The Works of Lord Byron Volume V Part 83

_Werner; or, The Inheritance_, was begun at Pisa, December 18, 1821, and finished January 20, 1822. At the end of the month, January 29, Byron despatched the MS., not to Murray, but to Moore, then in retreat at Paris, intending, no doubt, that it should be placed in the hands of another publisher; but a letter from Murray "melted him," and on March 6, 1822 (_Letters_, 1901, vi. 34), he desired Moore to forward the packet to Albemarle Street. The play was set up in type, and revised proofs were returned to Murray at the end of June; but, for various reasons, publication was withheld, and, on October 31, Byron informed John Hunt that he had empowered his friend Douglas Kinnaird to obtain _Werner_, with other MSS., from Murray. None the less, milder counsels again prevailed, and on Sat.u.r.day, November 23, 1822, _Werner_ was published, not in the same volume with _Heaven and Earth_, as Byron intended and expected, nor by John Hunt, as he had threatened, but by itself, and, as heretofore, by John Murray. _Werner_ was "the last of all the flock" to issue from Murray's fold.

In his Preface to _Werner_ (_vide post_, p. 337) Byron disclaims all pretensions to originality. "The following drama," he writes, "is taken entirely from the 'German's Tale, Kruitzner,' published ... in Lee's _Canterbury Tales_.... I have adopted the characters, plan, and even the language, of many parts of this story." _Kruitzner_ seems to have made a deep impression on his mind. When he was a boy of thirteen (_i.e._ in 1801, when the fourth volume of the _Canterbury Tales_ was published), and again in 1815, he set himself to turn the tale into a drama. His first attempt, named _Ulric and Ilvina_, he threw into the fire, but he had nearly completed the first act of his second and maturer adaptation when he was "interrupted by circ.u.mstances," that is, no doubt, the circ.u.mstances which led up to and ended in the separation from his wife. (See letter of October 9, 1821, _Letters_, 1901, v. 391.)

On his leaving England for the Continent, April 25, 1816, the fragment was left behind. Most probably the MS. fell into his sister's hands, for in October, 1821, it was not forthcoming when Byron gave directions that Hobhouse should search for it "amongst my papers." Ultimately it came into the possession of the late Mr. Murray, and is now printed for the first time in its entirety (_vide post_, pp. 453-466: selections were given in the _Nineteenth Century_, August, 1899). It should be borne in mind that this unprinted first act of _Werner_, which synchronizes with the _Siege of Corinth_ and _Parisina_, was written when Byron was a member of the sub-committee of management of Drury Lane Theatre, and, as the numerous stage directions testify, with a view to stage-representation. The MS. is scored with corrections, and betrays an unusual elaboration, and, perhaps, some difficulty and hesitation in the choice of words and the construction of sentences. In the opening scene the situation is not caught and gripped, while the melancholy squalor of the original narrative is only too faithfully reproduced. The _Werner_ of 1821, with all its shortcomings, is the production of a playwright.

The _Werner_ of 1815 is the attempt of a highly gifted amateur.

When Byron once more bethought himself of his old subject, he not only sent for the MS. of the first act, but desired Murray "to cut out Sophia Lee's" (_vide post_, p. 337) "_German's Tale_ from the _Canterbury Tales_, and send it in a letter" (_Letters_, 1901, v. 390). He seems to have intended from the first to construct a drama out of the story, and, no doubt, to acknowledge the source of his inspiration. On the whole, he carried out his intention, taking places, characters, and incidents as he found them, but recasting the materials and turning prose into metre.

But here and there, to save himself trouble, he "stole his brooms ready made," and, as he acknowledges in the Preface, "adopted even the language of the story." Act ii. sc. 2, lines 87-172; act iii. sc. 4; and act v. sc. 1, lines 94-479, are, more or less, faithful and exact reproductions of pp. 203-206, 228-232, and 252-271 of the novel (see _Canterbury Tales_, ed. 1832, vol. ii.). On the other hand, in the remaining three-fourths of the play, the language is not Miss Lee's, but Byron's, and the "conveyance" of incidents occasional and insignificant.

Much, too, was imported into the play (_e.g._ almost the whole of the fourth act), of which there is neither hint nor suggestion in the story.

Maginn's categorical statement (see "O'Doherty on _Werner_,"

_Miscellanies_, 1885, i. 189) that "here Lord Byron has _invented_ nothing--absolutely, positively, undeniably NOTHING;" that "there is not one incident in his play, not even the most trivial, that is not to be found in the novel," etc., is "positively and undeniably" a falsehood.

Maginn read _Werner_ for the purpose of attacking Byron, and, by printing selected pa.s.sages from the novel and the play, in parallel columns, gives the reader to understand that he had made an exhaustive a.n.a.lysis of the original and the copy. The review, which is quoted as an authority in the editions of 1832 (xiv. pp. 113, 114) and 1837, etc., p.

341, is disingenuous and misleading.

The original story may be briefly retold. The prodigal and outlawed son of a Bohemian n.o.ble, Count Siegendorf, after various adventures, marries, under the a.s.sumed name of Friedrich Kruitzner, the daughter of an Italian scholar and man of science, of n.o.ble birth, but in narrow circ.u.mstances. A son, Conrad, is born to him, who, at eight years of age, is transferred to the charge of his grandfather. Twelve years go by, and, when the fortunes of the younger Siegendorf are at their lowest ebb, he learns, at the same moment, that his father is dead, and that a distant kinsman, the Baron Stralenheim, is meditating an attack on his person, with a view to claiming his inheritance. Of Conrad, who has disappeared, he hears nothing.

An accident compels the count and the baron to occupy adjoining quarters in a small town on the northern frontier of Silesia; and, again, another accident places the usurping and intriguing baron at the mercy of his poverty-stricken and exiled kinsman. Stralenheim has fallen asleep near the fire in his easy-chair. Papers and several rouleaux of gold are ranged on a cabinet beside the bed. Kruitzner, who is armed with "a large and sharp knife," is suddenly confronted with his unarmed and slumbering foe, and though habit and conscience conspire to make murder impossible, he yields to a sudden and irresistible impulse, and s.n.a.t.c.hes up "the portion of gold which is nearest." He has no sooner returned to his wife and confessed his deed, than Conrad suddenly appears on the scene, and at the very moment of an unexpected and joyous reunion with his parents, learns that his father is a thief. Kruitzner pleads "guilty with extenuating circ.u.mstances," and Conrad, who either is or pretends to be disgusted at his father's sophistries, makes the best of a bad business, and undertakes to conceal his father's dishonour and rescue him from the power of Stralenheim. The plot hinges on the unlooked-for and unsuspected action of Conrad. Unlike his father, he is not the man to let "I dare not wait upon I would," but murders Stralenheim in cold blood, and, at the same time, diverts suspicion from his father and himself to the person of his comrade, a Hungarian soldier of fortune, who is already supposed to be the thief, and who had sought and obtained shelter in the apartments of the conscience-stricken Kruitzner.

The scene changes to Prague. Siegendorf, no longer Kruitzner, has regained his inheritance, and is once more at the height of splendour and prosperity. A service of thanksgiving is being held in the cathedral to commemorate the signature of the Treaty of Prague (1635), and the count is present in state. Suddenly he catches sight of the Hungarian, and, "like a flash of lightning" feels and remembers that he _is_ a thief, and that he might, however unjustly, be suspected if not accused of the murder of Stralenheim. The service is over, and the count is recrossing "Muldau's Bridge," when he hears the fatal word _Kruitzner_, "the seal of his shame," spoken in his ear. He returns to his castle, and issues orders that the Hungarian should be arrested and interrogated. An interview takes place, at which the Hungarian denounces Conrad as the murderer of Stralenheim. The son acknowledges the deed, and upbraids the father for his weakness and credulity in supposing that his escape from Stralenheim's machinations could have been effected by any other means. If, he argues, circ.u.mstances can palliate dishonesty, they can compel and justify murder. Common sense even now demands the immediate slaughter of the Hungarian, as it compelled and sanctioned the effectual silencing of Stralenheim. But Siegendorf knows not "thorough,"

and shrinks at a.s.sa.s.sination. He repudiates and denounces his son, and connives at the escape of the Hungarian. Conrad, who is banished from Prague, rejoins his former a.s.sociates, the "black bands," which were the scandal and terror of the neighbouring provinces, and is killed in a skirmish with the regular troops. Siegendorf dies of a broken heart.

The conception of _The German's Tale_, as Byron perceived, is superior to the execution. The style is laboured and involved, and the narrative long-winded and tiresome. It is, perhaps, an adaptation, though not a literal translation, of a German historical romance. But the _motif_--a son predestined to evil by the weakness and sensuality of his father, a father punished for his want of rect.i.tude by the pa.s.sionate criminality of his son, is the very key-note of tragedy.

If from haste or indolence Byron scamped his task, and cut up whole cantles of the novel into nerveless and pointless blank verse, here and there throughout the play, in scattered lines and pa.s.sages, he outdoes himself. The inspiration is fitful, but supreme.

_Werner_ was reviewed in _Blackwood's Edinburgh Magazine_, December, 1822, vol. xii. pp. 710-719 (republished in _Miscellanies_ of W. Maginn, 1885, i. 189); in the _Scots Magazine_, December, 1822, N.S. vol. xi.

pp. 688-694; the _European Magazine_, January, 1823, vol. 83, pp. 73-76; and in the _Eclectic Review_, February, 1823, N.S. vol. xix. pp.

148-155.

NOTE TO THE INTRODUCTION TO _WERNER_.

In an article ent.i.tled, "Did Byron write _Werner_?" which appeared in the _Nineteenth Century_ (August, 1899, vol. 46, pp. 243-250), the Hon.

F. Leveson Gower undertakes to prove that _Werner_ was not written by Lord Byron, but by Georgiana, d.u.c.h.ess of Devons.h.i.+re (born June 9, 1757, died March 30, 1806). He adduces, in support of this claim, (1) a statement made to him by his sister, the late Lady Georgiana Fullerton, to the effect that their grandmother, the d.u.c.h.ess, "wrote the poem and gave the MS. to her niece, Lady Caroline Ponsonby (better known as Lady Caroline Lamb), and that she, some years later, handed it over to Lord Byron, who, in 1822, published it in his own name;" (2) a letter written in 1822 by his mother, Lady Granville, to her sister, Lady Carlisle, which a.s.serts that their mother, the d.u.c.h.ess, "wrote an entire tragedy from Miss Lee's _Kreutzner the Hungarian_ (_sic_)," and that the MS. had been sent to her by Lady Caroline's brother, Mr. William Ponsonby, and was in her possession; (3) another letter of Lady Granville's, dated December 3, 1822, in which she informs her sister that her husband, Lord Granville, had promised to read _Werner_ aloud to her (i.e. Byron's _Werner_, published November 23, 1822), a promise which, if fulfilled, must have revealed one of two things--the existence of two dramas based on Miss Lee's _Kruitzner_, or the ident.i.ty of Byron's version with that of the d.u.c.h.ess. Now, argues Mr. Leveson Gower, if Lady Granville had known that two dramas were in existence, she would not have allowed her daughter, Lady Georgiana Fullerton, to believe "that the d.u.c.h.ess was the author of the published poem."

I will deal with the external evidence first. Practically it amounts to this: (1) that Lady Granville knew that her mother, the d.u.c.h.ess of Devons.h.i.+re, dramatized Miss Lee's _Kruitzner_; and (2) that Lady Georgiana Fullerton believed that the d.u.c.h.ess gave the MS. of her play to Lady Caroline Ponsonby, and that, many years after, Lady Caroline handed it over to Byron.

The external evidence establishes the fact that the d.u.c.h.ess of Devons.h.i.+re dramatized _Kruitzner_, but it does not prove that Byron purloined her adaptation. It records an unverified impression on the part of the d.u.c.h.ess's granddaughter, that the MS. of a play written between the years 1801-1806, pa.s.sed into Byron's hands about the year 1813; that he took a copy of the MS.; and that in 1821-22 he caused his copy to be retranscribed and published under his own name.

But Mr. Leveson Gower appeals to internal as well as external evidence, (1) He regards the great inferiority of _Werner_ to Byron's published plays, and to the genuine (hitherto) unpublished first act, together with the wholesale plagiarisms from Miss Lee's story, as an additional proof that the work was none of his. (2) He notes, as a suspicious circ.u.mstance, that "while the rough copies of his other poems have been preserved, no rough copy of _Werner_ is to be found."

In conclusion, he deals with two possible objections which may be brought against his theory: (1) that Byron would not have incurred the risk of detection at the hands of the owners of the d.u.c.h.ess's MS.; and (2) that a great poet of a.s.sured fame and reputation could have had no possible motive for perpetrating a literary fraud. The first objection he answers by a.s.suming that Byron would have counted on the reluctance of the "Ponsonby family and the daughters of the d.u.c.h.ess" to rake up the ashes of old scandals; the second, by pointing out that, in 1822, he was making "frantic endeavours to obtain money, not for himself, but to help the cause of Greece."

(1) With regard to the marked inferiority of _Werner_ to Byron's other plays, and the relative proportion of adapted to original matter, Mr.

Leveson Gower appears to have been misled by the disingenuous criticism of Maginn and other contemporary reviewers (_vide_ the Introduction, etc., p. 326). There is no such inferiority, and the plagiarisms, which were duly acknowledged, are confined to certain limited portions of the play. (2) There is nothing unusual in the fact that the rough draft of _Werner_ cannot be found. In fact, but few of the early drafts of the dramas and other poems written in the later Italian days ever reached Murray's hands, or are still in existence. The fair copy for the printer alone was sent home. The time had gone by when Byron's publisher, who was also his friend, would stipulate that "all the original MSS., copies and sc.r.a.ps" should fall to his share. But no argument can be founded on so insignificant a circ.u.mstance.

Finally, the argument on which Mr. Leveson Gower dwells at some length, that Byron's "motive" for perpetrating a literary fraud was the necessity for raising money for the cause of Greek independence, is refuted by the fact that _Werner_ was begun in December, 1821, and finished in January, 1822, and that it was not till the spring of 1823 that he was elected a member of the Greek Committee, or had any occasion to raise funds for the maintenance of troops or the general expenses of the war. So far from attempting to raise money by _Werner_, in letters to Murray, dated March 6, October 24, November 18, 1822, he emphatically waives the question of "terms," and makes no demand or request for money whatever. It was not till December 23, 1823 (_Letters_, 1901, vi. 287), two years after the play had been written, that he speaks of applying the two or three hundred pounds which the copyright of _Werner_ might be worth, to the maintenance of armed men in the service of the _Provisional Government_. He could not have "purloined" and palmed off as his own the d.u.c.h.ess's version of Miss Lee's story in order to raise money for a purpose which had not arisen. He had no intention at first or last of presenting the copyright of _Werner_ to Murray or Hunt, but he was willing to wait for his money, and had no motive for raising funds by an illegal and dishonourable trick.

That Byron did _not_ write _Werner_ is, surely, non-proven on the external and internal evidence adduced by Mr. Leveson Gower. On the other hand, there is abundant evidence, both external and internal, that, apart from his acknowledged indebtedness to Miss Lee's story, he did write _Werner_.

To take the external evidence first. On the first page of Mrs. Sh.e.l.ley's transcript of _Werner_, Byron inserted the date, "Dec. 18, 1821," and on the last he wrote "[The End] of fifth act of the Drama. B. P[isa]. Jy 21. 1822."

Turning to the journal of Edward Williams (Sh.e.l.ley's _Prose Works_, 1880, iv. 318), I find the following entries:--

"December 21, 1821. Lord B. told me that he had commenced a tragedy from Miss Lee's _German Tale_ ('_Werner_'), and had been f.a.gging at it all day."

"January 8, 1822. Mary read us the first two acts of Lord B.'s _Werner_."

Again, in an unpublished diary of the same period it is recorded that Mrs. Sh.e.l.ley was engaged in the task of copying on January 17, 1822, and the eight following days, and that on January 25 she finished her transcript.

Again, Medwin (_Conversations_, 1824, p. 409) records the fact that Byron told him "that he had almost finished another play ... called _Werner_;" and (p. 412) "that _Werner_ was written in twenty-eight days, and one entire act at a sitting." It is almost incredible that Byron should have recopied a copy of the d.u.c.h.ess's play in order to impose on Mrs. Sh.e.l.ley and Williams and Medwin; and it is quite incredible that they were in the plot, and lent themselves to the deception. It is certain that both Williams and Medwin believed that Byron was the author of _Werner_, and it is certain that nothing would have induced Mrs.

Sh.e.l.ley to be _particeps criminis_--to copy a play which was not Byron's, to be published as Byron's, and to suffer her copy to be fraudulently endorsed by her guilty accomplice.

The internal evidence of the genuineness of _Werner_ is still more convincing. In the first place, there are numerous "undesigned coincidences," allusions, and phrases to be found in _Werner_ and elsewhere in Byron's _Poetical Works_, which bear his sign-manual, and cannot be attributed to another writer; and, secondly, scattered through the play there are numerous lines, pa.s.sages, allusions--"a cloud of witnesses" to their Byronic inspiration and creation.

Take the following parallels:--

_Werner_, act i. sc. 1, lines 693, 694--

"... as parchment on a drum, Like Ziska's skin."

_Age of Bronze_, lines 133, 134--

"The time may come, His name shall beat the alarm like Ziska's drum."

_Werner_, act ii. sc. 2, lines 177, 178--

"... save your throat From the Raven-stone."

_Manfred_, act iii. (original version)--

"The raven sits On the Raven-stone."

_Werner_, act ii. sc. 2, line 279--

"Things which had made this silkworm cast his skin."

_Marino Faliero_, act ii. sc. 2, line 115--

"... these swoln silkworms masters."

("Silkworm," as a term of contempt, is an Italianism.)

_Werner_, act iii. sc. 1, lines 288, 289--

"I fear that men must draw their chariots, as They say kings did Sesostris'."

_Age of Bronze_, line 45--