The Life of Lord Byron
Chapter XXXV
CHAPTER XXXV.
Residence in Ravenna.—The
Carbonari.—Byron’s part in their plot.—The murder of
the military commandant.—The poetical use of the incident.—Marino Faliero.—Reflections.—The prophecy of
Dante.
Lord Byron has said himself, that except Greece, he was never so attached to any place in his
life as to Ravenna. The peasantry he thought the best people in the world, and their women the
most beautiful. “Those at Tivoli and Frescati,” said he, “are mere
Sabines, coarse creatures, compared to the Romagnese. You may talk of your English women;
and it is true, that out of one hundred Italian and English you will find thirty of the
latter handsome; but then there will be one Italian on the other side of the scale, who
will more than balance the deficit in numbers—one who, like the Florence Venus, has no rival, and can have none in the North. I found
also at Ravenna much education and liberality of thinking among the higher classes. The
climate is delightful. I was not broken in upon by society. Ravenna lies out of the way of
travellers. I was never tired of my rides in the pine forest: it breathes of the Decameron; it is poetical ground.
Francesca lived and Dante was exiled and died at Ravenna. There is something inspiring in such
an air.
“The people liked me as much as they hated the government. It is not a little to say,
I was popular with all the leaders of the constitutional party. They knew that I came from
a land of liberty, and wished well to their cause. I would have espoused it too,
and assisted them to shake off their fetters. They knew my character,
for I had been living two years at Venice, where many of the Ravennese have houses. I did
not, however, take part in their intrigues, nor join in their political coteries; but I had
a magazine of one hundred stand of arms in the house, when everything was ripe for
revolt—a curse on Carignan’s imbecility!
I could have pardoned him that, too, if he had not impeached his partisans.
“The proscription was immense in Romagna, and embraced many of the first nobles:
almost all my friends, among the rest the Gambas (the father and
brother of the Countess Guiccioli), who took no part
in the affair, were included in it. They were exiled, and their possessions confiscated.
They knew that this must eventually drive me out of the country. I did not follow them
immediately: I was not to be bullied—I had myself fallen under the eye of the
government. If they could have got sufficient proof they would have arrested me.”
The latter part of this declaration bears, in my opinion, indubitable marks
of being genuine. It has that magnifying mysticism about it which more than any other quality
characterized Lord Byron’s intimations concerning
himself and his own affairs; but it is a little clearer than I should have expected in the
acknowledgment of the part he was preparing to take in the insurrection. He does not seem here to be sensible, that in confessing so much, he has justified the
jealousy with which he was regarded.
“Shortly after the plot was discovered,” he proceeds to say, “I received
several anonymous letters, advising me to discontinue my forest rides; but I entertained no
apprehensions of treachery, and was more on horseback than ever. I never stir out without
being well armed, nor sleep without pistols. They knew that I never missed my aim; perhaps
this saved me.”
An event occurred at this time at Ravenna that
made a
deep impression on Lord Byron. The commandant of the place, who, though suspected of being
secretly a Carbonaro, was too powerful a man to be arrested, was assassinated opposite to his
residence. The measures adopted to screen the murderer proved, in the opinion of his Lordship,
that the assassination had taken place by order of the police, and that the spot where it was
perpetrated had been selected by choice. Byron at the moment had his foot
in the stirrup, and his horse started at the report of the shot. On looking round he saw a man
throw down a carbine and run away, and another stretched on the pavement near him. On hastening
to the spot, he found it was the commandant; a crowd collected, but no one offered any
assistance. His Lordship directed his servant to lift the bleeding body into the
palace—he assisted himself in the act, though it was represented to him that he might
incur the displeasure of the government—and the gentleman was already dead. His adjutant
followed the body into the house. “I remember,” says his Lordship, “his
lamentation over him—’Poor devil he would not have harmed a
dog.’”
It was from the murder of this commandant that the poet sketched the scene of
the assassination in the fifth canto of Don Juan.
The other evening (’twas on Friday last),
This is a fact, and no poetic fable—
Just as my great coat was about me cast,
My hat and gloves still lying on the table,
I heard a shot—’twas eight o’clock scarce past,
And running out as fast as I was able,
Stretch’d in the street, and able scarce to pant.
|
Poor fellow! for some reason, surely bad,
They had him slain with five slugs, and left him there
To perish on the pavement: so I had
Him borne into the house, and up the stair;
The man was gone: in some Italian quarrel
Kill’d by five bullets from an old gun-barrel.
|
The scars of his old wounds were near his new,
Those honourable scars which bought him fame,
And horrid was the contrast to the view—
But let me quit the theme, as such things claim
Perhaps ev’n more attention than is due
From me: I gazed (as oft I’ve gazed the same)
To try if I could wrench aught out of death
Which should confirm, or shake, or make a faith.
|
Whether Marino Faliero was
written at Ravenna or completed there, I have not ascertained, but it was planned at Venice,
and as far back as 1817. I believe this is considered about the most ordinary performance of
all Lord Byron’s works; but if it is considered with
reference to the time in which it was written, it will probably be found to contain many great
and impressive passages. Has not the latter part of the second scene in the first act reference
to the condition of Venice when his Lordship was there? And is not the description which
Israel Bertuccio gives of the conspirators applicable
to, as it was probably derived from, the Carbonari, with whom there is reason to say
Byron was himself disposed to take a part?
Know, then, that there are met and sworn in secret
A band of brethren, valiant hearts and true;
Men who have proved all fortunes, and have long
Grieved over that of Venice, and have right
To do so; having served her in all climes,
And having rescued her from foreign foes,
Would do the same for those within her walls.
They are not numerous, nor yet too few
For their great purpose; they have arms, and means,
And hearts, and hopes, and faith, and patient courage.
|
This drama, to be properly appreciated, both in its taste and feeling should
be considered as addressed to the Italians of the epoch at which it was written. Had it been
written in the Italian instead of the English language, and could have come out in any city of
Italy, the effect would have been prodigious. It is, indeed, a work not to be estimated by the
delineations
of character nor the force of passion expressed in it, but
altogether by the apt and searching sarcasm of the political allusions. Viewed with reference
to the time and place in which it was composed, it would probably deserve to be ranked as a
high and bold effort: simply as a drama, it may not be entitled to rank above tragedies of the
second or third class. But I mean not to set my opinion of this work against that of the
public, the English public; all I contend for is, that it possesses many passages of uncommon
beauty, and that its chief tragic merit consists in its political indignation; but above all,
that is another and a strong proof too, of what I have been endeavouring to show, that the
power of the poet consisted in giving vent to his own feelings, and not, like his great
brethren, or even his less, in the invention of situations or of appropriate sentiments. It is,
perhaps, as it stands, not fit to succeed in representation; but it is so rich in matter that
it would not be a difficult task to make out of little more than the third part a tragedy which
would not dishonour the English stage.
I have never been able to understand why it has been so often supposed that
Lord Byron was actuated in the composition of his
different works by any other motive than enjoyment: perhaps no poet had ever less of an
ulterior purpose in his mind during the fits of inspiration (for the epithet may be applied
correctly to him and to the moods in which he was accustomed to write) than this singular and
impassioned man. Those who imagine that he had any intention to impair the reverence due to
religion, or to weaken the hinges of moral action, give him credit for far more design and
prospective purpose than he possessed. They could have known nothing of the man, the main
defect of whose character, in relation to everything, was in having too little of the element
or principle of purpose. He was a thing of impulses, and to judge of what he either said or
did, as the results of prede-
termination, was not only to do the harshest
injustice, but to show a total ignorance of his character. His whole fault, the darkest course
of those flights and deviations from propriety which have drawn upon him the severest
animadversion, lay in the unbridled state of his impulses. He felt, but never reasoned. I am
led to make these observations by noticing the ungracious, or, more justly, the illiberal
spirit in which The Prophecy of Dante, which
was published with the Marino Faliero, has been
treated by the anonymous author of Memoirs of the Life and Writings of Lord Byron.
Of The Prophecy of Dante I
am no particular admirer. It contains, unquestionably, stanzas of resounding energy, but the
general verse of the poem is as harsh and abrupt as the clink and clang of the cymbal;
moreover, even for a prophecy, it is too obscure, and though it possesses abstractedly too many
fine thoughts, and too much of the combustion of heroic passion to be regarded as a failure,
yet it will never be popular. It is a quarry, however, of very precious poetical expression.
It was written at Ravenna, and at the suggestion of the Guiccioli, to whom it is dedicated in a sonnet, prettily but
inharmoniously turned. Like all his other best performances, this rugged but masterly
composition draws its highest interest from himself and his own feelings, and can only be
rightly appreciated by observing how fitly many of the bitter breathings of Dante apply to his own exiled and outcast condition. For, however
much he was himself the author of his own banishment, he felt when he wrote these haughty
verses that he had been sometimes shunned.
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— . . .
King Carlo Alberto of Sardinia (1798-1849)
King of Sardinia (1831-1849); an Italian nationalist, as a young man he was a doubtful
ally of the revolutionaries.
Dante Alighieri (1265-1321)
Florentine poet, the author of the
Divine Comedy and other
works.
Teresa Guiccioli (1800-1873)
Byron's lover, who in 1818 married Alessandro Guiccioli. She composed a memoir of Byron,
Lord Byron,
Jugé par les Témoines de sa Vie (1868).
Luigi dal Pinto (d. 1820)
The military commandant of Ravenna who was assassinated outside the Palazzo Guiccioli on
December 9th.
John Watkins (1765-1831 fl.)
English schoolmaster, biographer, and associate of Samuel Badcock; he compiled a
Universal Biographical and Historical Dictionary (1800) and wrote
the first life of Richard Brinsley Sheridan.
George Gordon Byron, sixth Baron Byron (1788-1824)
Don Juan. (London: 1819-1824). A burlesque poem in ottava rima published in installments: Cantos I and II published in
1819, III, IV and V in 1821, VI, VII, and VIII in 1823, IX, X, and XI in 1823, XII, XIII,
and XIV in 1823, and XV and XVI in 1824.