! S 1 6 . ] Defence of Lord 



red Devon oxen, long and short honis, 

 HOW Leicester and J\Ic:iiio s!iee|), by a 

 similsir easj operation, nol withstanding 

 tlie common assniance that — ' there is 

 no knowing; to what a vast piteli of im- 

 provement agriculture may be yet ad- 

 vanced, with the assistance ot" che- 



*"c "'^'' T <JoH^ Lawrence. 



Aomers Tmai. 



"To the Editor of t\e RfontMy Magazine. 



THE works of Lord Byron, Waller 

 Scott, Campbell, Southcy, and the 

 Other narrative poets of the present day, 

 liavc formed a new, and, in my opiiiioii, 

 a splendid era in the history of English 

 poetiy. Tiie narrative school (if I may 

 •use tlie expression), is distinguis'ied by 

 its rejection of all those rules which have 

 110 foundation in nature or in reason, but 

 which owe their celebrity to almost im- 

 memorial prescription, and the authority 

 of soms great names of Antiquity. We 

 liave at length, it may be hojied, shaken 

 oil" our classic" bu.-;kins, and begun to 

 think and feel for ourselves, wilhout 

 losinp: any due reverence for the masters 

 of ancient literature. Critical faith, like 

 religious, is best when founded on con- 

 viction, not accepted from the authority 

 ofotliers; and, whenever our admir:ition 

 of former masters imj)els us to emulate 

 their celebrity, let us remember the 

 aphorism in your last number: "the 

 less we copy the ancients, the more we 

 shall resemble them." 



I have been led into these remarks by 

 observing an attack in your last un the 

 poetly of the narrative school in general, 

 and of Lord Byron in particular. Your 

 corespondent W. N. considers the wri- 

 tings of this popular poet as neither 

 natiiral nor pleasing, abounding with 

 plagiarisms, and being withal " a mere 

 jumble of aflectation and common-place." 

 These are bold assertions; and W. N. 

 ,MOuld have done well, before making 

 tlicm, to have so lar overcome his 

 avctsion to "long poetical narratives" 

 as to have rea<l the poems he criticised. 

 Notliing can be more captious and idle 

 tliaii the objections whieh he makes to 

 the characters, introduced in his lord- 

 ship's poems. Lord Byron paints Irom 

 uattnc; and, therefore, critics wlios<ek 

 for those pretty, uieek, unspotted cha- 

 racters, 

 " 'Hiose fanlUcss monsters which tlie world 



ne'er saw," 

 but with which the writings of our 

 novelists atid milk-and-water j)oets 

 aboinid, ^\ill iind themselves disap- 



ByrorCs Poems. 299 



pointed. The charge of uniformity, 

 though a tnto one, is quite groundless. 

 Nothing can he moro dissimilar, for in- 

 stance, than the characters of tJie Giaour 

 and Selim, oiLara and Otiio; and, even 

 where some siiriilarity may be traced, as 

 ill Conrad, the Ciaour, and Childe 

 Harold, theunifornjity is only in c/iarac- 

 ter, ibr lie situntions are totally distinct. 

 Lord Byron's tiuest female character 

 is Guliiare. Young, and lovely, and in- 

 telligent, irreeonciieable in her hatred^ 

 but unshaken in her love; she is stained 

 nit., crimes of the deepest dye, but they 

 have "left her woman still." Her love 

 is natural, it has its origin in gratitude, 

 it is disinterested, its object is in misfor- 

 tune and captivity; it is constant, for siio 

 procures his release, accoiniianies hiiu 

 to distant lands, jiartakcs li'is sorrows, 

 follows him in baitle, receives his dying 

 breath, and at length 



" lies by him she loved, 



Her tale untold, her truth too dearly 

 proved." 



And yet this is one of those who, accord- 

 ing to your correspondent, " neither say 

 or do any thhig to mark their ehaiac- 

 ters." 



The detections which your correspon- 

 dent thinks he hasniadeof his lordshijy.^ 

 plagiarisms are curious. Tlicy aie in 

 the very spirit of Lnudcr, and will re- 

 mind your readers of tliat correspondent 

 of the aiirror. who clituges him with 

 plagiarism, and informs him that his last 

 number "is to be found, ii\c\y word ui 

 it, in a book called .lohuson's Dic- 

 tionary." 



AMiefher Lord Byron is indebted to 

 "the capricious dominion of fiishion" 

 for any part of his present popularity, I 

 shall not enquire; for, if such be the case, 

 it only proves that fashion and good sense 

 are for once, at leas!, in conjunction* 

 That many pieces of no real nn-rit re- 

 ceive "sudden and tumultuous appro- 

 bation," is undoubted ; but it docs not 

 therefore fellow that all ])ieces whiclj re- 

 ceive sudden and tumultuous approba- 

 tion are of no real merit. But your cor- 

 respondent is probably one of those, 



" U ho so much hate the crowd, that, if the 



throng 

 " By chance £;o right, they purposely go 



wrong." 



In my humble opinion, it is Ion" 

 since England lias possessed a writer so 

 well cr.titled to the name of poet, as 

 Lonl Byron. Jle displays a power of 

 language, and a ciioice of imagery, ail 

 intensity of feeling, and a profundity of 

 Q <1 thought,' 



