Lord Byron - Delphi Poets Series

by Lord Byron

  To be near the Oxfords at Eywood, in Herefordshire, Byron took Kinsham Court, a dower-house of the family, where Bishop Harley died in 1788. At one time, as is evident from his correspondence with Hanson, he was bent on going abroad with Lady Oxford. In the end he only accompanied her to Portsmouth. Of Lady Oxford, Uvedale Price wrote thus to Rogers (Clayden, Rogers and his Contemporaries, vol. i. pp. 397, 398):

  “This is a melancholy subject” — [the death, by consumption of Lord Aberdeen’s children] — ”and I must go to another. Poor Lady Oxford! I had heard with great concern of her dangerous illness, but hoped she might get through it, and was much, very much grieved to hear that it had ended fatally. I had, as you know, lived a great deal with her from the time she came into this country, immediately after her marriage; but for some years past, since she went abroad, had scarcely had any correspondence or intercourse with her, till I met her in town last spring. I then saw her twice, and both times she seemed so overjoyed to see an old friend, and expressed her joy so naturally and cordially, that I felt no less overjoyed at seeing her after so long an absence. She talked, with great satisfaction, of our meeting for a longer time this next spring, little thinking of an eternal separation. There could not, in all respects, be a more ill-matched pair than herself and Lord Oxford, or a stronger instance of the cruel sports of Venus, or, rather, of Hymen:

  ‘Cui placet impares

  Formas atque animos sub juga ahenea

  Sævo mittere cum joco.’

  It has been said that she was, in some measure, forced into the match. Had she been united to a man whom she had loved, esteemed, and respected, she herself might have been generally respected and esteemed, as well as loved; but in her situation, to keep clear of all misconduct required a strong mind or a cold heart; perhaps both, and she had neither. Her failings were in no small degree the effect of circumstances; her amiable qualities all her own. There was something about her, in spite of her errors, remarkably attaching, and that something was not merely her beauty. ‘Kindness has resistless charms,’ and she was full of affectionate kindness to those she loved, whether as friends or as lovers. As a friend, I always found her the same, never at all changeful or capricious. As I am not a very rigid moralist, and am extremely open to kindness, ‘I could have better spared a better woman.’“

  257 — to Lord Holland

  September 29, 1812.

  Shakespeare certainly ceased to reign in one of his kingdoms, as George III. did in America, and George IV. may in Ireland? Now, we have nothing to do out of our own realms, and when the monarchy was gone, his majesty had but a barren sceptre. I have cut away, you will see, and altered, but make it what you please; only I do implore, for my own gratification, one lash on those accursed quadrupeds — ”a long shot, Sir Lucius, if you love me.” I have altered “wave,” etc., and the “fire,” and so forth for the timid.

  Let me hear from you when convenient, and believe me, etc.

  P.S. — Do let that stand, and cut out elsewhere. I shall choke, if we must overlook their damned menagerie.

  258 — to Lord Holland

  September 30, 1812.

  I send you the most I can make of it; for I am not so well as I was, and find I “pull in resolution.”

  I wish much to see you, and will be at Tetbury by twelve on Saturday; and from thence I go on to Lord Jersey’s. It is impossible not to allude to the degraded state of the Stage, but I have lightened it, and endeavoured to obviate your other objections. There is a new couplet for Sheridan, allusive to his Monody. All the alterations I have marked thus ], — as you will see by comparison with the other copy. I have cudgelled my brains with the greatest willingness, and only wish I had more time to have done better.

  You will find a sort of clap-trap laudatory couplet inserted for the quiet of the Committee, and I have added, towards the end, the couplet you were pleased to like. The whole Address is seventy-three lines, still perhaps too long; and, if shortened, you will save time, but, I fear, a little of what I meant for sense also.

  With myriads of thanks, I am ever, etc.

  My sixteenth edition of respects to Lady H. — How she must laugh at all this!

  I wish Murray, my publisher, to print off some copies as soon as your Lordship returns to town — it will ensure correctness in the papers afterwards.

  “of one peer and two commoners, one poet and two prosers, one Lord and two Brewers; and the only points in which they coincided were in being all three parliament men, all three politicians, all three in opposition to the Government of the country. Their names, as we understand, were Vassal Holland, Samuel Whitbread, and Harvey Christian Combe.”

  259 — to Lord Holland

  Far be from him that hour which asks in vain

  Tears such as flow for Garrick in his strain;

  or,

  Far be that hour that vainly asks in turn

  Such verse for him as {crown’d his/wept o’er} Garrick’s urn.

  September 30, 1812.

  Will you choose between these added to the lines on Sheridan?

  I think they will wind up the panegyric, and agree with the train of thought preceding them.

  Now, one word as to the Committee — how could they resolve on a rough copy of an Address never sent in, unless you had been good enough to retain in memory, or on paper, the thing they have been good enough to adopt? By the by, the circumstances of the case should make the Committee less avidus gloriæ, for all praise of them would look plaguy suspicious. If necessary to be stated at all, the simple facts bear them out. They surely had a right to act as they pleased. My sole object is one which, I trust, my whole conduct has shown; viz. that I did nothing insidious — sent in no Address whatever — but, when applied to, did my best for them and myself; but, above all, that there was no undue partiality, which will be what the rejected will endeavour to make out. Fortunately — most fortunately — I sent in no lines on the occasion. For I am sure that had they, in that case, been preferred, it would have been asserted that I was known, and owed the preference to private friendship. This is what we shall probably have to encounter; but, if once spoken and approved, we sha’n’t be much embarrassed by their brilliant conjectures; and, as to criticism, an old author, like an old bull, grows cooler (or ought) at every baiting.

  The only thing would be to avoid a party on the night of delivery — afterwards, the more the better, and the whole transaction inevitably tends to a good deal of discussion. Murray tells me there are myriads of ironical Addresses ready — some, in imitation of what is called my style. If they are as good as the Probationary Odes, or Hawkins’s Pipe of Tobacco, it will not be bad fun for the imitated. Ever, etc.

  260 — to Lord Holland

  October 2, 1812.

  A copy of this still altered is sent by the post, but this will arrive first. It must be “humbler” — ”yet aspiring” does away the modesty, and, after all, truth is truth. Besides, there is a puff direct altered, to please your plaguy renters.

  I shall be at Tetbury by 12 or 1 — but send this for you to ponder over. There are several little things marked thus / altered for your perusal. I have dismounted the cavalry, and, I hope, arranged to your general satisfaction.

  Ever, etc.

  At Tetbury by noon. — I hope, after it is sent, there will be no more elisions. It is not now so long — 73 lines — two less than allotted. I will alter all Committee objections, but I hope you won’t permit Elliston to have any voice whatever, — except in speaking it.

  261 — to John Murray

  Cheltenham, Oct. 12, 1812.

  Dear Sir, — I have a very strong objection to the engraving of the portrait, and request that it may, on no account, be prefixed; but let all the proofs be burnt, and the plate broken. I will be at the expense which has been incurred; it is but fair that I should, since I cannot permit the publication. I beg, as a particular favour, that you will lose no time in having this done, for which I have reasons
that I will state when I see you. Forgive all the trouble I have occasioned you.

  I have received no account of the reception of the Address, but see it is vituperated in the papers, which does not much embarrass an old author. I leave it to your own judgment to add it, or not, to your next edition when required. Pray comply strictly with my wishes as to the engraving, and believe me, etc.

  Yours very truly,

  Byron.

  P.S. — Favour me with an answer, as I shall not be easy until I hear that the proofs, etc., are destroyed. I hear that the Satirist has reviewed Childe Harold, in what manner I need not ask; but I wish to know if the old personalities are revived? I have a better reason for asking this than any that merely concerns myself; but in publications of that kind, others, particularly female names, are sometimes introduced.

  Byron.

  “If you think the picture you saw at Murray’s worth your acceptance, it is yours; and you may put a glove or mask on it, if you like”

  (Moore).

  “It is with unaffected satisfaction we find that he has improved wonderfully, and that he is a poet. Indeed, when we consider the comparatively short interval which has elapsed, and contrast the character of his recent with that of his early work, we confess ourselves astonished at the intellectual progress which Lord Byron has made, and are happy to hold him up as another example of the extraordinary effects of study and cultivation, even on minds apparently of the most unpromising description.”

  The reviewer severely condemns the morbid bitterness of the poet’s thought and feeling, but yet affirms that the poems

  “abound with beautiful imagery, clothed in a diction free, forcible, and various. Childe Harold, although avowedly a fragment, contains many fragments which would do honour to any poet, of any period, in any country.”

  262 — to Lord Holland.

  Cheltenham, Oct. 14, 1812.

  My Dear Lord, — I perceive that the papers, yea, even Perry’s, are somewhat ruffled at the injudicious preference of the Committee. My friend Perry has, indeed, et tu, Brute-d me rather scurvily, for which I will send him, for the Morning Chronicle, the next epigram I scribble, as a token of my full forgiveness.

  Do the Committee mean to enter into no explanation of their proceedings? You must see there is a leaning towards a charge of partiality. You will, at least, acquit me of any great anxiety to push myself before so many elder and better anonymous, to whom the twenty guineas (which I take to be about two thousand pounds Bank currency) and the honour would have been equally welcome. “Honour,” I see, “hath skill in paragraph-writing.”

  I wish to know how it went off at the second reading, and whether any one has had the grace to give it a glance of approbation. I have seen no paper but Perry’s and two Sunday ones. Perry is severe, and the others silent. If, however, you and your Committee are not now dissatisfied with your own judgments, I shall not much embarrass myself about the brilliant remarks of the journals. My own opinion upon it is what it always was, perhaps pretty near that of the public.

  Believe me, my dear Lord, etc., etc.

  P.S. — My best respects to Lady H., whose smiles will be very consolatory, even at this distance.

  “Mr. Elliston then came forward and delivered the following Prize Address. We cannot boast of the eloquence of the delivery. It was neither gracefully nor correctly recited. The merits of the production itself we submit to the criticism of our readers. We cannot suppose that it was selected as the most poetical composition of all the scores that were submitted to the Committee. But, perhaps by its tenor, by its allusions to the fire, to Garrick, to Siddons, and to Sheridan, it was thought most applicable to the occasion, notwithstanding its being in parts unmusical, and in general tame.”

  Again (October 14), in a notice of Rejected Addresses, the Morning Chronicle returns to the subject:

  “A wag has already published a small volume of Addresses rejected, in which, with admirable wit, all the poets of the day are assembled, contesting for the Prize Address at Drury Lane. And certainly he has assigned to the pen of Lord B. a superior poem to that which has gained the prize.”

  The Address was also severely handled in A Critique on the Address written by Lord Byron, which was Spoken at the opening of the New Theatre Royal, Drury Lane, October 10, 1812. By Lord — — (London, no date). The author is “astonished at the glaring faults and general insipidity” of the address, and, after a detailed criticism, concludes that “public indignation” will sympathize with the rejected poets, and “pursue the rival patrons and the rival bard.”

  Rogers, writing to Moore, October 22, 1812 (Memoirs, etc., of Thomas Moore, vol. viii. p. 123), says,

  “Poor Byron! what I hear and read of his prologue makes me very angry. Of such value is public favour! So a man is to be tried by a copy of verses thrown off perhaps at hazard, and invitâ Minervâ!”

  263 — to John Hanson

  Cheltenham, Octr. 18th, 1812.

  Dear Sir, — With perfect confidence in you I sign the note; but is not Claughton’s delay very strange? let us take care what we are about. I answered his letter, which I enclose to you, very cautiously; the wines and China, etc., I will not demur much upon; but the vase and cup (not the skull cup) and some little coffee things brought from the East, or made for the purpose of containing relics brought from thence, I will not part with, and if he refuses to ratify, I will take such steps as the Law will allow on the form of the contract for compelling him to ratify it.

  Pray write. I am invited to Lord O.’s and Lord H.’s; but if you wish very much to meet me I can come to town.

  I suppose the tythe purchase will be made in my name. What is to be done with Deardon?

  Mrs. M[assingberd] is dead, and I would wish something settled for the Daughter who is still responsible. Will you give a glance into that business, and if possible first settle something about the Annuities.

  I shall perhaps draw within a £100 next week, but I will delay for your answer on C.’s business.

  Ever yours, sincerely and affectionately,

  Byron.

  My love to all the family.

  I wish to do something for young Rushton, if practicable at Rochdale; if not, think of some situation where he might occupy himself to avoid Idleness, in the mean time.

  “When Mr. France was here,” writes Mrs. Byron to Hanson, July 13, 1811 (Kölbing’s Englische Studien, vol. xxv. p. I53), “he told me there had been an injunction procured to prevent Deardin from working the Coal Pits that was in dispute between Lord Byron and him, but since France was here, there has been a Man from Lancashire who says they are worked by Deardin the same as ever. I also heard that the Person you sent down to take an account of the Coals was bribed by Deardin, and did not give an account of half of what was got.”

  “Lord Byron, to the best of his knowledge and recollection, in Dec., 1805-January, 1806 applied to King, in consequence of an advertisement in the papers, who acquainted Lord Byron that his minority prevented all money transactions without the security of competent persons. Through Mr. K. he became acquainted with Mr. Dellevelly, another of the tribe of Israel, and subsequently with a Mr. Howard of Golden Square.

  “After many delays, during which Lord B. had interviews with Howard, once, he thinks, in Golden Square, but more frequently in Piccadilly, Mrs. M[assingberd] agreed to become security jointly with her daughter. Lord B. knows Howard’s person perfectly well, has not seen him subsequent to the transaction, but recollects Howard’s mentioning to him that he, Lord B., was acting imprudently, stating that he made it a rule to advise young men against such proceedings. Lord B. recollects, on the day on which the money was paid, that he remained in the next room till the papers were signed, Mrs. M[assingberd] having stated that the parties wished him to be kept out of sight during the business, and wished to avoid even mentioning his name. Mrs. M[assingberd] deducted the interest for two years and a half, and £100 for Howard’s papers.”

&nbs
p; Two other Annuities were effected, in both of which Mrs. Massingberd figured as a security, and in one the manager of Dorant’s Hotel. It was the interest on these minority loans which crippled Byron. Two were still unpaid in 1817.

  264 — to John Murray

  Cheltenham, Oct. 18, 1812,

  Dear Sir, — Will you have the goodness to get this Parody of a peculiar kind (for all the first lines are Busby’s entire), inserted in several of the papers (correctly — and copied correctly; my hand is difficult) — particularly the Morning Chronicle? Tell Mr. Perry I forgive him all he has said, and may say against my address, but he will allow me to deal with the Doctor — (audi alteram partem) — and not betray me. I cannot think what has befallen Mr. Perry, for of yore we were very good friends; — but no matter, only get this inserted.

  I have a poem on Waltzing for you, of which I make you a present; but it must be anonymous. It is in the old style of English Bards, and Scotch Reviewers.

  Ever yours,

  Byron.

  P. S. — With the next edition of Childe Harold you may print the first fifty or a hundred opening lines of the Curse of Minerva down to the couplet beginning

  Mortal (‘twas thus she spake), etc.

  Of course, the moment the Satire begins, there you will stop, and the opening is the best part.

  265 — to Robert Rushton

  Cheltenham, Oct. 18th, 1812.

  Robert, — I hope you continue as much as possible to apply yourself to Accounts and Land-Measurement, etc. Whatever change may take place about Newstead, there will be none as to you and Mr. Murray. It is intended to place you in a situation in Rochdale for which your pursuance of the Studies I recommend will best fit you. Let me hear from you; is your health improved since I was last at the Abbey? In the mean time, if any accident occur to me, you are provided for in my will, and if not, you will always find in your Master a sincere Friend.