undoubtedly
to be regarded as
the greatest genius of our century?
the greatest genius of our century?
Byron
It will be observed that the
_title-pages_ of editions which have passed through my hands are
aligned; the _titles_ of all other editions are italicized.
I cannot pretend that this assortment of bibliographical entries is even
approximately exhaustive; but as "a sample" of a bibliography it will, I
trust, with all its imperfections, be of service to the student of
literature, if not to the amateur or bibliophile. With regard to
nomenclature and other technicalities, my aim has been to put the
necessary information as clearly and as concisely as possible, rather
than to comply with the requirements of this or that formula. But the
path of the bibliographer is beset with difficulties. "Al Sirat's
arch"--"the bridge of breadth narrower than the thread of a famished
spider, and sharper than the edge of a sword" (see _The Giaour_, line
483, _note_ I)--affords an easier and a safer foothold.
To the general reader a bibliography says little or nothing; but, in one
respect, a bibliography of Byron is of popular import. It affords
scientific proof of an almost unexampled fame, of a far-reaching and
still potent influence. Teuton and Latin and Slav have taken Byron to
themselves, and have made him their own. No other English poet except
Shakespeare has been so widely read and so frequently translated. Of
_Manfred_ I reckon one Bohemian translation, two Danish, two Dutch,
three French, nine German, three Hungarian, three Italian, two Polish,
one Romaic, one Roumanian, four Russian, and three Spanish translations,
and, in all probability, there are others which have escaped my net. The
question, the inevitable question, arises--What was, what is, the secret
of Byron's Continental vogue? and why has his fame gone out into all
lands? Why did Goethe enshrine him, in the second part of _Faust_, "as
the representative of the modern era . . .
undoubtedly to be regarded as
the greatest genius of our century? " (_Conversations of Goethe_, 1874,
p. 265).
It is said, and with truth, that Byron's revolutionary politics
commended him to oppressed nationalities and their sympathizers; that he
was against "the tramplers"--Castlereagh, and the Duke of Wellington,
and the Holy Alliance; that he stood for liberty. Another point in his
favour was his freedom from cant, his indifference to the pieties and
proprieties of the Britannic Muse; that he had the courage of his
opinions. Doubtless in a time of trouble he was welcomed as the champion
of revolt, but deeper reasons must be sought for an almost exclusive
preference for the works of one poet and a comparative indifference to
the works of his rivals and contemporaries. He fulfilled another,
perhaps a greater ideal. An Englishman turns to poetry for the
expression in beautiful words of his happier and better feelings, and he
is not contented unless poetry tends to make him happier or
better--happier because better than he would be otherwise. His favourite
poems are psalms, or at least metrical paraphrases, of life. Men of
other nations are less concerned about their feelings and their souls.
They regard the poet as the creator, the inventor, the maker _par
excellence_, and he who can imagine or make the greatest _eidolon_ is
the greatest poet. _Childe Harold_ and _The Corsair_, _Mazeppa_ and
_Manfred, Cain_ and _Sardanapalus_ were new creations, new types, forms
more real than living man, which appealed to their artistic sense, and
led their imaginations captive. "It is a mark," says Goethe (_Aus meinem
Leben: Dichtung und Wahreit_, 1876, iii. 125), "of true poetry, that, as
a secular gospel, it knows how to free us from the earthly burdens which
press upon us, by inward serenity, by outward charm. . .
_title-pages_ of editions which have passed through my hands are
aligned; the _titles_ of all other editions are italicized.
I cannot pretend that this assortment of bibliographical entries is even
approximately exhaustive; but as "a sample" of a bibliography it will, I
trust, with all its imperfections, be of service to the student of
literature, if not to the amateur or bibliophile. With regard to
nomenclature and other technicalities, my aim has been to put the
necessary information as clearly and as concisely as possible, rather
than to comply with the requirements of this or that formula. But the
path of the bibliographer is beset with difficulties. "Al Sirat's
arch"--"the bridge of breadth narrower than the thread of a famished
spider, and sharper than the edge of a sword" (see _The Giaour_, line
483, _note_ I)--affords an easier and a safer foothold.
To the general reader a bibliography says little or nothing; but, in one
respect, a bibliography of Byron is of popular import. It affords
scientific proof of an almost unexampled fame, of a far-reaching and
still potent influence. Teuton and Latin and Slav have taken Byron to
themselves, and have made him their own. No other English poet except
Shakespeare has been so widely read and so frequently translated. Of
_Manfred_ I reckon one Bohemian translation, two Danish, two Dutch,
three French, nine German, three Hungarian, three Italian, two Polish,
one Romaic, one Roumanian, four Russian, and three Spanish translations,
and, in all probability, there are others which have escaped my net. The
question, the inevitable question, arises--What was, what is, the secret
of Byron's Continental vogue? and why has his fame gone out into all
lands? Why did Goethe enshrine him, in the second part of _Faust_, "as
the representative of the modern era . . .
undoubtedly to be regarded as
the greatest genius of our century? " (_Conversations of Goethe_, 1874,
p. 265).
It is said, and with truth, that Byron's revolutionary politics
commended him to oppressed nationalities and their sympathizers; that he
was against "the tramplers"--Castlereagh, and the Duke of Wellington,
and the Holy Alliance; that he stood for liberty. Another point in his
favour was his freedom from cant, his indifference to the pieties and
proprieties of the Britannic Muse; that he had the courage of his
opinions. Doubtless in a time of trouble he was welcomed as the champion
of revolt, but deeper reasons must be sought for an almost exclusive
preference for the works of one poet and a comparative indifference to
the works of his rivals and contemporaries. He fulfilled another,
perhaps a greater ideal. An Englishman turns to poetry for the
expression in beautiful words of his happier and better feelings, and he
is not contented unless poetry tends to make him happier or
better--happier because better than he would be otherwise. His favourite
poems are psalms, or at least metrical paraphrases, of life. Men of
other nations are less concerned about their feelings and their souls.
They regard the poet as the creator, the inventor, the maker _par
excellence_, and he who can imagine or make the greatest _eidolon_ is
the greatest poet. _Childe Harold_ and _The Corsair_, _Mazeppa_ and
_Manfred, Cain_ and _Sardanapalus_ were new creations, new types, forms
more real than living man, which appealed to their artistic sense, and
led their imaginations captive. "It is a mark," says Goethe (_Aus meinem
Leben: Dichtung und Wahreit_, 1876, iii. 125), "of true poetry, that, as
a secular gospel, it knows how to free us from the earthly burdens which
press upon us, by inward serenity, by outward charm. . .
