1 may be learned from the sad view of The charge against Byron for immomighty powers, and a god-like intelli- rality is repeated by Wordsworth's gence, mis-used and prostrated. "I friends, and every thing that is reaam not what I should be," is a favour-sonable respecting his powers of mind ite sentiment with his Lordship, if we acknowledged. To refute this charge, may judge from the frequency of its the friends of Byron again come forrecurrence in his works. And who ward, with reiterated assertions of his can help wishing that he might be led splendid talents (of which no one has back to the nobility of virtue by that ever yet denied him possession, but influence which cometh from above. only condemned him for abusing Then again, "the freshness of the them,) and more extracts from the heart might fall like dew" upon his weakest parts of Wordsworth's works, withered spirit, and those noble en- taking no notice of the charge against dowments which have hitherto been Byron for immorality, but endeavourprostituted for a worthless hire to the ing to eclipse it by quoting some of service of the demon, would be ex- his most beautiful passages. erted for the benefit and delight of all posterity. December 28, 1821. EPSILON. MR. EDITOR. SIR, I have read with considerable interest the whole of the controversy which has been carried on in your Magazine respecting the comparative merits of Byron and Wordsworth. Often have I wished to state my sentiments on the question, but have desisted, because to me it appeared to be best that the two champions, G. M. and Aristarchus, alone should wield their weapons; but as several spectators have obtruded themselves within the ring, your liberality will not refuse me admittance. As I understand the question, it is simply this, Is Byron or Wordsworth the preferable poct? In favour of Wordsworth it is said, his poems are pure and favourable to piety, appeal forcibly to the passions, and, in many instances, exhibit Miltonian grandeur and sublimity; while the chief part of Byron's works is impure and destructive to religion. By the friends of Byron, his acknowledged gigantic powers of intellect, his touching paintings of the beautiful and terrible in nature, his descriptions of the workings of the human mind, &c. are urged in proof of his superiority, not only over the contemptible author of the Excursion, but also over every living poet; while Wordsworth is by them proved to be a mere driveller in rhyme-a disgrace to the poets of the age-a wholesale dealer in country nonsense, falsely called simplicity, and a writer of nothing but such things as Te-tum te-ti, te-ti te-tum, The days are gone and the nights are come. That Wordsworth possesses talent, and great talent too, may be easily proved by numberless quotations, which show the point and beauty of a poet's thought, united with a vigorous understanding. Had he not possessed talent, would so many powerful enemies have endeavoured to crush him? would the Edinburgh Review have devoted so many pages to the consideration of his compositions, and after all be forced to acknowledge that in spite of all their power be would be read and respected? would the noble poet, with whom he is now contrasted, have chastised him so severely, had he been worth nothing? Why then should Aristarchus treat him with such contempt? Let us be more reasonable, and acknowledge that Wordsworth is a poet and a man of talent. The subjects on which these two poets have written, are so very different, that it is difficult to meet with one on which they have both dwelt. The setting sun has, however, exercised both their pens, and I will now quote what both have written on this subject. The following verse, taken from the second canto of Don Juan, has been brought forward by a severe critic, to justify the extravagant praises he has bestowed on his Lordship's talents.* "It was the cooling hour, just when the rounded Red sun sinks down behind the azure hill, Which then seems as if the whole earth it bounded, Circling all nature, bush'd, and dim, and still, With the fair mountain-crescent half sur rounded On one side, and the deep sea calm and chill See Remarks critical and moral on the talents of Lord Byron, &c." Upon the other, and the rosy sky, With one star sparkling through it like an eye." harm. How has he used this power? In almost the whole of his works he labours to destroy the foundation of On the same subject Mr. Words- all our hopes and comforts, by insinuworth says, page 413. 'Already had the sun, Sinking with less than ordinary state, Attained his western bound; but rays of light Retired behind the mountain tops, or veiled ere we Who saw, of change were conscious, had Vivid as fire-clouds separately poised, Presuming it is proved by the above that Wordsworth is a poet and a man of great talent, I leave him for the present; but that I may not fall into the error of Aristarchus, I acknowledge there are some parts of Wordsworth's poems mean and grovelling, all his writings are not equally fine with the above, although some parts may be much finer. In some places I acknowledge I cannot readily apprehend the idea intended to be conveyed; but is he to be praised for this, is he not rather to be highly blamed, because he possesses the power to make himself at all times understood and admired, and yet in two or three places makes use of phrases, the meaning of which it is difficult to comprehend? ating doubts respecting the truths of Christianity. In some he strives to break down the bulwarks of morality, and to encourage the overflow of licentiousness; and in one lately published, he has endeavoured to place in the most pleasing form within the grasp of all, many arguments to prove there is no God! These infidel doubts, and this depraved licentiousness, would be harmless in the hands of a man of mean talents; but when he has surrounded them with the beautiful halo of his transporting effusions, when he has decorated them with the brightest gems of his poetical mine, destruction is increased tenfold. His they become engines, whose power of herculean understanding has been employed to smooth the path to "That Serbonian bog Where armies whole have sunk." It is not my intention to pollute your pages with quotations to prove these assertions, although they might be made without number, but in addition to the sentiments imputed to him being scattered through all his works, they may be found concentrated in his licentious "Don Juan," and also in his blasphemous Cain-productions which appear to have been written to destroy the morality and jeer the religion of that country, to which he is at once an honour and a disgrace. Who then is the preferable poet? The question is not, to whom shall the crown for ability be given, because this is but one thing-we unite with it Byron's works are overcast with the use to which that ability is put, the clouds of infidelity. A restless when we ask which of these two poets uncertainty of his future prospects is the preferable one. Shall the prea gloom of despair darkening the ho- ference be given to Lord Byron, with rizon, illuminated by his resplendent his strong mind, and the powerful genius, a spirit of misanthropy breath-talents with which he produces the ing through his works, and an opposi- buffoonery of Beppo, the licentioustion to every rule of morality, charac-ness of Don Juan, and the blasphemy terize his performances. Favoured of Cain; or shall it be given to Wordsby nature with a mind of vigorous worth, with his many beautiful proframe by education with a refinement ductions, in which he aims at improvof taste and capacity to please-by station with an influence over multitudes, and by adventitious circumstances with an interest in the thoughts of thousands, it was in the power of his hands to do great good or great Aristarchus hints that Don Juan is not a work of Lord Byron's-if he will refer to the Appendix to the "Two Foscari," he will find speaks of being accused of plagiarism in "the it acknowledged by his Lordship, where he Shipwreck.” ing the mind and the heart; at increasing the bonds of morality, and the ties of social union? Let Aristarchus himself judge.-Would he place Don Juan in the hands of his youthful daughters? would he wish such sentiments as those contained in Cain to be instilled into the tender minds of his children, to be the ground of their faith and hopes for futurity? Would he not rather give the preference to any of Wordsworth's poems? If he would, all I aim at is gained; if he would not-heaven protect his children! I regret that Aristarchus should say the poem of Don Juan is not so very wicked as some have represented. He makes this assertion from the opinions of others, but has he not read the poem himself? If he have, I am satisfied his good judgment tells him it has been justly said to be, "the only extensive poem in our language which has licentiousness for its foundation." Aristarchus has one considerable advantage over his opponents, he may quote any thing from Wordsworth, and it will not disgust our moral feeling; but those who argue on the other side of the question cannot quote the obscene and blasphemous expressions of Lord Byron, because they are too bad. March 12, 1822. LAMBDA. In behalf of Lord Byron. MR. EDITOR. SIR, From the number of communications which have been inserted, and the still greater number which have been announced on your covers as received, relative to the "Byronic controversy," it is obvious that the subject is very interesting to your readers and correspondents. Being myself a new subscriber to the "Imperial" on account of the letters of Aristarchus, I have been exceedingly disappointed, that for the last two months not a single letter has appeared on either side: this leads me to fear that there will be scarcely any thing for Lord B.'s able defender to notice. Much as I admire Lord Byron's sublime and beautiful poetry, (indeed, who that has any literary taste but does admire it?) I should yet have been glad to see a reply to Aristarchus' letter of October 2d; for the THINGS which have yet appeared are unworthy of the name of answers. Their writers have displayed some dexterity in carping at detached passages, and nibbling at the corners of his letter: but Aristarchus's ARGUMENTS remain untouched, unanswered, unrefuted. That gentleman has shown himself fully competent to crush a thousand of such hydra as have appeared against him: he is "himself an host," and therefore needs no assistance of mine. But I cannot refrain from observing, that his opponents havmuch ing themselves displayed so spleen and passion, therefore imagine Aristarchus must be actuated by the same feelings. To use a vulgar adage, they "measure his corn by their own bushel." Loud bellow'd the monsters in Pidcock's It abyss, Old vagabond Thames caught the sound; The world too hot to hold us! I have read, and re-read, with attention and delight, the letters of Aristarchus; but cannot find any 'anger" in them: though he has certainly shown a great deal of contempt for G. M. even with the dignified addition of Bridge-street, Derby." [By the bye, the original essay on the Forgiveness of Injuries," is neither more nor less than a pillage of Dr. Priestley's admirable sermon on that subject, preached on account of the infamous riots at Birmingham; but the Doctor's noble sentiments and eloquent language, are cut down to G. M.'s narrow conceptions and meagre style.] It is ludicrous too to find G. M.-himself an anonymous writer— angry with another for imitating his own example.-Wordsworth's cause is hopeless. Who, simple Wordsworth, will prolong? Say, what successor fit is? Who sang their own sad ditties? I beg to present my thanks to Aristarchus for his masterly letters, and to request, (if he should deem his opponents deserving further notice,) that he will speedily produce his "general reply;" in order that he may completely shame, if not “silence the ignorance of foolish men." I am, Sir, your's, &c. BYRONIS POEMATUM ADMIRATOR. Yotford, Feb. 6. (This letter contains several compo- | sitions of Lord Byron. These may be found in our poetical department of this number.) "Sequitur" AMICUM "non passibus æquis." MR. EDITOR. SIR,-In your Magazine for November last, I find that your correspondent, M. M. has attacked Lord Byron and his writings, and extolled those of Wordsworth as infinitely superior. I cannot, Sir, refrain from expressing my surprise at this, because I conceive that no one, who has the least taste for the classical construction of language, for the magnificent in description, or the sublime in sentiment, can hesitate one instant in ascribing the superiority to BYRON. Where, I ask M. M. even in those passages of Wordsworth's which he has produced, and which must be undoubtedly considered as specimens of his best compositions, can that elevated dignity of soul, that depth of thought, that gigantic strength of intellect, be found, which are perceptible in every part of Lord Byron's works? What! shall the weak and effeminate style of Wordsworth be preferred, or even compared, to the bold and masculine energy of Byron? Well may Wordsworth remain in obscurity! yes, he must do so, till men shall become children, and be satisfied with the shadow instead of the substance. So many specimens of the best and of the worst styles of the two authors have been already produced, that it is unnecessary to cite any more; though for M. M.'s satisfaction, I will refer him to Lord Byron's exquisitely touching Hebrew Melody, on the destruction of Jerusalem by Titus. As a proof of the vast superiority of Lord Byron's genius, the parodies on his style evince that their writers are unable to copy his Lordship's original conceptions, his lofty imagery, his beautiful diction, and his sublime description. The one entitled "Gordon," for instance, shows only the ass in the lion's skin. Nor can I agree with M. M. that the works of Lord Byron are merely calculated to produce a momentary impression. For, throughout the whole of his works, the most exalted humanity and philanthropic benevolence are strikingly apparent; and he who can read them without feeling himself warmed to the more active discharge of his moral duties, must have a heart incapable of being moved by the most pathetic appeals. With regard to the alleged immorality of Lord Byron's writings, I shall not make any observation; because my friend "Aristarchus," (with whom I most heartily coincide in opinion,) has most ably vindicated his Lordship from the charge, and demonstrated to conviction, that the accusation is founded in malignity. M. M. should remember that there are always multitudes of narrowminded men who will not allow superiority, (I had almost said genius,) to any but themselves; and by these has Lord Byron been assailed, with all the virulence of envious hatred, and the rancour of conscious inferiority. But the mighty mind of Byron looks down with silent contempt upon these puny efforts to "tear the laurels from his brow." To notice them would be to give them a consideration of which they are unworthy. I have only further to remark to M. M. that the charge of plagiarism which he has brought against Lord Byron is one the most easily made, and the most difficult to be refuted; because, as Dr. Johnson observes, upon certain subjects men must think alike, and the expression of their thoughts must, in some measure, be similar. Indeed, this charge appears to me on the very face of it, to be absurd. Let M. M. take into consideration the peculiarity of Lord Byron's situation. Separated from society by circumstances that are much to be lamented, holding opinions which differ widely from those of most men, with the scrutinizing eyes of those who are now writhing under the merited exposure of their conduct fixed upon him, is it possible, is it likely, that Lord Byron, with all these circumstances full in his view, should be so rash, so blind, as thus madly to run the hazard of blasting his European reputation for ever? With me this argument is convincing: for I cannot possibly reconcile the idea that Lord Byron would adopt such plans to establish his reputation, when he knew that detection must follow, and inevitably cover him with infamy. Again, how is it that this charge comes SO LATE? Lord Byron has long been before the public; and surely, were this charge true, "it is," to use M. M.'s own words, "but paying a sorry compliment to the public taste," to suppose that Lord Byron's plagiarisms should have remained undiscovered till NOW. In conclusion, Sir; so transcendent is the refulgence of Lord Byron's genius, so original is his style, and so grand are his conceptions, that I hesitate not to affirm, that his poetry will be read with admiration by those "whose approbation is worth having," when Wordsworth's rhymes are remembered only as the tales of the nursery, and the rivals of Tom Thumb and Goody Two-shoes. I am, Sir, your's respectfully, ON THE SCEPTICISM OF GIBBON. MR. EDITOR. SIR,-In the supplement to your third volume, (column 1237,) is an interesting anecdote of Whitaker, to the verity of which I can bear testimony; but your opinion that Gibbon and Macpherson were the fellow-collegians | of Whitaker is not founded. Macpherson was never a member of either of the English universities; and the other two belonged to different colleges at Oxford, without having any acquaintance with each other at that period; Whitaker being first a student, and next a fellow of Corpus, and Gibbon a gentleman commoner of Magdalen. Here permit me to make some remarks in vindication of that venerable seat of learning, from the calumnies heaped upon her character and institutions by the infidel historian. were shut against him. Now, I should be glad to know what credit can be due to the report of a truant like this, in disparagement of a seminary, which, at the time alluded to, could boast that enlightened, amiable, and pious scholar, George Horne? Here then we see the ungovernable spirit which, in after life, ventured to attack the foundations of moral order, and to poison the well-spring of private happiness. Gibbon was a spoiled child, who, being suffered to have his own way, became too proud and self-willed to submit to the discipline of a college, which, with all its advantages of instruction, was never intended to be a grammar school. Had this wayward stripling been well whipped at Westminster, instead of being sent to the boarding-school of Philip Francis, where, according to his own confession, he learned nothing; he might, perhaps, have profited by the discipline of his college, because he would then have been duly prepared with a competent stock of classical knowledge, and a mind habituated to exertion, for the higher order of study pursued in the university. It is true that Gibbon acquired a competent share of learning afterwards, in Switzerland; but the use to which he applied it, makes it the more to be lamented for his own sake, as well as that of society, that his early education was so much neglected by his friends. That three of the most learned, subtle, and determined, deistical writers of modern times, should have apostatized to popery, and then sunk into scepticism, or something worse, is not a little curious; yet such is the fact; and though the defection of Tindal may be easily accounted for by his avarice, that of Bayle and Gibbon can only be attributed to the want of a previous knowledge of the principles of religion. The history of all three, however, affords proof of the near alliance of superstition and infidelity; and this did not escape the notice of the acute and learned Bent Gibbon was matriculated at Magdalen College before he had attained his fifteenth year; at which early age, by his own acknowledgment, he knew little Latin and no Greek. The whole period of his academical life consisted only of fourteen months, five of whichley, who says, in his answer to Colwere taken up in vacation, and during lins, "Tis most certain, in fact, that the remainder, instead of attending to to propagate atheism in protestant his studies, he eloped six times, for countries has been a method prescribwhich he contrived various excuses, ed and made use of by popish emisor, in plain terms, invented such false-saries; for they do no evil by it, in hoods, that at length the college gates their notion: the men that would be |