Recollections of the Life of Lord Byron
Chapter VI
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LITERARY CAREER, AND INCLUDING VARIOUS UNPUBLISHED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 VI.
OPINIONS AND FEELINGS OF LORD BYRON
AFTER THE DEATH OF HIS MOTHER.
At every step which I take in my task of submitting to the
public my Recollections of Lord Byron, I feel a deeper
regret at the unfortunate necessity which deprives them of his Correspondence. The letters,
which I received from him while he was at Newstead, give a complete picture of his mind,
under circumstances peculiarly calculated to call forth its most interesting features. Our
correspondence was kept up without interruption. Upon arriving at Newstead he found that
his mother had breathed her last. He suffered much from this loss, and the disappointment
of not seeing her before her death; and
while his feelings were
still very acute, within a few days of his arrival at the Abbey, he received the
intelligence that Mr. M * * *, a very
intimate friend of his friend Mr. Hobhouse, and one
whom he highly estimated himself, had been drowned in the Cam. He had not long before heard
of the death of his schoolfellow, Wingfield, at
Coimbra, to whom he was much attached. He wrote me an account of these events in a short
but affecting letter. They had all died within a month, he having just heard from all
three, but seen none. The letter from Mr. M * * * had
been written the day previous to his death. He could not restore them by regret, and
therefore, with a sigh to the departed, he struggled to return to the heavy routine of
life, in the sure expectation that all would one day have their repose. He felt that his
grief was selfish. He wished to think upon any subject except death—he was satiated
with that. Having always four skulls in his library, he could look
on them without emotion; but he could not allow his imagination to take off the fleshy
covering from those of his friends, without a horrible sensation; and he thought that the
Romans were right in burning their deceased friends. I wrote to him, and said:
“On my return home last night, I received your letter,
which renewed in my mind some of the most painful ideas which for many years
accompanied me, or took place of all others; which, in spite of Philosophy,
and, yes, my lord, in spite of Religion, rendered my life wretched; and which
time, in bringing me nearer to eternity, has softened to such a degree, that
they are now far from being painful. But you deprecate the subject, and I will
not enlarge upon it, though one I take some delight in. You have, indeed, had
enough within a very short time, to make you prefer any other: yet I
must not lose the opportunity of saying once more, what
I imagine may have been said a thousand times before, that is, how cruel a
present is a reflecting mind, if all existence terminates with life! I feel
much for your friend
Hobhouse. I
supposed him embarked for Ireland,
en
militaire, at the time that I saw the account of
Mr. M * * *’s fate in the
papers. Resignation, I must own, is a difficult virtue when the heart is deeply
affected—at the same time, it is the part of every man of sense to
cultivate it, and to be indebted for it rather to his reason, or his religion,
than to the influence of time. I condemn myself, perhaps; but the argument may
be of service to strong and active minds. With respect to your friend
Wingfield, it must be some consolation to you
to have consecrated his memory in the stanzas you have since inserted in your
Poem; and if there should be a meeting hereafter, as alluded to by the
half-hoping stanza which
you have added, let me flatter
myself to please me, the pleasure with him will not be a little heightened by
that memorial.
The funeral pile, the ashes preserved by the asbestos, and
inurned, are circumstances more pleasing to the imagination than a box, a hole,
and worms; but when the vivifying principle has ceased to act, let me say, when
the soul is separated from the chemical elements which constitute body, Reason
says it is of little importance what becomes of them. Even in burning, we
cannot save all the body from mixing with other natures: by the flames much is
carried off into the atmosphere, and falls again to the earth to fertilize it,
and sustain worms. Nay, in the entombed box, perhaps, the dust is at last more
purely preserved; for though, in the course of decomposition, it gives a
temporary existence to a loathsome creature, yet, in time, the rioted worm dies
too, and gives back to the mass
of dust the share of
substance which it borrowed for its own form. I am afraid this language borders
on the subject I meant to avoid.”
Lord Byron disclaimed the acuteness of feeling I
attributed to him, because, though he certainly felt unhappy, he was nevertheless attacked
by a kind of hysterical merriment, or rather a laughing without merriment, which he could
neither understand nor overcome, and which gave him no relief, while a spectator would
think him in good spirits. He frequently talked of M * * * as of a person of gigantic intellect—he could
by no language do justice to his abilities—all other men were pigmies to him. He
loved Wingfield indeed more—he was an earlier
and a dearer friend, and one whom he could never regret loving—but in talent he knew
no equal to M * * *. In him he had to mourn the loss of
a guide, philo-
sopher; and friend, while in
Wingfield he lost a friend only, though one before whom he could
have wished to have gone his long journey. Lord Byron’s language
concerning Mr. M * * * was equally strong and
remarkable. He affirmed that it was not in the mind of those who did not know him, to
conceive such a man; that his superiority was too great to excite envy—that he was
awed by him—that there was the mark of an immortal creature in
whatever he did, and yet he was gone—that such a man should have been given
over to death, so early in life, bewildered him. In referring to the honours
M * * * acquired at the University, he declared
that nevertheless he was a most confirmed atheist, indeed offensively
so, for he did not scruple to avow his opinions in all companies.
Once only did Lord Byron ever express,
in distinct terms to me, a direct attack upon the tenets of the Christian Reli-
gion; I postponed my answer, saying upon this I had much to write to
him. He afterwards reminded me of my having said so, but, at the same time, begged me not
to enter upon metaphysics, upon which he never could agree with me. In answering him, I
said, “If I have not written the much with which I have threatened you, it has been
owing, not solely to my avocations, but partly to a consciousness of my subject being too
weighty for me, and not adapted to a hasty discussion. A passage in your letter of the 7th
of this month, beginning: ’Are you aware that your religion is impious?’
&c., incited me to a determination, in spite of the indolence I begin to feel on
argumentative topics, to call you a purblind philosopher, and to
break a lance with you in defence of a cause on which I rest so much hope. I still dread
that my feebleness may be laid to the account, and esteemed the feebleness of the cause
itself.
“By proposing to drop metaphysics you cut down the
much I meditated. I will not pursue them at present, though I think them the prime
subjects of intellectual enjoyment. But, though I drop my point, instead of couching my
lance, I do not mean to say that I will not yet try my strength. Meanwhile, though neither
Mr. H * *’s glow, nor my
fervour, has wrought conviction hitherto; this I am sure of, that you will not shut your
mind against it, whenever your understanding begins to feel ground to rest upon. I compare
such philosophers as you, and Hume, and Gibbon, (—I have put you into company that you are
not ashamed of—) to mariners wrecked at sea, buffeting the waves for life, and at
last carried by a current towards land, where, meeting with rugged and perpendicular rocks,
they decide that it is impossible to land, and, though some of their companions point out a
firm
beach, exclaim—‘Deluded things! there can be no
beach, unless you melt down these tremendous rocks—no, our ship is wrecked, and to
the bottom we must go—all we have to do is to swim on, till Fate overwhelms
us.’—You do not deny the depravity of the human race—well, that is one
step gained—it is allowing that we are cast away—it is, figuratively, our
shipwreck. Behold us, then, all scattered upon the ocean, and all
anxious to be saved—all, at least, willing to be on terra
firma; the Humes, the Gibbons, the
Voltaires, as well as the Newtons, the Lockes, the Johnsons, &c. The latter
make for the beach; the former exhaust their strength about the rocks, and sink, declaring
them insurmountable. The incarnation of a Deity! vicarious atonement! the innocent
suffering for the guilty! the seeming inconsistencies of the Old Testament, and the dis-crepancies of the new! &c. &c.! are rocks which I am free to
own are not easily melted down; but I am certain that they may be viewed from a point on
the beach in less deterring forms, lifting their heads into the clouds indeed, yet adding
sublimity to the prospect of the shores on which we have landed, and by no means impeding
our progress upon it. In less metaphorical language, my lord, it appears to me, that
freethinkers are generally more eager to strengthen their objections than solicitous for
conviction; and prefer wandering into proud inferences, to pursuing the evidences of facts;
so contrary to the example given to us in all judicial investigations, where testimony
precedes reasoning, and is the ground of it. The corruption of human nature being
self-evident, it is very natural to inquire the cause of that corruption, and as natural to
hope that there may be a re-medy for it. The cause and the remedy
have been stated.
“How are we to ascertain the truth of them? Not by arguing
mathematically, but by first examining the proofs adduced; and if they are satisfactory, to
use our reasoning powers, as far as they will go, to clear away the difficulties which may
attend them. This is the only mode of investigating with any hope of conviction. It is, to
return to my metaphor, the beach on which we may find a footing, and be able to look around
us; on which breach, I trust, I shall one day or other see you taking your stand. I have
done—and pray observe, that I have kept my word—I have not entered on
metaphysics on the subject of Revelation. I have merely stated the erroneous proceeding of
freethinking Philosophy; and, on the other hand, the natural and rational proceeding of the
mind in the inquiry after truth:
—the conviction must, and I
am confident will, be the operation of your own mind.”
Lord Byron noticed, indeed, what I had written, but in a
very discouraging manner. He would have nothing to do with the subject—we should all
go down together, he said, “So,” quoting St. Paul, “let us eat and
drink, for to-morrow we die;”—he felt satisfied in his creed, for it
was better to sleep than to wake.
Such were the opinions which occasionally manifested themselves in this
unhappy young man, and which gave me a degree of pain proportioned to the affection I could
not but feel for him; while my hopes of his ultimately breaking from the trammels of
infidelity, which were never relinquished, received from time to time fresh excitement from
some expressions that appeared to me to have an opposite tendency. He frequently recurred
to his
playful raillery upon the subject of my co-operation in the
murder, as he called it, of poor Blackett. Upon one
occasion, he mentioned him in opposition to Kirke
White, whom, setting aside what he called his bigotry, he classed with
Chatterton. He expressed wonder that
White was so little known at Cambridge, where he said nobody knew
any thing about him until his death. He added, that for himself, he should have taken pride
in making his acquaintance, and that his very prejudices were calculated to render him
respectable. Such occasional expressions as these, in spite of the inconsistency which they
displayed, furnished food for my hope that I should one day see him sincerely embracing
Christianity, and escaping from the vortex of the Atheistical society, in which, having
entered at all, it was only wonderful to me that he was so moderate in his expressions as
in general he had hitherto been. He told me that both his friend,
Juvenal Hodgson, and myself, had beset him upon
the subject of religion, and that my warmth was nothing, compared to his fire—his
reward would surely be great in heaven, he said, if he were half as careful in the matter
of his own salvation, as he was voluntarily anxious concerning his friends. Lord Byron added, that he gave honour to us both, but
conviction to neither.
The mention of Kirke White brought
to his mind an embryo epic poet who was at Cambridge, Mr.
Townsend, who had published the plan and specimen of a work, to be called
“Armageddon.”
Lord Byron’s opinion of this is already given
in his own note, to a line in his Hints from Horace
(see page 111); but in referring to him, he thought that perhaps his anticipating the Day
of Judgment was too presumptuous—it seemed something like instructing the Lord
what he should do, and might put a captious person in mind of the
line, “And fools rush in where angels fear to tread.” |
This he said, without wishing to cavil himself, but other people would; he
nevertheless hoped, that Mr. Townsend would complete his work, in
spite of Milton.
Lord Byron’s moral feelings were sometimes evinced
in a manner which the writings and opinions of his later life render remarkable. When he
was abroad, he was informed that the son of one of his tenants had seduced a respectable
young person in his own station in life. On this he expressed his opinion very strongly.
Although he felt it impossible strictly to perform what he conceived our first duty, to
abstain from doing harm, yet he thought our second duty was to exert all our power to
repair the harm we may have done. In the particular case in question, the parties
ought forthwith to marry, as they were in equal
circumstances—if the girl had been the inferior of the seducer, money would be even
then an insufficient compensation. He would not sanction in his tenants what he would not
do himself. He had, indeed, as God knew, committed many excesses,
but as he had determined to amend, and latterly kept to his determination, this young man
must follow his example. He insisted that the seducer should restore the unfortunate girl
to society.
The manner in which Lord Byron
expressed his particular feelings respecting his own life, was melancholy to a painful
degree. At one time, he said, that he was about to visit Cambridge, but that M * * * was gone, and Hobhouse was also absent; and except the person who had
invited him, there was scarcely any to welcome him. From this his thoughts fell into a
gloomy channel—he was alone in the world, and
only
three-and-twenty; he could be no more than alone, when he should have nearly finished his
course; he had, it was true, youth to begin again with, but he had no one with whom to call
back the laughing period of his existence. He was struck with the singular circumstance
that few of his friends had had a quiet death; but a quiet life, he said, was more
important. He afterwards acknowledged that he felt his life had been altogether opposed to
propriety, and even decency; and that it was now become a dreary blank, with his friends
gone, either by death or estrangement.
While he was still continuing at Newstead, he wrote me a letter, which
affected me deeply, upon the occasion of another death with which he was shocked—he
lost one whom he had dearly loved in the more
smiling season of his earlier youth; but he quoted—“I have almost forgot the
taste of grief, and supped full of horrors.” He
could
not then weep for an event which a few years before would have overwhelmed him. He appeared
to be afflicted in youth, he thought, with the greatest unhappiness of old age, to see
those he loved fall about him, and stand solitary before he was withered. He had not, like
others, domestic resources; and his internal anticipations gave him no prospect in time or
in eternity, except the selfish gratification of living longer than those who were better.
At this period he expressed great wretchedness; but he turned from himself, and knowing
that I was contemplating a retirement into the country, he proposed a plan for me, dictated
by great kindness of heart, by which I was the more sensibly touched, as it occupied his
mind at such a moment. He wished me to settle in the little town of Southwell, the
particulars of which he explained to me. Upon these subjects I wrote to him as follows, on
the 27th of October.
“Your letter of the 11th made such an impression upon
me, that I felt as if I had a volume to say upon it; yet, it is but too true,
that the sensibility which vents itself in many words carries with it the
appearance of affectation, and hardly ever pleases in real life. The few
sentences of your letter relative to the death of friends, and to your
feelings, excited in my mind no common degree of sympathy; but I must be
content to express it in a common way, and briefly.
Death has, indeed, begun to draw your attention very early.
I hardly knew what it was, or thought of it till I went at the age of
five-and-twenty to reside in the West Indies, and there he began to show
himself to me frequently. My friends, young and old, were carried to the grave
with a rapidity that astonished me, and I was myself in a manner snatched out
of his grasp. This, and the other sad concomitants of a West
Indian existence, determined me to adopt, at whatever
loss, any alternative by which I might plant my family in England. Here I have
grown old without seeing much of him near me, though when he has approached me
it has been in his most dreadful form. I am led to these recollections from
comparing your experience at three-and-twenty with mine long after that age.
Your losses, and in a country where health and life have more stable
foundations than in torrid climates, have been extraordinary; and that too
within the limit, I believe, of one or two years. I thank you for your
confidential communication at the bottom of the stanza which so much delighted
me. How truly do I wish that the being to whom that verse now belongs had
lived, and lived yours! What your obligations to her would have been in that
case is inconceivable; and, as it is, what a gratification would it be to me to
believe, that in
her death she has left you indebted to
her; to believe that these lines
‘Well—I will dream that we may meet again, And woo the vision to my vacant breast’— |
are not merely the glow of a poetic imagination, nor the fleeting
inspiration of sorrow; but a well-founded hope, leading to the persuasion that
there is another and a better world.
Your reflections on the forlorn state of your existence are
very painful, and very strongly expressed. I confess I am at a loss how to
preach comfort. It would be very easy for me to resort to commonplaces, and
refer you to study and the enjoyment of the intellect; but I know too well that
happiness must find its abode in the heart, and not in the head. Voltaire, who you know is no apostle with me,
expresses this pleasingly:
Est-il done vrai, grands Dieux! il ne faut plus que
j’aime! La foule des beaux arts, dont je veux tour a tour
Remplir le vuide de moi-même, N’est point encore assez pour remplacer
l’amour.’ |
He evidently means
love, emphatically so called;
but kind affections of every nature are sources of happiness, and more lasting
ones than that violent flame, which, like the pure air of the chemist, when
separated from common air, intoxicates, and accelerates the term of its
existence. Those affections are the only remedy I see for you. The more you
lose, the more should you strive to repair your losses. At your age the door of
friendship cannot be shut; but man, and woman too, is imperfect: you must make
allowances, and though human nature is in a sad state, there are many worthy of
your regard. I am certain you may yet go through life surrounded by
friends,—real friends, not—
‘—Flatterers of the festal hour, The heartless parasites of present cheer.’ |
I am truly sorry for the wretchedness you are suffering, and the more,
because I am certain of your not having any pathetic cant in your character.
But while I think you have reason to be unhappy, I confide in the strength of
your understanding, to get the better of the evils of life, and to enter upon a
new pursuit of happiness. You see the volume will come, but believe me it comes
from the heart.
I thank you most kindly for that part of your letter which
relates to my purposed retirement into the country. You judge rightly that I
should not wish to be entirely out of society, but my bent on this head is more
on account of my family than myself; for I could live alone, that is alone with
them. I often avoid company; but it has been one of the greatest pleasures of
my life to see them coveted in society. Your
account of
Southwell delights me; and the being within reach of the metropolis would of
itself outweigh the charm of the
picturesque, though a
charm, and a great one, it has. The being within a ride of you, however, is the
decisive attraction. I will, then, from this time keep Southwell in view for my
retreat, and at a future day we will take our flight. I am going to dine with
the Ionian to-day. He and
Mrs. Wright carried me off suddenly last night
to the Haymarket to see
Mathews, who
performs no more in London this winter, for which I am sorry, as I am
meditating another ordeal at the Lyceum, in which he might have been of use to
me. Mr. Wright feels himself honoured in your desire of
being personally acquainted with him, and I shall be proud of being the
introducer of such friends. You think, no doubt, that I have communicated your
poem to him, and you would not do me justice if you thought
otherwise. He is the most intimate friend I have, though
many years younger than myself. We accord very generally in our opinions, and
we do not differ as to
Childe Harold. I meant
to say something about the progress of the Poem, but I must postpone it. May
peace and happiness await you.”
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. . . .
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.
Thomas Chatterton (1752-1770)
The “marvelous boy” of Bristol, whose forgeries of medieval poetry deceived many and
whose early death by suicide came to epitomize the fate neglected genius.
John Edleston (d. 1811)
The Cambridge choirboy who was the object of Byron's affection.
Edward Gibbon (1737-1794)
Author of
The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire
(1776-1788).
John Cam Hobhouse, baron Broughton (1786-1869)
Founder of the Cambridge Whig Club; traveled with Byron in the orient, radical MP for
Westminster (1820); Byron's executor; after a long career in politics published
Some Account of a Long Life (1865) later augmented as
Recollections of a Long Life, 6 vols (1909-1911).
Francis Hodgson (1781-1852)
Provost of Eton College, translator of Juvenal (1807) and close friend of Byron. He wrote
for the
Monthly and
Critical Reviews, and was
author of (among other volumes of poetry)
Childe Harold's Monitor; or
Lines occasioned by the last Canto of Childe Harold (1818).
David Hume (1711-1776)
Scottish philosopher and historian; author of
Essays Moral and
Political (1741-42),
Enquiry concerning Human Understanding
(1748) and
History of Great Britain (1754-62).
Samuel Johnson (1709-1784)
English man of letters, among many other works he edited
A Dictionary
of the English Language (1755) and Shakespeare (1765), and wrote
Lives of the Poets (1779-81).
John Locke (1632-1704)
English philosopher; author of
Essay concerning Human
Understanding (1690) and
Some Thoughts Concerning Education
(1695).
Charles Mathews (1776-1835)
Comic actor at the Haymarket and Covent Garden theaters; from 1818 he gave a series of
performances under the title of
Mr. Mathews at Home.
Charles Skinner Matthews (1785-1811)
The libertine friend of Byron and Hobhouse at Trinity College, Cambridge; he was drowned
in the Cam.
John Milton (1608-1674)
English poet and controversialist; author of
Comus (1634),
Lycidas (1638),
Areopagitica (1644),
Paradise Lost (1667), and other works.
Sir Isaac Newton (1642-1727)
English scientist and president of the Royal Society; author of
Philosophae naturalis principia mathematica (1687).
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).
Voltaire (1694-1778)
French historian and man of letters; author of, among many other works,
The Age of Louis XIV (1751) and
Candide (1759).
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.
John Wingfield (1791-1811)
Byron's schoolmate at Harrow was the son of Richard Wingfield, fourth Viscount
Powerscourt. He entered the Coldstream Guards and died of fever at Coimbra.
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).