Strait-laced Morality Or No Laces At All?

It was a few years ago that I first wrote about revered poet Lord Byron and wondered how he would make out reputation-wise in today’s world of confusion when moral and amoral standards are debated.
Byron was 36 when he died in Greece on April 19, 1824 – a day still fondly remembered by lovers of beautiful writing who gather to recite his tender “She walks in beauty like the night”, murmur the hinted bawdiness of “So we’ll go no more a roving” and shed a tear for “Fare thee well”. They react with dismay when reminded Byron was far from a loyal lover or friend and cared little for those whose lives were ruined by his amoral arrogance.
It is written that he contracted a fever and died while being treated by what was then the standard procedure of bloodletting. When the news reached England, the reaction was traumatic. A national hero in the UK – and revered in Greece where he had gone to join that nation in its war with the Ottoman Empire – his body was embalmed and returned to England. Some sources say his heart was removed before that final journey. The people of Greece wanted some part of their hero to remain with them.
In England his body lay in state for two days and news reports of the day record “huge crowds” lining the streets to pay their respects before he was to be interred in Westminster Abbey. But the Abbey balked at the request for an honoured resting place from supporters of a man they felt of “questionable morality” and denied the request. It was written that he had lived a life full of “aristocratic excesses, huge debts, (and) numerous love affairs with more than one gender.”
Undeterred, Byron’s friends – and they were many – launched a successful fund-raising drive to commission a statue. That work by Danish sculptor Bertel Thorvaldsen was completed in 1834. However, it remained in storage for 10 years while the country debated where to place it. The British Museum declined to display it. So did St. Paul’s Cathedral, the National Gallery – and holding fast to its original refusal, Westminster Abbey.
Trinity College, Cambridge, finally found a quiet corner for the statue.
In 1907, a lively debate calling for some sort of recognition for Byron was supported by the New York Times. In a column signed “Galbraith” the NYT suggested England should be proud to honour Byron, not ashamed of him just because he had lived a flamboyant immoral life. The writer admitted “neither Byron’s writing nor his mode of life are such as to appeal to the straitlaced, this seems to be no excuse for refusing the great poet proper recognition.”
In 1969, 145 years after his death, a modest memorial was placed in Westminster Abbey’s Poets’ Corner. It is a replica of one the King of Greece donated to mark Byron’s grave at the Church of St. Mary Magdalene, Hucknall, Nottinghamshire.
It all leaves me wondering still how the play would end if re-enacted today. Would our easily frenzied media be in high “straitlaced” dudgeon concentrating only on Byron’s extravagant but contemptuously tawdry life style? Would the Twittering classes be breaking viral records regurgitating the latest Byronic sexual romps – both hetero and homo?
It leaves me wondering too, if in the 48-years since Byron was accorded his “modest” marker in Westminster Abbey, “amoral” has overwhelmed “immoral” and if the world is paying a high price for the switch from “straitlaced” morality to “no laces required at all?”

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

w

Connecting to %s