Icon - ResearchSpace@Auckland - The University of Auckland

the criticism of the unorthodoxy of the sentiments expressed in Cain was a reactionnot merely to the theological challenge posed by Lucifer’s arguments, but to theirideology’s potential psychological effects and the attendant social challenges. Thiscould well explain why Francis Jeffrey, one of the very best contemporary readers ofByron’s work, objected to this particular drama.There are several other reasons for the contemporary critics’ misreadings. Oneconsideration is the very nature of the business of criticism at the time: the reviewerswere often reading the considered texts very quickly, in order to publish their reviewsbefore their competitors’. This, naturally, led to epiphenomenal reading, taking thesurface of the drama as its message. Another is the politics of the day: critics aligningthemselves with particular ideological factions, such as in the Eclectic Review’schampioning of biblical literalism, or with more simply political factions, such as inthe Gentleman’s Magazine’s reference to George IV having been offended by Cain.Yet a third is the expectation of Byron’s work and Byron’s own character, as well asof his poetic characters, which may well have predisposed a number of critics to findimpiety in Cain because it was Byron’s poem, particularly considering that Cainappeared after the first five cantos of Don Juan. Heaven and Earth may then havebeen exonerated because the protagonist is the righteous son of a biblical patriarch. Afourth is the operation of the simple dichotomy espoused by these critics, leadingthem to conclude that a poem is either pious or impious. The distribution of theseelements, in varying degrees, across the broad field of critics would go far towardsexplaining why the responses of critics were so different to one another.Modern critics have all too frequently followed the contemporary critics, apparentlyon the fundamentally-historicist basis that the people of the time must haveunderstood the orthodoxy of the time. The error in such an assumption lies in theunrepresentative nature of the comments of a few contemporary literary critics,especially when those critics were not reading with sufficient care, and were thusreacting to ideas which the dramas themselves undermine. Reading more deeply thanthe epiphenomenal discourse reveals that Cain is not impious, and Heaven and Earthis not pious.361