Manfred Follow Up: An Interview with Jane Stabler

In her interview with the K-SAA, Jane Stabler reflects on “The Dashes in Manfred”—the title of her paper presented at the Manfred symposium—and their embodiment in the previous night's reading of Byron’s drama. Returning to her concept of “pausality,” she considers Byron’s typographical choices and the way that theater forces directors to embrace or alter those selections, impacting the pace and feel of the play. For newcomers to Byron’s Manfred, be sure to read Stabler’s words of advice at the end.  

1.) Did you feel like the performance of Manfred supported or challenged some of the ideas and issues that you presented at the symposium? Were any of the textual and linguistic details of Manfred that you identified in your paper lost in or enhanced by the performance? 

I think it was a brilliant idea to start off the symposium with the reading of Manfred. The director's [Michael Barakiva] discussion of the dramatic ‘problem’ of the poem (lack of causality and a need to cut material that did not in some way advance action) goes right to the heart of Manfred and Romantic drama generally (one thinks of William Wordsworth’s ‘Action is transitory…’ in The Borderers). When I heard Jason deliver Manfred’s first soliloquy, I thought he might be using Byron’s first draft to guide the cadences: “ since – that all-nameless hour –”, but the rest of the performance tended to be faster-paced, and many of the places where Byron’s manuscripts might suggest a pause (through the use of a dash or series of dashes or space) were much more clipped or curt in the spoken delivery. I suggested ‘pausality’ as a vital part of the poetry of Manfred and Michael explained that he had worked to cut pauses or digressions so we were coming at the poem from different angles – it was really stimulating to hear the actor/director’s need for onward momentum. I would love to hear a version of Manfred that used Byron’s manuscript punctuation as a musical score. 

2.) Were there any papers whose investigation of Manfred surprised you? Why?

It was a great day – I thought every panel contributed new insights and fresh perspectives. I think we were all keyed up by hearing Manfred the night before so we all experienced a keen attentiveness to the language of the poem that was cumulatively exhilarating. 

3.) Do you think some of the romantic issues that the symposium investigated spoke to more contemporary concerns around politics, social issues, climate change, gender, and so forth? For example, what are the rhetorical and/or political implications of Manfred—a play about a powerful, male conjurer—in light of Mr. Trump’s presidency in the US? How might one wealthy ruler speak to the other? 

I am wary of the dangers of what is, I think, called ‘presentism’ – but I suggest that Manfred’s exploration of masculine self-absorption and narcissism were and are timely. Manfred is in some ways a twin to Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein; both these works have searching things to say about the ‘collateral damage’ and ‘collateral beauty’ (which was the film on my flight across the Atlantic!) around a powerful creative consciousness. The Trump presidency is a different manifestation of masculine power. How do we repair the damage? How do we protect ‘collateral beauty’? 

4.) Do you have any words of advice for readers unacquainted with this particular work of Byron’s? Is there anything you would want to them to know before getting started? 

I would strongly recommend first-time readers to have a look at Byron’s Alpine Journal (the diary-letter he wrote to his half-sister Augusta 17-29 September 1816). You can find it in volume 5 of Byron’s Letters and Journals, edited by Leslie A. Marchand (London: John Murray 1976) or in an on-line edition edited by Peter Cochran can be found at: https://petercochran.files.wordpress.com/2009/02/07-switzerland-18166.pdf