by Lord Byron
“M. du Bocage places a town named Phlius, and by him Phlionte, on the point of land which forms the port of Drepano; there are not at present any ruins there. The maps of D’Anville are generally more correct than any others where ancient geography is concerned. A mistake occurs on the subject of Tiryns, and a place named by him Vathia, but of which nothing can be understood. It is possible that Vathi, or the profound valley, may be a name sometimes used for the valley of Barbitsa, and that the place named by D’Anville Claustra may be the outlet of that valley called Kleisoura, which has a corresponding signification.
“The city of Tiryns is also placed in two different positions, once by its Greek name, and again as Tirynthus. The mistake between the islands of Sphæria and Calaura has been noticed in page 135. The Pontinus, which D’Anville represents as a river, and the Erasinus, are equally ill placed in his map. There was a place called Creopolis, somewhere toward Cynouria; but its situation is not easily fixed. The ports called Bucephalium and Piræus seem to have been nothing more than little bays in the country between Corinth and Epidaurus. The town called Athenæ, in Cynouria, by Pausanias, is called Anthena by ‘Thucydides’, book 5. 41.
“In general, the map of D’Anville will be found more accurate than those which have been published since his time; indeed, the mistakes of that geographer are in general such as could not be avoided without visiting the country. Two errors of D’Anville may be mentioned, lest the opportunity of publishing the itinerary of Arcadia should never occur. The first is, that the rivers Malætas and Mylaon, near Methydrium, are represented as running toward the south, whereas they flow northwards to the Ladon; and the second is, that the Aroanius, which falls into the Erymanthus at Psophis, is represented as flowing from the lake of Pheneos; a mistake which arises from the ignorance of the ancients themselves who have written on the subject. The fact is that the Ladon receives the waters of the lakes of Orchomenos and Pheneos; but the Aroanius rises at a spot not two hours distant from Psophis.”
In furtherance of our principal object in this critique, we have only to add a wish that some of our Grecian tourists, among the fresh articles of information concerning Greece which they have lately imported, would turn their minds to the language of the country. So strikingly similar to the ancient Greek is the modern Romaic as a written language, and so dissimilar in sound, that even a few general rules concerning pronunciation would be of most extensive use.
VOLUME II.
PREFACE
The second volume of Mr. Murray’s edition of Byron’s Letters and Journals carries the autobiographical record of the poet’s life from August, 1811, to April, 1814. Between these dates were published Childe Harold (Cantos I., II.), The Waltz, The Giaour, The Bride of Abydos, the Ode to Napoleon Buonaparte. At the beginning of this period Byron had suddenly become the idol of society; towards its close his personal popularity almost as rapidly declined before a storm of political vituperation.
Three great collections of Byron’s letters, as was noted in the Preface to the previous volume, are in existence. The first is contained in Moore’s Life (1830); the second was published in America, in FitzGreene Halleck’s edition of Byron’s Works (1847); of the third, edited by Mr. W. E. Henley, only the first volume has yet appeared. A comparison between the letters contained in these three collections and in that of Mr. Murray, down to December, 1813, shows the following results: Moore prints 152 letters; Halleck, 192; Mr. Henley, 231. Mr. Murray’s edition adds 236 letters to Moore, 196 to Halleck, and to Mr. Henley 157. It should also be noticed that the material added to Moore’s Life in the second and third collections consists almost entirely of letters which were already in print, and had been, for the most part, seen and rejected by the biographer. The material added in Mr. Murray’s edition, on the contrary, consists mainly of letters which have never before been published, and were inaccessible to Moore when he wrote his Life of Byron.
These necessary comparisons suggest some further remarks. It would have been easy, not only to indicate what letters or portions of letters are new, but also to state the sources whence they are derived. But, in the circumstances, such a course, at all events for the present, is so impolitic as to be impossible. On the other hand, anxiety has been expressed as to the authority for the text which is adopted in these volumes. To satisfy this anxiety, so far as circumstances allow, the following details are given.
The material contained in these two volumes consists partly of letters now for the first time printed; partly of letters already published by Moore, Dallas, and Leigh Hunt, or in such books as Galt’s Life of Lord Byron, and the Memoirs of Francis Hodgson. Speaking generally, it may be said that the text of the new matter, with the few exceptions noted below, has been prepared from the original letters, and that it has proved impossible to authenticate the text of most of the old material by any such process.
The point may be treated in greater detail. Out of the 388 letters contained in these two volumes, 220 have been printed from the original letters. In these 220 are included practically the whole of the new material. Among the letters thus collated with the originals are those to Mrs. Byron (with four exceptions), all those to the Hon. Augusta Byron, to the Hanson family, to James Wedderburn Webster, and to John Murray, twelve of those to Francis Hodgson, those to the younger Rushton, William Gifford, John Cam Hobhouse, Lady Caroline Lamb, Mrs. Parker, Bernard Barton, and others. The two letters to Charles Gordon (30, 33), the three to Captain Leacroft (62, 63, 64), and the one to Ensign Long (vol. ii. p. 19, note), are printed from copies only.
The old material stands in a different position. Efforts have been made to discover the original letters, and sometimes with success. But it still remains true that, speaking generally, the printed text of the letters published by Moore, Dallas, Leigh Hunt, and others, has not been collated with the originals. The fact is important. Moore, who, it is believed, destroyed not only his own letters from Byron, but also many of those entrusted to him for the preparation of the Life, allowed himself unusual liberties as an editor. The examples of this licence given in Mr. Clayden’s Rogers and his Contemporaries throw suspicion on his text, even where no apparent motive exists for his suppressions. But, as Byron’s letters became more bitter in tone, and his criticisms of his contemporaries more outspoken, Moore felt himself more justified in omitting passages which referred to persons who were still living in 1830. From 1816 onwards, it will be found that he has transferred passages from one letter to another, or printed two letters as one, and vice versâ, or made such large omissions as to shorten letters, in some instances, by a third or even a half. No collation with the originals has ever been attempted, and the garbled text which Moore printed is the only text at present available for an edition of the most important of Byron’s letters. But the originals of the majority of the letters published in the Life, from 1816 to 1824, are in the possession or control of Mr. Murray, and in his edition they will be for the first time printed as they were written. If any passages are omitted, the omissions will be indicated.
Besides the new letters contained in this volume, passages have been restored from Byron’s manuscript notes (Detached Thoughts, 1821). To these have been added Sir Walter Scott’s comments, collated with the originals, and, in several instances, now for the first time published.
Appendix VII. contains a collection of the attacks made upon him in the Tory press for February and March, 1814, which led him, for the moment, to resolve on abandoning his literary work.
In conclusion, I wish to repeat my acknowledgment of the invaluable aid of the National Dictionary of Biography, both in the facts which it supplies and the sources of information which it suggests.
R. E. Prothero.
September, 1898.
CHAPTER V — AUGUST, 1811-MARCH, 1812
CHILDE HAROLD, CANTOS I, II
Letter No. 169 — to John Murray
Newstead Abbey, Notts., August 23, 1811.
Sir, — A domestic calamity i
n the death of a near relation has hitherto prevented my addressing you on the subject of this letter. My friend, Mr. Dallas, has placed in your hands a manuscript poem written by me in Greece, which he tells me you do not object to publishing. But he also informed me in London that you wished to send the MS. to Mr. Gifford. Now, though no one would feel more gratified by the chance of obtaining his observations on a work than myself, there is in such a proceeding a kind of petition for praise, that neither my pride — or whatever you please to call it — will admit.
Mr. G. is not only the first satirist of the day, but editor of one of the principal reviews. As such, he is the last man whose censure (however eager to avoid it) I would deprecate by clandestine means. You will therefore retain the manuscript in your own care, or, if it must needs be shown, send it to another. Though not very patient of censure, I would fain obtain fairly any little praise my rhymes might deserve, at all events not by extortion, and the humble solicitations of a bandied-about MS. I am sure a little consideration will convince you it would be wrong.
If you determine on publication, I have some smaller poems (never published), a few notes, and a short dissertation on the literature of the modern Greeks (written at Athens), which will come in at the end of the volume. — And, if the present poem should succeed, it is my intention, at some subsequent period, to publish some selections from my first work, — my Satire, — another nearly the same length, and a few other things, with the MS. now in your hands, in two volumes. — But of these hereafter. You will apprize me of your determination.
I am, Sir, your very obedient, humble servant,
Byron.
170 — to James Wedderburn Webster
Newstead Abbey, August 24th, 1811.
My Dear W., — Conceiving your wrath to be somewhat evaporated, and your Dignity recovered from the Hysterics into which my innocent note from London had thrown it, I should feel happy to be informed how you have determined on the disposal of this accursed Coach, which has driven us out of our Good humour and Good manners to a complete Standstill, from which I begin to apprehend that I am to lose altogether your valuable correspondence. Your angry letter arrived at a moment, to which I shall not allude further, as my happiness is best consulted in forgetting it.
You have perhaps heard also of the death of poor Matthews, whom you recollect to have met at Newstead. He was one whom his friends will find it difficult to replace, nor will Cambridge ever see his equal.
I trust you are on the point of adding to your relatives instead of losing them, and of friends a man of fortune will always have a plentiful stock — at his Table.
I dare say now you are gay, and connubial, and popular, so that in the next parliament we shall be having you a County Member. But beware your Tutor, for I am sure he Germanized that sanguinary letter; you must not write such another to your Constituents; for myself (as the mildest of men) I shall say no more about it.
Seriously, mio Caro W., if you can spare a moment from Matrimony, I shall be glad to hear that you have recovered from the pucker into which this Vis (one would think it had been a Sulky) has thrown you; you know I wish you well, and if I have not inflicted my society upon you according to your own Invitation, it is only because I am not a social animal, and should feel sadly at a loss amongst Countesses and Maids of Honour, particularly being just come from a far Country, where Ladies are neither carved for, or fought for, or danced after, or mixed at all (publicly) with the Men-folks, so that you must make allowances for my natural diffidence and two years travel.
But (God and yourself willing) I shall certes pay my promised visit, as I shall be in town, if Parliament meets, in October.
In the mean time let me hear from you (without a privy Council), and believe me in sober sadness,
Yours very sincerely,
Byron.
Moore (Memoirs, Journals, etc., vol. iii. p. 112) mentions dining with Webster at Paris in 1820.
“He told me,” writes Moore, “that, one day, travelling from Newstead to town with Lord Byron in his vis-a-vis, the latter kept his pistols beside him, and continued silent for hours, with the most ferocious expression possible on his countenance.
‘For God’s sake, my dear B.,’ said W — — at last, ‘what are you thinking of? Are you about to commit murder? or what other dreadful thing are you meditating?’
To which Byron answered that he always had a sort of presentiment that his own life would be attacked some time or other; and that this was the reason of his always going armed, as it was also the subject of his thoughts at that moment.”
Moore also adds (ibid., p. 292),
“W. W. owes Lord Byron, he says, £1000, and does not seem to have the slightest intention of paying him.”
Lady Frances was the lady to whom Byron seriously devoted himself in 1813-4. Subsequently she was practically separated from her husband, and Byron, in 1823, endeavoured to reconcile them. Moore (Memoirs, Journals, etc., vol. ii. p. 249) writes,
“To the Devizes ball in the evening; Lady Frances W. there; introduced to her, and had much conversation, chiefly about our friend Lord B. Several of those beautiful things, published (if I remember right) with the Bride, were addressed to her. She must have been very pretty when she had more of the freshness of youth, though she is still but five or six and twenty; but she looks faded already” (1819).
In the Court of Common Pleas, February 16, 1816, the libel action of Webster v. Baldwin was heard. The plaintiff obtained £2000 in damages for a libel charging Lady Frances and the Duke of Wellington with adultery.
“Reddish’s Hotel, 29th July, 1811.
“My Dear Webster, — As this eternal vis-a-vis seems to sit heavy on your soul, I beg leave to apprize you that I have arranged with Goodall: you are to give me the promised Wheels, and the lining, with ‘the Box at Brighton,’ and I am to pay the stipulated sum.
“I am obliged to you for your favourable opinion, and trust that the happiness you talk so much of will be stationary, and not take those freaks to which the felicity of common mortals is subject. I do very sincerely wish you well, and am so convinced of the justice of your matrimonial arguments, that I shall follow your example as soon as I can get a sufficient price for my coronet. In the mean time I should be happy to drill for my new situation under your auspices; but business, inexorable business, keeps me here. Your letters are forwarded. If I can serve you in any way, command me. I will endeavour to fulfil your requests as awkwardly as another. I shall pay you a visit, perhaps, in the autumn. Believe me, dear W.,
Yours unintelligibly,
B.”
“Reddish’s Hotel, July 31st, 1811.
My Dear W. W., — I always understood that the lining was to accompany the carriage; if not, the carriage may accompany the lining, for I will have neither the one nor the other. In short, to prevent squabbling, this is my determination, so decide; — if you leave it to my feelings (as you say) they are very strongly in favour of the said lining. Two hundred guineas for a carriage with ancient lining!!! Rags and rubbish! You must write another pamphlet, my dear W., before; but pray do not waste your time and eloquence in expostulation, because it will do neither of us any good, but decide — content or not content. The best thing you can do for the Tutor you speak of will be to send him in your Vis (with the lining) to ‘the U-Niversity of Göttingen.’ How can you suppose (now that my own Bear is dead) that I have any situation for a German genius of this kind, till I get another, or some children? I am infinitely obliged by your invitations, but I can’t pay so high for a second-hand chaise to make my friends a visit. The coronet will not grace the ‘pretty Vis,’ till your tattered lining ceases to disgrace it. Pray favour me with an answer, as we must finish the affair one way or another immediately, — before next week.
Believe me, yours truly,
Byron.”
“Byron,” says Webster, in a note, “was more than strict about “trifles.”
171 — to R. C. Dallas<
br />
Newstead Abbey, August 25, 1811.
Being fortunately enabled to frank, I do not spare scribbling, having sent you packets within the last ten days. I am passing solitary, and do not expect my agent to accompany me to Rochdale before the second week in September; a delay which perplexes me, as I wish the business over, and should at present welcome employment. I sent you exordiums, annotations, etc., for the forthcoming quarto, if quarto it is to be: and I also have written to Mr. Murray my objection to sending the MS. to Juvenal, but allowing him to show it to any others of the calling. Hobhouse is amongst the types already: so, between his prose and my verse, the world will be decently drawn upon for its paper-money and patience. Besides all this, my Imitation of Horace is gasping for the press at Cawthorn’s, but I am hesitating as to the how and the when, the single or the double, the present or the future. You must excuse all this, for I have nothing to say in this lone mansion but of myself, and yet I would willingly talk or think of aught else.
What are you about to do? Do you think of perching in Cumberland, as you opined when I was in the metropolis? If you mean to retire, why not occupy Miss Milbanke’s “Cottage of Friendship,” late the seat of Cobbler Joe, for whose death you and others are answerable? His “Orphan Daughter” (pathetic Pratt!) will, certes, turn out a shoemaking Sappho. Have you no remorse? I think that elegant address to Miss Dallas should be inscribed on the cenotaph which Miss Milbanke means to stitch to his memory.
The newspapers seem much disappointed at his Majesty’s not dying, or doing something better. I presume it is almost over. If parliament meets in October, I shall be in town to attend. I am also invited to Cambridge for the beginning of that month, but am first to jaunt to Rochdale. Now Matthews is gone, and Hobhouse in Ireland, I have hardly one left there to bid me welcome, except my inviter. At three-and-twenty I am left alone, and what more can we be at seventy? It is true I am young enough to begin again, but with whom can I retrace the laughing part of life? It is odd how few of my friends have died a quiet death, — I mean, in their beds. But a quiet life is of more consequence. Yet one loves squabbling and jostling better than yawning. This last word admonishes me to relieve you from