Hero =/= Masculinity

For the most part, it seems that Byron has studied Greek tragedy, made extensive notes and based Sardanapalus almost entirely on ancient tragic patterns in drama. The characters in the play are generally flat, and the narrative is predictable. However, Byron, I think, does throw his readers a curveball. Byron provides us with Sardanapalus, an effeminate and decadent character, who remains static, but is unfitting in the otherwise straightforward narrative. Furthermore, the “hero” in Sardanapalus is generally unclear. This then begs the question, how much reverence does Byron really have for the classics? And is neo-classism merely a revival of the ancient memory, or is it a rendition for Byron? I think the answer lies with Sardanapalus. Much like Sardanapalus, Shakespeare’s Romeo is effeminate, spoiled and very naïve. And yet, by the end of Romeo and Juliet, we are moved by Romeo’s ability to sacrifice for love and his “manliness” is restored. While Shakespeare doesn’t conform to all of the traditional dramatic forms, he still retains some semblance of “hero,” generally associated with masculinity. The lines are much more blurry in Sardanapalus, which forces us as readers to change our understanding of “hero” versus protagonist, and furthermore our instant association of “hero” with man. Sardanapalus is a man, and his muchismo is apparent when we learn of his various affairs and harem, but what remains is his overtly feminine attitude. This isn’t very Hercules, or whatever. I am not positive what Byron is trying to prove here, but I think it’s worth mentioning that our protagonist isn’t necessarily a hero or a villain, he is generally unchanging despite an ensuing plot, and yet we are supposed to learn something from the effeminate mannerisms that plague the entire play.