Recollections of the Life of Lord Byron

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)

I recollect nothing of all this—but suppose that he alludes to a journal which I kept for six months, in 1813 and 14, and afterwards gave to Moore, who, I believe, still has it. . . .

[John Cam Hobhouse], “[Review of Dallas and Medwin on Byron]” in Westminster Review Vol. 3 (January 1825)

Across this passage lord Byron has written as follows. . . .

[John Cam Hobhouse], “[Review of Dallas and Medwin on Byron]” in Westminster Review Vol. 3 (January 1825)

This is not true—the publication of Childe Harold was urged, but not the suppression of the satire. What took place was in 1812, to gratify Rogers,who asked me on account of Lord Holland. . . .

[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. . . .

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.

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).

Mahomet (570 c.-632) Founder of the Muslim religion.

Alexander Pope (1688-1744) English poet and satirist; author of The Rape of the Lock (1714) and The Dunciad (1728).

Socrates (469 BC-399 BC) Athenian philosopher whose teachings were recorded by Plato and Xenophon.

George Gordon Byron, sixth Baron Byron (1788-1824) Childe Harold's Pilgrimage: a Romaunt. (London: John Murray, 1812-1818). A burlesque topographical poem in Spenserian stanzas; Cantos I-II were published in 1812, III in 1816, and IV in 1818.