grand
spectacle, displayed a variety of unlimited and almost contradictory
powers, and finally achieved a succession of unexampled triumphs in
every intellectual field. Then, in order to characterize completely this
quality of Lord Byron, Moore further adds:--

"It must be felt, indeed, by all readers of that work, and particularly
by those who, being gifted with but a small portion of such ductility
themselves, are unable to keep pace with his changes, that the
suddenness with which he passes from one strain of sentiment to another,
from the gay to the sad, from the cynical to the tender,--begets a
distrust in the sincerity of one or both moods of mind which interferes
with, if not chills, the sympathy that a more natural transition would
inspire. In general, such a suspicion would do him injustice; as among
the singular combinations which his mind presented, that of uniting at
once versatility and depth of feeling was not the least remarkable."

But, throughout this analysis by Moore, do we see aught save an
intellectual quality? Does it not stand out in relief, a pure, high
attribute of genius? For this to be a defect, it would be necessary
that, leaving the domain of intelligence, it should become mobility, by
entering into the course of his daily life in _extraordinary_
proportions. And how does it, in reality, enter there? Were his
principles in politics, in religion, in all that constitutes the man of
honor in the highest acceptation of the term, at all affected by it? Did
his true affections, or even his simple tastes, suffer from the varied
impresses of his versatile genius? In short, was Lord Byron inconstant?
Moore has sufficiently answered, since all he remarked and said oblige
us to rank _constancy_ among Lord Byron's most shining virtues.[117] And
as a human heart can not at the same time be governed by a virtue and
its opposite vice, what must we say to those who should persist (for
there are some, doubtless, who will), despite all axioms, in considering
Lord Byron as a changeable, capricious, fickle man? I reply, that Lord
Byron proved, once more, the truth of the observation made by that
moralist, who said: "The most beautiful souls are those possessing the
greatest variety and pliancy," and that he realized in himself, after a
splendid fashion, the moral phenomenon remarked in _Cato the Elder_,
who, according to Livy, possessed a mind at once so versatile and so
comprehensive, that whatever he did it