Sidor som bilder
PDF
ePub

mind, and shew him that way which alone leads to heaven."-p. 93 to 97.

We would recommend this youthful author to make his observations on such passing events as this before us; he will then, in his next publication, produce a work that will excite general interest, and ensure more unequivocal approbation.

REVIEW. The Bible Preacher, or

Closet Companion for every Day in
the Year, consisting of Outlines of
Three Hundred and Sixty-five Ser-
mons, &c. By the late Rev. Henry
Foster, A.M. Minister of St. James's,
Clerkenwell. With a Memoir of the
Author. By the Rev. S. Piggott,
pp. 712. London.

A. M. 12mo.
Baynes and Son. 1824.

THE thick closely printed volume now under consideration, contains but little matter for critical analysis. The first thirty-six pages are occupied with a memoir of the author; then follow five sermons, which may be considered as specimens of his pulpit talents and theological views; and all the remaining portion is filled with what may literally be termed sermons in embryo.

The memoir is written in a neat and

becoming manner. It contains a dignified estimate of Mr. Foster's sterling worth, without loading his character with gaudy decorations, or transmitting his name to posterity through the medium of fulsome panegyric. From the account thus given of the deceased author, we have every reason to believe that he was a pious man, whose motive in taking upon himself the ministerial office, was pure, his aim being to preach the truth as it is in Jesus, in order that his hearers might partake of his great salvation.

In perfect accordance with this attestation, are the five sermons which follow the memoir. They contain solemn admonition and solid argument, delivered in plain and impressive language, on subjects that are at once momentous and interesting, and discover a mind that is intimately acquainted with the necessity and advantages of that Saviour who is offered to mankind in the gospel.

On the sermons which are in embryo, many remarks might be made, but we have no intention to extend our observations. In some respects,

[ocr errors]

they bear a resemblance to Simeon's Helps, but in others they are widely different. They have scarcely any introductory remarks, and very few practical improvements at the conclusion. The divisions and subdivisions are numerous, and sometimes halfperplexing. A solitary passage of scripture occasionally serves to illustrate the subdivision of a text; but in some instances a nice discernment

will be necessary to discover how it can be rendered applicable. As private notes taken by the author for his elucidated, as time and opportunity own personal use, on subjects to be might offer, the utility of these outpublic appearance before the world, lines is more apparent than in their They, however, display much ingenuity and scriptural research, but are in that particular state of existence, that they may be deemed calculated either to encourage the lazy, to instruct the ignorant, to mislead the simple, or to render much assistance to the industrious student.

REVIEW.-Juvenile Essays, which obtained the Prizes proposed by the Proprietor of the Teacher's Offering, &c. 18mo. pp. 129. London. Westley. 1825.

ABOUT twelve months since, six prizes were proposed by the proprietor of a little work, entitled the "Teacher's Offering," to be awarded to the authors of the best essays on some given scriptural subjects, to be adjudged by three ministers, from whom the names of the writers were to be concealed. No competitor, whether male or female, was to exceed eighteen years of age, and the composition was to be the original production of unassisted genius. The candidates for these honours and rewards, having presented their respective essays, they have lately undergone an examination, when a pair of twelve-inch globes was awarded to master Robert Fletcher, aged fifteen, for an essay on sacred Geography; the Beauties of Dwight, in four volumes, handsomely bound, to Miss Mary Groom, for the second best essay on the same subject; Doddridge's Exposition of the New Testament, six volumes, handsomely bound, to master Joseph Sortain, aged fifteen, for an essay on the nature and design of Christ's mission; the Christian Fa

ther's Present to his Children, two | written in a way to catch and engage volumes, handsomely bound, to master the attention, and there is generally Jonathan Glyde, aged sixteen, on the a boldness of expression that is wonsame subject; Jones's Biblical Cy-derfully taking; but there is commonly clopedia, in two volumes, elegantly wanting a fund of sound reason to bound, to John Samuel Broad, aged support the wit, to direct the thought, fifteen, for an essay on the destruc- and to convince the understanding tion of Babylon; and Wilks's Chris- when the attention has been engaged; tian Biographical Dictionary, one vo- and the whole of what is said, is not lume, handsomely bound, to Miss unfrequently marred by personal inSarah Groom, for an essay on the vective and disgusting abuse. same catastrophe.

In the essays thus bound up in the little volume before us, we can easily discover much precocity of talent, and such emanations of intellect, as justly entitle these juvenile authors to the rewards they have received. In the distribution of the prizes, the reverend gentlemen, to whose judgment the task was assigned, appear to have acted with the strictest impartiality respecting the essays now laid before the public, and we have no doubt, that towards those who were unsuccessful, they were guided by the same integrity of principle.

The essays before us do honour to their respective authors, and we hope the rewards they have received will stimulate them to further improvement of their time and intellectual powers. They must not imagine, that because they have been thus distinguished, they have reached the summit of human attainments. More will naturally be expected from them in their next productions; and should they unhappily relax in their exertions, the honours thus conferred upon them will prove mortifying to their friends, and a most unfortunate event to themselves.

[blocks in formation]

MR. EDITOR, SIR,-Blackwood's Edinburgh Magazine is a periodical publication, in which much talent of one kind or other is generally displayed; but in its various articles, which I have at different times perused, I have seldom found much solid argument. In the illustration and defence of the subjects which are treated upon there, a good deal of wit is to be met with, and also no small portion of originality of thought; almost all the articles are

2

The article upon which I have undertaken to make some observations, professes to give an estimate of Lord Byron's personal character, and to discuss the subject of his genius. Some points of view in which he is represented, must be acknowledged to bear upon them the stamp of truth. Upon his conduct to his wife, and his wife's conduct to him, I shall say nothing, because the truth can only be gathered from a proper statement of facts. His conduct to his friends, I think, palliated, if not justified, by what is said upon it in the paper under review, and his general misanthropy is, at least, traced to its proper causes. As we are informed that the estimate of his genius is as yet in an unfinished state, I shall say no more upon it than, as far as it goes, I think it tolerably fair and true. The point, the only point to which I will direct the notice of my readers, is the account of Lord Byron's sensuality. Now, as I hope to shew that this account contains palliations for sensuality in general, it is not for the purpose of setting his lordship's character in a proper light, but for that of correcting errors in morality, that I intend to notice the debasing nature of the subject, and the fallacy of the reasoning upon it. A popular name very often covers a bad action, and when the name is made the pretext for taking the odium from the action, it is the duty of all who have any regard for virtue, as virtue, to expose the delusion, take off the covering, and set the subject in its proper light.

The paper in question commences by asserting, that "there has been a good deal of writing about Lord Byron since his death, in our periodicals, but very little of it much to the purpose." It goes on to affirm, that what has been said about him in the Universal Review, 'is "a splenetic, a malevolent, and a mean tirade;" that the portraiture of his character, which

66

appeared some months ago in the London Magazine, is written by a "miserable" "that if Mr. Hazlitt had seen the living lion down, he would have rejoiced in kicking him," and that "he now does his pleasure with the dead." The end of all this is to inform us that the editors of Blackwood's Magazine "cannot reproach themselves with having,at any period of their career, either neglected or ill-treated the great poet who is now no more;" that they were from the beginning open,sincere,and enthusiastic worshippers of his genius;" that they declared themselves, on that score, in a way that most of their contemporaries can "reflect upon with few feelings of selfgratulation;" and that they "always spoke out, which certainly cannot be said of any among them," (that is, among the said contemporaries.) To say nothing of the supreme modesty of such comparisons as these, it should always be remembered, that our own personal, moral, or intellectual exaltation can never be effected by traducing the persons, or morals, or intellects of our neighbours; but these are authoritative scribes, in opposition to the "unauthoritative" ones mentioned in the first paragraph of the article before us.

66

We are, after this, led immediately to Lord Byron's "personal character," and are informed, that in his remarks upon it, a little common sense, common honesty, and common feeling," shall serve the turn of the writer. Let us keep these three things in view.

There seems under this head to be considered his sensuality, his misanthropy, his conduct to his wife, and his conduct to his friends. His sensuality is the sole subject to which (as I have before said) I shall direct my attention. On this point we have the following sentence:

"But he was such a profligate in his morals, that his name cannot be mentioned with any thing like tolerance! Was he so indeed? We should like extremely to have the catechizing of the individual man who says so." Here we have a wish instead of an and 66 argument; common feeling' might have advised our author not to trifle with the expectations of his readers, by thus giving them a stone instead of bread.

tent is certain, and to be regretted and condemned; but was he worse, as to those matters, than the enormous majority of those who join in the cry of horror upon this occasion. We most assuredly believe exactly the reverse." This is, to say the least of it, an excuse for immorality, founded upon immoral conduct; but as some of the individuals who practise this conduct, are also declared by our author to be splenetic, malevolent, mean, and miserable, the being found in such a path, can reflect no lustre on Lord Byron's character. Reflect a lustre did I say? This is not meant. The conduct is "to be regretted and condemned." But still, though we are to regret and condemn it on grounds which are not stated; on grounds which are stated, we must excuse it. Why? because, mark the argument, "because there are people to be found who have acted as basely as the noble lord in every particular." Common honesty, had it been listened to, would have suggested the weakness of him who could send forth, as a reason, a thing so hollow and unsound. To say that one man is to be excused, hecause another is as bad as himself, is as foolish as to assert, that crime loses its nature when it becomes general.

But three paragraphs, dignified by 1st, 2nd, and 3rd, placed before them, we are informed, are the grounds of disbelief in Lord Byron's sensuality. Let us look attentively at these grounds.

66

First, we hold it impossible that the majority of mankind, or any thing beyond a very small minority, are, or can be, entitled to talk of sensual profligacy as having formed a principal part of the life and character of the man, who, dying at six-and-thirty, bequeathed a collection of works such as Byron's to the world."

The substance of this article is, that Lord Byron died at the age of sixand-thirty, and bequeathed a certain numerous collection of works to the world; and that the majority of men are not entitled to talk of the profligacy of an individual, because, at a certain age, he may have published a certain number of works, but that there are a minority who are entitled to do so. The force of such an argument, I confess, I neither do, nor can But let us proceed. 66 That he in-understand. I would, however, supdulged in sensual vices to some ex- pose the writer to mean, that an au

[ocr errors]

thor whose works, it may be presumed, | duty. Intellect is a word used for cerwould occupy his whole time, was not tain powers themselves,-virtue signienabled to engage in sensual pleasure, fies the right application of these because he had not an opportunity of powers, and to blend these two things so doing. But before such a reason together, would be as foolish as to concan be urged, an inseparable con- found a certain number of figures with nexion must be established between the sum into which they may be formintellect and morality; and it must ed. An individual may use his hands also be accurately ascertained how by the influence which his mind has much time certain works take up in upon them; but who, on that account, composing; because one man can would confound the bodily with the very frequently write twice as fast as mental organs and energies? When another, and as correctly to boot. A the shower descends to water and table should likewise be made, where- fructify the earth, its blessings are acby we may judge of a man's moral knowledged and felt; but on that accharacter by the number of works he count, is the shower to be confounded has produced. If this poor explana- with the vegetation produced? or are tion be not allowed, the sentence last we to suppose that water and fruit quoted is mere absurdity. are one and the same thing?

66

Secondly, We hold it impossible, that, laying the extent of his intellectual labours out of the question, and looking only to the nature of the intellect which generated, and delighted in generating, such beautiful and noble conceptions as are to be found in almost all Lord Byron's works; we hold it impossible that very many men can be at once capable of comprehending these conceptions, and entitled to consider sensual profligacy as having formed the principal, or even a principal, trait in Lord Byron's character."

The force of this sentence, which is really as unintelligible as the preceding, seems to lie, on Lord Byron's part, in the beauty and novelty of his intellectual effusions. But every one knows that morality and intellect have no necessary connexion with each other. Were morality and intellect inseparably connected with each other, it would follow, that the cleverest man was always the best; but this is not the case, and no man with common sense would make the assertion. Morality is a thing which applies to a man's passions and propensities, and the good or evil nature of his actions. Intellect relates to his powers of judging, and estimating, and thinking, and understanding. And what have these to do with each other? Virtue (a word afterwards used on the same subject) consists in following a direct line of rectitude in intention and practice, not swerving from moral duty, either to the right hand or to the left. The extent of the natural powers of a man's mind has nothing to do (naturally) with either moral conduct or 79.-VOL. VII.

But the remarks in the paragraph we are now noticing, do not so much relate to Lord Byron himself, as to the person who is to judge of his sensuality: we are told, it is "impossible that very many men can be at once capable of comprehending his conceptions, and entitled to consider sensual profligacy as having formed a principal trait in his character." How? why? I cannot see. Does understanding or comprehension unfit a man for judging of moral character? If this be the case, then the want of it must fit him for doing so. Is it necessary, that when a man can compreprehend lofty conceptions, he should not be entitled to judge of sensual profligacy? As well might our author have said, that a man with his eyes open, was on that account incapable of seeing, or because he had feet, he could not walk! Our author first connects intellect and morality so closely together, that they are made to appear one; and then so wofully separates them, that he denies that intellect can even judge of, or understand, what morality is. The next sentence, if it has no other merit, can be, at least, comprehended.

66

Thirdly, and lastly. We have never been able to hear any one fact established, which could prove Lord Byron to deserve any thing like the degree, or even the kind, of odium, which has, in regard to matters of this class, been heaped upon his name. We have no story of base unmanly seduction, or false and villanous intrigue, against him-none whatever. It seems to us quite clear, that if he had been at all what is called, in society, an un

2U

I never heard that he robbed upon the highway, or was so dishonourable as to put poison into the cup of his friend; but that he endangered his character as a gentleman, I do assert, (if there were no other) upon this ground, that he connected himself with licentious, unprincipled, and cha

principled sensualist, there must have been many such stories-many such authentic and authenticated stories. But there are none such- absolutely none. His name has been coupled with the names of three, four, or more women, of some rank; but what kind of women? Every one of them, in the first place, about as old as him-racterless women. But, unhappily, self in years, and therefore a great deal older in character. Ever one of them utterly battered in reputation long before he came into contact with them--licentious, unprincipled, characterless women. What father has ever reproached him with the ruin of his daughter? what husband has denounced him as the destroyer of his peace?"

the character of a gentleman is at present so vague and unfixed, that, as it really exists, it is almost foolish to attach any merit to it.

"There have been ladies who deemed a bag-wig, tasseled coat, new fashioned snuff-box, and sword-knot, very capital ingredients in the composition of a gentleman. A certain easy impudence, acquired by low people, by being casually conversant in high life, has passed a man current through many companies for a gentleman. In the country, a laced hat and long whip make a gentleman. In taverns and brothels, he who is the most of a bully is the most of a gentleman. With heralds, every esquire is indis

wayman, in his manner of taking your purse, and your friend, in his manner of debauching your wife, may, however, be allowed to have much of the gentleman."-"Fool of Quality," vol. ii. page 69 and 70.

In the preceding paragraph, to prove that Lord Byron was not an unmanly sensualist, we are told, that the females with whom he connected himself were licentious, unprincipled, and characterless. How sensual, then, must he have been, to have connected himself with them? Does not all their licentiousness, want of principle, and cha-putably a gentleman. And the highracter, devolve upon him, when he suffers his name to be coupled with theirs? And if, as we have been told, there are degrees in profligacy, was not this the lowest, the meanest, the most despicable degree? We are not to talk of the people whom Lord Byron's pro- In the excellent work just quoted, fligacy may have injured, we are to we are told what a true gentleman talk of that profligacy itself. His con- should be. I will copy the enumeraduct (if our author's assertions be tion of qualities that constitute the true) may not have spread its influence character. They are-charity to the into the bosoms of peaceful and inno-poor-delicacy of behaviour to the cent families, but still the man himself fair sex-the giving place to all with was, to all intents and purposes, a whom we have to do the feeling consensual man, because it cannot be cerned and interested in the welfare of denied that he connected himself with others-honour-destitution of envy licentious, unprincipled, and charac--and piety. Now, I do affirm, that terless women. It is really a sorry excuse for a man who is cunningly base, to say that his conduct is not of the fearlessly wicked kind.

After gaining this insight into Lord Byron's character, let us turn back, and read a few sentences that are placed at the top of the column in which part of our last quotation was inserted.

"Was he dishonest or dishonourable? Had he ever done any thing to forfeit, or even endanger, his character as a gentleman? Most assuredly, no such accusations have ever been maintained against Lord Byron, the private nobleman."

in most of these senses, Lord Byron was not a gentleman; and let me add, "The character of a gentleman does not, in any degree, depend on fashion or mode, on station or opinion, neither does it change with custom, climate, or age."

It was before said, that Lord Byron's sensual vices were to be regretted and condemned; and here again the writer observes as follows:

"We are not defending the offences of which Lord Byron unquestionably was guilty; neither are we finding fault with those who, after looking honestly within and around themselves, condemn those offences, no

« FöregåendeFortsätt »