No More Learning

66; and Romanin, _Storia, etc. _, iv. 161). ]

[77] {183}[By the terms of the "parte," or act of deposition drawn up by
the Ten, October 21, 1457, the time granted for deliberation was "till
the third hour of the following day. " This limitation as to time was
designed to prevent the Doge from summoning the Grand Council, "to whom
alone belonged the right of releasing him from the dukedom. " (_The Two
Doges_, p. 118; _Diebeiden Foscari_, 1878, pp. 174-176). ]

[bt] {188} _The act is passed--I will obey it_. --[MS. M. ]

[78] [For this speech, see Daru (who quotes from Pietro Giustiniani,
_Histoire, etc. _, 1821, ii. 534). ]

[79] {190}[See Daru's _Histoire, etc. _, 1821, ii. 535. The _Cronaca
Augustini_ is the authority for the anecdote (see _The Two Doges_, 1891,
p. 126). ]

[bu] {192}

_I take yours, Loredano--'tis the draught_
_Most fitting such an hour as this_. --[MS. M. ]

[80] {193}[_Vide ante_, Introduction to _The Two Foscari_, p. 118. ]

[bv] _The wretchedness to die_----. --[MS. M. ]

[81] ["A decree was at once passed that a public funeral should be
accorded to Foscari, . . . and the bells of St. Mark were ordered to peal
nine times. . . . The same Council also determined that on Thursday night,
November 3, the corpse should be carried into the room of the 'Signori
di notte,' dressed in a golden mantle, with the ducal bonnet on his
head, golden spurs on his feet, . . . the gold sword by his side. " But
Foscari's wife, Marina (or Maria) Nani, opposed. "She declined to give
up the body, which she had caused to be dressed in plain clothes, and
she maintained that no one but herself should provide for the funeral
expenses, even should she have to give up her dower. " It is needless to
add that her protest was unavailing, and that the decree of the Ten was
carried into effect. --_The Two Doges_, 1891, pp. 129, 130. ]

[bw] {194} ----_comfort to my desolation_. --[MS. M. ]

[82] {195} The Venetians appear to have had a particular turn for
breaking the hearts of their Doges. The following is another instance of
the kind in the Doge Marco Barbarigo: he was succeeded by his brother
Agostino Barbarigo, whose chief merit is here mentioned. --"Le doge,
blesse de trouver constamment un contradicteur et un censeur si amer
dans son frere, lui dit un jour en plein conseil: 'Messire Augustin,
vous faites tout votre possible pour hater ma mort; vous vous flattez de
me succeder; mais, si les autres vous connaissent aussi bien que je vous
connais, ils n'auront garde de vous elire. ' La-dessus il se leva, emu de
colere, rentra dans son appartement, et mourut quelques jours apres. Ce
frere, contre lequel il s'etait emporte, fut precisement le successeur
qu'on lui donna. C'etait un merite don't on aimait a tenir compte;
surtout a un parent, de s'etre mis en opposition avec le chef de la
republique. "--DARU, _Hist, de Venise_, 1821, in. 29.

[bx] _I trust Heavens will be done also_. --[MS. ]

[83] "_L'ha pagata_. " An historical fact. See _Hist. de Venise_, par P.
DARU, 1821, ii. 528, 529.

[Daru quotes Palazzi's _Fasti Ducales_ as his authority for this story.
According to Pietro Giustiniani (_Storia_, lib. viii. ), Jacopo Loredano
was at pains to announce the decree of the Ten to the Doge in courteous
and considerate terms, and begged him to pardon him for what it was his
duty to do. Romanin points out that this version of the interview is
inconsistent with the famous "_L'hapagata_. "--_Storia, etc. _, iv. 290,
note i. ]

[84] {196}[Here the original MS. ends. The two lines which follow, were
added by Gifford. In the margin of the MS. Byron has written, "If the
last line should appear obscure to those who do not recollect the
historical fact mentioned in the first act of Loredano's inscription in
his book, of 'Doge Foscari, debtor for the deaths of my father and
uncle,' you may add the following lines to the conclusion of the last
act:--

_Chief of the Ten_. For what has he repaid thee?

_Lor. _ For my father's
And father's brother's death--by his son's and own!

Ask Gifford about this. "]

[85] [The _Appendix_ to the First Edition of _The Two Foscari_ consisted
of (i. ) an extract from P. Daru's _Histoire de la Republique Francaise_,
1821, ii. 520-537; (ii. ) an extract from J. C. L. Simonde de Sismondi's
_Histoire des Republiques Italiennes du Moyen Age_, 1815, x. 36-46; and
(iii. ) a note in response to certain charges of plagiarism brought
against the author in the _Literary Gazette_ and elsewhere; and to
Southey's indictment of the "Satanic School," which had recently
appeared in the Preface to the Laureate's _Vision of Judgement_
(_Poetical Works of Robert Southey_, 1838, x. 202-207). See, too, the
"Introduction to _The Vision of Judgment_," _Poetical Works_, 1891, iv.
pp. 475-480. ]





CAIN:

A MYSTERY.


"Now the Serpent was more subtil than any beast of the field
which the Lord God had made. "
_Genesis_,
_Chapter 3rd, verse 1_.




INTRODUCTION TO _CAIN_.


Cain was begun at Ravenna, July 16, and finished September 9, 1821
(_vide_ MS. M. ). Six months before, when he was at work on the first act
of _Sardanapalus_, Byron had "pondered" _Cain_, but it was not till
_Sardanapalus_ and a second historical play, _The Two Foscari_, had been
written, copied out, and sent to England, that he indulged his genius
with a third drama--on "a metaphysical subject, something in the style
of _Manfred_" (_Letters_, 1901, v. 189).

Goethe's comment on reading and reviewing _Cain_ was that he should be
surprised if Byron did not pursue the treatment of such "biblical
subjects," as the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah (_Conversations,
etc. _, 1879, p. 62); and, many years after, he told Crabb Robinson
(_Diary_, 1869, ii. 435) that Byron should have lived "to execute his
vocation . . . to dramatize the Old Testament. " He was better equipped for
such a task than might have been imagined. A Scottish schoolboy, "from a
child he had known the Scriptures," and, as his _Hebrew Melodies_
testify, he was not unwilling to turn to the Bible as a source of poetic
inspiration. Moreover, he was born with the religious temperament.
Questions "of Providence, foreknowledge, will and fate," exercised his
curiosity because they appealed to his imagination and moved his spirit.
He was eager to plunge into controversy with friends and advisers who
challenged or rebuked him, Hodgson, for instance, or Dallas; and he
responded with remarkable amenity to the strictures and exhortations of
such orthodox professors as Mr. Sheppard and Dr. Kennedy. He was, no
doubt, from first to last a _heretic_, impatient, not to say
contemptuous, of authority, but he was by no means indifferent to
religion altogether. To "argue about it and about" was a necessity, if
not an agreeable relief, to his intellectual energies. It would appear
from the Ravenna diary (January 28, 1821, _Letters_, 1901, v. 190,191),
that the conception of Lucifer was working in his brain before the
"tragedy of Cain" was actually begun. He had been recording a "thought"
which had come to him, that "at the very height of human desire and
pleasure, a certain sense of doubt and sorrow"--an _amari aliquid_ which
links the future to the past, and so blots out the present--"mingles
with our bliss," making it of none effect, and, by way of moral or
corollary to his soliloquy, he adds three lines of verse headed,
"Thought for a speech of Lucifer in the Tragedy of _Cain_"--

"Were Death an _Evil_, would _I_ let thee live?
Fool! live as I live--as thy father lives,
And thy son's sons shall live for evermore. "

In these three lines, which were not inserted in the play, and in the
preceding "thought," we have the key-note to _Cain_. "Man walketh in a
vain shadow"--a shadow which he can never overtake, the shadow of an
eternally postponed fruition. With a being capable of infinite
satisfaction, he is doomed to realize failure in attainment. In all that
is best and most enjoyable, "the rapturous moment and the placid hour,"
there is a foretaste of "Death the Unknown"! The tragedy of _Manfred_
lies in remorse for the inevitable past; the tragedy of _Cain_, in
revolt against the limitations of the inexorable present.

The investigation of the "sources" of _Cain_ does not lead to any very
definite conclusion (see _Lord Byron's Cain und Seine Quellen_, von
Alfred Schaffner, 1880). He was pleased to call his play "a Mystery,"
and, in his Preface (_vide post_, p. 207), Byron alludes to the Old
Mysteries as "those very profane productions, whether in English,
French, Italian, or Spanish. " The first reprint of the _Chester Plays_
was published by the Roxburghe Club in 1818, but Byron's knowledge of
Mystery Plays was probably derived from _Dodsley's Plays_ (ed. 1780, l. ,
xxxiii. -xlii. ), or from John Stevens's Continuation of Dugdale's
_Monasticon_ (_vide post_, p. 207), or possibly, as Herr Schaffner
suggests, from Warton's _History of English Poetry_, ed. 1871, ii.
222-230. He may, too, have witnessed some belated _Rappresentazione_ of
the Creation and Fall at Ravenna, or in one of the remoter towns or
villages of Italy. There is a superficial resemblance between the
treatment of the actual encounter of Cain and Abel, and the conventional
rendering of the same incident in the _Ludus Coventriae_, and in the
_Mistere du Viel Testament_; but it is unlikely that he had closely
studied any one Mystery Play at first hand. On the other hand, his
recollections of Gessner's _Death of Abel_ which "he had never read
since he was eight years old," were clearer than he imagined. Not only
in such minor matters as the destruction of Cain's altar by a whirlwind,
and the substitution of the Angel of the Lord for the _Deus_ of the
Mysteries, but in the Teutonic domesticities of Cain and Adah, and the
evangelical piety of Adam and Abel, there is a reflection, if not an
imitation, of the German idyll (see Gessner's _Death of Abel_, ed. 1797,
pp. 80, 102).

Of his indebtedness to Milton he makes no formal acknowledgment, but he
was not ashamed to shelter himself behind Milton's shield when he was
attacked on the score of blasphemy and profanity. "If _Cain_ be
blasphemous, _Paradise Lost_ is blasphemous" (letter to Murray, Pisa,
February 8, 1822), was, he would fain believe, a conclusive answer to
his accusers. But apart from verbal parallels or coincidences, there is
a genuine affinity between Byron's Lucifer and Milton's Satan. Lucifer,
like Satan, is "not less than Archangel ruined," a repulsed but
"unvanquished Titan," marred by a demonic sorrow, a confessor though a
rival of Omnipotence. He is a majestic and, as a rule, a serious and
solemn spirit, who compels the admiration and possibly the sympathy of
the reader. There is, however, another strain in his ghostly attributes,
which betrays a more recent consanguinity: now and again he gives token
that he is of the lineage of Mephistopheles. He is sometimes, though
rarely, a mocking as well as a rebellious spirit, and occasionally
indulges in a grim _persiflage_ beneath the dignity if not the capacity
of Satan. It is needless to add that Lucifer has a most lifelike
personality of his own. The conception of the spirit of evil justifying
an eternal antagonism to the Creator from the standpoint of a superior
morality, may, perhaps, be traced to a Manichean source, but it has been
touched with a new emotion. Milton's devil is an abstraction of infernal
pride--

"Sole Positive of Night!
Antipathist of Light!
Fate's only essence! primal scorpion rod--
The one permitted opposite of God! "

Goethe's devil is an abstraction of scorn. He "maketh a mock" alike of
good and evil! But Byron's devil is a spirit, yet a mortal too--the
traducer, because he has suffered for his sins; the deceiver, because he
is self-deceived; the hoper against hope that there is a ransom for the
soul in perfect self-will and not in perfect self-sacrifice. Byron did
not uphold Lucifer, but he "had passed that way," and could imagine a
spiritual warfare not only against the _Deus_ of the Mysteries or of the
Book of Genesis, but against what he believed and acknowledged to be
the Author and Principle of good.

_Autres temps, autres moeurs! _ It is all but impossible for the modern
reader to appreciate the audacity of _Cain_, or to realize the alarm and
indignation which it aroused by its appearance. Byron knew that he was
raising a tempest, and pleads, in his Preface, "that with regard to the
language of Lucifer, it was difficult for me to make him talk like a
clergyman," and again and again he assures his correspondents (_e. g. _ to
Murray, November 23, 1821, "_Cain_ is nothing more than a drama;" to
Moore, March 4, 1822, "With respect to Religion, can I never convince
you that _I_ have no such opinions as the characters in that drama,
which seems to have frightened everybody? " _Letters_, 1901, v. 469; vi.
30) that it is Lucifer and not Byron who puts such awkward questions
with regard to the "politics of paradise" and the origin of evil. Nobody
seems to have believed him. It was taken for granted that Lucifer was
the mouthpiece of Byron, that the author of _Don Juan_ was not "on the
side of the angels. "

Little need be said of the "literature," the pamphlets and poems which
were evoked by the publication of _Cain: A Mystery_. One of the most
prominent assailants (said to be the Rev. H. J. Todd (1763-1845),
Archdeacon of Cleveland, 1832, author _inter alia_ of _Original Sin_,
_Free Will_, etc. , 1818) issued _A Remonstrance to Mr. John Murray,
respecting a Recent Publication_, 1822, signed "Oxoniensis. " The sting
of the _Remonstrance_ lay in the exposure of the fact that Byron was
indebted to Bayle's _Dictionary_ for his rabbinical legends, and that he
had derived from the same source his Manichean doctrines of the _Two
Principles, etc. _, and other "often-refuted sophisms" with regard to the
origin of evil. Byron does not borrow more than a poet and a gentleman
is at liberty to acquire by way of raw material, but it cannot be denied
that he had read and inwardly digested more than one of Bayle's "most
objectionable articles" (_e. g. _ "Adam," "Eve," "Abel," "Manichees,"
"Paulicians," etc. ). The _Remonstrance_ was answered in _A Letter to Sir
Walter Scott, etc. _, by "Harroviensis. " Byron welcomed such a "Defender
of the Faith," and was anxious that Murray should print the letter
together with the poem. But Murray belittled the "defender," and was
upbraided in turn for his slowness of heart (letter to Murray, June 6,
1822, _Letters_, 1901, vi. 76).

Fresh combatants rushed into the fray: "Philo-Milton," with a
_Vindication of the "Paradise Lost" from the charge of exculpating
"Cain: A Mystery_," London, 1822; "Britannicus," with a pamphlet
entitled, _Revolutionary Causes, etc. , and A Postscript containing
Strictures on "Cain," etc. _, London, 1822, etc. ; but their works, which
hardly deserve to be catalogued, have perished with them. Finally, in
1830, a barrister named Harding Grant, author of _Chancery Practice_,
compiled a work (_Lord Byron's "Cain," etc. , with Notes_) of more than
four hundred pages, in which he treats "the proceedings and speeches of
Lucifer with the same earnestness as if they were existing and earthly
personages. " But it was "a week too late. " The "Coryphaeus of the Satanic
School" had passed away, and the tumult had "dwindled to a calm. "

_Cain_ "appeared in conjunction with" _Sardanapalus_ and _The Two
Foscari_, December 19, 1821.
Last but not least of the three plays, it
had been announced "by a separate advertisement (_Morning Chronicle_,
November 24, 1821), for the purpose of exciting the greater curiosity"
(_Memoirs of the Life, etc. _ [by John Watkins], 1822, p. 383), and it
was no sooner published than it was pirated. In the following January,
"_Cain: A Mystery_, by the author of _Don Juan_," was issued by W.
Benbow, at Castle Street, Leicester Square (the notorious "Byron Head,"
which Southey described as "one of those preparatory schools for the
brothel and the gallows, where obscenity, sedition, and blasphemy are
retailed in drams for the vulgar"! ).

Murray had paid Byron ? 2710 for the three tragedies, and in order to
protect the copyright, he applied, through counsel (Lancelot Shadwell,
afterwards Vice-Chancellor), for an injunction in Chancery to stop the
sale of piratical editions of _Cain_. In delivering judgment (February
12, 1822), the Chancellor, Lord Eldon (see _Courier_, Wednesday,
February 13), replying to Shadwell, drew a comparison between _Cain_ and
_Paradise Lost_, "which he had read from beginning to end during the
course of the last Long Vacation--_solicitae jucunda oblivia vitae_. " No
one, he argued, could deny that the object and effects of _Paradise
Lost_ were "not to bring into disrepute," but "to promote reverence for
our religion," and, _per contra_, no one could affirm that it was
impossible to arrive at an opposite conclusion with regard to "the
Preface, the poem, the general tone and manner of _Cain_. " It was a
question for a jury. A jury might decide that _Cain_ was blasphemous,
and void of copyright; and as there was a reasonable doubt in his mind
as to the character of the book, and a doubt as to the conclusion at
which a jury would arrive, he was compelled to refuse the injunction.
According to Dr. Smiles (_Memoir of John Murray_, 1891, i. 428), the
decision of a jury was taken, and an injunction eventually granted. If
so, it was ineffectual, for Benbow issued another edition of _Cain_ in
1824 (see Jacob's _Reports_, p. 474, note). See, too, the case of
Murray _v_. Benbow and Another, as reported in the _Examiner_, February
17, 1822; and cases of Wolcot _v_. Walker, Southey _v_. Sherwood, Murray
_v_. Benbow, and Lawrence _v_. Smith [_Quarterly Review_, April, 1822,
vol. xxvii. pp. 120-138].

"_Cain_," said Moore (February 9, 1822), "has made a sensation. " Friends
and champions, the press, the public "turned up their thumbs. " Gifford
shook his head; Hobhouse "launched out into a most violent invective"
(letter to Murray, November 24, 1821); Jeffrey, in the _Edinburgh_, was
regretful and hortatory; Heber, in the _Quarterly_, was fault-finding
and contemptuous. The "parsons preached at it from Kentish Town to Pisa"
(letter to Moore, February 20, 1822). Even "the very highest authority
in the land," his Majesty King George IV. , "expressed his disapprobation
of the blasphemy and licentiousness of Lord Byron's writings"
(_Examiner_, February 17, 1822). Byron himself was forced to admit that
"my Mont Saint Jean seems Cain" (_Don Juan_, Canto XI. stanza lvi. line
2). The many were unanimous in their verdict, but the higher court of
the few reversed the judgment.

Goethe said that "Its beauty is such as we shall not see a second time
in the world" (_Conversations, etc. _, 1874, p. 261); Scott, in speaking
of "the very grand and tremendous drama of _Cain_," said that the author
had "matched Milton on his own ground" (letter to Murray, December 4,
1821, _vide post_, p. 206); "_Cain_," wrote Shelley to Gisborne (April
10, 1822), "is apocalyptic; it is a revelation never before communicated
to man. "

Uncritical praise, as well as uncritical censure, belongs to the past;
but the play remains, a singular exercise of "poetic energy," a
confession, _ex animo_, of "the burthen of the mystery, . . . the heavy
and the weary weight Of all this unintelligible world. "

For reviews of _Cain: A Mystery_, _vide ante_, "Introduction to
_Sardanapalus_," p. 5; see, too, _Eclectic Review_, May, 1822, N. S. vol.
xvii. pp. 418-427; _Examiner_, June 2, 1822; _British Review_, 1822,
vol. xix. pp. 94-102.

For O'Doherty's parody of the "Pisa" Letter, February 8, 1822, see
_Blackwood's Edinburgh Magazine_, February, 1822, vol. xi. pp. 215-217;
and for a review of Harding Grant's _Lord Byron's Cain, etc. _, see
_Fraser's Magazine_, April, 1831, iii. 285-304.





TO

SIR WALTER SCOTT, BART. ,

THIS MYSTERY OF CAIN

IS INSCRIBED,

BY HIS OBLIGED FRIEND

AND FAITHFUL SERVANT,

THE AUTHOR. [86]




PREFACE


The following scenes are entitled "A Mystery," in conformity with the
ancient title annexed to dramas upon similar subjects, which were styled
"Mysteries, or Moralities. "[87] The author has by no means taken the
same liberties with his subject which were common formerly, as may be
seen by any reader curious enough to refer to those very profane
productions, whether in English, French, Italian, or Spanish. The author
has endeavoured to preserve the language adapted to his characters; and
where it is (and this is but rarely) taken from actual _Scripture_, he
has made as little alteration, even of words, as the rhythm would
permit. The reader will recollect that the book of Genesis does not
state that Eve was tempted by a demon, but by "the Serpent[88];" and
that only because he was "the most subtil of all the beasts of the
field. " Whatever interpretation the Rabbins and the Fathers may have put
upon this, I take the words as I find them, and reply, with Bishop
Watson[89] upon similar occasions, when the Fathers were quoted to him
as Moderator in the schools of Cambridge, "Behold the Book! "--holding up
the Scripture. It is to be recollected, that my present subject has
nothing to do with the _New Testament_, to which no reference can be
here made without anachronism. [90] With the poems upon similar topics I
have not been recently familiar. Since I was twenty I have never read
Milton; but I had read him so frequently before, that this may make
little difference. Gesner's "Death of Abel" I have never read since I
was eight years of age, at Aberdeen. The general impression of my
recollection is delight; but of the contents I remember only that Cain's
wife was called Mahala, and Abel's Thirza; in the following pages I have
called them "Adah" and "Zillah," the earliest female names which occur
in Genesis. They were those of Lamech's wives: those of Cain and Abel
are not called by their names. Whether, then, a coincidence of subject
may have caused the same in expression, I know nothing, and care as
little. [I[91] am prepared to be accused of Manicheism,[92] or some
other hard name ending in _ism_, which makes a formidable figure and
awful sound in the eyes and ears of those who would be as much puzzled
to explain the terms so bandied about, as the liberal and pious
indulgers in such epithets. Against such I can defend myself, or, if
necessary, I can attack in turn. "Claw for claw, as Conan said to Satan
and the deevil take the shortest nails" (Waverley). [93]]

The reader will please to bear in mind (what few choose to recollect),
that there is no allusion to a future state in any of the books of
Moses, nor indeed in the Old Testament. For a reason for this
extraordinary omission he may consult Warburton's "Divine
Legation;"[94] whether satisfactory or not, no better has yet been
assigned. I have therefore supposed it new to Cain, without, I hope, any
perversion of Holy Writ.

With regard to the language of Lucifer, it was difficult for me to make
him talk like a clergyman upon the same subjects; but I have done what I
could to restrain him within the bounds of spiritual politeness. If he
disclaims having tempted Eve in the shape of the Serpent, it is only
because the book of Genesis has not the most distant allusion to
anything of the kind, but merely to the Serpent in his serpentine
capacity.

_Note_. --The reader will perceive that the author has partly adopted in
this poem the notion of Cuvier,[95] that the world had been destroyed
several times before the creation of man. This speculation, derived from
the different strata and the bones of enormous and unknown animals found
in them, is not contrary to the Mosaic account, but rather confirms it;
as no human bones have yet been discovered in those strata, although
those of many known animals are found near the remains of the unknown.
The assertion of Lucifer, that the pre-Adamite world was also peopled by
rational beings much more intelligent than man, and proportionably
powerful to the mammoth, etc. , etc. , is, of course, a poetical fiction
to help him to make out his case.

I ought to add, that there is a "tramelogedia" of Alfieri, called
"Abele. "[96] I have never read that, nor any other of the posthumous
works of the writer, except his Life.

RAVENNA, _Sept_. 20, 1821.



DRAMATIS PERSONAE.

MEN.

ADAM.
CAIN.
ABEL.

SPIRITS.

ANGEL OF THE LORD.
LUCIFER.

WOMEN.

EVE.
ADAH.
ZILLAH.




CAIN: A MYSTERY.




ACT I.


SCENE I. --_The Land without Paradise. --Time, Sunrise_.


ADAM, EVE, CAIN, ABEL, ADAH, ZILLAH, _offering a Sacrifice_.

_Adam_. God, the Eternal! Infinite! All-wise! --
Who out of darkness on the deep didst make
Light on the waters with a word--All Hail!
Jehovah! with returning light--All Hail!

_Eve_. God! who didst name the day, and separate
Morning from night, till then divided never--
Who didst divide the wave from wave, and call
Part of thy work the firmament--All Hail!

_Abel_. God! who didst call the elements into
Earth, ocean, air and fire--and with the day 10
And night, and worlds which these illuminate,
Or shadow, madest beings to enjoy them,
And love both them and thee--All Hail! All Hail!

_Adah_. God! the Eternal parent of all things!
Who didst create these best and beauteous beings,
To be beloved, more than all, save thee--
Let me love thee and them:--All Hail! All Hail!

_Zillah_. Oh, God! who loving, making, blessing all,
Yet didst permit the Serpent to creep in,
And drive my father forth from Paradise, 20
Keep us from further evil:--Hail! All Hail!

_Adam_. Son Cain! my first-born--wherefore art thou silent?

_Cain_. Why should I speak?

_Adam_. To pray.

_Cain_. Have ye not prayed?

_Adam_. We have, most fervently.

_Cain_. And loudly: I
Have heard you.

_Adam_. So will God, I trust.

_Abel_. Amen!

_Adam_. But thou my eldest born? art silent still?

_Cain_. 'Tis better I should be so.

_Adam_. Wherefore so?

_Cain_. I have nought to ask.

_Adam_. Nor aught to thank for?

_Cain_. No.

_Adam_. Dost thou not _live_?

_Cain_. Must I not die?

_Eve_. Alas!
The fruit of our forbidden tree begins 30
To fall.

_Adam_. And we must gather it again.
Oh God! why didst thou plant the tree of knowledge?

_Cain_. And wherefore plucked ye not the tree of life?
Ye might have then defied him.

_Adam_. Oh! my son,
Blaspheme not: these are Serpent's words.

_Cain_. Why not?
The snake spoke _truth_; it _was_ the Tree of Knowledge;
It _was_ the Tree of Life: knowledge is good,
And Life is good; and how can both be evil?

_Eve_. My boy! thou speakest as I spoke in sin,
Before thy birth: let me not see renewed 40
My misery in thine. I have repented.
Let me not see my offspring fall into
The snares beyond the walls of Paradise,
Which even in Paradise destroyed his parents.
Content thee with what _is_. Had we been so,
Thou now hadst been contented. --Oh, my son!

_Adam_. Our orisons completed, let us hence,
Each to his task of toil--not heavy, though
Needful: the earth is young, and yields us kindly
Her fruits with little labour.

_Eve_. Cain--my son-- 50
Behold thy father cheerful and resigned--
And do as he doth. [_Exeunt_ ADAM _and_ EVE.

_Zillah_. Wilt thou not, my brother?

_Abel_. Why wilt thou wear this gloom upon thy brow,
Which can avail thee nothing, save to rouse
The Eternal anger?