800 POE 
infult him. The injuftice of this is apparent. If a man 
be an infidel, heaven knows he is much to be pitied ; but 
we cannot fee why he is to be reviled ; for belief is not a 
matter of choice, but of necefiity. Angry language is 
however a favourite weapon with thole who have no 
other. The dog who is too feeble to o’ertake the flag is 
contented to bark at him. It cannot be necelfary in this 
.cafe to fupport the, caufe of religion againft the argu¬ 
ments of Byron, becaufe thofe arguments are chiefly 
fecond-hand, and have before his time given rife to much 
controverfy. But it is perhaps neceffary to account for 
the prefence of fuch fecond-hand notions in the mind of 
a great man and a poet. In the firft place, as to the 
greatnefs of Byron, it is to be obferved, that in no poem 
or profe compofition, not even when defending himfelf, 
or writing his fpeech for the Houfe of Lords, does Byron 
betray any powers of clear and confecutive reafoning. 
He trifles, and plays round the point with a fmile; fome- 
times gives a fharp thrufl, but never comes manfully to 
the queftion. The conclufions, too, which he drew con¬ 
cerning mankind in general, an’d ftill more concerning 
the female fex, betray a very fuperficial obferver and a 
weak reafoner. Upon the whole, his judgment feems to 
have been as feeble as his imagination was Itrong. In 
fa< 5 t he negle&ed it. A molt extravagant vanity befet 
him through life. He took opinions on the flighted: 
grounds, becaufe he confidered his own apprehenfion 
fo mighty, that it did not want the circumltantial helps 
which other men required. 
It was a mark of genius amongft the companions of 
his boyhood to be fceptical ; and there certainly exilted 
in the literature he moll delighted in, arguments of great 
weight and dreadful tendency, which it muft be con- 
fefled were but feebly met by their opponents; and the 
fudden and vehement applaufe which attended his works 
enhanced his conceit to a pitch of fatal elevation. Wrapt 
in thejipprobation of himfelf, he defpifed all around him ; 
and probably never enquired whether the foundations 
of his opinions were right or wrong, but was contented 
to venerate them as the difcoveries of a mind exalted 
beyond all the world. Spoilt as he was by this idea, we 
cannot wonder at the fcepticifm of Byron. We fhotild 
rather wonder that the natural force of religion was at 
times fo great in him as to diftrefs and harafs him ; and 
that his longing for brighter profpefts tinged his writings 
w ith fo tender a melancholy. Still, great as was his con¬ 
fidence in himfelf, it is reafonable to fuppofe, that, had 
he lived much longer, he might have altered his opinions. 
This fidutary change would have been effetfted in one of 
thefe two modes. Either the manifelt neceflity of reli¬ 
gion to his peace would have induced him to truft to faith, 
and hence to have adopted fome form of worfliip, whe¬ 
ther fupported by reafon or not; or the increafe of meta- 
phyfical knowledge would have enabled him to detect the 
errors of his previous judgment. He had naturally a 
decided averfion to metaphyfica! enquiry; and yet it is 
curious to obferve, that his vivid feelings continually 
forced him into the labyrinths of this fcience; and 
he was bold enough to talk of metaphyfics as if he had 
ftudied it. In Medwin’s “ Converfations,” he is reported 
to have faid of Coleridge, that, if he had not fpoilt his 
fine genius by troubling himfelf with Tranfcendental P/ii- 
lofophy, he might have done great things. This clearly 
proves that Byron only knew Kant’s philofophy through 
the myfticifm (which it diredly oppofes) of Goethe, 
Schiller, See. and that, like fo many others, he was in the 
habit of miltaking German vagaries and imaginations for 
the found demonftrations that emanated from the critical 
philofophers. Alas ! he little fuppofed that the work 
his ignorance derided, would have furnifned him with 
the fullePc reply to all his doubts, and that by a procefs 
he could not objebf to. 
With all the licentioufnefs of Byron’s life, he feemed 
to have poffefled very friendly and affectionate habits, 
and to have had fair views of virtue continually before 
T R Y. 
* 
his eyes. But he affords a fad example of the miferabft 
inutility of the brighteft vifions of excellence, the higheft 
fenfe of honour, and the jufteft ideal views of right and 
wrong, if thefe be difl'evered from that practical tadit 
which puts them in force. Thofe who love to fee man 
in his true colours may contemplate in Byron the fame 
mind which could, in idea, feel nought but the high ven¬ 
geance of Lara, Hooping, infatt, to iafli with the fire of a 
fatirift the perfonal failings of an old and defpifed woman. 
Nor will they in this fee lefs of meannefs of foul than in 
that vanity which allowed its poffeffor to name the ob¬ 
jects of his intrigues, and made the fwimming from Seflos 
to Abydos the molt flattering fubjeCt of his contem¬ 
plations. 
We turn from the unpleafant toil of recording his 
errors to fpeak of his writings, where little remains to 
be faid, except what mult be couched in the language 
of unqualified praife. His firlt effay before the public 
was in 1807, when he publilhed “ Hours of Idlenefs,” 
a collection of fliort pieces, which had been written by 
him in his youth. Thefe pieces were certainly good, 
though by no means fuperior to the productions of many 
other poets at the fame age; and gave little indica¬ 
tions of the eternal bays which were deftined to adorn 
the temples of their author. From perfonal malice, or 
more probably from failing to fee merits where few ex- 
ifted, the Edinburgh Reviewers publilhed that fevere and 
memorable article which brought forth one of the belt 
fatires we have; namely, ** Englifti Bards and Scotch 
Reviewers.” This poem the author (pent a whole year 
in compofing; for, as fubjects multiplied, he gradually 
introduced much matter unconnected with the review; 
but ftill of a very interefting nature. Indeed there are 
not more than 100 lines that have any thing to do with 
“Scotch Reviewers;” but in truth thefe are (tings. A 
large portion is occupied with the “Englifn Bards.” The 
oblervations on Southey are as juft as forcible; but Byron 
faw only the faults of Wordfworth, and eftimated him 
much lower than his deferts. His notice of Coleridge 
is rather feverely than 'clear or deferiptive. The criti- 
cifm of Lewis is admirable; but what can furpafs the 
defcription of Moore, who then wrote under a borrowed 
name- The fanciful introduction of this bard furround- 
ed by a choir “ of virgins melting,” the force of the term 
“ melodious advocate of lull,” and the true praife min¬ 
gled with (evere cenfure, are inimitable. We recoiled 
few inftances of more elegant caufticity than ourauthor’s 
review of Bowles’s Ode on Oltend Bells. The delicacy 
of that touch, 
Ah ! how' much jufter were thy mufe’s hap, 
If to thy bells thou w'ouldft but add a cap, 
ftrikes every one. 
In the defcription of the due! between Moore and 
Jeffreys, (in which-it was found that by fome accident 
the piftols were unloaded,) there is the witrieft and 1110ft 
elegant application of the claflical machinery that can'be 
conceived. The poet fays that Caledonia's goddefs, who 
war hovering o’er the field, 
From either piftol fnatched the vengeful lead, 
And ftraight reftored it to her favourite’s head, 
That head, with greater than magnetic power, 
Caught it as Danae the golden ftiower ; 
And, though the thickening drofs will fcarce refine. 
Augments its ore, and is itfelf a mine. 
His remarks on Scott’s Lay of the Laft Minftrei are 
very good and true. Not fo thofe on Marmion ; and 
the abufe of the author, becaufe he fold his works, is very 
abfurd and contemptible. 
The praife in this fatire is lefs juft than the cenfure. 
The encomiums on Gifford and Wright had we believe 
a private caufe; thofe on Rogers and Campbell are per¬ 
haps too great. There is, in the notice of Kirke-White, 
a iimile which has been much admired. To our tafte it 
2 appears 
