The Life of Lord Byron
Chapter IX
CHAPTER IX.
Dinner at the ambassador’s.—Opera.—Disaster of
Byron at Malta.—Mrs. Spencer Smith.
I shall always remember Cagliari with particular pleasure; for it so
happened that I formed there three of the most agreeable acquaintances of my life, and one of
them was with Lord Byron; for although we had been eight
days together, I yet could not previously have accounted myself acquainted with his Lordship.
After dinner, we all went to the theatre, which was that evening, on account
of some court festival, brilliantly illuminated. The Royal Family were present, and the opera
was performed with more taste and execution than I had expected to meet with in so remote a
place, and under the restrictions which rendered the intercourse with the continent then so
difficult. Among other remarkable characters pointed out to us was a nobleman in the pit,
actually under the ban of outlawry for murder. I have often wondered if the incident had any
effect on the creation of Lara; for we know not in
what small germs the conceptions of genius originate.
But the most important occurrence of that evening arose from a delicate
observance of etiquette on the part of the ambassador.
After carrying us to his box, which was close to that of the Royal Family, in order that we
might see the members of it properly, he retired with Lord
Byron to another box, an inflexion of
manners to propriety
in the best possible taste—for the ambassador was doubtless aware that his
Lordship’s rank would be known to the audience, and I conceive that this little
arrangement was adopted to make his person also known, by showing him with distinction apart
from the other strangers.
When the performance was over, Mr. Hill
came down with Lord Byron to the gate of the upper town,
where his Lordship, as we were taking leave, thanked him with more elocution than was precisely
requisite. The style and formality of the speech amused Mr.
Hobhouse, as well as others; and, when the minister retired, he began to rally
his Lordship on the subject. But Byron really fancied that he had
acquitted himself with grace and dignity, and took the jocularity of his friend amiss—a
little banter ensued—the poet became petulant, and Mr. Hobhouse
walked on; while Byron, on account of his lameness, and the roughness of
the pavement, took hold of my arm, appealing to me, if he could have said less, after the kind
and hospitable treatment we had all received. Of course, though I thought pretty much as
Mr. Hobhouse did, I could not do otherwise than civilly assent,
especially as his Lordship’s comfort, at the moment, seemed in some degree dependent on
being confirmed in the good opinion he was desirous to entertain of his own courtesy. From that
night I evidently rose in his good graces; and, as he was always most agreeable and interesting
when familiar, it was worth my while to advance, but by cautious circumvallations, into his
intimacy; for his uncertain temper made his favour precarious.
The next morning, either owing to the relaxation of his abstinence, which he
could not probably well avoid amid the good things of the ambassadorial table; or, what was,
perhaps, less questionable, some regret for his petulance towards his friend, he was
indisposed, and did not make his appearance till late in
the evening. I
rather suspect, though there was no evidence of the fact, that Hobhouse received any concession which he may have made with indulgence; for he
remarked to me, in a tone that implied both forbearance and generosity of regard, that it was
necessary to humour him like a child. But, in whatever manner the reconciliation was
accomplished, the passengers partook of the blessings of the peace. Byron, during the following day, as we were sailing along the picturesque
shores of Sicily, was in the highest spirits overflowing with glee, and sparkling with quaint
sentences. The champagne was uncorked and in the finest condition.
Having landed the mail at Girgenti, we stretched over to Malta, where we
arrived about noon next day—all the passengers, except Orestes and Pylades, being eager to land,
went on shore with the captain. They remained behind for a reason—which an accidental
expression of Byron let out—much to my secret
amusement; for I was aware they would be disappointed, and the anticipation was relishing. They
expected—at least he did—a salute from the batteries, and sent ashore notice to
Sir Alexander Ball, the Governor, of his arrival; but
the guns were sulky, and evinced no respect of persons; so that late in the afternoon, about
the heel of the evening, the two magnates were obliged to come on shore, and slip into the city
unnoticed and unknown.
At this time Malta was in great prosperity. Her commerce was flourishing; and
the goodly clusters of its profits hung ripe and rich at every door. The merchants were truly
hospitable, and few more so than Mr. Chabot. As I had
letters to him, he invited me to dinner, along with several other friends previously engaged.
In the cool of the evening, as we were sitting at our wine, Lord
Byron and Mr. Hobhouse were announced.
His Lordship was in better spirits than I had ever seen him. His appearance
showed, as he entered the room, that they had met with some adventure, and he chuckled with
an inward sense of enjoyment, not altogether without spleen—a kind of malicious
satisfaction—as his companion recounted with all becoming gravity their woes and
sufferings, as an apology for begging a bed and morsel for the night. God forgive me! but I
partook of Byron’s levity at the idea of personages so consequential
wandering destitute in the streets, seeking for lodgings, as it were, from door to door, and
rejected at all.
Next day, however, they were accommodated by the Governor with an agreeable house in the upper part of Valetta; and his
Lordship, as soon as they were domiciled, began to take lessons in Arabic from a monk—I
believe one of the librarians of the public library. His whole time was not, however, devoted
to study; for he formed an acquaintance with Mrs. Spencer
Smith, the lady of the gentleman of that name, who had been our resident
minister at Constantinople: he affected a passion for her; but it was only Platonic. She,
however, beguiled him of his valuable yellow diamond-ring. She is the Florence of Childe Harold, and
merited the poetical embalmment, or rather the amber immortalization, she possesses
there—being herself a heroine. There was no exaggeration in saying that many incidents of
her life would appear improbable in fiction. Her adventures with the Marquis de Salvo form one of the prettiest romances in the
Italian language; everything in her destiny was touched with adventure: nor was it the least of
her claims to sympathy that she had incurred the special enmity of Napoleon.
After remaining about three weeks at Malta, Byron embarked with his friend in a brig of war, appointed to convoy a fleet of
small merchantmen to Prevesa. I had, about a fortnight before, passed over with the packet on
her return from Messina to Girgenti, and did not fall in with them again till the following
spring,
when we met at Athens. In the meantime, besides his Platonic
dalliance with Mrs. Spencer Smith,
Byron had involved himself in a quarrel with an officer; but it was satisfactorily settled.
His residence at Malta did not greatly interest him. The story of its
chivalrous masters made no impression on his imagination—none that appears in his
works—but it is not the less probable that the remembrance of the place itself occupied a
deep niche in his bosom: for I have remarked, that he had a voluntary power of forgetfulness,
which, on more than one occasion, struck me as singular: and I am led in consequence to think,
that something unpleasant, connected with this quarrel, may have been the cause of his
suppression of all direct allusion to the island. It was impossible that his imagination could
avoid the impulses of the spirit which haunts the walls and ramparts of Malta; and the silence
of his muse on a topic so rich in romance, and so well calculated to awaken associations
concerning the knights, in unison with the ruminations of Childe
Harold, persuades me that there must have been some specific cause for the
omission. If it were nothing in the duel, I should be inclined to say, notwithstanding the
seeming improbability of the notion, that it was owing to some curious modification of
vindictive spite. It might not be that Malta should receive no celebrity from his pen; but
assuredly he had met with something there which made him resolute to forget the place. The
question as to what it was, he never answered: the result would throw light into the labyrinths
of his character.
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— . . .
Sir Alexander John Ball, baronet (1756-1809)
After serving in the Mediterranean under Nelson he was governor of Malta from 1803;
Samuel Taylor Coleridge served as his secretary and wrote a memoir of him in
The Friend.
Captain Cary (1809 fl.)
The aide-de-camp on the staff of General Oakes at Malta who Byron challenged.
James Chabot (1778 c.-1850)
He was for many years a resident of Malta, an agent for His Majesty's Packet Service
trading as James Chabot and Co.
William Noel- Hill, third baron Berwick (1773-1842)
English diplomat and book-collector; he was envoy to Sardinia from 1807 to 1824 and
minister at Naples before he succeeded to the title in 1832.
John Cam Hobhouse, baron Broughton (1786-1869)
Founder of the Cambridge Whig Club; traveled with Byron in the orient, radical MP for
Westminster (1820); Byron's executor; after a long career in politics published
Some Account of a Long Life (1865) later augmented as
Recollections of a Long Life, 6 vols (1909-1911).
Emperor Napoleon I (1769-1821)
Military leader, First Consul (1799), and Emperor of the French (1804), after his
abdication he was exiled to Elba (1814); after his defeat at Waterloo he was exiled to St.
Helena (1815).
Carlo, marchese di Salvo (1787-1860)
Sicilian author of
Travels in the year 1806 ... containing the
Particulars of the Liberation of Mrs. Spencer Smith (1807). Sir Walter Scott
thought him a bore when he visited Abbotsford.
Constance Spencer Smith [née Herbert] (1785-1829)
Daughter of Baron Herbert, Austrian ambassador to Constantinople, and wife of the
diplomat John Spencer Smith, with whom Byron had an affair in Malta. She died in
Vienna.