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                            LITERARY CAREER, AND INCLUDING VARIOUS UNPUBLISHED 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).