John Galt published his Life of Lord Byron in 1830,
just six years after the poet's death in Missolonghi, in what is now modern
Greece and then was part of the Ottoman Empire. Byron had been legging it
around the Mediterranean for a number of years, his entourage significantly
greater than a backpack. Modern reads will need to readjust their ideas of
travel when they read details of the veritable caravan that accompanied the
Good Lord and will then immediately understand why it was that everywhere he
went he was immediately able to access elite society. In modern day terms, this
is like a dot-com-owning billionaire moving into the local estate that in
feudal times used to own the locality. His presence, it seemed, demanded
attention. Having said that, he was always short of money.
Apart from occasional vocabulary that we no longer
recognise, John Galt's work reads easily, its tenor remarkably modern, except
in matters of race and religion, where a modern interpretation might just
confuse. It is important to understand the assumptions of these people in order
to understand their work. Yes, Wagner was anti-Semitic, but wasn't everyone
else at the time? Rejecting his work on that basis would lead to an equal
rejection of other people and institutions that shared the same beliefs, which
would automatically include anything to do with Christianity and most writers.
Two centuries ago, people did not see the world in the same light and it is
through their eyes, not ours, that their work must be seen.
Paradoxically, the Lord Byron was perceived as a
Liberal which, at the time, must have placed him in sympathy with at least some
of the aims of the French Revolution. This is interesting, given his title, but
understandable given his relative penury. He supported the Luddites in Britain,
but his domestic political life in the House of Lords was not easy and he was
not chosen or perhaps suited for a life in public affairs. His identification
with liberal politics is exemplified in this passage from Galt, though it must
be noted that at the time liberalism did not extend far into the realm of
gender relationships (a cicisbeo is a lover, by the way).
“but young Italian women are not satisfied with good old men, and the
venerable Count did not object to her availing herself of the privileges of her
country in selecting a cicisbeo; an Italian would have made it quite agreeable:
indeed, for some time he winked at our intimacy, but at length made an
exception against me, as a foreigner, a heretic, an Englishman, and, what was
worse than all, a Liberal.”
His liberalism did extend to the support of liberation
movements, however, particularly those in Greece, where still today he is seen
by some as a national hero. That is not to say that he was particularly fond of
the people.
“Do you know,” said
he to the doctor, “I am nearly
reconciled to St Paul; for he says there is no difference between the Jews and
the Greeks, and I am exactly of the same opinion, for the character of both is
equally vile.”
The significance of the above reference to Wagner's
anti-Semitism now becomes clear. Perhaps we ought to reject much of Romantic
poetry from the canon if we deny Wagner a place. What would be left? Answer –
very little...
So what was it that Byron saw worthy of struggle and
sacrifice in liberating people for whom he had little respect? The key, which
becomes clearer as Galt's biography progresses, is that Byron, like other
Romantics, possessed an internal motivation, a personal interpretation whose
vivid emotion perhaps raised a screen that was capable of obscuring, even
contradicting experience. His response to reality, it seems, is not directly
born of the real, but of an idealised knowledge, perhaps pre-formed via
education, birth-right and culture, that was more important, at least for the
poet, than hard evidence, which could be dismissed or ignored. Galt sums up the
process thus.
“that is another and a strong proof too, of what I have been endeavouring
to show, that the power of the poet consisted in giving vent to his own
feelings, and not, like his great brethren, or even his less, in the invention
of situations or of appropriate sentiments”
The author describes how Byron was ambivalent towards
the reality of Classical sites, not really showing much interest in the
archaeology or the history. Perhaps, via his English public school education,
he was au fait with the detail all along and so did not need to absorb
direct experience. Perhaps the assumptions of his social class and culture did
not admit contradiction of an already internalised ideal that was simply more
important than any concrete reality.
Galt's account of Byron's life, however, seems to lack
evidence of the hours that the poet devoted to writing. Given that he died in
his mid-thirties, spent eight years on the road and did fifteen years in the
House of Lords and several years in education, one would expect to find him at
work with pen and paper much of the rest of the time. But Galt offers little
evidence of this, preferring to concentrate on the travels, themselves, the
people he met and the consequences of the complete breakdown in his family and
marital relations. But Galt does quote extensively from the poems which, once
we absorb the author's analysis that the work is rarely descriptive of anything
but the poet's own emotional state, become distinct statements of personality.
One feels that Lord Byron was not prone to great self-analysis or
soul-searching. He had his opinions, and those were made from granite.
He did campaign for Greece's independence and he did
much to achieve what the Greek people wanted at the time. But one feels that
for Byron he was working towards the re-establishment of a Classical ideal, a
quintessence of democracy that existed longer in school textbooks than it did
in ancient Greece. Perhaps "liberal" is too strong a word for
Byron... Perhaps "libertarian" would be closer to the modern
equivalent. He was for individual freedom, what he saw as the natural order and
more democracy, though this probably did not include either women or the lower
orders.
How far we have progressed in the last two hundred
years can be judged by the fact that Byron secured both personal fame and
prestige of office in his own time with certain personal characteristics. He
went to public school and Oxbridge, studied ancient Greek, achieved political
status and public fame while being largely ignorant of the scientific advances
of his day, was a libertarian and had distinct failures in both personal and
familial relationships. Couldn't happen now, could it?