The Life of Lord Byron
Chapter XLII
CHAPTER XLII.
Lord Byron resolves to join the Greeks.—Arrives at
Cephalonia.—Greek factions.—Sends emissaries to the Grecian chiefs.—Writes to
London about the loan.—To Mavrocordato on the
dissensions.—Embarks at last for Missolonghi.
While The Liberal
was halting onward to its natural doom, the attention of Lord
Byron was attracted towards the struggles of Greece.
In that country his genius was first effectually developed; his name was
associated with many of its most romantic scenes, and the cause was popular with all the
educated and refined of Europe. He had formed besides a personal attachment to the land, and
perhaps many of his most agreeable local associations were fixed amid the ruins of Greece, and
in her desolated valleys. The name is indeed alone calculated to awaken the noblest feelings of
humanity. The spirit of her poets, the wisdom and the heroism of her worthies; whatever is
splendid in genius, unparalleled in art, glorious in arms, and wise in philosophy, is
associated in their highest excellence with that beautiful region.
Had Lord Byron never been in Greece, he
was, undoubtedly, one of those men whom the resurrection of her spirit was likeliest to
interest; but he was not also one fitted to do her cause much service. His innate indolence,
his sedentary habits, and that all-engrossing consideration for himself, which, in every
situation, marred his best impulses, were shackles upon the
practice of
the stern bravery in himself which he has so well expressed in his works.
It was expected when he sailed for Greece, nor was the expectation
unreasonable with those who believe imagination and passion to be of the same element, that the
enthusiasm which flamed so highly in his verse was the spirit of action, and would prompt him
to undertake some great enterprise. But he was only an artist; he could describe bold
adventures and represent high feeling, as other gifted individuals give eloquence to canvas and
activity to marble; but he did not possess the wisdom necessary for the instruction of
councils. I do, therefore, venture to say, that in embarking for Greece, he was not entirely
influenced by such exoterical motives as the love of glory or the aspirations of heroism. His
laurels had for some time ceased to flourish, the sear and yellow, the mildew and decay, had
fallen upon them, and he was aware that the bright round of his fame was ovalling from the full
and showing the dim rough edge of waning.
He was, moreover, tired of the Guiccioli, and again afflicted with a desire for some new object with which to
be in earnest. The Greek cause seemed to offer this, and a better chance for distinction than
any other pursuit in which he could then engage. In the spring of 1823 he accordingly made
preparations for transferring himself from Genoa to Greece, and opened a correspondence with
the leaders of the insurrection, that the importance of his adhesion might be duly appreciated.
Greece, with a fair prospect of ultimate success, was at that time as
distracted in her councils as ever. Her arms had been victorious, but the ancient jealousy of
the Greek mind was unmitigated. The third campaign had commenced, and yet no regular government
had been organized; the fiscal resources of the country were neglected; a wild energy against
the Ottomans was all that the Greeks could depend on for continuing the war.
Lord Byron arrived in Cephalonia about the middle of August,
1823, where he fixed his residence for some time. This was prudent, but it said nothing for
that spirit of enterprise with which a man engaging in such a cause, in such a country, and
with such a people, ought to have been actuated—especially after Marco Botzaris, one of the best and most distinguished of the
chiefs, had earnestly urged him to join him at Missolonghi. I fear that I may not be able to do
justice to Byron’s part in the affairs of Greece; but I shall try.
He did not disappoint me, for he only acted as might have been expected, from his unsteady
energies. Many, however, of his other friends longed in vain to hear of that blaze of heroism,
by which they anticipated that his appearance in the field would be distinguished.
Among his earliest proceedings was the equipment of forty Suliotes, or
Albanians, whom he sent to Marco Botzaris to assist in
the defence of Missolonghi. An adventurer of more daring would have gone with them; and when
the battle was over, in which Botzaris fell, he transmitted bandages and
medicines, of which he had brought a large supply from Italy, and pecuniary succour to the
wounded. This was considerate, but there was too much consideration in all that he did at this
time, neither in unison with the impulses of his natural character, nor consistent with the
heroic enthusiasm with which the admirers of his poetry imagined he was kindled.
In the mean time he had offered to advance one thousand dollars a month for
the succour of Missolonghi and the troops with Marco
Botzaris; but the government, instead of accepting the offer, intimated that
they wished previously to confer with him, which he interpreted into a desire to direct the
expenditure of the money to other purposes. In his opinion his Lordship was probably not
mistaken; but his own account of his feeling in the business does not tend to exalt the
magnanimity of his attachment to the cause: “I
will take
care,” says he, “that it is for the public cause, otherwise I will not advance
a para. The opposition say they want to cajole me, and the party in power say the others
wish to seduce me; so, between the two, I have a difficult part to play; however, I will
have nothing to do with the factions, unless to reconcile them, if possible.”
It is difficult to conceive that Lord
Byron, “the searcher of dark bosoms,” could have expressed
himself so weakly and with such vanity; but the shadow of coming fate had already reached him,
and his judgment was suffering in the blight that had fallen on his reputation. To think of the
possibility of reconciling two Greek factions, or any factions, implies a degree of ignorance
of mankind, which, unless it had been given in his Lordship’s own writing, would not have
been credible; and as to having nothing to do with the factions, for what purpose went he to
Greece, unless it was to take a part with one of them? I abstain from saying what I think of
his hesitation in going to the government instead of sending two of his associated adventurers,
Mr. Trelawney and Mr.
Hamilton Brown, whom he despatched to collect intelligence as to the real state
of things, substituting their judgment for his own. When the Hercules, the ship he chartered to
carry him to Greece, weighed anchor, he was committed with the Greeks, and everything short of
unequivocal folly he was bound to have done with and for them.
His two emissaries or envoys proceeded to Tripolizza, where they found
Colocotroni seated in the palace of the late vizier,
Velhi Pashaw, in great power; the court-yard and
galleries filled with armed men in garrison, while there was no enemy at that time in the Morea
able to come against them! The Greek chieftains, like their classic predecessors, though
embarked in the same adventure, were personal adversaries to each other.
Colocotroni spoke of his compeer Mavro-
cordato in the very language of Agamemnon, when he said that he had declared to him, unless he
desisted from his intrigues, he would mount him on an ass and whip him out of the Morea; and
that he had only been restrained from doing so by the representation of his friends, who
thought it would injure their common cause. Such was the spirit of the chiefs of the factions
which Lord Byron thought it not impossible to reconcile!
At this time Missolonghi was in a critical state, being blockaded both by
land and sea; and the report of Trelawney to
Lord Byron concerning it, was calculated to rouse his Lordship to
activity. “There have been,” says he, “thirty battles fought and won by
the late Marco Botzaris, and his gallant tribe of
Suliotes, who are shut up in Missolonghi. If it fall, Athens will be in danger, and
thousands of throats cut: a few thousand dollars would provide ships to relieve it; a
portion of this sum is raised, and I would coin my heart to save this key of
Greece.” Bravely said! but deserving of little attention. The fate of Missolonghi
could have had no visible effect on that of Athens.
The distance between these two places is more than a hundred miles, and
Lord Byron was well acquainted with the local
difficulties of the intervening country; still it was a point to which the eyes of the Greeks
were all at that time directed; and Mavrocordato, then
in correspondence with Lord Byron, and who was endeavouring to collect a
fleet for the relief of the place, induced his Lordship to undertake to provide the money
necessary for the equipment of the fleet, to the extent of twelve thousand pounds. It was on
this occasion his Lordship addressed a letter to the Greek chiefs, that deserves to be quoted,
for the sagacity with which it suggests what may be the conduct of the great powers of
Christendom.
“I must frankly confess,” says he, “that unless
union and order are confirmed, all hopes of a loan will be in vain, and all the assistance
which the Greeks could expect from abroad, an assistance which might be neither trifling
nor worthless, will be suspended or destroyed; and what is worse, the great powers of
Europe, of whom no one was an enemy to Greece, but seemed inclined to favour her in
consenting to the establishment of an independent power, will be persuaded that the Greeks
are unable to govern themselves, and will, perhaps, undertake to arrange your disorders in
such a way, as to blast the brightest hopes you indulge, and that are indulged by your
friends.”
In the meantime, Lord Byron was still at
the villa he had hired in Cephalonia, where his conduct was rather that of a spectator than an
ally. Colonel Stanhope, in a letter of the 26th of
November, describes him as having been there about three months, and spending his time exactly
as every one acquainted with his habits must have expected. “The first six weeks he
spent on board a merchant-vessel, and seldom went on shore, except on business. Since that
period he has lived in a little villa in the country, in absolute retirement, Count Gamba (brother to the Guiccioli) being his only companion.”— Such, surely, was
not exactly playing that part in the Greek cause which he had taught the world to look for. It
is true, that the accounts received there of the Greek affairs were not then favourable.
Everybody concurred in representing the executive government as devoid of public virtue, and
actuated by avarice or personal ambition. This intelligence was certainly not calculated to
increase Lord Byron’s ardour, and may partly excuse the causes of
his personal inactivity. I say personal, because he had written to London to accelerate the
attempt to raise a loan, and, at the suggestion of Colonel Stanhope, he
addressed a letter to Mavrocordato respecting the
inevitable consequences of their
calamitous dissensions. The object of
this letter was to induce a reconciliation between the rival factions, or to throw the odium,
of having thwarted the loan, upon the Executive, and thereby to degrade the members of it in
the opinion of the people. “I am very uneasy,” said his Lordship to the prince,
“at hearing that the dissensions of Greece still continue; and at a moment when
she might triumph over everything in general, as she has triumphed in part. Greece is at
present placed between three measures; either to reconquer her liberty, or to become a
dependence of the sovereigns of Europe, or to return to a Turkish province; she has already
the choice only of these three alternatives. Civil war is but a road which leads to the two
latter. If she is desirous of the fate of Wallachia and the Crimea, she may obtain it to-morrow; if that of Italy, the day after.
But if she wishes to become truly Greece, free and independent, she
must resolve to-day, or she will never again have the
opportunity,” &c., &c.
Meanwhile, the Greek people became impatient for Lord Byron to come among them. They looked forward to his arrival as to the
coming of a Messiah. Three boats were successively despatched for him and two of them returned,
one after the other, without him. On the 29th of December, 1823, however, his Lordship did at
last embark.
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— . . .
Markos Botsaris [Μαρκος Βοτσαρις] (1790-1823)
Greek leader in the War of Independence who died heroically at the Battle of Karpenisi.
He was the brother of Kostas (Constantine) Botzaries.
James Hamilton Browne (1834 fl.)
A Scotsman who accompanied Byron on his second expedition to Greece and was instrumental
in arranging and delivering the first Greek Loan.
Pietro Gamba (1801-1827)
The brother of Teresa Guiccioli and member of Carbonieri. He followed Byron to Greece and
left a memoir of his experiences.
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).
Prince Alexander Mavrocordatos [Αλεξανδρος Μαβροκορδατος] (1791-1865)
Greek statesman and diplomat with Byron at Missolonghi; after study at the University of
Padua he joined the Greek Revolution in 1821 and in 1822 was elected by the National
Assembly at Epidaurus. He commanded forces in western Central Greece and retired in 1826
after the Fall of Messolonghi.
Leicester Fitzgerald Charles Stanhope, fifth earl of Harrington (1784-1862)
The third son of the third earl; in 1823 he traveled to Greece as the Commissioner of the
London Greek Committee; there he served with Byron, whom he criticizes in
Greece in 1823 and 1824 (1824). He inherited the earldom from his brother in
1851.
Edward John Trelawny (1792-1881)
Writer, adventurer, and friend of Shelley and Byron; author of the fictionalized memoirs,
Adventures of a Younger Son (1831) and
Recollections of the Last Days of Shelley and Byron (1858).
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.