The Life of Lord Byron
William Fletcher to Dr. James Kennedy, 18 May 1824
“Lazaretto, Zante, May 18, 1824.
“Honoured Sir,
“I am extremely sorry if I have not had it in my power
to answer the kind letter with which you have honoured me, before this; being
so very unwell, and so much hurt at the severe loss of much much-esteemed and
ever-to-be-lamented lord and master. You wish me, Sir, to give you some
information in respect to my Lord’s manner and mode of life after his
departure from Cephalonia, which, I am happy to say, was that of a good
Christian; and one who fears and serves God, in doing all the good that lay in
his power, and avoiding all evil. And his charity was always without bounds;
for his kind and generous heart could not see nor hear of misery, without a
deep sigh, and striving in which way he could serve and soften misery, by his
liberal hand, in the most effectual manner. Were I to mention one hundredth
part of the most generous acts of charity, it would fill a volume. And, in
regard to religion, I have every reason to think the world has been much to
blame in judging too rashly on this most serious and important subject; for, in
the course of my long services, more than twenty years, I have always, on
account of the situation which I have held, been near to his Lordship’s
person: and, by these means, have it in my power to speak to facts which I have
many times witnessed, and conversations which I have had on the subject of
religion. My Lord has more than once asked me my opinion on his
Lordship’s life, whether I thought him as represented in some of the
daily papers, as one devoid of religion, &c. &c.—words too base
to mention. My Lord, moreover, said ‘Fletcher, I know you are what, at least, they call a ![]()
![]()
Christian; do you think me exactly what they say of
me’ I said, ‘I do not, for I had too just reasons to
believe otherwise.’ My Lord went on, on this subject, saying,
‘I suppose, because I do not go to the church, I cannot any longer
be a Christian;’ but (he said) moreover, a man must be a
great beast who cannot be a good Christian without being always in the
church. I flatter myself I am not inferior in regard to my duty to many of
them, for if I can do no good, I do no harm, which I am sorry to say of all
churchmen.’ At another time, I remember it well, being a Friday,
I at the moment not remembering it, said to my Lord, ‘Will you have a
fine plate of beccaficas?’ My Lord, half in anger, replied,
‘Is not this Friday? how could you be so extremely lost to your
duty to make such a request to me!’ At the same time saying,
‘A man that can so much forget a duty as a Christian, who cannot,
for one day in seven, forbid himself of these luxuries is no longer worthy
to be called a Christian.’ And I can truly say, for the last
eight years and upwards, his Lordship always left that day apart for a day of
abstinence; and many more and more favourable proofs of a religious mind, than
I have mentioned, which hereafter, if I find it requisite to the memory of my
Lord, I shall undoubtedly explain to you. You, Sir, are aware, that my Lord was
rather a man to be wondered at, in regard to some passages in the Holy
Scriptures, which his Lordship did not only mention with confidence, but even
told you in what chapter and what verse you would find such and such things,
which I recollect filled you with wonder at the time and with satisfaction.
“I remember, even so long back as when his Lordship
was at Venice, several circumstances which must remove every doubt, even at the
moment when my Lord was more gay than at any time after. In the year 1817, I
have seen my Lord repeatedly, on meeting or passing any religious ceremonies
which the Roman Catholics ![]()
![]()
have in their frequent
processions, while at Nivia, near Venice, dismount his horse and fall on his
knees, and remain in that posture till the procession had passed: and one of
his Lordship’s grooms, who was backward in following the example of his
Lordship, my Lord gave a violent reproof to. The man, in his defence, said,
‘I am no Catholic, and by this means thought I ought not to follow
any of their ways.’ My Lord answered very sharply upon the
subject, saying, ‘Nor am I a Catholic, but a Christian; which I should
not be, were I to make the same objections which you make; for all
religions are good, when properly attended to, without making it a mask to
cover villany; which I am fully persuaded is too often the case.’
With respect to my Lord’s late publications which you mention, I am fully
persuaded, when they come to be more fully examined, the passages which have
been so much condemned, may prove something dark; but I am fully persuaded you
are aware how much the public mind has been deceived in the true state of my
lamented master. A greater friend to Christianity could not exist, I am fully
convinced; in his daily conduct, not only making the Bible his first companion
in the morning, but, in regard to whatever religion a man might be of, whether
Protestant, Catholic, Friar, or Monk, or any other religion, every priest, of
whatever order, if in distress, was always most liberally rewarded, and with
larger sums than any one who was not a minister of the gospel, I think, would
give. I think every thing combined together must prove, not only to you, Sir,
but to the public at large, that my Lord was not only a Christian, but a good
Christian. How many times has my Lord said to me, ‘Never judge a man
by his clothes, nor by his going to church, being a good Christian. I
suppose you have heard that some people in England say that I am no
Christian?’ I said, ‘Yes, I have certainly heard of such
things by some public prints, but I am fully convinced of their
falsehood.’ My Lord ![]()
![]()
said, ‘I know
I do not go to church, like many of my accusers; but I have my hopes I am
not less a Christian than they, for God examines the inward part of the
man, not outward appearances.’ Sir, in answer to your inquiries,
I too well know your character as a true Christian and a gentleman, to refuse
giving you any further information respecting what you asked of me. In the
first place, I have seen my Lord frequently read your books; and, moreover, I
have more than once heard my Lord speak in the highest terms of, and receive
you in the most friendly manner possible, whenever you could make it convenient
to come to Metaxata; and with regard to the Bible, I think I only may refer to
you, Sir, how much his Lordship must have studied it, by being able to refer to
almost any passage in Scripture, and with what accuracy to mention even the
chapter and verse in any part of the Scripture. Now, had my Lord not been a
Christian, this book would most naturally have been thrown aside, and of course
he would have been ignorant of so many fine passages which I have heard him
repeat at intervals, when in the midst of his last and fatal illness. I mean
after he began to be desirous. My Lord repeated ‘I am not afraid to
die;’ and in as composed a way as a child, without moving head or
foot, or even a gasp, went as if he was going into the finest sleep, only
opening his eyes and then shutting them again. I cried out ‘I fear his
Lordship is gone!’ when the doctors felt his pulse and said it
was too true. I must say I am extremely miserable, to think my Lord might have
been saved had the doctors done their duty, by letting blood in time, or by
stating to me that my Lord would not allow it, and at the same time to tell me
the truth of the real state of my Lord’s illness: but instead of that,
they deceived me with the false idea that my Lord would be better in two or
three days, and thereby prevented me from sending to Zante or Cephalonia, which
I repeatedly wished to do, ![]()
![]()
but was prevented by them, I
mean the doctors, deceiving me: but I dare say you have heard every particular
about the whole; if not, I have no objection to give every particular during
his illness.
“I hope, Sir, your kind intentions may be crowned with
success, in regard to the publication which you meant to bring before the
British public. I must beg your pardon, when I make one remark, and which I am
sure you know too well the tongues of the wicked, and in particular of the
great, and how glad some would be to bring into ridicule any one that is of
your religious and good sentiments of a future state, which every good
Christian ought to think his first and greatest duty. For myself, I should be
only too happy to be converted to the truth of the Gospel. But at this time, I
fear it would be doing my Lord more harm than good, in publishing to the world
that my Lord was converted, which to that extent of religion my Lord never
arrived; but at the same time was a friend to both religion and religious
people, of whatever religion they might be, and to none more, or more justly
deserving, than Dr. Kennedy.
“I remain, honoured Sir,
“With the greatest respect,
“Your most obedient and very humble
Servant,
“(Signed) Wm Fletcher.
“Dr. Kennedy, &c. &c.
Cephalonia.”
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— . . .
William Fletcher (1831 fl.)
Byron's valet, the son of a Newstead tenant; he continued in service to the end of the
poet's life, after which he was pensioned by the family. He married Anne Rood, formerly
maid to Augusta Leigh, and was living in London in 1831.
James Kennedy (1793 c.-1827)
Scottish physician in the British forces; his experiences with Byron in Cephalonia were
published as
Conversations on Religion with Lord Byron
(1830).
