B y r o n ’s C h i l d e H a r o l d ’s P i l g r i m a g e I V a n d S h e l l e y ’ s “ O d e t o
Liberty”:
T h e P o e t i c Vo i c e o f t h e E x i l e s a n d t h e i r A s p i r a t i o n s f o r F r e e d o m
H i r o s h i H A R ATA
In the middle of December 1818, Shelley sent a letter from
Naples to his friend, Thomas Love Peacock:
I entirely agree with what you say about Childe Harold.
The spirit in which it is written is, if insane, the most
wicked
&
mischievous
insanity
that
ever
was
given
forth. . . I remonstrated with him in vain on the tone of
mind from which such a view of things alone arises. 1
In this letter Shelley condemns the Fourth Canto of Childe
H a r o l d ’s P i l g r i m a g e s i n c e h e t h i n k s t h a t B y r o n i n d u l g e d h i m s e l f
i n l a m e n t i n g o v e r t h e d e c l i n e o f Ve n i c e s e n t i m e n t a l l y a s i f h e
w e r e a p a s s i v e o n l o o k e r. S h e l l e y a s s u m e s t h a t B y r o n ’s n i h i l i s m
came from his own wild debauchery with Italian girls and
women2 (58) that led him to “the most wicked & mischievous
insanity” under the mental condition of which the poem was
w r i t t e n . S h e l l e y ’s i n d i g n a t i o n a g a i n s t B y r o n ’s m o r a l c o r r u p t i o n
became all the more harsh because his “insane spirit” spoiled the
divine social mission of poetry that Shelley always advocated.
1
B y r o n ’s “ i n s a n e ” a t t i t u d e t o w a r d t h e w o r l d m a y h a v e o c c u p i e d
S h e l l e y ’s m i n d s e r i o u s l y. I n t h e n e x t y e a r S h e l l e y c o m p o s e d a
conversation poem, Julian and Maddalo, which reflects the
discussion between Julian /Shelley and Maddalo/Byron that took
p l a c e i n Ve n i c e l a t e i n A u g u s t 1 8 1 8 , w h e n t h e y f i r s t r e - u n i t e d
after they had parted in Geneva in the summer of 1816.3 In the
‘ P r e f a c e ’ t o t h e p o e m , S h e l l e y c r i t i c i z e s M a d d a l o ’s n e g a t i v e
philosophy of human life, though in the manner of more modest
and sophisticated than in that letter:
He [Count Maddalo] is a person of the most consummate
genius, and capable, if he would direct his energies to
such an end, of becoming the redeemer of his degraded
c o u n t r y. B u t i t i s h i s w e a k n e s s t o b e p r o u d : h e d e r i v e s ,
from a comparison of his own extraordinary mind with the
dwarfish
intellects
that
surround
him,
an
intense
apprehension of the nothingness of human life. 4
H o w e v e r, i t i s a l s o v e r y i m p o r t a n t f o r u s t o s u p p o s e t h a t
S h e l l e y ’s g r e a t a n g e r m i g h t h a v e b l i n d e d h i m t o B y r o n ’s s t r a t e g y
that
he
had
carefully
embedded
his
political
assertion
of
transnational freedom in the central, Roman stanzas (78-98) of
Canto the Fourth.5 When he wrote to Peacock in 1818, I surmise
that Shelley slightly browsed the Canto, in particular only both
i t s b e g i n n i n g p a r t w h e r e B y r o n d e p l o r e s t h e f a l l o f Ve n i c e
2
melancholically
sympathizes
and
with
its
“deep
closing
and
dark
part
blue
where
he
Ocean”
heartily
( 1603).
6
U n d o u b t e d l y, S h e l l e y r e a d t h e e n d i n g o f t h e C a n t o b e c a u s e , i n
t h e s a m e l e t t e r t o P e a c o c k , h e a d m i r e s B y r o n ’s g e n i u s a s a p o e t :
“he [Byron] is a great poet, I think, the address to Ocean proves”
(58).
By the summer of 1819, when he completed Julian and
Maddalo, in which Julian /Shelley and Maddalo/Byron sharply
r e f u t e t h e o t h e r s t a t e m e n t a b o u t s u c h i s s u e s a s d e s t i n y, f r e e w i l l ,
God and so on, Shelley must have (re)read the whole of Childe
H a r o l d ’s P i l g r i m a g e I V, a n d f o u n d o u t i n t h o s e c o r e s t a n z a s
( 7 8 - 9 8 ) B y r o n ’s f i r m a r g u m e n t t h a t p o l i t i c a l f r e e d o m s h o u l d b e
prevalent in Europe. And in the middle of 1820, when he wrote
Ode to Liberty, Shelley adopted, as its epigraph, the first two
l i n e s f r o m t h e s t a n z a 9 8 : “ Ye t , F r e e d o m ! Ye t t h y b a n n e r , t o r n ,
but flying, / Streams lik e the thunder-storm against the wind.” 7
In this respect, it would be not be unsafe to say that Shelley
publicly expressed his political alliance with Byron, leaving
a s i d e b o t h h i s i n d i g n a t i o n a g a i n s t B y r o n ’s m e n t a l n i h i l i s m a n d
the difference between their philosophical opinions.
A s a n e x i l e i n I t a l y, B y r o n w r o t e C a n t o t h e F o u r t h d u r i n g
the latter part of 1817, when the despotic ancien régime had
a l r e a d y b e e n r e s t o r e d i n E u r o p e a f t e r t h e C o n g r e s s o f Vi e n n a
held in the years between 1814 and 1815.8 What is the most
strikingly different from the three previous Cantos is that Byron
composed this Canto as he felt profound dejection concerning the
3
political status quo of Europe and the mutability of human mind.
It is true that when he composed Canto the Third traveling
t h r o u g h t h e C o n t i n e n t a l o n g t h e R h i n e a n d s t a y i n g a t Vi l l a
Diodati in 1816, he was already an exile, and that the European
political environment of 1816 was, at large, little different from
t h a t o f 1 8 1 7 . H o w e v e r, t h e R h i n e , L a k e L e m a n , a n d t h e A l p s
provided him with the sublime scenery to turn his eye to outward
n a t u r a l g r a n d e u r, r a t h e r t h a n t o i n w a r d r e f l e c t i o n o n E u r o p e a n
p o l i t i c a l i s s u e s . I n p a r t i c u l a r, G e n e v a , s u r r o u n d e d w i t h L a k e
Leman and the Alps , was a kind of an earthly Elysium, in which
Byron could almost every day enjoy a lively conversation with
the Shelleys and Polidori, stimulating Mary into the creation of
her substantial virgin work, which later came to fruition as
Frankenstein in 1818. He could afford to sing of the beauty of a
sunset reflecting on the lake, his pleasant cruise around the lake
w h i l e r e a d i n g R o u s s e a u ’s J u l i e , o r t h e N e w H e l o i s e , a n d , f i n a l l y,
h i s w a r m f a t h e r l i k e f e e l i n g s t o w a r d h i s s e p a r a t e d d a u g h t e r. I n
this respect, the Third Canto can unquestionably be called a
sequel of the two previous Cantos , and the three poems preserve
t h e s o - c a l l e d g e n u i n e B y r o n i c t r a v e l w r i t i n g s . B y r o n ’s w i t t y,
brilliant and captivating power in narrating , for instance, his
ad mi ra t ion of th e S p an is h m ai d i n C an to I (558 -611 ) , a n d his
reverie about the glory of ancient Athens walking about among
its ruins in Canto II (783-881) made their readers turn a page
after page impatiently without taking into consideration what
4
Byron thought European politics should be like; so did Canto the
Third.9
Unlike
the
three
previous
Cantos
Canto
the
Fourth
p r e s e n t s a s i t s f o r e g r o u n d t h e p o e t ’s m e l a n c h o l i c f e e l i n g s a n d
thoughts
about
the
mutability
both
of
human
mind
and
of
European history that swung between democratic republicanism
and monarchical or imperial despotism. This change from his
amusing
and
entertaining
narration
to
the
serious
and
self-reflective tone of his voice originate, I suppose , in the fact
that he was no longer a carefree traveler in foreign countries but
a resident as an exile, whether he likes it or not, in a foreign
c o u n t r y, I t a l y, w h i c h w a s s u b s t a n t i a l l y a d i v i d e d n a t i o n r u l e d b y
the foreign powers, as a result of the aftermath of the fall of
Napoleon
and
of
the
restoration
of
ancien
régime.
10
C o n s e q u e n t l y, B y r o n t h e e x i l e d i r e c t l y f a c e d t h e c o m p l i c a t e d
p o l i t i c a l s t a t e o f I t a l y, i n w h i c h h e h a d t o l i v e a s a p o e t .
Tr a v e l in g h a d o n c e b e e n a c i r c u l a r mo v e me n t f o r h i m w h o h a d
kept a homeland to return; this time it was a linear pilgrimage
without returning to the starting point. Here in this Canto, in
particular in the kernel, Roman stanzas (78-98), the reader hears
t h e n a r r a t o r ’s / B y r o n ’s v o i c e t h a t s e r i o u s l y c a l l s f o r p o l i t i c a l
freedom in Europe.
N e e d l e s s t o s a y, t h i s v o i c e d o e s n o t c o m e f r o m a W h i g
member of the House of Lords, who used to have a firm political
f o o t i n g i n E n g l a n d , b u t f r o m a m e r e e x i l e w a n d e r i n g f r o m Ve n i c e
5
to Rome, being deprived of substantial parliamentary activities.
H o w e v e r, n o w t h a t I c o m e t o t h i n k o f i t , i t w o u l d n o t b e u n s a f e t o
a r g u e t h a t B y r o n w a s a b o r n e x i l e n o t o n l y i n h i s f a m i l y, b u t a l s o
in h is po li t ic a l s oc ie t y; in a w ord , he w as a ma ve ri ck . H o w ev er,
even a maverick needs an object his lonely soul speaks to . For
Byron, that was Rome: “Oh Rome! My country! City of the soul!
/ The orphans of the heart must turn to thee, / Lone mother of
dead empires! (78:694-96). The stanzas between 78 and 98 may
be called Byronic ‘ode to freedom,’ in which he contrasts the
light of republicanism with the shadow of despotism, praising
t h e l i t e r a r y a n d i n t e l l e c t u a l w r i t e r s s u c h a s C i c e r o , Ve r g i l , a n d
Livy whose prime activities were mostly in republic Rome in
stanza 82:
Alas! The lofty city! And alas!
The trebly hundred triumphs! And the day
W h e n B r u t u s m a d e t h e d a g g e r ’s e d g e s u r p a s s
T h e c o n q u e r o r ’s s w o r d i n b e a r i n g f a m e a w a y !
A l a s , f o r T u l l y ’s v o i c e , a n d Vi r g i l ’s l a y,
A n d L i v y ’s p i c t u r e d p a g e — b u t t h e s e s h a l l b e
H e r r e s u r r e c t i o n ; a l l b e s i d e — d e c a y.
Alas, for Earth, for never shall we see
That brightness in her eye she bore when Rome was free!
(730-38)
6
While recollecting the magnificent but vain spectacles of
R o m a n h i s t o r y, B y r o n c o n d e m n s
the two eminent
historical
figures who turned their coat from a liberator to a conqueror or a
despot. The one is Oliver Cromwell in stanzas 85-86:
Sylla was first of victors; but our own
The sagest of usurpers, Cromwell, he
To o s w e p t o f f s e n a t e s w h i l e h e h e w ’ d t h e t h r o n e
Down to block—immortal rebel! See
What crimes it costs to be a moment free
And famous through all ages! . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
A n d s h o w ’ d n o t F o r t u n e t h u s h o w f a m e a n d s w a y,
And all we deem delightful, and consume
O u r s o u l s t o c o m p a s s t h r o u g h e a c h a r d u o u s w a y,
Are in her eyes less happy than the tomb ?
We r e t h e y n o t b u t s o i n m a n ’s , h o w d i f f e r e n t w e r e
h i s [ C r o m w e l l ’s ] d o o m !
(757-74)
And the other is Napoleon Bonaparte in stanzas 89 -92:
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Save one vain man [Napoleon], who is not in the grave,
7
But, vanquish’d by himself, to his own slaves a slave —
The fool of false dominion—and a kind
O f bas t ar d C aes ar, fo ll ow i n g h i m o f o ld
Wi t h s t e p s u n e q u a l ; . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . .
W i t h b u t o n e w e a k e s t w e a k n e s s — v a n i t y,
Coquettish in ambition—still he aim’d—
At what can he avouch—or answer what he claim’d?
. . . . . . . . . . . .
For this the conqueror
[Napoleon] rears
The arch of triumph! And for this the tears
And blood of earth flow on as they have flow’d,
An universal deluge, which appears
W i t h o u t a n o a k f o r w r e t c h e d m a n ’s a b o d e ,
A n d e b b s b u t t o r e f l o w ! — R e n e w t h y r a i n b o w, G o d !
(800-28)
In stanza 93, Byron raises a question of what we should
learn from “this barren” (829) world in which “. . . men grow
pale / lest their own judgments should become too bright, / And
their free thoughts be crimes. . . .” (835-7). Although he does not
give
any
concrete
answer
to
this,
8
Byron
points
out
their
degeneration from father to son, from age to age (838-40).
H o w e v e r, B yr o n s e e m s t o c h e r i s h h i s l a s t h o p e o f f r e e d o m n o t
only in America, but also in Europe:
Can tyrants but by tyrants conquer ’d be
And Freedom find no champion and no child
Such as Columbia saw arise . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . nursing Nature smiled
O n i n f a n t Wa s h i n g t o n ? H a s n o E a r t h n o m o r e
Such seeds within her breast, or Europe no such shore?
(856-64)
And he conclude his ‘ode to freedom’ in the hope that the seed of
freedom waits to bloom in spring by comparing freedom to the
tree cut down by an axe in stanza 98:
The tree hath lost its blossom, and the rind,
Chopp’d by the axe, looks rough and little worth,
But the sap lasts, and still the seed we find
Sown deep, even in the bosom of the Nort h;
So shall a better spring less bitter fruit bring forth.
(878-82)
The symbolic resurrection of nature may easily remind us of
9
S h e l l e y ’s “ O d e t o t h e We s t W i n d . ”
What I would like to maintain here is that Shelley’s “Ode
t o L i b e r t y ” i s a c o n g e n i a l s e q u e l o r r e s p o n s e t o B y r o n ’s C a n t o
the Fourth, in particular to those central stanzas that appeal to
the advocates of the spirit of freedom. Shelley wrote “Ode to
Liberty”
in
the
middle
of
1820,
three
years
after Byron’s
composition of Canto the Forth. D uring the years, some political
events took place. For instance, the despotic monarchy was
replaced by the constitutional monarchy in Spain, and a nephew
to Louis XVIII was assassinated in France. These revolts against
despotism may, of course, have motivated Shelley to start the
“Ode.” None the less, the action that Byron took to publish
“Venice. An Ode” at the end of Mazeppa in June 1819, in order to
encourage Venice to restore the glorious autonomous republic it
had once enjoyed was a welcome message to Shelley. Unlike
pessimistic Maddalo Byron expresses in the ending of this poem
an assertive opinion in proposing a suggestion to the rebirth of
Venice. Shelley undoubtedly read this poem; for it was his wife,
Mary Shelley, who transcribed a fair copy of it for Byron.
Shelley begins the first stanza of “Ode to Liberty” with
the praise of the vibration of liberty over the nations, and
promises to record “A voice out of the deep” as if he were a
hierophant:
A glorious people vibrated again
10
The lightning of the nations; Liberty
From heart to heart, from tower to tower, o’er Spain,
Scattering contagious fire into the sky,
Gleamed. My soul spu rned the chains of its dismay,
And in the plumes of song
Clothed itself, sublime and strong;
As a young eagle soars the morning clouds among,
Hovering in verse o’er its accustomed prey;
Till from its station in the heaven of fame
The Spirit’s whirlwind rapt it, and the ray
Of the remotest sphere of living flame
Which paves the void was from behind it flung,
As foam from a ship’s swiftness, when there came
A voice out of the deep: I will record the same.
(1-15)
Shelley’s phrase “there came / A voice out of the deep” (14-5)
reminds me of Byron’s call for listening in the stanza of 167
“Hark! Forth from the abyss a voice proceeds, / A long low
distant
murmur
of
dread
sound”
(1495-6).
Shelley
cleverly
parodies a national voice of mourning on the death of Princess
Charlotte into a mysterious voice which prophesizes the coming
of liberty. Late in 1817, only a few days after Princess Charlotte
had died, Shelley began a pamphlet under the title , An Address to
the People on the Death of the Princess Charlotte , in which
11
Shelley,
although
he
well
acknowledged
the
Princess
as
sympathetic toward reforms, calmly parallels her death with
those of poor, nameless women and those of three laborers who
were sent to the scaffold just the next day of her death.11
Byron’s sympathy with the death of the Princess Charlotte
is more humane and patriotic, whereas Shelley’s insight into the
deceptive
contrivance
of
the
body
politic
ruled
by
the
Establishment is more rational and systematic. In the subsequent
stanzas
Shelley
describes
the
progress
of
liberty
after
the
creation of the universe, whereas Byron seems to stress the fall
and decline of freedom after the assassination of Caesar in his
kernel, Roman stanzas (78-98) of Canto the Fourth. Although
Shelley’s “Ode to Liberty” is a sequel to them, it is precisely a
Shelleyan revision of Byronic skepticism about the optimistic
view of history. Anyway, Shelley must have agreed with Byron in
that he held aspirations for the immortality and rebirth of
freedom. Thus Shelley’s Ode to Liberty can be regarded as a
friendly homage to Byron, who also proved himself a perseverant
champion of freedom.
As in Canto the Fourth and Venice. An Ode, the poet’s voice
in Ode to Liberty comes from an exile in Italy, not from the
eldest son of a member of the House of Commons of England.
Like Byron Shelley was a born exile and maverick, and like
Byron he usually took his political activities in harmony with the
Foxite Whigs due to the influence of Duke of Norfolk, a political
12
guardian of the Shelley family. Although Byron and Shelley were
deprived of their firm political footing in Italy, they never
abandoned their enthusiasm for emancipation and liberation from
oppression anywhere they lived because they were intellectual
exiles. Concerning “intellectual exiles” Edward W. Said claims
in his Representation of the Intellectual that true intellectuals
should or cannot but be exiles wherever they are. Said divides
intellectuals into two groups:
Even intellectuals who are lifelong members of a society
can, in a manner of speaking, be divided into insiders and
outsiders: those on the one hand who belong fully to the
society
as
it
is,
who
flourish
in
it
without
an
overwhelming sense of dissonance or dissent, those who
can be called yea-sayers; and on the other hand, the
nay-sayers, the individuals at odds with the society and
therefore outsiders and exiles so far as priv ileges, power,
and honors are concerned.12
At the risk of losing their high social status, Byron and Shelley
tried to retain their individual freedom by being a nay-sayer
against the European status quo that, of course, included their
home, England, and Italy, where they were wandering around.
Said
gives
examples
of
intellectual
exiles,
such
as
Jonathan Swift, Marco Polo, Theodore Wisengrund Adorno, etc.
13
They were all exiles and represented their philosophical view of
life, directly or allegorically, in their writings. However, for
Byron and Shelley as an exile in Italy, earlier Italian writers like
Dante, Petrarch, Boccaccio, and Tasso may be more relevant
historical personages because they gave deep influence to the
poets in terms of a free, independent life with the continuous
production of literary writings. Most of them, in particular Dante
and Tasso, experienced, more or less, to be in the situation of
exile for a certain period in life in order to preserve the freedom
of thought, faith, and writing. The reason why Byron mentions
each of them in Canto the Fourth is not only to attract the
attention of readers to the distinguished writers Italy produced,
but also to desire to live a literary life on the models of them.
According to Said’s term they can be called true intellectuals as
well as humanists . Very interestingly, the OED says that Byron’s
source (1813) is the second oldest noun-usage of the word
“intellectual” which is defined as “an intellectual being; a
person possessing or supposed to possess superior powers of
intellect.” Byron and Shelley can be regarded as a forerunning
example of what Said claims the modern intellectual should be
like. Having severed themselves from their native aristocratic
connections, the two poets advocated the realization of political
freedom/liberty
in
Europe
only
by
means
of
their
writing
activities, with firm confidence in their own intellectual powers.
Conclusively, what makes us feel difficult to understand
14
B y r o n ’ s C h i l d e H a r o l d ’s P i l g r i m a g e I V a n d S h e l l e y ’s O d e t o
Liberty is, probably, the mysterious or pitiful ending of the two
poems. In the former, Harold/Byron, the narrator, suddenly
offers an invocation to the Ocean and prays to it to accept him as
if he forgot narrating the social history of Venice and Rome and
arguing the cause of freedom to his fellow citizens:
. . . . . . . . . . . .
There is society where none intrudes,
By the deep Sea, and music in its roar:
I love not Man the less, but Nature more,
From these our interviews, in which I steal
From all I may be, or have been before,
To mingle with the Universe, and feel
What I can ne’er express, yet can not all conceal.
(1596-1602)
Farewell! a word that must be, and hath been—
A sound which make us linger; —yet—farewell!
Ye! Who have traced the Pilgrim to the scene
Which is his last, if in your memories dwell
A thought which once was his; if on ye swell
A single recollection. . . .
(1666-1671)
15
The conclusion of Canto the Fourth must have sounded superbly
sentimental to English readers because the narrator/“the Pilgrim”
could not return to his native shores, only sending overseas to
his homeland “a word” and “A sound” that memorized “A thought”
of
his
pilgrimage
in
exile.
Byron’s
sophisticated
narrative
dexterity penetrates the whole Canto. On the other hand, in the
final stanza of “Ode to Liberty,” Shelley suddenly stops paying
homage to personified Liberty and begins to talk about himself
sinking into the waters as if he were a wild swan killed by a
thunderbolt:
. . . and the spirit of that migh ty singing
To its abyss was suddenly withdrawn;
Then, as a wild swan, when sublimely winging
Its path athwart the thunder -smoke of dawn,
Sinks headlong through the aerial golden light
On the heavy-sounding plain,
When the bolt has pierced its brain;
. . . . . .. . . . . . .
My song, its pinions disarrayed of might,
Drooped; o’er it closed the echoes far away
Of the great voice which did its flight sustain,
As waves which lately paved his watery way
Hiss round a drowner’s head in their tempestuous play.
(271-85)
16
Legend has it that a swan s ings a most beautiful song only once
before it dies. Of course, the swan represents the poet, and
Shelley the poet puts the closing stanza of “Ode to Liberty” in
this framework. However, who killed the singing swan? Jupiter,
the metaphor of a despot, throws a thunderbolt and with it he has
punished the poet because he was invoking Liberty and praying
her to come to the world. Thus Shelley’s “My song” which is
equal to Byron’s “a word,” “A sound,” and “A thought” falls into
the ocean, being deprived of its wings. This may be understood
as
a
kind
of
dramatic
irony
since
Shelley
unconsciously
prophesizes his own drown two years later.
It seems to me that Byron and Shelley felt something
uneasy or embarrassed about narrating the final Canto of Childe
Harold or writing “Ode to Liberty” in public. Both the poets go
to the waters at the end of their composition. The reason why
they conclude their poems in a similar way is, I suppose, that, as
a
rootless
exile,
they
were
not
always
positive
of
the
practicability of their political aspirations. In the ending of their
poems, they uttered their poetic voice that called for their unity
with Nature/the sublime, and they also earnestly hoped that the
echoes of their fading voice would resound in the hearts of their
listeners. Certainly, they are still vibrating in our minds.
17
Notes
1
The letters of Percy Bysshe Shelley , 2 vols. Ed. Frederick L. Jones
(Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1964), II, 57-8. Page numbers will hereafter be
embedded in the text.
2
I n t h e s u b s e q u e n t p a s s a g e o f t h e a b o v e l e t t e r, S h e l l e y r e v e a l s B y r o n ’s
scandalous relations with Italian females who were all available at
random.
3 For further discussion on the tangled relation between Julian/Shelley
an d Mad d alo /B yr o n , see Ch ar les E. Ro b in so n , S h elley a n d By ro n : Th e
S n a k e a n d E a g l e Wre a t h e s i n F i g h t ( B a l t i m o r e a n d L o n d o n : T h e J o h n s
H o p k i n s U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s , 1 9 7 6 ) , p p . 8 1 - 1 1 2 ( C h . 5 “ Ta n g l e d B o u g h s o f
H e a v e n a n d O c e a n : Tw o G e n i i a n d a M a n i a c ) . I n t h e C h . 4 , R o b i n s o n
c o n t r a s t s T h e R e v o l t o f I s l a m w i t h C h i l d e H a r o l d I V. T h i s b o o k
established a milestone in this field .
4 S h e l l e y ’s P o e t r y a n d P r o s e ( S e c o n d E d i t i o n ) . E d . D o n a l d H R e i m a n
a n d N e i l F r a i s t a t ( N e w Yo r k a n d L o n d o n : W. W. N o r t o n & C o m p a n y,
2 0 0 2 ) , p . 1 2 0 . A l l q u o t a t i o n s f r o m S h e l l e y ’s w o r k s w i l l h e r e a f t e r
be based on this edition and line numbers will be embedded in
the text.
5 I t s u y o H i g a s h i n a k a ’ s B y r o n a n d I t a l y : A S t u d y o f C h i l d e H a r o l d ’s
Pilgrimage IV (Kyoto : Ryukoku Gakkai, 2002) is v ery informative book
on the structure and content of the Canto.
6 A l l q u o t a t i o n s f r o m C h i l d e H a r o l d w i l l h e r e a f t e r b e b a s e d o n B y r o n ’s
P o e t r y a n d P r o s e . E d . A l i c e L e v i n e ( N e w Yo r k a n d L o n d o n : W. W.
N o r t o n & C o m p a n y, 2 0 0 2 ) . L i n e n u m b e r s w i l l h e r e a f t e r b e e m b e d d e d i n
the text.
7 S h e l l e y ’s q u o t a t i o n i s c o r r e c t o n t h e w h o l e e x c e p t f o r t h e i t a l i c i z e d
against, which assures us that Shelley had a copy of the book at his
side.
8 F r o m P a u l S t o c k ’s T h e S h e l l e y - B y ro n C i rc l e a n d t h e I d e a o f E u ro p e
( N e w Yo r k : P a l g r a v e M a c m i l l a n , 2 0 1 0 ) I h a v e l e a r n e d m u c h a b o u t
European status quo during the years 1809-1824 and about how the two
poets were involved in politics by means of writing.
9 A d d i t i o n a l l y, B y r o n a s k e d S h e l l e y t o d e l i v e r h i s m a n u s c r i p t o f C a n t o
III to John Murray late in August when the Shelleys left for England.
10 I do not mean to belittle the value of “travel” and its derived words.
T h e s e w o r d s c a n n o t b e s t r e s s e d t o o m u c h i n B y r o n s t u d i e s . We c a n , f o r
i n s t a n c e , l e a r n m u c h a b o u t t h e i r i m p o r t a n c e f r o m B y ro n t h e Tr a v e l l e r :
Pro ceed in g s o f 2 8 th In tern a tio n a l Byro n Co n fe ren ce (K yo to : Ry u k o k u
U n i v e r s i t y, 2 0 0 3 ) .
11 In the conclusive section (XI) of the pamphlet, Shelley cries,
“ L i b e r t y i s d e a d . ” C o n t r a s t i v e l y, B y r o n s a y s i n s t . 1 6 9 , “ A n d F r e e d o m ’ s
heart, grown pale, cease to hoard / Her many griefs for ONE; for she
had pour’d / Her orisons for thee [Charlotte]. . . .” (ll.1516 -18).
Although there is no evidence that Byron read the pamphlet, the
appearance of personified Freedom is too sudden. It cannot be denied
completely that Byron wrote this in bearing the pamphlet in mind. This
incident is very interesting but still moot.
1 2 E d w a r d W. S a i d , R e p r e s e n t a t i o n s o n t h e I n t e l l e c t u a l ( N e w Yo r k :
Vi n t a g e B o o k s , 1 9 9 6 ) , p p . 5 2 - 3 .
18