1821.] THE LANGUAGE OF LUCIFER. 469 CHAPTER XXIV. THE PALAZZO LANFRANCHI, PISA, NOVEMBER- HEAVEN AND EARTH-OPINIONS ON CAIN, 954.-To John Murray. Pisa, November 3, 1821. DEAR MORAY,-The two passages cannot be altered without making Lucifer talk like the Bishop of Lincoln 1 -which would not be in the character of the former. The notion is from Cuvier 2 (that of the old Worlds), as I have explained in an additional note to the preface. The other passage is also in character: if nonsense—so much the better, because then it can do no harm, and the sillier Satan is made, the safer for every body. As to "alarms," etc., do you really think such things ever led any body astray? Are these people more impious 1. Byron probably contrasts Lucifer with the Bishop of Lincoln, from the alliteration or from their association in the proverb, "The "devil looks over Lincoln." The same reference to the devil as "overseer," or Bishop, of Lincoln occurs in Don Juan (Canto XVI. stanza lxxxii.), where preferment gave "Peter Pith" 66 ... to lay the devil who looks o'er Lincoln, A fat fen vicarage, and nought to think on." Dr. Arnold, speaking of Cain, used to say, "There is something to "me almost awful in meeting suddenly, in the works of such a man, "so great and solemn a truth as is expressed in that speech of "Lucifer, 'He who bows not to God hath bowed to me "(Stanley's Life of Arnold, ed. 1887, vol. i. p. 263, note). 2. See p. 367, note 2. than Milton's Satan? or the Prometheus of Æschylus? or even than the Sadducees of your envious parson, the Fall of Jerusalem fabricator? Are not Adam, Eve, Adah, and Abel, as pious as the Catechism? Gifford is too wise a man to think that such things can have any serious effect: who was ever altered by a poem? I beg leave to observe, that there is no creed nor personal hypothesis of mine in all this: but I was obliged to make Cain and Lucifer talk consistently, and surely this has always been permitted to poesy. Cain is a proud man: if Lucifer promised him kingdoms, etc., it would elate him: the object of the Demon is to depress him still further in his own estimation than he was before, by showing him infinite things and his own abasement, till he falls into the frame of mind that leads to the Catastrophe, from mere internal irritation, not premeditation, or envy of Abel (which would have made him contemptible), but from the rage and fury against the inadequacy of his state to his conceptions, and which discharges itself rather against Life, and the Author of Life, than the mere living. His subsequent remorse is the natural effect of looking on his sudden deed. Had the deed been premeditated, his repentance would have been tardier. The three last MS. lines of Eve's curse are replaced from memory on the proofs, but incorrectly (for I keep no copies). Either keep these three, or replace them with the other three, whichever are thought least bad by Mr. Gifford. There is no occasion for a revise; it is only losing time. Either dedicate it to Walter Scott,2 or, if you think he 1. The Rev. H. H. Milman. 2. Cain was dedicated to Scott: see his letter accepting the dedication, Letters, vol. vi., Letter 969, note. 1821.] A PERSECUTED BOOK. 471 would like the dedication of The Foscaris better, put the dedication to The Foscaris. Ask him which. Your first note was queer enough; but your two other letters, with Moore's and Gifford's opinions, set all right again. I told you before that I can never recast any thing. I am like the Tiger: if I miss the first spring, I go growling back to my Jungle again; but if I do hit, it is crushing. Now for Mr. Mawman, I received him. civilly as your friend, and he spoke of you in a friendly manner. As one of the squadron of Scribblers I could not but pay due reverence to a commissioned officer. I gave him that book with the inscription to show to you, that you might correct the errors. With the rest I can have nothing to do; but he has served you very right. You have played the stepmother to D[on] Л[uan] throughout, either ashamed or afraid, or negligent, to your own loss and nobody's credit. Who ever heard before of a publisher's not putting his name? The reasons for my anonyme I stated; they were family ones entirely. Some travelling Englishmen whom I met the other day at Bologna told me, that you affect to wish to be considered as not having anything to do with that work, which, by the way, is sad half and half dealing-for you will be a long time before you publish a better poem. No, You seem hurt at the words "the publisher." What! you-who won't put your name on the title page—would have had me stick J. M. Esq on the blank leaf. Murray! you are an excellent fellow, a little variable and somewhat of the opinion of every body you talk with (particularly the last person you see), but a good fellow for all that; yet nevertheless I can't tell you that I think you have acted very gallantly by that persecuted book-which has made its way entirely by itself, without the light of your countenance, or any kind of encouragement -critical or bibliopolar. You disparaged the last three cantos to me, and kept them back above a year; but I have heard from England that (notwithstanding the errors of the press) they are well thought of; for instance, by American Irving, which last is a feather in my (fool's) cap. You have received my letter (open) through Mr. Kinnaird, and so, pray, send me no more reviews of any kind. I will read no more of evil or good in that line. Walter Scott has not read a review of himself for thirteen years. The bust is not my property, but Hobhouse's. I addressed it to you as an Admiralty man, great at the Custom house. Pray deduct the expences of the same, and all others. Yours ever, BYRON. 955.-To John Murray. Pisa, Nov. 9, 1821. I never read the Memoirs at all, not even since they were written; and I never will: the pain of writing them was enough; you may spare me that of a perusal. Mr. Moore has (or may have) a discretionary power to omit any repetition, or expressions which do not seem good to him, who is a better judge than you or I. 956.-To John Murray. Pisa, Nov 12th 1821. DEAR SIR, I have marked, on the back of the enclosed proof of the letter on M: Wilson, the names of the writings, mostly unpublished, which, if collected together, would form a volume or two which might be entitled 1821.] HEAVEN AND EARTH. 473 Miscellanies. You must recollect, however, that the letter, on the British review, signed Clutterbuck,1 must have a note stating that the name of Clutterbuck was adopted long before (a year I think) the publication of the Monastery and Abbot. If you don't do this, I shall be accused (with the usual justice) of plagiarism from Walter Scott. The whole of these tracts might be published simply and unostentatiously, with the letter on B[owles]'s Pope at the head of then. Be careful about their dates. Let me know your intention. Your humle Svt BYRON. Opened by me, this day, Nov 14th 1821, and sent to M: Kinnaird. B. 957.-To John Murray. Pisa, Nov 14th 1821. DEAR SIR,-Enclosed is a lyrical drama, (entitled A Mystery, from its subject,) which, perhaps, may arrive 2 1. The Monastery opens with an "Introductory Epistle from "Captain Clutterbuck, late of His Majesty's Regiment of "Infantry to The Author of Waverley." The author of Waverley returns the compliment in The Abbot, and The Fortunes of Nigel is prefaced by a letter from Captain Clutterbuck to Dr. Dryasdust. Byron's "letter on Mr. Wilson," signed "Wortley Clutterbuck," is the Reply to Blackwood's Edinburgh Magazine, printed in Letters, vol. iv. Appendix IX. (See also ibid., p. 385, note 1.) 2. Heaven and Earth. Though revised by Gifford, and printed, it was not published till 1822, when it appeared in The Liberal, No. ii. pp. 165-206. The Second Part was never written. It was commenced, so Byron told Medwin (Conversations, p. 231), “at "Ravenna, on the 9th of October last. It occupied about fourteen "days. Douglas Kinnaird tells me that he can get no bookseller to 66 'publish it. It was offered to Murray, but he is the most timid of "God's booksellers, and starts at the title. He has taken a dislike |