A Comparison of Shelley's Alaster and Byron's Manfned

One str±king similarity between .Alastor and Man- ' fred forms the basis for a comparison of the two. A - ~ quick survey of b oth immed~ately brings into focus dif- ferent. treatments of a basic theme. Without taking into consideration apparent aberrations of the theme at the ·hands of the two poets, it l may be generally- concluded tha t the idea of a human o has realized the superhuman

was the inspiration for bo~h Shelley and Byron. The c on-

trasts lie in the development of the theme, certain char- acteristic additions, varying philosophical approa ch es,

• j and, most obv~ously, length and form. Unlike, too, are

t he char a cters of the poet1and Manfred. The element of Byronic drama and color exists in the lyrical drama form which Byron has used to tell the story. There is the prooable influence of the JGothic novels in Manfred, t he setting a curiously morbid Poe-like castle in -2-

central Europe. Manfred himself is a sort of literary revival of the Doctor Faustus who first trod the boards

I of theatrical literature in the sixteenth century. The dark and sinister story of ·lfarlm-·J e and Goethe is echoed at least in essence, if not so much in actual form. VJhile Byron ha s crea ted a ehicle which would probably

' , defy coherent theatrical presenta tion, he has neverthe- ~\ less reta ined t he romantic and necromantic ~~> spects of the Faustian legend . Manf:ned's palll ers have been gained . ? ~ primarily from a knowledge of bla ck art leading to and R - .L ' ~~- being derived from an impressive gallery of negatively motivated spirits. It is here tha t a great c ontradiction becomes ap- pa rent, and it is a c ontradiction involving the bases of the poems: t he superhuman element . As h as been sta ted, Manfred's superhuman e i!>ntacts have endowed him with nee- romantic pow5rs which, in t hemselves, imply a connection with t he nether world. On the other hand , the superhuman in Ala ster has been a ch ieved primarily through the beauty of natural forms , an essentia lly Wordsworthian concept, and it would not be partie l a rly original to note the es­ teem in which Byron held Wordsworth: "'r is poetry - a t least by h i s a ssertion" - Don Juan. As a result, the ele­ ment. (in Ala s tor) of a.ctua l evi 1 is in no manner connected with the poet ' s "too exquis ite ••• perception." Manfred's necromantic super humanism and the poe t' s "ideal beauty" -3-

essentially differ. It i s notable, ho-r·ever, tha t both are alike in that they fail to suffice in human "life": ) "The tree of knowledge is not that of life." (Man- fred) This in Al8.stor in the poet 's

basic inhbility to associ ~te with the "ch briot- followers." Both Manfred e.nd the oet seek death, although their reasons for w:1.nting it are dissimila r. In connection with the i ntimations of incest, the "half- maddening s i n" discernible upon considera ion of p ossible autobiograph- ical elements , lJianfred seekls forgetfulness through obliv- ion. Forgetfulness seems · r a ther empty and indefinite

goal for a dyineS man to s l ek, a... d death may very well impose an unplea sant justice upon Manfred. To the poet of Alaster, however, dea th i s the key to an eternal life in which he will find the " idea l bea uty", incompatible wit h life, an.d t he embodiment of his episyche. As a re-

sult of this, the dea th motif in ~l a stQ£ is an essentially positive one a,nd lends to t he p oet the h ope which l1anfred lacks. The problem of the ep · syche appea rs in both poems. The term "episyche" is a pp opri.q,te if it is to be us ed in

reference to 1.starte in ~anf~5!, for "she wa s like me (Man ­

fred) in lineame nts ••• !' B · ographically, this element is of greater importance beca se it '-, elps to expla in t'!'le ab- 5 horrent sin in terms of By:t;on incestuous relR. tionship - 4-

with h i s h R. l f- oi ster ( a r e a s on ,_1ble ap:prox i ma ti on of an

epi syche) . Opposed t o t h is i s t he epi syche of t h e poet

i n las t or. Connec ted to t h e :poet 1 s f ant asy of YJ.is e Ti-

syc he i s t he "idea l b e auty' wh ich YJ.e has sought and t he

"hurrJ.an love " wh ich he h ::- s e g lected. He ha s nev er encoun-

ter e d her u 1 a human or ph sicn.l setting ne c essa r y f or

definit e viola t ion or regr t t able s i n .

This t r eat ment of t he e p i s y c he i s an e ~ cellen t ex-

amp l e of a n .Jt her ma jor p oi of d ifference b etv een t he

t wo poems : the GJi. t e n t of t ' e "h um··n " element. VJh i l e

Al§ s t or i s clearly a llegor · c n, l a nd ab s tr r;~. ct so f a r as

defin i t e setti ng , t i me , and c oncre te c h~ ra ct er s ( wi th t h e

possible e::x:cep t i on of the :Qo et and t ''1e A.cab ma i d en)

concerned, Manf red i s poten t ially a i eee of t ~e ~tr1 c a l

;::,. r t which, a lthough it mn..y b e a s a llegor i c a l a s t h e l a t e

: .~ ed i e v a l ~ c::n , s t i ll demands s ome r e c ognizable _ lot

a nd c l-J.r_ r c..cte :r d evelo:rment. As a r e sult of t hi s, t he

poet 1 s cltr-.racter is ne v er e e p iy a na l y z e d by Sh e l ley ,

and we only k vww nim as a sort of un i ve rsal representation

of the i deal i s tic seeker. Manfred , on t he other h a nd , i s

n u!lt;ov,;r n• .ble human, a f rcef ul, n eci dec'l , an defin ite ly

dynu.mi c personality . I t is, ho:·;e ve r , t 'le p oe t i n Alc;...stor

·ho , <.• l t hough less vividJy drP:.rm , i s raore li ~ e ly to f i nd

~ f a vor vii t 1 t he re"~ d er t 'T·,.n i s t he defi ant Lanfred . Th is \ ,t'* ~~- l may b e due , in p ; rt, to G';.elley 1 s ernp ·L t 'rJ i c tre'l.t ment of

/ \ hio . -5-

The negative super ur· n as:r;-ectr of ::2.nfred, r~'r-

ticulc-.rly tl1e der> l i ngs · it the s:piri ts, ru; y be in p8.rt

ey:plaine d by 3yron 1 s com,;._ , t of t"le pur~~ose of the Almighty ?

as being mysterious ~nd pe haps sini ster becauGe of t"le

obviously niserab e conrlit on of rw.nkind . Shelh;y conPi ers

t "le superhur:::--..n the true e t rn i ty, the source of the "ideal

bec..uty" lA-cking in the hv.rl~ n .'

References for t1-1 i :pe.per were :Sernbaum 1 s

.-ill tholog;y and 1--J.is companion guide volume.)

\ Toole , .J. K. ~ng ish 651 Dr. Fogle Deccu .<;r 20 , 1956

I