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                            LITERARY CAREER, AND INCLUDING VARIOUS UNPUBLISHED 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
 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.
 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—
 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:
 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
 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
 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
 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.
 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
 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
 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.”
 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
                        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.
 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:—
 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;
                        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
 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
 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.
 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.
 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:—
 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
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.
 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.
 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
 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:
 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
 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.
 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.