The Works of Lord Byron Volume V Part 1

The Works of Lord Byron.

by Lord Byron.

PREFACE TO THE FIFTH VOLUME.

The plays and poems contained in this volume were written within the s.p.a.ce of two years--the last two years of Byron's career as a poet. But that was not all. Cantos VI.-XV. of _Don Juan_, _The Vision of Judgment_, _The Blues_, _The Irish Avatar_, and other minor poems, belong to the same period. The end was near, and, as though he had received a warning, he hastened to make the roll complete.

Proof is impossible, but the impression remains that the greater part of this volume has been pa.s.sed over and left unread by at least two generations of readers. Old play-goers recall Macready as "Werner," and many persons have read _Cain_; but apart from students of literature, readers of _Sardanapalus_ and of _The Two Foscari_ are rare; of _The Age of Bronze_ and _The Island_ rarer still. A few of Byron's later poems have shared the fate of Southey's epics; and, yet, with something of Southey's persistence, Byron believed that posterity would weigh his "regular dramas" in a fresh balance, and that his heedless critics would kick the beam. But "can these bones live"? Can dramas which excited the wondering admiration of Goethe and Lamartine and Sir Walter Scott touch or lay hold of the more adventurous reader of the present day? It is certain that even the half-forgotten works of a great and still popular poet, which have left their mark on the creative imagination of the poets and playwrights of three quarters of a century, will always be studied by the few from motives of curiosity, or for purposes of reference; but it is improbable, though not impossible, that in the revolution of taste and sentiment, moribund or extinct poetry will be born again into the land of the living. Poetry which has never had its day, such as Blake's _Songs of Innocence_, the _Lyrical Ballads_, or Fitzgerald's _Omar Khayyam_, may come, in due time, to be recognized at its full worth; but it is a harder matter for a poem which has lost its vogue to recapture the interest and enthusiasm of the many.

Byron is only an instance in point. Bygone poetry has little or no attraction for modern readers. This poem or that drama may be referred to, and occasionally examined in the interests of general culture, or in support of a particular belief or line of conduct, as a cla.s.sical or quasi-scriptural authority; but, with the rarest exceptions, plays and narrative poems are not read spontaneously or with any genuine satisfaction or delight. An old-world poem which will not yield up its secret to the idle _reader_ "of an empty day" is more or less "rudely dismissed," without even a show of favour or hospitality.

And yet these forgotten works of the imagination are full of hidden treasures! There is not one of Byron's "impressionist studies" of striking episodes of history or historical legend, flung, as it were, with a "Take it or leave it" in the face of friend or foe, which does not transform names and shadows into persons and substance, which does not contain lines and pa.s.sages of unquestionable beauty and distinction.

But some would have it that Byron's plays, as a whole, are dull and uninspiring, monotonous harpings on worn-out themes, which every one has mastered or wishes to forget. A close study of the text, together with some knowledge of the subject as it presented itself to the author and arrested _his_ attention, may compel these impatient critics to a different conclusion. Byron did not scruple to refer the reader to his "sources," and was at pains to publish, in the notes and appendices to his dramas and poems, long extracts from old chronicles, from Plutarch's _Lives_, from French and Italian histories, which he had read himself, and, as he fondly believed, would be read by others, who were willing to submit themselves to his guidance. He expected his readers to take some trouble and to display some intelligence.

Poetry is successful only so far as it is intelligible. To a clear cry an answer comes, but not to a m.u.f.fled call. The reader who comes within speaking distance of his author can hear him, and to bring the living within speaking distance of the dead, the living must know the facts, and understand the ideas which informed and inspired the dead. Thought and attention are scarcely to be reckoned among necromantic arts, but thought and knowledge "can make these bones live," and stand upon their feet, if they do not leap and sing.

I desire to renew my acknowledgments of the generous a.s.sistance of the officials of the British Museum, and, more especially, of Mr. Ernest Wallis Budge, Litt.D., M.A., _Keeper of Egyptian and a.s.syrian Antiquities_; of Mr. Leonard W. King, M.A., of the same department; and of Mr. George F. Barwick, _Superintendent of the Reading Room_.

To Dr. Garnett, C.B., I am greatly indebted for invaluable hints and suggestions with regard to the interpretation of some obscure pa.s.sages in _The Age of Bronze_ and other parts of the volume, and for reading the proofs of the "Introduction" and "Note to the Introduction to _Werner_."

I have also to acknowledge the a.s.sistance and advice of Mr. W. Hale White, and of my friend Mr. Frank E. Taylor, of Chertsey.

For a.s.sistance during the preparation of the volume, and more especially in the revision of proofs, I desire to express my cordial thanks to Mr.

John Murray.

ERNEST HARTLEY COLERIDGE.

_December_ 3, 1901.

SARDANAPALUS

A TRAGEDY.

[_Sardanapale, Tragedie Imitee de Lord Byron_, par L. Alvin, was performed at the Theatre Royal at Brussels, January 13, 16, 1834.

_Sardanapalus_, a Tragedy, was played for the first time at Drury Lane Theatre, April 10, 1834, and (for the twenty-second time) June 5, 1834.

Macready appeared as "Sardanapalus," Miss Phillips as "Zarina," and Miss Ellen Tree as "Myrrha." [In his diary for April 11, 1834 (see _Reminiscences_, 1875, i. 414, 415) Macready wrote, "On arriving at my chambers ... I found a letter without a signature; the seal was the head of Byron, and in the envelope was a folded sheet with merely the words, 'Werner, Nov., 1830. Byron, Ravenna, 1821,' and 'Sardanapalus, April 10th, 1834.' Encircling the name of Byron, etc., was a lock of grey hair fastened by a gold thread, which I am sure was Byron's, ... it surprised and pleased me."]

_Sardanapalus, King of a.s.syria_, was produced at the Princess's Theatre, June 13, 1853, and played till September 2, 1853. Charles Kean appeared as "Sardanapalus," Miss Heath as "Zarina," and Mrs. Charles Kean as "Myrrha."

_Sardanapale, Opera en Trois Actes_, par M. Henry Becque, Musique de M.

Victorin Joncieres, was performed for the first time at the Theatre Imperial-Lyrique, February 8, 1867.

_Lord Byron's Tragedy of Sardanapalus_, in four acts, was performed at the Theatre Royal, Manchester, March 31-April 28, 1877. Charles Calvert (the adapter) played "Sardanapalus," Miss Hathaway "Zarina," and Miss f.a.n.n.y Ensor "Myrrha;" and June 26-July 27, 1877, at the Royal Alexandra Theatre, Liverpool. Calvert's adaptation was also performed at Booth's Theatre, New York.]

INTRODUCTION TO _SARDANAPALUS_

Byron's pa.s.sion or infatuation for the regular drama lasted a little over a year. _Marino Faliero_, _Sardanapalus_, and the _Two Foscari_, were the fruits of his "self-denying ordinance to dramatize, like the Greeks ... striking pa.s.sages of history" (letter to Murray, July 14, 1821, _Letters_, 1901, v. 323). The mood was destined to pa.s.s, but for a while the neophyte was spell-bound.

_Sardanapalus, a Tragedy_, the second and, perhaps, the most successful of these studies in the poetry of history, was begun at Ravenna, January 13, 1821, "with all deliberate speed;" but, for a time, from laziness or depression of spirits, or, perhaps, from the counter-excitement of "the poetry of politics" (_Letters_, 1901, v. 205), that is, the revolutionary drama which had begun to run its course, a month went by before he had finished the first act (February 15). Three months later (May 28) he announces the completion of the drama, the last act having been "dashed off" in two or three days (_Letters_, 1901, v. 300).

For the story of Sardanapalus, which had excited his interest as a schoolboy, Byron consulted the pages of Diodorus Siculus (_Bibliothecae Historicae_, lib. ii. pp. 78, sq., ed. 1604), and, possibly to ward off and neutralize the distracting influence of Shakespeare and other barbarian dramatists, he "turned over" the tragedies of Seneca (_Letters_, 1901, v. 173). It is hardly necessary to remind the modern reader that the Sardanapalus of history is an unverified if not an unverifiable personage. Diodorus the Sicilian, who was contemporary with Cicero, derived his knowledge of a.s.syrian history from the _Persica_ of Ctesias of Cnidos, who was private physician at the court of Artaxerxes Mnemon (B.C. 405-359), and is said to have had access to, and to have consulted, the "Persian authorities" (d?f???a? ?as????a? [diphthe/rai Basilikai]).

The character which Ctesias depicted or invented, an effeminate debauchee, sunk in luxury and sloth, who at the last was driven to take up arms, and, after a prolonged but ineffectual resistance, avoided capture by suicide, cannot be identified. Asurbanipal (Aur-bani-apli), the son of Esarhaddon and grandson of Sennacherib, who ascended the throne B.C. 668, and reigned for about forty years, was, as the cuneiform records and the friezes of his palace testify, a bold hunter and a mighty warrior. He vanquished Tarku (Tirhakah) of Ethiopia, and his successor, Urdamane. Ba'al King of Tyre, Yakinlu King of the island-city of Arvad, Sandasarmu of Cilicia, Teumman of Elam, and other potentates, suffered defeat at his hands.

"The land of Elam," writes the king or his "Historiographer Royal,"

"through its extent I covered as when a mighty storm approaches; I cut off the head of Teumman, their king... Beyond number I slew his warriors; alive in my hands I took his fighting men; with their corpses, as with thorns and thistles, I filled the vicinity of Susa; their blood I caused to flow in the Eulaeus, and I stained its waters like wool."

Clearly the Sardanapalus who painted his face and carded purple wool in the _penetralia_ of his seraglio does not bear even a traditional resemblance to Aur-bani-apli the Conqueror.

All that can be affirmed with any certainty is that within twenty years of the death of Asurbanipal, the a.s.syrian Empire pa.s.sed into the hands of the Medes;[1] but there is nothing to show whether the period of decay had already set in before the close of his reign, or under which of his two successors, Asur-etil-ilani or Sin-ar-ikun, the final catastrophe (B.C. 606) took place (_Encyclopedia Biblica_, art. "a.s.syria," art. "Asur-bani-pal," by Leonard W. King).

"I have made," writes Byron (May 25, 1821), "Sardanapalus brave though voluptuous (as history represents him), and as amiable as my poor pen could make him." Diodorus, or rather Ctesias, who may have drawn upon personal reminiscences of his patron, Artaxerxes Mnemon (see Plutarch's _Artaxerxes_, _pa.s.sim_), does not enlarge upon his amiability, and credits him only with the courage of despair. Byron's Sardanapalus, with his sudden transition from voluptuous abandonment to heroic chivalry, his remorseful recognition of the sanct.i.ties of wedlock, his general good nature, his "sly, insinuating sarcasms" (Moore's Diary, September 30, 1821, _Memoirs_, iii. 282), "all made out of the carver's brain,"

resembles _history_ as little as _history_ resembles the a.s.syrian record. Fortunately, the genius of the poet escaped from the meshes which he had woven round himself, and, in spite of himself, he was constrained to "beat his music out," regardless of his authorities.

The character of Myrrha, which bears some resemblance to Aspasia, "a native of Phocea in Ionia--the favourite mistress of Cyrus" (see Plutarch's _Artaxerxes_, Langhorne's Translation, 1838, p. 699), was introduced partly to pacify the Countess Guiccioli, who had quarrelled with him for maintaining that "love was not the loftiest theme for true tragedy," and, in part, to prove that he was not a slave to his own ideals, and could imagine and delineate a woman who was both pa.s.sionate and high-minded. Diodorus (_Bibl. Hist._, lib. iii. p. 130) records the exploits of Myrina, Queen of the Amazons, but it is probable that Byron named his Ionian slave after Mirra, who gives her name to Alfieri's tragedy, which brought on a convulsive fit of tears and shuddering when he first saw it played at Bologna in August, 1819 (_Letters_, 1900, iv.

339).

_Sardanapalus, a Tragedy_, was published together with _The Two Foscari, a Tragedy_, and _Cain, a Mystery_, December 19, 1821.

The three plays were reviewed by Heber in the _Quarterly Review_, July, 1822, vol. xxvii. pp. 476-524; by Jeffrey in the _Edinburgh Review_, February, 1822, vol. 36, pp. 413-452; in _Blackwood's Edinburgh Magazine_, February, 1822, vol. xi. pp. 212-217; and in the _Portfolio_ (Philadelphia), December, 1822, vol. xiv. pp. 487-492.

TO

THE ILl.u.s.tRIOUS GOETHE

A STRANGER PRESUMES TO OFFER THE HOMAGE OF A LITERARY Va.s.sAL TO HIS LIEGE LORD, THE FIRST OF EXISTING WRITERS, WHO HAS CREATED THE LITERATURE OF HIS OWN COUNTRY, AND ILl.u.s.tRATED THAT OF EUROPE.

THE UNWORTHY PRODUCTION WHICH THE AUTHOR VENTURES TO INSCRIBE TO HIM IS ENt.i.tLED

SARDANAPALUS.[2]

PREFACE

In publis.h.i.+ng the following Tragedies[3] I have only to repeat, that they were not composed with the most remote view to the stage. On the attempt made by the managers in a former instance, the public opinion has been already expressed. With regard to my own private feelings, as it seems that they are to stand for nothing, I shall say nothing.

For the historical foundation of the following compositions the reader is referred to the Notes.