Davenport
as "Ulric," Mrs.
Byron
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
[R(e/gkousi d' ou) platoi~si physia/masin] (line 53).
("Their snoring nostrils blow fearsome breath. ")
There is a closer parallel with--
? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ' ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?
[Gela~ de\ dai/mon e)p' a)ndri\ thermo~] (line 560).
("The spirit mocketh the headlong soul. ")]
[147] {297}[Matthew Arnold, _Poetry of Byron_, 1881, xiv. , xv. , quotes
this line in proof of Byron's barbarian insensibility, "to the true
artist's fine passion for the correct use and consummate management of
words. "]
[148] {300} "[And] there were giants in the earth in those days; and . . .
after, . . . mighty men, which were of old, men of renown. "--_Genesis_
[vi. 4].
[149] "The same day were all the fountains of the great deep broken up,
and the windows of heaven were opened. "--_Genesis_ [vii. II].
[150] {301}[Byron falls in with the popular theory as to the existence
of fossil remains of marine animals at a height above the level of the
sea. The "deluge" accounted for what was otherwise inexplicable. ]
[151] {302} The book of Enoch, preserved by the Ethiopians, is said by
them to be anterior to the flood.
[Some fragments of the _Book of Enoch_ (_vide ante_, Introduction to
_Heaven and Earth_, p. 281), which were included by Georgius Syncellus
(a Byzantine writer of the eighth century A. D. ) in his _Chronographia_,
pp. ii, 26 (_Corpus Script. Hist. Byzantintae_, 1829, i. 20), were
printed by J. J. Scaliger in 1606. They were, afterwards, included (i.
347-354) in the _Spicilegium SS. Patrum_ of Joannes Ernestus Grabius,
which was published at Oxford in 1714. A year after (1715) one of the
fragments was "made English," and published under the title of _The
History of the Angels and their Gallantry with the Daughters of Men_,
written by Enoch the Patriarch.
In 1785 James Bruce, the traveller, discovered three MSS. of the _Book
of Enoch_. One he conveyed to the library at Paris: a second MS. he
presented to the Bodleian Library at Oxford (_Travels_, ii. 422, 8vo ed.
1805). In 1801 an article entitled, "Notice du Libre d'Enoch," was
contributed by Silvestre de Sacy to the _Magasin Encyclopedique_ (An.
vi. tom. i. p. 369); and in 1821 Richard Laurence, LL. D. , published a
translation "from the Ethiopic MS. in the Bodleian Library. " This was
the first translation of the book as a whole.
The following extracts, which were evidently within Byron's recollection
when he planned _Heaven and Earth_, are taken from _The Book of Enoch_,
translated from Professor Dillman's Ethiopic Text, by R. H. Charles,
Oxford, 1892:--
"Chap. vi. [1. And it came to pass when the children of men had
multiplied in those days that beautiful and comely daughters were born
unto them. [2. And the angels, the sons of the Heavens, saw and lusted
after them, and spake one to another, 'Come now, let us choose us wives
from among the children of men, and beget children. ' [3. And Semjaza,
who was the leader, spake unto them: I fear ye will not indeed agree to
do this deed. . . . [6. And they descended in the days of Jared on the
summit of Mount Hermon. . . .
"Chap. viii. [i. And Azazel taught men to make swords, etc.
"Chap. x. Then spake the Most High, the Great, the Holy One, and sent
Arsjalaljur (= Uriel) to the son of Lamech, and said to him, 'Tell him
in My Name to hide thyself! ' and reveal to him that the end is
approaching; for the whole earth will be destroyed, and a deluge will
presently cover up the whole earth, and all that is in it will be
destroyed. [3. And now instruct him that he may escape, as his seed may
be preserved for all generations. [4. And again the Lord spake to
Rafael; Bind Azazel hand and foot, and place him in darkness; make an
opening in the desert which is in Dudael and place him therein. [5. And
place upon him rough and ragged rocks," etc. ]
[152] {306}[This does not correspond with Cain's statement--"After the
fall too soon was I begotten," _Cain_, act. iii. sc. I, line 506 (_vide
ante_).
Bayle (_Hist. and Crit. Dict. _, 1735, art. "Eve," note B) has a great
deal to say with regard to the exact date of the birth of Cain. He
concludes with _Cornelius a Lapide_, who quotes Torniellus, "Cain
genitum ease mox post expulsionem Adae et Evae ex Paradiso. "]
[153] {309}[Byron said that it was difficult to make Lucifer talk "like
a clergyman. " He contrived to make Noah talk like a street-preacher. ]
[154] [In the original MS. "Michael. "--"I return you," says Byron, "the
revise. I have softened the part to which Gifford objected, and changed
the name of Michael to Raphael, who was an angel of gentler
sympathies. "--July 6, 1822, _Letters_, vi. 93. ]
[155] {311}[That is, "to call you back. " His ministry and function of
clemency were almost as dear to him as his ministry and function of
adoration and obedience. ]
[156] [For the connection of stars with angels, see _Book of Enoch_,
xxv. 1. ]
[157] {315}[Compare _Darkness_, lines 2-5, _Poetical Works_, 1891, iv.
42, 43. ]
[158] {321}[Sketch of Second Part of _Heaven and Earth_, as reported by
Medwin (_Conversations_, 1824, pp. 234-237)--
"Azazael and Samiasa . . . rise into the air with the two sisters. . . . The
appearance of the land strangled by the ocean will serve by way of
scenery and decorations. The affectionate tenderness of Adah for those
from whom she is parted, and for ever, and her fears contrasting with
the loftier spirit of Aholibamah triumphing in the hopes of a new and
greater destiny will make the dialogue. They, in the meantime, continue
their aerial voyage, everywhere denied admittance in those floating
islands over the sea of space, and driven back by guardian-spirits of
the different planets, till they are at length forced to alight on the
only peak of the earth uncovered by water. Here a parting takes place
between the lovers. . . . The fallen angels are suddenly called, and
condemned, their destination and punishment unknown. The sisters cling
to the rock, the waters mounting higher and higher. Now enter Ark. The
scene draws up, and discovers Japhet endeavouring to persuade the
Patriarch, with very strong arguments of love and pity, to receive the
sisters, or at least Adah, on board. Adah joins in his entreaties, and
endeavours to cling to the sides of the vessel. The proud and haughty
Aholibamah scorns to pray either to God or man, and anticipates the
grave by plunging into the waters. Noah is still inexorable. [Adah] is
momentarily in danger of perishing before the eyes of the Arkites.
Japhet is in despair. The last wave sweeps her from the rock, and her
lifeless corpse floats past in all its beauty, whilst a sea-bird screams
over it, and seems to be the spirit of her angel lord. I once thought of
conveying the lovers to the moon or one of the planets; but it is not
easy for the imagination to make any unknown world more beautiful than
this; besides, I did not think they would approve of the moon as a
residence. I remember what Fontenelle said of its having no atmosphere,
and the dark spots having caverns where the inhabitants reside. There
was another objection: all the human interest would have been destroyed,
which I have even endeavoured to give my angels. "]
WERNER;
OR,
THE INHERITANCE:
A TRAGEDY.
[_Werner_ was produced, for the first time, at the Park Theatre, New
York, in 1826. Mr. Barry played "Werner. "
_Werner_ was brought out at Drury Lane Theatre, and played, for the
first time, December 15, 1830. Macready appeared as "Werner," J. W.
Wallack as "Ulric," Mrs. Faucit as "Josephine," and Miss Mordaunt as
"Ida. " According to the _Times_, December 16, 1830, "Mr. Macready
appeared to very great advantage. We have never seen him exert himself
more--we have never known him to exert himself with more powerful
effect. Three of his scenes were masterpieces. " Genest says that
_Werner_ was acted seventeen times in 1830-31.
There was a revival in 1833. Macready says (_Diary_, March 20) that he
acted "'Werner' with unusual force, truth, and collectedness . . .
finished off each burst of passion, and, in consequence, entered on the
following emotion with clearness and earnestness" (Macready's
_Reminiscences_, 1875, i 36. 6).
_Werner_ was played in 1834, 5, 6, 7, 9; in 1841; in 1843-4 (New York,
Boston, Baltimore, New Orleans, Cincinnati, Montreal); in 1845 (Paris,
London, Glasgow, Belfast, Dublin); in 1846, 1847; in America in 1848; in
the provinces in 1849; in 1850; and, for the last time, at the Theatre
Royal, Haymarket, January 14, 1851. At the farewell performance Macready
appeared as "Werner," Mr.
Davenport as "Ulric," Mrs. Warner as
"Josephine," Mrs. Ryder as "Ida. " In the same year (1851) a portrait of
Macready as "Werner," by Daniel Maclise, R. A. , was on view at the
Exhibition at the Royal Academy. The motto was taken from _Werner_, act
i. sc. 1, lines 114, _sq. _ (See, for a detailed criticism of Macready's
"Werner," _Our Recent Actors_, by Westland Marston, 1881, i. 89-98; and
for the famous "Macready _burst_," in act ii. sc. 2, and act v. sc. 1,
_vide ibid. _, i. 97. )
_Werner_ was brought out at Sadler's Wells Theatre, November 21, 1860,
and repeated November 22, 23, 24, 28, 29; December, 3, 4, 11, 13, 14,
1860. Phelps appeared as "Werner," Mr. Edmund Phelps as "Ulric," Miss
Atkinson as "Josephine. " "Perhaps the old actor never performed the part
so finely as he did on that night. The identity between the real and
ideal relations of the characters was as vivid to him as to the
audience, and gave a deeper intensity, on both sides, to the scenes
between father and son. " (See _The London Stage_, by H. Barton Baker,
1889, ii. 217. )
On the afternoon of June 1, 1887, _Werner_ (four acts, arranged by Frank
Marshall) was performed at the Lyceum Theatre for the benefit of
Westland Marston. [Sir] Henry Irving appeared as "Werner," Miss Ellen
Terry as "Josephine," Mr. Alexander as "Ulric. " (See for an appreciation
of Sir Henry Irving's presentation of _Werner_, the _Athenaeum_, June 4,
1887. )]
INTRODUCTION TO _WERNER_.
_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 Saturday, 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 circumstances," that is, no doubt, the
circumstances 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 passages from the novel and the play, in parallel
columns, gives the reader to understand that he had made an exhaustive
analysis 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 noble, Count Siegendorf, after various adventures,
marries, under the assumed name of Friedrich Kruitzner, the daughter of
an Italian scholar and man of science, of noble birth, but in narrow
circumstances. 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 snatches
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 circumstances," 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, circumstances 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 assassination. He repudiates and denounces his son, and
connives at the escape of the Hungarian. Conrad, who is banished from
Prague, rejoins his former associates, 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 rectitude by the passionate 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 passages, 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 entitled, "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, Duchess of Devonshire (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 duchess, "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 asserts that their mother, the duchess, "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 identity of Byron's version with that
of the duchess. 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 duchess 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 Duchess of
Devonshire, dramatized Miss Lee's _Kruitzner_; and (2) that Lady
Georgiana Fullerton believed that the duchess 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 Duchess of
Devonshire dramatized _Kruitzner_, but it does not prove that Byron
purloined her adaptation. It records an unverified impression on the
part of the duchess's granddaughter, that the MS. of a play written
between the years 1801-1806, passed 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
circumstance, 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 duchess's MS. ; and
(2) that a great poet of assured fame and reputation could have had no
possible motive for perpetrating a literary fraud. The first objection
he answers by assuming that Byron would have counted on the reluctance
of the "Ponsonby family and the daughters of the Duchess" 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 scraps" should fall to his share. But no argument can be
founded on so insignificant a circumstance.
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 duchess'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. Shelley's
transcript of _Werner_, Byron inserted the date, "Dec.
[R(e/gkousi d' ou) platoi~si physia/masin] (line 53).
("Their snoring nostrils blow fearsome breath. ")
There is a closer parallel with--
? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ' ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?
[Gela~ de\ dai/mon e)p' a)ndri\ thermo~] (line 560).
("The spirit mocketh the headlong soul. ")]
[147] {297}[Matthew Arnold, _Poetry of Byron_, 1881, xiv. , xv. , quotes
this line in proof of Byron's barbarian insensibility, "to the true
artist's fine passion for the correct use and consummate management of
words. "]
[148] {300} "[And] there were giants in the earth in those days; and . . .
after, . . . mighty men, which were of old, men of renown. "--_Genesis_
[vi. 4].
[149] "The same day were all the fountains of the great deep broken up,
and the windows of heaven were opened. "--_Genesis_ [vii. II].
[150] {301}[Byron falls in with the popular theory as to the existence
of fossil remains of marine animals at a height above the level of the
sea. The "deluge" accounted for what was otherwise inexplicable. ]
[151] {302} The book of Enoch, preserved by the Ethiopians, is said by
them to be anterior to the flood.
[Some fragments of the _Book of Enoch_ (_vide ante_, Introduction to
_Heaven and Earth_, p. 281), which were included by Georgius Syncellus
(a Byzantine writer of the eighth century A. D. ) in his _Chronographia_,
pp. ii, 26 (_Corpus Script. Hist. Byzantintae_, 1829, i. 20), were
printed by J. J. Scaliger in 1606. They were, afterwards, included (i.
347-354) in the _Spicilegium SS. Patrum_ of Joannes Ernestus Grabius,
which was published at Oxford in 1714. A year after (1715) one of the
fragments was "made English," and published under the title of _The
History of the Angels and their Gallantry with the Daughters of Men_,
written by Enoch the Patriarch.
In 1785 James Bruce, the traveller, discovered three MSS. of the _Book
of Enoch_. One he conveyed to the library at Paris: a second MS. he
presented to the Bodleian Library at Oxford (_Travels_, ii. 422, 8vo ed.
1805). In 1801 an article entitled, "Notice du Libre d'Enoch," was
contributed by Silvestre de Sacy to the _Magasin Encyclopedique_ (An.
vi. tom. i. p. 369); and in 1821 Richard Laurence, LL. D. , published a
translation "from the Ethiopic MS. in the Bodleian Library. " This was
the first translation of the book as a whole.
The following extracts, which were evidently within Byron's recollection
when he planned _Heaven and Earth_, are taken from _The Book of Enoch_,
translated from Professor Dillman's Ethiopic Text, by R. H. Charles,
Oxford, 1892:--
"Chap. vi. [1. And it came to pass when the children of men had
multiplied in those days that beautiful and comely daughters were born
unto them. [2. And the angels, the sons of the Heavens, saw and lusted
after them, and spake one to another, 'Come now, let us choose us wives
from among the children of men, and beget children. ' [3. And Semjaza,
who was the leader, spake unto them: I fear ye will not indeed agree to
do this deed. . . . [6. And they descended in the days of Jared on the
summit of Mount Hermon. . . .
"Chap. viii. [i. And Azazel taught men to make swords, etc.
"Chap. x. Then spake the Most High, the Great, the Holy One, and sent
Arsjalaljur (= Uriel) to the son of Lamech, and said to him, 'Tell him
in My Name to hide thyself! ' and reveal to him that the end is
approaching; for the whole earth will be destroyed, and a deluge will
presently cover up the whole earth, and all that is in it will be
destroyed. [3. And now instruct him that he may escape, as his seed may
be preserved for all generations. [4. And again the Lord spake to
Rafael; Bind Azazel hand and foot, and place him in darkness; make an
opening in the desert which is in Dudael and place him therein. [5. And
place upon him rough and ragged rocks," etc. ]
[152] {306}[This does not correspond with Cain's statement--"After the
fall too soon was I begotten," _Cain_, act. iii. sc. I, line 506 (_vide
ante_).
Bayle (_Hist. and Crit. Dict. _, 1735, art. "Eve," note B) has a great
deal to say with regard to the exact date of the birth of Cain. He
concludes with _Cornelius a Lapide_, who quotes Torniellus, "Cain
genitum ease mox post expulsionem Adae et Evae ex Paradiso. "]
[153] {309}[Byron said that it was difficult to make Lucifer talk "like
a clergyman. " He contrived to make Noah talk like a street-preacher. ]
[154] [In the original MS. "Michael. "--"I return you," says Byron, "the
revise. I have softened the part to which Gifford objected, and changed
the name of Michael to Raphael, who was an angel of gentler
sympathies. "--July 6, 1822, _Letters_, vi. 93. ]
[155] {311}[That is, "to call you back. " His ministry and function of
clemency were almost as dear to him as his ministry and function of
adoration and obedience. ]
[156] [For the connection of stars with angels, see _Book of Enoch_,
xxv. 1. ]
[157] {315}[Compare _Darkness_, lines 2-5, _Poetical Works_, 1891, iv.
42, 43. ]
[158] {321}[Sketch of Second Part of _Heaven and Earth_, as reported by
Medwin (_Conversations_, 1824, pp. 234-237)--
"Azazael and Samiasa . . . rise into the air with the two sisters. . . . The
appearance of the land strangled by the ocean will serve by way of
scenery and decorations. The affectionate tenderness of Adah for those
from whom she is parted, and for ever, and her fears contrasting with
the loftier spirit of Aholibamah triumphing in the hopes of a new and
greater destiny will make the dialogue. They, in the meantime, continue
their aerial voyage, everywhere denied admittance in those floating
islands over the sea of space, and driven back by guardian-spirits of
the different planets, till they are at length forced to alight on the
only peak of the earth uncovered by water. Here a parting takes place
between the lovers. . . . The fallen angels are suddenly called, and
condemned, their destination and punishment unknown. The sisters cling
to the rock, the waters mounting higher and higher. Now enter Ark. The
scene draws up, and discovers Japhet endeavouring to persuade the
Patriarch, with very strong arguments of love and pity, to receive the
sisters, or at least Adah, on board. Adah joins in his entreaties, and
endeavours to cling to the sides of the vessel. The proud and haughty
Aholibamah scorns to pray either to God or man, and anticipates the
grave by plunging into the waters. Noah is still inexorable. [Adah] is
momentarily in danger of perishing before the eyes of the Arkites.
Japhet is in despair. The last wave sweeps her from the rock, and her
lifeless corpse floats past in all its beauty, whilst a sea-bird screams
over it, and seems to be the spirit of her angel lord. I once thought of
conveying the lovers to the moon or one of the planets; but it is not
easy for the imagination to make any unknown world more beautiful than
this; besides, I did not think they would approve of the moon as a
residence. I remember what Fontenelle said of its having no atmosphere,
and the dark spots having caverns where the inhabitants reside. There
was another objection: all the human interest would have been destroyed,
which I have even endeavoured to give my angels. "]
WERNER;
OR,
THE INHERITANCE:
A TRAGEDY.
[_Werner_ was produced, for the first time, at the Park Theatre, New
York, in 1826. Mr. Barry played "Werner. "
_Werner_ was brought out at Drury Lane Theatre, and played, for the
first time, December 15, 1830. Macready appeared as "Werner," J. W.
Wallack as "Ulric," Mrs. Faucit as "Josephine," and Miss Mordaunt as
"Ida. " According to the _Times_, December 16, 1830, "Mr. Macready
appeared to very great advantage. We have never seen him exert himself
more--we have never known him to exert himself with more powerful
effect. Three of his scenes were masterpieces. " Genest says that
_Werner_ was acted seventeen times in 1830-31.
There was a revival in 1833. Macready says (_Diary_, March 20) that he
acted "'Werner' with unusual force, truth, and collectedness . . .
finished off each burst of passion, and, in consequence, entered on the
following emotion with clearness and earnestness" (Macready's
_Reminiscences_, 1875, i 36. 6).
_Werner_ was played in 1834, 5, 6, 7, 9; in 1841; in 1843-4 (New York,
Boston, Baltimore, New Orleans, Cincinnati, Montreal); in 1845 (Paris,
London, Glasgow, Belfast, Dublin); in 1846, 1847; in America in 1848; in
the provinces in 1849; in 1850; and, for the last time, at the Theatre
Royal, Haymarket, January 14, 1851. At the farewell performance Macready
appeared as "Werner," Mr.
Davenport as "Ulric," Mrs. Warner as
"Josephine," Mrs. Ryder as "Ida. " In the same year (1851) a portrait of
Macready as "Werner," by Daniel Maclise, R. A. , was on view at the
Exhibition at the Royal Academy. The motto was taken from _Werner_, act
i. sc. 1, lines 114, _sq. _ (See, for a detailed criticism of Macready's
"Werner," _Our Recent Actors_, by Westland Marston, 1881, i. 89-98; and
for the famous "Macready _burst_," in act ii. sc. 2, and act v. sc. 1,
_vide ibid. _, i. 97. )
_Werner_ was brought out at Sadler's Wells Theatre, November 21, 1860,
and repeated November 22, 23, 24, 28, 29; December, 3, 4, 11, 13, 14,
1860. Phelps appeared as "Werner," Mr. Edmund Phelps as "Ulric," Miss
Atkinson as "Josephine. " "Perhaps the old actor never performed the part
so finely as he did on that night. The identity between the real and
ideal relations of the characters was as vivid to him as to the
audience, and gave a deeper intensity, on both sides, to the scenes
between father and son. " (See _The London Stage_, by H. Barton Baker,
1889, ii. 217. )
On the afternoon of June 1, 1887, _Werner_ (four acts, arranged by Frank
Marshall) was performed at the Lyceum Theatre for the benefit of
Westland Marston. [Sir] Henry Irving appeared as "Werner," Miss Ellen
Terry as "Josephine," Mr. Alexander as "Ulric. " (See for an appreciation
of Sir Henry Irving's presentation of _Werner_, the _Athenaeum_, June 4,
1887. )]
INTRODUCTION TO _WERNER_.
_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 Saturday, 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 circumstances," that is, no doubt, the
circumstances 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 passages from the novel and the play, in parallel
columns, gives the reader to understand that he had made an exhaustive
analysis 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 noble, Count Siegendorf, after various adventures,
marries, under the assumed name of Friedrich Kruitzner, the daughter of
an Italian scholar and man of science, of noble birth, but in narrow
circumstances. 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 snatches
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 circumstances," 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, circumstances 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 assassination. He repudiates and denounces his son, and
connives at the escape of the Hungarian. Conrad, who is banished from
Prague, rejoins his former associates, 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 rectitude by the passionate 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 passages, 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 entitled, "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, Duchess of Devonshire (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 duchess, "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 asserts that their mother, the duchess, "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 identity of Byron's version with that
of the duchess. 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 duchess 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 Duchess of
Devonshire, dramatized Miss Lee's _Kruitzner_; and (2) that Lady
Georgiana Fullerton believed that the duchess 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 Duchess of
Devonshire dramatized _Kruitzner_, but it does not prove that Byron
purloined her adaptation. It records an unverified impression on the
part of the duchess's granddaughter, that the MS. of a play written
between the years 1801-1806, passed 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
circumstance, 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 duchess's MS. ; and
(2) that a great poet of assured fame and reputation could have had no
possible motive for perpetrating a literary fraud. The first objection
he answers by assuming that Byron would have counted on the reluctance
of the "Ponsonby family and the daughters of the Duchess" 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 scraps" should fall to his share. But no argument can be
founded on so insignificant a circumstance.
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 duchess'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. Shelley's
transcript of _Werner_, Byron inserted the date, "Dec.
