The Works of Lord Byron: Letters and Journals Volume II Part 59

[Footnote 1: In the 'Morning Chronicle' (June 10, 1813) appeared advertis.e.m.e.nts of the two following books:--'Practical Observations on the best mode of curing Strictures, etc., with Remarks on Inefficacy, etc., of Caustic Applications'. By William Wadd. Printed for J. Callow, Soho. 'Modern Poets; a Dialogue in Verse, containing some Strictures on the Poetry of Lord Byron, Mr. Southey, and Others'. Printed for White, Cochrane, and Co., Fleet Street.

In a note on 'Modern Poets' (p. 7) occurs the following pa.s.sage:

"In 'English Bards, and Scotch Reviewers' the same respectable corps of critics is successively exhibited, in the course of only ten lines, under the following significant but somewhat incongruous forms, viz.

(1) Northern Wolves, (2) Harpies, (3) Bloodhounds."

In proof the writer quotes lines 426-437 of the Satire. Then follows a long review of 'Childe Harold', in which the critic condemns Harold, the hero, as "an uncouth inc.u.mbrance of this flighty Lord;" the want of "plot ... action and fable, interest, order, end;" and asks:

"Shall he immortal bays aspire to wear Who immortality from man would tear, Repress the sigh which hopes a happier home, And chase the visions of a life to come?"]

[Footnote 2: For Byron's intention to go abroad with Lord and Lady Oxford, see p. 164, 'note' 3 [Footnote 6 of Letter 256.]]

301.--To John Murray.

[Maidenhead], June 13, 1813.

Dear Sir,--Amongst the books from Bennet St. is a small vol. of abominable poems by the Earl of Haddington which must not be in ye Catalogue on Sale--also--a vol. of French Epigrams in the same predicament.

On the t.i.tle page of Meletius is an inscription in writing which must be _erased_ and made illegible.

I have read the strictures, which are just enough, and not grossly abusive, in very fair couplets. There is a note against Ma.s.singer near the end, but one cannot quarrel with one's company, at any rate. The author detects some incongruous figures in a pa.s.sage of 'E. Bds'., page 23., but which edition I do not know. In the _sole_ copy in your possession--I mean the _fifth_ edition--you may make these alterations, that I may profit (though a little too late) by his remarks:--For "_h.e.l.lish_ instinct," subst.i.tute "_brutal_ instinct;" "_harpies_" alter to "_felons_;" and for "blood-hounds" write "h.e.l.l-hounds." These be "very bitter words, by my troth," and the alterations not much sweeter; but as I shall not publish the thing, they can do no harm, but are a satisfaction to me in the way of amendment. The pa.s.sage is only 12 lines.

You do not answer me about H.'s book; I want to write to him, and not to say anything unpleasing. If you direct to Post Office, Portsmouth, till _called_ for, I will send and receive your letter. You never told me of the forthcoming critique on 'Columbus' [1] which is not _too_ fair; and I do not think justice quite done to the 'Pleasures', which surely ent.i.tles the author to a higher rank than that a.s.signed to him in the 'Quarterly'. But I must not cavil at the decisions of the _invisible infallibles_; and the article is very well written. The general horror of "_fragments_" [2] makes me tremulous for "_The Giaour_;" but you would publish it--I presume, by this time, to your repentance. But as I consented, whatever be its fate, I won't now quarrel with you, even though I detect it in my pastry; but I shall not open a pye without apprehension for some weeks.

The Books which may be marked G.O. I will carry out. Do you know Clarke's 'Naufragia' [3]? I am told that he a.s.serts the _first_ volume of 'Robinson Crusoe' was written by the first Lord Oxford, when in the Tower, and given by him to Defoe; if true, it is a curious anecdote.

Have you got back Lord Brooke's MS.? and what does Heber say of it?

Write to me at Portsmouth.

Ever yours, etc.,

Bn.

[Footnote 1: Rogers's _Columbus_ was reviewed by Ward in the _Quarterly_ for March, 1813. The reviewer detects "evident marks of haste" in the poem.]

[Footnote 2: _The Giaour_, like _Columbus_, was written in fragments.]

[Footnote 3: James Stanier Clarke, a Navy Chaplain (1765-1834), published, in 1805, 'Naufragia, or Historical Memoirs of Shipwrecks'. In that work he does not himself attribute the _first_ volume of 'Robinson Crusoe' to Lord Oxford. The following is the pa.s.sage to which Byron refers ('Naufragia', vol. i. pp. 12, 13): "But before I conclude this Section, I wish to make the admirers of this Nautical Romance mindful of a Report, which prevailed many years ago; that Defoe, after all, was not the real author of Robinson Crusoe. This a.s.sertion is noticed in an article in the seventh volume of the 'Edinburgh Magazine' [vol. vii. p.

269]. Dr. Towers, in his 'Life' of Defoe in the 'Biographia', is inclined to pay no attention to it; but was that writer aware of the following letter, which also appeared in the 'Gentleman's Magazine' for 1788? (vol. lviii. part i. p. 208). At least no notice is taken of it in his 'Life' of Defoe:

"'Dublin, February 25.

"Mr. Urban,--In the course of a late conversation with a n.o.bleman of the first consequence and information in this kingdom, he a.s.sured me, that Mr. Benjamin Holloway, of Middleton Stony, a.s.sured him, some time ago: that he knew for fact, that the celebrated Romance of 'Robinson Crusoe' was really written by the Earl of Oxford, when confined in the Tower of London: that his Lordship gave the ma.n.u.script to Daniel Defoe, who frequently visited him during his confinement: and that Defoe, having afterwards added the second volume, published the whole as his own production. This anecdote I would not venture to send to your valuable magazine, if I did not think my information good, and imagine it might be acceptable to your numerous readers, not-withstanding the work has heretofore been generally attributed to the latter. W. W.'

"It is impossible for me to enter on a discussion of this literary subject; though I thought the circ.u.mstance ought to be more generally known. And yet I must observe, that I always discerned a very striking falling off between the composition of the first and second volumes of this Romance--they seem to bear evident marks of having been the work of different writers."

A volume of memoranda in the handwriting of Warton, the Laureate, preserved in the British Museum, contains the following:

"Mem. Jul. 10, 1774. In the year 1759, I was told by the Rev. Mr.

Benjamin Holloway, rector of Middleton Stony, in Oxfordshire, then about 70 years old, and in the early part of his life domestic Chaplain to Lord Sunderland, that he had often heard Lord Sunderland say that Lord Oxford, while a prisoner in the Tower of London, wrote the first volume of the History of Robinson Crusoe, merely as an amus.e.m.e.nt under confinement; and gave it to Daniel De Foe, who frequently visited Lord Oxford in the Tower, and was one of his Pamphlet writers. That De Foe, by Lord Oxford's permission, printed it as his own, and, encouraged by its extraordinary success, added himself the second volume, the inferiority of which is generally acknowledged. Mr. Holloway also told me, from Lord Sunderland, that Lord Oxford dictated some parts of the ma.n.u.script to De Foe. Mr.

Holloway was a grave conscientious clergyman, not vain of telling anecdotes, very learned, particularly a good orientalist, author of some theological tracts, bred at Eton School, and a Master of Arts at St. John's College, Cambridge. He lived many years with great respect in Lord Sunderland's family, and was like to the late Duke of Marlborough. He died, as I remember, about the year 1761." ]

302.--To John Murray.

June 18, 1813.

Dear Sir,--Will you forward the enclosed answer to the kindest letter I ever received in my life, my sense of which I can neither express to Mr.

Gifford himself nor to any one else?

Ever yours,

B'N.