as there expressed, I mean not to contend—it strikes me as I have
mentioned. But it is Westall’s picture that I contemplate at
times with calm delight, and at times with rapture. It is the
picture of emanating genius, of Byron’s genius—it needs not utterance, it
possesses the living grace of thought, of intellect, of spirit, and is like a sun beaming
its powerful rays to warm and vivify the imaginations and the hearts of mankind. From the
free and unlimited egress he permitted me to his apartments, I saw him in every point of
view. I have been with him when he was composing. Some of the additional stanzas of Childe Harold’s Pilgrimage, and many
lines of the Corsair, and of Lara, were composed in my presence. At his chambers in the Albany,
there was a long table covered with books standing before the fire-place: at the one end of
it stood his own easy chair, and a small round table at his hand; at the other end of the
table was another easy chair, on which I have sat for hours reading, or contemplating him;
and I have seen him in the very position represented in
Mr. Westall’s picture. I have already said that he gave me
four of the earliest impressions of the print taken from it. It brings him completely to my
mind. I have been in the habit of contemplating it with great affection, though sometimes
mixed with a sorrow for those opinions on which I found it impossible to accord with him,
and for those acts which incurred the disapprobation of the good and the wise; but never
did I look upon it with such sorrow as on the day I heard that he was no more.
I have little to add. Peace with France being concluded in the year
1814, I resolved on going to Paris, and thence to the South; but as I did not immediately
leave England, and Lord Byron returning to town, I had
an opportunity of seeing him again. I sat some time with him on the 4th of October, and
then took my leave of
him; and here I think our intercourse may be
said to terminate. While I was at Bordeaux, his marriage took place. Napoleon’s successful entry into Paris hurried me back
to England; and on my arrival in London I saw both Lord and Lady
Byron at their house in Piccadilly.
I think that for some years I possessed more of his affection than those
who, after the establishment of his fame, were proud to call him friend. This opinion is
formed, not only from the recollected pleasure I enjoyed, but from his own opinions in
conversation, long after he had entered the vortex of gaiety and of flattery; and from what
he read to me from a book in which he was in the habit of drawing characters;—a book
that was not to be published till the living generation had passed away. That book
suggested to me these pages: nor did I keep my intention a secret from him. In
the year 1819, I informed him that my posthumous volume was made up;
and I said:—
“I look into it occasionally with much pleasure, and
I enjoy the thought of being in company with your spirit, when it is opened on
earth towards the end of the nineteenth century, and of finding you pleased,
even in the high sphere you may then, if you would but will it now,
occupy—which it is possible you might not be, were you to see it opened
by the world in your present sphere. I do not know whether you are able to say
as much for your book; for if you do live hereafter, and I have not the
slightest doubt but you will, I suspect that you will have company about you at
the opening of it which may rather afford occasion of remorse than of pleasure,
however gracious and forgiving you may find immortal spirits. Of you I have
written
precisely as I think, and as I have found you;
and though I have inserted some things which I could not give to the present
generation, the whole as it stands is a just portrait of you during the time
you honoured me with your intimacy and friendship, (for I drop the pencil where
the curtain dropped between us,) and the picture is to me an engaging
one.”
If his affection, his confidence, nay I will boldly say his preference,
on difficult occasions, were but flattery or an illusion lasting for years, the remembrance
of it is too agreeable to be parted with at the closing period of my life, especially as
that remembrance is “accompanied with a recollection of my anxiety, and of my efforts
to exalt him as high in wisdom as nature and education had raised him on the standard of
genius. But it was no illusion; and at the very moment of his quit-
ting his country for ever, I received one more proof of his remembrance and of his
confidence. I had returned to the Continent. Whatever was the cause of the breach between
him and his lady, it appears to have been irreparable, and it attracted public notice and
animadversion. All the odium fell on him, and his old enemies were glad of another
opportunity of assailing him. Tale succeeded tale, and he was painted hideously in prose
and verse, and tittle-tattle. Publicly and privately he was annoyed and goaded in such a
manner, that he resolved to go abroad. On taking this resolution, he sent a note to my
son, who was then in London, requesting to see
him. He immediately waited upon him. Lord Byron said to
him, he was afraid that I thought he had slighted me; told him of his intention to go to
Switzerland and Italy, and invited him to accompany him. This invitation doubly pleased me: it showed that I still possessed a place in his memory and
regard; and I saw in it advantages for my son in travelling which he might not otherwise
enjoy; but, upon reflection, I was not sorry he did not avail himself of the opportunity,
and that the proposal fell to the ground.
Lord Byron left England in the year 1816, and I trace
him personally no farther. I continued to read his new poems with great pleasure, as they
appeared, till he published the two first cantos of Don Juan, which I read with a sorrow that admiration could not compensate. His
muse, his British muse, had disdained licentiousness and the pruriency of petty wits; but
with petty wits he had now begun to amalgamate his pure and lofty genius. Yet he did not
long continue to alloy his golden ore with the filthy dross of impure metal: whatever
errors he fell into, whatever sins lie at his door, he occasionally burst through
his impurities, as he proceeded in that wonderful and extraordinary
medley, in which we at once feel the poet and see the man: no eulogy will reach his
towering height in the former character; no eulogy dictated by friendship and merited for
claims which truth can avow, will, I fear, cover the—I have no word, I will use
none—that has been fastened upon him in the latter. The fact is, that he was like
most men, a mixed character; and that, on either side, mediocrity was out of his nature. If
his pen were sometimes virulent and impious, his heart was always benevolent, and his
sentiments sometimes apparently pious. Nay, he would have been pious,—he would have
been a Christian, had he not fallen into the hands of atheists and scoffers.
* * * * * *
* * * * * *
There was something of a pride in him which carried him beyond the
common
sphere of thought and feeling. And the excess of this
characteristic pride bore away, like a whirlwind, even the justest feelings of our nature;
but it could not root them entirely from his heart. In vain did he defy his country and
hold his countrymen in scorn; the choice he made of the motto for Childe Harold evinces that patriotism had taken root in his
mind. The visions of an Utopia in his untravelled fancy deprived reality of its charm; but
when he awakened to the state of the world, what said he? “I have seen the most
celebrated countries in the world, and have learned to prefer and to love my
own.” In vain too was he led into the defiance of the sacred writings; there
are passages in his letters and in his works which show that religion might have been in
his soul. Could he cite the following lines and resist the force of them? It is true that
he marks them for the beauty of the verse, but no less for the
sublimity of the conceptions; and I cannot but hope that had he lived he would have proved
another instance of genius bowing to the power of truth: Dim as the borrow’d beams of moon and stars, To lonely, wandering, weary travellers, Is reason to the soul.—And as on high Those rolling fires discover but the sky, Not light us here; so reason’s glimmering ray Was lent, not to assure our doubtful way, But guide us upward to a better day. And as those nightly tapers disappear, When day’s bright lord ascends our hemisphere; So pale grows reason at religion’s sight, So dies,—and so dissolves—in supernatural light. |
When I planned this book, it was my intention to conclude it with
remarks on the genius and writings of Lord Byron. Alas!
I have suffered time to make a progress unfriendly to the subject to which I had attached
so great an interest. Had
Providence vouchsafed me the happiness of
recording of him, from my own knowledge, the renovation of his mind and character, which
has been an unvaried object of my prayers, my delight would have supplied me with energy
and with spirits to continue my narrative and my observations. His genius and his writings
have already been widely and multifariously examined and acknowledged, but they will no
doubt be treated of in a concentered manner by an abler pen than mine; and I therefore the
more willingly relinquish this task. Of his course of life subsequent to his leaving
England, I will not write upon hearsay. However he may have spent some portion of the time,
the last part of it cannot but redound to his honour and his fame as a man; and he seemed
to me building in Greece a magnificent road for his return to his own country. Had he lived
and succeeded, one single word of contrition would have wiped away
all offences; and the hearts and the arms of his countrymen would have opened to receive
him on his arrival. They would have drawn him in a triumphal car from the coast to the
metropolis.
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. . . .
Joel Barlow (1754-1812)
Connecticut Wit educated at Yale College who wrote the epic
Vision of
Columbus (1787) and the mock-epic
Hasty-Pudding
(1796).
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).
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.
Princess Charlotte Augusta (1796-1817)
The only child of George IV; she married Prince Leopold of Saxe-Coburg in 1816 and died
in childbirth the following year.
Amos Simon Cottle (1768 c.-1800)
The elder brother of Bristol publisher Joseph Cottle; he was author of
Icelandic Poetry, or, the Edda of Saemund, translated into English Verse
(1797).
Charles Cotton (1630-1687)
English poet, translator, and friend of Isaac Walton; author of
Scarronides, or Virgile travestie (1664).
Alexander Robert Charles Dallas (1791-1869)
The son of Byron's relation R. C. Dallas; he served in the Peninsular War and at Waterloo
and was ordained in 1821; he was rector of Wonston near Winchester from 1828.
George Mifflin Dallas (1792-1864)
American statesman, son of Alexander James Dallas (1759-1817) and nephew of R. C. Dallas;
educated at Princeton, he was in Britain in 1813 as secretary to Albert Gallatin;
afterwards he was vice-president of the United States, 1845-59. Dallas Texas is named for
him.
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 Dryden (1631-1700)
English poet laureate, dramatist, and critic; author of
Of Dramatick
Poesie (1667),
Absalom and Achitophel (1681),
Alexander's Feast; or the Power of Musique (1697),
The Works of Virgil translated into English Verse (1697), and
Fables (1700).
Timothy Dwight (1752-1817)
Yale-educated American theologian and Connecticut Wit; author of
The
Conquest of Canaan (1788) and
Greenfield Hill
(1794).
Charles James Fox (1749-1806)
Whig statesman and the leader of the Whig opposition in Parliament after his falling-out
with Edmund Burke.
Benjamin Franklin (1706-1790)
American printer, scientist, writer, and statesman; author of
Poor
Richard's Almanack (1732-57).
Abraham Alfonse Albert Gallatin (1761-1849)
American statesman, born in Geneva; he was secretary of the treasury (1801-14), minister
to France (1816-23), and minister to Britain (1826-27).
William Gifford (1756-1826)
Poet, scholar, and editor who began as a shoemaker's apprentice; after Oxford he
published
The Baviad (1794),
The Maeviad
(1795), and
The Satires of Juvenal translated (1802) before becoming
the founding editor of the
Quarterly Review (1809-24).
Thomas Jefferson (1843-1826)
Governor of Virginia, President of the United States, founder of the University of
Virginia.
John Milton (1608-1674)
English poet and controversialist; author of
Comus (1634),
Lycidas (1638),
Areopagitica (1644),
Paradise Lost (1667), and other works.
Thomas Moore (1779-1852)
Irish poet and biographer, author of the
Irish Melodies (1807-34),
The Fudge Family in Paris (1818), and
Lalla
Rookh (1817); he was Byron's close friend and designated biographer.
John Murray II (1778-1843)
The second John Murray began the
Quarterly Review in 1809 and
published works by Scott, Byron, Austen, Crabbe, and other literary notables.
Emperor Napoleon I (1769-1821)
Military leader, First Consul (1799), and Emperor of the French (1804), after his
abdication he was exiled to Elba (1814); after his defeat at Waterloo he was exiled to St.
Helena (1815).
James Kirke Paulding (1778-1860)
American writer and associate of Washington Irving; he was a member of the Board of Navy
Commissioners (1815-23) and later secretary of the Navy (1838-41).
Thomas Phillips (1770-1845)
English painter who assisted Benjamin West, exhibited at the Royal Academy, and painted
portraits of English poets including Byron, Crabbe, Scott, Southey, and Coleridge.
William Pitt the younger (1759-1806)
The second son of William Pitt, earl of Chatham (1708-1778); he was Tory prime minister
1783-1801.
Edmund Spenser (1552 c.-1599)
English poet, author of
The Shepheards Calender (1579) and
The Faerie Queene (1590, 1596).
Thomas Sprat, bishop of Rochester (1635-1713)
The author of
The History of the Royal Society (1667) and “An
Account of the Life and Writings of Mr Abraham Cowley” (1668). He was dean of Westminster
(1683) and bishop of Rochester (1684).
Thomas Tickell (1685-1740)
Whig poet and contributor to the
Spectator and
Guardian; his translation of Homer led Pope to break with Addison.
Richard Westall (1765-1836)
English poet and illustrator who favored literary subjects and published a collection of
verse,
A Day in Spring and other Poems (1808).
The Courier. (1792-1842). A London evening newspaper; the original proprietor was James Perry; Daniel Stuart, Peter
Street, and William Mudford were editors; among the contributors were Samuel Taylor
Coleridge and John Galt.
Morning Chronicle. (1769-1862). James Perry was proprietor of this London daily newspaper from 1789-1821; among its many
notable poetical contributors were Coleridge, Southey, Lamb, Rogers, and Campbell.
Morning Post. (1772-1937). A large-circulation London daily that published verse by many of the prominent poets of
the romantic era. John Taylor (1750–1826), Daniel Stuart (1766-1846), and Nicholas Byrne
(d. 1833) were among its editors.
The Quarterly Review. (1809-1967). Published by John Murray, the
Quarterly was instigated by Walter
Scott as a Tory rival to the
Edinburgh Review. It was edited by
William Gifford to 1824, and by John Gibson Lockhart from 1826 to 1853.
George Gordon Byron, sixth Baron Byron (1788-1824)
Don Juan. (London: 1819-1824). A burlesque poem in ottava rima published in installments: Cantos I and II published in
1819, III, IV and V in 1821, VI, VII, and VIII in 1823, IX, X, and XI in 1823, XII, XIII,
and XIV in 1823, and XV and XVI in 1824.