LORD BYRON'S DEALINGS WITH MR. MURRAY--_continued_--THE DEATH OF
ALLEGRA, ETC.
Lord Byron informed Mr. Murray, on October 12, 1817, that he had written
"a poem in or after the excellent manner of Mr. Whistlecraft (whom I
take to be Frere)"; and in a subsequent letter he said, "Mr.
Whistlecraft has no greater admirer than myself. I have written a story
in eighty-nine stanzas in imitation of him, called 'Beppo,' the short
name for Giuseppe, that is the Joe of the Italian Joseph." Lord Byron
required that it should be printed anonymously, and in any form that Mr.
Murray pleased. The manuscript of the poem was not, however, sent off
until the beginning of 1818; and it reached the publisher about a month
later.
Meanwhile the friendly correspondence between the poet and his publisher
continued:
_John Murray to Lord Byron_.
_September_ 22, 1818.
"I was much pleased to find, on my arrival from Edinburgh on Saturday
night, your letter of August 26. The former one of the 21st I received
whilst in Scotland. The Saturday and Sunday previous I passed most
delightfully with Walter Scott, who was incessant in his inquiries after
your welfare. He entertains the noblest sentiments of regard towards
you, and speaks of you with the best feelings. I walked about ten miles
with him round a very beautiful estate, which he has purchased by
degrees, within two miles of his favourite Melrose. He has nearly
completed the centre and one wing of a castle on the banks of the Tweed,
where he is the happiness as well as pride of the whole neighbourhood.
He is one of the most hospitable, merry, and entertaining of mortals. He
would, I am confident, do anything to serve you; and as the Paper
[Footnote: The review of the fourth canto of "Childe Harold," _Q.R.,_
No.37.] which I now enclose is a second substantial proof of the
interest he takes in your literary character, perhaps it may naturally
enough afford occasion for a letter from you to him. I sent you by Mr.
Hanson four volumes of a second series of 'Tales of my Landlord,' and
four others are actually in the press. Scott does not yet avow them, but
no one doubts his being their author.... I sent also by Mr. Hanson a
number or two of _Blackwood's Edinburgh Magazine,_ and I have in a
recent parcel sent the whole. I think that you will find in it a very
great share of talent, and some most incomparable fun.... John Wilson,
who wrote the article on Canto IV. of 'Childe Harold' (of which, by the
way, I am anxious to know your opinion), has very much interested
himself in the journal, and has communicated some most admirable papers.
Indeed, he possesses very great talents and a variety of knowledge. I
send you a very well-constructed kaleidoscope, a newly-invented toy
which, if not yet seen in Venice, will I trust amuse some of your female
friends."
The following letter is inserted here, as it does not appear in Moore's
"Biography":
_Lord Byron to John Murray_.
VENICE, _November_ 24, 1818,
DEAR. MR. MURRAY,
Mr. Hanson has been here a week, and went five days ago. He brought
nothing but his papers, some corn-rubbers, and a kaleidoscope. "For what
we have received the Lord make us thankful"! for without His aid I shall
not be so. He--Hanson-left everything else in _Chancery Lane_ whatever,
except your copy-papers for the last Canto, [Footnote: Of "Childe
Harold."] etc., which having a degree of parchment he brought with him.
You may imagine his reception; he swore the books were a "waggon-load";
if they were, he should have come in a waggon; he would in that case
have come quicker than he did.
Lord Lauderdale set off from hence twelve days ago accompanied by a
cargo of Poesy directed to Mr. Hobhouse, all spick and span, and in MS.;
you will see what it is like. I have given it to Master Southey, and he
shall have more before I have done with him.
You may make what I say here as public as you please, more particularly
to Southey, whom I look upon--and will say so publicly-to be a dirty,
lying rascal, and will prove it in ink--or in his blood, if I did not
believe him to be too much of a poet to risk it! If he has forty reviews
at his back, as he has the _Quarterly_, I would have at him in his
scribbling capacity now that he has begun with me; but I will do nothing
underhand; tell him what I say from _me_ and every one else you please.
You will see what I have said, if the parcel arrives safe. I understand
Coleridge went about repeating Southey's lie with pleasure. I can
believe it, for I had done him what is called a favour.... I can
understand Coleridge's abusing me--but how or why _Southey_, whom I had
never obliged in any sort of way, or done him the remotest service,
should go about fibbing and calumniating is more than I readily
comprehend. Does he think to put me down with his _Canting_, not being
able to do it with his poetry? We will try the question. I have read his
review of Hunt, where he has attacked Shelley in an oblique and shabby
manner. Does he know what that review has done? I will tell you; it has
_sold_ an edition of the "Revolt of Islam" which otherwise nobody would
have thought of reading, and few who read can understand, I for one.
Southey would have attacked me too there, if he durst, further than by
hints about Hunt's friends in general, and some outcry about an
"Epicurean System" carried on by men of the most opposite habits and
tastes and opinions in life and poetry (I believe) that ever had their
names in the same volume--Moore, Byron, Shelley, Hazlitt, Haydon, Leigh
Hunt, Lamb. What resemblance do ye find among all or any of these men?
And how could any sort of system or plan be carried on or attempted
amongst them? However, let Mr. Southey look to himself; since the wine
is tapped, he shall drink it.
I got some books a few weeks ago--many thanks. Amongst them is Israeli's
new edition; it was not fair in you to show him my copy of his former
one, with all the marginal notes and nonsense made in Greece when I was
not two-and-twenty, and which certainly were not meant for his perusal,
nor for that of his readers.
I have a great respect for Israeli and his talents, and have read his
works over and over and over repeatedly, and been amused by them
greatly, and instructed often. Besides, I hate giving pain, unless
provoked; and he is an author, and must feel like his brethren; and
although his Liberality repaid my marginal flippancies with a
compliment--the highest compliment--that don't reconcile me to
myself--nor to _you_. It was a breach of confidence to do this without
my leave; I don't know a living man's book I take up so often or lay
down more reluctantly than Israeli's, and I never will forgive you--that
is, for many weeks. If he had got out of humour I should have been less
sorry; but even then I should have been sorry; but really he has heaped
his "coals of fire" so handsomely upon my head that they burn
unquenchably.
You ask me of the two reviews [Footnote: Of "Childe Harold" in the
_Quarterly_ and _Blackwood._]--I will tell you. Scott's is the review
of one poet on another--his friend; Wilson's, the review of a poet too,
on another--his _Idol_; for he likes me better than he chooses to avow
to the public with all his eulogy. I speak judging only from the
article, for I don't know him personally.
Here is a long letter--can you read it?
Yours ever,
B.
In the course of September 1818 Lord Byron communicated to Mr. Moore
that he had finished the first canto of a poem in the style and manner
of "Beppo." "It is called," he said, "'Don Juan,' and is meant to be a
little quietly facetious upon everything; but," he added, "I doubt
whether it is not--at least so far as it has yet gone--too free for
these very modest days." In January 1819 Lord Byron requested Mr. Murray
to print for private distribution fifty copies of "Don Juan." Mr. Murray
urged him to occupy himself with some great work worthy of his
reputation. "This you have promised to Gifford long ago, and to Hobhouse
and Kinnaird since." Lord Byron, however, continued to write out his
"Don Juan," and sent the second canto in April 1819, together with the
"Letter of Julia," to be inserted in the first canto.
Mr. Murray, in acknowledging the receipt of the first and second cantos,
was not so congratulatory as he had formerly been. The verses contained,
no doubt, some of the author's finest poetry, but he had some objections
to suggest. "I think," he said, "you may modify or substitute other
words for the lines on Romilly, whose death should save him." But Byron
entertained an extreme detestation for Romilly, because, he said, he had
been "one of my assassins," and had sacrificed him on "his legal altar";
and the verse [Footnote: St. 16, First Canto.] was allowed to stand
over. "Your history," wrote Murray, "of the plan of the progress of 'Don
Juan' is very entertaining, but I am clear for sending him to hell,
because he may favour us with a description of some of the characters
whom he finds there." Mr. Murray suggested the removal of some offensive
words in Canto II. "These," he said, "ladies may not read; the Shipwreck
is a little too particular, and out of proportion to the rest of the
picture. But if you do anything it must be done with extreme caution;
think of the effects of such seductive poetry! It probably surpasses in
talent anything that you ever wrote. Tell me if you think seriously of
completing this work, or if you have sketched the story. I am very sorry
to have occasioned you the trouble of writing again the "Letter of
Julia"; but you are always very forgiving in such cases." The lines in
which the objectionable words appeared were obliterated by Lord Byron.
From the following letter we see that Mr. Murray continued his
remonstrances:
_John Murray to Lord Byron_.
_May 3_, 1819.
"I find that 'Julia's Letter' has been safely received, and is with the
printer. The whole remainder of the second canto will be sent by
Friday's post. The inquiries after its appearance are not a few. Pray
use your most tasteful discretion so as to wrap up or leave out certain
approximations to indelicacy."
Mr. Douglas Kinnaird, who was entrusted with the business portion of
this transaction, wrote to Mr. Murray:
_Mr. Douglas Kinnaird to John Murray_.
_June 7_, 1819.
My Dear Sir,
Since I had the pleasure of seeing you, I have received from Lord Byron
a letter in which he expresses himself as having left to Mr. Hobhouse
and myself the sole and whole discretion and duty of settling with the
publisher of the MSS. which are now in your hands the consideration to
be given for them. Observing that you have advertised "Mazeppa," I feel
that it is my duty to request you will name an early day--of course
previous to your publishing that or any other part of the MSS.--when we
may meet and receive your offer of such terms as you may deem proper for
the purchase of the copyright of them. The very liberal footing on which
Lord Byron's intercourse with you in your character of publisher of his
Lordship's works has hitherto been placed, leaves no doubt in my mind
that our interview need be but very short, and that the terms you will
propose will be met by our assent.
The parties met, and Mr. Murray agreed to give £525 for "Mazeppa," and
£1,575 for the first and second cantos of "Don Juan," with "The Ode to
Venice" thrown in.
In accordance with Lord Byron's directions to his publisher to "keep the
anonymous," Cantos I. and II. of "Don Juan" appeared in London, in
quarto, in July 1819, without the name of either author, publisher, or
bookseller. The book was immediately pounced upon by the critics; but it
is unnecessary to quote their reviews, as they are impartially given in
the latest accredited editions of Lord Byron's poems. A few criticisms
from Mr. Murray's private correspondence may be given.
_Mr. Gifford to John Murray_.
RYDE, _July_ 1, 1819.
"Lord B.'s letter is shockingly amusing. [Footnote: Probably that
written in May; printed in the "Life."] He must be mad; but then there's
method in his madness. I dread, however, the end. He is, or rather might
be, the most extraordinary character of his age. I have lived to see
three great men--men to whom none come near in their respective
provinces--Pitt, Nelson, Wellington. Morality and religion would have
placed our friend among them as the fourth boast of the time; even a
decent respect for the good opinion of mankind might have done much now;
but all is tending to displace him."
Mr. Murray, who was still in communication with Mr. Blackwood, found
that he refused to sell "Don Juan" because it contained personalities
which he regarded as even more objectionable than those of which Murray
had complained in the _Magazine_.
When the copyright of "Don Juan" was infringed by other publishers, it
became necessary to take steps to protect it at law, and Mr. Sharon
Turner was consulted on the subject. An injunction was applied for in
Chancery, and the course of the negotiation will be best ascertained
from the following letters:
_Mr. Sharon Turner to John Murray_.
_October_ 21, 1819.
DEAR MURRAY,
... on "Don Juan" I have much apprehension. I had from the beginning,
and therefore advised the separate assignment. The counsel who is
settling the bill also doubts if the Chancellor will sustain the
injunction. I think, when Mr. Bell comes to town, it will be best to
have a consultation with him on the subject. The counsel, Mr. Loraine,
shall state to him his view on the subject, and you shall hear what Mr.
Bell feels upon it. Shall I appoint the consultation? The evil, if not
stopped, will be great. It will circulate in a cheap form very
extensively, injuring society wherever it spreads. Yet one consideration
strikes me. You could wish Lord Byron to write less objectionably. You
may also wish him to return you part of the £1,625. If the Chancellor
should dissolve the injunction on this ground, that will show Lord B.
that he must expect no more copyright money for such things, and that
they are too bad for law to uphold. Will not this affect his mind and
purify his pen? It is true that to get this good result you must
encounter the risk and expense of the injunction and of the argument
upon it. Will you do this? If I laid the case separately before three of
our ablest counsel, and they concurred in as many opinions that it
could not be supported, would this equally affect his Lordship's mind,
and also induce him to return you an adequate proportion of the purchase
money? Perhaps nothing but the Court treating him as it treated Southey
[Footnote: In the case of "Wat Tyler," see Murray's letter to Byron in
preceding chapter, April 12, 1817.] may sufficiently impress Lord B.
After the consultation with Bell you will better judge. Shall I get it
appointed as soon as he comes to town?
Ever yours faithfully,
SHARON TURNER.
Mr. Bell gave his opinion that the Court would not afford protection to
the book. He admitted, however, that he had not had time to study it.
The next letter relates to the opinion of Mr. Shadwell, afterwards
Vice-Chancellor:
_Mr. Sharon Turner to John Murray_.
_November_ 12, 1819.
Dear Murray,
I saw Mr. Shadwell to-day on "Don Juan." He has gone through the book
with more attention than Mr. Bell had time to do. He desires me to say
that he does not think the Chancellor would refuse an injunction, or
would overturn it if obtained....
Yours most faithfully,
SHARON TURNER.
In the event the injunction to restrain the publication of "Don Juan" by
piratical publishers was granted.
Towards the end of 1819 Byron thought of returning to England. On
November 8 he wrote to Mr. Murray:
"If she [the Countess Guiccioli] and her husband make it up, you will
perhaps see me in England sooner than you expect. If not, I will retire
with her to France or America, change my name, and lead a quiet
provincial life. If she gets over this, and I get over my Tertian ague,
I will perhaps look in at Albemarle Street _en passant_ to Bolivar."
When Mr. Hobhouse, then living at Ramsbury, heard of Byron's intention
to go to South America, he wrote to Mr. Murray as follows:
" ... To be sure it is impossible that Lord B. should seriously
contemplate, or, if he does, he must not expect us to encourage, this
mad scheme. I do not know what in the world to say, but presume some one
has been talking nonsense to him. Let Jim Perry go to Venezuela if he
will--he may edit his 'Independent Gazette' amongst the Independents
themselves, and reproduce his stale puns and politics without let or
hindrance. But our poet is too good for a planter--too good to sit down
before a fire made of mare's legs, to a dinner of beef without salt and
bread. It is the wildest of all his meditations--pray tell him. The
plague and Yellow Jack, and famine and free quarter, besides a thousand
other ills, will stare him in the face. No tooth-brushes, no
corn-rubbers, no _Quarterly Reviews_. In short, plenty of all he
abominates and nothing of all he loves. I shall write, but you can tell
facts, which will be better than my arguments."
Byron's half-formed intention was soon abandoned, and the Countess
Guiccioli's serious illness recalled him to Ravenna, where he remained
for the next year and a half.
Hobhouse's next letter to Murray (January 1820), in which he reported
"Bad news from Ravenna--a great pity indeed," is dated _Newgate_, where
he had been lodged in consequence of his pamphlet entitled "A Trifling
Mistake in Thomas Lord Erskine's Recent Pamphlet," containing several
very strong reflections on the House of Commons as then constituted.
During his imprisonment, Mr. Hobhouse was visited by Mr. Murray and Ugo
Foscolo, as well as by many of his political friends.
Lady Caroline Lamb also wrote to Mr. Murray from Brockett Hall, asking
for information about Byron and Hobhouse.
_Lady Caroline Lamb to John Murray_.
You have never written to tell me about him. Now, did you know the pain
and agony this has given me, you had not been so remiss. If you could
come here on Wednesday for one night, I have a few people and a supper.
You could come by the Mail in two hours, much swifter than even in your
swift carriage; and I have one million of things to say and ask also. Do
tell me how that dear Radical Hob is, and pray remember me to him. I
really hope you will be here at dinner or supper on Wednesday. Your
bedroom shall be ready, and you can be back in Town before most people
are up, though I rise here at seven.
Yours quite disturbed my mind, for want of your telling me how he
[Byron] looks, what he says, if he is grown fat, if he is no uglier than
he used to be, if he is good-humoured or cross-grained, putting his
brows down--if his hair curls or is straight as somebody said, if he has
seen Hobhouse, if he is going to stay long, if you went to Dover as you
intended, and a great deal more, which, if you had the smallest tact or
aught else, you would have written long ago; for as to me, I shall
certainly not see him, neither do I care he should know that I ever
asked after him. It is from mere curiosity I should like to hear all you
can tell me about him. Pray come here immediately.
Yours,
C.L.
Notwithstanding the remarkable sale of "Don Juan," Murray hesitated
about publishing any more of the cantos. After the fifth canto was
published, Lord Byron informed Murray that it was "hardly the beginning
of the work," that he intended to take Don Juan through the tour of
Europe, put him through the Divorce Court, and make him finish as
Anacharsis Clootz in the French Revolution. Besides being influenced by
his own feelings, it is possible that the following letter of Mr. Croker
may have induced Mr. Murray to have nothing further to do with the work:
_Mr. Croker to John Murray_.
MUNSTER HOUSE, _March_ 26, 1820.
_A rainy Sunday_.
DEAR MURRAY,
I have to thank you for letting me see your two new cantos [the 3rd and
4th], which I return. What sublimity! what levity! what boldness! what
tenderness! what majesty! what trifling! what variety! what
_tediousness_!--for tedious to a strange degree, it must be confessed
that whole passages are, particularly the earlier stanzas of the fourth
canto. I know no man of such general powers of intellect as Brougham,
yet I think _him_ insufferably tedious; and I fancy the reason to be
that he has such _facility_ of expression that he is never recalled to a
_selection_ of his thoughts. A more costive orator would be obliged to
choose, and a man of his talents could not fail to choose the best; but
the power of uttering all and everything which passes across his mind,
tempts him to say all. He goes on without thought--I should rather say,
without pause. His speeches are poor from their richness, and dull from
their infinite variety. An impediment in his speech would make him a
perfect Demosthenes. Something of the same kind, and with something of
the same effect, is Lord Byron's wonderful fertility of thought and
facility of expression; and the Protean style of "Don Juan," instead of
checking (as the fetters of rhythm generally do) his natural activity,
not only gives him wider limits to range in, but even generates a more
roving disposition. I dare swear, if the truth were known, that his
digressions and repetitions generate one another, and that the happy
jingle of some of his comical rhymes has led him on to episodes of which
he never originally thought; and thus it is that, with the most
extraordinary merit, _merit of all kinds_, these two cantos have been
to _me_, in several points, tedious and even obscure.
As to the PRINCIPLES, all the world, and you, Mr. Murray, _first of
all_, have done this poem great injustice. There are levities here and
there, more than good taste approves, but nothing to make such a
terrible rout about--nothing so bad as "Tom Jones," nor within a hundred
degrees of "Count Fathom."
The writer goes on to remark that the personalities in the poem are more
to be deprecated than "its imputed looseness of principle":
I mean some expressions of political and personal feelings which, I
believe, he, in fact, never felt, and threw in wantonly and _de gaieté
de coeur_, and which he would have omitted, advisedly and _de bonté de
coeur_, if he had not been goaded by indiscreet, contradictory, and
urgent _criticisms_, which, in some cases, were dark enough to be called
_calumnies_. But these are blowing over, if not blown over; and I cannot
but think that if Mr. Gifford, or some friend in whose taste and
disinterestedness Lord Byron could rely, were to point out to him the
cruelty to individuals, the injury to the national character, the
offence to public taste, and the injury to his own reputation, of such
passages as those about Southey and Waterloo and the British Government
and the head of that Government, I cannot but hope and believe that
these blemishes in the first cantos would be wiped away in the next
edition; and that some that occur in the two cantos (which you sent me)
would never see the light. What interest can Lord Byron have in being
the poet of a party in politics?... In politics, he cannot be what he
appears, or rather what Messrs. Hobhouse and Leigh Hunt wish to make him
appear. A man of his birth, a man of his taste, a man of his talents, a
man of his habits, can have nothing in common with such miserable
creatures as we now call _Radicals_, of whom I know not that I can
better express the illiterate and blind ignorance and vulgarity than by
saying that the best informed of them have probably never heard of Lord
Byron. No, no, Lord Byron may be indulgent to these jackal followers of
his; he may connive at their use of his name--nay, it is not to be
denied that he has given them too, too much countenance--but he never
can, I should think, now that he sees not only the road but the rate
they are going, continue to take a part so contrary to all his own
interests and feelings, and to the feelings and interests of all the
respectable part of his country.... But what is to be the end of all
this rigmarole of mine? To conclude, this--to advise you, for your own
sake as a tradesman, for Lord Byron's sake as a poet, for the sake of
good literature and good principles, which ought to be united, to take
such measures as you may be able to venture upon to get Lord Byron to
revise these two cantos, and not to make another step in the odious path
which Hobhouse beckons him to pursue....
Yours ever,
J.W. CROKER.
But Byron would alter nothing more in his "Don Juan." He accepted the
corrections of Gifford in his "Tragedies," but "Don Juan" was never
submitted to him. Hobhouse was occasionally applied to, because he knew
Lord Byron's handwriting; but even his suggestions of alterations or
corrections of "Don Juan" were in most cases declined, and moreover
about this time a slight coolness had sprung up between him and Byron.
When Hobhouse was standing for Westminster with Sir Francis Burdett,
Lord Byron sent a song about him in a letter to Mr. Murray. It ran to
the tune of "My Boy Tammy? O!"
"Who are now the People's men?
My boy Hobby O!
Yourself and Burdett, Gentlemen,
And Blackguard Hunt and Cobby O!
"When to the mob you make a speech,
My boy Hobby O!
How do you keep without their reach
The watch without your fobby O?"
[Footnote: The rest of the song is printed in _Murray's Magazine_, No. 3.]
Lord Byron asked Murray to show the song not only to some of his
friends--who got it by heart and had it printed in the newspapers--but
also to Hobhouse himself. "I know," said his Lordship, "that he will
never forgive me, but I really have no patience with him for letting
himself be put in quod by such a set of ragamuffins." Mr. Hobhouse,
however, was angry with Byron for his lampoon and with Murray for
showing it to his friends. He accordingly wrote the following letter,
which contains some interesting particulars of the Whig Club at
Cambridge in Byron's University days:
_Mr. Hobhouse to John Murray_.
2, HANOVER SQUARE, _November_, 1820.
I have received your letter, and return to you Lord Byron's. I shall
tell you very frankly, because I think it much better to speak a little
of a man to his face than to say a great deal about him behind his back,
that I think you have not treated me as I deserved, nor as might have
been expected from that friendly intercourse which has subsisted between
us for so many years. Had Lord Byron transmitted to me a lampoon on you,
I should, if I know myself at all, either have put it into the fire
without delivery, or should have sent it at once to you. I should not
have given it a circulation for the gratification of all the small wits
at the great and little houses, where no treat is so agreeable as to
find a man laughing at his friend. In this case, the whole coterie of
the very shabbiest party that ever disgraced and divided a nation--I
mean the Whigs--are, I know, chuckling over that silly charge made by
Mr. Lamb on the hustings, and now confirmed by Lord Byron, of my having
belonged to a Whig club at Cambridge. Such a Whig as I then was, I am
now. I had no notion that the name implied selfishness and subserviency,
and desertion of the most important principles for the sake of the least
important interest. I had no notion that it implied anything more than
an attachment to the principles the ascendency of which expelled the
Stuarts from the Throne. Lord Byron belonged to this Cambridge club, and
desired me to scratch out his name, on account of the criticism in the
_Edinburgh Review_ on his early poems; but, exercising my discretion on
the subject, I did not erase his name, but reconciled him to the said
Whigs.
The members of the club were but few, and with those who
have any marked politics amongst them, I continue to agree at
this day. They were but ten, and you must know most of them--Mr.
W. Ponsonby, Mr. George O'Callaghan, the Duke of Devonshire,
Mr. Dominick Browne, Mr. Henry Pearce, Mr. Kinnaird, Lord
Tavistock, Lord Ellenborough, Lord Byron, and myself. I was
not, as Lord Byron says in the song, the founder of this Club;
[Footnote:
"But when we at Cambridge were
My boy Hobbie O!
If my memory do not err,
You founded a Whig Clubbie O!"
]
on the contrary, thinking myself of mighty importance
in those days, I recollect very well that some difficulty attended my
consenting to belong to the club, and I have by me a letter from
Lord Tavistock, in which the distinction between being a Whig
_party_ man and a Revolution Whig is strongly insisted upon.
I have troubled you with this detail in consequence of Lord Byron's
charge, which he, who despises and defies, and has lampooned the Whigs
all round, only invented out of wantonness, and for the sake of annoying
me--and he has certainly succeeded, thanks to your circulating this
filthy ballad. As for his Lordship's vulgar notions about the _mob_,
they are very fit for the Poet of the _Morning Post_, and for nobody
else. Nothing in the ballad annoyed me but the charge about the
Cambridge club, because nothing else had the semblance of truth; and I
own it has hurt me very much to find Lord Byron playing into the hands
of the Holland House sycophants, for whom he has himself the most
sovereign contempt, and whom in other days I myself have tried to induce
him to tolerate.
I shall say no more on this unpleasant subject except that, by a letter
which I have just received from Lord Byron, I think he is ashamed of his
song. I shall certainly speak as plainly to him as I have taken the
liberty to do to you on this matter. He was very wanton and you very
indiscreet; but I trust neither one nor the other meant mischief, and
there's an end of it. Do not aggravate matters by telling how much I
have been annoyed. Lord Byron has sent me a list of his new poems and
some prose, all of which he requests me to prepare for the press for
him. The monied arrangement is to be made by Mr. Kinnaird. When you are
ready for me, the materials may be sent to me at this place, where I
have taken up my abode for the season.
I remain, very truly yours, JOHN CAM HOBHOUSE.
Towards the end of 1820 Lord Byron wrote a long letter to Mr. Murray on
Mr. Bowles's strictures on the "Life and Writings of Pope." It was a
subject perhaps unworthy of his pen, but being an ardent admirer of
Pope, he thought it his duty to "bowl him [Bowles] down." "I mean to lay
about me," said Byron, "like a dragon, till I make manure of Bowles for
the top of Parnassus."
After some revision, the first and second letters to Bowles were
published, and were well received.
The tragedy of "Sardanapalus," the last three acts of which had been
written in a fortnight, was despatched to Murray on May 30, 1821, and
was within a few weeks followed by "The Two Foscari: an Historical
Tragedy"--which had been composed within a month--and on September 10
by "Cain, a Mystery." The three dramas, "Sardanapalus," "The Two
Foscari," and "Cain, a Mystery," were published together in December
1821, and Mr. Murray paid Lord Byron for them the sum of £2,710.
"Cain" was dedicated, by his consent, to Sir Walter Scott, who, in
writing to Mr. Murray, described it as "a very grand and tremendous
drama." On its first appearance it was reprinted in a cheap form by two
booksellers, under the impression that the Court of Chancery would not
protect it, and it therefore became necessary to take out an injunction
to restrain these piratical publishers.
The case came before Lord Chancellor Eldon on February 9. Mr. Shadwell,
Mr. Spence, and Sergeant Copley were retained by Mr. Murray, and after
considerable discussion the injunction was refused, the Lord Chancellor
intimating that the publisher must establish his right to the
publication at law, and obtain the decision of a jury, on which he would
grant the injunction required. This was done accordingly, and the
copyright in "Cain" was thus secured.
On the death of Allegra, his natural daughter, Lord Byron entrusted to
Mr. Murray the painful duty of making arrangements for the burial of the
remains in Harrow Church. Mr. Cunningham, the clergyman of Harrow, wrote
in answer to Mr. Murray:
_Rev. J.W. Cunningham to John Murray_.
_August_ 20, 1822.
Sir,
Mr. Henry Drury was so good as to communicate to me a request conveyed
to you by Lord Byron respecting the burial of a child in this church.
Mr. H. Drury will probably have also stated to you my willingness to
comply with the wish of Lord Byron. Will you forgive me, however, for so
far trespassing upon you (though a stranger) as to suggest an inquiry
whether it might not be practicable and desirable to fulfil for the
_present_ only a _part_ of his Lordship's wish--by burying the child,
and putting up a tablet with simply its name upon the tablet; and thus
leaving Lord B. more leisure to reflect upon the character of the
inscription he may wish to be added. It does seem to me that whatever he
may wish in the moment of his distress about the loss of this child, he
will afterwards regret that he should have taken pains to proclaim to
the world what he will not, I am sure, consider as honourable to his
name. And if this be probable, then it appears to me the office of a
true friend not to suffer him to commit himself but to allow his mind an
opportunity of calm deliberation. I feel constrained to say that the
inscription he proposed will be felt by every man of refined taste, to
say nothing of sound morals, to be an offence against taste and
propriety. My correspondence with his Lordship has been so small that I
can scarcely venture myself to urge these objections. You perhaps will
feel no such scruple. I have seen no person who did not concur in the
propriety of stating them. I would entreat, however, that should you
think it right to introduce my name into any statement made to Lord
Byron, you will not do it without assuring him of my unwillingness to
oppose the smallest obstacle to his wishes, or give the slightest pain
to his mind. The injury which, in my judgment, he is from day to day
inflicting upon society is no justification for measures of retaliation
and unkindness.
Your obedient and faithful Servant, J.W. CUNNINGHAM.
No communication having been received by the Rector, he placed the
application from Lord Byron before the churchwardens.
_Rev. J.W. Cunningham to John Murray_.
"The churchwardens have been urged to issue their prohibition by several
leading and influential persons, laymen, in the parish. You are aware
that as to _ex-parishioners_ the consent of the churchwardens is no less
necessary than my own; and that therefore the enclosed prohibition is
decisive as to the putting up of the monument. You will oblige me by
making known to Lord Byron the precise circumstances of the case.
I am, your obedient Servant, J.W. CUNNINGHAM.
The prohibition was as follows:
HARROW, _September_ 17, 1822.
Honored Sir,
I object on behalf of the parish to admit the tablet of Lord Byron's
child into the church.
JAMES WINKLEY, _Churchwarden_.
The remains of Allegra, after long delay, were at length buried in the
church, just under the present door mat, over which the congregation
enter the church; but no memorial tablet or other record of her appears
on the walls of Harrow Church.