The Life of Lord Byron
Chapter XXXII
CHAPTER XXXII.
Byron’s residence in Switzerland.—Excursion to the
glaciers.—Manfred founded on a magical sacrifice, not on guilt.—Similarity between
sentiments given to Manfred and those expressed by Lord
Byron in his own person.
The account given by Captain Medwin of the
manner in which Lord Byron spent his time in Switzerland,
has the raciness of his Lordship’s own quaintness, somewhat dilated. The reality of the
conversations I have heard questioned, but they relate in some instances to matters not
generally known, to the truth of several of which I can myself bear witness; moreover they have
much of the poet’s peculiar modes of thinking about them, though weakened in effect by
the reporter. No man can give a just representation of another who is not capable of putting
himself into the character of his original, and of thinking with his power and intelligence.
Still there are occasional touches of merit in the feeble outlines of Captain
Medwin, and with this conviction it would be negligence not to avail myself of
them.
“Switzerland,” said his Lordship, “is a country I have been satisfied
with seeing once; Turkey I could live in for ever. I never forget my predilections: I was
in a wretched state of health and worse spirits when I was at Geneva; but quiet and the
lake, better physicians than Polidori, soon set me
up. I never led so moral a life as during my residence in that country; but I gained no
credit by it. Where there is mortification there ought to be reward. On the contrary, there
is no story so absurd that they did not
invent at my cost. I was
watched by glasses on the opposite side of the lake, and by glasses, too, that must have
had very distorted optics; I was waylaid in my evening drives. I believe they looked upon
me as a man-monster.
“I knew very few of the Genevese. Hentsh was
very civil to me, and I have a great respect for Sismondi. I was forced to return the civilities of one of their professors by asking him and an old gentleman, a friend of Gray’s, to dine with me I had gone out to sail early in the morning,
and the wind prevented me from returning in time for dinner. I understand that I offended
them mortally.
“Among our countrymen I made no new acquaintances; Shelley, Monk
Lewis, and Hobhouse were almost
the only English people I saw. No wonder; I showed a distaste for society at that time,
and went little among the Genevese; besides, I could not speak French. When I went the
tour of the lake with Shelley and Hobhouse,
the boat was nearly wrecked near the very spot where St.
Preux and Julia were in danger of
being drowned. It would have been classical to have been lost there, but not
agreeable.”
The third canto of Childe
Harold, Manfred, and The Prisoner of Chillon are the fruits of his
travels up the Rhine and of his sojourn in Switzerland. Of the first it is unnecessary to say
more; but the following extract from the poet’s travelling memorandum-book, has been
supposed to contain the germ of the tragedy
“September 22, 18 16.—Left Thun in a boat, which carried us the length of the
lake in three hours. The lake small, but the banks fine; rocks down to the water’s
edge: landed at Newhouse; passed Interlachen; entered upon a range of scenes beyond all
description or previous conception; passed a rock bearing an inscription; two brothers, one
murdered the other; just the place for it. After a variety of windings, came to an enormous
rock; arrived at the foot of
the mountain (the Jungfrau) glaciers;
torrents, one of these nine hundred feet, visible descent; lodge at the curate’s; set
out to see the valley; heard an avalanche fall like thunder; glaciers; enormous storm comes
on thunder and lightning and hail, all in perfection and beautiful. The torrent is in
shape, curving over the rock, like the tail of the white horse streaming in the wind, just
as might be conceived would be that of the pale horse on which Death is mounted in the
Apocalypse: it is neither mist nor water, but a something between both; its immense height
gives a wave, a curve, a spreading here, a condensation there, wonderful, indescribable!
“September 23.—Ascent of the Wingren, the dent d’argent shining like
truth on one side, on the other the clouds rose from the opposite valley, curling up
perpendicular precipices like the foam of the ocean of hell during a spring-tide. It was
white and sulphury, and immeasurably deep in appearance; the side we ascended was of course
not of so precipitous a nature; but on arriving at the summit, we looked down on the other
side upon a boiling sea of cloud dashing against the crag on which we stood. Arrived at the
Greenderwold, mounted and rode to the higher glacier, twilight, but distinct, very fine;
glacier like a frozen hurricane; starlight beautiful; the whole of the day was fine, and,
in point of weather, as the day in which Paradise was made. Passed whole woods of withered
pines, all withered, trunks stripped and lifeless, done by a single winter.”
Undoubtedly in these brief and abrupt but masterly touches, hints for the
scenery of Manfred may be discerned, but I can
perceive nothing in them which bears the least likelihood to their having influenced the
conception of that sublime work.
There has always been from the first publication of Manfred, a strange misapprehension with respect to it in the
public mind. The whole poem has been misun-
derstood, and the odious
supposition that ascribes the fearful mystery and remorse of a hero to a foul passion for his
sister, is probably one of those coarse imaginations
which have grown out of the calumnies and accusations heaped upon the author. How can it have
happened that none of the critics have noticed that the story is derived from the human
sacrifices supposed to have been in use among the students of the black art?
Manfred is represented as being actuated by an insatiable
curiosity—a passion to know the forbidden secrets of the world. The scene opens with him
at his midnight studies—his lamp is almost burned out—and he has been searching for
knowledge and has not found it, but only that
Sorrow is knowledge: they who know the most
Must mourn the deepest o’er the fatal truth,
The tree of knowledge is not that of life.
Philosophy and science and the springs
Of wonder, and the wisdom of the world
I have essayed, and in my mind there is,
A power to make these subject to itself.
|
He is engaged in calling spirits; and, as the incantation proceeds, they
obey his bidding, and ask him what he wants; he replies, “forgetfulness.”
FIRST SPIRIT.
Of what—of whom—and why?
MANFRED.
Of that which is within me; read it there——
Ye know it, and I cannot utter it.
SPIRIT.
We can but give thee that which we possess;—
Ask of us subjects, sovereignty, the power
O’er earth, the whole or portion, or a sign
Which shall control the elements, whereof
We are the dominators. Each and all—
These shall be thine.
|
MANFRED.
Oblivion, self oblivion—
Can ye not wring from out the hidden realms
Ye offer so profusely, what I ask?
SPIRIT.
It is not in our essence, in our skill,
But—thou may’st die.
MANFRED.
Will death bestow it on me?
SPIRIT.
We are immortal, and do not forget;
We are eternal, and to us the past
Is as the future, present. Art thou answer’d?
MANFRED.
Ye mock me, but the power which brought ye here
Hath made you mine. Slaves! scoff not at my will;
The mind, the spirit, the Promethean spark,
The lightning of my being is as bright,
Pervading and far darting as your own,
And shall not yield to yours though coop’d in clay.
Answer, or I will teach you what I am.
SPIRIT.
We answer as we answer’d. Our reply
Is even in thine own words.
MANFRED.
Why say ye so?
SPIRIT.
If, as thou say’st, thine essence be as ours,
We have replied in telling thee the thing
Mortals call death hath naught to do with us.
MANFRED.
I then have call’d you from your realms in vain.
|
This impressive and original scene prepares the
reader
to wonder why it is that Manfred is so desirous to drink of
Lethe. He has acquired dominion over spirits, and he finds, in the possession of the power,
that knowledge has only brought him sorrow. They tell him he is immortal, and what he suffers
is as inextinguishable as his own being: why should he desire forgetfulness?—Has he not
committed a great secret sin? What is it?—He alludes to his sister, and in his subsequent
interview with the witch we gather a dreadful meaning concerning her fate. Her blood has been
shed, not by his hand nor in punishment, but in the shadow and occultations of some unutterable
crime and mystery.
She was like me in lineaments; her eyes,
Her hair, her features, all to the very tone
Even of her voice, they said were like to mine,
But soften’d all and temper’d into beauty.
She had the same lone thoughts and wanderings,
The quest of hidden knowledge, and a mind
To comprehend the universe; nor these
Alone, but with them gentler powers than mine,
Pity, and smiles, and tears, which I had not;
And tenderness—but that I had for her;
Humility, and that I never had:
Her faults were mine—her virtues were her own;
I lov’d her and—destroy’d her—
WITCH.
With thy hand?
MANFRED.
Not with my hand, but heart, which broke her heart.
It gaz’d on mine, and withered. I have shed
Blood, but not hers, and yet her blood was shed;—
I saw, and could not stanch it.
|
There is in this little scene, perhaps, the deepest pathos ever expressed;
but it is not of its beauty that I am treating; my object in noticing it here is, that it may
be considered in connection with that where Manfred appears with his insatiate thirst of
knowledge, and manacled with guilt. It indicates that his sister,
Astarte, had been self-sacrificed in the pursuit of their
magical knowledge. Human sacrifices were supposed to be among the initiate propitiations of the
demons that have their purposes in magic—as well as compacts signed with the blood of the
self-sold. There was also a dark Egyptian art, of which the knowledge and the efficacy could
only be obtained by the novitiate’s procuring a voluntary victim—the dearest object
to himself and to whom he also was the dearest;* and the primary spring of Byron’s tragedy lies, I conceive, in a sacrifice of that
kind having been performed, without obtaining that happiness which the votary expected would be
found in the knowledge and power purchased at such a price. His sister was sacrificed in vain.
The manner of the sacrifice is not divulged, but it is darkly intimated to have been done amid
the perturbations of something horrible.
* The sacrifice of
Antinous by the
emperor
Adrian is supposed to have been a sacrifice of
that kind.
Dion Cassius says that
Adrian, who had applied himself to the study of magic, being
deceived by the principles of that black Egyptian art into a belief that he would be
rendered immortal by a voluntary human sacrifice to the infernal gods, accepted the offer
which Antinous made of himself.
I have somewhere met with a commentary on this to the following effect:
The Christian religion, in the time of
Adrian, was rapidly spreading throughout the empire, and the doctrine of
gaining eternal life by the expiatory offering was openly preached. The Egyptian priests
who pretended to be in possession of all knowledge, affected to be acquainted with this
mystery also. The emperor was, by his taste and his vices, attached to the old religion;
but he trembled at the truths disclosed by the revelation; and in this state of
apprehension his thirst of knowledge and his fears led him to consult the priests of
Osiris and Isis; and they impressed him with a notion that the infernal deities would be
appeased by the sacrifice of a human being dear to him, and who loved him so entirely as to
lay down his life for him.
Antinous moved by the
anxiety of his imperial master, when all others had refused, consented to sacrifice
himself; and it was for this devotion that Adrian caused his memory to
be hallowed with religious rites.
Night after night for years
He hath pursued long vigils in this tower
Without a witness.—I have been within it—
So have we all been ofttimes; but from it,
Or its contents, it were impossible
To draw conclusions absolute of aught
His studies tend to.—To be sure there is
One chamber where none enter—* * *
Count Manfred was, as now, within his tower:
How occupied—we know not—but with him,
The sole companion of his wanderings
And watchings—her—whom of all earthly things
That liv’d, the only thing he seem’d to love.
|
With admirable taste, and its thrilling augmentation of the horror, the poet
leaves the deed which was done in that unapproachable chamber undivulged, while we are darkly
taught, that within it lie the relics or the ashes of the “one without a
tomb.”
Leigh Hunt,
Lord Byron and Some of his Contemporaries (London: Henry Colburn, 1828)
An article was
written in “The Westminster
Review” (Medwin says
by Mr. Hobhouse) to show that the Conversations were altogether unworthy of
credit. There are doubtless many inaccuracies in the latter; but the spirit remains
undoubted; and the author of the criticism was only vexed, that such was the fact. He
assumes, that Lord Byron could not have made this or that statement to
Captain Medwin, because the statement was erroneous or untrue; but
an anonymous author has no right to be believed in preference to one who speaks in his own
name: there is nothing to show that Mr. Hobhouse might not have been
as mistaken about a date or an epigram as Mr. Medwin; and when we find
him giving us his own version of a fact, and Mr. Medwin asserting that
Lord Byron gave him another, the only impression left upon the
mind of any body who knew his Lordship is, that the fault most probably lay in the loose
corners of the noble Poet’s vivacity. Such is the impression made upon the author of
an unpublished Letter to Mr.
Hobhouse, which has been shown me in print; and he had a right to it. The
reviewer, to my knowledge, is mistaken upon some points, as well as the person he reviews.
The assumption, that nobody can know any thing about Lord Byron but
two or three persons who were conversant with him for a certain space of time, and whom he
spoke of with as little ceremony, and would hardly treat with more confidence than he did a
hundred others, is ludicrous; and can only end, as the criticism has done, in doing no good
either to him or them. . . .
John Galt,
“Pot versus Kettle” in Fraser’s Magazine
Vol. 2
No. 11 (December 1830)
“Dear Sir;—Amongst the
agreeable things which you say of me in your life of Lord Byron, you conjecture that I
‘condemned’
Childe Harold
previously to its publication. There is not the slightest foundation for this
supposition—nor is it true as you state, ‘that I was the only person
who had seen the poem in manuscript, as I was with Lord
Byron whilst he was writing it.’ I had left
Lord Byron before he had finished the two cantos, and,
excepting a few fragments, I had never seen them until they were printed. My own
persuasion is, that the story told in Dallas’s Recollections of some
person, name unknown, having dissuaded Lord Byron from
publishing Childe Harold, is a
mere fabrication, for it is at complete variance with all Lord
Byron himself told me on the subject. At any rate, I was not that
person; if I had been, it is not very likely that the poem which I had endeavoured
to stifle in its birth, should, in its complete, or, as Lord
Byron says, in its ‘concluded state,’ be dedicated to
me. I must, therefore, request you will take the earliest opportunity of relieving
me from this imputation, which, so far as a man can be written down by any other
author than himself, cannot fail to produce a very prejudicial effect, and to give
me more uneasiness than I think it can be your wish to inflict on any man who has
never given you provocation or excuse for injustice. . . .
John Galt,
“Pot versus Kettle” in Fraser’s Magazine
Vol. 2
No. 11 (December 1830)
I am glad to find my college
stories administered relief to your nerves, when we were together in the Malta
packet some one and twenty years ago; and I am not sorry that my wearing a red
coat at Cagliari, and cutting my finger in the quarries of Pentelicus, should
have furnished materials for your present volume; but to repay me for having
supplied these timely episodes, as well as for your copious extracts from my
travels in Albania, and also for inserting my note about Madame Guiccioli without my leave, you must
positively cancel the passage respecting Childe Harold
in page 161 of your little volume. . . .
John Galt,
“Pot versus Kettle” in Fraser’s Magazine
Vol. 2
No. 11 (December 1830)
I wonder that even common policy did not induce you to be
more cautious in making statements which might be so easily disproved, and
which have, indeed, been already incontrovertibly refuted. The very
conversation, which you have judiciously selected from Medwin, as one of those parts of his trumpery book to the truth of which you
can speak, I know to be a lie; for I never went the tour of the lake of Geneva
with Lord Byron. . . .
John Galt,
“Pot versus Kettle” in Fraser’s Magazine
Vol. 2
No. 11 (December 1830)
You tell me that your wish has
been to give only an outline of his intellectual character. I am at a loss to
understand how your gossip about him and me, and the silly anecdotes you have
copied from very discreditable authorities, can be said to be fairly comprised
in such an outline. But your plan ought certainly to have compelled you to make
yourself thoroughly acquainted with his poetry, and to quote him just as he
wrote. Nevertheless, you have misrepresented him at least nine times in the ten
stanzas of that poem which you call the last, and which was not the last, he
ever wrote. Oh, for shame! stick to your acknowledged fictions—there you
are safe—you may deal with Leddy
Grippy and Laurie Todd as
you please, but not with those who have really lived, or who are still
alive. . . .
[John Wilson et. al.],
“Noctes Ambrosianae XVII” in Blackwood’s Edinburgh Magazine
Vol. 16
No. 94 (November 1824)
And there was another funny thing o’ his, till a queer looking lad, one
Mr. Skeffington, that wrote a tragedy, that was called
“The Mysterious Bride,” the whilk
thing made the Times newspaper for once witty—for it
said no more o’t, than just “Last night a play called The Mysterious
Bride, by the Honorable Mr. Skeffington, was performed at Drury Lane.
The piece was damned.” Weel, ye see it happened that there was a masquerade some nights after,
and Mr. Cam Hobhouse gaed till’t in the disguise
o’ a Spanish nun, that had been ravished by the French army— . . .
Antinous (111-130)
A Bithynian youth beloved by the Emperor Hadrian who was drowned in the Nile; a city and
temples were erected in his memory.
Cassius Dio (155 c.-229 fl.)
Roman historian whose writings survive in a fragmentary state.
Thomas Gray (1716-1771)
English poet, author of “Ode on a Distant Prospect of Eton College,” “Elegy written in a
Country Churchyard,” and “The Bard”; he was professor of history at Cambridge
(1768).
John Cam Hobhouse, baron Broughton (1786-1869)
Founder of the Cambridge Whig Club; traveled with Byron in the orient, radical MP for
Westminster (1820); Byron's executor; after a long career in politics published
Some Account of a Long Life (1865) later augmented as
Recollections of a Long Life, 6 vols (1909-1911).
Hon. Augusta Mary Leigh [née Byron] (1783-1851)
Byron's half-sister; the daughter of Amelia Darcy, Baroness Conyers, she married
Lieutenant-Colonel George Leigh on 17 August 1807.
Thomas Medwin (1788-1869)
Lieutenant of dragoons who was with Byron and Shelley at Pisa; the author of
Conversations of Lord Byron (1824) and
The Life of
Percy Bysshe Shelley, 2 vols (1847).
Marc-Auguste Pictet (1752-1825)
Swiss scientist, member of the Royal Society of London and of the Académie des
Sciences.
John William Polidori (1795-1821)
Physician and secretary to Lord Byron who accompanied him to Switzerland; author of
The Vampire (1819) which he attributed to Byron.
Percy Bysshe Shelley (1792-1822)
English poet, with Byron in Switzerland in 1816; author of
Queen
Mab (1813),
The Revolt of Islam (1817),
The Cenci and
Prometheus Unbound (1820), and
Adonais (1821).
Léonard Simond de Sismondi (1773-1842)
Swiss historian of Italian origin; author of
L'Histoire des républiques
italiennes du Moyen-Age (1809-18).