Masaryk University Faculty of Arts

Department of English and American Studies

English Language and Literature

Jonáš Lasák

Judgment in ’s life and in The Vision of Judgment

Bachelor‘s Diploma Thesis

Supervisor: Stephen Paul Hardy, Ph.D.

2013

I declare that I have worked on this thesis independently, using only the primary and secondary sources listed in the bibliography.

…………………………..……………. Author‘s signature

2

Table of Contents

1 Introduction ...... 4 2 Judgment and criticism in life of ...... 6 2.1 Leg and lack of confidence ...... 6 2.2 Pope and his influence ...... 10 2.3 Appearance ...... 13 3 Judgment in Byron‘s poetry ...... 20 3.1 Circumstances of the birth of The Vision of Judgment ...... 20 3.2 Analysis of The Vision of judgement ...... 27 4 Conclusion ...... 37 5 Works cited ...... 39

3

1 Introduction

Lord Byron is one of the most influential characters in the entire poetry written in

English, especially critic and satiric poetry. But it is necessary to perceive him not as an unmistakable authority in the field of poetry, which often happens, but to realize that he himself was a human being, fragile and easily impressible or intimidated. He strongly cared about opinions of the people surrounding him regarding his person and often acted accordingly.

The first chapter of the thesis is biographical, searching for evidence of Byron‘s dependence on the public opinion and acceptance and of his need of positive judgment, than in detail analyses Byron‘s character and certain periods of his life, events and subsequent reactions to them, in which the reader is able to understand often illogical or misunderstood resolutions, led by Byron‘s judgment. This chapter in addition to events in

Byron‘s life also offers a view on chosen fears and qualities of Byron, real or imaginary, which are after the analysis clearly visible in his life and in his works. Big part of the chapter is dedicated to his club footedness, a difficulty he had to overcome and compensate for his entire life - it was one of the defining factors of his character. To this problem is also directly connected his flashiness and shyness. Several pages are dedicated to

Byron‘s criticism, to his inspiration and role model Alexander Pope and subsequent comparison. Key sources for this biographical chapter are two biographies, Byron, Child of

Passion, Fool of Fame by Benita Eisler and Byron, Life and Legend by Fiona MacCarthy. These biographies are detailed books with the sense of detail, especially Byron, Child of Passion, Fool of Fame is describing the life of Byron almost on day-to-day basis and gives great emphasis on the Byron‘s club footedness and his behaviour towards women, together with vivid description of Byron‘s marriage to Annabella Milbanke.

4

The second chapter begins with analysis and explanation of events that lead to the birth of Byron‘s critical masterpiece The Vision of Judgment. Further, it describes relationship between Lord Byron and , and briefly mentions Byron‘s role model and

Southey‘s predecessor, former Poet Laureate, which is followed by an analysis of The Vision of Judgment, which shows the way in which Byron perceives the royal authority, the deceased king and Byron‘s treatment of him and the person and writing of his challenger, Robert

Southey. The process of Byron‘s humanization of angels, Michal and Sathan1 is perceived and examined, and a special chapter is dedicated to Byron‘s version of the relationship between Sathan and Michael, accompanied with multiple comparisons to Southey‘s A

Vision of Judgment and analysis with a base knowledge of The Bible.

1 In The Vision of Judgment, Byron used the name Sathan instead of Satan, and this thesis will too, to prevent confusion between the text of the thesis and citations. For the same reason is used word Judgment instead of Judgement. 5

2 Judgment and criticism in life of Lord Byron

2.1 Leg and lack of confidence

George Byron was born on January 22nd 1788 after a long and difficult labour with a caul and malformed foot. Later, when he grew older, he blamed his mother, Catherine

Byron, for this malformation of his, whether he meant her insistence of wearing corsets until the last stages of her pregnancy or her modesty during the final examinations. (Moore,

Letters and Journals of Lord Byron I 183 qtd in Eisler 13) Club footedness, which he suffered of, is a deformity, involving one or both of the legs, which appear as if they were rotated internally in the ankle. The condition was, with difficulties, curable in 19th century, and

Byron underwent multiple treatments during his childhood, even wearing special device, constructed by quack Dr. Lavender, which should rigidly hold the leg in the correct position. But in the end, the family doctor, Dr. Bailie, discovered the painful fact that the tormenting cast made no improvement whatsoever, that Byron underwent all the procedures to no avail, and there was even a proposal from Dr. Hunter (Bailie‘s uncle and mentor), ―that if the proper means had been taken at first in Infancy, the malformation might have been brought round‖. (Hanson narrative, MSS, qtd in Eisler 42) The fact is, that Byron was so obsessed with his clubfoot and hiding it, that even when his long-life friend, , while collecting the information on his friend for purpose of writing a biography to replace Byron‘s own journals, burned by Byron‘s friends on May 17,

1824, could not come to a consensus which one of his feet was actually the deformed one.

(Mc Carthy 4) Because of its concealment, there are still speculations, which one of his legs was actually clubfooted. Some people, such as his half-sister and lover, , claimed that the right leg was the deformed one, others, such as , state that it was his left leg. Notoriously inaccurate Edward John Trelawny claimed to have discovered that both of poet‘s feet were stricken. (MacCarthy 4) First written proof of his disease is

6 from February 19th, 1791, in the letter of his father, Jack Byron, who wrote to his sister,

Frances ‗Fanny‘ Leigh: ―…For my son, I am happy to hear he is well, but for his walking,

‗tis impossible, for he is clubfooted.‖ (John Byron to Frances Leigh, qtd in Eisler 19) For little George Byron, this foot of his would become one of the factors that affected his life since the day he was born. He would, repeatedly and very often, refer to the leg as a ―the mark of ,‖ or even call himself ―le diable boiteux‖, lame devil. (Eisler 13)

And he began to realize his ―difference‖ and the fact that he was judged differently very soon in his childhood, for the first recorded incident, concerning his leg, occurred even earlier than he was able to read. Accosted by a neighbour, who announced ―What a pity that such a handsome little lad should be lame,‖ he struck at her with his toy whip:

―Dinna ye speak of it,‖ he ordered. (Moore, Letters and Journals of Lord Byron II 10 qtd in

Eisler 21)

Because of his illness, he was therefore incapable of participation in children sports concerning speed, but in Harrow, the first of his schools, he was making up for it with participation in boxing and swimming, both of which he thoroughly enjoyed, and especially in swimming he achieved several successes, which are also incorporated and repeatedly brought to mind in several of his poems, such as ―Written after swimming from Sestos to

Abydos,‖ or, in the second canto of his masterpiece, :

A better swimmer you could scarce see ever,

He could, perhaps, have pass‘d the Hellespont,

As once (a feat on which ourselves we prided)

Leander, Mr. Ekenhead and I did. (Byron, The Major Works 459)

Byron obviously, because of his illness, felt constantly judged by the society and his great skill in boxing and swimming made him feel equal. When he was accepted by his

7 contemporaries, he was partially able to accept his malformation and even joke about it.

Eisler writes that Byron was, in his youth, able to find one friend with similar disability in terms of walking, about whom he jokingly announced, as they set off: ―Come and see the twa laddies with the twa clubfeet going up the Broad street.‖ (Moore, Letters and Journals of

Lord Byron I 10 qtd in Eisler 25) These are the first hints of Byron realizing, what a weapon words can be for protection and offense both. In this young age, he used it against his elders or critics and later in his life to ridicule his enemies. Brilliant example of him using words against those who displeased him is the first poem ever attributed to him, which he wrote in 1799 at age of ten about his great-aunt:

At Nottingham County there lives at Swine Green

As curst an old lady as ever was seen;

And when she does die, which I hope will be soon

She firmly believes she will go to the moon.

(Byron, Detached Thoughts 79 qtd in Eisler 38)

But his disease, even though the limp became less and less noticeable, further remained to be a curse throughout his adulthood and it did not pass away when he grew up. Because of his lack of confidence in himself, he still believed that society judges him not for his achievements, but for his lameness. He clung to the image of a cripple. Most interestingly, Byron, however he was identifying himself with other tragic and ―cursed‖ heroes, he omitted the one that would suggest the most parallels: Oedipus. Byron also had a very complicated relationship with his mother and never really met his father, but the most curious coincidence is the following one: When Oedipus‘ father Laius learns about the prophecy saying that his son is supposed to kill him; he nails the infants‘ feet together with an iron. The peasants who find him abandoned in the mountains, will name the lame

8 child Oedipus, meaning ―swollen foot.‖ (Eisler 234) Once, in 1812, after the publishing of

Childe Harold, while Byron had risen to great fame for the first time, not long after death by consumption of his friend and lover, John Edleston, during a reception, recalled by

Byron‘ friend and supporter, poet Samuel Rogers, happened an incident, which underlines

Byron‘s image of him in the eyes of the world: One of the young link boys addressed Lord

Byron by a name and on Rogers‘ question how the lad had known Lord Byron, he replied bitterly (and rather hysterically): ―Know me! All the world knows me! I am deformed!‖

(Moore, Letters and Journals of Lord Byron I 357n qtd in Eisler 333) This is clear evidence that

Byron was so fixed on the idea that he is nothing but a deformity that nothing could change his mind. At the age of 24 he had already achieved great and numerous successes in the field of love with countless women and several men, his swimming over Hellespont and not only the partial success of English Bards and Scotch reviewers, but also the huge triumph of first cantos of Childe Harold’s Pilgrimage, to which is connected a famous quote of Byron: ―I woke myself one morning and found myself famous.‖ (Moore, Letters and

Journals of Lord Byron I 258 qtd in Eisler 330) But even all this was not powerful enough to convince him that it were actually his own skills and not his deformity, which made him amazing in the eyes of the world. There were multiple proofs which convinced Byron of the fixed image he had about himself. Very painful for young Byron was the fact that it played a certain role in his first love disappointment. The incident in question has happened during his visit to Newstead, several years after the death of his grand-uncle, in

1803, when he met again Mary Ann Chaworth. He met her during his first visit to

Newstead and Annesley as well, but this time the visit left much larger effect upon him. He immediately fell in love with the ―Morning star of Annesley‖, which was unfortunately besotted with a local squire, at that time twenty-six year old Jack Musters, and, at the end, she broke his heart when, teased by her maid and unaware that Byron can hear her, she supposedly replied: ―What! Do you think that I should care anything for that lame boy?‖

9

(Moore, Letters and Journals of Lord Byron I 48 qtd in Eisler 68) No wonder that experiences such as this one discouraged young and sensitive, fat limping boy and laid a solid foundation for his future doubts.

This uncertainty of Byron about himself is very well documented throughout his entire life. Many of his poems were published anonymously, because he was afraid of the public and their acceptance, and did not want, in case they would be accepted badly, to be connected to them. This uncertainty is understandable while he was publishing Hours of

Idleness, in 1807 at the age of nineteen, especially because of the case of Fugitive pieces, which he later recalled and disposed of, on the advice of Reverend Thomas Beecher, who was afraid of the shocking contents of the collection, especially the poem To Mary, written to

Mary Ann Chaworth. The revised and improved version of this collection, Poems on various occasions, was also published anonymously. But this also happened in the case of English

Bards, Scotch reviewers, Waltz, : A Venetian Story, sequel to , Lara, and others.

Publishing of cantos I and II of Don Juan anonymously is the exception, because this time it is not Byron who wanted to publish the poems this way, but his publisher Murray, who did not want to publish it at all due to Byron‘s savage attack on poet laureate Robert Southey

(whom Byron utterly despised his entire life) and also due to his charge on even more influential figure, Robert Steward, the Lord Castlereagh, Foreign Secretary, whom he calls an ―intellectual eunuch‖. It was not Byron‘s idea to omit his name, and still, he had to leave out several of the boldest insults before Murray agreed to publish the work, leaving out both his and Byron‘s name.

2.2 Pope and his influence

While talking about Byron‘s bold criticism, especially of criticism aimed at the high official of the state administration, it is necessary to mention one figure that was his role model and favourite: Poet Alexander Pope. Pope was born one hundred years before

10

Byron would be born and was also mostly famous for his critique of a social system. There was a difference between them: While Alexander Pope, son of a merchant, instinctively inclined to the Whig party, Byron, as he himself declared in letter to John Hanson, tried to stay neutral as long as possible: ―I cannot say that my opinion is strongly in favour of either party. […] I shall stand aloof; speak what I think, but not often, nor too soon. I will preserve my independence, if possible, but if involved with a party, I will take care not to be the not to be the last or least in the Ranks.‖ (Byron, Byron’s Letters and Journals I 186-7 qtd in Eisler 169) By stating this, he wanted to emphasize that even if he was at some day forced to enter a political party, he would not have it that his voice would be silenced.

Anyway, further in his future, he would repeatedly join the Whig side, during his first speech in the House of Lords, and, subsequently in the Ode to the Framers of the Framer Bill or

The Vision of Judgment. But, Byron or Pope, Whig or neutral, they both condemned the contemporary state of events savagely and complained about absurdity of its contemporaries. Alexander Pope was enormously popular, especially because of his masterpiece, The Dunciad, in which he comments on the death of king George I and his successor, George II, but in a very distinctive manner. The Dunciad is a story about death of the ruler and search for new one, but they are not kings, but Dunces, hence the name of the whole story. It is almost unbelievable that in the first half of the eighteenth century,

Pope would not be afraid of persecution and dared to write verses about kings such as these:

[…]You by whose care, in vain decried and cursed,

Still Dunce the second reigns like Dunce the first;[…]

Dullness o‘er all possessed her ancient right,

Daughter of Chaos and eternal Night:

Fate in their dotace this fair idiot gave,

11

Gross as her sire, and as her mother grave,

Laborious, heavy, busy, bold and blind,

She ruled, in native anarchy, the mind. (Pope 129)

This poem was so daring that it would cause disturbances even if published during

18th century, and it was published eighty years earlier in a Britain not used to this kind of a critic. Byron‘s The Vision of Judgment was in the time of its publishing a worthy successor both in the eyes of critics and the public. Pope‘s ruthless critique of a system, where shameless idiots grow powerful, was, when published at 1728, his return to the sun, because he had not written any great poetry since 1712, when he published The Rape of the Lock. Year earlier he had written Essay on Criticism – Pope‘s equivalent to Byron‘s

English Bards, Scottish reviewers, but in slightly less offensive way than Byron did almost ninety years later. Pope gently advises critics to guide and sharpen the skills of poets.

The generous critic fanned the poet‘s fire,

And taught the world with reason to admire.

Then criticism the Muse‘s handmaid proved,

To dress her charms, and make her more beloved.

(Pope 3)

And after this advice, he skilfully glides to condemnation of bad critics, of those, who only search for mistakes, but do not see the poem as a whole, don‘t understand the criticism or change their mind as they see fit. But he does not limit his resentment to the critics only. He openly admits that England at his time does have bad poets and even slides to the physical level, while describing shameless bards, who ‗Strain out the last dull droppings of their sense, And rhyme with all the rage of impotence.‘ (Pope 16) But the

12 thing, that made Pope Byron‘s hero since his childhood was probably neither the critique of a social system, nor his wit. Pope was, same as Byron, physically challenged. He suffered from a Pott‘s disease, a form of tuberculosis, which deformed his body and left him with a hunched back. And the role model for a child, who was from his youth painfully aware of his abnormality, came to life.

2.3 Appearance

Another of Byron‘s worries was how the people will judge and criticize him on a base of his appearance. He always led a high life – during his childhood and youth, before he started to earn money from Newstead and for his poetry, he would live a life of constant debt. His mother would beggar herself just to see him like a lord – to live according to his social status. (Eisler 86) And Byron would happily oblige to this. Since the death of his grand-uncle he never seen, in the age of 9, and him therefore becoming sixth

Lord Byron, he started preparing for the role he should play for the rest of his life, for nobility, peerage and all the perks of his noble ancestry. The real irony lies in the fact that his mother, Catherine Byron, when informed of the death of The Wicked Lord, had to save money for several months to be even able to afford to travel to Newstead, to the manor now nine-year-old lord inherited. (Eisler 31) Byron‘s constant financial issues were connected to his uniqueness, feeling, which he acquired when he became 6th Lord Byron.

He would not have people thinking that he, noble lord, does not have any money. He was financially so irresponsible that he did not even care to know how much money he had.

Byron thrived on confusion in his financial affairs and incompetence on the part of those who were supposed to manage them. [Hanson,Kinnaird] Uncertainty absolved him of responsibility, giving him permission to borrow and to spend in ignorance. (Eisler 287)

13

As it was mentioned above, Byron had at all occasions a strong desire to appear attractive, both by clothing and physically. When he writes about visiting Albany in

1809, and, for example visiting the Ali Pacha, he states in his letter to his mother: He [Ali

Pacha] said that he was certain that I was a man of birth because I had small ears, curling hair & little white hand, and expressed himself pleased with my appearance & garb. (Byron,

Byron’s Letters and Journals I 227-8 qtd in Eisler 221) The most famous painting of Byron, made by Thomas Phillips, portrays him in an Albanian ‗magnifique‘ dress, which, as he writes his mother, cost 50 guineas here [Albania] and have so much gold that they would have cost four times more in England. (Eisler 223) But sometimes, he was not able to stay realistic and started wasting money on trashy unnecessary trinkets. While at Italy, just before leaving for Greece, he bought scarlet uniforms glittering with gold buttons, frogs, epaulettes and sashes and he even designed individual helmets for him, his servant and

Edward John Trelawney: for Pietro, green cloth Uhlan-style shako that sat atop a base of brass and black leather, with the goddess Athena in high relief on the front; for himself and

Trelawny, helmets worthy of Homeric heroes, with plumes waving above the Byron crest and motto ‗Crede Byron‘. (Eisler 724) To his disappointment, Trelawny found the uniforms and helmets so ridiculous that he refused to even try his on. Another of Byron‘s appearance-related hobbies was his collection of beautiful blade weapons and firearms, pistols and rifles, which he kept collecting during his travels, from early ones to Albany and

Greece, while travelling through post-Napoleonic Europe to Geneva, visiting the plain of

Waterloo (which he, in comparison to Marathon & Troy finds less interesting, as he writes to Hobhouse) until his death in Greece. (Byron to John Cam Hobhouse 16 May 1816 qtd in MacCarthy 287) He probably inherited this hobby from his great-uncle during his first visit to Newstead. To see the magnificent collection of weapons and firearms of the

―Wicked Lord‖ [Byron‘s great-uncle, fifth Lord Byron] could not have done anything else but amaze the ten-year-old boy and throughout all his adult life Byron carried a small,

14 loaded gun in his waist coat pocket, and the weapons remained within reach at night.

(Eisler 36)

The second appearance – related obsession Byron had, was his weight, which was an enemy to Byron since his childhood, and with which he fought with excessive dieting and throughout his life in England, Italy and in Greece. The first mention of his course of treatment is while he lived at Burgage Manor at Southwell. Byron described some parts of the regime in his letter to John Hanson: ―I wear seven waistcoats & a great coat, run and lay at Cricket in this Dress, till quite exhausted by excessive perspiration, use the hot Bath daily.‖ (Byron to John Hanson, 2 April 1807 qtd in MacCarthy 53) ‗The Bath‘ Byron mentions was a sweat-inducing warm bath, as directed by his local doctor, Benjamin

Hutchinson, probably because Byron‘s weight was putting too much strain on his leg.

From this first one until his death, when Byron dieted, it was similarly extreme as this one.

But Eisler suggests other alternative: Curiously, Byron made no mention about neither the physician or about the regimen. His silence about the physician‘s role together with certain features of the program, point in another direction: Elimination of alcohol, the quantity of water, probably joined with purgatives and the hip baths, were also prescribed treatments for venereal disease. (Eisler 121)

The need of excessive dieting is also probably connected to his mother. Catherine

Gordon of Gight was always overweight, and at the age of twenty, in 1785, when she met and subsequently married Jack Byron, her corpulence made her look older and gave her the rolling gait that some were unkind enough to describe as a waddle. (Eisler 10) Eventually, shortly after Byron‘s return from Greece, she died, in age of 46, and her obesity was one of the major factors that played a role in her death. And because of lengthy and very well documented mutual arguments, this could be another try to disaffiliate himself as much as possible from his mother, the woman, which, when irritated at him in his young years, called him a ‗damn lame‘d brat‘, and which Byron himself in his periods of rage dubbed to

15

‗domestic Tyrant Mrs. Byron‘, ‗this female Tisiphone‘ or ‗Mrs. Byron furiosa‘. (Byron to

Augusta Byron, 26 December 1805 and 10 August 1805, and Byron to John Pigot, 9

August 1806 qtd in MacCarthy 53) When on his diets Byron became straight vegetarian, or, even ascetic, which was perfectly illustrated during the dinner party on November 11, 1811, hosted by his friend and poet Samuel Rogers, during which to the question, what he would like to eat and drink, Byron replied: ―Nothing but hard biscuits and soda-water.‖ (Rogers,

Table Talk qtd in MacCarthy 151) On the other hand he had periods when he would indulge himself, eat and drink alcohol in large quantities and grow terribly fat, as described by Newton Hanson during the Hansons‘ visit to Venice in November 1818: ―Lord Byron could not have been more than thirty,‖ he recalled, ―but he looked forty. His face would become pale, bloated and sallow. He had grown very fat, his shoulders broad and round, and the knuckles of his hands were lost in fat. He chewed his nails constantly (this was

Byron‘ childhood habit) and to compensate for a prematurely receding hairline, he had let his hair grown long, adding to the impression of neglect.‖ (N.Hanson, Prothero IV 266-9 qtd in Eisler 602) It is indeed hard to believe that the last two citations are describing the same person.

It needs to be emphasized that even though Byron was one of the most rebellious characters of his era in certain aspects of his behaviour, he was incredibly vulnerable and always cared about the public image of his. In 1816, shortly after his arrival into Italy, while he dwelled in Milan, he was indirectly involved in an incident of his acquaintance – John

Polidori, who was arrested and Byron bailed him out. After this incident, he was so worried the news of doctor‘s imprisonment would arrive in Britain and he, too, would be implicated, that he wrote detailed description of the case to both Murray and Augusta. His fears – unheroic and unguarded – exposed another painful truth. Byron always loved

England. What better proof of his love to England could exist than the verses, he wrote in

Beppo in those three stanzas, 47-49.

16

―England! With all thy faults I love thee still,‖

I said at Calais, and have not forgot it;

I like to speak and lucubrate my fill;

I like the government (but that is not it);

I like the freedom of the press and quill;

I like the Habeas Corpus (when we‘ve got it);

I like a parliamentary debate,

Particularly when ‗tis not too late. (sic)

(Byron, The Works of Lord Byron 619)

For Byron, England was the only court of judgment that counted; English opinion of him would always remain the real measure of his worth. (Eisler 544) This is also supported by his behaviour towards his English lovers when he terminates the relationships – at least until they would anger him. While he tries to leave Caroline Lamb, he is writing her and lifting her spirits, even though he wishes never to speak to her again.

Relation of Caroline Lamb, Lady Melbourne, when enraged that Byron continues this behaviour and their relationship, he mends the fences with her and begs her off. But, when

Lady Melbourne deteriorates and informs Byron about her condition, he creates a plan involving his long-life friend John Cam Hobhouse and merely one day after Lady

Melbourne dies, Hobhouse arrives to her house to confiscate all her correspondence with

Byron. (ibid. 592) Nothing could be permitted to leak out to the public. To Annabella

Milbanke, his wife, shortly after they both signed their separation agreement, he had written one of his most beautiful poems, Fare thee Well!, a poem full of love, in which he had expressed more affection and love to his daughter than he had shown since the day she was born, and promised Annabella that he would never hurt her in any way.

17

Fare thee well! And if for ever-

Still for ever, fare thee well-

Even though unforgiving, never

‗Gainst thee shall my heart rebel.

(Byron, The Works of Lord Byron 86)

Unfortunately, nothing could be more untrue. As it was mentioned before, his calm lasted only some time and when the rage came, Byron wrote another poem, A Sketch from

Private Life, written about Mary Anne Clermont, Annabella‘s ex-governess that he wrongly suspected of causing the entire separation. The poem itself was an outcome of rage and therefore written in a very sharp tone. Byron, by demonization of Annabella‘s ex- governess, tried to purify his wife, saying, that only a saint could have escaped contamination by her:

Foil‘d by perversion by that youthful mind,

Which Flattery fooled not – Baseness could not blind,

Deceit infect not – near Contagion soil

Indulgence weaken-nor Example spoil.

(---.ibid. 86)

Byron savagely attacked a woman and a servant in print with this poem, breaking a code and perpetrating a horrible thing unfit neither for a nobleman nor for a gentleman.

(Eisler 503) And while the previous poem, Fare thee well! had swayed the public opinion positively towards him, lines used in A Sketch from Private Life like ―Born in a garret, in kitchen bred‖ or ―raised from toilette to the table‖ would, by breaking that code of honour,

18 in that moment aid to destroy his battered reputation. And the insult and shame would be only the first one of pains, caused by Byron to his newly-separated wife, notwithstanding the ones he already caused during their short marriage, which lasted shortly over a year.

19

3 Judgment in Byron’s poetry

Judgment and criticism, or the need of it, are present in varied forms in many of

Byron‘s poems, satirical or critical. Whether he uses it in serious manner, as in The ode to

Framers of the Frame Bill, where he again attacks Lord Elgin, responsible for removing so- called Elgin marbles from the Parthenon, whom he already sharply criticised in The curse of

Minerva, or in a very popular absurd satire The Vision to Judgment, written as a mocking response to his long-life arch enemy Robert Southey. And Byron was very aware of how to use criticism since his youth, as it was shown in the first chapter, in the poem concerning his great-aunt. In the following part of the chapter, the events prior to the publishing of

The Vision of Judgment are described, and it is necessary to emphasize that even though the

Preface to Don Juan is not being analysed at the moment, it is nevertheless visibly full of witty, intelligent judgment and satire, so typical for Byron‘s ‗grey goose weapon‘ [quill]

(Pope 134)

3.1 Circumstances of the birth of The Vision of Judgment

The poem The Vision of Judgment, masterpiece of Byron‘s criticism and funny satire, was originally published as a defence or a counterattack. The events antecedent to its creation were complicated: Mutual lifelong hatred between Robert Southey, Poet Laureate, and

Lord Byron gradually escalated. On one hand there were Southey‘s alleged comments upon

Shelley and Byron in Geneva forming ‗League of Incest‘ and practiced our precepts and

&c. (Byron, Byron’s Letters and Journals VI 76 qtd in Eisler 608) and on the other hand

Byron‘s revenge by mocking dedication in the Preface to Don Juan, where Byron takes vengeance with criticizing Southey‘ political affiliations and finishes the insult with nicknaming him ‗dry Bob‘, the slang term for sexual act without ejaculation. Its final outcome was several letters published in the Courier, Southey‘s reputation suffering heavy

20 hit and Lord Byron being victorious, but also shamed by closely cooperating on publishing with Hunt, a radical. Murray refused to publish The Vision of Judgment altogether and this would heavily damage their friendship and cooperation.

This poetical duel began with Southey publishing his gigantic, pompous poem of twelve parts, glorifying the dead king, George III, son of George the II and grandson of

George I, both mentioned in Pope‘s Dunciad as ‗Dunce the First‘ and ‗Dunce the Second‘

(Pope 129). The Preface to Southey‘s A Vision of Judgment was a place where he had published his reprobation of the ‗Satanic School‘, meaning the circle of poets around Lord Byron,

Percy Shelley and , declared, that with ‗those monstrous of horrors and mockery, lewdness and impiety, with which English poetry has, in our days, first been polluted.‘ (Southey, The Poetic Works of Robert Southey, Collected by Himself X 203-6, qtd by

Wolfson, The Vision of Judgment and the vision of ‘author’ in Cambridge Companion to Byron

172). Southey continued this attack with sending a letter to the Courier on January 5th, 1822, in which he declared the haughty challenge: ―When he attacks me again let it be in rhyme.

For one who has so little command of himself, it will be a great advantage that his temper should be obliged to keep tune.‖ Byron gladly accepted this challenge of Southey and even though the poem was published without a preface (which was Murray‘s mistake, because he did not send the entire poem to Hunt, he kept the preface and it did not appear until the

2nd edition in 1823) the poem would cause widespread disarray. (Byron, Cambridge

Companion to Byron 174). In fact, as requested by Southey, Byron did indeed respond in rhyme, as he did not forget to highlight in The Vision of Judgment. In 91st stanza Byron comments on the style, in which Southey had written A Vision of Judgment:

[The Bard - Southey]Began to cough, and hawk, and hem, and pitch

His voice into that awful note of woe

To all unhappy hearers within reach

21

Of poets when the tide of rhyme‘s in flow;

But stuck with his first hexameter,

Not one of all whose gouty feet would stir.

(Byron, Selected Poems 97)

This was undoubtedly another of Byron‘s little wins. He was asked to respond ‗in rhyme‘, and so he did, in the perfectly rhyming manner of his, in ottava rima, Italian rhyming form, usually in iambic pentameters. But it would not have been Byron, if he had not stress the fact that the poetry of his adversary was not actually in rhyme. Southey‘s

Vision is written in dactylic hexameter, a six foot poetic line comprised of one stressed then two unstressed syllables – the meter of the great epics of Homer and Virgil. The final three word line 720 of The Vision of Judgment [the last line in the foregoing citation] should be read as a dactyl, which parodies the awkwardness of Southey‘s verse. (---.Byron’s poetry and prose

710) This transparent attempt to at least mimic the ideal style, the style of writing used by

Homer and Virgil, was penetrated and subsequently stultified by Byron‘s following verses:

―But ere the spavin‘d dactyls could be spurr‘d

Into recitative, in great dismay‖

(---, Selected poems 97)

In Byron‘s opinion, all that Southey did with the dactylic hexameter, rhythm of great poets, was that he did cripple, ‗spavin‘d‘ [sic] it, to the amusement of In the end,

Southey‘s provocation was another feather that added to his humiliation. On Southey‘s side, there is one more tiny detail concerning him and writing, which Byron happily used:

While describing Sathan, Southey named him ‗multifaced.‘ This was just a too big an opportunity for Byron not to take it. And, as confirmed in Wolfson‘s study, he had quickly

―assigned the Poet to the Devil‘s party: ‗multo-scribbling Southey‘ is a ‗pen of all work‘.‖ (--

22

-.Cambridge Companion to Byron 179) And the poor Poet Laureate, originally praising the angels, hence the Tories, was now not better than any of the devils, accompanying Sathan.

One of the most amusing parts of the poem is the end, when Southey, eager to get any attention, starts to offer his services to everyone: To Sathan, he offers to write Sathan‘s

Life, ‗in two octavo volumes, nicely bound‘ – and also says: ‗there is no ground for fear, for

I can choose my own reviewers.‘ This is a heavy attack on Southey. Yes, since Southey is writing in the matter of the period, plus pro-governmental poems, nothing shocking, complicated or ambiguous, it is more than certain that his reviews will be generally positive, but to accuse him of choosing his own critics, that is a very serious offence. And then, he turns to Michael and tells him that he will make him ‗shine like your own trumpet.‘ This one word ‗multifaced‘ would in terms of his reputation cost him more than he could ever imagine.

The first page of the preface is already full of intelligent satire and subtly hidden critique. The author, Quevedo, is a Spanish poet from seventeenth century who aimed his criticism at the Spanish court, Redivivus is Latin for reborn, who shows from the very beginning the desire to also comment on the events on the royal throne. [Death of George

III, described in Southey‘s A Vision of Judgment] The subtitle, ‗Suggested by the composition so entitled by the author of Wat Tyler‘ is a mockery in various different ways. The ‗Wat

Tyler‘ was a painful wound in Southey‘s history that anyone could freely use to mock him after he turned his coat and joined conservative Tories. It is a poem Southey had written in

1794 when he seriously believed in Whig ideals, radical and celebrating the Peasant revolt, which occurred in 1381. In the first paragraph of the actual preface, Byron continues to humiliate Southey even more, he attacks him straightaway: ―If Mr. Southey had not rushed in where had no business, [reference to Pope‘s Essay on criticism, where Pope acknowledges the presence of bad poems and states ‗That fools rush in where angels fear to tread‘, the line, that is actually inscribed above the Preface of The Vision of Judgment ] […] the following

23 poem would never have been written. It is not impossible that it may be as good as his own, seeing, that it cannot, by any species of stupidity, natural or acquired, be worse.‖

(Byron, The Works of Lord Byron 152) This is a very malicious, but also perfectly understandable expression of dominance. Byron had been previously mocked in public, and worse, in print, when Southey rashly asked him to attack on a poetical level, and Byron never hesitated to remind him that this was not originally Byron‘s doing, that Southey had provoked him into response. Even though Byron was enraged, he was much less rash than then Southey when he had written the poem and preface and here we can see the evidence of his reluctance, described in the first chapter in detail.

He wrote that ‗it is not impossible‘ and that the poem ‘may be‘ better. He was not sure, even though he wanted this one to be better than the original, and was undoubtedly pleased when he had heard the positive replies from his fellow poets, but he protected and doubted himself and the poem and did not boast that it was the better Vision. He merely stated that the poem cannot be worse than Southey‘s. This may sound proud, but it is imperative that the reader remembers the circumstances. Byron was a 34 year old poet, who has been poetically and satirically active since he was ten years old. His work was more famous, more published and more read than Southey‘s, plus, large amount of lengthy poems with diverse topics gave him the opportunity to improve his skills. Robert Southey is a Poet Laureate, but it was a post given to a poet by the government to write pro- governmental poems. It did not say anything about the qualities of the poet, just the fact, that he has the same opinion as the ruling party. In addition, Southey acquired the position only after famous poet, , turned it down, and held the position until his death, even though for the last four years of his life, he suffered from mental and physical illness and was incapable of writing. Robert Southey was not the only Poet Laureate that Byron criticised and ridiculed. Already in English Bards, Scotch Reviewers, he talks about Southey‘s predecessor, Henry James Pye:

24

What then? The self-same blunder Pope has got,

And careless Dryden – ―Ay, but Pope has not:‖-

Indeed!-t‘ is granted, faith! – but what care I?

Better to err with Pope, than shine with Pye.

(Byron, The Works of Lord Byron 113)

That is the general opinion that Byron apparently had about Poet Laureates. Better to be wrong with a great poet, than to shine with them. But this slightly clumsy joke grew and appeared in The Vision of Judgment, where Byron is able to ridicule two Poet Laureates within 16 lines, two stanzas. When ‗the bard‘ [Southey] is able to stand up and wishes to read from his work, Archangel Michael stops him with cry of fear: ―For God‘s sake, stop, my Friend! ‗t were best – Non Di, non homines – you know the rest!‖ (---.Selected Poems 97)

Non Di, non homines is a verse from Horace‘s Ars Poetica, ‗mediocribus esse poetis non homines, non di, non concessere columnae.‘, into English translated by T.S. Kline as ‗but mediocrity in poets, no man, god or bookseller will accept.‘ Byron knew classical poetry and was, obviously, able to incorporate its wisdom in his poetry with wit and joy. On the account of Southey‘s mediocre poetry, at this moment the silent monarch rises and proclaims: ―What! What! Pye come again? No more-no more of that!‖ (Byron, Selected Poems

97) George III , the ‗monarch‘ ruled from 1760 to 1820 and knew Henry James Pye as his

Poet Laureate – the fact that he mistakes one mediocre poet for another is understandable and unquestionably amusing. Further in the Preface, Byron defends his and his friend‘s honour, while questioning the suitability of Southey‘s suggestion that the legislature should take notice of the ‗Satanic school‘ and that he [Southey] wishes to ‗thereby adding to his other laurels the ambition of those of an informer.‘ (Byron, Byron’s Poetry and Prose 686)The other laurels are undoubtedly the laurels of a Poet Laureate, so here we can see, how

25

‗greatly‘ Byron admired the honour and position of Laureates, while comparing them to the awards, acquired by spying and snitching.

The defence against Southey‘s criticism is again built on him being a turncoat and therefore consists of four serious questions on the topic of his former radical opinion: whether he had written Wat Tyler and if it was refused as a blasphemous publication, whether he [Southey] was publicly called a ‗rancorous renegado‘ and as a Poet Laureate, has he written his own lines on Martin the regicide. All of these were serious accusation, even though the events they are questioning happened more than 20 years ago, but Byron finishes this strike with a conclusion written in incredibly humorous way, in a sentence, dripping with poignancy: ‗And, 5thly, Putting the four preceeding items together, with what conscience dare he call the attention of the laws to the publication of others, be they what they may?‘[sic] (Byron, Byron’s Poetry and prose 687) It is not a very good example of Byron caustic critic, but there is much more written to the account of Robert Southey further in the poem, critically and mockingly, and, actually from Southey‘s point of view, there were no words he could have said on his defence, because by doing that, he would admit his defeat. The last part of Byron‘s comments in the preface is about the angels present during the judgment. As confirmed in Wolfson‘s critique, Southey has presented – quite arrogantly

- the angels and Sathan in black and white, on one side good Tories, on the other one evil

Whigs. Byron was apparently so annoyed by this unrealistic and audacious depiction of angels, that he wanted to create his angels more real, human-like, in short more believable.

In the Preface he comments on this topic: ―I can only say that I know as much about them,

[supernatural personages] and (as an honest man) I have a better right to talk about them than Robert Southey. I also treated them more tolerantly.‖(---.ibid. 687) Byron has created

Satan and Michael with the angels like he would describe the ideal relationship in parliament – when Angels represent the Tories and devils stand for the Whigs, they are no

26 implacable enemies, but more like two sides of one coin, they have mutual respect for each other and the fact that they were all once angels, comrades, is present during their civil talk.

3.2 Analysis of The Vision of judgement

The Vision of Judgment begins with a satiric commentary on the current state of political events. Saint Peter, the keeper of the keys to the Gate of Heaven, sits uselessly with ‗rusty keys and a dull lock‘ (Byron, Selected poetry 72), because the devils had ‗taken a longer, stronger pull since the Gallic era‘. This is a reference to the French Revolution in

1788, which is also mentioned further in the poem. The devils, the revolutionaries and the old regime, now in ruins, are represented by the angels, which have nothing to do, because there are no more good people (understand – Tories, or, non-revolutionaries) on earth, which could come to Heaven. Guardian angels, seraphs, have retired and the only person still working is the recording angel. The angel is representing historian, which has ‗stripp‘d off both of his wings in quills, and yet was in arrear of human ills.‘(sic.) (ibid. 73) The

Wingless recording angel creates an ambiguous situation. On one hand, there is the angel, the historian, which is unable to keep the record of the terrible crimes of humans, committed during the revolution, which is a cruel fact and causes the person to think about the state of the current world and almost to doubt the just cause of the revolution. But, with Byron-like satire, the angel, who has ‗stripp‘d his wings in quills‘, (sic) is a comic figure, image of a chicken with its feathers plucked, and he is like that because the ill deeds of human race, the devils, revolutionaries. (This is meant ironically, is it not that Byron would –same as Southey- believe that the Whigs are the root of all evil) Even with help of

‗six angels and twelve clerks‘, they had no rest, for there was still a lot of pain in the world.

But even though the angels are the portrayal of the Tories, they are disgusted when they hear about the massacre in Waterloo and defeat of the devilish revolutionaries, they ‗threw their pens down in divine disgust - the page so besmear‘d with blood and dust.‘ [sic]

27

During the three days of battle of Waterloo, on the side of the Seventh Coalition, fell or disappeared 25 000 people, with Napoleon‘s losses being twice as much. Even though the

Tories did wish to defeat Napoleon and restore the old order, they are disgusted by the cruelty that human race is capable of:

―Even the very devil on this occasion his work abhorr‘d,

So surfeited with the infernal revel:

Though he himself had sharpen‘d every sword,

it almost quench‘d his innate thirst of evil.‘ (ibid. 74)

The poem returns from the Gate of Heaven into the real world by commenting on the death and burial of George the Third, in a disapproving way. Weak king, who ‗shielded the tyrants‘ (Byron, Selected Poems 74) for nine last years of his reign, was a no hero for

Byron and definitely did not deserve a pompous funeral. Byron writes, as to support his earlier words of a weak king, that the funeral was a ‗sepulchral melodrame‘(---.ibid. 75), just a farce for the mass of people and that no one cared for the dead king, but for his attractive funeral. The critic continues, saying they should have mixed his body with the dust and not

‗unnaturally‘ balsam the body, for it only prolongs the decay and that ‗It seem‘d the mockery of hell to fold, The rottenness of eighty years in gold.‘ (---.ibid. 75) Byron‘s Whig side was rebelling against the senselessness of the opulent, giant burial, when the money spent on other, more perspective causes, especially in a country, which was in a state of war for more than a decade and was suffering with poverty (hence the reference of mockery to hell). Further on, in the poem, there is a mix of satire, which is touching both the departed king and Southey‘s poem. There is a ‗wondrous noise he had not heard of late – A rushing sound of wind, and stream and flame; In short, a roar of things extremely great‘ (ibid. 76)

This is a parallel to the ‗sound like rushing of winds‘ in A Vision of Judgment, but with a completely different outcome, since this is the time when open mockery begins. While in A

28

Vision of Judgment, it is a breath-taking scene of George the Third‘s arrival, Byron has portrayed it as a farce. No angel is expecting king‘s arrival and Saint Peter‘s reaction when cherub brings the news and wakes him up, is similar to a reaction of any human, awoken at the wrong time: ―Well, what‘s the matter? Is Lucifer come back with all this clatter?‖ He does not even expect any more people coming in the Heaven and is properly confused when the news arrives. ―And who is George the Third? What George? What Third?‖(ibid

77). This is just more humiliation on the account of poor monarch. Whereas in England, he is the honourable ruler, in Heaven, where he as the head of the Church of England would be expected to have a position of power alongside the other kings, he is treated like a commoner and even questioned whether he has his head on his shoulder, because the last one was headless and ‗caused a tussle‘. The lightness, with which Byron this way is capable in mere two stanzas to ridicule the both the absurd level of respect, given to the king during his life and at the same time the beheading of last French King, Louis XVI is symptomatic for his satire, as it was aforementioned in the section regarding the two Poet

Laureates. When returned to the story, Saint Peter is complaining at such a length that angel has to tell him not to pout and calm the indignant saint:

―Peter! do not pout:

The king who comes has head and all entire,

And never knew much what it was all about –

He did as doth the puppet- by its wire[sic]‖

(Byron, Selected Poems 78)

Apart from more of Byron‘s reminders of dead king‘s weakness and incompetence, in these last stanzas, Byron is also trying to further humanize the saints. The saint has to be said by a cherub to calm down and to stop pouting, like he is a child, and it is definitely not

29 the type of behaviour one would expect from a saint. And Saint Peter‘s behaviour grows more and more human, erratic and not saint-like during the poem. While in the beginning he is everything but an authoritative gatekeeper, in stanzas 49 and 50, approximately in the middle of the poem, he refuses to let the king George in heaven once again, refuses just to stand, watch and listen to the commands of others, as he was already once told by the messenger cherub, ―My [cherub‗s] business and your own is not to enquire into such matter, but to mind our cue – Which is to act as we are bid to do‖ (Byron, Selected Poems 78) and a presence of both Sathan and Archangel Michael is not a handicap for him to fully and fiercely express his point of view:

―You may the prisoner withdraw:

Ere heaven shall ope her portals to this Guelph,

While I am guard, may I be damn‘d myself!―

―Sooner will I with Cerberus exchange

My office (and his is no sinecure)

Than see this royal Bedlam bigot range

The azure fields of heaven, of that be sure!‖

(Byron, Selected Poems 85-6)

Apart from the explication of disobedience to his superiors, he is committing blasphemy by saying that he would rather be damned than to let the king into heaven, while by calling the monarch Guelph, he is reminding of his origin, House Hanover being originally German nobility. In addition, he is so convinced of his truth, that he is willing to exchange his office with a three-headed dog, guarding an entrance to the classical underground, while emphasizing, that ‗his [Cerberus‘] office is no sinecure‘, sinecure being a term from Latin used to describe a position for one is paid, but does little or none work.

30

By reminding the reader about what sinecure his office actually is, by stressing it by using italics, he is talking about his needlessness – firstly, he is supposed to just to stand and obey, secondly, in this period, at the heavenly gate, there is almost no traffic at all and he has an unnecessary position– which can be understood as another attack on the wrong political system and division of duties, and thirdly, there is no need for him to be at the gate, while he has no power to decide who will enter and who will not, because everything is decided by the Sathan and Archangel Michael. Yes, considering the events from the

Bible, Saint Peter was the first apostle of Jesus, which makes him special and gives him a certain level of independence upon the heavenly administration, but his actions also cause chaos in commonly smoothly running operation, which puts him more on the evil side. He even grows more aggressive throughout the poem. From the gatekeeper with ‗rusty keys and dull lock‘(Byron, Selected poems 72) the Saint Peter, while remembering the incident with

Louis XVI, turns into a man who wishes to have had not keys, but a sword:

If I had my sword, as I had once

When I cut ears off, I had cut him down;

But having but my keys, and not my brand,

I only knock‘d his head from out his hand.

(---.ibid. 77)

He is referring to an incident described in the Bible, prior to his death, in Gardens of Gethsemane, Jesus was arrested by guards and Saint Peter took his sword and hit one of the guards in the head, luckily he just cut off his ear. This is another of Byron‘s hidden satires. Right after the incident, Jesus commands Peter to stop and put away his sword and heals him. The incident is regarded as regrettable and Jesus has to make up for his apostle‘s action, but in Byron‘s Vision, Peter is unrepentant and more proud for what he did, and

31 even wishes to be armed again. His behaviour culminates, and in the end, enraged by

Southey‘s declamation of his terrible Vision, he knocks him down to the lake from the celestial gate, as described in 104th stanza:

―Saint Peter, who has hitherto been known

For an impetuous saint, upraised his keys,

And at the fifth line knock‘d the Poet down;

Who fell like Phaeton, but more at ease,

Into his lake […]‖ (---.ibid. 101)

Not only Saint Peter is completely different in The Vision of Judgment then in

Southey‘s version. The relationship between the forces of ‗good and evil‘, established by

Southey, is inapplicable. The first encounter of Michael and the Sathan indeed sounds as a conflict of two unfriendly individuals. When the ‗Spirit of a different aspect‘ arrives, he has such an ‗Eternal wrath on his immortal face,‘ that Saint Peter starts to tap nervously with his keys, while he is sweating with fear, the mighty cherubs cover and ‗tingle to the tip of every feather.‘ Even if the reader does not focus on the fact that the very idea of angels and saints covering and sweating with fear before the face of the devil was deeply blasphemous in 19th century England, this is visibly not a friendly encounter, even though they were on a neutral ground, in front of the gates. This idea of neutral ground at the gates of the city originates in near east cultures (Byron, Byron’s poetry and prose 697) and Byron probably learned about it during his travels to the east, claim is supported by another use of the near- eastern realia in the very next stanza, when the Archangel bows, ‗not like a modern beau, but with a graceful oriental bend‘ (---, Selected Poems 82), which is also an unacceptable idea to the morals of 19th century and Southey‘s Vision both, for the one and only Archangel to

32 bow to a being who ‗Carried a Hell within, to which all outer affliction‘ (Southey, A Vision of Judgment). But even the arrival of Archangel Michael is not calm, nor a humble one:

―Michael flew forth in glory and in good;

A goodly work of him from whom all glory

And good arise; the portal past – he stood;

Before him the young cherubs and saints hoary.‖ (---.ibid. 80)

Because of this very arrival of theirs, as two sworn enemies, it is very peculiar which way their relationship continues. As it was aforementioned, it was an unacceptable idea,

Archangel to bow to a devil, but Byron goes even farther and writes that:

Pressing one radiant arm just where below

The heart in food men is supposed to tend.

He turned as to an equal, not too low,

But kindly; Sathan [sic] has met his ancient friend […] (---.ibid. 82)

In the Bible, there is indeed written that prior to the Lucifer‘s rebellion, there were no devils and the angels lived together in peace, hence the line ‗his ancient friend‘. The

Lucifer‘s rebellion is described in the Bible in Revelations 12,7: ―Then war broke out in heaven. Michael and his angels fought against the dragon, and the dragon and his angels fought back. But he was not strong enough, and they lost their place in heaven. The great dragon was hurled down—that ancient serpent called the devil, or Satan, who leads the whole world astray. He was hurled to the earth, and his angels with him.‖ But Byron does not see it as a moral conflict, but as a conflict of good versus evil. Where Southey in his Vision shaped politics into moral problems and turned the problems into personal

33 issues, Byron does exactly the opposite. He shows how that disagreeing with the other side can be done peacefully and that the ancient friendship between Sathan and Archangel

Michael can exist even despite the Sathan‘s banishment. As Wolfson notes in The Vision of

Judgment and the visions of ‘author’, in parody of Southey‘s having the historical antagonists

George III and George Washington embrace in Heaven, Michael says to the Satan:

My good old friend, for such I deem you, though

Our different parties make us fight so shy,

I ne‘er mistake you for a personal foe;

Our difference is political, and I

Trust that, whatever my occur below

You know my great respect for you.

(Byron, Selected Poems 89)

And the challenging stance, with which the two have met at the beginning, is gone and all that remains is an aura of a mutual respect. In two stanzas, [stanza 64] he partially explains why – Sathan tells Michael that the matter is indifferent to him, that he actually does not care for the monarch and finally, that he did argue with him only for appearances‘ sake. Yes, it is disputable whether Sathan would argue for the king, if the matter would not have been indifferent to him and if he had not have ‗kings down below enough‘(---.ibid.

90), but because the gentleman-like manner and behaviour of both Sathan and Michael had shown from the beginning of the poem, it is highly unlikely. What was visible throughout the entire poem was that this is behaviour of two gentlemen, and therefore, once again, more human that anyone would have thought, when the two participants of the conversation are the major representative of forces of Southey‘s ‗good‘ and ‗evil.‘ By enabling them to grow, to feel other things but a constant supernatural hate, Byron offers

34 reader a completely different, more complicated and complex view upon the angels and their opponents then Southey‘s simple and allegorical imagery of glorious on one side and despicable army on the other side.

This entire conversation between Michael and Sathan is also a satire from another point of view. The monarch is silent, except for the outcry ‗Pye? Come again? No more – no more of that‘ (---.ibid. 97) and the reader might easily forget about him. He is not important, just a figure crouched out of the main focus, a position absolutely unfit for a king, all of this being a slap in a face to the dead king and subsequently degradation of all the kings. The very end of the poem is the very same thing, but escalated to a dangerous level. The king George was not in the centre of attention for most of the poem, which is quite peculiar, since it is his ‗Final Judgment‘ and at the end, the narrator mentions him in a matter suggesting he had almost forgotten about him:

All I saw farther, in the last confusion,

Was, that King George slipp‘d [sic] into heaven for one;

And when the tumult dwindled to a calm,

I left him practicing the hundredth psalm.

(---.ibid. 101)

The reference to the ‗hundredth psalm‘ is a joke about the absurdity of the entire situation, the hundredth psalm begins: ―Make a joyful noise unto the Lord‖ and includes the verse ‖Enter into his gates with thanksgiving and into his courts with praise.‖ (---,

Byron’s poetry and prose 714) King George slips into heaven like a thief, when the attention is turned to someone else, perhaps from a fear that he might not get in at all, and since he is already inside, (and Sathan did not have any objections or desires for him) the narrator with a hint of resignation lets the poor king to stay in the heaven, again, with no stress on his

35 noble birth or the position which he had, thus, in a wider meaning, question the position of a king himself and the authority he has over others and thus induce rebellious thoughts and behavior.

36

4 Conclusion

The first chapter of the thesis did explain to the reader coherently and with a lot of background information, which were the decisive factors in Lord Byron‘s decision making process, how much he was affected by the opinions of the people surrounding him upon his person and on various different topics of 19th century both. Further, it has shown the importance of his appearance and weight, the necessity to act and behave as a true English

Lord and his fears, whether they were imaginary or real. These fears and uncertainty of his has caused, inter alia, delays and problems during the publishing of his books and in his personal life, but the biggest influence throughout his life was his club foot, around which rotated his world. It was shown how Byron was able to portray his disability into monstrous scale and subsequently blame it for everything that happened to him, and that its strength was so great that he was not almost able to appreciate his qualities, earned by hard work.

On the other hand, the reader had the opportunity to see Byron from his darker side, because of his action after the separation of him and Annabella Milbanke, even though this cruelty of his would be better portrayed by the thesis describing his relationship and marriage to her. His role-model, Alexander Pope, was incorporated in his life and works and Byron, in many ways, was Pope‘s pupil and successor. Pope‘s and Byron‘s hatred to critics was portrayed in the chapter concerning Pope‘s Essay on Criticism and The Dunciad and on Byron‘s English Bards, Scotch Reviewers and mainly on his critical masterpiece The

Vision of Judgment. The reader had an opportunity to learn about the background of birth of this great poem, about which he would be otherwise unaware of, and to understand better the hidden or ambiguous wordplays used by Lord Byron. Comparison of The Vision of Judgment to Southey‘s work was substantial and clearly illustrated the vast difference between Byron and Southey.

37

The analysis of friendly relationship between Sathan and Michael, reminds the reader of a conflict of two political parties, and the examination of humanisation of Southey‘s supernatural saints and angels to make them more understandable. These were the goal centrepieces of the analytical part of second chapter, which, through the thorough analysis, is able to give a reader a wider, more digestible and understandable picture of The Vision of

Judgment.

38

5 Works cited

Primary sources:

Byron, George Gordon. The Major Works. Ed. by Jerome J. McGann. OUP. 2008.

Print.

Eisler, Benita. Byron, Child of Passion, Fool of Fame. New York: Vintage Books. 2000.

Print.

Secondary sources:

Bone, Drummond. Ed. The Cambridge Companion to Byron. CUP. 2005. Print.

Byron, George Gordon. Byron’s Poetry and Prose. Ed.by Alice Levine. New York: VW

Norton & Co. 2009. Print.

Byron, George Gordon. Selected Poems. Ed. by Jerome J. McGann. Oxford. 2009.

Print.

Byron, George Gordon. Selected Poetry. New York: Dover Publications, Inc. 1994.

Print.

Byron, George Gordon. The Works of Lord Byron. Ware: Wordsworth Editions Ltd.

1994. Print.

Horace, Ars Poetica. The Latin Library. http://www.thelatinlibrary.com/horace/ars poet.shtml. Web. April 23, 2013

Horace, Ars Poetica. Translated by A.S.Kline. Poetry in Translation. http://www.poetryintranslation.com/PITBR/Latin/HoraceArsPoetica.htm. Web. April

23, 2013

MacCarthy, Fiona. Byron, Life and Legend. London: Faber and Faber. 2004. Print.

Pope, Alexander. Selected Poetry. Ed. by Pat Rogers. OUP.1998. Print.

39

Southey, Robert. A Vision of Judgment. Spenserians. http://spenserians.cath.vt.edu/TextRecord.php?action=GET&textsid=36388. Web. April

23, 2013

The Bible, New International Version. BibleGateway.com. http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Revelation+12%3A7-9&version=NIV.

Web. April 23, 2013

40

Resumé

Lord George Byron je jak jedním z hlavních představitelů romantismu, tak Britské literatury vůbec. Je považován jak za hrdinu, tak za rebela a těžko zpochybnitelného titána, a ve všeobecném povědomí je zakotven pravděpodobně nejvíce výrokem Catherine Lamb

‗Je šílený, zlý a je nebezpečné ho jen znát.‘

První kapitola pojednává právě o zboření onoho mýtu titánské nedotknutelnosti a

čtenáři předkládá důkazy o tom, na základě jakých pohnutek činil Byron svoje rozhodnutí.

Byl silně ovlivnitelný jak společenským míněním, tak míněním o své výlučnosti a snahou neustále kompenzovat za svoje fyzické nedokonalosti. Zahrnuje také kapitolu o Byronovu oblíbenci a vzoru Alexandru Popovi a jeho vliv na Byronovu poezii.

Druhá kapitola analyzuje okolnosti vzniku Byronova mistrovského kritického díla

The Vision of Judgment, jako byla provokace Byrona jeho celoživotním nepřítelem Robertem

Southeym a další. Tato kapitola také obsahuje oddíl zmiňující Southeyho předchůdce na postu laureáta poezie, (v originále Poet Laureate), jímž byl protivník Byronova vzoru

Alexandera Popea, Henryho Jamese Pye. Následuje sama analýza básně s prvky kritiky státu, Roberta Southeyho a také jeho chvalozpěvu na krále Jiřího III z rodu Hanoverů, A

Vision of Judgment, jež byla inspirací k Byronově básni.

41

Resume

Lord George Byron is not only one of the main representatives of Romantic literature, but also British literature in general. He is considered to be a rebel, a hero and unshakable literary titan, and he is known in general knowledge the most probably by a statement of Catherine Lamb: ‗Mad, Bad and dangerous to know.‘

The first chapter deals with tearing down this very myth of titan-like intangibility and the reader is given proofs, on base of which motives Byron made his decisions. He was heavily impressible by social opinion, but also by his own thoughts of his uniqueness. In the first chapter, there is also included information on Byron‘s role model Alexander Pope and his influence upon Byron‘s poetry.

The second chapter analyses the circumstances of birth of Byron‘s critical masterpiece The Vision of Judgment, such as Byron being provoked by his long-life enemy

Robert Southey, and other. In this chapter, there is also included a part about Southey‘s predecessor on the post of Poet Laureate, this being Henry James Pope, which was an adversary of Byron‘s role model, Alexander Pope. After this follows the actual analysis of the poem with elements of critic of the government, Robert Southey and his canticle on king George III from the House of Hanover, which was an inspiration to the Byron‘s poem.

42