“...Cain remains the exemplary figure for desolate homelessness. Byron identified personally with Cain’s curse, and many of his created characters have ties to various aspects of the Cain myth. Cain carries the mark of his sin for killing Abel, and he must be forever an exiled traveler as expiation for this sin. Besides his drama titled Cain, Byron portrays Childe Harold seeing himself like Cain: “ . . . life-abhorring Gloom / Wrote on his faded brow curst Cain’s unresting doom” (1.73.8–9). His gloom will not rest; it stings him into more and more restless roving, ceaseless thinking. He cannot outrun his remorse as much as he tries.
And in The Giaour, the hero condemns himself for Leila’s death: “She died—I dare not tell thee how; / But look—’tis written on my brow!” (1057–58). The Byronic figure is marked as a fugitive; his homelessness can be seen on his face. His sin is sometimes so primal, or so profound, that it becomes merely a cipher, or even unspeakable. Like Coleridge’s Ancient Mariner who must wander in expiation for killing the Albatross: “ . . . this soul hath been / Alone on a wide wide sea: / So lonely ’twas, that God himself / Scarce seemed there to be” (597–600) and whose sin and punishment are marked by his eye fixing his audience in horror so that they must listen to his tale, the Byronic figure’s lonely soul, while withdrawn from other men, human communities, values, a God, needs to be witnessed.
He desires to have someone to hear his story, to see his depths of pain. Byron’s interest in Cain lies in this paradox: his sin and pain is so primal it is almost unrepresentable, yet it is unmistakably written on his face. The deeply unhappy, estranged brooder, with outward signs of the darkness that is inside him, has become a ubiquitous trope for the dangerous lover narrative. Rochester’s scarred face after the fire of Thornfield signifies his lived punishment but also his exiled status; Jane’s love is his only redemption in life. Melville’s Captain Ahab carries his obsessive, wayfaring pain on his face; all who see him know he is cursed to wander.
The “enemy lover” or “demon lover’s” dark frown, his tortured and furrowed brow magnetically draw those around him. In Bulwer-Lytton’s Pelham, Sir Reginald Glanville, a beautiful, brilliant man whose seduction and inadvertent destruction of a middle-class girl lays waste to his life, is consumed with remorse and obsessed with revenge. His countenance marks his tortured subjectivity, “a gloom and despondency which seemed almost like aberration of intellect . . . his cheek was hollow and hueless, his eye dim, and of that visionary and glassy aspect . . . which, according to the superstitions of some nations, implies a mysterious and unearthly communion of the soul with the beings of another world” (176).
As a worshipper of sorrow and a man whose salvation is lost as soon as his narrative begins, he is compared to a kind of circle: “ . . . a circle can only touch a circle in one place, everything that life presents to him, wherever it comes from, to whatever portion of his soul it is applied, can find but one point of contact; and that is the soreness of affliction: whether it is the oblivio or the otium that he requires, he finds equally that he is forever in want of one treasure” (177). In Trollope’s Can You Forgive Her? the attractive, villainous rake, George Vavasor, receives a knife wound to his face in a violent scuffle as a boy. While outwardly a suave and persuasive gentleman, inside his nature is dark and violent.
The scar tells us this from the start, but his violence doesn’t explicitly show itself until the end of the story. “On some occasions, when he was angry or disappointed, it was very hideous; for he would so contort his face that the scar would, as it were, stretch itself out, revealing all its horrors, and his countenance would become all scar” (32). Unredeemably cursed like Cain, he becomes a voyager in the end, sailing for America to escape punishment for his murderous actions. Thackeray’s Vanity Fair includes the blue-blooded “prince” Lord Steyne who, although famous for his worldly carelessness, his cruel misanthropy, and his excessive dissipation, falls for Becky.
When Becky’s husband, Colonel Crawley, discovers Steyne and Becky alone in intimate conversation and flirtation, he rips Steyne’s gift of a diamond ornament off Becky’s chest and casts it at Steyne, cutting his forehead. “The scar cut by the diamond on his white, bald, shining forehead, made a burning red mark” (630). Lord Steyne has always felt cursed because of an inherited susceptibility to madness, and his scar signifies a kind of deadness to life, along with his “livid face and ghastly eyes . . . ordinarily they gave no light and seemed tired of looking out on a world of which almost all the pleasure and all the best beauty had palled upon the worn-out wicked old man” (632).
Childe Harold wanders not only because of his sin and his misanthropy—his ideals too pure to be sullied by the common race of men— but most importantly, he wanders to escape his own consciousness. Hence, his self-exile leads to the question, “What Exile from himself can flee?” (1.74.30). He is “the wandering outlaw of his own dark mind” (3.3.2). Here we must pay particular attention to the fact that, unlike Cain, the Wandering Jew, and the Ancient Mariner, the Byronic hero is self-exiled. This modern trait connects him to the alienation of the artist we find with Joyce, Stein, Faulkner, and Kafka. Even though Cain and the Wandering Jew act willfully so that wandering is their punishment, there is no sense that they can choose redemption—be accepted back into the fold.
Yet the Byronic hero might be able to find redemption because his exile is situated in his own mind. His self-exile links him to Milton’s Satan, who has created his own hell in his mind. When the spirits speak to Manfred—“By thy delight in others’ pain, / And by thy brotherhood of Cain, / I call upon thee! And compel / Thyself to be thy proper Hell!” (1.1.248–52)— Milton’s Satan in Paradise Lost seems to be speaking his famous lines: “Which way I fly is Hell; myself am Hell” (4.75). But even for Satan there are exterior forces at work (God) that deny him entrance back into the heavenly fold. The Byronic hero, by contrast, acts, at each moment, on his own free will.
This existential abyss of personal choice is why Nietzsche preferred Byron’s Faustian Manfred to Goethe’s Faust. Unlike Faust, Manfred stands alone; he does not even give the devil his due. His subjectivity becomes entirely his own. The Byronic self complicates the division between subjectivity’s interior and exterior. Related to the Romantic sublime, his subjectivity lacks liminals; it is boundless. One reason why the Byronic hero exiles himself from society is that his consciousness creates the world as a mirror of his own hellish mind; the world is an interior space where all is bereft of meaning. He restlessly circles this world of his own making, this infinite mindscape.
The world can provide no relief or change because of the immutable script in his mind. Alike all time, abhorred all place, Shuddering I shrank from Nature’s face, Where every hue the charmed before The blackness of my bosom wore. (The Giaour, 1196–1200) His thoughts taint “all time,” “all place,” and make all of Nature black like his own heart. The Byronic figure’s hell is situated in memory; it is because he cannot forget the past that he is imprisoned in a soul tormented by remorse. In some sense, he has lost the possibility of the present as an everchanging, moving scene, containing the possibility of change because of his moral fixity on a point in the past that will not pass.
Manfred states, “ . . . and for / The future, till the past be gulfed in darkness, / It is not of my search” (1.2.5–7). The past negates temporality; the only way he can fall back into time is if the past is obliterated, “gulfed in darkness.” He is lost in a self-perpetuating agony that comes from an idealization of a past “before”—“before” his fall from grace, “before” his realization of the vanity and valuelessness of human society. The Byronic hero feels he once had a home in this world before he realized his desires were so profound they could never be fulfilled in this life. He imagines that, in the past, he lived in a world full of immanent meaning, where his desires for ideals such as Truth, Beauty, and Purity were still in play, still open as possibilities.
Yet from the beginning of Childe Harold, The Giaour, and Manfred, the Byronic hero is always already unredeemable. The past can never be passed. The Byronic hero’s homesick wandering is interminable because he cannot absent himself from time, from those aspects of life which make people mortal, earthbound; yet he also feels himself cast out of a present and future temporality, an interest and place in a country, a people, a community. For the Byronic hero, the tragedy already happens before the story begins.
Barthes explains that love is not narrative: “For me, on the contrary, this story has already taken place; for what is event is exclusively the delight of which I have been the object and whose after effects I repeat (and fail to achieve) . . . amorous seduction takes place before discourse” (Lover’s Discourse, 93–94; emphasis in original). Jock Mcleod, in his discussion of Canto Three of Childe Harold and Byron himself in his letters, refers to the narrator as “coming after.” For the dangerous lover, time is always out of joint: “ . . . in love, the truth always comes too late” (Deleuze, Proust, 86).
In the time of the dangerous lover, it is always too late: to find grace, to be an idealistic youth, to believe, to have faith, to find true love again, to live in the present moment. The temporal structure of the too-late closes off the present and the future. Because meaning is already past, time does not pass; the past is the only time of possibility and because it can never be retrieved, relived, time fails. In too-lateness lies the inability to forget, to forgive oneself and others. In Middlemarch (1871), Will Ladislaw’s diluted Byronism brings to him “a pouting air of discontent” (52).
Mr. Brooke comments that he “may turn out a Byron . . .” (55). When he thinks that he cannot have Dorothea’s love, he shows a Byronic sense of the “too-late”: “There are certain things which a man can only go through once in his life; and he must know some time or other that the best is over with him” (437). His lostness is appeased when he finds a home in his love for Dorothea; she comes to represent all of truth, purity, and goodness. Will feels, when in Dorothea’s presence, that his “love is satisfied in the completeness of the beloved object” (251). Will’s reformation, his domestication through his love for Dorothea, lead him to become a responsible citizen, a hardworking politician.
Sidney Carton, the “careless and slovenly if not debauched” (135) immoral ruin in Dickens’s A Tale of Two Cities, also lives in the Byronic world of too-lateness: “It is too late for that. I shall never be better than I am. I shall sink lower and be worse” (229). He always wishes to go back to a “before time”: a time before he became a drunk, before he descended “the cloud of caring for nothing.” This “cloud” “overshadowed him with such a fatal darkness, [and] was very rarely pierced by the light within him” (228). He comments about himself, “I am like one who died young. All my life might have been” (230).”
- Deborah Lutz, “Love as Homesickness: Longing for a Transcendental Home in Byron and the Brontës (1811–1847).” in The Dangerous Lover: Gothic Villains, Byronism, and the Nineteenth-Century Seduction Narrative
4 notes
·
View notes
Cynthia Ann Chrysler Mercury Rothchild DeBakey,.The Edge of Nightshade ( le Bord de Morelle Noire ) aka Michael Dean Fariss Duerksen, the childhood connection to Dr. Charles DeBakey adopted Mike Dean F. Duerksen in Dallas, Tx about 1956 and sought to serve Mike's dying status as a child with very expensive Charles de Vavasor's Le Escargot le Enfantide ( Death) of Paris, France related very expensive clothing, hats, a light for the netherworld, jewels in the clothing, plus the Bowie knife style made by Dr's William and Charles DeBakey, surgeons, with the words, Woman, Man, Neana on scabbard carved circle with Neana in the center, very fine expensive blade, fine leather belt with jewels sewn in: diamonds, rubies, emeralds sewn in: Cynthia Ann Chrysler DeBakey also known as Cicelia Rothchild Luchia with 100 expensive outfits with rings, bracelets, daggers, earrings, etc...Michael was resussitated as an Illuminati adopted child.
0 notes