The Life of Lord Byron
        Chapter XLVI
        
        
          
        
        
          
        
       
      
      
      
      
     
    
    
    
     CHAPTER XLVI. 
    
    Lord Byron appointed to the command of three thousand men to besiege
                    Lepanto.—The siege abandoned for a blockade.—Advanced guard ordered to
                        proceed.—Lord Byron’s first illness.—A
                    riot.—He is urged to leave Greece.—The expedition against Lepanto
                        abandoned.—Byron dejected.—A wild diplomatic scheme. 
    
    Three days after the conversation related in the preceding chapter,
                        Byron was officially placed in the command of about
                    three thousand men, destined for the attack on Lepanto; but the Suliotes remained refractory,
                    and refused to quit their quarters; his Lordship, however, employed an argument which proved
                    effectual. He told them that if they did not obey his commands, he would discharge them from
                    his service. 
    
     But the impediments were not to be surmounted; in less than a week it was
                    formally reported to Byron that Missolonghi could not
                    furnish the means of undertaking the siege of Lepanto, upon which his Lordship proposed that
                    Lepanto should be only blockaded by two thousand men. Before any actual step was, however,
                    taken, two spies came in with a report that the Albanians in garrison at Lepanto had seized the
                    citadel, and were determined to surrender it to his Lordship. Still the expedition lingered; at
                    last, on the 14th of February, six weeks after Byron’s arrival at
                    Missolonghi, it was determined that an advanced guard of three hundred soldiers, under the
                    command of Count Gamba, should march for Lepanto, and
                    that ![]()
                    Lord Byron, with the main body, should follow. The Suliotes were, however,
                    still exorbitant, calling for fresh contributions for themselves and their families. His
                    troubles were increasing, and every new rush of the angry tide rose nearer and nearer his
                    heart; still his fortitude enabled him to preserve an outward show of equanimity. But, on the
                    very day after the determination had been adopted, to send forward the advanced guard, his
                    constitution gave way. 
    
     He was sitting in Colonel
                        Stanhope’s room, talking jestingly, according to his wonted manner, with
                        Captain Parry, when his eyes and forehead
                    occasionally discovered that he was agitated by strong feelings. On a sudden he complained of a
                    weakness in one of his legs; he rose, but finding himself unable to walk, called for
                    assistance; he then fell into a violent nervous convulsion, and was placed upon a bed: while
                    the fit lasted, his face was hideously distorted; but in the course of a few minutes the
                    convulsion ceased, and he began to recover his senses: his speech returned, and he soon rose,
                    apparently well. During the struggle his strength was preternaturally augmented, and when it
                    was over, he behaved with his usual firmness. “I conceive,” says
                            Colonel Stanhope, “that this fit was occasioned by
                        over-excitement. The mind of Byron is like a volcano; it
                        is full of fire, wrath, and combustibles, and when this matter comes to be strongly
                        agitated, the explosion is dreadful. With respect to the causes which produced the excess
                        of feeling, they are beyond my reach, except one great cause, the provoking conduct of the
                        Suliotes.”
                
    
     A few days after this distressing incident, a new occurrence arose, which
                    materially disturbed the tranquillity of Byron. A Suliote,
                    accompanied by the son, a little boy, of Marco Botzaris,
                    with another man, walked into the Seraglio, a kind of citadel, which had been used as a barrack
                    for the Suliotes, and out of ![]()
 which they had been ejected with difficulty,
                    when it was required for the reception of stores and the establishment of a laboratory. The
                    sentinel ordered them back, but the Suliote advanced. The sergeant of the guard, a German,
                    pushed him back. The Suliote struck the sergeant; they closed and struggled. The Suliote drew
                    his pistol; the German wrenched it from him, and emptied the pan. At this moment a Swedish
                    adventurer, Captain Sass, seeing the quarrel, ordered the
                    Suliote to be taken to the guard-room. The Suliote would have departed, but the German still
                    held him. The Swede drew his sabre; the Suliote his other pistol. The Swede struck him with the
                    flat of his sword; the Suliote unsheathed his ataghan, and nearly cut off the left arm of his
                    antagonist, and then shot him through the head. The other Suliotes would not deliver up their
                    comrade, for he was celebrated among them for distinguished bravery. The workmen in the
                    laboratory refused to work: they required to be sent home to England, declaring, they had come
                    out to labour peaceably, and not to be exposed to assassination. These untoward occurrences
                    deeply vexed Byron, and there was no mind of sufficient energy with him to
                    control the increasing disorders. But, though convinced, as indeed he had been persuaded from
                    the beginning in his own mind, that he could not render any assistance to the cause beyond
                    mitigating the ferocious spirit in which the war was conducted, his pride and honour would not
                    allow him to quit Greece. 
    
     In a letter written soon after his first attack, he says, “I am a
                        good deal better, though of course weakly. The leeches took too much blood from my temples
                        the day after, and there was some difficulty in stopping it; but I have been up daily, and
                        out in boats or on horseback. To-day I have taken a warm bath, and live as temperately as
                        can well be, without any liquid but water, and without any animal food;” then ad-![]()
verting to the turbulences of the Suliotes, he adds, “but I
                        still hope better things, and will stand by the cause as long as my health and
                        circumstances will permit me to be supposed useful.” Subsequently, when pressed to
                        leave the marshy and deleterious air of Missolonghi, he replied, still more forcibly,
                        “I cannot quit Greece while there is a chance of my being of (even supposed) utility.
                        There is a stake worth millions such as I am, and while I can stand at all I must stand by
                        the cause. While I say this, I am aware of the difficulties, and dissensions, and defects
                        of the Greeks themselves; but allowance must be made for them by all reasonable
                        people.”
                
    
     After this attack of epilepsy Lord Byron
                    because disinclined to pursue his scheme against Lepanto. Indeed, it may be said that in his
                    circumstances it was impracticable; for although the Suliotes repented of their
                    insubordination, they yet had an objection to the service, and said “they would not fight
                    against stone walls.” All thought of the expedition was in consequence abandoned, and the
                    destinies of poor Byron were hastening to their consummation. He began to
                    complain! 
    
     In speaking to Parry one day of the
                    Greek Committee in London, he said, “I have been grossly ill-treated by the Committee.
                        In Italy Mr. Blaquiere, their agent, informed me
                        that every requisite supply would be forwarded with all despatch. I was disposed to come to
                        Greece, but I hastened my departure in consequence of earnest solicitations. No time was to
                        be lost, I was told, and Mr. Blaquiere, instead of waiting on me at
                        his return from Greece, left a paltry note, which gave me no information whatever. If ever
                        I meet with him, I shall not fail to mention my surprise at his conduct; but it has been
                        all of a piece. I wish the acting Committee had had some of the trouble which has fallen on
                        me since my arrival here: they would have been more prompt in their proceedings, and would
                        have known ![]()
 better what the country stood in need of. They would not
                        have delayed the supplies a day nor have sent out German officers, poor fellows, to starve
                        at Missolonghi, but for my assistance. I am a plain man, and cannot comprehend the use of
                        printing-presses to a people who do not read. Here the Committee have sent supplies of
                        maps. I suppose that I may teach the young mountaineers geography. Here are bugle-horns
                        without bugle-men, and it is a chance if we can find anybody in Greece to blow them. Books
                        are sent to people who want guns; they ask for swords, and the Committee give them the
                        lever of a printing-press.
                
    
     “My future intentions,” continued his Lordship, “as to Greece, may be
                        explained in a few words. I will remain here until she is secure against the Turks, or till
                        she has fallen under their power. All my income shall be spent in her service; but, unless
                        driven by some great necessity, I will not touch a farthing of the sum intended for my
                        sister’s children. Whatever I can accomplish with my income, and my personal
                        exertions, shall be cheerfully done. When Greece is secure against external enemies, I will
                        leave the Greeks to settle their government as they like. One service more, and an eminent
                        service it will be, I think I may perform for them. You, Parry, shall have a schooner built for me, or I will buy a vessel; the
                        Greeks shall invest me with the character of their ambassador, or agent: I will go to the
                        United States, and procure that free and enlightened government to set the example of
                        recognising the federation of Greece as an independent state. This done, England must
                        follow the example, and then the fate of Greece will be permanently fixed, and she will
                        enter into all her rights as a member of the great commonwealth of Christian Europe.”
                    
    
     This intention will, to all who have ever looked at the effects of fortune on
                    individuals, sufficiently show that Byron’s part in
                    the world was nearly done. Had ![]()
 he lived, and recovered health, it might
                    have proved that he was then only in another lunation: his first was when he passed from poesy
                    to heroism. But as it was, it has only served to show that his mind had suffered by the
                    decadency of his circumstances, and how much the idea of self-exaltation weakly entered into
                    all his plans. The business was secondary to the style in which it should be performed.
                    Building a vessel! why think of the conveyance at all? as if the means of going to America were
                    so scarce that there might be difficulty in finding them. But his mind was passing from him.
                    The intention was unsound—a fantasy—a dream of bravery in old age—begotten of
                    the erroneous supposition that the cabinets of Christendom would remain unconcerned spectators
                    of the triumph of the Greeks, or even of any very long procrastination of their struggle. 
    
    
    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—  . . .
 
    Edward Blaquiere  (1779-1832)  
                  After serving in the Royal Navy he published 
Letters from the
                            Mediterranean, 2 vols (1813); with John Bowring he founded the London Greek
                        Committee in 1823.
               
 
    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.
               
 
    
    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.
               
 
    William Parry  (1773-1859)  
                  Military engineer at Missolonghi; he was author of 
The Last Days of
                            Lord Byron (1825).
               
 
    Lieutenant  Sass  (d. 1824)  
                  Finnish soldier who served in the Swedish and Swiss armies before taking up arms against
                        the Turks, originally with a German troop; he was murdered by the Suliotes at
                        Missolonghi.
               
 
    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.