BYRON: THE LAST PHASE
BYRON: THE LAST PHASE
BY RICHARD EDGCUMBE
NEW YORK
CHARLES SCRIBNER'S SONS
153-157 FIFTH AVENUE
1909
TO
MRS. CHARLES CALL,
DAUGHTER OF EDWARD TRELAWNY, BYRON'S
COMPANION IN GREECE,
I DEDICATE THIS WORK AS A MARK OF AFFECTION
AND ESTEEM
PREFACE
This book has no pretensions; it is merely a record of events and
impressions which nearly forty years of close study have accumulated.
There seems to be a general agreement that the closing scenes of Byron's
short life have not been adequately depicted by his biographers. From the
time of Byron's departure from Ravenna, in the autumn of 1821, his
disposition and conduct underwent a transformation so complete that it
would have been difficult to recognize, in the genial, unselfish
personality who played so effective a rôle at Missolonghi, the gloomy
misanthrope of 1811, or the reckless libertine of the following decade.
The conduct of Byron in Greece seems to have come as a revelation to his
contemporaries, and his direction of complex affairs, in peculiarly trying
circumstances, certainly deserves more attention than it has received.
Records made on the spot by men whose works are now, for the most part,
out of print have greatly simplified my task, and I hope that the
following pages may be acceptable to those who have not had an opportunity
of studying that picturesque phase of Byron's career. I should have much
preferred to preserve silence on the subject of his separation from his
wife. Unfortunately, the late Lord Lovelace, in giving his sanction to the
baseless and forgotten slanders of a bygone age, has recently assailed
the memory of Byron's half-sister, and has set a mark of infamy upon her
which cannot be erased without referring to matters which ought never to
have been mentioned.
In order to traverse statements made in 'Astarte,' it was necessary to
reveal an incident which, during Byron's lifetime, was known only by those
who were pledged to silence. With fuller knowledge of things hidden from
Byron's contemporaries, we may realize the cruelty of those futile
persecutions to which Mrs. Leigh was subjected by Lady Byron and her
advisers, under the impression that they could extract the confession of a
crime which existed only in their prurient imaginations. Mrs. Leigh, in
one of her letters to Hobhouse, says, 'I have made it a rule to be
silent--that is to say, AS LONG AS I CAN.' Although the strain must have
been almost insupportable she died with her secret unrevealed, and the
mystery which Byron declared 'too simple to be easily found out' has
hitherto remained unsolved. I regret being unable more precisely to
indicate the source of information embodied in the concluding portions of
this work. The reader may test the value of my statements by the light of
citations which seem amply to confirm them. At all events, I claim to have
shown by analogy that Lord Lovelace's accusation against Mrs. Leigh is
groundless, and therefore his contention, that Byron's memoirs were
destroyed _because they implicated Mrs. Leigh_, is absolutely untenable.
Those memoirs were destroyed, as we now know, because both Hobhouse and
Mrs. Leigh feared possible revelations concerning another person, whose
feelings and interests formed the paramount consideration of those who
were parties to the deed. Lord John Russell, who had read the memoirs,
stated in 1869 that Mrs. Leigh was _not_ implicated in them, a fact which
proves that they were not burned for the purpose of shielding _her_.
Lord Lovelace tells us that Sir Walter Scott, who had heard full
particulars from Thomas Moore, remarked, 'It is a pity, but there _was_ a
reason--_premat nox alta_.' Facts which they hoped deep oblivion would
hide have come to the surface at last, and I deeply regret that
circumstances should have imposed upon me a duty which is repugnant both
to my inclination and instincts. After all is said, the blame rightly
belongs to Lady Byron's grandson, who, heedless of consequences, stirred
the depths of a muddy pool. He tells us, in 'Astarte,' (1) that the papers
concerning Byron's marriage have been carefully preserved; (2) that they
form _a complete record of all the causes of separation_; and (3) that
they contain _full information on every part of the subject_.
In those circumstances it is strange that, with the whole of Lady Byron's
papers before him, Lord Lovelace should have published only documents of
secondary importance which do not prove his case. After saying, 'It should
be distinctly understood that no misfortunes, blunders, or malpractices,
have swept away Lady Byron's papers, or those belonging to the executors
of Lord Byron,' he leaves the essential records to the imagination of his
readers, and feeds us on hints and suggestions which are not borne out by
extracts provided as samples of the rest. It is impossible not to suspect
that Lord Lovelace, in arranging the papers committed to his charge,
discarded some that would have told in favour of Mrs. Leigh, and selected
others which colourably supported his peculiar views.
In matters of this kind everything depends upon the qualifications of the
accuser and the reliability of the witness. Lord Lovelace in a dual
capacity certainly evinced an active imagination.
As an example, 'Astarte,' which was designed to blast the fair fame of
Mrs. Leigh, was used by him to insult the memory of the late Mr. Murray
(who he admits showed him many acts of kindness), and to repudiate
promises which he undoubtedly made, to edit his grandfather's works.
Rambling statements are made with design to discredit both Mr. Gifford,
the editor of the _Quarterly_, and Mr. Murray, the friend of Lord Byron.
Even personal defects are dragged in to prejudice the reader and embitter
the venom of irrelevant abuse. It was as if Plutarch, in order to enhance
the glory of Antony, had named 'the Last of the Romans' Cassius the
Short-sighted. Fortunately, written proofs were in existence to controvert
Lord Lovelace's assertions--proofs which were used with crushing
effect--otherwise Mr. Murray might have found himself in a position quite
as helpless as that of poor Mrs. Leigh herself. So unscrupulous a use of
documents in that case suggests the possibility that a similar process may
have been adopted in reference to Mrs. Leigh. It is indeed unfortunate
that Lady Byron's papers cannot be inspected by some unprejudiced person,
for we have nothing at present beyond Lord Lovelace's vague assertions.
Were those papers thoroughly sifted they would surely acquit Mrs. Leigh of
the crime that has been so cruelly laid to her charge. Meanwhile I venture
to think that the following pages help to clear the air of much of that
mystery which surrounds the lives of Lord Byron and his sister.
In conclusion, I desire to record my personal obligation to the latest
edition of the 'Poems,' edited by Mr. Ernest Hartley Coleridge; and of the
'Letters and Journals,' edited by Mr. Rowland Prothero, volumes which
together form the most comprehensive and scholarly record of Byron's life
and poetry that has ever been issued.
R. E.
_August, 1909._
BYRON: THE LAST PHASE
PART I
'... Le cose ti fien conte,
Quando noi fermerem li nostri passi
Sulla trista riviera d' Acheronte.'
_Inferno_, Canto III., 76-78.
CHAPTER I
'A large disagreeable city, almost without inhabitants'--such was the poet
Shelley's description of Pisa in 1821. The Arno was yellow and muddy, the
streets were empty, and there was altogether an air of poverty and
wretchedness in the town. The convicts, who were very numerous, worked in
the streets in gangs, cleaning and sweeping them. They were dressed in
red, and were chained together by the leg in pairs. All day long one heard
the slow clanking of their chains, and the rumbling of the carts they were
forced to drag from place to place like so many beasts of burden. A
spectator could not but be struck by the appearance of helpless misery
stamped on their yellow cheeks and emaciated forms.
On the Lung' Arno Mediceo, east of the Ponte di Mezzo, stands the Palazzo
Lanfranchi, which is supposed to have been built by Michael Angelo. Here,
on November 2, 1821, Lord Byron arrived, with his servants, his horses,
his monkey, bulldog, mastiff, cats, peafowl, hens, and other live stock,
which he had brought with him from Ravenna. In another quarter of the city
resided Count Rugiero Gamba, his son Pietro, and his daughter Countess
Teresa Guiccioli. On the other side of the Arno, nearly opposite to
Byron's residence, lived the poet Shelley, with his wife and their friends
Edward and Jane Williams.
In the middle of November, Captain Thomas Medwin, a relative of Shelley's,
arrived at Pisa; and on January 14, 1822, came Edward John Trelawny, who
was destined to play so important a part in the last scenes of the lives
of both Shelley and Byron.
Byron was at this time in his thirty-third year. Medwin thus describes his
personal appearance:
'I saw a man of about five feet seven or eight, apparently forty years
of age. As was said of Milton, Lord Byron barely escaped being short
and thick. His face was fine, and the lower part symmetrically
moulded; for the lips and chin had that curved and definite outline
that distinguishes Grecian beauty. His forehead was high, and his
temples broad; and he had a paleness in his complexion almost to
wanness. His hair, thin and fine, had almost become grey, and waved in
natural and graceful curls over his head, that was assimilating itself
fast to the "bald first Cæsar's." He allowed it to grow longer behind
than it is accustomed to be worn, and at that time had mustachios
which were not sufficiently dark to be becoming. In criticizing his
features, it might, perhaps, be said that his eyes were placed too
near his nose, and that one was rather smaller than the other. They
were of a greyish-brown, but of a peculiar clearness, and when
animated possessed a fire which seemed to look through and penetrate
the thoughts of others, while they marked the inspirations of his own.
His teeth were small, regular, and white. I expected to discover that
he had a club-foot; but it would have been difficult to have
distinguished one from the other, either in size or in form. On the
whole, his figure was manly, and his countenance handsome and
prepossessing, and very expressive. The familiar ease of his
conversation soon made me perfectly at home in his society.'
Trelawny's description is as follows:
'In external appearance Byron realized that ideal standard with which
imagination adorns genius. He was in the prime of life, thirty-four;
of middle height, five feet eight and a half inches; regular features,
without a stain or furrow on his pallid skin; his shoulders broad,
chest open, body and limbs finely proportioned. His small
highly-finished head and curly hair had an airy and graceful
appearance from the massiveness and length of his throat; you saw his
genius in his eyes and lips.'
Trelawny could find no peculiarity in his dress, which was adapted to the
climate. Byron wore:
'a tartan jacket braided--he said it was the Gordon pattern, and that
his mother was of that race--a blue velvet cap with a gold band, and
very loose nankin trousers, strapped down so as to cover his feet. His
throat was not bare, as represented in drawings.'
Lady Blessington, who first saw Byron in April of the following year, thus
describes him:
'The impression of the first few minutes disappointed me, as I had,
both from the portraits and descriptions given, conceived a different
idea of him. I had fancied him taller, with a more dignified and
commanding air; and I looked in vain for the hero-looking sort of
person, with whom I had so long identified him in imagination. His
appearance is, however, highly prepossessing. His head is finely
shaped, and his forehead open, high, and noble; his eyes are grey and
full of expression, but one is visibly larger than the other. The nose
is large and well shaped, but, from being a little _too thick_, it
looks better in profile than in front-face; his mouth is the most
remarkable feature in his face, the upper lip of Grecian shortness,
and the corners descending; the lips full, and finely cut.
'In speaking, he shows his teeth very much, and they are white and
even; but I observed that even in his smile--and he smiles
frequently--there is something of a scornful expression in his mouth,
that is evidently natural, and not, as many suppose, affected. This
particularly struck me. His chin is large and well shaped, and
finishes well the oval of his face. He is extremely thin--indeed, so
much so that his figure has almost a boyish air. His face is
peculiarly pale, but not the paleness of ill-health, as its character
is that of fairness, the fairness of a dark-haired person; and his
hair (which is getting rapidly grey) is of a very dark brown, and
curls naturally: he uses a good deal of oil in it, which makes it look
still darker. His countenance is full of expression, and changes with
the subject of conversation; it gains on the beholder the more it is
seen, and leaves an agreeable impression.... His whole appearance is
remarkably gentlemanlike, and he owes nothing of this to his toilet,
as his coat appears to have been many years made, is much too
large--and all his garments convey the idea of having been purchased
ready-made, so ill do they fit him. There is a _gaucherie_ in his
movements, which evidently proceeds from the perpetual consciousness
of his lameness, that appears to haunt him; for he tries to conceal
his foot when seated, and when walking has a nervous rapidity in his
manner. He is very slightly lame, and the deformity of his foot is so
little remarkable, that I am not now aware which foot it is.
'His voice and accent are peculiarly agreeable, but effeminate--clear,
harmonious, and so distinct, that though his general tone in speaking
is rather low than high, not a word is lost. His manners are as unlike
my preconceived notions of them as is his appearance. I had expected
to find him a dignified, cold, reserved, and haughty person, but
nothing can be more different; for were I to point out the prominent
defect of Lord Byron, I should say it was flippancy, and a total want
of that natural self-possession and dignity, which ought to
characterize a man of birth and education.'
Medwin tells us, in his 'Journal of the Conversations of Lord Byron,' that
Byron's voice had a flexibility, a variety in its tones, a power and
pathos, beyond any he ever heard; and his countenance was capable of
expressing the tenderest as well as the strongest emotions, which would
perhaps have made him the finest actor in the world.
The Countess Guiccioli, who had a longer acquaintance with Byron than any
of those who have attempted to portray him, says:
'Lord Byron's eyes, though of a light grey, were capable of all
extremes of expression, from the most joyous hilarity to the deepest
sadness, from the very sunshine of benevolence to the most
concentrated scorn or rage. But it was in the mouth and chin that the
great beauty as well as expression of his fine countenance lay. His
head was remarkably small, so much so as to be rather out of
proportion to his face. The forehead, though a little too narrow, was
high, and appeared more so from his having his hair (to preserve it,
as he said) shaved over the temples. Still, the glossy dark brown
curls, clustering over his head, gave the finish to its beauty. When
to this is added that his nose, though handsomely, was rather thickly
shaped, that his teeth were white and regular, and his complexion
colourless, as good an idea, perhaps, as it is in the power of mere
words to convey may be conceived of his features. In height he was
five feet eight inches and a half. His hands were very white, and,
according to his own notions of the size of hands as indicating birth,
aristocratically small.... No defect existed in the formation of his
limbs; his slight infirmity was nothing but the result of weakness of
one of his ankles. His habit of ever being on horseback had brought on
the emaciation of his legs, as evinced by the post-mortem examination;
the best proof of this is the testimony of William Swift, bootmaker at
Southwell, who had the honour of working for Lord Byron from 1805 to
1807.'
It appears that Mrs. Wildman (the widow of the Colonel who had bought
Newstead from Byron) not long before her death presented to the Naturalist
Society of Nottingham several objects which had belonged to Lord Byron,
and amongst others his boot and shoe trees. These trees are about nine
inches long, narrow, and generally of a symmetrical form. They were
accompanied by the following statement:
'William Swift, bootmaker at Southwell, Nottinghamshire, having had
the honour of working for Lord Byron when residing at Southwell from
1805 to 1807, asserts that these were the trees upon which his
lordship's boots and shoes were made, and that the last pair delivered
was on the 10th May, 1807. He moreover affirms that his lordship had
not a club foot, as has been said, but that both his feet were equally
well formed, one, however, being an inch and a half shorter than the
other.[1] The defect was not in the foot, but in the ankle, which,
being weak, caused the foot to turn out too much. To remedy this, his
lordship wore a very light and thin boot, which was tightly laced just
under the sole, and, when a boy, he was made to wear a piece of iron
with a joint at the ankle, which passed behind the leg and was tied
behind the shoe. The calf of this leg was weaker than the other, and
it was the left leg.
'(Signed) WILLIAM SWIFT.'
'This, then,' says Countess Guiccioli, 'is the extent of the defect of
which so much has been said, and which has been called a deformity. As
to its being visible, all those who knew him assert that it was so
little evident, that it was even impossible to discover in which of
the legs or feet the fault existed.'
Byron's alleged sensitiveness on the subject of his lameness seems to have
been exaggerated.
'When he did show it,' continues Countess Guiccioli, 'which was never
but to a very modest extent, it was only because, physically speaking,
he suffered from it. Under the sole of the weak foot he at times
experienced a painful sensation, especially after long walks. Once,
at Genoa, Byron walked down the hill from Albaro to the seashore with
me by a rugged and rough path. When we had reached the shore he was
very well and lively. But it was an exceedingly hot day, and the
return home fatigued him greatly. When home, I told him that I thought
he looked ill. "Yes," said he, "I suffer greatly from my foot; it can
hardly be conceived how much I suffer at times from that pain;" and he
continued to speak to me about this defect with great simplicity and
indifference.'
We have been particular to set before the reader the impression which
Byron's personal appearance made upon those who saw him at this time,
because none of the busts or portraits seem to convey anything like an
accurate semblance of this extraordinary personality. Had the reader seen
Byron in his various moods, he would doubtless have exclaimed, with Sir
Walter Scott, that 'no picture is like him.'
The portrait by Saunders represents Byron with thick lips, whereas 'his
lips were harmoniously perfect,' says Countess Guiccioli. Holmes almost
gives him a large instead of his well-proportioned head. In Phillips's
picture the expression is one of haughtiness and affected dignity, which
Countess Guiccioli assures us was never visible to those who saw him in
life. The worst portrait of Lord Byron, according to Countess Guiccioli,
and which surpasses all others in ugliness, was done by Mr. West, an
American, 'an excellent man, but a very bad painter.' This portrait, which
some of Byron's American admirers requested to have taken, and which Byron
consented to sit for, was begun at Montenero, near Leghorn. Byron seems
only to have sat two or three times for it, and it was finished from
memory. Countess Guiccioli describes it as 'a frightful caricature, which
his family or friends ought to destroy.' As regards busts, she says:
'Thorwaldsen alone has, in his marble bust of Byron, been able to
blend the regular beauty of his features with the sublime expression
of his countenance.'
On January 22, 1822, Byron's mother-in-law, Lady Noel, died at the age of
seventy.
'I am distressed for poor Lady Byron,' said the poet to Medwin: 'she
must be in great affliction, for she adored her mother! The world will
think that I am pleased at this event, but they are much mistaken. I
never wished for an accession of fortune; I have enough without the
Wentworth property. I have written a letter of condolence to Lady
Byron--you may suppose in the kindest terms. If we are not reconciled,
it is not my fault.'
There is no trace of this letter, and it is ignored by Lord Lovelace in
'Astarte.' It may be well here to point out how erroneous was the belief
that Miss Milbanke was an heiress. Byron on his marriage settled £60,000
on his wife, and Miss Milbanke was to have brought £20,000 into
settlement; but the money was not paid. Sir Ralph Milbanke's property was
at that time heavily encumbered. Miss Milbanke had some expectations
through her mother and her uncle, Lord Wentworth; but those prospects were
not mentioned in the settlements. Both Lord Wentworth and Sir Ralph
Milbanke were free to leave their money as they chose. When Lord Wentworth
died, in April 1815, he left his property to Lady Milbanke for her life,
and at her death to her daughter, Lady Byron. Therefore, at Lady Noel's
death Byron inherited the whole property by right of his wife. But one of
the terms of the separation provided that this property should be divided
by arbitrators. Lord Dacre was arbitrator for Lady Byron, and Sir F.
Burdett for Byron. Under this arrangement half the income was allotted to
the wife and half to the husband. In the _London Gazette_ dated
'Whitehall, March 2, 1822,' royal licence is given to Lord Byron and his
wife that they may 'take and use the surname of Noel only, and also bear
the arms of Noel only; and that the said George Gordon, Baron Byron, may
subscribe the said surname of Noel before all titles of honour.'
Henceforward the poet signed all his letters either with the initials N.
B. or with 'Noel Byron' in full.
Byron was at this time in excellent health and spirits, and the society of
the Shelleys made life unusually pleasant to him. Ravenna, with its gloomy
forebodings, its limited social intercourse, to say nothing of its
proscriptions--for nearly all Byron's friends had been exiled--was a thing
of the past. The last phase had dawned, and Byron was about to show
another side of his character. Medwin tells us that Byron's disposition
was eminently sociable, however great the pains which he took to hide it
from the world. On Wednesdays there was always a dinner at the Palazzo
Lanfranchi, to which the _convives_ were cordially welcomed. When alone
Byron's table was frugal, not to say abstemious. But on these occasions
every sort of wine, every luxury of the season, and every English
delicacy, were displayed. Medwin says he never knew any man do the honours
of his house with greater kindness and hospitality. On one occasion, after
dinner, the conversation turned on the lyrical poetry of the day, and a
question arose as to which was the most perfect ode that had been
produced. Shelley contended for Coleridge's on Switzerland beginning, 'Ye
clouds,' etc.; others named some of Moore's 'Irish Melodies' and
Campbell's 'Hohenlinden'; and, had Lord Byron not been present, his own
Invocation to Manfred, or Ode to Napoleon, or on Prometheus, might have
been cited. 'Like Gray,' said Byron, 'Campbell smells too much of the oil:
he is never satisfied with what he does; his finest things have been
spoiled by over-polish--the sharpness of the outline is worn off. Like
paintings, poems may be too highly finished. The great art is effect, no
matter how produced.'
And then, rising from the table, he left the room, and presently returned
with a magazine, from which he read 'The Burial of Sir John Moore' with
the deepest feeling. It was at that time generally believed that Byron was
the author of these admirable stanzas; and Medwin says: 'I am corroborated
in this opinion lately (1824) by a lady, whose brother received them many
years ago from Lord Byron, in his lordship's own handwriting.'
These festive gatherings were not pleasing to Shelley, who, with his
abstemious tastes and modest, retiring disposition, disliked the glare and
surfeit of it all. But Shelley's unselfish nature overcame his antipathy,
and for the sake of others he sacrificed himself. In writing to his friend
Horace Smith, he marks his repugnance for these dinners, 'when my nerves
are generally shaken to pieces by sitting up, contemplating the rest of
the company making themselves vats of claret, etc., till three o'clock in
the morning.' Nevertheless, companionship with Byron seemed for a time, to
Shelley and Mary, to be like 'companionship with a demiurge who could
create rolling worlds at pleasure in the void of space.' Shelley's
admiration for the poetic achievements of Byron is well known:
'Space wondered less at the swift and fair creations of God when he
grew weary of vacancy, than I at the late works of this spirit of an
angel in the mortal paradise of a decaying body. So I think--let the
world envy, while it admires as it may.'[2]
And again: 'What think you of Lord Byron's last volume? In my opinion
it contains finer poetry than has appeared in England since the
publication of "Paradise Regained." "Cain" is apocalyptic; it is a
revelation not before communicated to man.'
Byron recognized Shelley's frankness, courage, and hardihood of opinion,
but was not influenced by him so much as was at that time supposed by his
friends in England. In writing to Horace Smith (April 11, 1822), Shelley
begs him to assure Moore that he had not the smallest influence over
Byron's religious opinions.
'If I had, I certainly should employ it to eradicate from his great
mind the delusions of Christianity, which, in spite of his reason,
seem perpetually to recur, and to lay in ambush for the hours of
sickness and distress. "Cain" was _conceived_ many years ago, and
begun before I saw him last year at Ravenna. How happy should I not be
to attribute to myself, however indirectly, any participation in that
immortal work!'
'Byron,' says Professor Dowden in his 'Life of Shelley,' 'on his own part
protested that his _dramatis personæ_ uttered their own opinions and
sentiments, not his.'
Byron undoubtedly had a deep-seated reverence for religion, and had a
strong leaning towards the Roman Catholic doctrines. Writing to Moore
(March 4, 1822), he says:
'I am no enemy to religion, but the contrary. As a proof, I am
educating my natural daughter a strict Catholic in a convent of
Romagna; for I think people can never have _enough_ of religion, if
they are to have any.... As to poor Shelley, who is another bug-bear
to you and the world, he is, to my knowledge, the _least_ selfish and
the mildest of men--a man who has made more sacrifices of his fortune
and feelings for others than any I ever heard of. With his speculative
opinions I have nothing in common, nor desire to have.'
Countess Guiccioli, a woman of no ordinary intuitive perceptions, with
ample opportunities for judging the characters of both Shelley and Byron,
makes a clear statement on this point:
'In Shelley's heart the dominant wish was to see society entirely
reorganized. The sight of human miseries and infirmities distressed
him to the greatest degree; but, too modest himself to believe that he
was called upon to take the initiative, and inaugurate a new era of
good government and fresh laws for the benefit of humanity, he would
have been pleased to see such a genius as Byron take the initiative in
this undertaking. Shelley therefore did his best to influence Byron.
But the latter hated discussions. He could not bear entering into
philosophical speculation at times when his soul craved the
consolations of friendship, and his mind a little rest. He was quite
insensible to reasonings, which often appear sublime because they are
clothed in words incomprehensible to those who have not sought to
understand their meaning. But he made an exception in favour of
Shelley. He knew that he could not shake his faith in a doctrine
founded upon illusions, by his incredulity; but he listened to him
with pleasure, not only on account of Shelley's good faith and
sincerity, but also because he argued upon false data, with such
talent and originality, that he was both interested and amused. Lord
Byron had examined every form of philosophy by the light of common
sense, and by the instinct of his genius. Pantheism in particular was
odious to him. He drew no distinction between absolute Pantheism which
mixes up that which is infinite with that which is finite, and that
form of Pantheism which struggles in vain to keep clear of Atheism.
Shelley's views, clothed in a veil of spiritualism, were the most
likely to interest Byron, but they did not fix him. Byron could never
consent to lose his individuality, deny his own freedom of will, or
abandon the hope of a future existence. As a matter of fact, Byron
attributed all Shelley's views to the aberrations of a mind which is
happier when it dreams than when it denies.'
'Shelley appears to me to be mad with his metaphysics,' said Byron on one
occasion to Count Gamba. 'What trash in all these systems! say what they
will, mystery for mystery, I still find that of the Creation the most
reasonable of any.'
Thus it will be seen that the opinions of Lord Byron on matters of
religion were far more catholic than those of his friend Shelley, who
could not have influenced Byron in the manner generally supposed. That a
change came over the spirit of Byron's poetry after meeting Shelley on the
Lake of Geneva is unquestionable; but the surface of the waters may be
roughened by a breeze without disturbing the depths below. Like all true
poets, Byron was highly susceptible to passing influences, and there can
be no doubt that Shelley impressed him deeply.
The evident sincerity in the life and doctrines of Shelley--his
unworldliness; the manner in which he had been treated by the world, and
even by his own family, aroused the sympathy of Byron, at a time when he
himself was for a different cause smarting under somewhat similar
treatment. Although Byron and Shelley differed fundamentally on some
subjects they concurred in the principles of others. Byron had no fixed
religious opinions--that was the string upon which Shelley played--but
there is a wide difference between doubt and denial. Gamba, after Byron's
death, wrote thus to Dr. Kennedy:
'My belief is that Byron's religious opinions were not fixed. I mean
that he was not more inclined towards one than towards another of the
Christian sects; but that his feelings were thoroughly religious, and
that he entertained the highest respect for the doctrines of Christ,
which he considered to be the source of virtue and of goodness. As for
the incomprehensible mysteries of religion, his mind floated in doubts
which he wished most earnestly to dispel, as they oppressed him, and
that is why he never avoided a conversation on the subject, as you are
well aware. I have often had an opportunity of observing him at times
when the soul involuntarily expresses its most sincere convictions; in
the midst of dangers, both at sea and on land; in the quiet
contemplation of a calm and beautiful night, in the deepest solitude.
On these occasions I remarked that Lord Byron's thoughts were always
imbued with a religious sentiment. The first time I ever had a
conversation with him on that subject was at Ravenna, my native place,
a little more than four years ago. We were riding together in the
Pineta on a beautiful spring day. "How," said Byron, "when we raise
our eyes to heaven, or direct them to the earth, can we doubt of the
existence of God? or how, turning them inwards, can we doubt that
there is something within us, more noble and more durable than the
clay of which we are formed? Those who do not hear, or are unwilling
to listen to these feelings, must necessarily be of a vile nature." I
answered him with all those reasons which the superficial philosophy
of Helvetius, his disciples and his masters, have taught. Byron
replied with very strong arguments and profound eloquence, and I
perceived that obstinate contradiction on this subject, which forced
him to reason upon it, gave him pain. This incident made a deep
impression upon me.... Last year, at Genoa, when we were preparing for
our journey to Greece, Byron used to converse with me alone for two or
three hours every evening, seated on the terrace of his residence at
Albaro in the fine evenings of spring, whence there opened a
magnificent view of the superb city and the adjoining sea. Our
conversation turned almost always on Greece, for which we were so soon
to depart, or on religious subjects. In various ways I heard him
confirm the sentiments which I have already mentioned to you. "Why,
then," said I to him, "have you earned for yourself the name of
impious, and enemy of all religious belief, from your writings?" He
answered, "They are not understood, and are wrongly interpreted by the
malevolent. My object is only to combat hypocrisy, which I abhor in
everything, and particularly in religion, and which now unfortunately
appears to me to be prevalent, and for this alone do those to whom you
allude wish to render me odious, and make me out worse than I am.'"
We have quoted only a portion of Pietro Gamba's letter, but sufficient to
show that Byron has been, like his friend Shelley, 'brutally
misunderstood.' There was no one better qualified than Count Gamba to
express an opinion on the subject, for he was in the closest intimacy with
Byron up to the time of the latter's death. There was no attempt on
Byron's part to mystify his young friend, who had no epistolary
intercourse with those credulous people in England whom Byron so loved to
'gull.' The desire to blacken his own character was reserved for those
occasions when, as he well knew, there would be most publicity. Trelawny
says:
'Byron's intimates smiled at his vaunting of his vices, but
comparative strangers stared, and noted his sayings to retail to their
friends, and that is the way many scandals got abroad.'
According to the same authority, George IV. made the sport known as
'equivocation' the fashion; the men about town were ashamed of being
thought virtuous, and bragged of their profligacy. 'In company,' says
Trelawny, 'Byron talked in Don Juan's vein; with a companion with whom he
was familiar, he thought aloud.'
Among the accusations made against Byron by those who knew him least was
that of intemperance--intemperance not in meat and drink only, but in
everything. It must be admitted that Byron was to blame for this; he
vaunted his propensity for the bottle, and even attributed his poetic
inspirations to its aid. Trelawny, who had observed him closely, says:
'Of all his vauntings, it was, luckily for him, the emptiest. From all
that I heard or witnessed of his habits abroad, he was and had been
exceedingly abstemious in eating and drinking. When alone, he drank a
glass or two of small claret or hock, and when utterly exhausted at
night, a single glass of grog; which, when I mixed it for him, I
lowered to what sailors call "water bewitched," and he never made any
remark. I once, to try him, omitted the alcohol; he then said, "Tre,
have you not forgotten the creature comfort?" I then put in two
spoonfuls, and he was satisfied. This does not look like an habitual
toper. Byron had not damaged his body by strong drinks, but his terror
of getting fat was so great that he reduced his diet to the point of
absolute starvation. He was the only human being I ever met with who
had sufficient self-restraint and resolution to resist this proneness
to fatten. He did so; and at Genoa, where he was last weighed, he was
ten stone and nine pounds, and looked much less. This was not from
vanity of his personal appearance, but from a better motive, and, as
he was always hungry, his merit was the greater. Whenever he relaxed
his vigilance he swelled apace. He would exist on biscuits and
soda-water for days together; then, to allay the eternal hunger
gnawing at his vitals, he would make up a horrid mess of cold
potatoes, rice, fish, or greens, deluged in vinegar, and swallow it
like a famished dog. Either of these unsavoury dishes, with a biscuit
and a glass or two of Rhine wine, he cared not how sour, he called
feasting sumptuously. Byron was of that soft, lymphatic temperament
which it is almost impossible to keep within a moderate compass,
particularly as in his case his lameness prevented his taking
exercise. When he added to his weight, even standing was painful, so
he resolved to keep down to eleven stone.'
While on this subject, it is not uninteresting to contrast the effects of
Byron's regimen of abstinence by the light of a record kept by the
celebrated wine-merchants, Messrs. Berry, of St. James's Street. This
register of weights has been kept on their premises for the convenience of
their customers since 1765, and contains over twenty thousand names. The
following extract was made by the present writer on November 2, 1897:[3]
Date. Stone. lbs. Age.
January 4, 1806 (boots, no hat) 13 12 18
July 8, 1807 (shoes) 10 13 19
July 23, 1807 (shoes, no hat) 11 0 19
August 13, 1807 (shoes, no hat) 10 11-1/2 19
January 13, 1808 (see Moore's 'Life') 10 7 20
May 27, 1808 (Messrs. Berry) 11 1 --
June 10, 1809 (Messrs. Berry) 11 5-3/4 21
July 15, 1811 (Messrs. Berry) 9 11-1/2 23
(_Circa_) June, 1823 (see Trelawny) 10 9 35
It will be seen at a glance that between the ages of eighteen and
thirty-five Byron had reduced his weight by three stone and three pounds.
The fluctuations between the ages of nineteen and thirty-five are not
remarkable. This record marks the consistency of a heroic self-denial
under what must often have been a strong temptation to appease the pangs
of hunger.