As it was, he was the man of the last thirteen years of the eighteenth century, and of the first twenty-three years of the nineteenth century.He belonged half to the old, and half to the new school of poetry.His personal taste led him to the former;his thirst of praise to the latter; his talents were equally suited to both.His fame was a common ground on which the zealots on both sides, Gifford for example, and Shelley, might meet.He was the representative, not of either literary party, but of both at once, and of their conflict, and of the victory by which that conflict was terminated.His poetry fills and measures the whole of the vast interval through which our literature has moved since the time of Johnson.It touches the Essay on Man at the one extremity, and the Excursion at the other.
There are several parallel instances in literary history.
Voltaire, for example, was the connecting link between the France of Lewis the Fourteenth and the France of Lewis the Sixteenth, between Racine and Boileau on the one side, and Condorcet and Beaumarchais on the other.He, like Lord Byron, put himself at the head of an intellectual revolution, dreading it all the time, murmuring at it, sneering at it, yet choosing rather to move before his age in any direction than to be left behind and forgotten.Dryden was the connecting link between the literature of the age of James the First, and the literature of the age of Anne.Oromasdes and Arimanes fought for him.Arimanes carried him off.But his heart was to the last with Oromasdes.Lord Byron was, in the same manner, the mediator between two generations, between two hostile poetical sects.Though always sneering at Mr.
Wordsworth, he was yet, though perhaps unconsciously, the interpreter between Mr.Wordsworth and the multitude.In the Lyrical Ballads and the Excursion Mr.Wordsworth appeared as the high priest of a worship, of which nature was the idol.No poems have ever indicated a more exquisite perception of the beauty of the outer world or a more passionate love and reverence for that beauty.Yet they were not popular; and it is not likely that they ever will be popular as the poetry of Sir Walter Scott is popular.The feeling which pervaded them was too deep for general sympathy.Their style was often too mysterious for general comprehension.They made a few esoteric disciples, and many scoffers.Lord Byron founded what may be called an exoteric Lake school; and all the readers of verse in England, we might say in Europe, hastened to sit at his feet.What Mr.Wordsworth had said like a recluse, Lord Byron said like a man of the world, with less profound feeling, but with more perspicuity, energy, and conciseness.We would refer our readers to the last two cantos of Childe Harold and to Manfred, in proof of these observations.
Lord Byron, like Mr.Wordsworth, had nothing dramatic in his genius.He was indeed the reverse of a great dramatist, the very antithesis to a great dramatist.All his characters, Harold looking on the sky, from which his country and the sun are disappearing together, the Giaour standing apart in the gloom of the side aisle, and casting a haggard scowl from under his long hood at the crucifix and the censer, Conrad leaning on his sword by the watch-tower, Lara smiling on the dancers, Alp gazing steadily on the fatal cloud as it passes before the moon, Manfred wandering among the precipices of Berne, Azzo on the judgment-seat, Ugo at the bar, Lambro frowning on the siesta of his daughter and Juan, Cain presenting his unacceptable offering, are essentially the same.The varieties are varieties merely of age, situation, and outward show.If ever Lord Byron attempted to exhibit men of a different kind, he always made them either insipid or unnatural.Selim is nothing.Bonnivart is nothing.Don Juan, in the first and best cantos, is a feeble copy of the Page in the Marriage of Figaro.Johnson, the man whom Juan meets in the slave-market, is a most striking failure.How differently would Sir Walter Scott have drawn a bluff, fearless Englishman, in such a situation! The portrait would have seemed to walk out of the canvas.
Sardanapalus is more closely drawn than any dramatic personage that we can remember.His heroism and his effeminacy, his contempt of death and his dread of a weighty helmet, his kingly resolution to be seen in the foremost ranks, and the anxiety with which he calls for a looking-glass that he may be seen to advantage, are contrasted, it is true, with all the point of Juvenal.Indeed the hint of the character seems to have been taken from what Juvenal says of Otho:
"Speculum civilis sarcina belli.
Nimirum summi ducis est occidere Galbam, Et curare cutem summi constantia civis, Bedriaci in campo spolium affectare Palati Et pressum in faciem digitis extendere panem."These are excellent lines in a satire.But it is not the business of the dramatist to exhibit characters in this sharp antithetical way.It is not thus that Shakspeare makes Prince Hal rise from the rake of Eastcheap into the hero of Shrewsbury, and sink again into the rake of Eastcheap.It is not thus that Shakspeare has exhibited the union of effeminacy and valour in Antony.Adramatist cannot commit a greater error than that of following those pointed descriptions of character in which satirists and historians indulge so much.It is by rejecting what is natural that satirists and historians produce these striking characters.
