Recollections of the Life of Lord Byron
Chapter III
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LITERARY CAREER, AND INCLUDING VARIOUS UNPUBLISHED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 III.
TAKING HIS SEAT IN THE HOUSE OF LORDS—SECOND EDITION OP THE
SATIRE—DEPARTURE FROM ENGLAND.
I now saw Lord Byron daily. It was about this time that Lord Falkland was killed in a duel, which suggested some
lines as the Satire was going through the
press. Nature had endowed Lord Byron with very benevolent feelings,
which I have had opportunities of discerning, and I have seen them at times render his fine
countenance most beautiful. His features seemed formed in a peculiar manner for emanating
the high conceptions of genius, and the workings of the passions. I have often, and with no
little admiration, witnessed these
effects. I have seen them in the
glow of poetical inspiration, and under the influence of strong emotion; on the one hand
amounting to virulence, and on the other replete with all the expression and grace of the
mild and amiable affections. When under the influence of resentment and anger, it was
painful to observe the powerful sway of those passions over his features: when he was
impressed with kindness, which was the natural state of his heart, it was a high treat to
contemplate his countenance. I saw him the morning after Lord
Falkland’s death. He had just come from seeing the lifeless body of
the man with whom he had a very short time before spent a social day; he now and then said,
as if it were to himself, but aloud, “Poor Falkland!”
He looked more than he spoke—“But his wife, it is she who is to be
pitied.” I saw his mind teeming with benevolent intentions—and they
were not abortive. If ever an action was pure, that which he then
meditated was so; and the spirit that conceived, the man that performed it, was at that
time making his way through briers and brambles to that clear but narrow path which leads
to heaven. Those, who have taken pains to guide him from it, must answer for it!
The remembrance of the impression produced on Lord
Byron by Lord Falkland’s death, at
the period I am retracing, has excited this slight, but sincere and just, effusion; and I
am sensible that the indulgence of it needs no apology.
The Satire was published
about the middle of March, previous to which he took his seat in the House of Lords, on the
13th of the same month. On that day, passing down St. James’s-street, but with no
intention of calling, I saw his chariot at his door, and went in. His countenance, paler
than usual, showed that his mind was agi-
tated, and that he was
thinking of the nobleman to whom he had once looked for a hand and countenance in his
introduction to the House. He said to me—“I am glad you happened to come in;
I am going to take my seat, perhaps you will go with me.” I expressed my
readiness to attend him; while, at the same time, I concealed the shock I felt on thinking
that this young man, who, by birth, fortune, and talent, stood high in life, should have
lived so unconnected and neglected by persons of his own rank, that there was not a single
member of the senate to which he belonged, to whom he could or would apply to introduce him
in a manner becoming his birth. I saw that he felt the situation, and I fully partook his
indignation. If the neglect he had met with be imputed to an untoward or vicious
disposition, a character which he gave himself, and which I understood was also given to
him by others, it is natural to ask, how he came by that disposition,
for he got it not from Nature? Had he not been left early to himself, or rather to
dangerous guides and companions, would he have contracted that disposition? Or even, had
nature been cross, might it not have been rectified? During his long minority, ought not
his heart and his intellect to have been trained to the situation he was to fill? Ought he
not to have been saved from money-lenders, and men of business? And ought not a shield to
have been placed over a mind so open to impressions, to protect it from self-sufficient
freethinkers, and witty sophs? The wonder is, not that he should have erred, but that he
should have broken through the cloud that enveloped him, which was dispersed solely by the
rays of his own genius.
After some talk about the Satire, the last sheets of which were in the press, I accompanied Lord Byron to the House. He
was received
in one of the antechambers by some of the officers in attendance, with whom he settled
respecting the fees he had to pay. One of them went to apprize the Lord Chancellor of his
being there, and soon returned for him. There were very few persons in the House. Lord Eldon was going through some ordinary business. When
Lord Byron entered, I thought he looked still paler than before;
and he certainly wore a countenance in which mortification was mingled with, but subdued
by, indignation. He passed the woolsack without looking round, and advanced to the table
where the proper officer was attending to administer the oaths. When he had gone through
them, the Chancellor quitted his seat, and went towards him with a smile, putting out his
hand warmly to welcome him; and, though I did not catch his words, I saw that he paid him
some compliment. This was all thrown away upon
Lord Byron, who made a stiff bow, and put the tips of his fingers into
a hand, the amiable offer of which demanded the whole of his. I was sorry to see this, for
Lord Eldon’s character is great for virtue, as well as talent; and, even in a
political point of view, it would have given me inexpressible pleasure to have seen him
uniting heartily with him. The Chancellor did not press a welcome so received, but resumed
his seat; while Lord Byron carelessly seated himself for a few minutes
on one of the empty benches to the left of the throne, usually occupied by the Lords in
opposition. When, on his joining me, I expressed what I had felt, he said: “If I
had shaken hands heartily, he would have set me down for one of his party—but I
will have nothing to do with any of them, on either side; I have taken my seat, and now
I will go abroad.” We returned to St. James’s-street, but he did not
recover his spirits. The going abroad was a plan on which his
thoughts had turned for some time; I did not, however, consider it as determined, or so
near at hand as it proved. In a few days he left town for Newstead Abbey, after seeing the
last proof of the Satire, and writing a short preface to the Poem. In a few weeks I had the
pleasure of sending him an account of its success, in the following letter, dated April 11,
1809:
“The essence of what I have to say was comprised in
the few lines I wrote to you in the cover of my letter to Mr. H * *. Your Satire has had a
rapid sale, and the publisher thinks the edition will soon be out. However,
what I have to repeat to you is a legitimate source of pleasure, and I request
you will receive it as the tribute of genuine praise.
In the first place, notwithstanding our precautions, you are
already pretty generally
known to be the author. So
Cawthorn tells me; and a proof
occurred to myself at
Hatchard’s,
the Queen’s Bookseller. On inquiring for the
Satire, he told me that he had sold a great
many, and had none left, and was going to send for more, which I afterwards
found he did. I asked who was the author? He said it was believed to be
Lord Byron’s. Did
he believe it? Yes, he did. On asking the ground of his
belief, he told me that a lady of distinction had, without hesitation, asked
for it as Lord Byron’s Satire. He likewise informed
me that he had inquired of
Mr. Gifford,
who frequents his shop, whether it was yours. Mr. Gifford
denied any knowledge of the author, but spoke very highly of it, and said a
copy had been sent to him. Hatchard assured me that all
who came to his reading-room admired it. Cawthorn tells me
it is universally well-spoken of, not only among his own customers, but
generally at
all the booksellers’. I heard it
highly praised at my own publishers’, where I have lately called several
times. At
Phillips’s it was read
aloud by
Pratt to a circle of literary
guests, who were unanimous in their applause:—The
Antijacobin, as well as
the
Gentleman’s
Magazine, has already blown the trump of fame for you. We
shall see it in the other Reviews next month, and probably in some severely
handled, according to the connexions of the proprietors and editors with those
whom it lashes. I shall not repeat my own opinion to you; but I will repeat the
request I once made to you,
never to consider me as a
flatterer. Were you a monarch, and had conferred on me the most
munificent favours, such an opinion of me would be a signal of retreat, if not
of ingratitude: but if you think me sincere, and like me to be candid, I shall
delight in your fame, and be happy in your friendship.”
The success of the Satire
brought him quickly to town. He found the edition almost exhausted, and began the
preparations for another, to which he determined to prefix his name. I saw him constantly;
and in about a fortnight found the Poem completely metamorphosed, and augmented nearly four
hundred lines, but retaining the whole of the first impression. He happily seized on some
of the vices which at that juncture obtruded themselves on the public notice, and added
some new characters to the list of authors with censure or applause. Among those who
received the meed of praise, it gave me great pleasure to find my excellent friend
Waller Rodwell Wright, whose poem “Horæ Ionicæ,” was just
published*. He allowed me to take home with me his manuscripts as he wrote them;
* Mr. Wright was, at that
time, Recorder of Bury St. Edmunds; and is now in a high judicial situation at
Malta. |
and so soon as the 10th of May I had a note from him, urging that
they should to be sent to the press. He was desirous of hastening the new edition in order
that he might see the last proofs before he left England; for, during his stay at Newstead
Abbey, he had arranged with Mr. Hobhouse his plan of
going abroad early in June, but whither, I believe, was not exactly settled; for he
sometimes talked to me of crossing the line, sometimes of Persia and India. As I perceived
the new edition not only concluded in a most bitter strain, and contained besides a prose
postscript in which I thought he allowed his feelings to carry him to an excess of abuse
and defiance that looked more like the vaunting ebullition of “Some fiery youth of new commission vain Who sleeps on brambles till he kills his man,” |
than the dignified revenge of genius, I en-deavoured to prevail
upon him to suppress or alter it, as the proofs which I corrected passed my hands, but was
only able to obtain some modification of his expressions. The following letter, which was
the last that I wrote to him respecting the Satire before he left England, will show how
strenuous I was on this point, and also the liberty which he allowed me to take:
“Not being certain that I shall see you to-day, I
write to tell you that I am angry with myself on finding that I have more
deference for form, than friendship for the author of ‘English Bards and Scotch Reviewers.’ The
latter prompted me to tear the concluding pages, left at Cawthorn’s; the former withheld me, and
I was weak enough to leave the lines to go to the printer. You have been so
kind as to sacrifice some lines to me before. I be-
seech
you to sacrifice these, for in every respect they injure the Poem, they injure
you, and are pregnant with what you do not mean. I
will
not let you print them. I am going to dine in St. James’s-place
to-day at five o’clock, and in the hope of having a battle with you, I
will be in St. James’s-street about four.”
Very soon after this the Satire appeared in its new form, but too late for its author to enjoy his
additional laurels before he left England. I was with him almost every day while he
remained in London. Misanthropy, disgust of life leading to scepticism and impiety,
prevailed in his heart and embittered his existence. He had for some time past been grossly
attacked in several low publications, which he bore however with more temper than he did
the blind headlong assault on his genius by the Edinburgh Review. Unaccustomed to fe-
male society, he at
once dreaded and abhorred it; and spoke of women, such I mean as he neither dreaded nor
abhorred, more as playthings than companions. As for domestic happiness he had no idea of
it. “A large family,” he said, “appeared like opposite ingredients
mixed perforce in the same salad, and he never relished the composition.”
Unfortunately, having never mingled in family circles, he knew nothing of them; and, from
being at first left out of them by his relations, he was so completely disgusted that he
avoided them, especially the female part. “I consider,” said he,
“collateral ties as the work of prejudice, and not the bond of the heart, which
must choose for itself unshackled.” It was in vain for me to argue that the
nursery, and a similarity of pursuits and enjoyments in early life, are the best
foundations of friendship and of love; and that to choose freely, the knowledge of home was
as requisite as that of wider circles. In those wider circles he had
found no friend, and but few companions, whom he used to receive with an assumed gaiety,
but real indifference at his heart, and spoke of with little regard, sometimes with
sarcasm. He used to talk of one young man, who had been his school-fellow, with an
affection which he flattered himself was returned. I occasionally met this friend at his
apartments, before his last excursion to Newstead. Their portraits, by capital painters,
were elegantly framed, and surmounted with their respective coronets, to be exchanged.
However, whether taught by ladies in revenge to neglect Lord
Byron, or actuated by a frivolous inconstancy, he gradually lessened the
number of his calls and their duration. Of this, however, Lord Byron
made no complaint, till the very day I went to take my leave of him, which was the one
previous to his departure. I found him bursting with indignation.
“Will you believe it,” said he, “I have just met * * *, and asked him to come and sit an hour
with me; he excused himself; and what do you think was his excuse? He was engaged with
his mother and some ladies to go shopping! And he knows I set out to-morrow, to be
absent for years, perhaps never to return! Friendship!—I do not believe I shall
leave behind me, yourself and family excepted, and perhaps my mother, a single being
who will care what becomes of me.”
At this period of his life his mind was full of bitter discontent. Already
satiated with pleasure, and disgusted with those companions who have no other resource, he
had resolved on mastering his appetites; he broke up his harams; and he reduced his palate
to a diet the most simple and abstemious; but the passions of the heart were too mighty,
nor did it ever enter his mind to
overcome them: resentment, anger, and hatred held full sway over him, and his greatest
gratification at that time was in overcharging his pen with gall, which flowed in every
direction against individuals, his country, the world, the universe, creation, and the
Creator. He might have become, he ought to have been, a different creature; and he but too
well accounts for the unfortunate bias of his disposition in the following lines:— E’en I—least thinking of a thoughtless throng, Just skill’d to know the right and choose the wrong, Freed at that age when Reason’s shield is lost, To fight my course through Passion’s countless host; Whom every path of Pleasure’s flowery way Has lured in turn, and all have led astray. |
I took leave of him on the 10th of June, 1809, and he left London the next morning:
his objects were still unsettled; but he wished to hear from me particularly on the subject
of the Satire, and promised to inform me how to direct to him when he
could so with certainty;—it was, however, long before I heard from him. After some
time I wrote to him; directing, at a chance, to Malta, informing him of the success of his
Poem.
Leaving England with a soured mind, disclaiming all attachments, and even
belief in the existence of friendship, it will be no wonder if it shall be found that
Lord Byron, during the period of his absence, kept
up little correspondence with any persons in England. A letter, dated at Constantinople, is
the only one I received from him, till he was approaching the shores of England in the
Volage frigate. To his mother he wrote by every
opportunity. Upon her death, which happened very soon after his arrival, and before he saw
her, I was conversing with him about Newstead, and expressing my hope that he would never
be persuaded to part with it; he assured me
he would not, and
promised to give me a letter which he had written to his mother to that effect, as a pledge
that he never would. His letters to her being at Newstead, it was some time before he
performed his promise; but in doing it he made me a present of all his letters to her on
his leaving England and during his absence; saying, as he put them into my hands,
“Some day or other they will be curiosities.” They are written in an
easy style, and if they do not contain all that is to be expected from a traveller, what
they do contain of that nature is pleasant; and they strongly mark the character of the
writer.
Anonymous,
“Dallas’s Recollections of Lord Byron” in Gentleman’s Magazine
Vol. 94 (November 1824)
Mr. DALLAS, the author of the
“Recollections,” has
soon followed the subject of his work to the “bourne whence no traveller
returns.” He was at the time of his death 70 years of age, and was personally
connected with the Noble Lord’s family, his sister
having married the father of the present Peer. These circumstances led, at one period of his
Lordship’s life, to a degree of intimacy; in the course of which Mr.
Dallas not only became one of his Correspondents, but was entrusted with the
duty of an Editor to several of his poems, and lastly was made the depositary of many of his
Lordship’s confidential letters to his mother and other persons. Whether those letters
were or were not intended by Lord Byron to see the light at
a future period, is a matter of some doubt. We confess we think they were; but his executors
have restrained their publication. A long “preliminary statement,” of 97 pages,
drawn up by the Rev. A. R. C. Dallas, son of the Author,
is occupied with the disputes between his father and the executors, who obtained an injunction
from the Court of Chancery against the publication of the Letters. We pass over this, and come
to the “Recollections.” . . .
Anonymous,
“Dallas’s Recollections of Lord Byron” in Gentleman’s Magazine
Vol. 94 (November 1824)
In our review of Capt.
Medwin’s book (p. 436), we have observed, that the publication of Childe Harold was
“the crisis of Lord Byron’s fate as a
man and a poet.” The present volume sets this truth in the strongest light;
but it adds a fact so extraordinary, that if it were not related so circumstantially, we
own we should hesitate to give it credence—this fact is, that Lord
Byron himself was insensible to the value of Childe Harold, and could with difficulty be brought to
consent to its publication! He had written a very indifferent paraphrase of Horace’s Art of Poetry, and was anxious to have it
published. . . .
Anonymous,
“Dallas’s Recollections of Lord Byron” in Gentleman’s Magazine
Vol. 94 (November 1824)
Childe Harold, with all its moral
faults, is beyond a doubt the great work of Lord Byron. No
one, after reading it, can deny him to be a Poet. Yet was this production the ruin of his
Lordship’s mind. “The rapidity of the sale of the Poem,” says Mr. Dallas, “its reception, and the elution of the
author’s feelings were unparalleled.” This elation of feeling was the
outbreaking of an inordinate vanity which had at last found its food, and which led him in the
riotous intoxication of his passions to break down all the fences of morality, and to trample
on everything that restrained his excesses. Mr. Dallas rendered him
essential service, by persuading him to omit some very blamable stanzas: and when he could not
prevail on him to strike out all that was irreligious, he entered a written Protest against certain passages. This protest, which is a very curious document, is
preserved in p. 124 of the volume before us. Probably Lord Byron grew
weary of such lecturing; for in a few years he dropped his intimacy with Mr.
Dallas, and fell into other hands, which only accelerated his degradation. . . .
Anonymous,
“Dallas’s Recollections of Lord Byron” in Gentleman’s Magazine
Vol. 94 (November 1824)
It certainly does appear that Mr. Dallas,
from the first to the last of his intimacy with Lord Byron,
did every thing that a friend, with the feelings of a parent, could do to win his Lordship to
the cause of virtue, but unhappily in vain. . . .
Anonymous,
“Dallas’s Recollections of Lord Byron” in Gentleman’s Magazine
Vol. 94 (November 1824)
The concluding chapter of this book is written by Mr. Dallas, jun. to whom his father on his death-bed confided the task of
closing these “Recollections.” This Gentleman’s
reflections on the decided and lamentable turn which the publication of Childe Harold gave to Lord Byron’s character, are forcible and just. . . .
[John Cam Hobhouse],
“[Review of Dallas and Medwin on Byron]” in Westminster Review
Vol. 3 (January 1825)
Since
Orrery wrote his defamatory life of Swift, and since Mr.
Wyndham published Doddington’s diary, in order to expose the author of that strange record of venality, we are not
aware that the friends or family of any writer have deliberately set down to diminish his
fame and tarnish his character. Such, however, has been the case in the work before us. We
do not mean to say that such was the first object in view by the author or authors of this
volume. No; their first object was the laudable motive of putting money into their purses;
for it appears upon their own showing, that Mr. R. C. Dallas, having
made as much money as he could out of lord Byron in his life time,
resolved to pick up a decent livelihood (either in his own person or that of his son) out
of his friend’s remains when dead. . . .
[John Cam Hobhouse],
“[Review of Dallas and Medwin on Byron]” in Westminster Review
Vol. 3 (January 1825)
But it appears that Mr. R. C. Dallas
could not wait for his money so long as was requisite, and that in the year 1819 he became
a little impatient to touch something in his life time: accordingly, in an evil hour, he
writes a long long letter to lord Byron, containing a debtor and
creditor account between R. C. Dallas and his lordship; by which, when
duly balanced, it appeared that said lord Byron was still considerably
in arrears of friendship and obligation to said R. C. Dallas, and
ought to acquit himself by a remittance of materials (such is
Mr. R. C. Dallas’s own word, in his own letter, as will be
seen by and by) to his creditor Mr. R. C.
Dallas. . . .
[John Cam Hobhouse],
“[Review of Dallas and Medwin on Byron]” in Westminster Review
Vol. 3 (January 1825)
The death of lord Byron, of
course, seemed at once to promise this settlement: no sooner had he heard it, than he set
about copying the manuscripts; he wrote to Messrs.
Galignani at Paris, to know whether they would “enter into the speculation” of publishing some very interesting manuscripts
of lord Byron; he set off for London; he sold the volume to a London:
bookseller, and “he returned without loss of time to
France.” His worthy son has told us all this himself, at pages 94 and 96 of his
volume, and has actually printed the letter his father wrote to Messrs.
Galignani, to show, we suppose, how laudably alert Mr. R. C.
Dallas evinced himself to be on this interesting opportunity of securing his
lawful property. The booksellers, also, performed their part; they announced the “Private Correspondence” of lord Byron for
sale; and, as it also appears by this volume, were so active as to be prepared to bring
their goods to market before lord Byron’s funeral. . . .
[John Cam Hobhouse],
“[Review of Dallas and Medwin on Byron]” in Westminster Review
Vol. 3 (January 1825)
They thought
differently of the publication of private letters; and Mrs. Leigh
desired Mr. Hobhouse one of the executors, to write
to Mr. R. C. Dallas to say, that she should think the publication, in
question “quite unpardonable,” at least for the present, and unless
after a previous inspection by his lordship’s family. Unfortunately for Mr.
Dallas, it appears, according to this volume, that Mr.
Hobhouse did not in this letter, state that he was lord
Byron’s executor; but merely appealed to Mr. R. C.
Dallas’s “honour and feeling,” wishing
probably to try that topic first; and thinking it more respectful to do so, than to
threaten the author with legal interference at once. . . .
[John Cam Hobhouse],
“[Review of Dallas and Medwin on Byron]” in Westminster Review
Vol. 3 (January 1825)
Mr. Dallas was resolved upon getting his money, and wrote a very angry
letter, not to Mr. Hobhouse but to Mrs. Leigh
(which, his prudent son has also printed), containing menaces not unkilfully calculated to
intimidate that lady, especially considering that she must have been at that moment
peculiarly disposed to receive any unpleasant impressions—her brother’s corpse
lying yet unburied. For an author and seller of Remains the time was
not ill chosen—by a gentleman and a man, another moment, to say nothing of another
style, might perhaps have been selected. But no time was to be lost; the book must be out
on the 12th of July, and out it would have been had not the executors procured an
injunction against it on the 7th of the same month, and thus very seriously damaged, if not
ruined, Mr. R. C. Dallas’s “speculation.” . . .
[John Cam Hobhouse],
“[Review of Dallas and Medwin on Byron]” in Westminster Review
Vol. 3 (January 1825)
Ninety-seven
pages of the volume are taken up with a statement of the proceedings in Chancery, which
were so fatal to the “speculation.” In this statement, which is written by
Mr. Alexander Dallas, the son of Mr.
R. C. Dallas, who died before the volume could be published, it may easily
be supposed that all imaginable hard things are said of those who spoiled the speculation.
The executors, and lord Byron’s sister, are spoken of in terms
which, if noticed, would certainly very much increase those “expenses” of which the Rev. Alexander Dallas so
piteously complains; for we doubt if any jury would hesitate to return a verdict of libel
and slander against many passages which we could point out in the preliminary
statement. . . .
[John Cam Hobhouse],
“[Review of Dallas and Medwin on Byron]” in Westminster Review
Vol. 3 (January 1825)
Lord Byron was taken into Scotland by his mother and
father, and Mrs. Leigh was left in England with her
grandmother, to whom her father had consigned her on condition that she should provide for
her. They were thus separated from 1789 until lord Byron came to
England; when thy met as often as possible, although it was not easy to bring them
together, as Mrs. Byron, the mother of
lord Byron, had quarrelled with lady
Holdernesse. For the intercourse which did take place, the brother and
sister were indebted to the kind offices of lord
Carlisle. . . .
[John Cam Hobhouse],
“[Review of Dallas and Medwin on Byron]” in Westminster Review
Vol. 3 (January 1825)
That lord Byron might have dropt an
unguarded opinion as to relationship in general is possible, though such an error is
nothing in comparison with the atrocity of coolly recording that opinion as if it had been
an habitual sentiment, which we say it was not. We say that it is untrue that lord Byron declaimed against the ties of
consanguinity. It is untrue that he entirely withdrew from the
company of his sister during the period alluded to. It is untrue
that he “made advances” to a friendly intercourse with her only after the
publication of Childe Harold, and only at
the persuasion of Mr. R. C. Dallas. Mrs. Leigh corresponded with lord Byron at the very time
mentioned, and saw in lord Carlisle’s house in
the spring of 1809; after which he went abroad, and did not return until July 1811. . . .
[John Cam Hobhouse],
“[Review of Dallas and Medwin on Byron]” in Westminster Review
Vol. 3 (January 1825)
We speak from the same authority, when we say that what is said of
lord Carlisle, though there was, as all the world
knows, a difference between his lordship and lord Byron,
is also at variance with the facts. . . .
[John Cam Hobhouse],
“[Review of Dallas and Medwin on Byron]” in Westminster Review
Vol. 3 (January 1825)
Such was Mr. Alexander
Dallas’s letter to Mr.
Hobhouse; and that he should, after writing such a letter, make a statement
which he knew the production of that letter could positively contradict, is an instance of
confidence in the forbearance of others such as we never have happened before to witness.
We beg the reader to compare the words in italics from Mr.
Dallas’s statement with the words in capitals from Mr.
Dallas’s letter—and then to ask himself whether he thinks
lord Byron’s
reputation, or that of his relations and friends, has much to suffer or
fear from such a censor as the Reverend Alexander Dallas. In the
Statement, he tells the world that Mr. Hobhouse is mentioned in
lord Byron’s letters in the enumeration of his suite; and,
in a remark, that lord Byron was satisfied at being alone. In the
letter, he tells Mr. Hobhouse, that “he (Mr.
Hobhouse) is mentioned throughout the whole of the correspondence with great
affection.” . . .
[John Cam Hobhouse],
“[Review of Dallas and Medwin on Byron]” in Westminster Review
Vol. 3 (January 1825)
It answered the purpose of the editor to
deal in the strongest insinuations against Mr. Hobhouse; but,
unfortunately, his father had, in the course of his correspondence with lord
Byron, mentioned that gentleman in very different terms—what does
the honest editor do? he gives only the initial of the name, so that the eulogy, such
as it is, may serve for any Mr. H * *. Mr. R. C.
Dallas’s words are, “I gave Murray your note on M * *, to be placed in the page with Wingfield. He must have been a very extraordinary
young man, and I am sincerely sorry for H * *, for whom I have felt an
increased regard ever since I heard of his intimacy with my son at Cadiz, and that they
were mutually pleased” [p. 165]. The H * * stands for
Hobhouse, and the M * * whom R. C. Dallas
characterises here, “as an extraordinary young man,” becomes, in the hands
of his honest son, “an unhappy Atheist” [p. 325], whose name he mentions,
in another place, at full length, and characterises him in such a way as must give the
greatest pain to the surviving relations and friends of the deceased. . . .
[John Cam Hobhouse],
“[Review of Dallas and Medwin on Byron]” in Westminster Review
Vol. 3 (January 1825)
We now come to the reverend gentleman’s father, and as the death of
lord Byron did not prevent that person from writing
what we know to be unfounded of his lordship, we shall not refrain, because he also is
dead, from saying what we know to be founded of Mr. R. C.
Dallas. In performing this task we are, most luckily, furnished with a list
of Mr. Dallas’s pretensions, by Mr. Dallas
himself, in the shape of a letter written by that person to lord Byron
in 1819, of which the Reverend Alexander Dallas has
thought fit to publish a considerable portion. To this letter, or list of Mr. R.
C. Dallas’s brilliant virtues, and benefits conferred upon
lord Byron, we shall oppose an answer from a person, whom neither
Mr. R. C. Dallas nor his reverend son had ever dreamt could appear
against them again in this world—that person is lord Byron
himself. For it so happens, that although his lordship did not reply to the said letter by
writing to the author, yet he did transmit that epistle, with sundry notes of his own upon
it, to one of his correspondents in England. The letter itself, with lord
Byron’s notes, is now lying before us, and we shall proceed at once to
cite the passages which lord Byron has commented upon, all of which,
with one exception, to he noticed hereafter, have before been given to the public. . . .
[John Cam Hobhouse],
“[Review of Dallas and Medwin on Byron]” in Westminster Review
Vol. 3 (January 1825)
Across these passages, opposite the words “saving you from
perpetuating the enmity,” lord Byron has put
“the Devil you did?” and over the
words “rapid retrograde motion” lord Byron has
written “when did this happen? and how?”
. . .
[John Cam Hobhouse],
“[Review of Dallas and Medwin on Byron]” in Westminster Review
Vol. 3 (January 1825)
We have now to mention that, Mr. R. C.
Dallas after the words which conclude his letter, as given by his son,
namely, these words: “but my present anxiety is, to see you restored to your
station in this world, after trials that should induce you to look seriously into
futurity.”—after these words, we find in the original letter the
following— . . .
[John Cam Hobhouse],
“[Review of Dallas and Medwin on Byron]” in Westminster Review
Vol. 3 (January 1825)
The upshot of this letter appears to be, to obtain my sanction to
the publication of a volume about
Mr. Dallas and
myself, which I shall not allow. The letter has remained and will remain
unanswered. I never injured Mr. R. C. Dallas, but did him all
the good I could, and I am quite unconscious and ignorant of what he means by
reproaching me with ungenerous treatment; the facts will speak for themselves to
those who know them—the proof is easy. . . .
[John Cam Hobhouse],
“[Review of Dallas and Medwin on Byron]” in Westminster Review
Vol. 3 (January 1825)
These persons, whose work, or rather, whose conduct we are reviewing, have tried all the
common topics by which they think they may enlist the sympathy of their readers in their
favour, to the prejudice of their illustrious benefactor. They have bandied about the
clap-trap terms of atheism, scepticism, irreligion, immorality, &c. but the good sense,
nay more, the generosity, the humanity, and the true Christian spirit of their
fellow-countrymen, will reject such an unworthy fellowship. They may weep over the failings
of Byron; but they will cast from them, with scorn and reprobation,
detractors, whose censure bears on the face of it, the unquestionable marks of envy,
malice, and. all uncharitableness. Can anything be more unpardonable, anything more unfair,
for instance, than for the editor of this volume (the clergyman) to take for granted, that
the Conversations of Medwin are authentic, though he himself has given an
example of two gross mis-statements in them, which would alone throw a doubt over their
authenticity; and upon that supposition to charge lord Byron with being sunk to the lowest
depths of degradation? What are we to say to this person who, at the same time that he
assumes the general truth of the Conversations, makes an
exception against that part of them, which represents lord
Byron’s dislike of the anti-religious opinions of Mr. Shelley? . . .
[John Cam Hobhouse],
“[Review of Dallas and Medwin on Byron]” in Westminster Review
Vol. 3 (January 1825)
If the author of “Aubrey” had but read, or had not forgotten lord
Byron’s preface to the second edition of English Bards and Scotch Reviewers, he would have spared us
all this fine writing, for that preface explains that “phenomenon of the human mind, for which it is difficult to
account,” and which this poor writer has accounted for so
profoundly. . . .
[John Gibson Lockhart],
“Lord Byron” in Blackwood’s Edinburgh Magazine
Vol. 17
No. 97 (February 1825)
The story of his having said to his mother, when he and Mr
Hobhouse parted company on their travels, that he “was glad to be
alone,” amounts to nothing; for who is he, and above all, who is the poet, who does
not often feel the departure of his dearest friend as a temporary relief? The man
that was composing Childe Harold had other
things to entertain him than the conversation of any companion, however pleasant; and we
believe there are few pleasanter companions anywhere than Mr Hobhouse.
This story, however, has been magnified into a mighty matter by Mr Dallas, whose name has recently been rather wearisomely connected with
Lord Byron’s. . . .
[John Gibson Lockhart],
“Lord Byron” in Blackwood’s Edinburgh Magazine
Vol. 17
No. 97 (February 1825)
Old Mr Dallas appears to have been an
inveterate twaddler, and there are even worse things than twaddling alleged against him by
Mr Hobhouse, in the article we have been quoting.
The worst of these, however, his misstatement as to the amount of his pecuniary obligations to
Lord Byron, may perhaps be accounted for in a way much
more charitable than has found favour with Mr Hobhouse; and as to the son,
(Mr Alexander Dallas,) we assuredly think he has
done nothing, but what he supposed his filial duty bound him to, in the whole matter. Angry
people will take sneering and perverted views of the subject matter of dispute, without
subjecting themselves in the eyes of the disinterested world, to charges so heavy either as
Mr Hobhouse has thought fit to bring against Mr A.
Dallas, or as Mr A. Dallas has thought fit to bring against
Mr Hobhouse. As for the song of which so much has been said, what is it, after all, but a mere
joke— . . .
[John Gibson Lockhart],
“Lord Byron” in Blackwood’s Edinburgh Magazine
Vol. 17
No. 97 (February 1825)
Dallas’s book,
utterly feeble and drivelling as it is, contains certainly some very interesting
particulars as to his feelings when he was a very young author. The whole getting up of the
two first cantos of Childe Harold—the
diffidence—the fears —the hopes that alternately depressed and elevated his
spirits while the volume was printing, are exhibited, so as to form a picture that all
students of literature, at least, will never cease to prize. All the rest of the work is
more about old Dallas than young Byron, and is
utter trash. . . .
Leigh Hunt,
Lord Byron and Some of his Contemporaries (London: Henry Colburn, 1828)
The only publications that contained any thing at once new and true
respecting Lord Byron were, Dallas’s Recollections, the Conversations by
Captain Medwin, and Parry’s and Gamba’s Accounts of his Last Days. A good deal of the real
character of his Lordship, though not always as the writer viewed it, may be gathered from
most of them; particularly the first two. . . .
Leigh Hunt,
Lord Byron and Some of his Contemporaries (London: Henry Colburn, 1828)
Dallas, who was a sort of lay-priest, errs from
being half-witted. He must have tired Lord Byron to death with blind
beggings of the question, and solemn mistakes. The wild poet ran against him, and scattered
his faculties. To the last he does not seem to have made up his mind, whether his Lordship
was Christian or Atheist. I can settle at least a part of that dilemma. Christian he
certainly was not. He neither wrote nor talked, as any Christian, in the ordinary sense of
the word, would have done: and as to the rest, the strength of his belief probably varied
according to his humour, and was at all times as undecided and uneasy, as the lights
hitherto obtained by mere reason were calculated to render it. . . .
Leigh Hunt,
Lord Byron and Some of his Contemporaries (London: Henry Colburn, 1828)
Now, the passage here quoted was quoted by myself, one of those
“atheists and scoffers,” according to Mr.
Dallas, by whom “he was led into defiance of the sacred
writings.” . . .
Pietro Gamba,
A Narrative of Lord Byron’s Last Journey to Greece (London: John Murray, 1825)
Again, in order to prove the difficulty of living with Lord Byron, it is said, that “When Mr. Hobhouse and he travelled in Greece together, they
were generally a mile asunder.” I have the best authority for saying, that
this is not the fact: that two young men, who were continually together and slept in the
same room for many months, should not always have ridden side by side on their journey is
very likely; but when Lord Byron and Mr. Hobhouse
travelled in Greece, it would have been as little safe as comfortable to be
“generally a mile asunder;” and the truth is, they were generally
very near each other. . . .
James Cawthorne (1832 fl.)
London bookseller who published Byron's
English Bards and Scotch
Reviewers (1809); he had a shop at 132 Strand from 1810-32.
John Fitzgibbon, second earl of Clare (1792-1851)
A Harrow friend of Byron's, son of the Lord Chamberlain of Ireland; he once fought a duel
with Henry Grattan's son in response to an aspersion on his father. Lord Clare was Governor
of Bombay between 1830 and 1834.
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).
John Hatchard (1768-1849)
Prominent London bookseller whose evangelical connections included Hannah More, William
Wilberforce, and the
Christian Observer which he published from
1802.
John Cam Hobhouse, baron Broughton (1786-1869)
Founder of the Cambridge Whig Club; traveled with Byron in the orient, radical MP for
Westminster (1820); Byron's executor; after a long career in politics published
Some Account of a Long Life (1865) later augmented as
Recollections of a Long Life, 6 vols (1909-1911).
Francis Hodgson (1781-1852)
Provost of Eton College, translator of Juvenal (1807) and close friend of Byron. He wrote
for the
Monthly and
Critical Reviews, and was
author of (among other volumes of poetry)
Childe Harold's Monitor; or
Lines occasioned by the last Canto of Childe Harold (1818).
Sir Richard Phillips (1767-1840)
London bookseller, vegetarian, and political reformer; he published
The
Monthly Magazine, originally edited by John Aikin (1747-1822). John Wolcot was a
friend and neighbor.
Samuel Jackson Pratt [Courtney Melmoth] (1749-1814)
English miscellaneous writer who abandoned a clerical career to become an actor and
voluminous writer of sentimental literature; regarded as a charlatan by many who knew him,
Pratt acquired a degree of respectability in his latter years. He patronized the poetical
shoemaker-poet Joseph Blacket.
John Scott, first earl of Eldon (1751-1838)
Lord chancellor (1801-27); he was legal counsel to the Prince of Wales and an active
opponent of the Reform Bill.
Waller Rodwell Wright (1775-1826)
British consul-general for the Ionian Isles (1800-04), president of the court of appeals
at Malta, friend of Robert Charles Dallas; author of
Ionicae: a Poem
descriptive of the Ionian Islands (1809).
The Anti-Jacobin Review and Magazine. (1798-1821). Edited by John Gifford as a continuation of the brilliant
Anti-Jacobin
Magazine (1797-98) with no plates, less poetry, and more book reviews.
The Gentleman's Magazine. (1731-1905). A monthly literary miscellany founded by Edward Cave; edited by John Nichols 1778-1826,
and John Bowyer Nichols 1826-1833.