foregoing pages, has been to give a general view
of the intellectual character of Lord Byron. It did not accord with
the plan to enter minutely into the details of his private life,
which I suspect was not greatly different from that of any other
person of his rank, not distinguished for particular severity of
manners. In some respects his Lordship was, no doubt, peculiar. He
possessed a vivacity of sensibility not common, and talents of a very
extraordinary kind. He was also distinguished for superior personal
elegance, particularly in his bust. The style and character of his
head were universally admired; but perhaps the beauty of his
physiognomy has been more highly spoken of than it really merited.
Its chief grace consisted, when he was in a gay humour, of a
liveliness which gave a joyous meaning to every articulation of the
muscles and features: when he was less agreeably disposed, the
expression was morose to a very repulsive degree. It is, however,
unnecessary to describe his personal character here. I have already
said enough incidentally, to explain my full opinion of it. In the
mass, I do not think it was calculated to attract much permanent
affection or esteem. In the detail it was the reverse: few men
possessed more companionable qualities than Lord Byron did
occasionally; and seen at intervals in those felicitous moments, I
imagine it would have been difficult to have said, that a more
interesting companion had been previously met with. But he was not
always in that fascinating state of pleasantry: he was as often
otherwise; and no two individuals could be more distinct from each
other than Byron in his gaiety and in his misanthropy. This
antithesis was the great cause of that diversity of opinion
concerning him, which has so much divided his friends and
adversaries. Of his character as a poet there can be no difference
of opinion, but only a difference in the degree of admiration.

Excellence in talent, as in every other thing, is comparative; but
the universal republic of letters will acknowledge, that in energy of
expression and liveliness of imagery Byron had no equal in his own
time. Doubts, indeed, may be entertained, if in these high qualities
even Shakspeare himself was his superior.

I am not disposed to think with many of those who rank the genius of
Byron almost as supreme, that he has shown less skill in the
construction of his plots, and the development of his tales, than
mi