is the answer. "But what of that? It is only the roue Byron that
speaks!" Is a kind, a generous action of the man mentioned? "Yes, yes!"
comments the sage; "but only remember the atrocities of 'Don Juan:'
depend on it, this, if it be true, must have been a mere freak of
caprice, or perhaps a bit of vile hypocrisy." Salvation is thus shut out
at either entrance: the poet damns the man, and the man the poet.

'Nobody will suspect us of being so absurd as to suppose that it is
possible for people to draw no inferences as to the character of an
author from his book, or to shut entirely out of view, in judging of a
book, that which they may happen to know about the man who writes it. The
cant of the day supposes such things to be practicable; but they are not.
But what we complain of and scorn is the extent to which they are carried
in the case of this particular individual, as compared with others; the
impudence with which things are at once assumed to be facts in regard to
his private history; and the absolute unfairness of never arguing from
his writings to him, but for evil.

'Take the man, in the first place, as unconnected, in so far as we can
thus consider him, with his works; and ask, What, after all, are the bad
things we know of him? Was he dishonest or dishonourable? had he ever
done anything to forfeit, or even endanger, his rank as a gentleman? Most
assuredly, no such accusations have ever been maintained against Lord
Byron the private nobleman, although something of the sort may have been
insinuated against the author. "But he was such a profligate in his
morals, that his name cannot be mentioned with anything like tolerance."
Was he so, indeed? We should like extremely to have the catechising of
the individual man who says so. That he indulged in sensual vices, to
some extent, is certain, and to be regretted and condemned. But was he
worse, as to such matters, than the enormous majority of those who join
in the cry of horror upon this occasion? We most assuredly believe
exactly the reverse; and we rest our belief upon very plain and
intelligible grounds. First, we hold it impossible that the majority of
mankind, or that anything beyond a very small minority, are or can be
entitled to talk of sensual profligacy as having formed a 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. Secondly, we hold it
impossible,