The Life of Lord Byron
Chapter XXXVIII
CHAPTER XXXVIII.
Mr. Hunt arrives in Italy.—Meeting with Lord
Byron.—Tumults in the house.—Arrangements for Mr.
Hunt’s family.—Extent of his obligations to Lord
Byron.—Their copartnery.—Meanness of the whole business.
On receiving Mr.
Shelley’s letter, Mr. Hunt prepared to
avail himself of the invitation which he was the more easily enabled to do, as his friend,
notwithstanding what he had intimated, borrowed two hundred pounds from Lord Byron, and remitted to him. He reached Leghorn soon after his Lordship had
taken up his temporary residence at Monte Nero.
The meeting with his Lordship was in so many respects remarkable, that the
details of it cannot well be omitted. The day was very hot; and when Hunt reached the house he found the hottest-looking habitation he had ever
seen. Not content with having a red wash over it, the red was the most unseasonable of all
reds—a salmon-colour; but the greatest of all heats was within.
Lord Byron was grown so fat that he scarcely knew him; and
was dressed in a loose nankeen jacket and white trousers, his neckcloth open, and his hair in
thin ringlets about his throat; altogether presenting a very different aspect from the compact,
energetic, and curly-headed person whom Hunt had known in England.
His Lordship took the stranger into an inner room, and introduced him to a
young lady who was in a
state of great agitation. This was the Guiccioli; presently her brother also, in great agitation,
entered, having his arm in a sling. This scene and confusion had arisen from a quarrel among
the servants, in which the young Count, having
interfered, had been stabbed. He was very angry, the Countess was more so, and would not listen
to the comments of Lord Byron, who was for making light of
the matter. Indeed, it looked somewhat serious, for though the stab was not much, the inflicter
threatened more, and was at that time revengefully keeping watch, with knotted brows, under the
portico, with the avowed intention of assaulting the first person who issued forth. He was a
sinister-looking, meager caitiff, with a red cap—gaunt, ugly, and unshaven; his
appearance altogether more squalid and miserable than Englishmen would conceive it possible to
find in such an establishment. An end, however, was put to the tragedy by the fellow throwing
himself on a bench, and bursting into tears—wailing and asking pardon for his offence,
and perfecting his penitence by requesting Lord Byron to kiss him in token
of forgiveness. In the end, however, he was dismissed; and it being arranged that Mr. Hunt should move his family to apartments in the Lanfranchi
palace at Pisa, that gentleman returned to Leghorn.
The account which Mr. Hunt has given, in
his memoir of Lord Byron, is evidently written under
offended feeling; and in consequence, though he does not appear to have been much indebted to
the munificence of his Lordship, the tendency is to make his readers sensible that he was, if
not ill used, disappointed. The Casa Lanfranchi was a huge and gaunt building, capable, without
inconvenience or intermixture, of accommodating several families. It was, therefore, not a
great favour in his Lordship, considering that he had invited Mr. Hunt
from England to
become a partner with him in a speculation purely
commercial, to permit him to occupy the ground-floor or flat, as it would be called in
Scotland. The apartments being empty, furniture was necessary, and the plainest was provided;
good of its kind and respectable, it yet could not have cost a great deal. It was chosen by
Mr. Shelley, who intended to make a present of it to
Mr. Hunt; but when the apartments were fitted up, Lord
Byron insisted upon paying the account, and to that extent Mr.
Hunt incurred a pecuniary obligation to his Lordship. The two hundred pounds
already mentioned was a debt to Mr. Shelley, who borrowed the money from
Lord Byron.
Soon after Mr. Hunt’s family were
settled in their new lodgings, Shelley returned to
Leghorn, with the intention of taking a sea excursion—in the course of which he was lost:
Lord Byron knowing how much Hunt
was dependent on that gentleman, immediately offered him the command of his purse, and
requested to be considered as standing in the place of Shelley, his
particular friend. This was both gentlemanly and generous, and the offer was accepted, but with
feelings neither just nor gracious: “Stern necessity and a large family compelled
me,” says Mr. Hunt, “and during our residence at Pisa I
had from him, or rather from his steward, to whom he always sent me for the money, and who
doled it out to me as if my disgraces were being counted, the sum of seventy
pounds.”
“This sum,” he adds, “together with the payment of our expenses when we
accompanied him from Pisa to Genoa, and thirty pounds with which he enabled us subsequently
to go from Genoa to Florence, was all the money I ever received from Lord Byron, exclusive of the two hundred pounds, which, in the
first instance, he made a debt of Mr. Shelley, by
taking his bond.”—The whole extent of the pecuniary obligation appears
certainly not to have exceeded five hundred pounds; no great sum—but little or great, the
manner in which
it was recollected reflects no credit either on the head
or heart of the debtor.
Mr. Hunt, in extenuation of the bitterness with which he has
spoken on the subject, says, that “Lord Byron made
no scruple of talking very freely of me and mine.” It may, therefore, be
possible, that Mr. Hunt had cause for his resentment, and to feel the
humiliation of being under obligations to a mean man; at the same time Lord
Byron, on his side, may upon experience have found equal reason to repent of his
connection with Mr. Hunt. And it is certain that each has sought to
justify, both to himself and to the world, the rupture of a copartnery which ought never to
have been formed. But his Lordship’s conduct is the least justifiable. He had allured
Hunt to Italy with flattering hopes; he had a perfect knowledge of his
hampered circumstances, and he was thoroughly aware that, until their speculation became
productive, he must support him. To the extent of about five hundred pounds he did so: a
trifle, considering the glittering anticipations of their scheme.
Viewing their copartnery, however, as a mere commercial speculation, his
Lordship’s advance could not be regarded as liberal, and no modification of the term
munificence or patronage could be applied to it. But, unless he had harassed
Hunt for the repayment of the money, which does not appear to have
been the case, nor could he morally, perhaps even legally, have done so, that gentleman had no
cause to complain. The joint adventure was a failure, and except a little repining on the part
of the one for the loss of his advance, and of grudging on that of the other for the waste of
his time, no sharper feeling ought to have arisen between them. But vanity was mingled with
their golden dreams. Lord Byron mistook Hunt’s political notoriety for literary reputation, and
Mr. Hunt thought it was a fine thing to be chum and partner with so
renowned a lord. After all, however, the worst which can be said
of it
is, that formed in weakness it could produce only vexation.
But the dissolution of the vapour with which both parties were so
intoxicated, and which led to their quarrel, might have occasioned only amusement to the world,
had it not left an ignoble stigma on the character of Lord
Byron, and given cause to every admirer of his genius to deplore, that he should
have so forgotten his dignity and fame.
There is no disputing the fact, that his Lordship, in conceiving the plan of
The Liberal, was actuated by sordid motives,
and of the basest kind, inasmuch as it was intended that the popularity of the work should rest
upon satire; or, in other words, on the ability to be displayed by it in the art of detraction.
Being disappointed in his hopes of profit, he shuffled out of the concern as meanly as any
higgler could have done who had found himself in a profitless business with a disreputable
partner. There is no disguising this unvarnished truth; and though his friends did well in
getting the connection ended as quickly as possible, they could not eradicate the original sin
of the transaction, nor extinguish the consequences which it of necessity entailed. Let me not,
however, be misunderstood: my objection to the conduct of Byron does not lie against the wish to turn his extraordinary talents to
profitable account, but to the mode in which he proposed to, and did, employ them. Whether
Mr. Hunt was or was not a fit copartner for one of his
Lordship’s rank and celebrity, I do not undertake to judge; but any individual was good
enough for that vile prostitution of his genius, to which, in an unguarded hour, he submitted
for money. Indeed, it would be doing injustice to compare the motives of Mr.
Hunt in the business with those by which Lord Byron was
infatuated. He put nothing to hazard; happen what might, he could not be otherwise than a
gainer; for if profit failed, it could not be denied that the “fore-
most” poet of all the age had discerned in him either the promise or the existence of
merit, which he was desirous of associating with his own. This advantage Mr.
Hunt did gain by the connection; and it is his own fault that he cannot be
recollected as the associate of Byron, but only as having attempted to
deface his monument.
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— . . .
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).
James Henry Leigh Hunt (1784-1859)
English poet, journalist, and man of letters; editor of
The
Examiner and
The Liberal; friend of Byron, Keats, and
Shelley.
Percy Bysshe Shelley (1792-1822)
English poet, with Byron in Switzerland in 1816; author of
Queen
Mab (1813),
The Revolt of Islam (1817),
The Cenci and
Prometheus Unbound (1820), and
Adonais (1821).