The Life of Lord Byron
Chapter XLIX
CHAPTER XLIX.
The character of Lord Byron.
My endeavour, in the foregoing pages, has been to give a general
view of the intellectual character of Lord Byron. It did not
accord with the plan to enter minutely into the details of his private life, which I suspect
was not greatly different from that of any other person of his rank, not distinguished for
particular severity of manners. In some respects his Lordship was, no doubt, peculiar. He
possessed a vivacity of sensibility not common, and talents of a very extraordinary kind. He
was also distinguished for superior personal elegance, particularly in his bust. The style and
character of his head were universally admired; but perhaps the beauty of his physiognomy has
been more highly spoken of than it really merited. Its chief grace consisted, when he was in a
gay humour, of a liveliness which gave a joyous meaning to every articulation of the muscles
and features: when he was less agreeably disposed, the expression was morose to a very
repulsive degree. It is, however, unnecessary to describe his personal character here. I have
already said enough incidentally, to explain my full opinion of it. In the mass, I do not think
it was calculated to attract much permanent affection or esteem. In the detail it was the
reverse: few men possessed more companionable qualities than Lord Byron
did occa-
sionally; and seen at intervals in those felicitous moments, I
imagine it would have been difficult to have said, that a more interesting companion had been
previously met with. But he was not always in that fascinating state of pleasantry: he was as
often otherwise; and no two individuals could be more distinct from each other than
Byron in his gaiety and in his misanthropy. This antithesis was the
great cause of that diversity of opinion concerning him, which has so much divided his friends
and adversaries. Of his character as a poet there can be no difference of opinion, but only a
difference in the degree of admiration.
Excellence in talent, as in every other thing, is comparative; but the
universal republic of letters will acknowledge, that in energy of expression and liveliness of
imagery Byron had no equal in his own time. Doubts, indeed,
may be entertained, if in these high qualities even Shakspeare himself was his superior.
I am not disposed to think with many of those who rank the genius of
Byron almost as supreme, that he has shown less skill in
the construction of his plots, and the development of his tales, than might have been expected
from one so splendidly endowed; for it has ever appeared to me that he has accomplished in them
everything he proposed to attain, and that in this consists one of his great merits. His mind,
fervid and impassioned, was in all his compositions, except Don Juan, eagerly fixed on the catastrophe. He ever held the goal
full in view, and drove to it in the most immediate manner. By this straightforward simplicity
all the interest which intricacy excites was of necessity disregarded. He is therefore not
treated justly when it is supposed that he might have done better had he shown more art: the
wonder is, that he should have produced such magnificent effects with so little. He could not
have made the satiated and meditative
Harold so darkling and excursive, so lone,
“aweary,” and misanthropical, had he treated him as the hero of a scholastic epic.
The might of the poet in such creations lay in the riches of his diction and in the felicity
with which he described feelings in relation to the aspect of scenes amid the reminiscences
with which the scenes themselves were associated.
If in language and plan he be so excellent, it may be asked why should he not
be honoured with that pre-eminent niche in the temple which so many in the world have by
suffrage assigned to him? Simply because, with all the life and beauty of his style, the vigour
and truth of his descriptions, the boldness of his conceptions, and the reach of his vision in
the dark abysses of passion, Lord Byron was but imperfectly
acquainted with human nature. He looked but on the outside of man. No characteristic action
distinguishes one of his heroes from another, nor is there much dissimilarity in their
sentiments; they have no individuality; they stalk and pass in mist and gloom, grim, ghastly,
and portentous, mysterious shadows, entities of the twilight, weird things like the sceptred
effigies of the unborn issue of Banquo.
Combined with vast power, Lord Byron
possessed, beyond all question, the greatest degree of originality of any poet of this age. In
this rare quality he has no parallel in any age. All other poets and inventive authors are
measured in their excellence by the accuracy with which they fit sentiments appropriate not
only to the characters they create, but to the situations in which they place them: the works
of Lord Byron display the opposite to this, and with the most
extraordinary splendour. He endows his creations with his own qualities; he finds in the
situations in which he places them only opportunities to express what he has himself felt or
suffered; and yet he mixes so much probability in the circumstances, that they are always
eloquently proper. He does every
thing, as it were, the reverse of other
poets; in the air and sea, which have been in all times the emblems of change and the
similitudes of inconstancy, he has discovered the very principles of permanency. The ocean in
his view, not by its vastness, its unfathomable depths, and its limitless extent, becomes an
image of deity, by its unchangeable character!
The variety of his productions present a prodigious display of power. In his
short career he has entitled himself to be ranked in the first class of the British poets for
quantity alone. By Childe Harold, and his other poems of the
same mood, he has extended the scope of feeling, made us acquainted with new trains of
association, awakened sympathies which few suspected themselves of possessing; and he has laid
open darker recesses in the bosom than were previously supposed to exist. The deep and dreadful
caverns of remorse had long been explored; but he was the first to visit the bottomless pit of
satiety.
The delineation of that Promethean fortitude which defied conscience, as he
has shown it in Manfred, is his greatest achievement. The
terrific fables of Marlowe and of Goëthe, in their respective versions of the legend of
Faustus, had disclosed the utmost writhings which
remorse in the fiercest of its torments can express; but what are those Laocoon agonies to the sublime serenity of Manfred. In the power, the originality, and the genius combined,
of that unexampled performance, Lord Byron has placed
himself on an equality with Milton. The Satan of the Paradise Lost is animated by motives, and dignified by an eternal enterprise. He
hath purposes of infinite prospect to perform, and an immeasurable ambition to satisfy.
Manfred hath neither purpose nor ambition, nor any
desire that seeks gratification. He hath done a deed which severs him from hope, as
everlastingly as the apostacy with the angels has done Satan. He acknowledges no contrition to
bespeak
commiseration, he complains of no wrong to justify revenge, for
he feels none; he despises sympathy, and almost glories in his perdition.
The creation of such a character is in the sublimest degree of originality;
to give it appropriate thoughts and feelings required powers worthy of the conception; and to
make it susceptible of being contemplated as within the scope and range of human sympathy,
places Byron above all his contemporaries and antecedents.
Milton has described in Satan the greatest of human passions, supernatural attributes, directed to
immortal intents, and stung with inextinguishable revenge; but Satan is only a dilatation of man. Manfred
is loftier, and worse than Satan; he has conquered
punishment, having within himself a greater than hell can inflict. There is a fearful mystery
in this conception; it is only by solemnly questioning the spirits that lurk within the dark
metaphors in which Manfred expresses himself, that the
hideous secrets of the character can be conjectured.
But although in intellectual power, and in creative originality, Byron is entitled to stand on the highest peak of the mountain,
his verse is often so harsh, and his language so obscure, that in the power of delighting he is
only a poet of the second class. He had all the talent and the means requisite to embody his
conceptions in a manner worthy of their might and majesty; his treasury was rich in everything
rare and beautiful for illustration, but he possessed not the instinct requisite to guide him
in the selection of the things necessary to the inspiration of delight:—he could give his
statue life and beauty, and warmth, and motion, and eloquence, but not a tuneful voice.
Some curious metaphysicians, in their subtle criticism, have said that Don Juan was but the bright side of Childe Harold, and that all its most brilliant
imagery was similar to that of which the dark and the shadows were delineated in his other
works. It may be so.
And, without question, a great similarity runs
through everything that has come from the poet’s pen; but it is a family resemblance, the
progeny are all like one another; but where are those who are like them? I know of no author in
prose or rhyme, in the English language, with whom Byron can
be compared. Imitators of his manner there will be often and many, but he will ever remain one
of the few whom the world acknowledges are alike supreme, and yet unlike each
other—epochal characters, who mark extraordinary periods in history.
Raphael is the only man of pre-eminence whose career can
be compared with that of Byron; at an age when the genius of
most men is but in the dawning, they had both attained their meridian of glory, and they both
died so early, that it may be said they were lent to the world only to show the height to which
the mind may ascend when time shall be allowed to accomplish the full cultivations of such
extraordinary endowments.
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— . . .
Johann Wolfgang Goethe (1749-1832)
German poet, playwright, and novelist; author of
The Sorrows of Young
Werther (1774) and
Faust (1808, 1832).
Christopher Marlowe (1564-1593)
Elizabethan poet and dramatist, author of
The Jew of Malta and
Dr. Faustus.
John Milton (1608-1674)
English poet and controversialist; author of
Comus (1634),
Lycidas (1638),
Areopagitica (1644),
Paradise Lost (1667), and other works.
Raphael (1483-1520)
Of Urbino; Italian painter patronized by Leo X.
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.