The Works of Lord Byron Volume V Part 55

_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 advertis.e.m.e.nt (_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 Sh.e.l.ley 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 ent.i.tled "A Mystery," in conformity with the ancient t.i.tle 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 a.s.signed. 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 a.s.sertion 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_. G.o.d, 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!