The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1875-08-15
The Proposed statue to Byron.

The Toronto Nation, an interesting and
osition to build statue to Lord Byron and
the speech which Mr.. Disraeli made in pre-
siding over the meeting recently held in
London for that purpose, fears that such a
monument might be regarded as condoning
the evils of Byrons teachings 'His scepti-
cism," it says, eff it can be dignifed with
the name, belongs to the lowest and worst
element of the Revolution. 1t is morally the
Mephistophelic scepticism of the mocker hay
ing it's origin in egotism and closely allied to
rebellion. His profanity is redeemed by no
philanthropic visions, by no transfer of
allegiance to a more just and benignant
power" The Toronto Nation trusts that
''this late canonization of Byron implies
no dereliction of morality" 1t makes
distinction between the atheism
of Shelley and the mockery of Byron
by showing that Shelley was really
mistook the devil for God and God for the
devil" 1t argues that, apart from certain
minor alterations, ''the philanthropy of
Shelley is identical with that of the Gospel,
and, therefore, with the social basis of Chris
tianity." AS for byron, those who worship
the poet set up his monument in London
those who care for the man would set it up
at Missolonghi."
If the claim of Byron to be honored
among the great men of the generation,
especially among the English speaking ma
tons, is to be measured by tests of this char
acter, then there will be no monument to his
memory that will carry with it the respect of
Christian people. The judgment which the
world passes upon Byron is of different
character. He is, without, question, per-
haps, the greatest writer of English poetry
since Shakespeare. His name has become a
part of the nineteenth century, and it will
give glory to that century long after we who
belong to it and those who fourished before
us as Byron's contemporaries have passed
away. If we look at the character of Byron
we will find much to lament. His works
contain many passages that deserve oblivion
and not monumental praise but the COM
mon sense of the world will in time expel
the baser part of such work and pre-
serve the real gold. If we were to criticise
Shakespeare as our Toronto contemporary
criticises Byron we might find many pas
sages which could be censured as Sc
verely as we censure Lord Byron. We
agree with Mr. Disraeli that the personal
character of Lord Byron should not enter
into the estimate the world places upon his
works. Personal character is of the earth,
earthly. 1t dies with the body
which it animated, while genius lives
and will live on forever. No one knows
whether Homer was a good husband or true
friend or gentleman of high instinct and
we presume that no one cares He is happy
in the oblivion which surrounds his person
as well as in the immortality which surrounds
his works So with Shakespeare. There is
no famous man of that day of whom so little
is known. We have only two or three scraps
of his writing, and that confined to simple
signatures We are in doubt as to how he
spelled his name. We have no satisfactory
picture Of him. So far as we know not one
copy of his plays in manuscript is in exist
ence. The details of his personal life are SO
meagre as to be almost fabulous, and yet he
lived in the full light of brilliant age, sur
rounded by friends. Cervantes, his contem-
porary, who lived in another country, is
much better known to us, who are aliens to
his race and his language than our own
great poet
And yet Shakespeare, no doubt would feel
that he is blessed in the oblivion which sur
rounds his nero personal life. What we
honor in Shakespeare is what we propose to
honor in Byron-that God-given genius sent
to strengthen, exalt and purify mankind, to
bring our hard. busy natures into relation