The Life of Lord Byron
Chapter XXIV
CHAPTER XXIV.
Dispute with the ambassador.—Reflections on
Byron’s pride of rank.—Abandons his Oriental
travels.—Re-embarks in the Salsette.—The
dagger-scene.—Zea.—Return to Athens—Tour in the Morea.—Dangerous
illness.—Return to Athens.—The adventure on which the Giaour is founded.
Although Lord Byron remained
two months in Constantinople, and visited every object of interest and curiosity within and
around it, he yet brought away with him fewer poetical impressions than from any other part of
the Ottoman dominions; at least he has made less use in his works of what he saw and learned
there, than of the materials he collected in other places.
From whatever cause it arose, the self-abstraction which I had noticed at
Smyrna, was remarked about him while he was in the capital, and the same jealousy of his rank
was so nervously awake, that it led him to attempt an obtrusion on the ambassadorial
etiquettes—which he probably regretted.
It has grown into a custom, at Constantinople, when the foreign ministers are
admitted to audiences of ceremony with the sultan, to allow the subjects and travellers of
their respective nations to accompany them, both to swell the pomp of the spectacle, and to
gratify their curiosity. Mr. Adair, our ambassador, for
whom the Salsette had been sent, had his audience of leave appointed
soon after Lord Byron’s arrival, and his Lordship was
particularly anxious to occupy a station of distinction in the procession. The pretension was
ridiculous in itself, and showed less ac-
quaintance with courtly
ceremonies than might have been expected in a person of his rank and intelligence.
Mr. Adair assured him that he could obtain no particular place; that
in the arrangements for the ceremonial, only the persons connected with the embassy could be
considered, and that the Turks neither acknowledged the precedence, nor could be requested to
consider the distinctions of our nobility. Byron, however, still
persisted, and the minister was obliged to refer him on the subject to the Austrian
Internuncio, a high authority in questions of etiquette, whose opinion was decidedly against
the pretension.
The pride of rank was indeed one of the greatest weaknesses of Lord Byron, and everything, even of the most accidental kind,
which seemed to come between the wind and his nobility, was repelled on the spot. I
recollect having some debate with him once respecting a pique of etiquette, which happened
between him and Sir William Drummond, somewhere in
Portugal or Spain. Sir William was at the time an ambassador (not,
however, I believe, in the country where the incident occurred), and was on the point of taking
precedence in passing from one room to another, when Byron stepped in
before him. The action was undoubtedly rude on the part of his Lordship, even though
Sir William had presumed too far on his riband: to me it seemed also
wrong; for, by the custom of all nations from time immemorial, ambassadors have been allowed
their official rank in passing through foreign countries, while peers in the same circumstances
claim no rank at all; even in our own colonies it has been doubted if they may take precedence
of the legislative counsellors. But the rights of rank are best determined by the heralds, and
I have only to remark, that it is almost inconceivable that such things should have so morbidly
affected the sensibility of Lord Byron; yet they certainly did so, and
even to a ridiculous degree. On one occasion,
when he lodged in St
James’s Street, I recollect him rating the footman for using a double knock in accidental
thoughtlessness.
These little infirmities are, however, at most only calculated to excite a
smile; there is no turpitude in them, and they merit notice but as indications of the humour of
character. It was his Lordship’s foible to overrate his rank, to grudge his deformity
beyond reason, and to exaggerate the condition of his family and circumstances. But the alloy
of such small vanities, his caprice and feline temper, were as vapour compared with the mass of
rich and rare ore which constituted the orb and nucleus of his brilliancy.
He had not been long in Constantinople, when a change came over his
intentions; the journey to Persia was abandoned, and the dreams of India were dissolved. The
particular causes which produced this change are not very apparent—but Mr. Hobhouse was at the same time directed to return home, and
perhaps that circumstance had some influence on his decision, which he communicated to his
mother, informing her, that he should probably return to Greece. As in that letter he alludes
to his embarrassment on account of remittances, it is probable that the neglect of his agent,
with respect to them, was the main cause which induced him to determine on going no farther.
Accordingly, on the 14th of July, he embarked with Mr. Hobhouse and the ambassador on board the Salsette. It was in the course of the passage to the island of Zea, where he was
put on shore, that one of the most emphatic incidents of his life occurred; an incident which
throws a remarkable gleam into the springs and intricacies of his character—more,
perhaps, than anything which has yet been mentioned.
One day, as he was walking the quarter-deck, he lifted an ataghan (it might
be one of the midshipmen’s weapons), and unsheathing it, said, contem-
plating the blade, “I should like to know how a person feels after committing
murder.” By those who have inquiringly noticed the extraordinary cast of his
metaphysical associations, this dagger-scene must be regarded as both impressive and solemn;
although the wish to know how a man felt after committing murder does not imply any desire to
perpetrate the crime. The feeling might be appreciated by experiencing any actual degree of
guilt; for it is not the deed—the sentiment which follows it makes the horror. But it is
doing injustice to suppose the expression of such a wish dictated by desire. Lord Byron has been heard to express, in the eccentricity of
conversation, wishes for a more intense knowledge of remorse than murder itself could give.
There is, however, a wide and wild difference between the curiosity that prompts the wish to
know the exactitude of any feeling or idea, and the direful passions that instigate to guilty
gratifications.
Being landed, according to his request, with his valet, two Albanians, and a
Tartar, on the shore of Zea, it may be easily conceived that he saw the ship depart with a
feeling before unfelt. It was the first time he was left companionless, and the scene around
was calculated to nourish stern fancies, even though there was not much of suffering to be
withstood.
The landing-place in the port of Zea, I recollect distinctly. The port
itself is a small land-locked gulf, or, as the Scottish Highlander would call it, a loch. The
banks are rocky and forbidding; the hills, which rise to the altitude of mountains, have, in a
long course of ages, been always inhabited by a civilized people. Their precipitous sides are
formed into innumerable artificial terraces, the aspect of which, austere, ruinous, and
ancient, produces on the mind of the stranger a sense of the presence of a greater antiquity
than the sight of monuments of mere labour and art. The town stands high upon the mountain, I
counted on the lower side of the road which leads to it forty-nine of
those terraces at one place under me, and on the opposite hills, in several places, upwards of
sixty. Whether Lord Byron ascended to the town is doubtful.
I have never heard him mention that he had; and I am inclined to think that he proceeded at
once to Athens by one of the boats which frequent the harbour.
At Athens he met an old fellow-collegian, the Marquis of Sligo, with whom he soon after travelled as far as Corinth; the
Marquis turning off there for Tripolizza, while Byron went
forward to Patras, where he had some needful business to transact with the consul. He then made the tour of the Morea, in the course of
which he visited the vizier Velhi Pashaw, by whom he was
treated, as every other English traveller of the time was, with great distinction and
hospitality.
Having occasion to go back to Patras, he was seized by the local fever
there, and reduced to death’s door. On his recovery he returned to Athens, where he found
the Marquis, with Lady Hester
Stanhope, and Mr. Bruce, afterward so
celebrated for his adventures in assisting the escape of the French general Lavalette. He took possession of the apartments which I had
occupied in the monastery, and made them his home during the remainder of his residence in
Greece; but when I returned to Athens, in October, he was not there himself. I found, however,
his valet, Fletcher, in possession.
There is no very clear account of the manner in which Lord Byron employed himself after his return to Athens; but
various intimations in his correspondence show that during the winter his pen was not idle. It
would, however, be to neglect an important occurrence, not to notice that during the time when
he was at Athens alone, the incident which he afterwards embodied in the impassioned fragments
of
The Giaour came to pass; and to apprise the
reader that the story is founded on an adventure which happened to himself—he was, in
fact, the cause of the girl being condemned, and ordered to be sewn up in a sack and thrown
into the sea.
One day, as he was returning from bathing in the Piraeus, he met the
procession going down to the shore to execute the sentence which the Waywode had pronounced on
the girl; and learning the object of the ceremony, and who was the victim, he immediately
interfered with great resolution; for, on observing some hesitation on the part of the leader
of the escort to return with him to the governor’s house, he drew a pistol and threatened
to shoot him on the spot. The man then turned about, and accompanied him back, when, partly by
bribery and entreaty, he succeeded in obtaining a pardon for her, on condition that she was
sent immediately out of the city. Byron conveyed her to the
monastery, and on the same night sent her off to Thebes, where she found a safe asylum.
With this affair, I may close his adventures in Greece; for, although he
remained several months subsequent at Athens, he was in a great measure stationary. His health,
which was never robust, was impaired by the effects of the fever, which lingered about him;
perhaps, too, by the humiliating anxiety he suffered on account of the uncertainty in his
remittances. But however this may have been, it was fortunate for his fame that he returned to
England at the period he did, for the climate of the Mediterranean was detrimental to his
constitution. The heat oppressed him so much as to be positive suffering, and scarcely had he
reached Malta on his way home, when he was visited again with a tertian ague.
Leigh Hunt,
Lord Byron and Some of his Contemporaries (London: Henry Colburn, 1828)
An article was
written in “The Westminster
Review” (Medwin says
by Mr. Hobhouse) to show that the Conversations were altogether unworthy of
credit. There are doubtless many inaccuracies in the latter; but the spirit remains
undoubted; and the author of the criticism was only vexed, that such was the fact. He
assumes, that Lord Byron could not have made this or that statement to
Captain Medwin, because the statement was erroneous or untrue; but
an anonymous author has no right to be believed in preference to one who speaks in his own
name: there is nothing to show that Mr. Hobhouse might not have been
as mistaken about a date or an epigram as Mr. Medwin; and when we find
him giving us his own version of a fact, and Mr. Medwin asserting that
Lord Byron gave him another, the only impression left upon the
mind of any body who knew his Lordship is, that the fault most probably lay in the loose
corners of the noble Poet’s vivacity. Such is the impression made upon the author of
an unpublished Letter to Mr.
Hobhouse, which has been shown me in print; and he had a right to it. The
reviewer, to my knowledge, is mistaken upon some points, as well as the person he reviews.
The assumption, that nobody can know any thing about Lord Byron but
two or three persons who were conversant with him for a certain space of time, and whom he
spoke of with as little ceremony, and would hardly treat with more confidence than he did a
hundred others, is ludicrous; and can only end, as the criticism has done, in doing no good
either to him or them. . . .
John Galt,
“Pot versus Kettle” in Fraser’s Magazine
Vol. 2
No. 11 (December 1830)
“Dear Sir;—Amongst the
agreeable things which you say of me in your life of Lord Byron, you conjecture that I
‘condemned’
Childe Harold
previously to its publication. There is not the slightest foundation for this
supposition—nor is it true as you state, ‘that I was the only person
who had seen the poem in manuscript, as I was with Lord
Byron whilst he was writing it.’ I had left
Lord Byron before he had finished the two cantos, and,
excepting a few fragments, I had never seen them until they were printed. My own
persuasion is, that the story told in Dallas’s Recollections of some
person, name unknown, having dissuaded Lord Byron from
publishing Childe Harold, is a
mere fabrication, for it is at complete variance with all Lord
Byron himself told me on the subject. At any rate, I was not that
person; if I had been, it is not very likely that the poem which I had endeavoured
to stifle in its birth, should, in its complete, or, as Lord
Byron says, in its ‘concluded state,’ be dedicated to
me. I must, therefore, request you will take the earliest opportunity of relieving
me from this imputation, which, so far as a man can be written down by any other
author than himself, cannot fail to produce a very prejudicial effect, and to give
me more uneasiness than I think it can be your wish to inflict on any man who has
never given you provocation or excuse for injustice. . . .
John Galt,
“Pot versus Kettle” in Fraser’s Magazine
Vol. 2
No. 11 (December 1830)
I am glad to find my college
stories administered relief to your nerves, when we were together in the Malta
packet some one and twenty years ago; and I am not sorry that my wearing a red
coat at Cagliari, and cutting my finger in the quarries of Pentelicus, should
have furnished materials for your present volume; but to repay me for having
supplied these timely episodes, as well as for your copious extracts from my
travels in Albania, and also for inserting my note about Madame Guiccioli without my leave, you must
positively cancel the passage respecting Childe Harold
in page 161 of your little volume. . . .
John Galt,
“Pot versus Kettle” in Fraser’s Magazine
Vol. 2
No. 11 (December 1830)
I wonder that even common policy did not induce you to be
more cautious in making statements which might be so easily disproved, and
which have, indeed, been already incontrovertibly refuted. The very
conversation, which you have judiciously selected from Medwin, as one of those parts of his trumpery book to the truth of which you
can speak, I know to be a lie; for I never went the tour of the lake of Geneva
with Lord Byron. . . .
John Galt,
“Pot versus Kettle” in Fraser’s Magazine
Vol. 2
No. 11 (December 1830)
You tell me that your wish has
been to give only an outline of his intellectual character. I am at a loss to
understand how your gossip about him and me, and the silly anecdotes you have
copied from very discreditable authorities, can be said to be fairly comprised
in such an outline. But your plan ought certainly to have compelled you to make
yourself thoroughly acquainted with his poetry, and to quote him just as he
wrote. Nevertheless, you have misrepresented him at least nine times in the ten
stanzas of that poem which you call the last, and which was not the last, he
ever wrote. Oh, for shame! stick to your acknowledged fictions—there you
are safe—you may deal with Leddy
Grippy and Laurie Todd as
you please, but not with those who have really lived, or who are still
alive. . . .
[John Wilson et. al.],
“Noctes Ambrosianae XVII” in Blackwood’s Edinburgh Magazine
Vol. 16
No. 94 (November 1824)
And there was another funny thing o’ his, till a queer looking lad, one
Mr. Skeffington, that wrote a tragedy, that was called
“The Mysterious Bride,” the whilk
thing made the Times newspaper for once witty—for it
said no more o’t, than just “Last night a play called The Mysterious
Bride, by the Honorable Mr. Skeffington, was performed at Drury Lane.
The piece was damned.” Weel, ye see it happened that there was a masquerade some nights after,
and Mr. Cam Hobhouse gaed till’t in the disguise
o’ a Spanish nun, that had been ravished by the French army— . . .
Sir Robert Adair (1763-1855)
English diplomat; he was Whig MP for Appleby (1799-1802) and Camelford (1802-12), a
friend and disciple of Charles James Fox, and ambassador to Constantinople, 1809-10. He was
ridiculed by Canning and Ellis in
The Rovers.
Michael Bruce (1787-1861)
Educated at Eton and St. John's College, Cambridge; he was the companion of Lady Hester
Stanhope in her eastern travels, 1810-13, assisted in the escape of Count Lavalette from
France, and was MP for Ilchester (1830-31).
Sir William Drummond (1770 c.-1828)
Scottish classical scholar and Tory MP; succeeded Lord Elgin as ambassador to the Ottoman
Porte (1803); his
Oedipus judaicus, in which he interpreted the Old
Testament as an astrological allegory, was privately printed in 1811.
William Fletcher (1831 fl.)
Byron's valet, the son of a Newstead tenant; he continued in service to the end of the
poet's life, after which he was pensioned by the family. He married Anne Rood, formerly
maid to Augusta Leigh, and was living in London in 1831.
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).
Lady Hester Lucy Stanhope (1776-1839)
Oriental traveler; daughter of Charles Stanhope and niece of William Pitt the younger;
she departed England for Egypt and Palmyra in 1810, settled in Lebanon, and never
returned.
Veli Pasha (d. 1822)
Son of Ali Pasha; he was Vizier of the Morea before he was executed during his father's
struggle with the Turks.