Recollections of the Life of Lord Byron
Chapter V
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LITERARY CAREER, AND INCLUDING VARIOUS UNPUBLISHED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 V.
RETURN TO ENGLAND—HINTS FROM
HORACE—
HIS OPINION OF CH1LDE HAROLD’S
PILGRIMAGE.
Early in July, 1811, I received a letter from Lord Byron, written on board the Volage frigate, at sea, on
the 28th of June, in which, after informing me of his approaching return, he shortly
recapitulates the principal countries he has travelled through, and does not forget to
mention his swimming from Sestos to Abydos. He expected little pleasure in coming home,
though he brought a spirit still unbroken. He dreaded the trouble he should have to
encounter in the arrangement of his affairs. His Satire was at that time in the fourth
edition; and at
that period, being able to think and act more coolly, he affected to feel sorry that he had
written it. This was, however, an immense sacrifice to a vague sense of propriety, as is
clear from his having even then in his possession an imitation of Horace’s Art of Poetry, ready for the press, which was
nothing but a continuation of the Satire; and also from the subsequent preparation of a
fifth edition of the very work which he professed to regret having written.
Lord Byron frequently exercised his wit upon the subject
of a young man of the name of Blackett—so poor
that he worked in a garret, as a shoemaker, and did not procure sufficient employment to
make life tolerably comfortable; in spite of which he married, and had children. In his
unoccupied hours he made verses as well as shoes. Some of these found their way into the
hands of Mr. Pratt, himself a successful writer,
whose benevolence and enthusiasm always equalled, and sometimes
outstripped, his judgment. He immediately saw latent genius in those essays of an
uneducated man, sought him, became confirmed in the opinion he had formed, and, doubly
excited by the miserable state in which he found him, resolved to do him all the service
that his pen and influence could effect publicly and privately. He collected a volume of
his writings sufficient to form the foundation of a subscription, which soon became so
ample as to lower him from his attics. Pratt then persuaded Mr. Elliston, the actor, to be among his applauders and
protectors. I remember hearing Mr. Elliston speak of a dramatic
production of Blackett’s with infinite ardour, and of the author
as a wonderful genius. I do not, however, think that he ever produced the piece. Other
patrons and patronesses appeared; and it is a curious incident that one of the latter, then a perfect stranger to Lord Byron, should
afterwards become his wife. That lady and her parents
were very kind to Blackett; invited him, as I was informed, to the
country where their estates lie, and accommodated him with a cottage to reside in. The poor
fellow’s constitution, either originally weak, or undermined by the hardships of
poverty, failed him at a very early period of life. After some stay at the cottage, he was
advised to go and breathe the air of his native place, though situated more to the north.
There, for a short time, he comforted his mother, and was comforted by her, and by the
benevolent attentions of several kind physicians. Upon his death, Mr.
Pratt collected all his additional compositions; and, adopting the title
which Mr. Southey
had given to the works of Kirke White, published the whole of his writings together as
“The Remains of Joseph
Blackett,” by which another con-siderable collection
was made, and formed into a fund for the support of Blackett’s
surviving daughter.
Genius, we well know, is not the exclusive inheritance of the affluent,
but without a considerable degree of education it has not the means of displaying itself,
especially in poetry, where the flowers of language are almost, as essential as the visions
of fancy. Rhetoric and grammar are not necessary in mechanics and mathematics, but they
must be possessed by the Poet, whose title to genius may be overturned by the confusion of
metaphors and the incongruities of tropes. I believe all the Poets of low origin partook,
more or less, of the advantages of education. The last of these was Kirke White, whose learning and piety, however, I always
thought far superior to his poetical nerve. Blackett
was deficient in common learning. I had more pleasure in observing the improvement of his
condi-
tion than in the perusal of his writings; though, in spite
of the ridicule of Lord Byron, and my Ionian friend, as
Lord Byron called Waller
Wright, I saw, or was persuaded by Mr.
Pratt’s warmth to see, some sparkling of genius in the effusions of
this young man. It was upon this that Lord Byron and a young friend of
his were sometimes playful in conversation; and, in writing to me, “I see,”
says the latter, “that Blackett the Son of Crispin and Apollo is
dead. Looking into Boswell’s
Life of Johnson the other day, I
saw, ‘We were talking about the famous Mr.
Wordsworth, the poetical Shoemaker;’—Now, I never before
heard that there had been a Mr. Wordsworth a Poet, a Shoemaker, or
a famous man; and I dare say you have never heard of him. Thus it will be with
Bloomfield and
Blackett—their names two years after their death will be
found neither on the rolls of Curriers’ Hall nor of Par-nassus. Who would think that any body would be such a blockhead as to sin against an
express proverb, ‘Ne sutor ultra crepidam!’ But spare him, ye Critics, his follies are past, For the Cobler is come, as he ought, to his last.
|
Which two lines, with a scratch under last, to shew where
the joke lies, I beg that you will prevail on Miss
Milbank to have inserted on the tomb of her departed
Blackett.” In my reply, I said, “With respect
to Blackett, whatever you may think of his presumption in attempting
to ascend Parnassus, you cannot blame him for descending from a garret to a drawing-room;
for changing starvation and misery for good food and flattering attention; an unwilling
apothecary, for physicians rivalling one another in solicitude and disinterested
attendance; which change, I can assure you, is nothing more than literal truth.” This
produced the following rejoinder: “You seem to me to put
Blackett’s case quite in the right light:—to be
sure any one would rise if he could, and any one has a right to make the effort; but
then any one, on the other hand, has a right to keep the aspirant down, if he thinks
the man’s pretensions ill-founded. I do not laugh at
Blackett, but at those who flattered him. He, poor fellow, was
perfectly right, if he could find protectors, to gain them, either by verse-making or
shoe-making. Indeed, he was right in trying the former, as by far the most easy and
expeditious of the two. Were a regular bred author, a gentleman of education, to write
like them, their verses would not be tolerated. But every one is in a stare of
admiration that a cobler or a tinker should be able to rhyme at all. We gaze at them,
not at their poetry, which is like the crabs found in the heart of a rock: ‘The thing we know is neither rich nor rare, But wonder how the devil it got there.’ |
Some applaud the prodigy out of sheer bad taste; they do not know
that his nonsense is nonsense; others out of pure humanity and goodness of heart. The
first are such people as Pratt and Capel Lofft: the second, such critics as yourself, my dear Sir. But
this is, as I said before, a piece of injustice to men of education, who may sweat,
strain, and labour, and, when they have done their best, hear their own qualifications
quoted against them:—The world says, ‘Mr. —— ought to have
known better—I wonder a man of his education should fail so wretchedly.’
You must not bring G * * against me,
nor a much greater man, Burns, because the one
was a cobler, and the other a ploughman: for, reading their verses, we never think of
the poet; no, we only are intent upon and admire the poetry, which would have delighted
us had it been written by Dryden, or Gay, or any other great name. In the other case, we ought to content ourselves with saying, ‘There goes a
wonderful cobler.’ It is folly and falsehood to say, ‘Look at that poet, he
was a cobler once.’ It is very true that he was a cobler once; but it is not true
that he is a poet now. Shall I tell you, however, to what the reputation of this sort
of men is owing? Doubtless it is to the vanity of those who choose to set up for
patrons, and who, because men of sense and character would scorn their protection, look
out for little sparklings of talent in the depth and darkness of cellars and stalls,
and having popped upon something to their mind, stamp it with their own seal of merit
to pass current with the world. You know a man of true genius will not suffer himself
to be patronized; but a patron is the life and soul and existence of your surprising
fellows. The only legitimate patron is the respectable bookseller, and he will not take
a cobler’s verses, unless they are brought to him by some
Mæcenas who will promise to run all
risks.”
Upon receiving Lord Byron’s
letter from on-board the Volage, I wrote him the following:—
“I called this morning at Reddish’s Hotel, with
the hope of hearing something of you, since which your letter, written at sea,
has been delivered to me. On Monday I trust I shall have the pleasure of
welcoming you in person back to England. I hope you will find more pleasure in
it than you seem to promise yourself. I pity you indeed for the bustle that
awaits you in the arrangement of your affairs. I wish you would allow me to
recommend to you a gentleman whom I have long known; a man of the strictest
honour; a man of business; and one of the best
accountants in the kingdom. He would, I am confident, save you a world of
trouble and a world of money. I know how much he has done for others, who, but
for him, would have been destroyed by the harpies of extortion. I will tell you
more of him when we meet, unless you should think I have already taken
sufficient liberty, in which case I should only beg you to forget it for the
sake of my intention. I rejoice to hear that you are prepared for the press. I
hope to have you in prose as well as verse by and by. You will find your
Satire not forgotten by the public:
it is going fast through its fourth edition, and I cannot call that a
middling run. Some letters have passed between
Hobhouse and me. His account of my
son was truly gratifying to me. He is a
fortunate lad. I wish you had touched at Cadiz, in your way home.
George Byron and he I find are in
correspondence.”
On the 15th of July I had the pleasure of shaking hands with him at
Reddish’s Hotel, in St. James’s-street. I thought his looks belied the report
he had given me of his bodily health, and his countenance did not betoken melancholy, or
displeasure at his return. He was very animated in the account of his travels, but assured
me he had never had the least idea of writing them. He said he believed satire to be his
forte, and to that he had adhered, having written, during his
stay at different places abroad, a paraphrase of Horace’s Art of Poetry, which would be a good finish to English Bards and Scotch Reviewers; forgetting
the regret which, in his last letter, he had expressed to me for having written it. He
seemed to promise himself additional fame from it, and I undertook to superintend its
publication, as I had done that of the Satire. I had chosen the hour ill for my visit, and
we had hardly any time to con-
verse uninterruptedly; he therefore
engaged me to breakfast with him the next morning. In the mean time I looked over the Paraphrase, which I had taken home with me, and
I must say I was grievously disappointed. Not that the verse was bad, or the images of the
Roman poet badly adapted to the times; but a muse much inferior to his might have produced
them in the smoky atmosphere of London, whereas he had been roaming under the cloudless
skies of Greece, on sites where every step he took might have set such a fancy as his
“in fine phrenzies rolling.” But the poem was his, and the affection
he had acquired in my heart was undiminished.
The following lines are inserted as a fair specimen of it. It began
thus:—
“Who would not laugh, if Lawrence, hir’d to grace
His costly canvass with each flatter’d face,
Abused his art, till Nature with a blush
Saw Cits grow Centaurs underneath his brush?
|
Or should some limner join, for show or sale,
A maid of honour to a mermaid’s tail;
Or low D * * * (as
once the world has seen)
Degrade God’s creature’s in his graphic spleen—
Not all that forced politeness which defends
Fools in their faults, could gag his grinning friends.
Believe me, Moschus, like that picture
seems
The book which, sillier than a sick man’s dreams,
Displays a crowd of figures incomplete,
Poetic night-mares without head or feet.
|
Poets and painters, as all artists know,
May shoot a little with a lengthen’d bow;
We claim this mutual mercy for our task,
And grant in turn the pardon which we ask;
But make not monsters spring from gentle dams—
Birds breed not vipers, tigers nurse not lambs.
|
A laboured long exordium sometimes tends
(Like patriot speeches) but to paltry ends;
And nonsense in a lofty note goes down,
As pertness passes with a legal gown:
Thus many a bard describes in pompous strain
The clear brook babbling through the goodly plain;
The groves of Granta, and her Gothic halls,
King’s Coll.—Cam’s stream—stain’d windows,
and old walls;
|
Or in advent’rous numbers neatly aims
To paint a rainbow, or—the river Thames*.
|
You sketch a tree, and so perhaps may shine;
But daub a shipwreck like an alehouse sign:
Why place a Vase, which dwindling to a Pot,
You glide down Grub-street, fasting and forgot?
Laughed into Lethe by some quaint review,
Whose wit is never troublesome—till true.
|
In fine, to whatsoever you aspire,
Let it at least be simple and entire.
The greater portion of the rhyming tribe
(Give ear, my friend, for thou hast been a scribe)
Are led astray by some peculiar lure;
I labour to be brief—become obscure:
One feeds while following elegance too fast;
Another soars—inflated with bombast:
Too low a third crawls on—afraid to fly,
He spins his subject to satiety;
Absurdly varying, he at last engraves
Fish in the woods, and boars beneath the waves!
|
Unless your care’s exact, your judgment nice,
The flight from folly leads but into vice:
None are complete, all wanting in some part,
Like certain tailors, limited in art—
|
* “Where pure description holds the place of
sense.”—Pope.
|
For coat and waistcoat Slowshears is
your man;
But breeches claim another artisan*.—-
Now this to me, I own, seems much the same
As Vulcan’s feet to bear
Apollo’s frame;
Or, with a fair complexion, to expose
Black eyes, black ringlets, and a bottle nose!
|
Dear authors! suit your topics to your strength,
And ponder well your subject and its length;
Nor lift your load until you’re quite aware
What weight your shoulders will or will not bear:
But lucid Order and Wit’s siren voice
Await the poet skilful in his choice;
With native eloquence he soars along,
Grace in his thoughts and music in his song.—
Let judgment teach him wisely to combine
With future parts the now omitted line:
This shall the author choose, or that reject
Precise in style, and cautious to select.
|
Nor slight applause will candid pens afford
The dext’rous coiner of a wanting word.
|
* Mere common mortals were commonly content with one
tailor and one bill; but the more finished gentlemen found it impossible to
confide their lower garments to the makers of their body-clothes. I speak
of the beginning of 1809; what reform may have since taken place I neither
know nor desire to know.
|
Then fear not, if ’tis needful, to produce
Some term unknown, or obsolete in use:
As Pitt*
has furnished us a word or two,
Which Lexicographers declined to do;
So you, indeed, with care (but be content
To take this license rarely) may invent.
|
New words find credit in these latter days,
Adroitly grafted on a Gallic phrase;
If you can add a little, say, why not,
Since they by force of rhyme and force of lungs,
Enriched our island’s ill-united tongues;
’Tis then—and shall be—lawful to present
Reforms in writing as in Parliament.
|
As forests shed their foliage by degrees,
So fade expressions, which in season please;
And we and ours, alas, are due to fate,
And works and words but dwindle to a date.
Though as a monarch nods, and commerce calls,
Impetuous rivers stagnate in canals;
|
* Mr. Pitt was
liberal in his additions to our Parliamentary Tongue, as may be seen in
many publications, particularly the Edinburgh Review.
|
Though swamps subdued, and marshes dried, sustain
The heavy ploughshare, and the yellow grain;
And rising ports along the busy shore,
Protect the vessel from old Ocean’s roar;
All, all must perish—but, surviving last,
The love of letters half preserves the past:—
Thus future years dead volumes shall revive,
And those shall sink which now appear to thrive*,
As custom arbitrates, whose shifting sway
Our life and language must alike obey.
|
The immortal wars which Gods and angels wage,
Are they not shown in Milton’s
sacred page?
His strain will teach what numbers best belong
To themes celestial told in Epic song.
|
The slow sad stanza will correctly paint
The lover’s anguish, or the friend’s complaint;
But which deserves the laurel—rhyme—or blank?
Which holds on Helicon the higher rank?
Let squabbling critics by themselves dispute
This point, as puzzling as a chancery suit.
|
* Old ballads, old plays, and old women’s
stories, are at present in as much request as old wine or newspapers: in
fact, this is the millennium of black-letter; thanks to our Webers and
Scotts!
|
Satiric rhyme first sprang from selfish spleen;
|
Blank verse is now with one consent allied
To tragedy, and rarely quits her side:
No sing-song hero rants in modern plays;
While modest comedy her verse foregoes,
To jest and pun† in very middling prose:
Or lose one point because they wrote in verse:
But so Thalia ventures to appear—
Poor Virgin! damned some twenty times a-year.
* * * * * *
|
’Tis hard to venture where our betters fail,
Or lend fresh interest to a twice-told tale.
And yet, perchance, ’tis wiser to prefer
A hackneyed plot, than choose a new, and err.
Yet copy not too closely, but record
More justly thought for thought, than word for word.
|
† With all the vulgar applause and critical
abhorrence of puns, they have Aristotle
on their side, who permits them to orators, and gives them consequence by a
grave disquisition.
|
Nor trace your prototype through narrow ways,
But only follow where he merits praise.
For you, young bard, whom luckless fate may lead
To tremble on the nod of all who read,
Ere your first score of Cantos time unrolls,
Beware—for God’s sake don’t begin like Bowles*!
|
* About two years ago, a young man, named Townsend, was
announced by Mr.
Cumberland (in a Review since deceased) as being engaged in an epic poem, to be
entitled “Armageddon.” The plan and specimen promise much; but I
hope neither to offend Mr. T. or his friends, by
recommending to his attention the lines of Horace to which these rhymes
allude. If Mr. T. succeeds in his undertaking, as
there is reason to hope, how much will the world be indebted to
Mr. Cumberland
for bringing him before the public. But till that eventful day
arrives, it may be doubted whether the premature display of his plan
(sublime as the ideas confessedly are) has not, by raising expectation too
high, or diminishing curiosity by developing his argument, rather incurred
the hazard of injuring Mr. T.’s future
prospects. Mr. Cumberland (whose talents I shall not
depreciate by the humble tribute of my praise) and Mr.
T. must not suppose me actuated by unworthy motives in this
suggestion. I wish the author all the success he can wish himself, and
shall be truly happy to see epic poetry weighed up from the bathos where it
lies sunken with Southey, Cottle, Cowley, (Mrs.
|
“Awake a louder and a loftier strain”—
And pray—what follows from his boiling brain?
Whose Epic mountains never fail in mice.
The tempered warblings of his master lyre.
Soft as the gentler breathing of the lute,
“Of man’s first disobedience and the fruit”
He speaks, but as his subject swells along,
Earth, heaven, and Hades echo with the song.
|
or Abraham) Ogilvie,
Wilkie, Page, and all the “dull of past and
present days.” Even if he is not a Milton, he may be better than a
Blackmare; if not a Homer, an Antimachus. I should deem myself
presumptuous, as a young man, in offering advice, were it not addressed to
one still younger. Mr. T. has the
greatest difficulties to encounter; but in conquering them he will find
employment—in having conquered them—his reward. I know too well
the “scribbler’s scoff, the critic’s contumely,”
and I am afraid time will teach Mr. T. to know them
better. Those who succeed and those who do not must bear this alike, and it
is hard to say which have most of it. I trust that Mr. Townsend’s share will be
from envy; he will soon know mankind well enough not to attribute this
expression to malice.
|
The above note was written before the author was
apprised of Mr. Cumberland’s
death.
|
Still to the midst of things he hastens on,
As if we witnessed all already done;
Leaves on his path whatever seems too mean
To raise the subject or adorn the scene;
Gives, as each page improves upon the sight,
Not smoke from brightness, but from darkness light,
And truth and fiction with such art compounds,
We know not where to fix their several bounds.
|
In not disparaging this poem, however, next day, I could
not refrain from expressing some surprise that he had written nothing else: upon which he
told me that he had occasionally written short poems, besides a great many stanzas in
Spenser’s measure, relative to the
countries he had visited. “They are not worth troubling you with, but you shall
have them all with you if you like.”
So came I by Childe Harold’s
Pilgrimage. He took it from a small trunk, with a number of verses. He
said they had been read but by one person, who had found very little to commend, and
much to condemn: that he himself was of
that opinion, and he was
sure I should be so too. Such as it was, however, it was at my service; but he was
urgent that “The Hints from Horace” should
be immediately put in train, which I promised to have done. How much he was
mistaken as to my opinion, the following letter shows. He was going next morning to Harrow
for a few days, but I was so delighted with his poem that I could not refrain from writing
to him that very evening, the 16th of July.
“You have written one of the most delightful poems I
ever read. If I wrote this in flattery, I should deserve your contempt rather
than your friendship. Remember, I depend upon your considering me superior to
it. I have been so fascinated with Childe Harold, that I have not been able to lay it down. I would
almost pledge my life on its advancing the reputa-
tion of
your poetical powers, and of its gaining you great honour and regard, if you
will do me the credit and favour of attending to my suggestions respecting some
alterations and omissions which I think indispensable. Not a line do I mean to
offer. I already know your sentiment on that point—all shall be your own;
but in having the magnanimity to sacrifice some favourite stanzas, you will
perhaps have a little trouble, though indeed but a little, in connecting the
parts. I shall instantly put the poem into my nephew’s hands to copy it
precisely; and I hope, on Friday or Saturday morning, to take my breakfast with
you, as I did this morning. It is long since I spent two hours so
agreeably—not only your kind expressions as to myself, but the marked
temperance of your mind, gave me extreme pleasure.”
Attentive as he had hitherto been to my
opinions and suggestions, and natural as it was that he should be swayed by such
decided praise, I was surprised to find that I could not at first obtain credit with
Lord Byron for my judgment on Childe Harold’s Pilgrimage. “It was any
thing but poetry—it had been condemned by a good critic—had I not
myself seen the sentences on the margins of the manuscript?” He
dwelt upon the paraphrase of the Art of Poetry
with pleasure; and the manuscript of that was given to Cawthorn, the publisher of the Satire, to be brought forth without delay. I did not, however, leave him so:
before I quitted him I returned to the charge, and told him that I was so convinced of the
merit of Childe Harold’s Pilgrimage, that as he had given
it to me, I should certainly publish it, if he would have the kindness to attend to some
corrections and alterations.
He at length seemed impressed by my
perseverance,
and took the poem into consideration. He was at first unwilling to alter or omit any of the
stanzas, but they could not be published as they stood. Besides several weak and ludicrous
passages, unworthy of the poem, there were some of an offensive nature, which, on
reflection, his own feelings convinced him could not with propriety be allowed to go into
the world. These he undertook to curtail and soften; but he persisted in preserving his
philosophical, free-thinking stanzas, relative to death. I had much friendly, but
unsuccessful contest with him on that point, and I was obliged to be satisfied with the
hypothetical but most beautiful stanza— Yet if, as holiest men have deem’d, there be A land of souls beyond that sable shore, &c. |
which, in the course of our contention, he sent me, to be inserted after the sceptical
stanzas in the beginning of the Second Canto. He also sacrificed
to me some harsh political reflections on the Government, and a ludicrous stanza or two
which I thought injured the poem. I did all I could to raise his opinion of this
composition, and I succeeded; but he varied much in his feelings about it, nor was he, as
will appear, at his ease, until the world decided on its merit. He said again and again,
that I was going to get him into a scrape with his old enemies, and that none of them would
rejoice more than the Edinburgh Reviewers at
an opportunity to humble him. He said I must not put his name to it. I entreated him to
leave it to me, and that I would answer for this poem silencing all his enemies.
The publication of it being determined upon, my first thought respecting
a publisher was to give it to Cawthorn, as it
appeared to me right that he should have
it who had done so well
with the Poet’s former work; but Cawthorn did not then rank high
among the brethren of the trade. I found that this had been instilled into Lord Byron’s ear since his return to England, probably
at Harrow. I was sorry for it; for instead of looking for fashionable booksellers, he
should, as Pope did, have made his bookseller the
most fashionable one, and this he could easily have done. He thought more modestly of
himself, and said he wished I would offer it to Miller, of Albermarle-street. “Cawthorn had
The Hints from Horace—he always
meant them for him, and the Poems had better be published by different
booksellers.” I could not accord in the opinion, but I yielded of course to
his wish. It was but a step; I carried it up to Miller, and left it
with him, enjoining him the strictest secresy as to the author. In a few days, by
appointment, I called again to know his decision. He declined
publishing it. He noticed all my objections; his critic had pointed them out; but his chief
objection he stated to be the manner in which Lord
Elgin was treated in the poem. He was his bookseller and publisher. When I
reported this to Lord Byron, his scruples and apprehensions of
injuring his fame returned; but I overcame them, and he gave me leave to publish with whom
I pleased, requesting me only to keep in mind what he had said as to
Cawthorn, and also the refusal of Longman’s house to publish his Satire. Next to these I wished to oblige Mr.
Murray, who had then a shop opposite St. Dunstan’s church, in
Fleet-street. Both he and his father before him had published for myself. He had expressed
to me his regret that I did not carry him the English Bards and Scotch
Reviewers. But this was after its success—I think he would have refused it
in its embryo state. After
Lord Byron’s arrival, I had met him, and he said he wished I
would obtain some work of his Lordship’s for him. I now had it in my power, and I put
Childe Harold’s Pilgrimage into
his hands, telling him that Lord Byron had made me a present of it;
and that I expected that he would make a very liberal agreement with me for it. He took
some days to consider, during which time he consulted his literary advisers, among whom, no
doubt, was Mr. Gifford, who was the Editor of the
Quarterly Review. That Mr.
Gifford gave a favourable opinion I afterwards learned from Mr.
Murray himself; but the objections I have stated stared him in the face, and
he was kept in suspense between the desire of possessing a work of Lord
Byron’s, and the fear of an unsuccessful speculation. We came to this
conclusion; that he should print, at his expense, a handsome quarto edition, the profits of
which I should share equally with him, and that the agreement for
the copyright should depend upon the success of this edition. When I told this to
Lord Byron he was highly pleased, but still doubted the copyright
being worth my acceptance; promising, however, if the poem went through the edition to give
me other poems to annex to Childe Harold. These preliminaries
being settled, I persisted in my attacks on the objectionable parts of this delightful
work, now formally become mine. He wrote an introductory stanza, for the second originally
stood first, polished some lines, and became in general far more condescending and
compliant than I ever flattered myself I should find him; which I attributed to his clearly
perceiving how sincerely I loved him. Finding that I could gain nothing in respect to the
sceptical stanzas, the conciliatory one I have already mentioned not having been written at
that time, I drew up a regular protest
against them, and enclosed it to him in a short letter just before
he left town, which departure, though always intended to be soon, was at last, very sudden,
in consequence of an express from Newstead Abbey, by which he was informed that his
mother’s life was despaired of, and urged
to lose no time in coming to the Abbey. He instantly set off post with four horses, but,
alas! she did not live to embrace him.
“Within is my formal protest
against the sceptical stanzas of your poem. You have seen no symptoms of a
Puritan in me; I have seen none of a Scoffer in you.—You, I know, can
endure my sincerity; I should be sorry if I could not appreciate yours. You
have the uncommon virtue of not being anxious to make others think as you do on
religious topics; I, less disinterested, have the greatest desire, not without
great hope, that you may one day think as I do.”
ENCLOSURE.
The Protest of R. C.
Dallas against certain Sceptical Stanzas in the Poem
entitled Childe Harold’s
Pilgrimage.
Dissentient—
Because—Although among feeble and corrupt men
religions may take their turn; although Jupiter and Mahomet, and
error after error, may enter the brain of misguided mortals, it does not follow
that there is not a true religion, or that the incense of the heart ascends in
vain, or that the faith of a Christian is built on reeds.
Because—Although bound for a term to the earth, it is
natural to hope, and rational to expect, existence in another world; since, if
it be not so, the noblest attributes of God, justice and goodness, must be
subtracted from our ideas of the great Creator; and although our senses make us
acquainted
with the chemical decomposition of our
bodies, it does not follow that he who has power to create has not power to
raise; or that he who had the will to give life and hope of immortality, has
not the will to fulfil his virtual, not to say actual, promise.
Because—Although a skull well affords a subject for
moralizing; although in its worm-eaten, worm-disdained state, it is so far from
being a temple worthy of a God, that it is unworthy of the creature whom it
once served as the recess of wisdom and of wit; and although no saint, sage, or
sophist can refit it,—it does not follow that God’s power is
limited, or that what is sown in corruption may not be raised in incorruption,
that what is sown a natural body may not be raised a spiritual body.
Because—The same authority, Socrates, cited to prove how unequal the human intellect is to
fathom the designs of Omniscience and Omnipotence, is one of the
strongest in favour of the immortality of the soul.
Because—Although there is good sense and a kind
intention expressed in these words:—“I am no sneerer at thy
phantasy,” “Thou pitiest me, alas! I envy
thee,”—and “I ask thee not to prove a Saducee;”
yet the intention is counteracted by the sentiments avowed, and the example
published, by which the young and the wavering may be detained in the
wretchedness of doubt, or confirmed in the despair of unbelief.
Because—I think of the author of the poem as Pope did of Garth, of whom he said, “Garth is
a Christian, and does not know it.” Consequently, I think that he
will, one day, be sorry for publishing such opinions.
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. . . .
Antimachus (400 BC fl.)
Of Colophon; a Hellenistic poet noted for his obscurity in works that survive in
fragments.
Aristotle (384 BC-322 BC)
Athenian philosopher and scientist who studied under Plato; the author of
Metaphysics,
Politics,
Nichomachean Ethics, and
Poetics.
Francis Beaumont (1585-1616)
English playwright, often in collaboration with John Fletcher; author of
The Knight of the Burning Pestle (1607).
Joseph Blacket (1786-1810)
English shoemaker-poet;
Specimens of the Poetry of Joseph Blacket
(1809) was published under the patronage of Samuel Jackson Pratt; in failing health he was
later supported by Sir Ralph Milbanke, whose gamekeeper was a relation.
Sir Richard Blackmore (1654-1729)
Physician, poet, and critic who was the subject of much abuse among the wits; he was
author of
Prince Arthur: an Heroick Poem in Ten Books (1695) and
several other epics allegorizing Whig doctrines.
Robert Bloomfield (1766-1823)
The shoemaker-poet patronized by Capel Lofft; he wrote the very popular
The Farmer's Boy (1800).
James Boswell (1740-1795)
Scottish man of letters, author of
The Life of Samuel Johnson
(1791).
William Lisle Bowles (1762-1850)
English poet and critic; author of
Fourteen Sonnets, elegiac and
descriptive, written during a Tour (1789), editor of the
Works
of Alexander Pope, 10 vols (1806), and writer of pamphlets contributing to the
subsequent Pope controversy.
Thomas Bruce, seventh earl of Elgin (1766-1841)
British ambassador to Constantinople (1799); with the permission of the Turks he removed
the Parthenon marbles which were purchased for the British Museum in 1816.
Robert Burns (1759-1796)
Scottish poet and song collector; author of
Poems, chiefly in the
Scottish Dialect (1786).
George Anson Byron, seventh Baron Byron (1789-1868)
Naval officer and Byron's heir; the son of Captain John Byron (1758-93), he was lord of
the bedchamber (1830-1837) and lord-in-waiting (1837-1860) to Queen Victoria.
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.
Geoffrey Chaucer (1340 c.-1400)
English Poet, the author of
The Canterbury Tales (1390 c.).
Joseph Cottle (1770-1853)
Bristol bookseller and poet; he published the
Lyrical Ballads,
several heroic poems that attracted Byron's derision, and
Early
Recollections, chiefly relating to the late Samuel Taylor Coleridge, 2 vols
(1837).
Abraham Cowley (1618-1667)
English royalist poet; his most enduring work was his posthumously-published
Essays (1668).
Hannah Cowley [née Parkhouse] [Anna Matilda] (1743-1809)
English playwright and poet, author of
The Belle's Stratagem
(1780); her Della Cruscan poetry printed in
The World newspaper was
ridiculed by William Gifford in
The Baviad (1794).
Richard Cumberland (1732-1811)
English playwright and man of letters caricatured by Sheridan as “Sir Fretful Plagiary.”
Memoirs of Richard Cumberland, written by himself was published
in two volumes (1806-07).
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.
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).
Antoine Dubost (1769-1825)
French portrait painter; in 1810 he published
Hunt and Hope: An Appeal
to the Public against the Calumnies of the Editor of the Examiner.
Sir Samuel Garth (1661-1719)
English physician, poet, and member of the Kit-Kat club; he was author of the burlesque
poem,
The Dispensary (1699).
John Gay (1685-1732)
English poet and Scriblerian satirist; author of
The Shepherd's
Week (1714),
Trivia (1714), and
The
Beggar's Opera (1727).
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 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).
Homer (850 BC fl.)
Poet of the
Iliad and
Odyssey.
Horace (65 BC-8 BC)
Roman lyric poet; author of
Odes,
Epistles, Satires, and the
Ars Poetica.
Ben Jonson (1572-1637)
English dramatist, critic, and epigrammatist, friend of William Shakespeare and John
Donne.
Sir Thomas Lawrence (1769-1830)
English portrait painter who succeeded Joshua Reynolds as painter in ordinary to the king
(1792); he was president of the Royal Academy (1820).
Capel Lofft (1751-1824)
English poet, lawyer, and political reformer; he was the patron of the poet Robert
Bloomfield. Charles Lamb described him as “the genius of absurdity.”
Thomas Norton Longman (1771-1842)
A leading London publisher whose authors included Southey, Wordsworth, Scott, and
Moore.
Gaius Maecenas (70 BC-8 BC)
Counsellor to the Emperor Augustus and patron of Virgil and Horace.
Mahomet (570 c.-632)
Founder of the Muslim religion.
William Richard Beckford Miller (1769-1844)
Albemarle-Street bookseller; he began publishing in 1790; shortly after he rejected
Byron's
Childe Harold in 1811 his stock and premises were purchased
by John Murray.
John Milton (1608-1674)
English poet and controversialist; author of
Comus (1634),
Lycidas (1638),
Areopagitica (1644),
Paradise Lost (1667), and other works.
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.
John Ogilby (1600-1676)
Scottish-born poet and innovative publisher whose translations of Virgil and Aesop were
dismissed by Alexander Pope. He had more success with his atlases.
William Pitt the younger (1759-1806)
The second son of William Pitt, earl of Chatham (1708-1778); he was Tory prime minister
1783-1801.
Alexander Pope (1688-1744)
English poet and satirist; author of
The Rape of the Lock (1714)
and
The Dunciad (1728).
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.
Henry James Pye (1745-1813)
Succeeded William Whitehead as Poet Laureate in 1790; Pye first attracted attention with
Elegies on Different Occasions (1768); author of
The Progress of Refinement: a Poem (1783).
Socrates (469 BC-399 BC)
Athenian philosopher whose teachings were recorded by Plato and Xenophon.
Robert Southey (1774-1843)
Poet laureate and man of letters whose contemporary reputation depended upon his prose
works, among them the
Life of Nelson, 2 vols (1813),
History of the Peninsular War, 3 vols (1823-32) and
The Doctor, 7 vols (1834-47).
Edmund Spenser (1552 c.-1599)
English poet, author of
The Shepheards Calender (1579) and
The Faerie Queene (1590, 1596).
Jonathan Swift (1667-1745)
Dean of St Patrick's, Scriblerian satirist, and author of
Battle of the
Books with
Tale of a Tub (1704),
Drapier
Letters (1724),
Gulliver's Travels (1726), and
A Modest Proposal (1729).
George Townsend (1788-1857)
He attended Trinity College, Cambridge under the patronage of Richard Cumberland, and
published
Armageddon a Poem, in Twelve Books (1815) and
The Old Testament arranged in Historical and Chronological Order, 2
vols (1821).
Henry William Weber (1783-1818)
The son of a Moravian father and English mother, he published an edition of the works of
John Ford and Beaumont and Fletcher; after working as an editorial assistant to Walter
Scott he spent his latter years in a lunatic asylum.
Henry Kirke White (1785-1806)
Originally a stocking-weaver; trained for the law at Cambridge where he was a
contemporary of Byron; after his early death his poetical
Remains
were edited by Robert Southey (2 vols, 1807) with a biography that made the poet
famous.
William Wilkie (1721-1772)
Scottish poet and professor of natural philosophy at St. Andrews (1759); author of the
Epigoniad (1757).
William Wordsworth (1770-1850)
With Coleridge, author of
Lyrical Ballads (1798), Wordsworth
survived his early unpopularity to succeed Robert Southey as poet laureate in 1843.
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).
London Review. (1809). Edited by Richard Cumberland; only two numbers appeared; in a departure from usual
practice the reviews were signed.
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.
Horace (65 BC-8 BC)
Ars Poetica. (10 BC c.). A verse treatise cast as an Epistle to the Pisos; it was edited with a substantial
commentary by Richard Hurd (1749).
Alexander Pope (1688-1744)
The Dunciad. (London: A. Dodd, 1728). Pope's mock-heroic satire on the abuse of literature unfolded over time, appearing as
The Dunciad: an Heroic Poem in Three Books (1728),
The Dunciad Variorum (1729),
The New Dunciad (1742), and
The Dunciad in Four Books (1743). The original hero, Lewis
Theobald, was replaced by Colley Cibber in 1743.