Finally, the
argument
on which Mr.
Byron
(2) He notes, as a suspicious
circumstance, that "while the rough copies of his other poems have been
preserved, no rough copy of _Werner_ is to be found. "
In conclusion, he deals with two possible objections which may be
brought against his theory: (1) that Byron would not have incurred the
risk of detection at the hands of the owners of the duchess's MS. ; and
(2) that a great poet of assured fame and reputation could have had no
possible motive for perpetrating a literary fraud. The first objection
he answers by assuming that Byron would have counted on the reluctance
of the "Ponsonby family and the daughters of the Duchess" to rake up the
ashes of old scandals; the second, by pointing out that, in 1822, he was
making "frantic endeavours to obtain money, not for himself, but to help
the cause of Greece. "
(1) With regard to the marked inferiority of _Werner_ to Byron's other
plays, and the relative proportion of adapted to original matter, Mr.
Leveson Gower appears to have been misled by the disingenuous criticism
of Maginn and other contemporary reviewers (_vide_ the Introduction,
etc. , p. 326). There is no such inferiority, and the plagiarisms, which
were duly acknowledged, are confined to certain limited portions of the
play. (2) There is nothing unusual in the fact that the rough draft of
_Werner_ cannot be found. In fact, but few of the early drafts of the
dramas and other poems written in the later Italian days ever reached
Murray's hands, or are still in existence. The fair copy for the printer
alone was sent home. The time had gone by when Byron's publisher, who
was also his friend, would stipulate that "all the original MSS. ,
copies and scraps" should fall to his share. But no argument can be
founded on so insignificant a circumstance.
Finally, the argument on which Mr. Leveson Gower dwells at some length,
that Byron's "motive" for perpetrating a literary fraud was the
necessity for raising money for the cause of Greek independence, is
refuted by the fact that _Werner_ was begun in December, 1821, and
finished in January, 1822, and that it was not till the spring of 1823
that he was elected a member of the Greek Committee, or had any occasion
to raise funds for the maintenance of troops or the general expenses of
the war. So far from attempting to raise money by _Werner_, in letters
to Murray, dated March 6, October 24, November 18, 1822, he emphatically
waives the question of "terms," and makes no demand or request for money
whatever. It was not till December 23, 1823 (_Letters_, 1901, vi. 287),
two years after the play had been written, that he speaks of applying
the two or three hundred pounds which the copyright of _Werner_ might be
worth, to the maintenance of armed men in the service of the
_Provisional Government_. He could not have "purloined" and palmed off
as his own the duchess's version of Miss Lee's story in order to raise
money for a purpose which had not arisen. He had no intention at first
or last of presenting the copyright of _Werner_ to Murray or Hunt, but
he was willing to wait for his money, and had no motive for raising
funds by an illegal and dishonourable trick.
That Byron did _not_ write _Werner_ is, surely, non-proven on the
external and internal evidence adduced by Mr. Leveson Gower. On the
other hand, there is abundant evidence, both external and internal,
that, apart from his acknowledged indebtedness to Miss Lee's story, he
did write _Werner_.
To take the external evidence first. On the first page of Mrs. Shelley's
transcript of _Werner_, Byron inserted the date, "Dec. 18, 1821," and on
the last he wrote "[The End] of fifth act of the Drama. B. P[isa].
circumstance, that "while the rough copies of his other poems have been
preserved, no rough copy of _Werner_ is to be found. "
In conclusion, he deals with two possible objections which may be
brought against his theory: (1) that Byron would not have incurred the
risk of detection at the hands of the owners of the duchess's MS. ; and
(2) that a great poet of assured fame and reputation could have had no
possible motive for perpetrating a literary fraud. The first objection
he answers by assuming that Byron would have counted on the reluctance
of the "Ponsonby family and the daughters of the Duchess" to rake up the
ashes of old scandals; the second, by pointing out that, in 1822, he was
making "frantic endeavours to obtain money, not for himself, but to help
the cause of Greece. "
(1) With regard to the marked inferiority of _Werner_ to Byron's other
plays, and the relative proportion of adapted to original matter, Mr.
Leveson Gower appears to have been misled by the disingenuous criticism
of Maginn and other contemporary reviewers (_vide_ the Introduction,
etc. , p. 326). There is no such inferiority, and the plagiarisms, which
were duly acknowledged, are confined to certain limited portions of the
play. (2) There is nothing unusual in the fact that the rough draft of
_Werner_ cannot be found. In fact, but few of the early drafts of the
dramas and other poems written in the later Italian days ever reached
Murray's hands, or are still in existence. The fair copy for the printer
alone was sent home. The time had gone by when Byron's publisher, who
was also his friend, would stipulate that "all the original MSS. ,
copies and scraps" should fall to his share. But no argument can be
founded on so insignificant a circumstance.
Finally, the argument on which Mr. Leveson Gower dwells at some length,
that Byron's "motive" for perpetrating a literary fraud was the
necessity for raising money for the cause of Greek independence, is
refuted by the fact that _Werner_ was begun in December, 1821, and
finished in January, 1822, and that it was not till the spring of 1823
that he was elected a member of the Greek Committee, or had any occasion
to raise funds for the maintenance of troops or the general expenses of
the war. So far from attempting to raise money by _Werner_, in letters
to Murray, dated March 6, October 24, November 18, 1822, he emphatically
waives the question of "terms," and makes no demand or request for money
whatever. It was not till December 23, 1823 (_Letters_, 1901, vi. 287),
two years after the play had been written, that he speaks of applying
the two or three hundred pounds which the copyright of _Werner_ might be
worth, to the maintenance of armed men in the service of the
_Provisional Government_. He could not have "purloined" and palmed off
as his own the duchess's version of Miss Lee's story in order to raise
money for a purpose which had not arisen. He had no intention at first
or last of presenting the copyright of _Werner_ to Murray or Hunt, but
he was willing to wait for his money, and had no motive for raising
funds by an illegal and dishonourable trick.
That Byron did _not_ write _Werner_ is, surely, non-proven on the
external and internal evidence adduced by Mr. Leveson Gower. On the
other hand, there is abundant evidence, both external and internal,
that, apart from his acknowledged indebtedness to Miss Lee's story, he
did write _Werner_.
To take the external evidence first. On the first page of Mrs. Shelley's
transcript of _Werner_, Byron inserted the date, "Dec. 18, 1821," and on
the last he wrote "[The End] of fifth act of the Drama. B. P[isa].
