Byron's A Vision of Judgement

Lord Byron’s A Vision of Judgment is an example of the writer’s understanding of the complexities of given actions, and the irony and humor that is sufficed in certain circumstances. The complexities that Byron examined were in regards to civil liberties, and how they can easily be vanquished by certain artistic works. After George III’s death, poet laurite Robert Southey wrote his A Vision of Judgment in remembrance of the deceased king. Byron took great offence to this work because it was written in the style of the Lake Poets of the time. The Lake Poets, particularly Southey were successful writers who, “…construct(ed) some half-baked theory, and then (wrote) in accordance with it.” (pg. 219, Rutherford). The half-baked theory that Byron had such distaste for was that George III entered heaven after he died, while his main opponents were banished into hell. (Pg. 221, Rutherford).

The reason why Byron held such distaste for the work was the fact that the poem, “…gave…a completely false impression of George III’s reign, and of George III himself. It was an outrageous attempt to whitewash him.” (Pg. 220, Rutherford). George III’s tyrannical rule during the French Revolutionary and Napoleonic Wars resulted in many deaths on both sides, unto the point of extremity. (Wikipedia entry on George III’s career). However, certain writers held discerning viewpoints regarding this issue. “Southey saw (Waterloo) as the highest point of Britain’s military glory.” (Pg. 224, Rutherford). A reader knowing this information could easily see why Byron was so incensed by this particular loyalist’s declarations.

Byron ultimately hated Southey’s Vision because, “…Southey arrogated to himself the functions of the deity, attributing to God and the whole celestial hierarchy the views of political conservatives in the early nineteenth century.” (Rutherford, pg. 222). Byron combated Southey’s offensive poetic work by writing his own Vision; one that was sufficed with satire.

Right from the opening two stanzas, a reader can detect that this poem doesn’t take itself as laboriously seriously as Southey’s does. Byron’s heaven is much more blessedly realistic. The first stanza begins with Saint Peter falling asleep, due to the fact that Heaven has not been very active as of late. “The devils had ta’en a longer, stronger pull…which drew most souls another way.” (Byron, stanza 1). It’s the “wanton” quality of the angels in Heaven that makes Byron’s poem so refreshing. “…wild colt of a comet, which too soon Broke out of bounds o’er th’ ethereal blue, Splitting some planet with its playful tail, As boats are sometimes by a wanton whale.” (Byron, stanza 2). The unholy attitude that is pertained throughout the work is a relief to the reader; especially considering that a highly intelligent moral person is describing events that are not usually described in that vein.

It’s the event of Waterloo that changes matters drastically, and which makes the poem become an indictment of war. “Each day too slew its thousands six or seven, Till at the crowning carnage, Waterloo, They threw their pens down in divine disgust—The page was so besmeared with blood and dust.” (Byron, stanza 5). It’s Byron’s modulating of emotions that gives the reader emotional understanding of the situation; a quality that Southey’s poem never dared attempt. (pg. 224, Rutherford).

It’s the unpretentious rationality of George III’s funeral which is an indication of the thematic opposition that Byron’s poem is in relation to Southey’s. In Southey’s Vision, particulary in his dedication to George IV, the conservative Loyalist kings reigns are looked up upon by Southey in a very literally praiseworthy way; almost as if these kings were gods. Byron counters this by depicting George III’s funeral in a very mocking tone; it’s one of the most comical and historically accurate moments in the Vision. “He died! His death made no great stir on Earth; His burial made some pomp...Of all The fools who flocked to swell or see the show, Who cared about the corpse? The funeral Made the attraction…” (Byron, stanzas 9 and 10.) “The anomalies that (Byron) now describes are not ridiculous but horrible, and his tone is grimly ironic as he explores the discrepancies between appearance and reality in the royal funeral—the appearance of public concern and grief, the reality of vulgar curiosity or indifference; the appearance of glory and riches, the reality of death and bodily decay.” (pg. 225, Rutherford). There’s an emphasis on reality, unlike Southey’s interpretation of events.

Even the tone of Byron’s poem is made up of, “…informal, conversational verse-meditation,” particularly in stanzas 13, 14, and 15. (pg. 225, Rutherford). It’s ironic that Byron’s tone is so calm at this point in the poem, considering that these three stanzas are indications of why Byron is so infuriated with Southey. This has to do along the lines of Southey’s considering himself the functionary of the deity.

The idea of eternal damnation of George III’s enemies, otherwise known as the unco guid, did not sit well with Byron because as a writer and political thinker, “…he reacted violently against certain aspects of the Calvinism he had known in his youth, and the idea of perpetual damnation was especially repugnant to him.” (pg. 221, Rutherford). “…not one am I Of those who think damnation better still…I know this is unpopular; I know ‘Tis blasphemous; I know one may be damned For hoping no one else may e’er be so; I know my catechism…Not that I’m fit for such a noble dish, As one day will be that immortal fry Of almost everybody born to die.” (Byron, stanzas 13, 14, 15). Byron’s calm rational manner during certain moments throughout these stanzas should not be overlooked, or considered blasphemous. Rather, he as a writer, “…condemns intolerance and bigotry, implying that the most humane and gentlemanly thing to do is to hope for other men’s salvation—not their damnation.” (pg. 226, Rutherford). Byron’s writing indicates that heaven and hell are not made entirely out of fire and brimstone. In the end, Byron is a moralist and this is apparent in his casual denunciations, opposed to Southey’s offensively righteous moral tone, or sanctimonious false Christian writing.

It’s the indictment of George III which probably gave Byron more pleasure than anything else he had written in his Vision, because that is the moment when George III’s true colors are present, and when his past illicit deeds are out in the open for the reader to know. “…if in the course of this satire the author could shock the pious English reader or expose his hypocrisies, so much the better.” (pg. 236, Marchand). In Byron’s estimation, George III’s reign “…produce(d) a reign More drenched with gore, more cumbered with the slain. He ever warred with freedom and the free: Nations as men, home subjects, foreign foes, So that they uttered the word ‘Liberty!’ Found George the Third their first opponent. Whose History was ever stained as his will be With national and individual woes?” (Byron, stanzas 44 and 45). Even though the information presented is very damning, it’s also very circumstantial like in a trial. Byron’s statement here is that God’s workings are more practical and clear minded than anything else, and that freedom means, “…freedom from foreign rule, freedom from despots, freedom of speech, freedom of political action, freedom, finally, to worship God as one pleases without suffering civil disabilities…” (pg. 231, Rutherford). This is the reason why Byron wrote his Vision; to restate to the reader civil liberties that should never be vanquished in favor of the king’s tyranny.

The opposition of tyranny against the king is symbolized by Wilkes and Junius’ redemption. Unlike in Southey’s poem, they are allowed into Heaven, “But then I blame the man himself much less Than Bute and Grafton…I have forgiven, And vote his ‘habeas corpus’ into heaven.” (Byron, stanza 71). When it comes time to decide George III’s fate, Southey enters and interrupts the proceedings. This is the most humorous passage in Byron’s Vision because it so blatantly attacks Southey, the man responsible for instigating this work in the first place. “Byron’s triumph throughout is in lighting Southey’s solemnities with a human and a humorous touch.” (pg. 238, Marchand). This is a chance for Byron to get some much needed revenge, and that’s what makes stanzas 86, 88, 90, and 96-99 so humorous. It’s almost as if Byron was more infuriated by Southey then he was by George III. He’s not the only one; eventually Saint Peter strikes the poet down in stanza 105, and in all the commotion George III does escape, upon his own will, into Heaven. “All I saw farther, in the last confusion, Was, that King George slipped into Heaven for one; And when the tumult dwindled to a calm, I left him practicing the hundredth psalm.” (Byron, stanza 106.)

The reason why Byron’s Vision has withstood the test of time has nothing to do with the quarrel between Southey or between George III and Byron. Rather, what makes the work so unique and special is the fact that it’s more altruistic than anything else. It’s ironic that a satire is first of all written in the romantic style of ottava rima, and that a satire shows Byron’s, “…love of liberty, (and his) hatred of oppression, and of war, (along with Byron’s) respect for courage and for passionate love.” (pg. 215, Rutherford). Those are not qualities typically associated with the Satire form. The question becomes: Why didn’t Byron just write a serious form of poetry? However, it’s perfectly rational why Byron would write a Satire concerning George III; it’s all for the purpose of disrupting the sanctimonious way in which that king was depicted by many writers, not just Southey.

Byron’s poetry, unlike Southey’s, requires that the work presents, “…the author’s comic-realistic view of human life, and (also) a record of his own increased self-knowledge and maturity.” (Rutherford, pg. 215). Byron doesn’t pander to the reader in anyway, unlike other poets of the time. However, the poem is very humanistic. This “maturity” cannot be accomplished without the application of humor. Even though Byron’s Vision is a satire, it’s a satire that is an example of, “…detestation of all forms of cant.” (pg. 215, Rutherford). In other words, all forms of sanctimonious falsities that are in opposition to historic truth. The difference between Byron’s satire, and other satires written at the time, is that his work was written for a very specific purpose, which was the maintaining of liberty. Byron’s A Vision of Judgment is not merely just comical and funny; those jokes at the expense of Southey and George III are there for a purpose, and that’s the difference.