Recollections of the Life of Lord Byron
Chapter IV
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LITERARY CAREER, AND INCLUDING VARIOUS UNPUBLISHED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 IV.
LORD BYRON’S TRAVELS IN 1809, 1810, And 1811.
The Letters which Lord Byron
had thus given to me were twenty in number. They consisted of two short ones written from
Newstead, at the end of 1808; one written from London, in March, 1809; fifteen written
during his travels from Falmouth, Gibraltar, Malta, Previsa, Smyrna, Constantinople,
Athens, and Patras, in 1810 and 1811; one written on board the Volage frigate, on his
approach to England when returning; and a short note from London, to announce his intention
of going down to Newstead.
These letters were the only ones Lord
Byron wrote during his travels, with the single
exception of letters of business to his agent. Letter-writing was a matter of irksome duty
to him, but one which he felt himself bound to perform to his mother. The letters are
sometimes long and full of detail, and sometimes short, and mere intimations of his good
health and progress, according as the humour of the moment overcame or not his habitual
reluctance to the task. I cannot but lament that any circumstances should deprive the
British public of such lively and faithful delineations of the mind and character of
Lord Byron as are to be found in these letters. They do not, it is
true, contain the information which is usually expected from a talented traveller through
an interesting country; but they do contain the index and guide which enables the reader to
travel into that more interesting region—the mind and heart of such a man as Lord
Byron; and though it might be desirable that he should have given a
fuller description of his travels, it is highly satisfactory that he should unconsciously
have left the means of penetrating into the natural character of so singular a being.
Lord Byron’s letters to his mother are more likely to furnish these means than any
thing else that he has left us; because they contain the only natural expression of his
feelings, freely poured forth in the very circumstances that excited them, with no view at
the time to obtain or keep up a particular character, and therefore with no restraint upon
his own character. This was never afterwards the case.
From the moment that the publication of Childe Harold’s Pilgrimage placed him, as it were, by the wand of an enchanter, upon an elevated pedestal in the
Temple of Fame, he could not write any thing even in familiar correspondence, which was not
in some degree influenced by the idea of supporting a character;
especially as, after the death of his mother, he had no correspondent to whom he made it a
duty, at certain intervals, to communicate his thoughts.
It is, therefore, in the natural turn of thought, not shewn forth by any
expression of decided opinions, but rather permitted to be seen in the light touches and
unpremeditated indications of feeling, with which these letters abound, that the original
character of Lord Byron is more surely to be traced. I
say his original character, because so great an alteration took place at least in the
degree, if not in the nature of it, after the publication of his first great poem, that the
traits which might give us an insight into his mind at the one period, will scarcely afford
us ground to form any judgment of it at the other. I deeply regret that being prevented
from making any thing like quo-
tations from these letters, it is
impossible for me to convey in any adequate degree the spirit of the character which they
display.
At Newstead, just before his coming of age, he planned his future travels;
and his original intention included a much larger portion of the world than that which he
afterwards visited. He first thought of Persia, to which idea indeed he for a long time
adhered. He afterwards meant to sail for India; and had so far contemplated this project as
to write for information from the Arabic Professor
at Cambridge, and to ask his mother to inquire of a friend who had lived in India, what
things would be necessary for his voyage. He formed his plan of travelling upon very
different grounds from those which he afterwards advanced. All men should travel at one
time or another, he thought, and he had then no connexions to prevent him; when he returned
he might
enter into political life, for which travelling would not
incapacitate him, and he wished to judge of men by experience. He had been compared by some
one to Rousseau, but he disclaimed any desire to
resemble so illustrious a lunatic; though he wished to live as much by himself and in his
own way as possible.
While at Newstead at this time, and in contemplation of his intended
departure, he made a will which he meant to have formally executed as soon as he came of
age. In it he made a proper provision for his mother, bequeathing her the manor of Newstead for her
life. How different a will from that which, with so different a mind and heart, he
really executed seven years afterwards!
A short time after this a proposal was made to him by his man of business to sell Newstead Abbey, which made his
mother uneasy upon the subject. To set her mind
at ease he declared, in the strongest terms, that his own fate
and Newstead were inseparable; stating, at the same time, the fittest and noblest reasons
why he should never part with Newstead, and affirming that the finest fortune in the
country should not purchase it from him. The letter in which he had written his sentiments
on this subject, was that which he gave to me to keep as a pledge that he never would
dispose of Newstead. Nor was it, indeed, until he had abandoned himself to the evil
influence which afterwards beset him, that he forgot his solemn promise to his mother, and
the pledge of honour which he voluntarily put into my hands, and then bartered the last
vestige of the inheritance of his family.
He left London in June, 1809; and his acute sensibility being deeply
wounded at his relation’s conduct when taking his
seat in the House of Lords, and by the disappointment he had experienced on parting
with the friend whom he had believed to be so affectionately attached
to him, he talked of a regretless departure from the shores of England, and said he had no
wish to revisit any thing in it, except his mother and Newstead Abbey. The state of his
affairs annoyed him also much. He had consented to the sale of his estate in Lancashire,
and if it did not produce what he expected, or what would be sufficient for his
emergencies, he thought of entering into some foreign service; the Austrian, the Russian,
or even the Turkish, if he liked their manners. Amongst his suite was a German servant, who
had been already in Persia with Mr. Wilbraham, and a
lad whom he took with him, because he thought him, like himself, a friendless creature; and
to the few regrets that he had felt on leaving his native country, his heart made him add
that of parting with an old servant, whose age prevented his master from hoping to see him
again.
The objects that he met with in his journey as far as Gibraltar, seemed
to have occupied his mind, to the exclusion of his gloomy and misanthropic thoughts; for
the letter which he wrote to his mother from thence contains no indication of them, but, on
the contrary, much playful description of the scenes through which he had passed. The
beautiful Stanzas, from the 16th to the 30th of the first Canto of Childe Harold’s Pilgrimage,
are the exact echoes of the thoughts which occurred to his mind at the time, as he went
over the spot described. In going into the library of the convent of Mafra the monks
conversed with him in Latin, and asked him whether the English had
any books in their country. From Mafra he went to Seville, and
was not a little surprised at the excellence of the horses and roads in Spain, by which he
was enabled to travel nearly four hundred miles in four days, without fatigue or annoyance.
At Seville Lord Byron lodged in the
house of two unmarried ladies, one of whom, however, was going to be married soon; and
though he remained there only three days she did not scruple to pay him the most particular
attentions, which, as they were women of character, and mixing in society, rather
astonished him. His Sevillean hostess embraced him at parting with great tenderness,
cutting off a lock of his hair and presenting him with a very long one of her own, which he
forwarded to his mother in his next letter. With this specimen of Spanish female manners,
he proceeded to Cadiz, where various incidents occurred to him calculated to confirm the
opinion he had formed at Seville of the Andalusian belles, and which made him leave Cadiz
with regret, and determine to return to it.
Lord Byron kept no journal; while his companion,
Mr. Hobhouse, was occupied
without ceasing in making notes. His aversion to letter-writing also occasions great chasms
in the only account that can be obtained of his movements from himself. He wrote, however,
to his mother from Malta, merely to announce his safety; and forwarded the letter by
Mrs. Spencer Smith, whose eccentric character
and extraordinary situation very much attracted his attention. He did not write again until
November, 1809, from Previsa.
Upon arriving at Yanina, Lord Byron
found that Ali Pacha was with his troops in Illyricum
besieging Ibrahim Pacha in Berat; but the Vizier, having heard that an
English nobleman was in his country, had given orders at Yanina to supply him with every
kind of accommodation free of all expense. Thus he was not allowed to pay for any thing
whatever, and was forced to content himself with making presents to the slaves. From Yanina
he went to Te-
paleen, a journey of nine days, owing to the autumnal
torrents which retarded his progress. The scene which struck him upon entering Tepaleen, at
the time of the sun’s setting, recalled to his mind the description of Branksome
Castle, in Scott’s Lay of the Last Minstrel. The different
objects which presented themselves to his view when arriving at the Pacha’s
palace,—the Albanians in their superb costume—the Tartars and the Turks with
their separate peculiarities of dress—the row of two hundred horses, ready
caparisoned, waiting in a large open gallery—the couriers which the stirring interest
of the neighbouring siege made to pass in and out constantly—the military
music—the boys repeating the hour from the Minaret of the Mosque,—are all
faithfully and exactly described as he saw them, in the 55th and following stanzas, to the
60th of the second Canto of Childe Harold’s Pilgrimage.
He was lodged in the palace, and the next day introduced to Ali Pacha.—Ali said, that the English minister had told him that Lord Byron’s family was a great one; and he desired him to give his
respects to his mother, which his Lordship faithfully delivered immediately. The Pacha
declared that he knew him to be a man of rank from the smallness of his ears, his curling
hair, and his little white hands; and told him to consider himself under his protection as
that of a father while he remained in Turkey, as he looked on him as his son; and, indeed,
he showed how much he considered him as a child, by sending him sweetmeats, and fruit, and
nice things repeatedly during the day.
In going in a Turkish ship of war, provided for him by Ali Pacha, from Previsa, intending to sail for Patras,
Lord Byron was very nearly lost in but a moderate
gale of wind, from the ignorance of the Turkish
officers and
sailors—the wind, however, abated, and they were driven on the coast of Suli. The
confusion appears to have been very great on board the galliot, and somewhat added to by
the distress of Lord Byron’s valet, Fletcher, whose natural alarms upon this, and other occasions; and his
untravelled requirements of English comforts, such as tea, &c., not a little amused his
master, and were frequently the subject of good-humoured jokes with him. An instance of
disinterested hospitality, in the chief of a Suliote village, occurred to Lord
Byron in consequence of his disasters in the Turkish galliot. The honest
Albanian, after assisting him in the distress in which he found himself, supplying his
wants, and lodging him and his suite, consisting of Fletcher, a Greek,
two Athenians, a Greek priest, and his companion, Mr.
Hobhouse, refused to receive any remuneration; and only asked him for a
written acknow-ledgment that he had been well-treated. When
Lord Byron pressed him to take money, he said, “I wish
you to love me, not to pay me.”
At Yanina, on his return, he was introduced to Hussian
Bey and Mahmout Pacha, two young grandchildren of
Ali Pacha, very unlike lads, having painted faces,
large black eyes, and regular features. They were nevertheless very pretty, and already
instructed in all the court ceremonies. Mahmout, the younger, and he
were friends without understanding each other, like a great many other people, though for a
different reason.
Lord Byron wrote several times to his mother from
Smyrna, from whence he went in the Salsette frigate to Constantinople. It was while this
frigate was lying at anchor in the Dardanelles, that he swam from Sestos to
Abydos,—an exploit which he seemed to have remembered ever after
with very great pleasure, repeating it and referring to it in no less than five of his
letters to his mother, and in the only two letters he wrote to me while he was away.
It was not until after Lord Byron
arrived at Constantinople that he decided not to go on to Persia, but to pass the following
summer in the Morea. At Constantinople, Mr. Hobhouse
left him to return to England, and by him he wrote to me and to his mother. He meant also
to have sent back his man, Fletcher, with
Mr. Hobhouse; as, however good a servant in England, he found him
an incumbrance in his progress. Lord Byron had now tasted the delights
of travelling; he had seen much, both of country and of mankind; he had neither been
disappointed nor disgusted with what he had met with; and though he had passed many a
fatiguing, he had never spent a tedious hour. This led him to
fear that these feelings might excite in him a gipsy-like wandering
disposition, which would make him uncomfortable at home, knowing such to be frequently the
case with men in the habit of travelling. He had mixed with persons in all stations in life
had lived amongst the most splendid, and sojourned with the poorest, and found the people
harmless and hospitable. He had passed some time with the principal Greeks in the Morea and
Livadia, and he classed them as inferior to the Turks, but superior to the Spaniards, whom
he placed before the Portuguese. At Constantinople, his judgment of Lady Mary Wortley was, that she had not overstepped the
truth near so much as would have been done by any other woman under similar circumstances;
but he differed from her when she said “St. Paul’s would cut a strange
figure by St. Sophia’s.” He felt the great interest which St.
Sophia’s possesses from various considerations, but he thought
it by no means equal to some of the Mosques, and not to be written on the same leaf with
St. Paul’s. According to his idea, the Cathedral at Seville was superior to both, or
to any religious edifice he knew. He was enchanted with the magnificence of the walls of
the city, and the beauty of the Turkish burying grounds; and he looked with enthusiasm at
the prospect on each side from the Seven Towers, to the end of the Golden Horn.
When Lord Byron had lost his companion
at Constantinople, he felt great satisfaction at being once more alone; for his nature led
him to solitude, and his disposition towards it encreased daily. There were many men there
and in the Morea who wished to join him; one to go to Asia, another to Egypt. But he
preferred going alone over his old track, and to look upon his old objects, the seas and
the
mountains, the only acquaintances that improved upon him. He was
a good deal annoyed at this juncture by the persevering silence of his man of business, from whom he had never
once heard since his departure from England, in spite of the critical situation of his
affairs; and yet, it is remarkable with how much patience he bore with circumstances, which
certainly were calculated to excite the anger of one of less irritable disposition than his
own.
Whether it were owing to his having been left alone to his own
reflections, or whether it be merely attributable to the uneven fluctuations of an
unsettled mind, it appears that Lord Byron’s
thoughts at this time had some tendency towards a recovery from the morbid state of moral
apathy which upon some important points he had evinced. He felt the advantage of looking at
mankind in the original, and not in the picture—of reading them-
selves, instead of the account of them in books; he saw the disadvantageous results of
remaining at home with the narrow prejudices of an islander, and wished that the youth of
our country were forced by law to visit our allied neighbours. He had conversed with
French, Italians, Germans, Danes, Greeks, Turks, Armenians, &c. &c., and without
losing sight of his own nation, could form an estimate of the countries and manners of
others; but, at the same time, he felt gratified when he found that
England was superior in any thing. This shows the latent spark of
patriotism in his heart.
He wished when he returned to England to lead a quiet and retired life;
in thinking of which, his mind involuntarily acknowledged that God knew, but arranged the
best for us all. This acknowledgment seemed to call forth the remembrance of his acquired
infidelity; and, for the sake of
consistency, he qualified it by
giving it as the general belief, and he had nothing to oppose to such a doctrine, as upon
the whole he could not complain of his own lot. He was convinced that mankind did more harm
to themselves than Satan could do to them. These are singular
assertions for Lord Byron, and shew that, at that time
at least, his mind was in a state which might have admitted of a different result than that
which unhappily followed.
I have already said, that Lord Byron
took no notes of his travels, and he did not intend to publish any thing concerning them;
but it is curious that, while he was in Greece, he made a determination that he would
publish no more on any subject—he would appear no more as an author—he was
quite satisfied, if by his Satire he had
shown to the critics and the world that he was something above what they supposed him to
be, nor would he hazard the
reputation that work might have procured
him by publishing again. He had, indeed, other things by him, as the event proved; but he
resolved, that if they were worth giving to the public, it should be posthumously, that the
remembrance of him might be continued when he could no longer remember.
Previous to his return to England, the proposal to sell Newstead was
renewed. His mother again showed her feeling upon
the subject. His own feelings and determinations were unchanged. If it was necessary that
money should be procured by the sale of land, he was willing to part with Rochdale. He sent
Fletcher to England with papers to that effect.
He, besides, had no reliance on the funds; but the main point of his objection to the
proposal was, that the only thing that bound him to England was Newstead—if by any
extraordinary event he should be induced to part
with it, he was
resolved to pass his life abroad. The expenses of living in the East, with all the
advantages of climate and abundance of luxury, were trifling in comparison with what was
necessary for competence in England. He was resolved that Newstead should not be sold: he
had fixed upon the alternative—if Newstead remained with him, he would come
back—if not, he never would.
Lord Byron returned to England in the Volage frigate, on
the 2d July, 1811, after having been absent two years exactly to a day. He experienced very
similar feelings of indifference in approaching its shores, to those with which he had left
them. His health had not suffered, though it had been interrupted by two sharp fevers; he
had, however, put himself entirely upon a vegetable diet, never taking either fish or
flesh, and drinking no wine.
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. . . .
Ali Pasha of Yannina (1740-1822)
Albanian warlord who expanded his territories during the Napoleonic wars but was
eventually suppressed by the Ottoman Turks; he entertained Byron in 1809.
William Fletcher (1831 fl.)
Byron's valet, the son of a Newstead tenant; he continued in service to the end of the
poet's life, after which he was pensioned by the family. He married Anne Rood, formerly
maid to Augusta Leigh, and was living in London in 1831.
John Hanson (1755-1841)
Byron's solicitor and business agent.
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).
Frederick Howard, fifth earl of Carlisle (1748-1825)
The Earl of Carlisle was appointed Lord Byron's guardian in 1799; they did not get along.
He published a volume of
Poems (1773) that included a translation
from Dante.
William Martin Leake (1777-1860)
The British envoy to Ali Pasha in Albania; author of, among other titles,
Researches in Greece (1814),
Travels in the
Morea, 3 vols (1830) and
Travels in Northern Greece, 4 vols
(1835).
Lady Mary Wortley Montagu [née Pierrepont] (1689-1762)
English poet and epistolary writer, daughter of the first duke of Kingston; she quarreled
with Alexander Pope and after living in Constantinople (1716-18) introduced inoculation to
Britain.
John Palmer (1769-1840)
Fellow of St John's College and Sir Thomas Adams Professor of Arabic at Cambridge
(1804-19).
Jean-Jacques Rousseau (1712-1778)
Swiss-born man of letters; author of, among others,
Julie ou la
Nouvelle Heloïse (1761),
Émile (1762) and
Les Confessions (1782).
Constance Spencer Smith [née Herbert] (1785-1829)
Daughter of Baron Herbert, Austrian ambassador to Constantinople, and wife of the
diplomat John Spencer Smith, with whom Byron had an affair in Malta. She died in
Vienna.
Randle Wilbraham (1773-1861)
The son of Richard Wilbraham, MP, of Rode Hall, Cheshire; in his youth he was a traveler
in Persia.