A CRITICAL STUDY OF BYRON'S CAIN

by

LINDSAY MAXWELL JONES

B.A., University of B r i t i s h Columbia, 1966

A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILMENT OF

THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF

MASTER OF ARTS

in the Department

of

ENGLISH

We accept this thesis'as coj^fqEjfting to-the

required s/^indard

THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA.

A p r i l , 1968
In p r e s e n t i n g this thesis in p a r t i a l fulfilment of the requirements for an

advanced degree at the University of British Columbia, I agree that the

Library s h a l l make it freely available for reference and s t u d y . I further

agree that permission for extensive copying of this thesis for scholarly

purposes may be g r a n t e d by t h e Head o f my D e p a r t m e n t o r by h i s represen-

tatives. It is understood that copying or p u b l i c a t i o n of this thesis for

financial gain shall not be a l l o w e d w i t h o u t my w r i t t e n p e r m i s s i o n .

Department of ENGLISH

The U n i v e r s i t y o f B r i t i s h Columbia
V a n c o u v e r 8, C a n a d a
 ABSTRACT

This thesis i s a c r i t i c a l study of Lord Byron's poetic drama,

Cain. Most c r i t i c s i n the past have seen the work as a personal state-

ment of r e l i g i o u s skepticism on the part of Lord Byron, and hence as an

out-and-out attack on t r a d i t i o n a l , C h r i s t i a n doctrine. With this pre-

conception in mind, they have concerned themselves with pointing out

attitudes and ideas i n the play which may be said to be a n t i t h e t i c a l to

the C h r i s t i a n world view, and they have then assessed the play simply

i n these terms. It i s the. contention of this paper that this pre-

supposition has led the c r i t i c s away from the realm of meaning intended

by Lord Byron, and that a proper understanding of the play can only

arise from a f u l l , c r i t i c a l study of the central issue with which this

"metaphysical" drama i s concerned. The method followed i s to analyse

the differences in form, structure and argument between two accounts of

this story - that found i n the Bible, and Byron's poetic drama - on the

assumption that such r a d i c a l changes as we s h a l l note are e s s e n t i a l to

the conveyance of Byron's peculiar meaning, and that a study of them

must reveal the proper coherence and unity of Byron's work. We shall

see that Cain i s not a mere recounting of this story, but rather that

i t i s a reconceptualization of the predicament facing Adam and Eve and

the f i r s t family, structured so as to focus upon the human s i t u a t i o n ,

so chat i n the work Byron i s not concerned with r e l i g i o u s values, but

with human values; not concerned to advance or refute t r a d i t i o n a l ,

r e l i g i o u s concepts, but to reveal h i s insights into the common, human

predicament.
 iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS .

Page

INTRODUCTION 1

CHAPTER I: THE FORM OF CAIN. .... 9

CHAPTER I I : THE NATURAL WORLD OF CAIN 17

CHAPTER I I I : THE SOCIAL WORLD OF CAIN 32

CHAPTER IV: CAIN AS AN HEROIC FIGURE 47

CHAPTER V: CONCLUSION 82

BIBLIOGRAPHY 89
 1

INTRODUCTION

The story of Adam and Eve, and of their sons, Cain and

Abel, f i r s t appears i n the book of Genesis in the Bible, and i t i s

e s s e n t i a l l y a r e l i g i o u s myth, that i s to say a story "presenting

supernatural episodes as a means of interpreting natural events i n

an e f f o r t to make concrete and p a r t i c u l a r a special perception of

man or a cosmic view."-'- The story i n Genesis accepts a God-ordained

universe, i t accepts the F a l l from Grace and occurs i n a post-lapsarian

world. I t purports to explain a) how death came into the world for

the f i r s t time, b) how man became a murderer of h i s own kind, c)

why man moved away from the Garden of Eden and became a wanderer

over the face of the earth, and d) how man, having moved away from

God, could become the inventor of such " e v i l s " as c i t i e s , metals and

weapons. In other words i t attempts to explain in large part the

Christian concept of man, h i s r e l a t i o n s h i p to God, to Nature and to

his fellow men. The main point i s that this myth has i t s place i n

the Christian doctrine, and to take such a story as the basis of a

work i s necessarily to take a l l of the r e l i g i o u s context too. Hence,

a reader approaching the poetic drama, Cain, resembles to some

extent a Greek c i t i z e n approaching the drama that formed a part of

the r e l i g i o u s celebrations i n ancient Greece, i n that both are well

•'•William T h r a l l and Addison Hibbard, A Handbook to Literature

(New York: The Odyssey Press, 1960), p. 298.
 2

acquainted with the main plot of the story to be acted out; for the

story i s a part of their c u l t u r a l background, so that the o r i g i n and

the outcome are already established as 'Matters of f a c t , " and the

prime interest l i e s i n the manner i n which the playwright manipulates

h i s materials so as to show how this s i t u a t i o n came about, and i n the

insights that he reveals into human nature in accomplishing this end.

For instance, i n the drama Cain, what ever else Byron does by way of

explanation as to the murder of Abel, he must bring this crime to i t s

consummation, and he must show Cain's e x i l e into the land of Nod, and

i t must be such a Cain as can go on to become the inventor of c i t i e s ,

metals and weapons. In other words he must be a man whose sense of

r e a l i t y i s firmly rooted i n the empirical world. This, and the

e s s e n t i a l incidents i n the plot of this myth, are the "givens" with

which the playwright must work when dealing with a story that has

such a long and respected t r a d i t i o n behind i t .

When confronted with Lord Byron's Cain, most c r i t i c s have

been quick to point out the theological implications of this tale,

and to assume that such a man as Lord Byron would only take such a

myth i n order to use i t as the basis for an out-and-out attack on

t r a d i t i o n a l C h r i s t i a n doctrine. They have substantiated their claim

by pointing out traces of Zoroastrianism, or Manicheism, or nine-

teenth century s c i e n t i f i c theories that may be found i n the play

and which are said to "intrude" into the Christian world view of
 3

t h i s B i b l i c a l story, and they have then proteeded to assess the

play's value simply in,these terms. For instance, Chapter 6 of

Professor Samuel Chew's book, Byron i n England: His Fame and A f t e r -

2

fame, i s devoted to a comprehensive survey of the reception of Cain

by the public and c r i t i c s , and i t i s interesting to note that the

o v e r a l l response i s one of shock and dismay, for with very few

exceptions, the reviews and c r i t i c i s m s .of this.drama are concerned

to berate Lord Byron for h i s blasphemy, heresy, and lack of morality

i n creating such a work. This chapter t e l l s of many savage attacks

on Lord Byron, both i n prose and i n poetry, and of the few c r i t i c s

who t r y to defend him and to point out the r e a l merits of the play

itself. The main burden of the c r i t i c i s m i s based upon the premise

that the author's intention was to give utterance to h i s own skepticism

and to attack the very foundations of Christian doctrine. I t deplores

the fact that one so educated, and so prominent i n the eyes of the

public, should mislead lesser minds who, i t i s contended, are e a s i l y

influenced by so eminent a person as Lord Byron, so that h i s s i n i s

said to be compounded i n h i s r e f u s a l to recognize the r e s p o n s i b i l i t y

that i s h i s by virtue of h i s privileged position.

On the whole, c r i t i c s have continued to see the work i n

this l i g h t , and to approach the play as being a personal statement

2Samuel C. Chew, Byron i n England: His Fame and After-fame (London:

John Murray, 1924) .
of r e l i g i o u s opinion. For instance, i n 1919, Stopford Brooke
3
attempted a defence of Cain on the grounds that while the work

does appear to attack the theocentric view of the universe, the

author's actual intention was to attack that p a r t i c u l a r concept of

God that we find i n the drama; for this God i s a God of fear and of

vengeance, rather than the C h r i s t i a n concept of the God of love. But

once again the assumption i s made that the work i s concerned p r i m a r i l y

with C h r i s t i a n doctrine. This i s also the assumption of John Drink-

water when he claims that in Cain;' "The s p i r i t u a l instruction f a i l s

and we are conscious of a c h i l d boldly declaiming an argument that

i t does not understand."^ Later c r i t i c s were more concerned to link

the "skepticism" and the "heresy" to s p e c i f i c events and periods i n

Byron's l i f e , as we see from Andre Maurois's Byron, i n which he says:

But of a l l h i s dramas, Cain was the most revelatory. From

childhood he had been haunted by this theme of the F i r s t Predestinate,
the man damned by God before the crime. Cain was an attempt to trans-
pose into dramatic form the impassioned protest against the existence
of e v i l i n a divine creation.... i t was the cry of Byron himself, h i s
brow branded, as he believed, with the mark of Cain, and condemned
l i k e Cain to wander over the face of the earth. He too had s l a i n a
brother - the e a r l i e r Byron.^

•Stopford Brooke, "Byron's Cain," i n The Hibbert Journal, Vol.

XVIII (1919), pp. 74-94.

^John Drinkwater, The P i l g r i m of E t e r n i t y : Byron - A C o n f l i c t

(New York: George H. Doran, 1925), p. 312.

^Andre Maurois, Byron (New York: Frederick Ungar, 1930), pp. 447-449.
 5

So too, Hoxie N. F a i r c h i l d is.convinced that' Cain i s mere biographical

outpouring:

Cain's importance as a clue to Byron's thought w i l l vary

with our b e l i e f i n h i s repeated protestations that the utterances
of Cain and Lucifer are merely the appropriate speeches of dramatic
characters. If these disclaimers are to be credited, the work i s
the most astonishing piece of unintentional s e l f - r e v e l a t i o n on record.
Consciously or unconsciously (but need we hesitate to choose the
former adverb?), Cain i s a f a i t h f u l r e f l e c t i o n of Byron's s p i r i t u a l
predicament.. ...He knew, that h i s r e a l theme was man's hopeless de-
fiance against God, and he shrank from that knowledge.6

As we move away from biographical c r i t i c i s m and turn instead

to those who are concerned with the poetry i t s e l f , we note a continuing

interest i n Cain as a statement of c r i t i c i s m levelled against the

Christian concept of the universe, as found, for instance, i n Andrew

Rutherford's Byron: A C r i t i c a l Study, i n which he declares:

In Cain, Byron's next "metaphysical drama," he draws on Old

Testament events and 18th Century philosophy, but the e f f e c t of this
e x p l i c i t treatment of such issues i s to bring us face-to-face with
h i s poverty of r e l i g i o u s ideas. He had no talent for this kind of
thinking-his opinions were confused and contradictory, and h i s con-
versations with Dr. Kennedy show how far he was from having worked
out any r e a l c r i t i q u e of C h r i s t i a n i t y . ^

This interest in the play's "religious theme" i s also evident

i n Peter L. Thorslev's book, The Byronic Hero: Types and Prototypes, i n

6
Hoxie N. F a i r c h i l d , Religious Trends in English Poetry, Vol. I l l :
1780-1830 (New York: Columbia University Press, 1949), pp. 428-429.
7
Andrew Rutherford, Byron: A C r i t i c a l Study (London: Oliver and
Boyd, 1962), p. 91.
 6

which he i s concerned to trace the o r i g i n arid development of the

"Byronic Hero," for when considering the drama he says:

My point i s not to discuss Cain as theology, primarily,

but as a drama - although as a drama of metaphysical r e b e l l i o n .
The p a r a l l e l here with Paradise Lost seems to me p a r t i c u l a r l y apt.
As a theological d i s s e r t a t i o n Milton's poem i s also "dead" to the
modern reader (though i t s t i l l was not a century ago); we no longer
read i t for i t s theme - the j u s t i f i c a t i o n of "God's ways to man."
S t i l l , Paradise Lost remains a great poem....The same can be said,
I believe, of Byron's Cain.^

Here the p a r a l l e l i s drawn between Paradise Lost and Cain, in-as-much

as both works are seen to be "theological d i s s e r t a t i o n s , " and this ;;is

the most e x p l i c i t statement of the basic assumption made by these

and by most c r i t i c s of the poetic drama. A l l are impressed with the

source and the context of this myth, and with this i n mind, they

approach the work as being a C h r i s t i a n , theological d i s s e r t a t i o n ,

looking f o r , and finding, elements i n the play that support this con-

ception of the work. And yet many seem conscious at the same time

of elements that jar--as for instance the " i n t r u s i o n " of nineteenth

century s c i e n t i f i c theories--so that they are forced to conclude that

Byron "had no head" for this sort of argumentation, or that he was

attempting, unsuccessfully, to blend together elements from quite

disparate f i e l d s of knowledge, or merely that h i s thinking was "con-

fused and contradictory" on these matters. But i t i s the contention

of this paper that c r i t i c s have been overly impressed with the

18
Peter L. Thorslev, The Byronic Hero: Types and Prototypes,
(Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1962), pp. 177-178.
 7

r e l i g i o u s context of this myth, and that accordingly, i n their

approach to the poetic drama, Cain, they have been so concerned to

substantiate their preconception of this play as a statement on

t r a d i t i o n a l , Christian doctrine, that they have i n fact been led

away to a realm of meaning that i s quite d i s t i n c t from that intended

by Byron. Perhaps the most extreme example of the type of c r i t i c i s m

that i s concerned to detect elements from external sources-, rather

than to determine the manner i n which these elements are fused

together within the work, i s to be found i n Robert F. Gleckner's

recent book, Byron and the Ruins of Paradise, i n which he considers

Cain, and concludes that:

It i s probably true, as M.K^ J.oseph has summed i t up, that

Cain i s the combined product of "Byron's early Calvinism...blended
with Lucretian atomism, and Fontenelie's p l u r a l i t y of worlds [Entretien
sur l a p i u r a l i t e des mondes]; with the deism of the Essay on Man and
the cosmology of Night Thoughts; with the pre-Adamites of Vathek and
with Buffon's giants and 'organic degeneration;' with the spontaneous
generation of Erasmus Darwin; and f i n a l l y with the catastrophism of
Cuvier.^

But of course, i t i s not merely that Byron uses such elements

that should be our concern" but how he uses them, for i f we are to

gain some idea of the significance of this work, then we must come

to grips with the central issue with which this "metaphysical" drama

i s concerned, and this i s only possible i f such d e f i n i t i o n and

9
Robert F. Gleckner, Byron and the Ruins of Paradise (Baltimore:
Johns Hopkins Press, 1967), p. 324.
c l a s s i f i c a t i o n gives way to a f u l l , c r i t i c a l study of the play, and

of the assumptions underlying i t s form, structure and argument.

Only then can we begin to assess the significance of the t o t a l

work to the author, and to ourselves today. This paper i s therefore

an attempt to accomplish the f i r s t step i n such an analysis; that i s

to say, to a r r i v e at an understanding of the central issue of the

drama. Our method w i l l be to analyse the differences that we find

in form, structure and argument between the B i b l i c a l story and

Byron's poetic drama, on the assumption that such a study w i l l indicate

the over-riding purpose for such r a d i c a l changes as we s h a l l note

between the two accounts of this t a l e . Though both works deal with

a common subject - the murder of Abel by h i s brother, Cain - i t i s

obvious that the changes i n form and content xvhich are e s s e n t i a l to

the conveyance of Byron's peculiar meaning, have altered the degree

and emphasis of those various elements that are common to the two

accounts, and a study of such changes must reveal the proper coherence

and unity of Byron's work. In the following chapters we w i l l

therefore consider f i r s t l y the form of Cain, then secondly we w i l l

study the "natural world" and the " s o c i a l world" of this work, and

f i n a l l y we w i l l investigate the play's argument by considering Cain

as an heroic figure.
 9

CHAPTER I

THE FORM OF CAIN

We find the story of Cain and Abel i n the fourth chapter

of Genesis, and we note that i t i s narrated from the third person,

objective point of view, whereby the narrator remains outside the

characters and reports their speech and actions, so that the thoughts

and feelings involved are merely suggested by the action and the

dialogue. Here, for instance, i s the account of Cain's reaction

when the Lord r e j e c t s h i s o f f e r i n g :

4 ...And the Lord had respect unto Abel and to h i s o f f e r i n g :

5 But unto Cain and to h i s o f f e r i n g He had not respect.
And Cain was very wroth, and h i s countenance f e l l . 1 0

And here i s the rather scanty account of the incidents immediately

preceeding the murder:

8 And Cain talked with Abel h i s brother: and i t came

to pass, when they were i n the f i e l d , that Cain rose
up against Abel h i s brother, and slew him.H

The account of the incidents leading up to the murder of Abel, and

culminating in the expulsion of Cain i s very short, and because the

narrator adopts the objective point of view, the reader too i s " d i s -

The Holy Bible, The "Book of Genesis," verses 4 and 5.

11
Ibid., verse.8.
 10

tanced" from the human s i t u a t i o n , and as a r e s u l t , the major emphasis

in this chapter f a l l s upon the enumeration of the generations that

descended from Adam and Cain to people the earth. This narrative

account of the f i r s t murder i s apparently meant to inform and instruct,

but the r e c i t a t i o n of these events i s so chronological i n i t s

arrangement of d e t a i l s that our interest i s carried ever forward to

succeeding.generations, and i s not allowed to dwell upon the import

of the i n c i d e n t a l events. :

But Cain i s a drama, and although Byron has stated that i t

was not written for the stage, and so should c o r r e c t l y be called a

"closet drama," i t i s , none-the-less, a dramatic work. In other

words, Byron has presented this incident and the events surrounding

i t i n another medium, so that i t i s revealed or "distanced" in an

e n t i r e l y new mode^ of presentation - the dramatic mode. Speaking of

the drama, Francis Fergusson has said that:

The process of becoming acquainted with a play i s l i k e that

of becoming acquainted with a person. It i s an empirical and inductive
process; i t starts with the observable facts; but i t i n s t i n c t i v e l y
aims at a grasp of the very l i f e of the machine which i s both deeper
and, oddly enough, more immediate than the surface appearences o f f e r .
We seek to grasp the quality of a man's l i f e , by an imaginative e f f o r t ,
through h i s appearences, h i s words, and h i s deeds.

Poetic drama demands of the reader just such an imaginative synthesis,

12
Francis Fergusson, The Idea of a Theater (Princeton: Princeton
University Press, 1949), p. 11.
 11

for we are meant to "see" the settings before us, to"watch" the

action, to "hear" the dialogue and to " f e e l " the emotions generated,

so that we are drawn into sympathy, and even into empathy, with the

characters on stage. In this way our response w i l l be the full

response - both i n t e l l e c t u a l and emotional - of an audience to the

drama, so that a f u l l understanding of the play may emerge through

the appearences, the xrards and the deeds. It i s here that the "very

l i f e of the machine" l i e s , and not i n the "surface appearences" which

have given so many c r i t i c s a f i e l d day.

It may be objected that Cain was not meant to be acted,

but was written for the "mental theater," but the c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of

our response to the drama, outlined above, are s t i l l largely appropria

to our mental performance of this work, for Byron intended that our

reading be as f u l l and dramatic a r e n d i t i o n of the work as is-possible

For instance, we note that Byron shows h i s main character i n a

variety of situations, so that we see him reacting to changed c i r -

cumstances, thus revealing him " i n depth," and allowing him to

emerge as a r e a l i s t i c and dynamic character; we observe the use of

argument to reveal attitudes of mind and to explain the motivation

for the c o n f l i c t ; and we notice the presence of characters who adopt

several, c o n f l i c t i n g points of view, thus making evident the t e r r i b l e

tensions that are so e s s e n t i a l a part of this drama, but most

importantly, we see that Byron i s at great pains to "set the scene"

 12

for the reader by having the characters describe their surroundings

in considerable d e t a i l . This l a s t point i s perhaps best i l l u s t r a t e d

by considering the changing scene i n the second Act, i n the dramatic

movement away from earth and out into the depths of space, where

the breath-taking v i s t a f i r s t afforded Cain i s described by him as

follows:

Oh, thou b e a u t i f u l
And unimaginable ether. and 1

Ye multiplying masses of increased

And s t i l l increasing lights.' what are ye? what
Is this blue wilderness of interminable
A i r , where ye r o l l along, as I have seen
Thelleaves along the limpid streams of Eden?
Is your course measured for ye? Or do ye
Sweep on i n your unbounded r e v e l r y
Through an aeVial universe of endless
Expansion - at which my soul aches to think -
Intoxicated with eternity?!^

Yet this i s but one aspect of the t r i p into space, for Cain and

Lucifer move on to v i s i t Hades, and we note that as the journey pro-

ceeds, Cain i s continually describing the changing scene before him:

Cain. How the l i g h t s recede.'

Where f l y we?
Lucifer. To the world of phantoms, which
Are beings past, and shadows s t i l l to come.
Cain. But i t grows dark, and dark - the stars are gone.'
Lucifer. And yet thou seest.
Cain. 'Tis a f e a r f u l light.'
No sun, no moon, no l i g h t s innumerable.
The very blue of the empurpled night

Byron, Poetical Works (London: Oxford University Press, 1904),

Act I I , scene i , 11. 98-109. A l l further references are from this e d i t i o n .
 13

Fades to a dreary t w i l i g h t , yet I see

Huge dusky masses; but unlike the worlds
We were approaching, which begirt with l i g h t ,
Seem'd f u l l of l i f e even when their atmosphere
Of l i g h t gave way, and show'd them taking shapes
Unequal, of deep valleys and vast mountains;
And some-emitting sparks, and some displaying
Enormous l i q u i d p l a i n s , and some begirt
With luminous b e l t s , and f l o a t i n g moons, which took,
Like them, the features of f a i r earth: - instead,
A l l here seems dark and dreadful. ( I I , i , 173-190)

And again, l a t e r :

How s i l e n t and how vast are these dim worlds. 1

For they seem more than one, and yet more peopled
Than the huge b r i l l i a n t luminous orbs which swung
So t h i c k l y i n the upper a i r , that I
Had deem'd them rather the bright populace
Of some a l l unimaginable Heaven,
Than things to be inhabited themselves,
But that on drawing near them I beheld
Their swelling into palpable immensity
Of matter, which seem'd made for l i f e to dwell on,
Rather than l i f e i t s e l f . But here, a l l i s
So shadowy, and so f u l l of t w i l i g h t , that
It speaks of a day past. ( I I , i i , 1-13)

F i n a l l y , they arrive i n Hades, and once again Cain describes aloud

the scene that l i e s before them:

What are these mighty phantoms which I see

Floating around me? - They wear not the form
Of the i n t e l l i g e n c e s I have seen
Round our regretted and unenter'd Eden,
Nor wear the form of man as I have view'd i t
In Adam's and in Abel's, and i n mine,
Nor i n my s i s t e r - b r i d e ' s , nor i n my children's:
And yet they have an aspect, which, though not
Of men nor angels, looks l i k e something which,
If not the l a s t , rose higher than the f i r s t ,
Haughty, and High, and b e a u t i f u l , and f u l l
 14

Of seeming s t r e n g t h , but of i n e x p l i c a b l e
Shape; f o r I never saw such. They bear not
The wing of seraph, nor the f a c e o f man,
Nor form of m i g h t i e s t b r u t e , not aught t h a t i s
Now b r e a t h i n g ; mighty y e t and b e a u t i f u l
As the most b e a u t i f u l and mighty which
L i v e , and y e t so u n l i k e them, t h a t I s c a r c e
Can c a l l them l i v i n g . ( I I , i i , 44r62)

Hence, i n t h i s way, Byron g i v e s the r e a d e r a v e r y r e a l sense of the

v i s u a l dimension of t h i s drama.

In order to accomplish this dramatization, Byron has had to

" f l e s h o u t " the scant d e t a i l s found i n the B i b l i c a l account, and at

the same time he has had to take i n t o account the conventions of the

drama, w i t h i t s emphasis on c h a r a c t e r , a c t i o n and plot. However,

we can a p p r e c i a t e t h a t the d r a m a t i c mode i s i n f a c t a more complex

mode than t h a t of n a r r a t i v e p r o s e , f o r the drama has more dimensions

through which to a r t i c u l a t e i t s issues. For instance, setting can

be used to c r e a t e mood, to d e l i n e a t e c h a r a c t e r or even to provide

m o t i v a t i o n ; a c t i o n can e s t a b l i s h c h a r a c t e r and animate conflicts;

dialogue can r e v e a l m o t i v a t i o n s and, through the means of the

s o l i l o q u y , even d i s c l o s e a t t i t u d e s of mind. In f a c t , the s h i f t i n

p e r s p e c t i v e brought about by the d r a m a t i z a t i o n o f a work i s a shift

to a more i r o n i c p o i n t of view, s i n c e the audience's p e r c e p t i o n i s

enlarged i n t h e i r simultaneous a p p r e c i a t i o n of the m u l t i p l e dimensions

of the drama, and t h e i r viewpoint i s t h e r e f o r e made more omniscient.

At the same time, the audience i s more c o m p l e t e l y i n v o l v e d i n the

 15

work by seeing the c o n f l i c t from an.enlarged perspective, for they

are made aware of the several, c o n f l i c t i n g points of view involved

in the issue, a l l .of which comment upon the central c o n f l i c t . Thus

the audience, viewing the action from yet another point of view,

must themselves arrive at a conclusion concerning the significance

of the action on stage.

This new medium, then, provides the author with a new

paradigm - a new means of structuring the truths that underlie this

human s i t u a t i o n , and i t provides the audience with a new.point of

view from which to see this f i r s t family - the dramatic point of

view. The dramatization has turned, a verbal statement into a .

v i s u a l spectacle, with a consequent s h i f t i n perspective and emphasis,

so that Byron i s able to reveal the s i t u a t i o n in an e n t i r e l y new

light. We r e c a l l the remark made by Goethe, a f t e r Byron's Death,

to the e f f e c t that Byron should have lived "to execute h i s vocation... to

14

dramatize the Old Testament," by which he surely meant that Byron

should have reconceived the subject matter of the B i b l i c a l stories

and present them in the dramatic mode; for Cain i s not a mere re-

counting of the B i b l i c a l story, but i s rather a reconceptualization

of the predicament facing Adam and Eve and their family, and of the

events that culminate in the murder of Abel. In this drama, we see

anew this f i r s t family, as they make their way in their new world,

•^Quoted i n The Works of Lord Byron, ed. E.H. Coleridge, Vol. V

(London: Murray, 1898), p. 199.
 16

j u s t outside the walls of the forbidden Paradise. In the process of

dramatizing this story, a l t e r a t i o n s had to be made, and the nature

of these changes and additions i s t o t a l l y dependent upon the author's

insight, that i s to say, they have been necessary i n order to fashion

this basic story so that i t w i l l convey those underlying truth con-

cerning the human s i t u a t i o n , as seen by Lord Byron.

In view of the above, our method now w i l l be to investigate

the nature of the changes made by Lord Byron i n the process of

dramatizing the story of Cain and Abel. We w i l l f i r s t consider the

a l t e r a t i o n s to the structure, by studying the "natural world" and

the " s o c i a l world" of each work. This w i l l enable us to assess the

implications that l i e behind the changes, which, together with our

study of the play's argument, w i l l allow us to come to grips with

the author's intended meaning.

 17

CHAPTER 2

THE NATURAL WORLD OF CAIN

In the previous Chapter, we saw that i n the book of Genesis,

the account of the murder of Abel i s very short and terse, and

lacking i n any d e t a i l s as to s e t t i n g , s i t u a t i o n , characterization

or motivation. Perhaps the most s i g n i f i c a n t changes, therefore, are

those concerned with the natural world o f Adam and Eve and their

children, that i s to say with the scenery "erected" within the play,

against which we view the action, and out of which stems much of the

motivation. We have already noted that Byron i s at pains to

provide a v i s u a l aspect to the play, and we w i l l now consider the

several settings that are the backdrop to the dramatic a c t i o n .

Basic to the t o t a l s i t u a t i o n which the play attempts to

a r t i c u l a t e i s the fact that the abode of this f i r s t family i s

situated immediately outside the walls surrounding the Garden of

Eden. As the play opens, we learn from the stage directions that

the action takes place i n "The Land without Paradise,"'''"' and this

is only the f i r s t of many references made throughout the entire

play to the physical presence of the Garden of Eden. The cherubim-

15
Byron, Works, p. 521.
 18

guarded walls around Paradise dominate the horizon of this play,

for even i n Act I I , when Cain and Lucifer are journeying through

space, the reader i s continually reminded of their presence, for Cain

i s constantly r e f e r r i n g to them, either by way of a comparison, or

of contrast to the scene before him. The Kingdom of God i s manifested

continuously and d i r e c t l y , then, to the characters i n the drama.

But the land outside Eden i s also depicted for us, and i s

shown to be very b e a u t i f u l , as we learn from Cain when he enumerates

for Lucifer those things of beauty that he finds around him:

A l l the stars of heaven,

The deep blue noon of night, l i t by an orb
Which looks l i k e a s p i r i t , or a s p i r i t ' s world -
The hues of twilight - the sun's gorgeous coming -
His setting indescribable, which f i l l s
My eyes with pleasent tears as I behold
Him sink, and f e e l my heart float s o f t l y with him
Along that western paradise of clouds,
The forest shade, the green bough, the bird's voice -
The vesper b i r d ' s , which seems to sing of love,
And mingles with the song of cherubim,
As the day closes over Eden's w a l l s . ( I I , i i 255-266)

So too, Adah finds much beauty i n their natural world, which she

describes i n an attempt to explain her i n s t i n c t i v e response to L u c i f e r :

...but thou seemst

Like an ethereal night, where long white clouds
Streak the deep purple, and unnumbered stars
Spangle the wonderful mysterious vault
With things that look as i f they would be suns;
So b e a u t i f u l , unnumber'd and endearing,
Not dazzling, and yet drawing us to them,
They f i l l my eyes with tears, and so dost thou. ( I , i , 506-513)
 19

Further references are made to this natural setting, i n d i c a t i n g the

w i l d l i f e to be found there - the f r u i t s , the animals, the trees,

the r i v e r s - so that this land i s pictured for us i n many of i t s

aspects.

Another essential aspect of the natural world of Cain are

those settings which occur i n the second Act, and we have already

noted the way i n which Cain meticulously describes the changing

scene before him, thus giving the reader a v i v i d sense of the grandeur

and wonder of these s p a t i a l s e t t i n g s . And on h i s return to earth,

Cain continues to delineate the scene before him, for the very

sentimental family group consisting of Cain, Adah and the sleeping

Enoch i s pictured for us through h i s description of the bower and of

the sleeping Enoch within, and this scene i s further detailed for

us through Adah's depiction of the babe's waking moments:

Soft', he wakes. Sweet Enoch'. [She goes to the c h i l d . ]

Oh, Cain', look on him; see how f u l l of l i f e ,
Of strength, of bloom, of beauty, and of joy,
How l i k e to me - how l i k e to thee, when gentle,
For then we are a l l a l i k e ; i s ' t not so, Cain?
Mother, and s i r e , and son, our features are
Reflected i n each other; as they are
In the clear waters, when they are gentle, and
When thou art gentle. Love us, then, my Cain'.
And love t h y s e l f for our sakes, for we love thee.
Look', how he laughs and stretches out h i s arms,
And opens wide his blue eyes upon thine,
To h a i l h i s father; while h i s l i t t l e form
Flutters as wing'd with joy. ( I l l , i , 139-152)

F i n a l l y , we come to the climax of the play, which occurs i n

 20

the great, s a c r i f i c i a l a l t a r scene, and we observe that even this

setting has been v i s u a l l y prepared for us, for i n the conversations

preceeding the s a c r i f i c e we learn of the composition of these two,

rude a l t a r s , and of their d i f f e r i n g heights, and we are even given

a glimpse of Cain's aspect, which i s discovered for us by Abel,

and which stresses h i s obvious a g i t a t i o n and frustration;

Thine eyes are flashing with unnatural l i g h t -

Thy cheek i s flush'd with an unnatural hue -
Thy words are fraught with an unnatural sound
What may this mean? ( I l l , i , 185-188)

But, most importantly, from Cain's extreme reaction to the sight

of Abel's gore-strewn a l t e r , arises a v i v i d and memorable picture of

the setting of this h i g h l y dramatic and h i g h l y emotional scene. Once

again we "see" this setting through Cain's eyes, for he describes

the actions i n considerable d e t a i l , as we observe from the following:

I f thou lov'st blood, the shepherd's shrine, which smokes

On my r i g h t hand, hath shed i t for thy service
In the f i r s t of h i s flock ., whose limbs now reek
In sanguinary incense to thy skies;
Or i f the sweet and blooming f r u i t s of earth,
And milder seasons, which the unstain'd turf
I spread them on now offers i n the face
Of the broad sun which ripen'd them, may seem
Good to thee, inasmuch as they have not
Suffer'd in limb or l i f e , and rather form
A sample of thy works, than supplication
To look on ours.' If a shrine without victim,
And a l t a r without gore, may win thy favour,
Look on it.'
...Thy burnt f l e s h - o f f ' r i n g prospers b e t t e r ; see
How heaven l i c k s up the flames, when thick w i t h blood.'
( I l l , i , 255-285)
 21

Once the murder has been committed, i t remains for Byron to prepare

the l a s t tragic scene, and this he does by again using the dialogue

to erect the setting, as we see from Cain's monologue:

Where am I? alone.' Where's Abel? where

Gain? Can i t be that I am he? My brother,
Awake. - why l i e s t thou so on the green earth?
1

'Tis not the hour of slumber; - why so pale?

What hast thou.' - thou wert f u l l of l i f e - this morn.'
...His eyes are open.' then he i s not dead.'
Death i s l i k e sleep; and sleep shuts down our l i d s .
His l i p s , too, are apart; why then he breathes;
And yet I f e e l i t not. - His heart.' - h i s heart!
Let me see, doth i t beat? methinks No.' - no.'
This i s a v i s i o n , else I am become
The native of another and worse world.
The earth swims round me: - what i s this? - ' t i s wet;
[Puts h i s hand to h i s brow, and then looks at i t . ]
And yet there are no dews' 'Tis blood - my blood -
My brother's and my own.' and shed by me.' ( I l l , i , 322-346)

From this point oh, the setting remains unchanged, and i t

plays a minor part i n the scene, for the focus of attention i s now

concentrated on the various characters' reactions to the act of

murder; but i t must by now be obvious that Byron i s at great pains

to give the reader a very r e a l sense of the s e t t i n g i n which the

characters find themselves, and that this e f f e c t i s realized almost

exclusively through the dialogue, wherein characters describe for

each other, or merely aloud for themselves, the physical surrounding

in which they find themselves, the actions that are going on around

them, and the appearence of the other characters i n the scene. In

this play, Cain i s a very self-conscious character, and since we

 22

"see" this drama primarily through h i s eyes, h i s constant, detailed

descriptions provide a very r e a l v i s u a l dimension for us. We note

that few stage directions are necessary to help the reader v i s u a l i z e

the action "on stage," but that none-the-less, a careful and

imaginative reading of this play cannot help but provide the necessary

v i s u a l dimension.

Hence, we can see from the above that Byron has created a

new "world" for this drama, a world at once more comprehensive and

more complex than i s found in Genesis, and a world that i s not nearly

so remote from us as i s the "Land without Paradise" of the B i b l i c a l

myth. In the world of Cain we can see elements which correspond

to those we find around us - the r i v e r s , the plants, the f r u i t s , the

insects, the animals, the natural phenomena of sunsets, clouds and

stars - and though not scaled l i k e bur own, a l l are recognizable.

So too are those s c i e n t i f i c d e t a i l s concerning the planetary system,

such as the prospect of earth with i t s moon, or the archeological

d e t a i l s of previous life-forms. One of the main effects of these

changes, then, has been to create a high degree of empirical r e a l i t y

in this f i c t i o n a l world. In an a r t i c l e e n t i t l e d "Literature and

Myth," Northrop Frye discusses the s o c i a l function of myths:

The content of a myth relates i t to s p e c i f i c s o c i a l

functions. Seen as content, i t becomes at once obvious that myths
are not stories told j u s t for fun: they are stories told to explain
certain features i n the society to which they belong.... Such myths
can hardly be understood, i n this context, apart from the c u l t u r a l
pattern of the societies that produced them, and they form the main
body of what might be c a l l e d , and i n later r e l i g i o n i s c a l l e d ,
 23

revelation, the understanding of i t s t r a d i t i o n s , i t s customs, i t s

s i t u a t i o n i n the world, which a society accepts as primary data.16

In other words, there i s a relationship between the "world" of the

myth and the empirical and experiential 'world" which i t purports to

"explain," and while these bonds are at best tenuous, they must,

never-the-less, e x i s t . Hence, by infusing such a high degree of

empirical r e a l i t y into the natural world of Cain, Byron has

strengthened and emphasized the p a r a l l e l s that the reader must see

between our own experiential world and the empirical world of the

f i r s t family.

But, by far the most important e f f e c t has been to create

a high degree of what we might c a l l "philosophical r e a l i t y , " that i s

to say, v e r i s i m i l i t u d e i n delineating Cain's relationship to the

universe of this play. In an a r t i c l e e n t i t l e d "Byronic Drama,"

P a t r i c i a M. B a l l considers Byron's plays as a whole, and of them

she says: .

The phrase 'Byronic Drama i s not merely an alternative

1

way of saying 'plays by Byron'. His work i s based on h i s own

theories, and i t s character cannot adequately be summarised by any
of the usual labels, such as 'Shakesperian', 'Romantic', or even
' C l a s s i c a l ' drama, although i t i s from c l a s s i c a l p r i n c i p l e s that
he builds h i s own. What then are the marks of Byronic drama?
A factual and preferably h i s t o r i c a l plot i s one of the most important.
F i c t i o n to Byron was synonymous with l y i n g . . . . This concern for truth,
which never subsides into uninspired slavery to facts - i t stems

l % o r t h r o p Frye, "Literature and Myth," Relations of L i t e r a r y

Study, ed. James Thorpe (New York: Modern Language Assoc., 1967),
p. 27.
 24

from h i s b e l i e f i n the high and free o f f i c e of the poet, not from

the opposite idea - i s at the center of h i s opinions of the technique
of play-making." ""'All his" dealings with the drama are remarkably
single-minded, and wholly consistent; theory and plays a l i k e re-
f l e c t each other, and neither exists s o l e l y to vindicate the
other....That i s , the words are at the service of the action and
the point of the play does not rest on the comments or verbal poetry
spoken by the characters.... C l a r i t y , and f i d e l i t y to the given
s i t u a t i o n , are the f i r s t a r t i c l e s i n h i s creed of technique. This
does not rule out the long speech, nor yet the soliloquy; f o r , while
action i s to hold the stage, i t i s self-conscious action, belonging
to the dual planes of s i t u a t i o n and s p i r i t u a l experience. Neverthe-
l e s s , the key to Byron's plays - as also to h i s poetry - l i e s i n the
scene, in what happens, and how. His characters group around this
nucleus and are animated by i t ; the action i s not contrived for
the indulging of character display.17

We had already noted the "self-conscious" action of the p r i n c i p a l

figure, Cain, and now we have observed that Byron i s at pains to give

h i s reader a sense of the v i s u a l dimension of the s e t t i n g throughout

the length of the play. In this p a r t i c u l a r play, the setting i s of

tremendous importance to the creation of the "scene," or what Dr.

B a l l c a l l s the " s i t u a t i o n , " for indeed the action i n this drama

does spring n a t u r a l l y and n e c e s s a r i l y from the scene, as we w i l l see

now, when we consider the import of the various settings i n the play.

For instance, the action of the play occurs in "The Land without

Paradise," and there i s t e r r i b l e irony i n the dual meanings of "with-

out" as used i n this phrase. Very early i n the play we are made

aware of the juxtaposition of the world of Cain and "our native and

forbidden Paradise" ( I , i , 276), and of the awful sense of loss

P a t r i c i a M. B a l l , "Byronic Drama," Orpheus, II (January-May

1955), p. 26.
 25

and i n j u s t i c e that this constant contrast eVokes i n Cain himself;

"And this i s Life.' - Toil.' and wherefore should I t o i l ? - because/

My father could not keep h i s place i n Eden" (I, i , 65-66), Shortly

after this remark, Cain sees Lucifer approaching, and in h i s mono-

logue he again reveals h i s acute awareness of the proximity of

Eden:

Why should I fear him more than other s p i r i t s ,

: Whom I see d a i l y wave their f irey swords
Before the gates round which I linger o f t ,
In twilight's hour, to catch a glimpse of those
Gardens which are my just inheritance,
Ere the night closes o'er the inhibited walls
And the immortal tress which overtop
The cherubim-defended battlements? ( I , i , 83-90)

Adah too i s very aware of the contrast between their present pre-

dicament and the innocent b l i s s of their parents, prior to the f a l l :

Oh, my mother.' thou

Hast pluck'd a f r u i t more f a t a l to thine off-spring
Than to thyself; thou at the least hast pass'd
Thy youth i n Paradise, i n innocent
And happy intercourse with happy s p i r i t s :
But we, thy children, ignorant of Eden,
Are g i r t about by demons, who assume
The words of God, and tempt us with our own
D i s s a t i s f i e d and curious thoughts - as thou
Wert work'd on by the snake, i n thy most flush'd
And heedless, harmless wantonness of b l i s s . (I, i , 392-402)

S i m i l a r l y , Adam and Eve are conscious of the t e r r i b l e difference in

their situations inside and outside those walls, though of course

their attitude to this fact of l i f e d i f f e r s from that of Cain and

Adah, as we see from Z i l l a h ' s prayer, for she i s of l i k e mind to

 26

her parents:

Oh, God.' who loving, making, blessing a l l ,

Yet d i d s t permit the serpent to creep i n ,
And drive my father forth from Paradise,
Keep us from further e v i l : - H a i l ! a l l h a i l !
(I, i , 18-21)

But perhaps this attitude i s best summed up i n Eve's address to Cain:

My boy! thou speakest as I spoke, i n s i n ,

Before thy b i r t h : l e t me not see renew'd
My misery i n thine. I have repented.
Let me not see my offspring f a l l into
The snares beyond the walls of Paradise,
Which e'en i n Paradise destroy'd h i s parents,
Content thee with what is_. Had we been so,
Thou now hadst been contented. - Oh, my son!
(I, i , 39-46)

In these examples, and i n the many other references throughout the

play to the physical setting of this drama, we are continually reminded

of the fact that this family l i v e within sight of Paradise, and that

this setting i s a constant reminder to them of their F a l l from Grace,

and of what otherwise might have been their l o t i n l i f e .

We have seen that both Cain and Adah are conscious of their

environment, and that they respond f e e l i n g l y to i t , f o r they find

beauty a l l around them; but even here l i e s a source of pain and

sorrow for Cain, for against this present beauty he must weigh h i s

overwhelming awareness of the mutability of l i f e and of the i n e v i t a b i l i t y

of death:
 27

...he contents him

With making us the nothing which we are;
And after f l a t t e r i n g dust with glimpses of
Eden and immortality, resolves
It hack to .dust again. ( I l l , i , 70-74)

Though Cain i s t h r i l l e d with the sights he sees on h i s t r i p through

space, and i s over-awed with the knowledge he has gained, a l l merely

serves to reveal to him the limitations placed upon mankind:

Lucifer. And now I w i l l convey thee to thy world,

. Where thou shalt multiply the race of Adam,
Eat, drink, t o i l , tremble, laugh, weep, sleep and d i e .
Cain. And to what end have I beheld these things
Which thou hast shown me?
L u c i f e r . Didst thou not require
Knowledge? And have I not, i n what I show'd,
Taught thee to know thyself?
,Cain. Alas.' I seem nothing.
L u c i f e r . And this should be the human sum
Of knowledge, to know mortal nature's nothingness;
Bequeath that science to thy children, and
'Twill spare them many tortures. ( I I , i i , 414-424)

And on h i s return to earth, Cain shows that h i s t r i p into space has

indeed taught him this lesson; "...but now I f e e l / My l i t t l e n e s s again.

Well said the s p i r i t , / That I was nothing.'" ( I l l , i , 67-69). We

observed the very sentimental family scene that occurs immediately

upon Cain's return to earth, and the t e r r i b l e irony that springs out

of this scene, so f i l l e d with images of love and l i f e , i s the suffering

and death that Cain and Adah must bequeath to their son, and to their

son's sons, u n t i l the very end of time, for of course Cain has j u s t

returned from a journey that has confirmed this indictment:

 28

Sleep on,
And smile, thou l i t t l e , young inheritor
Of a world scarce less young: sleep on, and smile!
Thine are the hours and days when both are cheering
And innocent! thou hast not pluck'd the f r u i t -
Thou know st not thou art naked! Must the time
1

Come thou shalt be amerced for sins unknown,

Which were not thine or mine? But now sleep on!
...He must dream -
Of what? Of Paradise? - Ay! dream of i t ,
My d i s i n h e r i t e d boy! 'Tis but a dream;
For never more thyself, thy sons, nor fathers,
Shall walk i n that forbidden place of joy! ( I l l , i , 18-34)

Approaching the climax of the play, we have the s a c r i f i c i a l scene,

so v i v i d l y described for us by Cain, who i s completely repulsed by

the disgusting sight of Abel's bloody a l t e r , and h o r r i f i e d and en-

raged by the fact that an omniscient God, one supposedly a l l -

powerful and all-good, should demand such a f a t a l and sacrilegious

offering:

Abel [opposing him]. Thou shalt not:-

Add not impious works to impious
Words! l e t that a l t e r stand - ' t i s hallo'd now
By the immortal pleasure of Jehovah,
In h i s acceptance of the victims.
Cain. His!
His pleasure! what was h i s high pleasure i n
The fume's of scorching flesh and smoking blood,
To the pain of the bleating mothers, which
S t i l l yearn for their dead offspring? or the pangs
Of the sad ignorant victims underneath
Thy pious knife? Give way! this bloody record
Shall not stand i n the sun, to shame creation!
( I l l , i , 294-304)

F i n a l l y , when the murder has been committed, and Abel l i e s cold and

bloody on the earth, Cain stands dazed before the body, and the
 29

irony i n this scene i s adequately described i n the following:

Zillah. ...Father! - Eve! -

Adah! - come h i t h e r ! Death i s i n the world!
[exit Z i l l a h , c a l l i n g on her Parents, & c ]
Cain [solus]. And who hath brought him there? - I - who abhor
The name of Death so deeply, that the thought
Empoison'd a l l my l i f e , before I knew
His aspect - I have led him here, and given
My brother to h i s cold and s t i l l embrace,
As i f he would not have asserted h i s
Inexorable claim without my a i d . ( I l l , i , 369-377)

From this point on the setting plays a minor part i n the

scene, for the motivations now a r i s e out of the characters' reactions

to the act of murder, but i n the foregoing analysis we have seen

that the various settings used i n the play are e s s e n t i a l i n s t a r t i n g

the characters into action, f o r the scene does animate the character,

and the source of this animation i s the t e r r i b l e irony that l i e s i n

the scene when viewed from Cain's vantage point. The consciousness

which informs this drama i s undoubtably that of Cain, and for Cain,

as for a l l men, a sense of being i s rooted i n one's own experience of

existence. There are three, simultaneous aspects i n which each of

us finds h i s being i n the world; the f i r s t i s the environment, the

second the world of our fellow man and the third i s the world of our

r e l a t i o n to ourselves. We w i l l consider the second and third aspects

in later chapters, but for now we w i l l discuss only Cain's experience

of the environment or natural world that he finds around him -

that i s to say the "out there" which i s given to him.

We have seen that the proximity of Eden evokes i n Cain a

 30

t e r r i b l e tension and f r u s t r a t i o n , for there; constantly i n front of

him, i s the denied Paradise. 1

S i m i l a r l y , our knowledge that Cain

responds genuinely and f e e l i n g l y to the natural beauty around him

serves to greatly increase our awareness of the horror and anxiety

he feels i n the knowledge of mutability and death. The most

spectacular scenes occur i n the f l i g h t through space, when Cain's

descriptions of the surroundings are most d e t a i l e d , so that the ecstasy

and e x h i l a r a t i o n that he feels i s seen to be i n keeping with the

adventure of the journey, the grandeur of the settings and the

wonder of h i s new-found knowledge, but a l l of this leads only to

the agonizing realization.^of h i s own, inevitable limitations.' This

same, t e r r i b l e knowledge i s set over against the deep love and affec-

tion that i s evidenced in the sentimental family scene with Cain,

Adah and Enoch, and serves to increase our appreciation of Cain's

despair and despondency. F i n a l l y , i n the s a c r i f i c i a l scene, replete

with images of gore and death, Cain and Abel both address themselves

to the all-knowing, all-powerful, all-good Creator, who shows favour

to Abel, the supplicant whose denial of h i s own, e s s e n t i a l human

d i g n i t y , seems to Cain to make a travesty of the creation i t s e l f .

In this way, Byron has exploited the irony inherent i n the situation

surrounding the B i b l i c a l account of the Creation and the F a l l from

Grace, though h i s unique contribution is i n making Cain aware of the

ironies of h i s predicament, that i s to say of the contrasts between

 31

the innocent b l i s s of the Garden of Eden and the miserable toil

of the. "Land without Paradise," between the joy of l i f e , and the

terror of death, between Cain's desire for knowledge and h i s hatred

of the truth confirmed by h i s search, between Cain's compassionate

concern for a l l l i f e - f o r m s , and the utter denial of the value of

the creation by such as Abel. Byron has adopted the i r o n i c mode

in constructing this drama, whereby he has written a work in which

l i f e i s shown "exactly as i t i s found" by Cain, hence revealing the

incongruities that he finds i n l i f e ; the i r o n i c gaps to which he

-cannot adjust or adapt himself.

In this chapter, then, we have seen the way Byron has manip-

ulated the settings i n order to reveal Cain's i s o l a t i o n - h i s lack of

relatedness to the perceived world of this drama, and i n the next

chapter we w i l l investigate the changes he has made i n the s o c i a l

world of Cain and Abel, whereby he has infused a high degree of

psychological realism into the characterization, and thus enhanced

our appreciation of Cain's sense of a l i e n a t i o n .

 32

CHAPTER 3

THE SOCIAL WORLD OF CAIN

We find no r e a l sense of a community i n the B i b l i c a l account

of the events surrounding the murder of Abel, and of course Byron

points out i n h i s Preface that no mention i s made i n the Bible of

the wives of Cain and Abel, and i n fact i t i s only after Cain has

l e f t for the land of Nod that we find mention of h i s having a wife

at a l l . But Byron has created a genuine community i n Cain, l i v i n g

in their new-found world, close by the Garden of Eden, a community

bound together by family ties and, for a l l save Cain, by a "community

of values" established and maintained by the word of God. A l l here

can see, manifested before them, the Kingdom of God, both i n their

new-made world and, more importantly, i n the forbidden Paradise,

with i t s walls and guardian cherubim. Most of this family recognizes

the dominion of God, and are content to abide by His h i e r a r c h i c a l

system of values. This allows them to structure their l i v e s and to

orientate themselves i n their d a i l y a f f a i r s , by putting a meaning

and a purpose into their existence - the proper worship of the Lord

God, the g l o r i f i c a t i o n of His works and the peopling of His earth.

In order to create this community, Byron has had to make changes to

the o r i g i n a l story, both i n the number of participants, and i n the

personalities of those involved i n the main c o n f l i c t , and i n this

Chapter we w i l l investigate the nature of these changes and endeavor

 33

to assess the implications underlying them.

The most obvious, and the most important changes made are

those we find i n the nature of the main character whose name Byron

took as the t i t l e of h i s work, for i n this play Cain i s an i n t e l l i g e n t ,

sensitive man, with an independent s p i r i t , though at the same time

we observe that he i s a loving father and husband, a compassionate

Patriarch and, i n the f i r s t Act at least, a tolerant and understanding

son and brother. Cain i s no longer the moody, petulant character

that we find i n the Bible, but a more complex, more believable

character altogether. Byron reveals h i s concept of Cain i n a variety

of ways. F i r s t l y , Cain i s shown i n r e l a t i o n s h i p to the "historical"

s i t u a t i o n which gave r i s e to mankind, that i s to say in this play

Cain, and hence the reader too, i s very much aware of the facts of

the Creation and -of the F a l l from Grace. This was made apparent i n

the preceeding chapter, i n which we discussed the import of the

various settings i n the play, e s p e c i a l l y as they contribute to the

motivation of the protagonist, Cain. His reactions to the facts of

l i f e which have been determined by h i s " h i s t o r i c a l " s i t u a t i o n - the

denial of man's " r i g h t f u l " heritage, the s u f f e r i n g and t o i l of Man's

d a i l y l o t , the delusiory nature of the knowledge so dearly-bought

and, most importantly, the i n e v i t a b i l i t y of death - these reactions

are a l l important i n defining the play's main c o n f l i c t because they

are v i t a l to our understanding of Cain's character. But i t i s not

merely that he reacts to these facts - the other characters react to

 34

them too - but how he reacts that delineates h i s character f o r us, for

the "deterministic events of the past take their significance from

how we use them i n the present and the future." Thus, by showing

Cain as being conscious of h i s predicament, as being c r i t i c a l of a

system that i s so " a r b i t r a r y " i n i t s assignment of value, as r e b e l l i n g

against the " i n j u s t i c e " of h i s s i t u a t i o n , and as seeking out the very

source of h i s own discontentment, Byron i s showing us a character who

cannot or w i l l not commit himself to the present and the future, and

i s giving Cain a philosophical and psychological depth that i s not

to be found i n the B i b l i c a l story.

But secondly, Byron has complicated the situation for Cain

by placing him i n a s o c i a l setting,thus forcing him to act, not in

i s o l a t i o n , but i n a situation i n which he feels accountable to more

than j u s t h i s own sense of what i s r i g h t . One very important aspect

of Cain's s o c i a l s i t u a t i o n i s the fact that he i s a husband and a

father, and that h i s marriage and h i s fatherhood are of great importance

to him. The reader cannot help but f e e l sympathetic towards such a

sincere and devoted husband and wife, and when to this we add Cain's

very deep concern over the suffering and death that he and Adah must

bequeath to their h e i r s , we must admit that Byron has made Cain a

humane and compassionate character of admirable stature:

18
Rollo May, E x i s t e n t i a l Psycotherapy,, (Toronto: CBC Publications,
1967), p. 8.
 35

My l i t t l e Enoch. and h i s l i s p i n g 'sister!

1

Could I but deem tham happy, I would h a l f

Forget but i t can never be forgotten
Through thrice a thousand generations! never
Shall men love the rememberance of the man
Who sow'd the seed of e v i l and mankind
In the same hour! They plucked the tree of science
And s i n - and, not content with their own sorrow,
Begot me - thee - and a l l the few that are,
And a l l the unnumber'd and innumerable
Multitudes, m i l l i o n s , myriads, which may be,
To i n h e r i t agonies accumulated
By ages! - and I must be the s i r e of .such things!
Thy beauty and thy love -- my love and joy,
The rapturous moment and the placid hour,
A l l we love i n our children and each other,
But lead them and ourselves through many years
Of sin and pain -- or few, but s t i l l of sorrow,
Intercheck'd with an instant of b r i e f pleasure,
To Death the unknown! (I, i , 434-453)

Our respect for Cain i s further enhanced by our appreciation of the

tolerance and understanding that he shows towards the rest of the

family. We note, for instance, that though he can find no value i n

devotion to the God of h i s father, none-the-less he i s prepared to

make the gesture involved i n a s a c r i f i c e in order to appease h i s

wife and h i s brother Abel:

Cain. But I must r e t i r e t i l l the earth - for I had promised

Lucifer. What?
Cain. To c u l l some f i r s t f r u i t s .
Lucifer. Why?
Cain. To offer up with Abel on an a l t e r .
Lucifer. Said'st thou not
Thou ne'er hadst bent to him who made thee?
Cain. Yes
But Abel's earnest prayer has wrought upon me.
The o f f e r i n g i s more h i s than mine and
Adah
Lucifer. Why dost thou hesitate?
 36

Cain. 1 She i s my s i s t e r ,
Born on the same day, of the same womb; and
She wrung from me, with tears, this promise; and
Rather than see her weep, I would, methinks,
Bear a l l --- and worship aught. ( I , i , 320-331)

However, Cain's patience i s sorely tried i n the third Act,

with the r e s u l t that he loses h i s temper, and this reminds us that

Cain i s a dynamic, "round"^ character who changes as a r e s u l t of

his experiences during the play, for the external actions and attitudes

do modify h i s personality. But Cain i s the only character who so

changes, for the remainder are s t a t i c or " f l a t " characters whose

dominant t r a i t s are used by Byron to compare or contrast with Cain,

and so to reveal h i s character i n greater depth. For instance, i n

this play Adam, Eve, Abel, and Z i l l a h are representatives of r e l i g i o u s

orthodoxy and submissiveness to divine sanction, and as such, they

form a f o i l to Cain, standing i n contrast to him and thereby serving

to define h i s stand a l l the more f u l l y . This can be seen i n the tone

of the morning prayers with which the play opens, for these are

offered up with extreme s e v i l i t y , or even more pertinent i s the

sychophantic manner i n which Abel makes h i s prayer of p r o p i t i a t i o n

to God, a prayer so t e r r i b l y self-denying as to s t r i k e the reader as

being disingenuous, insincere and h y p o c r i t i c a l , thus forcing the

reader to f e e l antipathetic towards Abel, and a l i t t l e incredulous

• E„ M. Forster, Aspects of the Novel (London:

Ly
Edward Arnold,
1927), p. 75.
 37

of a God who would favour such a s e r v i l e , demeaning attitude of mind:

Abel [kneeling].

Oh, God. 1

Who made us, and who breathed the breath of l i f e

Within our n o s t r i l s , who hath blessed us,
• And spared, despite our father's s i n , to make
His children a l l l o s t , as they might have been,
Had not thy j u s t i c e been so temper'd with
The mercy which i s thy d e l i g h t , as to.
Afford a .pardon l i k e a Paradise,
Compared with our great crimes: - Sole Lord of l i g h t ,
Of good, and glory, and eternity.'
Without whom a l l were e v i l , and with whom
Nothing can e r r , except to some good end
Of thine omnipotent benevolence
Inscrutable, but s t i l l to be f u l f i l l ' d
Accept from out thy humble f i r s t of shepherd's
F i r s t of the f i r s t - b o r n flocks — an o f f e r i n g ,
In i t s e l f nothing as what o f f e r i n g can be
Aught unto thee? -- but yet accept i t for
The thanksgiving of him who spreads i t i n
The face of thy high heaven, bowing h i s own
Even to the dust, of which he i s , i n honour
Of thee, and of thy name, for evermore.'
( I l l , i , 223-244)

The contrast between this and Cain's f o r t h r i g h t , d i g n i f i e d , i f some-

what haughty prayer which immediately follows, i s such as to bring into

sharp focus those a n t i p a t h e t i c a l attitudes of mind i n these two men

which lead inevitably to the play's c r i s i s - the theocentric, s e l f -

abnegating fanaticism of Abel and the compassionate humanism of Cain.

In the same way, Byron uses Adah as a f o i l to Cain, though

here the contrast i s not concerned with the theocentric as opposed to

the anthropocentric view of the universe, but rather with the essential

masculine and feminine habits of mind, that i s to say, the opposition

here i s between Cain's c r i t i c a l , a n a l y t i c a l turn of mind as compared

 38

with Adah's consolidating, synthesizing habit of mind. We have already

seen that Adah is- very conscious of her environment, and that she

responds deeply to the world around her. We note too that she alone

asks God's help so that she may find for Him, the same love that she

n a t u r a l l y feels for His "beauteous beings:"

God, the Eternal.' Parent of a l l things.'.

Who d i d s t create these best and beauteous beings,
To be beloved, more than a l l , save thee ----
Let me love thee and them: - A l l hail.' a l l hail.' ( I , i , 14-17)

From her conversations with Lucifer we learn that l i k e Cain, she too

has learnt to think for h e r s e l f , for she shows an independent s p i r i t

that has not been e n t i r e l y suppressed i n submission to the God of her

father, and she i s able to hold her own i n the "parry and t h r u s t " with

Lucifer:

Lucifer. . . . I f I were not that which I have said,

Could I stand here? His angels are within
Your v i s i o n o
Adah. So they were when the f a i r serpent
Spoke with our mother f i r s t . (I, i , 550-553)

However, she does have a d i f f e r e n t turn of mind, for she places great

value upon human love and a f f e c t i o n , and upon the company of others

of her kind :

Adah. Alone I could not,

Nor would be happy; but with those around
I think I could be so, despite of death,
Which, as I know i t not, I dread not, though
It seems an awful shadow i f I may
Judge from what I have heard.
 39

Lucifer. 'And thou couldst not

Alone, thou say'st, be happy?
Adah. Alone.* Oh, my God.'
Who could be happy and alone, or good?
To me my solitude seems s i n ; unless
When I think how soon I s h a l l see my brother,
His brother, and our children, and our parents.
(I, i , 462-474)

We note i n the i n i t i a l exchange following Adah's entrance i n Act I,

that Byron stresses her domestic nature, for she i s concerned that

Cain has not joined the family i n their 'hour of rest and j o y , " and

her pleasure has been lessened by h i s absence. She points out that

she has h e r s e l f completed Cain's task, by gathering the f r u i t s for

the family repast, and on being made aware of Lucifer's presence, she

i s quick to act the hostess, and welcome him as their guest. In the

f i n a l scene, Adah shows her selflessness and her devotion to her duty

as a wife and a mother:

Cain.' thou hast heard, we must go forth. I am ready,

So s h a l l our children be. I w i l l bear Enoch,
And you h i s s i s t e r . Ere the sun declines
Let us depart, nor walk the wilderness
Under the cloud of night. ( I l l , i , 546-551)

In this she also shows h e r s e l f to be of a p r a c t i c a l nature, quick i n

deciding where her duty l i e s and sensible of the p r a c t i c a l i t i e s of

their new s i t u a t i o n . I t i s she too who speaks out to the Angel on

Cain's behalf concerning the weight of h i s punishment, and once this

question has been resolved she immediately turns her attention to the

business of preparing themselves for their new predicament:

 40

He's gone, l e t us go f o r t h ;
I hear our l i t t l e Enoch cry within
Our bower.
...I w i l l not leave thee lonely with the dead;
. Let us depart together. ( I l l , i , 518-528)

From this we can see that Adah i s more s o c i a l l y inclined than i s Cain,

so that her over-riding concern with the everyday a f f a i r s of family

l i f e enables her to ignore those unpleasent aspects of l i f e that so

burden Cain. Adah has a very deep love for her husband and children

and, more than t h i s , the capacity to s a c r i f i c e her own safety and

security for Cain, without heed or question, i n h i s time of greatest

need. In t h i s , she i s not only e s s e n t i a l to our f u l l appreciation of

the nature of Cain, but i s also instrumental i n carrying Byron's

theme, as we w i l l see i n the next chapter.

F i n a l l y we come to what i s the most s i g n i f i c a n t addition to

the dramatis personae, which i s the i n c l u s i o n of Lucifer, who plays..

a considerable part i n the drama. However, he remains a " f l a t "

character throughout the play - independent, strong-willed i n h i s

e f f o r t s to confound Cain, clever and subtle i n making out 'his case,"

as Byron puts i t , with a wealth of knowledge concerning future events

that i s appropriate to h i s power and position - but animated by a

single ambition, sure of h i s purpose, certain of h i s strength, neither

wracked with doubts nor worried about uncertainties, unmoved, unbending

and incompassionate. He comes to Cain i n the guise of a "comrade i n

adversity," and as such he a r t i c u l a t e s for him the doubts that he has

 41

entertained concerning h i s earthly existence - the purpose and

meaning of l i f e as explained by h i s father, as opposed to h i s own

thoughts and feelings a r i s i n g from h i s personal encounter with the

world; "Thou speak'st to me of things which long have swum/ In

visions through my thought: I never could/ Reconcile what I saw

with what I heard" ( I , i , 164-166). By sympathizing with Cain i n

h i s f r u s t r a t i o n , and by appealing to h i s need for an "explanation"

as to the o r i g i n and purpose of l i f e , Lucifer i s able to e l i c i t h i s

attention i n order to further confound and confuse him. In h i s d i s -

cussions with L u c i f e r , Cain reveals himself to be an astute, i n t e l l i g e n t

man who i s not overawed by the power and prestige of h i s companion,

but who can reason w e l l and argue convincingly:

Cain. But dost thou not love something l i k e thyself?

Lucifer. And dost thou love thyself?
Cain. Yes, but love more
What makes my feelings more endurable,
And i s more than myself, because I love i t .
Lucifer, Thou lovest i t because ' t i s b e a u t i f u l ,
As was the apple in thy mother's eye;
And when i t ceases to be so, thy love
W i l l cease, l i k e any other appetite.
Cain. Cease to be beautiful.' how can that be?
Lucifer. With time.
Cain. But time has pass'd, and h i t h e r t o
Even Adam and my mother both are f a i r :
Not f a i r l i k e Adah and the seraphim
But very f a i r .
Lucifer. A l l that must pass away
In them and her.
Cain. I'm sorry for i t ; but
Cannot conceive my love for her the l e s s :
And when her beauty disappears, methinks
He who creates a l l beauty w i l l lose more
Than me in seeing perish such a work.
 42

Lucifer. I p i t y thee who lovest what must perish.

Cain. And I thee who lov'st nothing. ( I I , i i , 319-338)

In this drama, Lucifer i s not concerned to win Cain over to h i s side -

to enrole him as one of h i s own Satanic school - but rather to gain

his confidence for the express purpose of revealing "mortal nature's

nothingness." We s h a l l see later that he uses considerable s k i l l i n

arguing to this end - s h i f t i n g h i s p o s i t i o n several times, contra-

d i c t i n g previous statements and appealing to emotion - so that Lucifer

serves an essential function i n the play, though i t does not arise

s o l e l y out of h i s rebelliousness against God, which he uses as a means

of expressing sympathetic i n d e n t i f i c a t i o n with Cain, but more importantly

out of h i s capacity to discover Cain to himself. In this he can most

c e r t a i n l y be seen as a " L u c i f e r , " or bearer of l i g h t .

In the above we have considered those changes and additions

that Byron has made i n order to create the s o c i a l world of h i s poetic

drama, Cain, p a r t i c u l a r l y as they contribute to e s t a b l i s h i n g the

character, and defining the ethical p o s i t i o n , of the. protagonist, Cain.

B a s i c a l l y , these changes have accomplished two ends, they have first

created a community of characters against whom we can observe Cain,

and so compare and contrast him i n deed and word, that he emerges for

us as a dynamic, believable and sympathetic character; and secondly,

they have created a community of values, within which Cain i s forced

to act according to h i s own conscience, thus expressing, and making

more profound, the predicament i n which Cain finds himself. We have

 . 43

noted that the majority of the characters i n the play are s t a t i c ,

and that they change l i t t l e i f at a l l as a r e s u l t of the action of

the drama, so that their e s s e n t i a l posture serves to h i g h l i g h t their

a l i e n attitudes and habits of mind when they are compared to the

central f i g u r e , Cain, and their very immobility counterpoints Cain's

f r a n t i c search for the purpose and meaning of life.

If we consider now the second aspect in which we find our

being i n the world, that i s to say the world of our fellow man, we

s h a l l i n fact be concerned with the s o c i a l , or inter-personal world,

in which "the categories of 'adjustment' and 'adaptation' are not

accurate or even h e l p f u l : the term 'relationship' i s the r i g h t

20

category." However, Dr. May points out that "The essence of the

r e l a t i o n s h i p i s that i n the encounter both persons are changed.

Relationship always involves a mutual : awareness, and this already

i s the process of being mutually affected by the encounter.' We

have already observed i n the above analysis that there exists between

Cain and the more devout members of this f i r s t family, a r a d i c a l

difference of opinion concerning the meaning of l i f e , and that this

i s r e f l e c t e d through the play, i n the attitudes and actions of each

2 0
I b i d . , p. 6

21
Loc. c i t .
 44

faction. Perhaps this i s best i l l u s t r a t e d by considering the

character Abel. We have already seen that h i s e s s e n t i a l posture i s

that of a theocentric, self-abnegating fanaticism. As the play opens

he i s hard at prayers with the r e s t of the family, and though he

plays a minor part i n Act I, h i s contribution, and the comments that

Cain makes in discussing him with L u c i f e r , show him to be a devout

follower of the God of Adam. This i s further emphasized i n Act I I I ,

when he earnestly enjoins Cain to p a r t i c i p a t e in h i s "pious ministry,

and most extremely of course, i n the tone and tenor of h i s prayer

of p r o p i t i a t i o n . We cannot help but note, i n the a c t i v i t i e s pre-

ceeding the s a c r i f i c e , that Abel i s tremendously conscious of the

fact that Cain i s h i s elder brother, a habit of mind that i s quite

in keeping with Abel's h i e r a r c h i c a l system of values, but which i s

quite foreign to Cain. For instance, Abel i s i n s i s t a n t that the

r i t u a l of the s a c r i f i c e by conducted in the proper manner, paying

due heed to the established routines:

Cain. It means I pray thee, leave me.

Abel. Not t i l l we have pray'd and s a c r i f i c e d together.
Cain. Abel, I pray thee, s a c r i f i c e alone
Jehovah loves thee w e l l .
Abel. Both w e l l , I hope„
Cain. But thee the better: I care not for that;
Thou a r t f i t t e r for h i s worship than I am;
Rever him, then but l e t i t be alone
At least, without me.
Abel. Brother, I should i l l
Deserve the name of our great father's son,
I f , as my elder, I revered thee not,
 45

And i n the worship of our God, c a l l ' d not

On thee to j o i n me, and precede me in
Our priesthood ' t i s thy place
Cain. But I have ne'er
Asserted i t .
Abel. The more my g r i e f ; I pray thee
To do so now: thy soul seems labouring i n
Some strong delusion; i t w i l l calm thee.
Cain. . . . I f i t must be so w e l l , then,
What s h a l l I do?
Abel. Choose one of those two a l t e r s .
Cain. Choose for me: they are to me so much turf
And stone.
Abel. Choose thou.'
Cain. I have chosen.
Abel. 'Tis the highest,
And suits thee, as the elder. Now prepare
Thine o f f e r i n g s .
...My brother, as the elder, offer f i r s t
Thy prayer and thanksgiving with s a c r i f i c e .
Cain. No I am new to t h i s ; lead thou the way,
And I w i l l follow as I may. ( I l l , i , 183-222)

In h i s orthodoxy, Abel i s set over against Cain, who cannot subscribe

to an imposed system of values; i n h i s unflinching fanaticism, Abel

contrasts r a d i c a l l y with Cain, whose personal doubts drive him to

search for a meaningful system of values by which to orientate him-

s e l f ; i n h i s extreme denial of the e s s e n t i a l d i g n i t y of mankind,

Abel personifies a l l that would take away from Cain the one supreme

value that he f i n a l l y finds as v i t a l to h i s own existance - the

compassion of one human being for another. It i s quite obvious that

there i s no p o s s i b i l i t y of '\nutual awareness" or of either faction

being "mutually a f f e c t e d " i n the inter-personal world of this drama,

so that i n the creation of the s o c i a l world of Cain, Byron has i n -

 46

fused a high degree of psychological realism, both i n delineating

h i s central character, Cain, and i n revealing the meaning of the

other members of the group, as experienced by the protagonist,

and i n this he has profoundly deepened the philosophical r e a l i t y

of Cain's p o s i t i o n .

Having considered some of the implications a r i s i n g out of

the natural and s o c i a l worlds of Byron's reconceptualization of

this B i b l i c a l story, we w i l l now turn our attention to the play"s

argument, by considering Cain as an heroic figure, and this w i l l

be the burden of our next Chapter.

 47

CHAPTER 4

CAIN AS AN HEROIC FIGURE

It i s d i f f i c u l t to arrive at any d e f i n i t e conclusion as to

the motivation that drives the B i b l i c a l Cain.to murder h i s brother

Abel, for as we have already seen, the account i s short and terse,

and lacking in any s p e c i f i c d e t a i l s as to characterization; but i t

has long been assumed that Cain's actions stem out of the jealousy

he feels when Abel's s a c r i f i c e i s accepted, and h i s rejected by the

Lord God. The account states only that Cain was "very wroth" when

the Lord did not respect h i s o f f e r i n g , and that he showed h i s feelings

in h i s outward manner, causing the Lord to question him as to the

cause of h i s anger, and to chastize him for f e e l i n g angry when he

should i n fact be f e e l i n g g u i l t y for the sin that l i e s at h i s door.

Cain i s unable to recognise this s i n , however, and instead of f e e l i n g

that the blame l i e s with himself, he places i t elsewhere, external

to himself, and seemingly i n a jealous rage, h i t s out at h i s brother

Abel.

If we now consider Byron's Cain, we observe that he i s at

great pains to establish the motivation for the catastrophe that

occurs i n this drama, and that Cain's motives here are much more

complex than the mere jealousy that we find i n the B i b l i c a l account.

Certainly Cain slays h i s brother in a f i t of anger, and i t i s

apparent that one of the things that contributes to h i s extreme

 48

agitation i s h i s unwillingness to recognise any g u i l t on h i s part f o r

the sins of h i s parents, though i t i s eminently apparent to him

that blame has been so apportioned that he cannot avoid bearing the

r e s p o n s i b i l i t y for their transgressions. But when we have stated

these two, s l i g h t s i m i l a r i t i e s , we have exhausted the study of areas

of agreement between these two accounts; for Byron's Cain i s a v i t a l ,

complex man, a l i v e i n a world of doubt and suffering, and a proper

study of this Cain must s t a r t by considering the source of h i s

doubt and the cause of h i s suffering. Accordingly, i n this chapter

we w i l l study Cain as the protagonist i n this play, at odds with the

established system of values, and engaged i n a struggle to discover

the o r i g i n and meaning of l i f e , i n .order to confirm h i s own sense

of values, so that he may be reconciled to the facts of existence

as he finds them i n h i s encounter with the world.

Byron's Cain i s set off from the s o c i a l order of this play

from the very s t a r t , for the play opens as the family are at their

morning prayers, and i t i s quickly made evident that Cain i s not a

party to these orisons, and that h i s self-exclusion i s not a mere

whim, but i s seated i n a profound doubt as to the beneficence of God.

The tenor of the family prayers i s such as to a t t r i b u t e to God the

power and the knowledge due to the Creator, and at the same time to

recount the d e t a i l s of the F a l l i n a way that r e f l e c t s harshly on

themselves, thus leaving God the virtue of being all-good, to boot:

 49

Zillah. Oh, God.' who loving, making, b l e s s i n g a l l ,

Yet didst permit the serpent to creep i n ,
And drive my father forth from Paradise,
Keep us from further e v i l : — Hail.' a l l h a i l !
(I, i , 18-21)

But Cain cannot accept this r a t i o n a l i z a t i o n , for i t goes against a l l

sense and reason for him, and i t ignores the f a c t s :

Why did he y i e l d to the serpent and the woman? or,

Y i e l d i n g , why suffer? What was there in this?
The tree was planted, and why not for him?
If not, why place him near i t , where i t grew,
The f a i r e s t i n the centre? They have but
One answer to a l l questions, 'Twas h i s w i l l ,
And he i s good.' How k n o x 7 I that? Because
He i s all-powerful, must all-good, too follow?
I judge but by the f r u i t s -- and they are b i t t e r
Which I must feed on for a f a u l t not mine. (I, i , 69-79)

Cain reserves the r i g h t to use the knowledge of good and e v i l , so

dearly bought, and in h i s judgement, "knowledge i s good,/ And life is

good; and how can both be e v i l ? " (I, i , 37-38). That Cain i s

s o c i a l l y alienated i s quite apparent, for though the members of this

f i r s t society are bound together by family ties and by their common

p l i g h t , these bonds serve only to unite Cain to the rest of the

family for the sake of mutual convenience, for of h i s r e l a t i v e s he

says:

... My father i s
Tamed down; my mother has forgot the mind
Which made her t h i r s t for knowledge at the r i s k
Of an eternal curse; my brother i s
A watching shepherd boy, who offers up
The f i r s t l i n g s of the flock to him who bids
The earth y i e l d nothing to us without sweat;
My s i s t e r Z i l l a h sings an e a r l i e r hymn
 50

Than the b i r d s ' matins; and my Adah, my

Own and beloved, she, too, understands not
The mind which overwhelms me. ( I , i , 176-186)

But neither here nor elsewhere in the play does Cain i n s i s t upon the

other members of the family p a r t i c i p a t i n g in h i s opposition to God,

for he does not expect them to be of l i k e mind to himself, but rather

i t i s he who i s prepared to recognize their b e l i e f , and even to make

the gesture of a s a c r i f i c e to their God, in order to placate them.

In this he shows great tolerance and understanding, c e r t a i n l y more

than i s reciprocated on their part. Cain i s deeply disturbed by the

knowledge that man must die; that l i f e must cease, and a l l beauty and

love be ended i n the grave:

Thoughts unspeakable
Crowd in my breast to burning, when I hear
Of this almighty Death, who i s , i t seems,
Inevitable.
...Ah! I thought i t was a being: who could do
Such e v i l things to beings save a b.eing? (I, i , 253-262)

To demand that a l l things d i e , i s an e v i l act as far as Cain i s con-

cerned, an act "denounced against us,/ Both them who sinn'd and sinn'd

not, as an i l l " (I, i , 283-284), and this a r b i t r a r y inclusion of

g u i l t y and g u i l t l e s s i s inexplicable and unforgivable i n Cain's eyes.

The sense of j u s t i c e i s very strong in Cain, and he i n s i s t s i n judging

for himself, and for this reason he cannot subscribe to the values

of h i s father, and so he i s set over against these devout followers

of God.
 51

But Cain i s forced to find some other source of value by

which to orientate himself i n l i f e , and so, prior to the opening

of this play, he has set himself to oppose the God-ordained system

of values, and herein l i e s h i s only anchor-point in l i f e , for h i s

psychic energies are dissipated i n h i s opposition to the " i n j u s t i c e "

of h i s predicament, so that h i s l i f e i s centered in the recognition

of God, in the same way that i t i s for Adam, but whereas Adam

i d e n t i f i e s with God, Cain i d e n t i f i e s in opposition to Him. Both

men need to see the forbidden Paradise - Adam as a reminder of God's

Grace and h i s own shortcoming, Cain as a reminder of God's i n j u s t i c e

and h i s own integrity. I f we need proof of the importance of

Paradise to Cain we need only note that he i s constantly r e f e r r i n g

to i t throughout the play and i n such a way as to point up the fact

that he has been unjustly denied h i s place there. That this Garden

of Eden acts as a center for Cain i s obvious, for when f i r s t he i s

whirled into space by Lucifer, he looks around for h i s conventional

center of reference:

Can i t be?
Yon small blue c i r c l e , swinging in far ether,
With an i n f e r i o r c i r c l e t near i t s t i l l ,
Which look l i k e that which l i t our earthly night?
Is this our Paradise? Where are i t s walls,
And they who guard them? ( I I , i i , 28-33)

And on their next stage of the journey he i s s t i l l concerned to locate

that which forms a focal point in h i s own life:

 52

Lucifer. Away, then.1

'
Cain. But the lights fade from me f a s t ,
And some t i l l now grew larger as we approach'd,
And wore the look of worlds.
Lucifer. And such they are.
Cain. And Edens i n them?
Lucifer. It may be.
(II, i , 167-169)

Once in Hades, and seeing the phantoms of past ages, he asks:

What are these mighty phantoms which I see

F l o a t i n g around me? - They wear not the form
Of the i n t e l l i g e n c e s I have seen
Round our regretted and unenter'd Eden. (II, i i , 44-47)

And' l a t e r :

And those enormous creatures,

Phantoms i n f e r i o r i n i n t e l l i g e n c e
(At least so seeming) to the things we have pass'd,
Resembling somewhat the wild habitants
Of the deep woods of earth, the hugest which
Roar n i g h t l y i n the forest, but ten-fold
In magnitude and terror; t a l l e r than
The cherub-guarded walls of Eden, with
Eyes flashing l i k e the f i e r y swords which fence them,
And tusks "projecting l i k e the trees stripp'd of
Their bark and branches -- what are they?
(II, i i , 132-142)

Lucifer i s of course aware of Cain's suffering, and wishing

to a l l y himself with Cain for h i s own u l t e r i o r motives, he immediately

denies the one i n j u s t i c e which Cain considers the most t e r r i b l e of

a l l - the f i n a l i t y of death, for he refers to man's "immortal part."

Having gained Cain's sympathetic attention, Lucifer then expresses

h i s own opposition to the God of Adam:

 53

Lucifer. They say -- what they must sing and say, on pain
Of being that which I am - and thou art -
Of s p i r i t s and of men.
Cain. And what i s that?
Lucifer. Souls who dare use their immortality --
Souls who dare look the Omnipotent tyrant in
His everlasting face, and t e l l him that
His e v i l i s not good! If he has made,
As he saith -- which I know not, nor believe --
But, i f he made us -- he cannot unmake:
We are immortal! nay, he'd have us so,
That he may t o r t u r e : - l e t him! He i s great --
But, i n h i s greatness, i s no happier than
We in our c o n f l i c t : Goodness would not make
E v i l ; and what else hath he made? But l e t him
Sit on h i s vast and s o l i t a r y throne,
Creating worlds, to make eternity
Less burthensome to h i s immense existence
And unparticipated solitude;
Let him crowd orb on orb: he i s alone
Indefinite, indissolable tyrant;
Could he but crush himself, 'twere the best boon
He ever granted: but l e t him reign on,
And multiply himself in misery!
S p i r i t s and Men, at least we sympathize ;
And, suffering in concert, make our pangs
Innumerable more endurable,
By the unbounded sympathy of a l l
With a l l ! But He! so wretched in h i s height,
So r e s t l e s s i n h i s wretchedness, must s t i l l
Create, and re-create
(I, i , 134-163)

This speech i s an excellent example of persuasive argument, i n which

we see Lucifer using a l l of h i s cunning; for f i r s t of a l l he casts

doubts upon the powers claimed by the Creator, then accepting those

same powers, he argues that they are more l i m i t i n g for God than for

his creation, thus at once revealing the insurmountable gulf that

must separate Creator and creation, and at the same time finding con-

solation in the very fact that God, in h i s extreme i s o l a t i o n i s cert-

ainly no happier than man. Hence, here l i e s not only a source of con-
 54

solation for man, but the very basis of a sympathetic comradship

between man and L u c i f e r , and so on, apparently appealing to reason

in h i s concise argument, but more t r u l y concerned to play upon Cain's

emotions. In this speech, Lucifer a r t i c u l a t e s for Cain what he has

only f e l t to date, so that i n fact Lucifer i s hereby giving Cain the

concepts necessary for him to be able to recognize h i s own p o s i t i o n ,

and from this point on Cain can formulate for himself, objectively,

what has up to now been mere subjective experience:

Thou speak 'st to me of things which long have swum

In visions through my thought: I never could
Reconcile what I saw with what I heard.
My father and my mother talk to me ..
Of serpents, and of f r u i t s and trees: I see
The gates of what they c a l l their Paradise
Guarded by fiery-sworded cherubim,
Which shut them out and me: I f e e l the weight
Of d a i l y t o i l , and constant thought: I look
Around a world where I seem nothing, with
Thoughts which arise within me, as i f they
Could master a l l things But I thought alone
This misery was mine.- ( I , i , 194-176)

Hence, Lucifer i s here expressing Cain's own sense of values, and

describing the r e a l i t y of Cain's s i t u a t i o n as he has understood i t up

to this time. Having i d e n t i f i e d the common cause that must unite

them, Lucifer proceeds to f l a t t e r Cain, by t e l l i n g him that i n h i s

opposition to God, and in h i s compassionate concern over the fate

of mankind, he i s indeed f i t for the companionship of such as L u c i f e r .

He then temps Cain, by revealing h i s knowledge of past events and of

future p o s s i b i l i t i e s :
 55

Cain. Would they had snatch'd both

The f r u i t s , or neither!
Lucifer. One i s yours already,
The other may be s t i l l .
Cain. How so?
Lucifer. By being
Yourselves, i n your resistance. Nothing can
Quench the mind, i f the mind w i l l be i t s e l f
And centre of surrounding things — ' t i s made
To sway. (I, i , 208-213)

But he proceeds to disparage the knowledge so far gained by Cain, by

pointing to h i s unreasonable fear of death:

Cain. ...Alas.' I scarcely know what i t is,

And yet I fear i t — fear I know not what!
Lucifer. And I, who know a l l things, fear nothing; see
What i s true knowledge. (I, i , 295-298)

It i s agreed that Lucifer w i l l teach Cain a l l , on condition that Cain

become a follower of L u c i f e r . Cain would prefer to remain uncommitted,

but once again he learns that he has no choice i n the matter, for not

having bowed down to God makes him a worshipper of L u c i f e r . But i n

view of the promise made by L u c i f e r , even this saems acceptable, for

he r e p l i e s , "Let me but/ Be taught the mystery of my being" (I, i , 319),

and i n this hope, he i s prepared to follow L u c i f e r .

At this point, Adah enters the scene, and on learning of

Cain's intended departure, she becomes very concerned. In the exchange

with Lucifer that follows h i s r e f u s a l to include her i n the journey,

she i s seen to be an astute woman, quick to point out the weaknesses

in Lucifer's arguments, and a r e a l threat to h i s power over Cain.

However, Lucifer very quickly clouds the issue and reaffirms h i s superior
 56

knowledge, for he quite gratuitously raises the question of incest,

which disturbs Adah considerably. In the argument that follows,

Lucifer again shows h i s s k i l l , for i n speaking out against God, he

does so i n terms that force Adah to recognize her own "dissatisfied

and curious thoughts," so that she f e e l s drawn to Lucifer with a

"pleasing f e a r . " When she points out h i s complete lack of love,

Lucifer turns this vice into a virtue by opposing love and knowledge,

and by equating love with ignorance and fear with knowledge. He

implies that love i s only possible i n a state of ignorance, and he

points out that Adam has already made h i s choice, for "His worship

i s but f e a r , " so that i n this context, i f Cain chooses love he i s

going back on h i s parents' o r i g i n a l choice of knowledge at the price

of fear. Cain r i s e s to this b a i t , declaring that as far as Adah i s

concerned, no choice i s necessary, for h i s love for her was born with

him, but that he can love nothing else, c e r t a i n l y not h i s parents, for

they "sow'd the seed of e v i l and mankind/ In the same hour" (I, i , 439-440),

and out of a l l the t e r r i b l e s u f f e r i n g that must ensue, not even the

promise of the tree of knowledge can be salvaged:

Methinks the tree of knowledge

Hath not f u l f i l l ' d i t s promise: - i f they sinn'd
At least they ought to have known a l l things that are
Of knowledge — and the mystery of death.
What do they know? -- that they are miserable.
What need of snakes and f r u i t s to teach us that? (I, i , 453-458)
 57

Adah i n s i s t s that in spite of t h i s , she could be happy with Cain, but

he w i l l now have nothing to do with a happiness that i s founded on

ignorance. The question of human sympathy i s then r a i s e d , and Adah

declares that she could neither be happy nor good alone, but that

with the companionship of others of her kind, she could be so. Lucifer

quickly turns this to h i s own advantage by pointing out that God i s

supremely alone, and though Adah i n s i s t s that he has the company of

h i s creation, and that h i s joy arises from making them happy in turn,

when Lucifer asks her, she can only agree that she i s not h e r s e l f

happy, as.should be the case. Having now rooted h i s argument i n

empirical experience of the world, L u c i f e r states that l i v i n g things

cannot find happiness i n submission to the Maker because of the con-

d i t i o n s of their very existence, and only i n r e s i s t i n g His authority,

i n maintaining one's i n t e g r i t y , can any happiness be found i n l i f e .

He declares that such resistance i s i n fact n a t u r a l , and springs from

man's i n t u i t i v e sense of r i g h t :

Lucifer. ...there i s
A wisdom in the s p i r i t , which d i r e c t s
To r i g h t , as in the dim blue a i r the eye
Of you, young mortals, l i g h t s at once upon .
The star which watches, welcoming the morn.
Adah. It i s a b e a u t i f u l star; I love i t for
Its beauty. ( I , i , 488-493)

Here he i s on safe ground, of course, for he w e l l knows that both

Adah and Cain respond deeply and sympathetically to the natural beauty
 58

around them, and Adah's reply merely confirms this for him. It i s

but a short step now to ask why Adah does not worship these things of

beauty which she can see, and which she has a natural love f o r , rather

than a God who remains i n v i s i b l e , i n s c r u t i b l e and unsympathetic. But

Adah i s following the teachings of her father, and r e p l i e s that

Adam has beheld God himself, and Lucifer does not pursue this l i n e

of argument any further. Adah likens the sublimity that she feels

when confronting the beauties of this world, to the f e e l i n g that she

now has when facing L u c i f e r , for he seems so unhappy, i n spite of h i s

beauty and n o b i l i t y , and the sight of him brings tears to her eyes.

She offers to weep for him i n h i s unhappiness, i f only he w i l l not

make them unhappy i n turn, but Lucifer coldly spurns this offer of

sympathy. At this point the argumentation has ceased, and Cain de-

clares h i s intention of following L u c i f e r . I t remains for Lucifer

to reassert h i s knowledge and power, and this he does by explaining

that a l l things are divided between him and God, so that each has h i s

own realm. Passing reference i s made to C h r i s t , as the only other

mortal form who w i l l enter Lucifer's domain and return, as w i l l

Cain, and then L u c i f e r c a l l s upon Cain for the l a s t time:

Lucifer. Cain. thou hast heard.

1

If thou dost long for knowledge, I can satiate

That t h i r s t ; nor ask thee to partake of f r u i t s
Which s h a l l deprive thee of a single good
The conqueror has l e f t thee. Follow me.
Cain. S p i r i t , I have said i t .
[Exeunt Lucifer and Cain.]
Adah, [follows exclaiming]. Cain! my brother.' Cain.'
(I, i , 553-559)
 59

Our analysis of Act I has been so'detailed because i t i s

in this Act that the basis for Cain's i s o l a t i o n is established, and

in order to f u l l y understand h i s i n t e l l e c t u a l p o s i t i o n , i t i s necessary

to consider h i s r e l a t i o n s h i p to the rest of the family, to their God-

ordained hierarchy of values, to h i s wife, Adah, to h i s companion in

adversity, Lucifer, and most importantly, to himself - that i s to

say h i s concept of himself and h i s place in the scheme of things.

Prior to the opening of the play, Cain has found that he i s unable

to p a r t i c i p a t e i n the design of the "structure of meaningful r e l a t i o n s h i p s "

which constitutes the world of this f i r s t family, for i t gives r i s e

to t e r r i b l e discrepancies which Cain can neither accept nor resolve,

and so he has set himself to oppose the theocentric system of values.

But such an opposition is not i t s e l f s u f f i c i e n t l y p o s i t i v e to be able

to provide the dynamic that Cain requires, for i t does not allow him

to express i d e n t i t y with the world he inhabits. For this reason he

i s anxious to follow Lucifer, the only one who has confirmed h i s own

sense of values and, what i s more important, who promises to give him

the knowledge necessary to achieve a. p o s i t i v e committment - a

committment to the mystery of l i f e i t s e l f . In t h i s , Cain is turning

to the realm of the mind for a v i s i o n of an absolute source of value,

so that he may find the world of experience to be t o t a l l y undefining,

and therefore devoid of a l l meaning. This w i l l enable Cain to "trans-

cend" the limitations imposed upon him by h i s mortal condition by

22
lb id . , p. 5.
 60

allowing him to accept s u f f e r i n g and death as pertaining only to h i s

mortal nature, and therefore powerless to a f f e c t h i s "immortal p a r t , "

At this point we must note that i n the Preface, Byron re-

minds h i s reader that i n the books of Moses, there i s no mention

whatsoever of a future state, that i s to say, of a l i f e after death,

so that for this f i r s t family, submission to the w i l l of God holds

out no promise of achieving another, more desirable state i n which the

cares and worries of this world are l a i d aside. Hence, as far as this

play i s concerned, submission to God cannot ever be a means of trans-

cending one's mortal condition, for a l l l i f e ends i n the grave, when

dust i s resolved back to dust, and both body and soul cease to ex-

ist. This fact helps to explain 1) why Cain cannot accept a God who

imposes such a. f a t a l l i m i t a t i o n upon man, and 2) why i t i s that

Lucifer i s able to seduce Cain into following him, for h i s implication

that there i s a future state gives him a tremendous advantage, for

Cain grasps at the hope of a l i f e beyond l i f e that w i l l "explain" and

hence make bearable, the i n i q u i t i e s of the human condition. This

craving a f t e r some absolute source of value i s quite evident from the

text i t s e l f , f o r i n two quite s i g n i f i c a n t places, Cain expresses the

death-wish:

Cain. Were I quite earth,

That were no e v i l : would I ne'er had been
Aught else but dust.'
Lucifer. That i s a g r o v e l l i n g wish,
Less than thy father's, for he wish'd to know.
(I, i , 287-290)
 61 '

Here the discussion has been concerned with death - Cain's fear of

i t and h i s lack of knowledge concerning the nature of i t - and h i s

yearning here i s for complete o b l i v i o n , or i n other words he desires

to abandon the human condition and to be merged with absolute

nothingness. Later he says:

Lucifer. Thy human mind hath scarcely grasp to gather

The l i t t l e I have shown thee into calm
And clear thought; and thou wouldst go on aspiring
To the great double mysteries.' the two principles.'
And gaze upon them on their secret thrones.'
Dust.' l i m i t thy ambition; for to see
Either of these would be for thee to perish!
Cain. And l e t me perish, so I see them!
Lucifer. There
The son of her who snatch'd the apple spake!
(II, i i , 401-409)

Here Cain expresses the wish to die i n the attainment of absolute

knowledge, again a yearning after an Absolute i n which to lose oneself -

a p o s i t i v e committment to some i n t e l l e c t u a l and moral certainty that

w i l l make possible the "transcendence" of one's human condition.

But to return to a chronological study of Cain's i n t e l l e c t u a l

p o s i t i o n , i n i t i a l l y , as the play opens, Cain i s s o c i a l l y alienated

because he cannot subscribe to the values of the r e s t of this family,

and h i s a l i e n a t i o n i s evidenced i n h i s s e l f - a s s e r t i o n - h i s determination

to r e s i s t the imposition of values by God, and h i s insistance on h i s

own r i g h t and a b i l i t y to judge good and e v i l . With the a r r i v a l of

L u c i f e r , however, Cain finds someone who a r t i c u l a t e s for him h i s

e s s e n t i a l opposition to the established system of values, who thus

confirms h i s own sense of order and meaning, and who shows promise

of revealing the very mystery of l i f e , i t s e l f , which p o s s i b i l i t y appeals

 62

to Cain as a more positive and regenerative source of value. Up to

this point, Cain has been adamant i n h i s r e f u s a l to recognize the

God-ordained system of values, but he has not t r i e d to convert any

of the family to h i s own p o s i t i o n , and i n fact he has shown con-

siderable tolerance towards them. His wife, Adah, whilst she admits

to entertaining fears and doubts as the the beneficence of her father's

God, and while she finds i t necessary to ask His help i n finding love

for Him, does not f u l l y understand why Cain i s so deeply disturbed.

She has accepted the God of her father without question, and her

occasional doubts and fears do not cause her much concern, for her

l i f e i s centered i n her family and i n the day-to-day a f f a i r s of this

f i r s t society. She i s not u n i n t e l l i g e n t , but things of the mind -

questions concerning God's justice, death, good and e v i l - are of

minor importance i n her l i f e . Her husband and her children are her

committment, and she find here a quite s u f f i c i e n t means of d e f i n i n g

reality. Adah's 'world" i s the s o c i a l world of this play, and her

i n s t i n c t u a l responses to her husband, her children and her r e l a t i v e s

are her source of motivation. While these remain, she can, she i s

sure, create a Paradise on earth. In this capacity she represents

the e s s e n t i a l feminine r o l e and the corresponding habit of mind, and

i t i s therefore natural that she should be the one to r a i s e the question

of human sympathy, and to express the b e l i e f that man can create h i s

own paradise, founded on mutual a f f e c t i o n and respect. But Cain

needs more than sympathy i n h i s extreme p o s i t i o n , he needs someone

to empathize with him, not sympathize with him, for sympathy i s only
 63

sentimental i d e n t i f i c a t i o n , and i t arouses p i t y , which i s destructive

to the ego, while i n empathizing we p a r t i c i p a t e i n the other person's

world, and we f e e l with him the fear that he feels i n h i s confronta-

tion with r e a l i t y , so that we confirm h i s values and we substantiate

h i s committment, and hence we build up the ego. This, of course, i s

what Lucifer means by "suffering i n concert," the one consolation by

which S p i r i t s and men may "Make our pangs/ Innumerable more endurable,/

By the unbounded sympathy of a l l / With a l l . ' " (I, i , 158-161).

But as we have already noted, i n the second Act Cain r e -

fers constantly to the forbidden Eden, showing that he makes no

sudden change i n committment, but rather that he wavers, uncertain

of the e f f i c a c y of h i s new-found knowledge, for of course Lucifer has

no intention of aiding Cain, but i s only concerned to confound and

confuse him. For instance, he attempts to confuse both Cain and

Adah with the question of " t r u t h , " for when they claim that the

serpent was f a l s e , he i s quick to refute t h i s , as we see i n the

following conversation with Adah:

Cain. He speaks l i k e
A god.
Adah. So did the serpent, and i t l i e d .
Lucifer. Thou errest, Adah.' was not the tree that
Of knowledge?
Adah. Ay to our eternal sorrow.
Lucifer. And yet that g r i e f i s knowledge — so he l i e d not:
And i f he d i d betray you, 'twas with truth;
And truth i n i t s own essence cannot be
But good. (I, i , 347-353)
 64

But to claim that this " t r u t h " i s good i s patently f o o l i s h , and Adah

i s equally quick to so state. Lucifer had e a r l i e r stated that he

tempts none but with the truth, and that "we who see the truth, must

speak i t , " so that he i s claiming that truth i s a thing to be de-

sired as and of i t s e l f , and this i s also implied i n h i s reply to Cain,

concerning the knowledge he has gained i n h i s journey:

Cain. And wherefore didst thou

Lead me here only to inform me this?
Lucifer. Was not thy quest for knowledge?
Cain. Yes; as being
The road to happiness.
Lucifer. I f truth be so,
Thou hast i t . ( I I , i i , 227-231)

In t h i s , Lucifer i s surely revealing that man's new-found power of

assigning value, and hence of determining what i s "true" and what

" f a l s e , " i s to be seriously suspected as being the key to happiness

and s e l f - s u f f i c i e n c y . But he also questions Cain's a b i l i t y to recognize

beauty, and when Cain i n s i s t s that i n Adah l i e s a beauty that surpasses

a l l the beauties of Nature, he r e p l i e s that " ' l i s f a i r as f r a i l

m o r t a l i t y , / In the f i r s t dawn and bloom of young creation,/ And e a r l i e s t

embraces of earth's parents,/ Can make i t s o f f s p r i n g ; s t i l l i t i s de-

l u s i o n " (II, i i , 269-272). But this same beauty i s the basis of Cain's

love, so that love, too, i s degraded, and likened to mere appetite;

"Thou lovest i t , because ' t i s b e a u t i f u l , / As was the apple i n thy

mother's eye;/ And when i t ceases to be so, thy love/ W i l l cease, l i k e

any other appetite" (II, i i , 323-326).

 65

But perhaps Lucifer's intention i s best seen i n h i s arguments

as to what constitutes " e v i l , " surely the one area i i which f a l l e n man

can f e e l most secure i n exercising h i s own judgement, for in this he

i s already a demi-god:

Lucifer.' I would have made ye

Gods; and even He who thrust ye forth, so thrust ye
Because 'ye should not eat the f r u i t s of l i f e ,
And become gods as we. Were those h i s words?
1

Cain. They were, as I have heard from those who heard them
In thunder. . (I, i , 199-204)

But Cain i s not secure i n h i s assessment of value, for i t has alienated

him from the remainder of the family, and at the same time i t has not

helped i n any way to reconcile him to the t e r r i b l e d i s p a r i t y between

what he feels and what he sees and i s t o l d . Lucifer points out those

aspects of l i f e that cause Cain suffering and fear, and he concurs

in regarding these as " e v i l . " Since, however, these are e s s e n t i a l l y a

part of l i f e , they are the r e s p o n s i b i l i t y of the Maker, God, so that

God i s i n fact the creator of " e v i l , " and hence cannot be all-good, for

"Goodness would not make E v i l . " But having comforted Cain by siding

with him on this matter, Lucifer then goes on'to thoroughly confuse

the issue. F i r s t l y , he r e i t e r a t e s the fact that in Cain's world,

God decides what i s good and what e v i l :

Lucifer. Believe--and sink not. doubt--and perish.' thus

1

Would run the edict of the other God,

Who names me demon to h i s angels; they
Echo the sound to miserable things,
Which, knowing nought beyond their shallow senses,
Worship the word which strikes their ear, and deem
E v i l and Good what i s proclaimed to them
. In their abasement. ( H , i , 5-12)
 66

But then he declares that Cain i s himself s i n f u l and e v i l , and that

this w i l l continue to be the case for a l l mankind:

Lucifer. First-born of the f i r s t man.'

Thy present state of s i n , and thou a r t e v i l ---
Of sorrow, and thou sufferest are both Eden
In a l l i t s innocence compared to what
Thou shortly may'st be; and that state again,
In i t s redoubled wretchedness, a Paradise
To what thy sons' sons' sons, accumulating
In generations l i k e to dust (which they
In fact but add t o ) , s h a l l endure and do.
(II, i i , 219-227)

Then he states that e v i l i s an e s s e n t i a l part of a l l things, and that

i t cannot be avoided:

Lucifer. ...But ignorance of e v i l does not save

From e v i l ; i t must r o l l on the same,
A part of a l l things.
Cain. Not of a l l things. No:
I ' l l not believe i t - - f o r I t h i r s t for good.
Lucifer. And who and what doth not? Who covets e v i l
For i t s own b i t t e r sake?--None--nothing! ' t i s
The leaven of a l l l i f e , and l i f e l e s s n e s s .
(II, i i , 235-241)

But he later changes h i s position once more, declaring that the basis

of a l l moral values l i e s , not i n an absolute standard of good or of

e v i l , but i n the peculiar viewpoint of the judge; "He as a conqueror

w i l l c a l l the conquer'd/ E v i l ; but what w i l l be the good he gives?/

Were I the v i c t o r , h i s works would be deemed/ The only e v i l ones"

(II, i i , 443-446). He has e a r l i e r demonstrated t h i s by r e f e r r i n g to

the s i n of incest, for as Lucifer points out, i n the future, circumstances

w i l l cause what are now innocent and natural acts to be regarded as

 67

evil, so t h a t what i s now a source o f l o v e w i l l then be regarded with

loathing. But once more he changes h i s p o s i t i o n , and d e c l a r e s that

an a b s o l u t e standard is. a v a i l a b l e , f o r " E v i l and good are t h i n g s i n

t h e i r own essence,/ And-not made good or e v i l by the g i v e r " ( I I , i i , 452-453).

F i n a l l y , h i s l a s t e x h o r t a t i o n on t h i s s u b j e c t , i s f o r C a i n to a p p l y

the pragmatic test; "Judge/ Not by words, though of s p i r i t s , but the

f r u i t s / Of your e x i s t e n c e , such as i t must b e " (II, i i , 456-458).

In t h i s he throws the onus back onto C a i n , h a v i n g denied him the s o l a c e

of an a b s o l u t e standard to s u b s t a n t i a t e h i s own moral choices.

Thus, L u c i f e r , f a r from p r o v i d i n g C a i n w i t h the knowledge

o f a transcendent source of v a l u e , f o r c e s him to r e c o g n i z e as inevitable

the freedom of c h o i c e which i s his,- and a t the same, time, the

r e s p o n s i b i l i t y f o r the assignment of v a l u e , which must a l s o remain

h i s a l o n e , whether he i s concerned with T r u t h , or Goodness or Beauty

or whatever. Now C a i n i s n o t o n l y s o c i a l l y a l i e n a t e d , but a l s o

metaphysically isolated, f o r he has been thrown back upon h i m s e l f ,

and denied any o b j e c t i v e grounds upon which to s t r u c t u r e h i s own world-

view, f o r i f there i s to be any v a l u e i n the w o r l d , i f he i s to have

any sense of i d e n t i t y a t a l l , he can o n l y b r i n g these about by a s s e r t i n g

h i m s e l f , and assuming the r e s p o n s i b i l i t y for this self-realization.

T h i s , of c o u r s e , i s the t e r r i b l e l e s s o n of the t h i r d Act,

which opens when C a i n , convinced of "mortal n a t u r e ' s nothingness,"

has r e t u r n e d to e a r t h . He first encounters h i s own w i f e and child, and

 )

68

for the f i r s t time i n the play, the c h i l d i s described for us, so that

the whole incident stresses the human love and a f f e c t i o n i n this family

group. We note that Cain i s now more than ever distressed by the

thought of the suffering and death i n store for them, and for their

h e i r s and descendants, and that he i s f i l l e d with the i n j u s t i c e of this

sentence, imposed upon a l l mankind. He i s quite disturbed to hear that

he has only been away for two hours, for i t has seemed l i k e so much

more to him, and this d e l i n i a t e s the subjective nature of time:

The mind then hath capacity of time,

And measures i t by that which i t beholds,
Pleasing or p a i n f u l ; l i t t l e or almighty.
I had beheld the immemorial works
Of endless beings; s k i r r ' d extinguish'd worlds;
And, gazing on eternity, methought
I had borrow'd more by a few drops of ages
From i t s immensity: but now I f e e l
My l i t t l e n e s s again. Well said the s p i r i t ,
That I'was nothing! ( I l l , i , 60*69)

This i s j u s t one more example of the subjective nature of a l l values,

for the nature of human experiences can r a d i c a l l y a f f e c t a person's

experience of time, and this serves to frustrate Cain once more. He

i s s t i l l sick at heart, and unable to reconcile himself to the human

condition, and so he reasserts h i s opposition to God. At this point

Abel enters the scene, and completely oblivious to the fact that

Cain i s so profoundly disturbed, and with great determination he

persuades Cain to offer up a s a c r i f i c e to the Creator. We have a l -

ready noted the t e r r i b l e s e l f - d e n i a l on the part of Abel and the

 69

straightforward, d i g n i f i e d s e l f - a s s e r t i o n oh the part of Cain as

these two brothers offer up their s a c r i f i c e to the Lord God. In

making this gesture, Cain i s merely appeasing h i s brother so that h i s

reaction to the whirlwind i s quite understandable. He places no

importance i n this s a c r i f i c e , and in h i s prayer he expresses h i s opin-

ion of a God who would demand such an o f f e r i n g , and he states h i s

expectations concerning the outcome of making a s a c r i f i c e to j u s t

such a God:

I f a shrine without victim,

And a l t e r without gore, may win thy favour,
Look on i t . and for him who dresseth i t ,
1

He i s such as thou mad'st him; and seeks nothing

Which must be won by kneeling: i f he's e v i l ,
Strike him.' thou a r t omnipotent, and may'st
For what can he oppose? If he be good,
Strike him, or spare him, as thou wilt.' since a l l
Rests upon thee; and good and e v i l seem
To have no power themselves, save i n thy w i l l ;
And whether that be good or i l l I know not,
Not being omnipotent, nor f i t to judge
Omnipotence, but merely to endure
Its mandate; which thus far I have endured. ( I l l , i , 266-27$

When h i s o f f e r i n g i s rejected, therefore, he i s not at a l l disturbed,

and i s content to l e t things remain as they are:

Abel. Thy f r u i t s are scatter'd on the earth.

Cain. From earth they came, to earth l e t them return;
Their seed w i l l bear fresh f r u i t there ere the summer;
Thy burnt f l e s h - o f f ' r i n g prospers better; see
How heaven l i c k s up the flames, when thick with blood.'
( I l l , i , 281-285)
 70

But a l l through this r i t u a l , Cain has been becoming more and more

upset by the sight of the b l o o d - s a c r i f i c e , as we saw e a r l i e r , and

now, urged against h i s w i l l to make another o f f e r i n g before i t i s

"too l a t e , " and f u l l y conscious of the suffering and pain that such

a f a t a l s a c r i f i c e implies, Cain can no longer contain h i s anger at

a God who would demand such an o f f e r i n g of man, for i t i s an affront

to mankind i n that i t denies creation's worth, and man's essential

human d i g n i t y :

Abel [opposing him]. I love God far more

Than l i f e .
Cain [ s t r i k i n g him with a brand, on the temples,
which he snatches from the a l t e r ] .
Then take thy l i f e unto thy God,
Since he loves l i v e s .
( I l l , i , 315-316)

And so Cain, determined to assert h i s own values i n the face of this

intolerable denial of man's worth, strikes out at Abel, who has now

become the p e r s o n i f i c a t i o n of a l l that would threaten Cain's own

i n t e g r i t y - a l l that he now has l e f t to form the center of h i s own

"world."

Once the murder has been consummated, Cain i s shown to be

shocked and h o r r i f i e d at h i s own deed, and h i s concern for Abel i s

very evident:

I—who abhor
The name of Death so deeply, that the thought
Empoison'd a l l my l i f e , before I knew
His a s p e c t — I have led him here, and given
 71

My brother to h i s cold and s t i l l embrace,

As i f he would not have asserted h i s
In exorable claim without my a i d .
I am awake at l a s t - - a dreary dream
Had madden'd me; but he s h a l l ne'er awake.'
( I l l , i , 371-379)

We hear no word from Cain, following this speech, for some eighty l i n e s ,

during which time the f u l l import of h i s act i s made p e r f e c t l y clear

to him, as i s the fact that he alone, must bear the f u l l responsibility

for the death of Abel. Adam accepts this calamity as the w i l l of God,

to be borne i n such a way as to show their f a i t h f u l submission to

His "holy w i l l , " but Eve sees this act as the d i r e c t responsibility

of Cain, as her r e b e l l i o n i n the Garden of Eden was accomplished in

spite of God's decree concerning the tree of knowledge, and so she

places the blame squarely on Cain's shoulders. She does not c a l l down

the wrath of God, but hopes that " l i k e us" Cain w i l l be driven forth,

and w i l l suffer for h'is action. We cannot help but note that Adam's

f i r s t remarks on discovering the death of Abel, place the blame on

Eve once more; 'Woman, behold the serpent's work, and thine," so that

in her curse, Eve i s also expressing har own sense of g u i l t as the

originator of this whole s i t u a t i o n . The nature of her curse i s such

that the misfortunes that she wishes on Cain are i n a large part those

which God bestowed on her and Adam. For instance, the fact of being

driven forth into a wilderness, the wish that h i s children may in

turn blame him for their predicament, the suffering and t o i l that

must be undergone i n an e f f o r t to wrestle sustenance from the earth,

 72

and f i n a l l y the t e r r i b l e sense of r e s p o n s i b i l i t y that Cain must now

bear for bringing death into the world for the f i r s t time - a l l of

these have their counterpart i n the curse heaped upon Adam and Eve.

Though Adam.attributes a l l things to God, Eve here recognizes i n

Cain's action, the freedom of w i l l which she exercised i n her

r e b e l l i o n against the w i l l of God.

. But Eve's curse also emphasizes the fact that Cain can no

longer look for human companionship i n Eve, Adam or Z i l l a h , for now

his a l i e n a t i o n i s to be enforced by physical i s o l a t i o n , and the severance

between Cain and these members of the family i s now complete. I t i s at

this point that Adah r i s e s to her f u l l stature and decides to remain

with Cain, although we note that this complete committment to Cain is-

made i n spite of the crime he has committed, f o r she says that this

i s a matter between Cain and the great God, and she w i l l not s i t i n

judgement on him. But here Adah i s avoiding the issue, and refusing

to consider the question of r e s p o n s i b i l i t y , and this i s in keeping

with our e a r l i e r remarks concerning her avoidance of a l l i n t e l l e c t u a l

concerns. She thinks of h e r s e l f i n terms of her duties - her duty to

her husband, her duty to her children, her. duty to her parents and her

duty to her God, and this would seem to represent her order of p r i o r i t i e s

too. Of course t h i s "duty" i s not devoid of love, for Adah fulfills

h e r s e l f i n loving and caring for those who love her and who need

her, and this enables her to find a purpose and a meaning i n l i f e .

 73

But before we discuss the marking of Cain, we must note

several r a d i c a l changes that have been made that e f f e c t the significance

of the mark, f i r s t l y to the r e l i g i o u s community and secondly to Cain.

For instance, i t i s an Angel of the Lord who carries out this commission

and not God Himself, as i n the Bible, and this d e t a i l i n g of a subsidiar

to mark Cain, implies that this i s not a s i g n i f i c a n t " f a i l u r e " in the

eyes of the Lord, for the loss of Cain from this " f l o c k " does not de-

mand a personal intervention by God. The mark serves to further set

Cain o f f from this r e l i g i o u s community, of course, and the reason for

the observance of this separation.is again fear - fear of the Lord's

sevenfold vengeance. But the mark i s a sign to both sides of the gulf

that must always separate them, and-this i s surely re-emphasized by

the Angel's speech to Cain concerning h i s h a b i t u a l sternness:

Angel. Stern hast thou been and stubborn from the womb,
As the ground thou must henceforth t i l l ; but he
Thou slew'st was gentle as the flocks he tended.
( I l l , i , 503-505)

The comparison of Abel's g e n t i l i t y to that of the "flocks he tended"

i s s t r i k i n g , for by this point i n the play we know quite well what i s

meant by "gentle " a s used i n this speech, for we have witnessed this

"gentle" man as he offers up a s a c r i f i c e to God, and we have had a

v i v i d view of h i s a l t e r , strewn with the dead bodies of h i s "gentle"

flock.' F i n a l l y , we observe that when Cain asks that Abel be restored

to l i f e , and that he be allowed to die i n h i s place, the Angel asks,

"Who s h a l l heal murder," and we surely cannot help but add, "If not
 74

God, then who indeed. "

1
Cain i s summarily dismissed after this prevarica-

t i o n , but the e f f e c t of the changes i s to reveal the utter separation

between Cain and this r i g i d , stern, theocentric community.

Further changes involve Cain's reply to the Angel's question

as to the whereabouts of Abel, for he does not at f i r s t deny that he

has this information, as does Cain i n the Bible, but he immediately

r e p l i e s , "Am I then my brother's keeper?" In-other words, there i s no

attempt to avoid blame, but rather an immediate acceptance on Cain's

part. The inclusion i n this reply, of the word "then" has turned i t

from a question of fact to a mere r h e t o r i c a l question, requiring no answer,

for of course, Cain has by this time f u l l y accepted the r e s p o n s i b i l i t y

for h i s act. Byron has also put the speech concerning the punishment

being more than Cain can bear, into Adah's mouth, and this accomplishes

two ends; i t allows Cain to express the death-wish again, and so reveal

h i s very r e a l g r i e f , and i t provides an opportunity for the threat of

even greater horrors i n the p o s s i b i l i t y of p a r r i c i d e . But of course,

the force of t h i s curse i s immediately undermined, and i t i s shown to

be an i d l e threat, raised by the Angel to be immediately denied by the

placing of the mark. The t o t a l e f f e c t of these changes, then, i s to

reveal Cain's continuing alienation with respect to the God-ordained

system of values, and to play down the p a r t i c i p a t i o n of God i n the

f i n a l scene, so that the emphasis in this f i n a l Act may f a l l on the human

reactions to this catastrophe.

Having received the mark, and been denied h i s wish to die i n

 75

h i s brother's stead, Cain i s forced to accept h i s r e s p o n s i b i l i t y for

this crime, and i t i s obvious that he does accept the blame, for he

now t r i e s to r a t i o n a l i z e h i s actions, f i r s t l y by r e l a t i n g them to

h i s mother's state of mind when she bore him, and secondly by stating

that he i s not t o t a l l y responsible for h i s own actions, not being

h i s own creator. I t i s apparent by now that Cain i s f u l l of g r i e f

and woe, and that he f u l l y recognizes h i s own g u i l t :

Cain. I think thou w i l t forgive him, whom h i s God

Can ne'er forgive, nor h i s own soul.
( I l l , i , 532-533)

In this speech, at this point i n the play, Cain expresses h i s own

recognition of h i s dual nature, and of the paradox that must always

plague mankind - man's bounded mortal nature and h i s free untrammeled

spirit. He expresses here h i s consciousness of man's t o t a l experience

of the world, both i n the deterministic aspects of existence that are

given.him by "his God," and i n the continuous process of s e l f - r e a l i z a -

tion which gives r i s e to 'his own s o u l . " Now, as he leaves the stage,

he expresses h i s remorse, and we see that f i n a l l y Cain has become

committed to mankind, and has accepted the universal human s i t u a t i o n .

As Lucifer has stated e a r l i e r , g r i e f i s knowledge, for i t brings aware-

ness of loss and of suffering, and i n turn i t shows an abandonment of

s e l f - i n t e r e s t on the part of the remorseful. Cain obviously suffers

pangs of conscience, and he does t r y to form some sort of self-defence,

 76

and this reveals to us h i s sense of. the attachment to the human com-

munity, and h i s awareness of the bonds that unite men i n their com-

mon predicament.

In the above, we have followed the changing i n t e l l e c t u a l

positions adopted by Cain as a means of defining r e a l i t y and of giving

l i f e a meaning and a purpose. I n i t i a l l y , Cain i s deeply disturbed

by the facts of death and mutability, and he can neither accept nor

resolve the s u f f e r i n g that these facts impose upon mankind. He i s

very conscious of the fact that these conditions need not have been man's

l o t , and this only makes matters worse for him, for he f e e l s that he

i s being denied immortality by an unjust God. He cannot - and w i l l

not - subject himself to the authority of such an " e v i l " tyrant, and

so he finds solace in opposing His d i c t a t e s , and though this i s rather

cold comfort, i t "does afford him a means of self-expression and

hence of s e l f - a s s e r t i o n , so that h i s opposition serves as a center

around which he can structure h i s own "world," and thus give l i f e some

meaning. But under L u c i f e r ' s influence, Cain seeks to a t t a i n a more

transcendent source of value by which to orientate himself, b e l i e v i n g

that here l i e s the means of overcoming h i s mortal l i m i t a t i o n s .

However, this quest for an absolute ends i n disappointment i n h i s

t r i p out into space with L u c i f e r , f o r on this journey, he l i t e r a l l y

and f i g u r a t i v e l y "sees" l i f e from a new perspective, and this new

knowledge brings an awareness of mortal man's " l i t t l e n e s s " when viewed

against the whole sweep of the creation. Lucifer f i r s t of a l l gives

Cain a sense of the immensity of the physical universe,.and so makes

clear the i n f e r i o r i t y of the earth when seen as merely one of a "mass

of most innumerable l i g h t s , " and i n fact Cain himself compares earth

to the sparkle of a f i r e - f l y or of a fire-worm. In this way, Cain can

see h i s own problem i n a new perspective, for i f h i s own planet i s

diminished i n h i s new view of the universe, how much more so i s h i s

own problem then?

But Lucifer also provides Cain with an awareness of the

"sweep of time," for he i s shown beings from previous ages, and he

learns that h i s world i s merely a degenerated form of a previous, more

glorious earth. We note, too, that Lucifer i s at pains to mention

the future, for he repeatedly refers to the generations that w i l l

descend from Cain, and he states that Cain's suffering i s as nothing

compared with t h e i r s . Hence, Cain begins to develop an h i s t o r i c a l

consciousness too, and i n the l i g h t of this knowledge h i s own pre-

dicament takes on a new s i g n i f i c a n c e , for the problem which u n t i l now

has f i l l e d h i s whole l i f e , and consumed most of h i s psychic energies,

must be reassessed i n comparison with the concerns of immortality

and eternity. Hence, when Cain says, upon returning to earth, that

he can f e e l h i s own l i t t l e n e s s , we must r e a l i z e that this enlarged

perspective which has been thrust upon him, i s both sudden and

shattering, for i n two short hours, man and h i s predicament have been
 78

reduced to near i n s i g n i f i c a n c e when seen i n reference to the immensity

of space and time.

But at the same time, this has i n no way resolved the

t e r r i b l e problems that plague Cain, for these remain as r e a l as ever

for him, only now the p o s s i b i l i t y of ever r e s o l v i n g them i s seen to be

n i l , while at the same time i t has become quite evident that no succour

can ever again be obtained i n mere opposition to the Creator. Hence,

bereft of a l l hope of ever overcoming h i s human l i m i t a t i o n s , and stripped

of a l l supporting metaphysics, Cain i s cast back upon h i s own resources,

and forced to accept the conditions of h i s mortal nature. His one and

only consolation now l i e s i n h i s own i n t e g r i t y , and i n the e s s e n t i a l

d i g n i t y of a l l mankind. Hence h i s f i n a l committment i s to the human

community, for he i s thrown back upon h i s compassion for a l l men, who

must suffer and learn as he has, that there i s no escape i n this world,
23

for man i s both "creature and creator," both " f a t e f u l l y free and

f r e e l y fated. It i s with this i n mind that Cain makes h i s prayer

to God, for here we seem him p r i d e f u l and independent, glorying i n h i s

humanity:
Look on i t . and for him who dresseth i t ,
1

He i s such as thou mad'st him; and seeks nothing

Which must be won by kneeling: If he's e v i l ,
. Strike him.' thou art omnipotent, and may'st
For what can he oppose? If he be good,

Richard B. Sewall, "The Tragic Form," i n Essays i n C r i t i c i s m , v o l . IV,

No. 4 (October, 1954), p. 352.

' Loc. c i t .
r
 79

Strike him, or spare him, as thou w i l t ! since a l l

Rests upon thee; and good and e v i l seem
To have no power themselves, save i n thy w i l l ;
And whether that be good or i l l I know not,
Not being omnipotent, nor f i t to judge
Omnipotence, but merely to endure
Its mandate; which thus far I have endured. ( I l l , i 5 268-279)

The dynamic of this prayer i s pride, pride i n h i s a b i l i t y to "endure,"

and i t sustains him i n h i s b e l i e f i n h i s own freedom, h i s own innocence

and h i s own worth. The sequence of events which follows this i s

stained with the blood of innocent creatures, slaughtered to appease

their very Maker, and this t e r r i b l e desecration enrages Cain. • Abel's

f i n a l , utter self-abnegation would even deny Cain h i s human pride,

and this i s more than Cain can stand, and this i s why Cain strikes

out at h i s brother. It i s not mere jealousy, as i n the Biblical

account, but rather the f i n a l stroke i n a series of experiences that

have sundered Cain from the "world" he knew. The shock of the r e a l i z a -

tion that he has k i l l e d h i s own brother deflates h i s pride, and leaves

him distraught and anchorless, for i n this act he has learnt of man's

innate weakness - h i s i n a b i l i t y to completely control himself by h i s

reason, for Cain strikes out at Abel i n anger, when h i s emotions have

overcome the r e i n s of reason, and this i s surely made evident i n the

p a i n f u l way i n which he slowly r e a l i z e s the import of h i s a c t i o n s :

Cain [after a moment's stupefacation]. My hand! ' t i s a l l red,

and with
What?
[A long pause. Looking slowly round.]
Where am I? alone.' Where's
Abel? where
Cain? Can i t be that I am he?
( I l l , i , 321-323)
 80

Here then the "One good g i f t " which the apple gave has completely

f a i l e d Cain, for man i s not "animal rationale," but rather "animal

r a t i o n i s capax" as Swift pointed out, so that the one and only con-

solation that Lucifer would allow mankind has been shown to be suspect

too - l i k e man's mortal nature i t s e l f , the faculty of reason i s both a

f a c i l i t a t i n g and a l i m i t i n g a t t r i b u t e , and i f man i s to face the

r e a l i t y of h i s condition, this fact must be accepted, with a l l that

i t implies. Faced with the horror of h i s crime against mankind -

both i n the murder of h i s own brother and i n the destruction of the

forefather of what would have been a "gentle race" - Cain abandons a l l

attempts to assert himself, and reverts to remorse and s e l f - p i t y , for

i t i s i n s e l f - p i t y that Cain leaves the stage:

Adah. Peace be with him.'

Cain. But with me.* ( I I I , i , 562)

Our study of Cain as an heroic figure has revealed that i n

this play, the protagonist struggles to orientate himself i n l i f e , and

that i n so doing h i s attitude to the determinate aspects of the

universe and of h i s own nature changes, from an i n s t i n c t u a l resistence

at the play's opening, to a r a t i o n a l opposition i n Act I, to an en-

lightened acceptance i n Act I I I . There i s a change on h i s part, too,

from an adammt insists nee upon the v a l i d i t y of s e l f - a s s e r t i o n i n the

opening, to an abandonment of a l l attempts at s e l f - p r o j e c t i o n i n the

close; from the claim, i n the opening, of the e s s e n t i a l d i g n i t y of

 81

mankind, to the r e t r e a t , i n the closing scene, into remorse and self-

pity. Our hero leaves the stage, not, upright and sure of himself,

but bowed and uncertain, wracked with anguish and steeped i n g u i l t .

 82

CHAPTER 5

CONCLUSION

In the foregoing analysis we have considered the form, the

structure and the argument of Byron's poetic drama, Cain, i n an attempt

to a r r i v e at en understanding of the central issue with which this

"metaphysical" drama i s concerned. We have noted that this story i s

a t r a d i t i o n a l , r e l i g i o u s myth, and i n discussing myths, Northrop Frye

has said :

...myths are a part of the corpus of s t o r i e s that every

society has i n i t s e a r l i e r phases of development. They are similar i n
form to other s t o r i e s , some of which may be distinguished as legends
or f o l k - t a l e s , but are regarded as having i n their content an element
of peculiar and central importance. The question a r i s e s : how are we
to respond to this importance? One .obvious answer i s : by b e l i e v i n g
what the myth says; by attaching i t s content to the rest of our ex-
perience. This i s the answer primarily insisted on i n the Judaeo-
C h r i s t i a n t r a d i t i o n , and for centuries the notion persists that, for
example., i f the .Bible, says a gr.eat f i s h swallowed Jonah, there are
special rewards for the reader who can swallow both....But such e f f o r t s
soon perish through their inherent f a t u i t y . From here the response
to the myth takes one of two d i r e c t i o n s . Either the myth represents
something which i s true i n spite of the story, or i t i s a story to be
responded to as a story. We c a l l the f i r s t type of response a l l e -
g o r i c a l , and the second archetypal. They are not mutually exclusive:
they are distinguishable, but they coexist, and help each other to
develop. The a l l e g o r i c a l response i s a semi-poetic one: i t s h i f t s
the b a s i s , as A r i s t o t l e says the poet does i n comparison with the
h i s t o r i a n , from what was true, or did happen, to the kind of thing
that i s true, or does happen....Now j u s t as the a l l e g o r i c a l interpre-
tation of myth i s semi-poetic, so the poetic recreation of i t i s semi-
conceptual. The poet t r i e s to make h i s t r a d i t i o n a l story imaginatively
credable, and he also interprets i t incidently. His primary task,
however, i s not to interpret but to represent; he transfers an
ancient tale from the past to the present, from something inherited
to something that confronts the reader immediately; from ( i f the
myth i s Canonical) the p a r t i c u l a r event i n the past, the truth of
 83

which i s believed, to the universal event, the significance of which i s

comprehended.^5

There are several points in this passage that throw l i g h t upon our

o v e r a l l study of Cain. For instance, we have noted that the change i n

form to that of a drama has allowed the playwright new dimensions i n

which to a r t i c u l a t e h i s meaning, for such a r a d i c a l change i n mode

demands a considerable number of a l t e r a t i o n s and additions, which the

playwright may fashion to carry h i s own peculiar meaning. Such a re-

conceptualization also demands a new, fresh approach by the audience,

and the dramatic form provides this too, for the reader's expectations,

based upon h i s knowledge of the t r a d i t i o n a l account of this story, are

i n i t i a l l y confounded, so that they may then be structured anew.

Hence, both of these factors - the increased complexity of the

dramatic mode and the audience's more omniscient point of view - con-

tribute considerably to delineating the c o n f l i c t i n this drama so that

i t i s seen to be eminently human i n i t s o r i g i n and outcome, thus un-

questionably making this drama "imaginatively c r e d i b l e . " We have also

seen how Byron has used h i s materials to create a substantial, i d e n t i -

f i a b l e "world" for this play, together with a believable, tangible

f i r s t family, so that i n this he has been successful i n transfering

t h i s story "from the past to the present, from something inherited to

something that confronts the reader immediately." It remains now for

us to i d e n t i f y the " t r u t h " with which Byron i s dealing, and which

Northrop Frye claims i s embedded i n a universal event, "the significance

Frye, pp. 34-35.

of which i s comprehended."

As the t i t l e of this work indicates, and as our study has

revealed, this drama i s Cain's, for he i s our protagonist and our narr-

ative point of view for most of this work. We have discussed the emp-

i r i c a l , the psychological and the philosophic realism that Byron has

infused into this drama, a l l of which contributes immensely to our

appreciation of the s i t u a t i o n i n which these f i r s t of humankind find

themselves, but most e s p e c i a l l y to our understanding of the s o c i a l

a l i e n a t i o n and the metaphysical i s o l a t i o n of the main figure, Cain.

Our study of Cain as an heroic figure has revealed h i s struggle to

orientate himself in h i s world, and has shown us the various i n t e l l e c t u a

and moral stances that he adopts as the play progresses. I f , then,

Cain i s the protagonist, what or who i s the antagonist, with whom he

comes into c o n f l i c t , and against whom he struggles? I t must by now be

quite clear that this Cain struggles against h i s own mortal nature,

that i s to say, he refuses to accept man's f a l l e n and helpless state.

We have noted that the advent of death i s the most t e r r i b l e indictment

pronounced against man as far as Cain i s concerned, and that he de-

clares this to be an " e v i l " act on the part of the Creator. But of

course death i s not " e v i l , " but rather the natural a t t r i b u t e of a l l

l i f e , and the denial of death becomes also a loss of l i f e , for i n

not facing the fact of death we evade a large segment of the r e a l i t y

of human experience. But not mere b i o l o g i c a l l i f e i s the ultimate

value for man, as Cain senses:

 85

Cain. I live,
But l i v e to d i e ; and, l i v i n g , see no thing
To make death h a t e f u l , save an innate c l i n g i n g ,
A loathsome, and yet a l l i n v i n c i b l e
Instinct of l i f e , which I abhor, as I
Despise myselt, yet cannot overcome
And so I l i v e . ( I , i , 109-115)

For man i s distinguished i n that he can make some values more important

than l i f e i t s e l f , and so Abel can say, "I love God far more than life."

But Cain cannot accept this transcendent value, for herein

l i e s the source of h i s dilemma, i n the deterministic aspects of ex-

istence. And so he struggles to overcome h i s l i m i t a t i o n s , and as a

r e s u l t of this he acquires an increased awareness of the universe he

inhabits which also brings a growing awareness of himself as a part of

t h i s process, of h i s own i d e n t i t y , and a heightened appreciation of

himself as a human being. In t h i s , Cain can be seen as an awakening

s e n s i b i l i t y , acquiring new dimensions of consciousness, and thus

f i n a l l y r e a l i z i n g that the human condition "embraces fate and freedom,

"determinism and choice, the requirements of s o c i a l morality and the

r e s p o n s i b i l i t y of the i n d i v i d u a l person. Cain exercises h i s free-

dom and makes h i s clkoice i n h i t t i n g out at Abel, and the necessity

of having to bear the r e s p o n s i b i l i t y for this act brings an awareness

of man's f u l l nature, and this i s a further deepening of consciousness

for Cain. He accepts the r e s p o n s i b i l i t y for this action, and he

accepts man's f a l l e n and helpless state, or h i s mortal nature.

Having so suffered, Cain can now f u l l y know the world he i s i n , so

that i n the future he can move from mere s e l f - i n t e r e s t towards s e l f -

May, p. 25.
 86

r e a l i z a t i o n , maturity and integration. Hence, the "universal event"

with which t h i s "metaphysical" drama i s concerned i s man's need to

find h i s place as human i n the universe, so that the central issue

of the play i s man confronting h i s own r e a l i t y . We cannot f a i l to

note the obvious p a r a l l e l s that are drawn between Cnrist and Abel,

for i n h i s dying moments Abel says: "Oh, God.' receive they servant,

and/ Forgive h i s slayer, for he knew not what/ He d i d " ( I I I , i , 318-320)

This, and Abel's concern i n h i s l a s t moments for h i s wife, Z i l l a h ,

foreshadows the l a s t words and concern of C h r i s t , as recorded i n the

Bible, and these anachronisms are not accidental, but are meant to

expand the play's meaning, f o r i n as much as Abel has contributed to

Cain's s e l f - r e a l i z a t i o n , he has of course acted as a redeemer, for he

has "redeemed" Cain from himself, by setting him free from h i s own

misconceptions of himself and h i s place i n the world.

If we now bear i n mind the truth with which Byron i s dealing

i n this play - man's dual nature, and h i s need to face the r e a l i t y

of the human condition - we can b r i e f l y reassess the claims of previous

c r i t i c s that Byron's intention i n w r i t i n g Cain was to make an out-and-

out attack on t r a d i t i o n a l Christian doctrine. We must note, f i r s t of

a l l , that the r e l i g i o u s community that exists at the start of the play

i s extant at the close, and that though they have l o s t one of their

most devout members, this loss has i n fact only served to unite them

even more firmly i n their submission to God, for here has been immanent
 87

proof of the e v i l of mankind and of the f o l l y of non-conformity.

The death of Abel has confirmed God's curse and at the same time has

provided this community with a further burden to shoulder, and hence

a further means of showing their ready acceptance of God's holy w i l l .

We have remarked upon the a l l u s i o n s that are made to C h r i s t , and of

course i n h i s f i n a l moments, Abel too i d e n t i f i e s completely with h i s

God. For such a s e l f l e s s follower of the Lord, death i n defence of

His "hallow'd a l t a r " i s surely a perfect consummation to a l i f e of

complete devotion, and we observe that at this time, Abel i s completely

invulnerable to a l l other concerns and influences, and hence that he

i s completely realized i n h i s committment to God. Hence, the r e l i g i o u s

community remains, stronger than ever i n i t s f a i t h , and united even

more firmly by this new catastrophe.

But Cain, Adah and their children leave "Eastward from Eden,"

towards the land of Nod, sharing their burden between them, and though

Cain leaves the stage in s e l f - p i t y , he has nonerthe-less achieved an

enlarged perception of the universe and of man's place i n i t , so that

i n the future he w i l l be able to put this knowledge to use, for by

f u l l y recognizing the l i m i t a t i o n s of the human condition, Cain can

exercise h i s free w i l l within those l i m i t a t i o n s , instead of constantly

p i t t i n g himself against them. To know one's l i m i t a t i o n s i s to be free,

and i n t h i s drama, Cain has tested out the l i m i t s of h i s own mortal

nature. We can see, then, that Cain i s j u s t such a one as can move

on to a v i t a l , engaged standpoint i n l i f e , and j u s t such a one as

 88

could become the inventor of c i t i e s , metals and weapons. Recalling

our e a r l i e r comparison of Byron to the ancient Greek playwrights, we

see that he has i n fact observed the ' h i s t o r i c a l " continuity of the

c u l t u r a l myth with which he i s dealing, while manipulating h i s

materials so as to reveal h i s acute insights into the human condition.

We are l e f t , then, with a reconceptualization of a r e l i g i o u s

myth which has been fashioned so as to make the t o t a l world of this

drama more immediate, more recognizable and more credible, and i n

which the argument has been restructured to focus upon the human

s i t u a t i o n , that i s to say, the actions and attitudes of this f i r s t

family as they address themselves to the problem of o r i e n t a t i n g them-

selves i n their new world. In t h i s , Byron shows himself to be, first

and foremost, a humanist, concerned with human values, not concerned

to put forward one concept of man at the expense of another, but sincere

in h i s concern to reveal both the p o s s i b i l i t i e s and the limitations of

human nature. It i s this view that informs Cain, and a l l of h i s peetry

and plays. To pick out certain aspects of the work, and to show them

to be "blasphemous" or ' h e r e t i c a l " i s to miss the point of the play

as a whole, and to do a d i s c r e d i t to Byron's t o t a l concept of man,

which takes i n both h i s strengths and h i s weaknesses. Byron i s con-

cerned to reveal the world i n which he finds himself, net to judge i t .

 89

SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY

B a l l , P a t r i c i a M. "Byronic Drama." Orpheus, II (January-May, 1955), pp.

25-31.

Bostetter, Edward. The Romantic V e n t r i l o q u i s t s : Wordsworth, Coleridge,

Keats, Shelley, Byron. Seattle: Washington University Press, 1963.

. "Byron and the P o l i t i c s of Paradise." PMLA, LXXV (December,

1960), pp. 571-576.

Brooke, Stopford. "Byron's Cain," The Hibbert Journal, XVIII (1919),

pp. 74-94.

Bruffee, Kenneth. "Satan and the Sublime: The Meaning of the Romantic
Hero." Doct. Diss., Northwestern University, 1964.

Byron, George Gordon. The P o e t i c a l Works of Lord Byron. London: Oxford

University Press, 1904.

. The Works of Lord Byron, ed. E.H. Coleridge, Vol. V. London:

Murray, 1898.

Calvert, William J . Byron: Romantic Paradox. Chapel H i l l : University

of North Carolina Press, 1936.

Chew, Samuel C. Byron i n England: His Fame and After-fame. London:

Murray, 1924.

. The Dramas of Lord Byron. New York:. Russell and R u s s e l l , 1964.

Drinkwater, John. The P i l g r i m of E t e r n i t y : Byron - A C o n f l i c t . . New

York: George H. Doran, 1925.

F a i r c h i l d , Hoxie N. Religious Trends i n English Poetry. Vol. I l l : 1780-

1830. New York: Columbia University Press, 1949.

Forster, E.M. Aspects of the Novel. London: Edward Arnold, 1927.

Fergusson, Francis. The Idea of a Theater. Garden C i t y : Doubleday

Anchor, 1949.

Frye, Northrop. "Literature and Myth," Relations of L i t e r a r y Study:

Essays on I n t e r d i s c i p l i n a r y Contributions, ed. James Thorpe.
New York: Modern Language Association, 1967.

Gibb, Peter. "Metaphysical Ideas i n Byron's Cain." Honours Essay,

University of B r i t i s h Columbia, A p r i l 1965.
 90

Gleckner, Robert F. Byron and the Ruins of Paradise. Baltimore: Johns

Hopkins Press, 1967.

Joseph, M.K, Byron the Poet. London: Gollancz, 1964.

Knight, G. Wilson. Lord Byron: C h r i s t i a n Virtues. London: Routledge,

1952.

Marchand, L e s l i e A. Byron's Poetry: A C r i t i c a l Introduction. Boston:

Houghton M i f f l i n , 1965.

Marshall, William H. The Structure of Byron's Major Poems. P h i l a d e l p h i a :

University of Pennsylvania Press, 1962.

Maurois, Andre'. Byron. New York: Frederick Ungar, 1930.

May, Rollo. E x i s t e n t i a l Psychotherapy. Toronto: CBC Publications, 1967.

Peckham, Morse, "Towards a Theory of Romanticism." PMLA, March, 1951,

pp. 5-22.

. "Towards a Theory of Romanticism: I I . Reconsideration." Studies

in Romanticism, Vol. I, Number I, Autumn 1961, pp. 1-8.

. ed. Romanticism: The Culture of the Nineteenth Century. New York

B r a z i l l e r , 1965.

Rutherford, Andrew. Byron: A C r i t i c a l Study. Edinburgh: Oliver & Boyd,

1961.

Sewall, Richard B. "The Tragic Form." Essays i n C r i t i c i s m , Vol. IV,

Number 4, October, 1954.

Steiner, George. The Death of Tragedy. New York: Knopf, 1961.

Thompson, J.R. "Studies i n the Drama of Lord Byron." DA, XXV, Cincinnati,
1965? 4130-4131.

Thorslev. Peter L. The Byronic Hero: Types and Prototypes. Minneapolis:

University of Minnesota Press, 1962.

. "Freedom and Destiny: Romantic Contraries." Bucknell Review,

XIV (May, 1966), pp. 38-45.

T h r a l l , William F., and Addison Hibbard, eds. A Handbook to L i t e r a t u r e .

New York: The Odyssey Press, 1936.

Wasserman, E a r l . "The English Romantics: The Grounds of Knowledge."

Studies i n Romanticism, IV, 1964, pp. 17-34.

West, Paul. Byron and the Spoiler's A r t . New York: St. Martin's Press,
1960.