No. What makes Heathcliff a Bryonic hero is that he fits that set of aforementioned traits, not how or why he became that way, evidenced by the fact that other figures that fit these archetypes have completely different story arcs that don’t involve unrequited love and might involve letting a woman go. Also, just wanted to point out that if murder preluded a character from fitting the archetype, that would knock off a large handful of the classic Bryonic heros: Dracula and the Phantom for a start.
Interesting that you mentioned he twice chose power… and then regretted it and literally tortured himself over it for years. Yet, he still struggles between power and love. That, to me, fits the aspect of self-destructiveness mentioned above.
Also, I think that we’ve pretty much moved beyond a discussion of his character to a debate over the meaning and application of the literary term itself. There’s virtually nothing about how you’ve characterized him that I disagree with. It’s just that, from my understanding of this trope, none of those misdeeds bar him from fitting into this literary type, which again, is not to say that those actions were good, or justified.
(In looking up various figures in this archetype, I’m beginning to see very strong parallels between Manfred and Rumple. Thoughts?
“In Byron’s poem, the hero, a superhuman character, is doomed by fate to destroy those he loves. In vain he undertakes to find Astarte, his ideal spirit who alone has the power to assuage the feeling of guilt with which he is obsessed.”)