Conversations on Religion, with Lord Byron
Byron’s Character
Lord B. was rather above the middle size; his
countenance was fine, and indicated intelligence, but especially benevolence. His forehead
was large and ample, his eyes were of a grey colour, his nose well-proportioned, his mouth
wide, and his chin projecting; his hair was light brown, inclining to grey, particularly
about the temples: his appearance was full and robust*. He had high shirt collars,
sometimes embroidered, but without frills; he wore often nankeen jacket
* Colonel D. told him
that many persons had supposed he was quite en-bon-point. He said, “two years ago I was much
stouter, and as fat as the captain of my brig.” |
316 | CONVERSATIONS ON RELIGION | |
and trowsers, sometimes a plaid jacket; he generally wore a gold
chain about his neck, on which a locket was suspended, and the end of the chain was placed
in his waistcoat pocket, and a cameo, with the head of Napoleon.
His countenance generally exhibited a smile, or a look of softness, and
thoughtfulness; and when animated in conversation, there was a keen and perçant
expression of eye, with a slight colour in his face, which was usually pale and clear.
He spoke with energy, vivacity, and freedom; his utterance was rapid, and
varied in its intonations; his language was select, forcible, and pure; and his ideas were
expressed with unusual ease and propriety. His voice was soft and melodious, to a degree
which at first appeared to be the result of affectation. His manners were dignified and
well-bred; he was invariably polite.
The impression which he left on me, judging of his manner merely, was that of
a perfectly polished man, with much affability, cheerfulness, vivacity, and benevolence. In
the conversations which I had with him, he appeared to shew an acute and cultivated mind,
rather than a profound understanding. There was no appearance of extensive science or
erudition, nor that coolness and so-
briety of judgment, which a
learned philosopher might be expected to exhibit: but his manner was lively, witty, and
penetrating, shewing that he had a mind of strong powers, and capable of accomplishing
great things, rather than affording a constant proof that he had already accomplished them.
He was so easy, affable, and kind that you required at times to recall to mind his rank and
fame, lest his manner should unconsciously betray you into undue familiarity,—an
error into which one gentleman fell,—and was punished by Lord
B.’s avoiding him as much as politeness permitted. Although he must
have looked into a variety of books, and was acquainted with a little on every subject, yet
I was not impressed with an idea of the profoundness of his knowledge, nor should I have
been disposed to rely on the solidity of his judgment. He often spoke for effect, and
appeared to say fine and brilliant things, without having any other end in view; a practice
which might display quickness of discernment, eloquence and wit, but which, of course,
could not excite the decided admiration which the display of a richly-furnished mind, or a
superior and solid understanding, would have elicited. Though not insensible to renown and
distinction, 318 | CONVERSATIONS ON RELIGION | |
and though raised to the highest pitch of poetical
eminence, he had no poetical enthusiasm, or fantastic frenzy in his manner and
conversation. He felt that these were useful, and to be studied and valued only as they
lead to something more substantial; and as he had a quick perception of the ridiculous, he
seemed to have a feeling, that frequently crossed his mind, as if fame and poetry, and
every thing else, which men so eagerly court, was, in reality, hollow and vain; and
contempt for the whole human race—including himself—was often predominant.
His varied fortunes in life, his unhappiness amidst such means of happiness,
his splendid fame, his personal defects, and his domestic calamities, his mortified pride,
and vanity, might naturally lead him often to such a conclusion. It is true, that all I say
is but my own opinion, and what I cannot affirm as certain, yet, as far as one can judge of
another by looks, hints, or the train of associations, such seem often to have been the
predominant feelings of his mind. I have been asked by some, if his appearance and manner
did not convey the idea of a fiend incarnate. On the contrary, his appearance and manner
gave the idea of a kind-hearted, benevolent, and feeling man,
with an
amiable and pleasing countenance, but a man who was led by passions, by prejudice, and not
by coolness of judgment, nor the steady self-denial, and heroical feelings of Christian
principles. That his was a mind often agitated in private by gloomy meditations and
melancholy feelings appeared at times, when he gave for a moment repose to the mind, from
the exertion of acting his part in company, and allowed his countenance to assume those
features which were habitual, for then the expression which I saw once or twice was that of
melancholy and woeful forlornness; but it was surprising to see the quick and striking
change, passing immediately from this, to a sprightly, animated, and amiable expression,
whenever he saw that it was expected of him to resume his part; which was always the
principal in conversation. Sometimes it struck me, that in reality, in his solitary hours,
he was melancholy and unhappy, and that the very great hilarity and vivacity which he
shewed in company was a proof of it, as if he were glad to escape, for the sake of variety,
from his habitual frame of mind. I often looked at Lord
Byron with admiration, sympathy, and compassion: admiration for his great
abilities, sympathy with his unfor-320 | CONVERSATIONS ON RELIGION | |
tunate life, and compassion for one
who, with all the wealth, rank, and fame which fell to the lot of few, and which, when
founded on a proper basis, are calculated so much to promote happiness, appeared unhappy;
not merely because he was not virtuous, but because he was not religious. Many talents he
possessed, calculated to excite wonder and envy; yet the highest of all blessings, piety,
he possessed not.
The vanity of all earthly things, if the favour of God attends them not, was
strongly impressed on the mind in listening to him, and considering his character. He
possessed many virtues, such as friendship and benevolence, yet he was not happy; and what
could these avail, without that peace and tranquillity of mind here, under every situation
and circumstance, and that strong and certain hope of a blessed immortality in heaven,
which can alone be obtained through faith in the merits of our Redeemer? Yet Lord B. excited intense interest and sympathy in my mind. He
felt and acknowledged that he was not happy in his unsettled notions of religion: he was
desirous of learning the truth; yet, like too many others, paid not that attention to it,
nor cultivated so deep and immediate an interest in learning it, as he
He vaguely hoped, no doubt, that if the Scriptures were true, he should ascertain the
truth of them some time or other; and hence, surrounded as he was with such companions and
so many public and private duties, it was a matter of apprehension, that even this desire
might be suspended, or even extinguished. His patience, however, in listening to me, his
candour in never putting captious objections, his acknowledgment of his own sinfulness,
gave hope that the blessing of religious truth might be opened to his understanding; and
though these were damped by an occasional levity, at least by the want of that seriousness
which the subject required, yet, on the whole, the general result was favourable.
It may be useful to consider Lord
B.’s character in the following points of view—as a man, as a
poet, and, lastly, in reference to Christianity. Of the minute details of his early life I
am ignorant, as no full and authentic account of it has yet been given*. He first appeared
as a poet before he reached the age of majority, and his work was received with an
overwhelming ridi-
* Mr. Moore’s work
contains a full and interesting narration of Lord
B.’s early years, and most strikingly exemplifies that
paradox, “The Child is father of the Man.” |
|
322 | CONVERSATIONS ON RELIGION | |
cule and scorn by a critic in the Edinburgh Review. There was no excuse for defects or
failings—no candid indulgence—no kind encouragement to try again, and endeavour
to do better, but a cruel and inhuman taunting and mockery. That Lord B.’s vanity was mortified by the blow, is certain. It struck to
his very heart, and roused his bitterest feelings: and in every variety of scene, when
wandering in the regions of Greece or on the smiling shores of Turkey, the effects were
severely felt and powerfully expressed. This disappointment, joined to his personal
deformity, and his scantiness of fortune when compared with others of his rank, affected
him deeply, and he felt as if nature and man had treated him unkindly; instead of yielding
to circumstances or to the dictates of reason, he only exerted his faculties to fight the
battle into which he had been so unexpectedly dragged. Had he been educated in strictness
of moral virtue, or in resignation to religion; and had those habits been strengthened by
example, his fate and his feelings might have been different; but, left an orphan, placed
in society where ambition and wealth were the only objects—where the passions had no
particular restraint, he unfortunately chose not to restrain his. He
determined to engage in the fight with the Reviewers, and exhibited the same spirit of
malevolent and angry feeling, unworthy of a virtuous and noble mind, but justifiable, or at
least excusable in his case, as he was ungently attacked without having even given
provocation. His opponents had no excuse, and his critic is not to be envied, if his
judgment be now sobered, when he looks back on his wanton attack, and reflects how much his
cruel criticism may have contributed to the chequered, unfortunate life of his victim.
Lord B., in the execution of his vengeance against his critic,
unfortunately attacked many others in terms of contempt and derision, and thus was guilty
of the same fault which had been committed against himself. He assailed the most
distinguished critics, poets, and writers; and the satirical powers of a young and noble
author, who was thus daring and impetuous, were not likely to conciliate the forbearing
hand and the kindly praise of others*. In the mean
* Colonel D. took up a
book, which was “the English Bards and
Scotch Reviewers.” “You need not look at this,”
said D.; “it is your own”. “This
book did me a great deal of harm,” replied his lordship; “I
lost a great number of friends who have never forgiven me.”;
“It is the best you ever
wrote.” “Why,” said Lord
B., “I published a few silly songs, written when I was
young; and
|
324 | CONVERSATIONS ON RELIGION | |
time he went on rapidly, adding poem to poem; the subjects were
strange and unusual, and his lordship seemed to care little about the sympathy of his
readers or the rules of poetry. His progress was watched—his fame rose bright amidst
all distrust and opposition: many, however, grudged his reputation, and praised him with
reluctance.
It was his lot to be constantly before the public eye. His marriage, his
sudden separation, to which he imprudently gave publicity;—his departure for Italy,
his mode of living there; his poems, which became more and more descriptive, as it was
deemed, of his character, and were equally deserving of censure and praise,—all were
calculated to excite a host of enemies who
when the Reviewers treated me so severely, I wished to show them that I would
not put up with their insolence so tamely as they expected. But one thing I
regret very much in this book, is what I wrote of Lord
Carlisle. I am sorry for it.” Colonel D. mentioned the Quarterly Review on his Cain. “Oh, you should read the Edinburgh Quarterly—this gives
it much sharper; for though on my own side, it is always hardest against
me.” One day, when talking of one of his aunts whom the colonel knew,
he said, “We have been an unfortunate family; none of us have come to any
good.” The colonel said, “He hoped to see him a Methodist
yet, though he regretted that in the interval much time was lost, as his
lordship should now be writing some beautiful
hymns.” “When I do become one,” he replied,
“I shall not be a lukewarm Christian.” |
had hitherto lain quiet. As censure and criticism reached him, and he
was always sensible to them, instead of endeavouring to remove the cause, he seems to have
been still further roused, by his passions, and by a consciousness that he was censured far
more than he deserved,—by many whose conduct was worse than his own,—to
continue the battle with unabating vigour. As religion had never much engaged his thoughts,
and as unfortunately many religious people, from a preposterous fear of the injury he would
do, inveighed against him from the pulpit, and spoke or wrote against him, his anger seems
to have been excited towards them also, and he resolved to write in defiance of them all;
and as he did so on the spur of the moment and under malignant passions, and not from an
ambition of the praise of the present or future good men, his poems became increasingly
defective in purity, and were even tainted with the appearance of infidelity.
There are circumstances which induce me to believe that Lord Byron never doubted the divine authenticity of the
Scriptures, arising probably from the influence of early education, if no higher principle
was in operation, and that those hints of
326 | CONVERSATIONS ON RELIGION | |
infidelity were thrown out
by way of desperate or contemptuous bravado. His conduct, however, was not to be excused.
Writing, as he did, under the influence of impetuous feelings, and stung by what he
considered unnecessarily cruel and unmerited reproach and censure, he fell into greater
mistakes than he did at first. He libelled and ridiculed his native country, from which he
was a voluntary exile; he satirized his king; he satirized his political enemies, and his
vengeance followed them even after they were laid in the grave. These things were highly
culpable; but who does not perceive that his public life was a warfare, a combat excited by
his critic, and continued by a host of others? and who could expect that a man so vain, so
disappointed, so mortified, and who fought with such feelings,—with the added spirit
of vengeance, would do so with soberness and moderation?
His character as a man, if separated from that of a poet, has no unusual
feature, and is, indeed, a common one. Deprived early of his parents, he grew up without
correction or control, and he displayed some of those extravagances and eccentricities
which distinguish too many of our young noblemen. He married early; soon separated
from his wife; lived in Italy for some years, in comparative
seclusion: then engaged in the cause of Greece, and died at an early age. His private life,
like that of many others, was a mixture of virtues and vices; and his vices, there is
reason to believe, were those which are most indulgently looked upon by the world, nor were
they more numerous than most of those of his own rank; while his charities and benevolence
were, perhaps, more than can usually be found.
His writings, however, have given a tinge of his private character; and
hence it is impossible to form an estimate of the latter, without taking into view the
former. Had he not written, it is obvious that there was nothing unusual in his character,
nothing that is not paralleled in the lives of many private gentlemen. From the choice of
his subjects, he has had the peculiar fate of its having been supposed that his imaginary
characters were, in almost all instances, the representation of his own; and hence many
have judged of his private character by those which he has drawn in his writings. That
there is some foundation for this cannot be denied; but that the conclusion has been
carried too far, a slight consideration will readily convince any one. His first work against
328 | CONVERSATIONS ON RELIGION | |
the Edinburgh Reviewers exhibited a fearless and
undaunted mind, equally prepared for attack and defence, and not very scrupulous in the
means. That it had the misfortune to keep his mind in this state, ready for warfare with
all his passions awakened, has already been hinted at; and this consideration seems to
account, sometimes, for the choice of subjects in his future poems, and for those hints and
remarks which he incidentally scatters through them. As his life was one of change and
bustle—as his feelings and passions were never subjected to any steady
control—as he wrote often under the sting and writhing of mortified pride and
disappointment—as he also wrote with a feeling that his sins were too severely
punished by many whose conduct did not justify them in doing so, it may be supposed that he
was not always happy in his subjects and delineation, nor prudent and guarded in his
remarks. Though some of these circumstances led him into errors, they contributed, there is
room to conjecture, to that free, unshackled style of writing, which, leaving his genius
uncramped by rules or criticisms, which he both feared and despised, enabled him to reach
some of those excellencies which place him on a level with the very
first poets of this or any country. The subject of Childe Harold, the finest, and, upon the whole, the most unexceptionable of his
poems, was that of a man sated with all the sins of his youth, and experiencing, like
Solomon, the vanity of all human
things,—wandering from his native country, and giving vent to his feelings and
sentiments, as the places he wandered over, and the persons he met with, excited. As there
were some points of resemblance between this imaginary character and his own, the mind
naturally connects them together, and dwells with some sort of mysterious curiosity on the
innumerable vices which the young wanderer must have committed, when, tired with all and
stung with remorse, he leaves his country to seek ease in variety, to his troubled
conscience. The impression that such must have been Lord
Byron’s character in his youth is made by this poem; though sober
reflection might teach us, that it could have been conceived and written by one whose youth
was spent in the exercise of every virtue, and whose conduct was unstained by vice or
crime. The character of the Giaour, Lara, the Corsair,
Manfred, and, finally, that of Don Juan, confirm these impressions. The poet 330 | CONVERSATIONS ON RELIGION | |
seemed to delight in imagining and delineating all that was bad in
human nature. Impetuous, stormy, and violent passions; insatiable revenge, unconquered
pride, ferocity, and the ungovernable and unlawful omnipotence of love, seem subjects which
engaged his thoughts and his pen: in them were mixed expressions of discontent with all
earthly enjoyments; with the established order of things; with feelings of contempt for all
that man takes pride in; the vanity of ambition, of rank, of warlike or scientific glory.
He pourtrays the misery which man brings on man, from the exercise of unruly passions; the
evils of tyranny and war; the disorders in the physical, as well as in the moral world: he,
tries in vain to penetrate the inscrutable mysteries of Providence; and, failing in his
attempt to account for what he sees, he throws out doubts against the Divinity of the
Scriptures. He is not the poet of virtue. No character ennobled by virtue, or by piety, is
sung by him. Beauty is a plaything, an object of desire; and though his descriptions of
female beauty of face and figure are in the highest degree poetical, yet they are drawn
without any other virtue than that which education, or the opinion of society, gives them;
and they are drawn in order to display that devotedness of
love,—whether lawful or unlawful, it matters not with the poet,—that sacrifice
of every worldly interest, that encountering of every misery and woe, and death itself, in
pursuit of its gratification, or in its devotedness to the object beloved. With him, love
must reign paramount to all laws and principles, moral and divine; and death and damnation
must be encountered, rather than restrain its impetuous and uncontrollable force. In short,
it is a species of insanity, that takes possession of the mind, which absorbs every other
feeling and interest.
Such is the general character of his poetry. I speak not of his style, of
his invention, of his versification, of the grandeur of his delineations, of his frequent
sublime descriptions, both of moral and physical portraits, and the various excellencies
and defects of his compositions. These I leave to others, as my object is simply to
endeavour to ascertain his character as a man. On these points I shall only remark that,
considering Lord B. merely in the light of a poet, he
has not only surpassed all his contemporaries, but, passing over a long list of great
names, he places himself on a level with Shakspeare
and Milton.
332 |
CONVERSATIONS ON RELIGION |
|
The question however recurs, how far his poetry illustrates his moral and
intellectual character, and how far it is a faithful impression of it.
It can be conceived, that a moral man might form conceptions such as he has
done, and publish them, merely as best suiting his genius, and as being more likely to
produce effect than others which have presented themselves to his imagination. The mind of
man is delighted at that which is wonderful, astonishing, and striking, whether the
impressions are favourable to virtue or not; and a poet, conversant with human nature, will
find that such pictures of new, splendid, grand, and horrid views of human nature will
produce a greater impression than those that are soft, pleasing, and virtuous. But though
these subjects may be permitted to a poet, as within the province of his art, yet he is
amenable to censure and condemnation if his descriptions are calculated to destroy or
diminish virtue, piety, loyalty, and all those feelings which contribute to private or
social happiness. Every man is under obligations to maintain these; and whoever violates
them, whatever may be the object, whether to display the power of his talents, or to efface
those principles, the existence of which he disbelieves or
hates, is
justly condemned. Lord B., therefore, is amenable to the
same tribunal, in as far as he has violated those obligations which are due to the peace
and welfare of society. That he has violated them to a great extent, few will venture to
deny; but what were his motives for doing so, it is more difficult to ascertain. The events
of his life encourage the idea, that he drew such portraits as were most congenial to his
own mind, and that the sentiments he ascribes to others are entirely his own; but, to carry
this belief to the length which some have, carried it, would violate every principle of
candour and charity, and would award to him a more severe and uncharitable judgment than
has been pronounced on any other poet. The poet having a choice of characters, can draw
them as he considers most likely to produce effect, and for that purpose he has a wide
range allowed him; but it does not therefore follow, that these are characters which he
himself loves, and admires, and wishes to be held up for imitation, or that the sentiments
which he ascribes to them are his own.—It is true that such conceptions of character
have passed through his mind, but they are no more to be considered his fixed and habitual
sentiments, than are the evil thoughts and ima-334 | CONVERSATIONS ON RELIGION | |
ginations which often
pass through the minds of men, to their great regret. With respect, therefore, to Lord B., no positive judgment can be drawn, but that the same
charity and candour should be exercised towards him, which has been exercised towards every
other poet. From what I saw of him, I am induced to conclude, that most of his characters
were drawn, because he considered them to have a more striking poetical effect than others
of a different kind, and that the sentiments they utter are for the purpose of filling up
his conception of the consistency and individuality of the character; that he had no
specific object either to recommend vice or promote virtue, and that he neither considered
the moral nor immoral effect of his writings. This remark I would not, however, apply to
his writings without exception, because there are many expressions in his works, and
especially in that of Don Juan, the effects of
which he must have known were likely to be positively prejudicial, and in writing which, he
violated all that indulgence which is properly allowed to a poet. I am inclined to believe
that occasionally the sentiments which he ascribes to his characters were, at the time he
wrote them, really his own: thus his discontent with the state of society, his hatred of tyranny and oppression, might be judged in general to be
the habitual sentiments of his own mind, arising from that melancholy view of human nature
which his early misfortunes and disappointments might impress upon him. His abuse of
individuals, his forgetfulness of what was due to loyalty, and his ridicule of the
king, were the result of the prejudice and passion
of the moment, and the subjects of after regret. His abuse of Lord
Castlereagh I conceive to have been the effect of his really believing him
to have been an enemy to the true interests of his country; and this feeling being carried
to excess, he considered it was just to hold him up to the execration of posterity. His
doubts of the inspiration of the Scriptures were not the actual convictions of his mind,
but transient,—uttered in the feeling of the moment, and springing from a mixture of
doubt and of bravado, that people might stare and wonder at his boldness.
I would acquit him, therefore, of a preference to vice, instead of virtue,
merely because he has painted vicious characters; most of the sentiments which he has
attributed to them are, it appears to me, imaginings of the brain, and not the convictions
of the heart; and many others, which are
336 | CONVERSATIONS ON RELIGION | |
more directly applicable to
himself, were the result of passing impressions, and not expressive of his fixed and
habitual belief. I would also acquit him of any determinate view of destroying virtue,
encouraging vice, and promoting infidelity; and candour requires that we should believe
that his characters and subjects were chosen for their poetical and striking effect, and
not with any other secret and insidious view.
But, acquitting him of all this, we are still to ascertain that degree of
praise and blame which the nature of his writings lead us to bestow upon him. In the first
place he is not entitled to the praise of noble, enlightened, virtuous, and pious
sentiments and descriptions. In the second place he is not entitled to praise for his
writings having left any favourable and pleasing impressions of human nature, or of pure
and unmixed delight in the contemplation of his characters. In the third place he is
blamable for the unfavourable impressions which are produced by strong, exalted
delineations of vicious, though great passions, of unlawful loves, of wild ambition,
discontent, and turbulence; by doubts of virtue and of piety, and in his descriptions of
moral profligacy, particularly in Don Juan.
Every good man must
regret that his extraordinary talents were not
better applied. His poems produce a mixed feeling of wonder and astonishment, of horror and
regret. It is not more unpleasing to see the horrid sublime of vice, than to contemplate
that of nature; and had the mind something, however little, in his poems, in the praise of
virtue and piety, on which it might rest, giving a hint as it were of the misery and woe
which ever attends violent passions, describing the remorse for crime and the agony of
guilt, he would have saved his character from reproach, and would have left an impression
that his descriptions were selected and drawn for practical effect. Had this been done, and
had Don Juan never been written, his poems would have been read
with pleasure and instruction, as adding new views, finely drawn, of the vanities of human
character. It is perhaps well, however, that they have been written, though many might wish
that Byron had not been the man. They are such as none
but a genius of the highest order could have written: they shew a desperate disregard of
virtuous fame, which marks strongly the impetuous, energetic, and daring character of the
man, and the singular circumstances of life which drew it forth, and in 338 | CONVERSATIONS ON RELIGION | |
which no other man has been, or will perhaps be placed. As they were written under
irritation and agitation of feeling, when judgment and reflection were asleep, they were
the wild throes of passion, rather than the result of long and studied deliberation. As he
wrote not for fame, nor for posterity, but from the impulse of the moment, so we need not
be surprised that we find so much to censure and regret. But this very consideration will
form his excuse with posterity, when time has mellowed the asperities of his character,
when his failings are excued in consideration of the temptations to which he was exposed;
and it will acquit him of all attempts and settled plans of undermining virtue and
promoting the cause of infidelity and vice,—an idea which never would have been
entertained, had not circumstances prevented a cool reflection and a calm decision.
In short, the name of Byron will go down
to posterity with those of the first poets of the country. His grossness will find an
example in some of those whom England most admires. His slight tincture of infidelity will
be attributed to the circumstances of his life, and he will be reckoned of a peculiar
order, as having given the best paintings of vice and crime; a class which, though not
edifying in a moral way, may not be uninstructive in an intellectual
point of view, as exhibiting examples of the strength and conceptions of the mind. Though
Byron, therefore, cannot enter into the class of the good, the
moral, and the virtuous poets,—the number of which is unfortunately too
small,—he will rank among the highest in that of poets in general: nor will he have
much to suffer in point of mere morality if compared with Shakspear, the first of that class, as there is far more grossness and
indelicacy in the works of Shakspear than in those of
Byron; the manners of the age, it is true, present some excuse for
the former. They are both the poets of nature, that is, of nature exhibiting, as it really
does, a mixture of goodness and vice,—of crime, and guilt, and passion,—of
virtue and iniquity. They are equally powerful in delineating the varied features of
individual character; though, as Shakspear has represented it under a
greater variety of forms, he may be thought to have excelled Byron in
richness of invention, and in eloquence of poetry; yet, while this is admitted, it may be
contended that many of the delineations of Byron shew the same
strength and vigour of intellect so strikingly peculiar to Shakspear.
Of 340 | CONVERSATIONS ON RELIGION | |
neither of them can it be said, that they never wrote a line,
which, dying, they would wish to blot: though both of them excel Cowper in strength of poetical genius, they are far his
inferiors in virtue and moral poetry. His fame will extend as widely as theirs; and while
they excite the admiration, he will preserve the love and gratitude of every good man, who
can recur to his pages with the assurance that his feelings of reverence for virtue and
religion will not only receive no shock, but be improved and invigorated by the charms of
his poetry and the truth and justness of his remarks.
It appears, therefore, from a review of Byron’s private character, that it was a common one, being mixed with
many virtues and stained with some fashionable vices. We meet nothing in it to command our
veneration: we find many things to pity and excuse, from the peculiarity of his situation;
but we are not entitled to call him a virtuous, pious man. In his poetical character, we
find much reason to admire his wonderful talents. We may regret that his poems were not
finished with a greater end in view than he seems to have had; that is, that he did not
propose to himself more distinctly the promotion of virtue. We may blame him for his
indelicacy
and licentiousness of description in some of his works,
and also for many of his sentiments, and especially for the levity, and appearance of
infidelity, with which he sometimes alludes to sacred subjects. We observe in them,
however, no proof of fixed opinions, or reason to believe that in general he pourtrayed the
features of his own character; and we may readily believe, without any breach of candour,
that his most reprehensible descriptions and sentiments, written under the influence of
passion and prejudice, or the result of ignorance, would have been an object of regret to
himself had he lived, and perhaps often were so. With respect to religion, we find nothing
like a bitter enmity to it, or a settled conviction that it was an imposture. Some passages
display a levity and an appearance of incredulity, but nothing like a deliberate denial, or
a rejection of its truth. We find, in fact, that he was like all those nominal Christians
who are unregenerate:—he knew not its spirit. His conduct was not regulated by it,
and he differed simply from many of those who hold in the world a very respectable
character, in his having treated it with seeming ridicule in his writings, while they,
perhaps, have done the same in conversation.
342 |
CONVERSATIONS ON RELIGION |
|
He was, in fact, what he represented himself to be when I saw
him,—unsettled in his religious opinions. He rejected the appellation of infidel; he
said it was a cold and chilling word. He confessed he was not happy; he said, he wished to
be convinced of the truth of religion.—We have now to consider if his conduct
confirmed this statement.
* * * * * * *
* * * * * * *
* * * * * * *
Dr. Kennedy did not live to fill up the design which
he had sketched out. There are many notes and memoranda, and extracts from Lord Byron’s works; but these are so short, intricate,
and abrupt, that I cannot define their meaning. It is a source of regret to me, that I
never entered into any particular conversation with respect to this intended publication.
All remarks and criticisms were to be reserved till the work was finally matured: this
period never arrived, and it is impossible for me to illustrate, even in an inferior
manner, the design and end which Dr. Kennedy had in view.
William Cowper (1731-1800)
English poet, author of
Olney Hymns (1779),
John
Gilpin (1782), and
The Task (1785); Cowper's delicate
mental health attracted as much sympathy from romantic readers as his letters, edited by
William Hayley, did admiration.
John Duffie (d. 1854)
Lieutenant-Colonel of the 8th regiment, stationed at Cephalonia in 1823; he was Byron's
riding-companion and correspondent. He had served with distinction in the Peninsular War
and retired on half-pay in 1828.
Frederick Howard, fifth earl of Carlisle (1748-1825)
The Earl of Carlisle was appointed Lord Byron's guardian in 1799; they did not get along.
He published a volume of
Poems (1773) that included a translation
from Dante.
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).
John Milton (1608-1674)
English poet and controversialist; author of
Comus (1634),
Lycidas (1638),
Areopagitica (1644),
Paradise Lost (1667), and other works.
Thomas Moore (1779-1852)
Irish poet and biographer, author of the
Irish Melodies (1807-34),
The Fudge Family in Paris (1818), and
Lalla
Rookh (1817); he was Byron's close friend and designated biographer.
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).
King Solomon (d. 922 BC c.)
Son of David, king of the Hebrews c. 972-932 BC.
The Quarterly Review. (1809-1967). Published by John Murray, the
Quarterly was instigated by Walter
Scott as a Tory rival to the
Edinburgh Review. It was edited by
William Gifford to 1824, and by John Gibson Lockhart from 1826 to 1853.
George Gordon Byron, sixth Baron Byron (1788-1824)
Don Juan. (London: 1819-1824). A burlesque poem in ottava rima published in installments: Cantos I and II published in
1819, III, IV and V in 1821, VI, VII, and VIII in 1823, IX, X, and XI in 1823, XII, XIII,
and XIV in 1823, and XV and XVI in 1824.