Recollections of the Life of Lord Byron
Chapter IX
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LITERARY CAREER, AND INCLUDING VARIOUS UNPUBLISHED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 IX.
IMMEDIATE RESULTS OF THE APPEARANCE OF
CHILDE HAROLD’S PILGRIMAGE.
I really believe that I was more anxious than its author about
the reception of the poem, the progress of which I had been superintending with great
pleasure for some months; and by that anxiety I was led into a precipitate compliance with
the solicitations of the printers of the last edition of the Satire, who were proprietors
and editors of a literary journal, to favour them with an early review of the poem. I not
only wrote it, but gave it to them, in the beginning of February; telling them that the
work would be out in the middle of that ![]()
![]()
month, but at the same time
charging them to take care not to print it before the poem was published. The 1st of March
arrived—the Poem did not appear—the Review did. I was vexed—it had the
appearance of an eulogium prematurely hurried before the public by a friend, if not by the
author himself. I was uneasy, lest it should strike Lord
Byron in this light; and it was very likely that some good-natured friend or
other would expedite his notice of the review. It fortunately happened that the 1st of the
month fell on a Sunday, and that Lord Byron spent it at Harrow, if I
recollect rightly, with his old tutor, Dr. Drury,
and did not return to St. James’s-street till Monday evening. On Tuesday I got a copy
of the Pilgrimage, and hastened with it to
him. Lord Valentia had been beforehand in carrying him
the Review. “I shall be set down for the writer of it,” cried he. I told
him the fact as it stood. The flatter-![]()
![]()
ing excitement to which I had
yielded, and the examination of the volume I then put into his hand, dispersed all
unpleasant feeling on the occasion; and I assured him that I would take an opportunity of
making it publicly known that I had done it without his knowledge. But this was
unnecessary; for the publisher of Childe Harold’s
Pilgrimage had already spread it sufficiently, as I had informed him of it: and
far from any harm resulting, it proved no bad advertisement of the publication, which was
ready for every inquirer, as fast as the binder could put up the sheets into boards. The
blunder passed unobserved, eclipsed by the dazzling brilliancy of the object which had
caused it. The attention of the public was universally fixed upon the poem; and in a very
few days the whole impression was disposed of. It was not till he had this convincing
proof, that Lord Byron had confidence of its success. On the day he
re-![]()
![]()
ceived the first copy in boards he talked of my making an
agreement at once with the publisher, if he would offer a hundred or a hundred and fifty
guineas for the copyright. I declared I would not; and in three days after, the publisher
talked of being able perhaps to make an offer of three if not four hundred pounds; for he
had not a doubt now of the sale, and that the edition would go off in less than three
months. It went off in three days.
The rapidity of the sale of the poem, its reception, and the elation of
the author’s feelings, were unparalleled. But before I continue my account of it, I
cannot refrain here from making some mention of Newstead Abbey, as it was at this juncture
he again began to speak to me freely of his affairs. In spite of the pledge he had given me
never to consent to the disposal of it, he occasionally spoke of the sale as necessary to
clear him of embarrassments, and of ![]()
![]()
being urged to it by his agent.
I never failed to oppose it; but he did not like to dwell upon it, and would get rid of the
subject by coinciding with me. I thought his elation at the success of his poem a
favourable juncture to take more liberty on so delicate a point; and to avoid the pain of
talking, I wrote him the following letter:—
“You cannot but see that the interest I take in all
that concerns you comes from my heart, and I will not ask forgiveness for what
I am conscious merits a kind reception. Though not acquainted with the precise
state of your affairs, nor with those who have been employed in the management
of them, I venture to say, in spite of your seeming to think otherwise, that
there can be no occasion for the desperate remedies which have been suggested
to you. It is an ungracious thing to suspect; but from my ignorance of the
individuals by ![]()
![]()
whom your business is conducted, my
suspicion can only attach generally to that corrupt state of nature in which
self-interest is too apt to absorb all other considerations. Every motion of an
agent, every word spoken or written by a lawyer, are so many conductors of the
fortunes of their employers into their coffers; consequently every advice from
such persons is open to suspicion, and ought to be thoroughly examined before
it is adopted. But who is to examine it? I would say
yourself, did I not think your pursuits, your mind, your very
attainments, have by no means qualified you for the task. But there are men,
and lawyers too, to be found of disinterested minds, and pure hands, to whom it
would not be difficult to save you the mortification of parting with a property
so honourable in the annals of your house. For God’s sake mistrust him
who suggested it; and, if you are inclined to listen to it, mis-
![]()
![]()
trust yourself—pause and take counsel before you
act.
Your affairs should be thoroughly submitted to such a man or
men as I have mentioned—that is, all the accounts of your minority, and
all the transactions relative to your property, with every voucher, should be
produced to them, and examined by them. Through them every thing equitable and
honourable would be done, and a portion of your income appropriated to the
disencumbering of your estates. I am persuaded that you may be extricated from
your difficulties without the harsh alternative proposed. You mentioned the
subject of your affairs to me on your arrival in England, but you appeared
afterwards to wish it dropped; I have, however, frequently wished what, in
consequence of your recent communication, I have now again expressed. Think of
it, I beseech you.”
![]()
![]()
I felt much anxiety at the thought of Newstead Abbey going out of the
family—certainly not merely because my nephew was his heir presumptive, though a very
natural motive; but I am chevaleresque enough to think the alienation of an estate so
acquired, and so long possessed, a species of sacrilege. The following is part of a letter
which I wrote home the next day (March 12th, 1812,) after I had seen him. Being written at
the time, it is the best continuation of my narrative:—
“The intelligence which Charles brought you of the
unparalleled sale of Childe Harold’s
Pilgrimage must have given you great pleasure, though I think it will be
more than counterbalanced by the pain of the subject on which I wrote yesterday to
Lord Byron. I still hope it will be avoided;
nor, till he talked of it, did I in fact credit that he had the power of disposing of
that ![]()
![]()
estate. I was apprehensive that I had gone too far in
interfering in his private affairs; but, quite the contrary, he took my letter in very
kind part, though, after a few observations he dropped the subject. On parting with
Charles, we drove to St. James’s-street, where I staid
with him till near six o’clock, and had a good deal of pleasant conversation. I
found the enclosed on his table directed to me. On opening it, I was surprised at what
he wrote to me in it; and still more on finding the contents to be a copy of verses to
him, with a letter beginning—‘Dear Childe
Harold,’ expressing the greatest admiration, and advising him to
be happy. Neither the letter nor the verses are badly written; and the lady concludes
with assuring him, that though she should be glad to be acquainted with him, she can
feel no other emotion for him than admiration and regard, as her heart is already
engaged to another. I looked at him seriously, and said, that none of my
![]()
![]()
family would ever write an anonymous letter. I said, that you
had all given your opinion openly, and I had shown him that
opinion. ‘You are right, you are right,’ he said. ‘I am sure it is
not any of your family, but I really know nobody who I think cares half so much
about me as you do; and from many parts of the letter, it is no wonder I should
suspect that it came from Mrs. Dallas, who I
know is a good friend of mine.’ He is persuaded, he says, that it is
written by somebody acquainted with us. I cannot think so. She says she should like to
know if he has received her letter; and requests him to leave a note at Hookham’s
for Mr. Sidney Allison. He says he will not answer it.”
I have found another of my letters immediately following this, from which
I shall make such extracts as relate to Lord Byron or
the Poem. “I called on Mr. Murray this
morning, who told me that the whole
![]()
![]()
edition was gone off. He begged me to arrange with Lord
Byron for putting the Poem to press again, which is to be done in the
handsomest manner, in octavo. He shewed me letters from several of the most celebrated
critics; and told me that Mr. Gifford spoke with the
highest admiration of the second Canto, which he had not seen before; the first he had seen
in manuscript. From him I went to St. James’s-street, where I found Lord
Byron loaded with letters from critics, poets, authors, and various
pretenders to fame of different walks, all lavish of their raptures. In putting them into
my hands he said—‘I ought not to show such fine compliments, but I keep
nothing from you.’ Among his raptured admirers I was not a little surprised
to find an elegant copy of verses to him from Mr.
Fitzgerald, the very first person celebrated in his Satire, of which he reminds him in a short prefatory note,
adding, in a pleasing ![]()
![]()
and amiable manner, that it was impossible to
harbour any resentment against the poet of Childe
Harold’s Pilgrimage. It is impossible to tell you half the applause,
either as to quantity or quality, bestowed upon him directly and indirectly. The letter
from Lord Holland places him on a par with Walter Scott. But to come to myself:—After speaking of
the sale, and settling the new edition, I said, ‘How can I possibly think of this
rapid sale, and the profits likely to ensue, without
recollecting’—‘What?’ ‘Think what a sum your work may
produce.’ ‘I shall be rejoiced, and wish it doubled and trebled; but do not
talk to me of money. I never will receive money for my
writings.’ ‘I ought not to differ in an opinion which puts
hundreds into my purse, but others—’ He put out his hand to me, shook
mine, said he was very glad, and turned the conversation. The sentiment is noble, but
pushed too far. ![]()
![]()
It is not only in this, but in other points, I have
remarked a superior spirit in this young man; and which but for its native vigour would
have been cast away. I am happy to say that I think his successes, and the notice that has
been taken of him, have already had upon his mind the cheering effect I hoped and foresaw;
and I trust all the gloom of his youth will be dissipated for the rest of his life. He was
very cheerful to-day. What a pleasing reflection is it to me that when, on his arrival in
England, he put this Poem into my hand, I saw its merits, and urged him to publish it.
There are two copies binding elegantly and alike; this I mentioned to him, and said, one
was for him, ‘and the other,’ said he ‘for Mrs. Dallas: let me have the pleasure of writing her name in
it.’”
When I afterwards brought him the copies, he did write the name; and I had
the happiness of finding him ready to send ![]()
![]()
one also to his sister. I handed him another copy to write her name in it;
and I was truly delighted to read the following effusion, which I copied before I sent the
volume off.
“To Augusta, my dearest
sister, and my best friend, who has ever loved me much better than I deserved, this
volume is presented by her father’s son, and most
affectionate brother.
“B.”
“March 14th,
1812.”
He was now the universal talk of the town: his speech and his Poem had not
only raised his fame to an extraordinary height, but had disposed all minds to bestow upon
him the most favourable reception; to disbelieve his own black account of himself, and to
forget that he had been a most bitter Satirist. Crowds of eminent persons courted an
introduction, and some ![]()
![]()
volunteered their cards. This was the trying
moment of virtue; and no wonder it was shaken, for never was there such a sudden transition
from neglect to courtship. Glory darted thick upon him from all sides; from the Prince Regent and his admirable daughter, to the bookseller and his shopman; from Walter Scott to * * * * *; from Jeffrey to the nameless critics of the Satirist, Scourge,
&c. He was the wonder of greybeards, and the show of fashionable parties. At one of
these, he happened to go early when there were very few persons assembled; the Regent went
in soon after; Lord Byron was at some distance from him
in the room. On being informed who he was, his Royal Highness sent a gentleman to him to
desire that he would be presented. The presentation of course took place; the Regent
expressed his admiration of Childe Harold’s
Pilgrimage, and continued a conversation, which so fascinated the Poet, ![]()
![]()
that had it not been for an accidental deferring of the next levee,
he bade fair to become a visitor at Carlton House, if not a complete courtier.
I called on him on the morning for which the levee had been appointed, and
found him in a full-dress court suit of clothes, with his fine black hair in powder, which
by no means suited his countenance. I was surprised, as he had not told me that he should
go to Court; and it seemed to me as if he thought it necessary to apologize for his
intention, by his observing, that he could not in decency but do it, as the Regent had done
him the honour to say that he hoped to see him soon at Carlton House. In spite of his
assumed philosophical contempt of royalty, and of his decided junction with the opposition,
he had not been able to withstand the powerful operation of royal praise; which, however,
continued to influence him only till flattery of a more con-![]()
![]()
genial
kind diverted him from the enjoyment of that which for a moment he was disposed to receive.
The levee had been suddenly put off, and he was dressed before he was informed of the
alteration which had taken place.
It was the first and the last time he was ever so dressed, at least for a
British Court. A newly-made friend of his
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * |
![]()
Lord Byron was more than half prepared to yield to this
influence; and the harsh verses that proceeded from his pen, were, I believe, composed more
to humour his new friend’s passions than his own. Certain it is, he gave up all ideas
of appearing at Court, and fell into the habit of speaking disrespectfully of the Prince.
But his poem flew to every part of the kingdom, indeed of the world; his
fame ![]()
![]()
hourly increased; and he all at once found himself
“translated to the spheres,” and complimented by all, with an elevated
character, possessing youthful brilliancy, alas! without the stamen necessary to support
it.
A gratifying compliment was paid him on the appearance of Childe Harold’s Pilgrimage, by the order
given by the Princess Charlotte for its being
magnificently bound. It was displayed for some days in Ebers’s shop, in Bond-street. Lord
Byron was highly pleased when I described it to him.
Among the testimonies of the high feeling which the blaze of his genius
produced, I admired and selected a letter to him from the late Dr. Clarke, which I have an additional pleasure in inserting here, as it
does not appear in the Doctor’s correspondence lately given to the public:—
![]()
![]()
“From the eagerness which I felt to make known my
opinion of your Poem, before
others had expressed any upon the subject, I waited upon
you to deliver my hasty, although hearty, commendation. If it be worthy your
acceptance, take it once more, in a more deliberate form! Upon my arrival in
town I found that Mathias entirely coincided with me. Surely, said I to him,
Lord Byron, at this time of life, cannot
have experienced such keen anguish, as those exquisite allusions to what older
men may have felt seem to denote. This was his answer,
‘I fear he has—he could not else have
written such a Poem.’ This morning I read the second
Canto with all the attention it so highly merits, in the peace and stillness of
my study; and I am ready to confess I was never so much affected by any poem,
passionately fond of poetry as I have been from earliest youth. When, after the
9th stanza you introduce the first line of the 10th,
Here let me sit upon the mossy stone; |
![]()
![]()
![]()
the thought and the expression are so truly
Petrarch’s, that I would ask you whether
you ever read
Poi quando ’l vero sgombra Quel dolce error pur li medesmo assido Me freddo, pietra morta in pietra viva; In guisa d’ uom che pensi e piange e
scriva. |
![]()
Thus rendered by
Mr. Wilmot, the only
person capable of making Petrarch speak English:—
But when rude truth destroys The loved illusion of the dreamed sweets, I sit me down on the cold rugged stone, Less cold, less dead than I, and think and weep alone. |
![]()
“The eighth stanza, ‘Yet if as
holiest men,’ &c. has never been surpassed. In the 23d, the
sentiment is at variance with Dryden,
Strange cozenage! none would live past years
again: |
![]()
and it is perhaps an instance wherein for the first time I found not
within my own breast an echo to your thought, for I would not ‘
be once more a boy;’ but the generality of men
will agree with you, and wish to tread life’s path again.
![]()
![]()
“In the 12th stanza of the same Canto, you might
really add a very curious note to these lines—
Her sons too weak the sacred shrine to guard, Yet felt some portion of their mother’s pains; |
![]()
by stating this fact:—When the last of the metopes was taken from
the Parthenon, and, in moving it, great part of the superstructure with one of
the triglyphs was thrown down by the workmen whom
Lord
Elgin employed, the Disdar, who beheld the mischief done to the
building, took his pipe out of his mouth, dropped a tear, and, in a
supplicating tone of voice, said to
Lusieri—Τέλοσ! I was present at
the time.
“Once more I thank you for the gratification you have
afforded me.
“Believe me,
“Ever yours most truly,
“Trumpington,
“Wednesday Morning.”
![]()
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. . . .
Barbarina Brand, Lady Dacre [née Ogle] (1768-1854)
The daughter of Admiral Sir Chaloner Ogle; she married in 1789 Valentine Henry Wilmot (d.
1819), and in 1819, Thomas Brand, twentieth Baron Dacre. She was the author of
Ina, a Tragedy (1815) and
Dramas, Translations,
and Occasional Poems (1821).
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.
Princess Charlotte Augusta (1796-1817)
The only child of George IV; she married Prince Leopold of Saxe-Coburg in 1816 and died
in childbirth the following year.
Edward Daniel Clarke (1769-1822)
English traveler and collector, the younger brother of James Stanier Clarke; he was
professor of mineralogy at Cambridge (1808) and university librarian (1817). He published
Travels in various Countries of Europe, Asia and Africa
(1810-23) and corresponded with Byron.
Joseph Drury (1751-1834)
Byron's instructor at Harrow School, where he was headmaster from 1784 to 1805.
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).
John Ebers (1785 c.-1858)
London bookseller in Old Bond Street; from 1820 he was one of the managers of the Italian
Opera at the King's Theater.
William Thomas Fitzgerald (1759-1829)
A clerk in the Navy Office who for three decades supplied the newspapers and magazines
with patriotic effusions, many first performed orally at Literary Fund banquets.
Henry Richard Fox, third baron Holland (1773-1840)
Whig politician and literary patron; Holland House was for many years the meeting place
for reform-minded politicians and writers. He also published translations from the Spanish
and Italian;
Memoirs of the Whig Party was published in 1852.
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).
Francis Jeffrey, Lord Jeffrey (1773-1850)
Scottish barrister, Whig MP, and co-founder and editor of the
Edinburgh
Review (1802-29). As a reviewer he was the implacable foe of the Lake School of
poetry.
Hon. Augusta Mary Leigh [née Byron] (1783-1851)
Byron's half-sister; the daughter of Amelia Darcy, Baroness Conyers, she married
Lieutenant-Colonel George Leigh on 17 August 1807.
Giovanni Battista Lusieri (1755 c.-1821 c.)
Italian painter and draftsman who from 1799 assisted Lord Elgin in assembling his
collection of antiquities, including the Parthenon marbles.
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.
The Satirist, or, Monthly Meteor. (1807-1814). Originally issued with colored plates, the Tory-inspired
Satirist
was edited by George Manners (1778–1853) from October 1807 to June 1812, and William Jerdan
(1782–1869) from July 1812 to August 1814; it was continued as
Tripod,
or, New Satirist (July-Aug. 1814). The humor was coarse, and Byron the target in a
series of pieces by Hewson Clarke (1787-1845 fl.).
