<<

. 6
( 7)



>>

Furthermore, in this formulation, superiority amounts to disinterested-
ness; such a reader or observer occupies a vantage outside the precincts of
concern, from which he can safely admire the “energies displayed.”5 “The
commonest Man shows a grace in his quarrel”: Peterloo is still a few
months away, and yet one can feel the distance between these sentiments
and those familiar in the 1790s, when the rage of the common man was
being depicted on both sides as an awful energy, dangerous to the status
quo. Rather than a cause for alarm, the “quarrel in the streets” “ a public
outburst of anger, the ghost of the angry mobs of the revolutionary years “
becomes abstract street theater to the Keatsian passerby.
Yet even as he appreciates the ¬ne energies of the quarrel, Keats
recognizes that such con¬‚icts are “to be hated”; unlike the bright eyes
of the stoat, the angry words of the quarrelers do reveal some deplorable
error or accident. However, the “superior being” looking onto the scene
postpones such judgments “ Keats does it here with the future-tense verb
“ in order to preserve his state of abstracted immersion, wherein
the subject of the quarrel and the terms of its engagement remain inaud-
ible. A similar dynamic governs the display of anger in Keats™s “Ode on
Melancholy,” written within a month or so of this letter. In that poem,
following a series of prescriptions associated with the ephemeral beauty of
the natural world (e.g., “the morning rose”[290, line 15] “the rainbow
of the salt sand-wave”[line 16]), Keats makes one more recommendation
to the melancholic male epicure:
And if thy mistress some rich anger shows,
Emprison her soft hand, and let her rave,
And feed deep, deep upon her peerless eyes. (lines 18“20)
As he does with the “quarrel in the streets,” Keats imagines the display
or “show” of anger as a type of temporary beautiful arousal to be enjoyed
by an observer. Yet here the case is different: she is “thy mistress,” rather
than a common stranger. That is, the attitude of disinterested superiority
Anger, Revolution, and Romanticism
168
has to be willed, since her anger presumably involves the auditor quite
directly. Indeed, he is likely its cause. Meanwhile, his aesthetic consump-
tion of her “rich anger” effaces that emotion™s urgent demand for peni-
tence and redress; you™re beautiful when you™re angry, he tells her, and
leaves it at that. Recognizing, however, the dangers of this disinterested
attitude when facing an enraged enemy, and perhaps remembering Col-
lins™s “Vengeance, in the lurid Air,” who “Lifts her red Arm, expos™d and
bare,” Keats suggests we “Emprison her soft hand” before settling in for
an appreciation session.6 Having done so, he then turns to what he calls
her “peerless eyes,” redirecting the potentially explosive aggression of the
mistress from its male target to female ones, implicitly urging the substi-
tution of competition among the mistress™s peers for violence toward
men. In Keats™s presentation, her anger becomes one more fair attitude,
one more aesthetic category in which she will be judged and compared.
Like the bright eyes of the stoat, the peerless eyes of the angry mistress
serve as windows onto states of passionate activity that Keats ¬nds
admirable because they are instinctive and unselfconscious “ unfeigned
and irrational, yet purposeful. These are the kinds of things that were
being said about people™s anger in the 1790s in order to condemn it as
destructive rage “ but Keats associates them instead with “grace,” a natural
mode of expression in which beauty kisses truth, “the very thing in which
consists poetry.” In letter and poem, we can see that he imagines his own
writing as having relatively untroubled commerce with the ¬ne energies of
anger (both involve “the same tone”), even as he champions the reading of
others™ anger as a source of deep aesthetic pleasure. Both the “commonest
Man . . . in his quarrel” and the “mistress” showing “rich anger” compel
the Keatsian imagination to various attitudes of appreciation.
Of course, much of this is enabled by the complete absence of context
in the scenes of anger he presents. Ethical judgment of the speci¬c cases
would interrupt aesthetic absorption, so Keats brackets the question of
error. Yet the turn to anger as a source of unmediated beauty and grace
(thus resembling poetry) marks a signi¬cant change from the anxious
Senecan attitudes of earlier decades, when the angry man was more
typically seen as “an ugly and horrible picture of distorted and swollen
frenzy.”7 We remember, for example, from the Re¬‚ections, Burke™s tableau
of the enraged vaunting of the French women who led the royal family
back to Paris, with “horrid yells, and shrilling screams, and frantic dances,
and infamous contumelies, and all the unutterable abominations of the
furies of hell, in the abused shape of the vilest of women.”8 Sexual
revulsion is very near the surface in Burke™s reaction to these women™s
Epilogue 169
political rage, while Keats presents the decontextualized angry mistress in
language charged with eroticism; indeed, in “Ode on Melancholy,” he
depicts a generalized state of feminine arousal. We have seen that Keats™s
readmission of anger into a poetics of beauty depends on disengaging that
emotion from the political and historical moment, something that would
come more easily to authors in the decade after Peterloo. Furthermore,
Keats downplays the threat of anger by mixing it with sexuality, attributing
aggressive passion to a soft-handed mistress with deep and peerless eyes, an
old trick perhaps learned from Propertius in his elegies to Cynthia.9
Byron engages in a similar strategy in Don Juan, where he ¬nds a
comic-aesthetic role for anger by placing it in a beautiful (and in this case,
exotic) female body. In canto 5, the proud and powerful Gulbeyaz throws
herself at Juan, only to be rebuffed; he “coldly” informs her that he will
not “Serve a Sultana™s sensual phantasy” (CPW, v :281). Byron lingers
delightedly at this moment, allowing for Gulbeyaz™s slow burn:
If I said ¬re ¬‚ashed from Gulbeyaz™ eyes,
™Twere nothing, for her eyes ¬‚ashed always ¬re;
Or said her cheeks assumed the deepest dyes,
I should but bring disgrace upon the dyer,
So supernatural was her passion™s rise,
For ne™er till now she knew a checked desire.
Even ye who know what a checked woman is
(Enough, God knows!) would much fall short of this.
Her rage was but a minute™s, and ™twas well “
A moment™s more had slain her; but the while
It lasted ™twas like a short glimpse of hell.
Nought™s more sublime than energetic bile,
Though horrible to see, yet grand to tell,
Like ocean warring ™gainst a rocky isle;
And the deep passions ¬‚ashing through her form
Made her a beautiful embodied storm. (CPW v :284, stanzas 134“35)
Like Keats, Byron ¬xes upon the physical manifestations of the wo-
man™s rage, observing closely the visible “deep passions ¬‚ashing through
her form,” which become an occasion for aesthetic meditation. In add-
ition, the ¬ne energies of the Keatsian quarrel ¬nd an echo in Byron™s
assertion that “Nought™s more sublime than energetic bile,” where again
anger™s manifestations are enjoyed as abstract effusions “ like stormy
weather or the “salt sand-wave.” In both poems, the naturalization of
the woman™s anger discounts rational agency in order to assimilate that
emotion to a familiar set of Romantic poetic materials.
Anger, Revolution, and Romanticism
170
An accomplished salesman of fantasy, Byron takes pains to assert the
“supernatural” and “sublime” character of the sultana™s anger, claiming
that our attempts to imagine it will “much fall short.” Yet, in the course of
the scene, Gulbeyaz™s sublime anger, “Like ocean warring ™gainst a rocky
isle,” becomes “a beautiful embodied storm.” The containment of that
natural-supernatural storm within a beautiful body marks the falling-off
point, and soon “her thirst of blood was quenched in tears” (136.8).
Interestingly then, Byron concludes his series of attempts to describe
Gulbeyaz™s anger by resorting to the categories of both the sublime and
the beautiful. Beautiful because it produces the signs of arousal on her
body (an “embodied storm”), her anger is sublime because it carries a
royal imprimatur indicating incommensurability; as Byron puts it,
“A vulgar tempest ™twere to a typhoon / To match a common fury with
her rage” (136.1“2). For Lord Byron, aristocratic rage trumps the common
quarrel in the streets. Yet Gulbeyaz achieves only a mock-sublime because
the narrator presents the whole episode from an amused and knowing
perspective, never allowing her to verbalize her emotion. Of her wrath, he
writes, “A storm it raged, and like the storm it passed, / Passed without
words; in fact she could not speak” (137.1“2). Finally, seeing her anger
transformed to “humiliation” (137.7), Juan ¬nds the Sultana irresistible;
his “virtue ebb™d” and “he wonder™d why he had refused” her advances in
the ¬rst place (142.2“3). The scene thus ends where it began, with
Gulbeyaz smiling languidly in Juan™s arms (143.6).
The essentially comic trajectory of anger in this scene, brought home by
the narrator™s tone, depends upon the atmosphere of sexual farce, some-
thing also true of Donna Julia™s “angry” denunciation of her rightly
suspicious husband in canto 1, where we see “her dark eyes ¬‚ashing
through their tears, / Like skies that rain and lighten” (CPW v :59) Unlike
the troubling, raging weather that we encountered in the work of
Coleridge, these storms of anger are meant merely to be delicious spec-
tacles, part of a narrative of harmless beauty. Thomas Moore™s Lalla
Rookh (1817) contains a similar moment, in which the poet describes the
anger of another sultana, Nourmahal, the “Light of the Haram”: “when
angry, “ for ev™n in the tranquillest climes / Light breezes will ruf¬‚e the
blossoms sometimes “ / The short, passing anger but seem™d to awaken /
New beauty, like ¬‚ow™rs that are sweetest when shaken.”10 For these male
poets (Keats, Byron, Moore) writing under the sign of the aesthetic and
erotic, a woman™s anger “ “short, passing” “ becomes an energetic and
instinctual performance bringing a ¬‚ush to the cheek and a sparkle to the
eye, mere gusts of words and rain of tears.
Epilogue 171
In turning to the work of Felicia Hemans, we notice immediately that
there are angry women everywhere and few of them are harmless.11 Paula
Feldman calls the heroines of Records of Woman (1828) “determined,
proud, and gutsy” “ and (one might add, in a number of cases) enraged
to vengeance.12 Rather than the helplessly beautiful angry mistresses of
Keats and Byron, Hemans gives us women devoted to sublime destruction
and ¬red by aggression. Gary Kelly contrasts the sentimental imagery of
“death and the maiden” (“prominently eroticized in the work of¦Letitia
Landon” and the male Romantics) with Hemans™s presentations of “death
and the matron,” which are “decidedly not eroticized,” and which allow
her to present a feminine perspective on traditional masculine history.13 In
poems like “The Wife of Asdrubal” and “The Indian City,” we see that
this perspective can be a prompting to violent reprisals, rendered in the
language of tragic sublimity. As Hemans imagines it, women™s anger is
anything but a “short, passing” emotion; rather, it is a rage-unto-death
that inspires serious domestic and political interventions within an histor-
ical, ¬ctional frame. The popularity of Hemans™s poetry in these early
decades of the century implies a renewed enthusiasm for such spectacles of
anger as the threat of real Revolutionary outbursts faded from memory.
“The Wife of Asdrubal,” from Tales, and Historic Scenes (1819), centers
on a Medea-like ¬gure who kills her children and herself as a curse upon
her husband, the faithless King Hasdrubal of Carthage. Here is the
heroine™s ¬rst appearance in the poem, atop a burning temple, with her
children beside her:
What towering form bursts wildly on the sight,
All regal in magni¬cent attire,
And sternly beauteous in terri¬c ire?
She might be deem™d a Pythia in the hour
Of dread communion and delirious power;
A being more than earthly, in whose eye
There dwells a strange and ¬erce ascendancy.
The ¬‚ames are gathering round “ intensely bright,
Full on her features glares their meteor-light,
But a wild courage sits triumphant there,
The stormy grandeur of a proud despair;
A daring spirit, in its woes elate,
Mightier than death, untameable by fate.
The dark profusion of her locks unbound,
Waves like a warrior™s ¬‚oating plumage round;
Flush™d is her cheek, inspired her haughty mien,
She seems th™avenging goddess of the scene.14
Anger, Revolution, and Romanticism
172
Published in the same year as Keats™s “Ode on Melancholy,” these lines
present an angry woman as an awful revelation, a ¬gure of power: she is
compared to a dreadful, inspired prophetess, “a being more than earthly,” a
“daring spirit,” a “warrior,” and an “avenging goddess.” Such metaphors
suggest that she will not, like Keats™s angry mistress, submit to have her
hand “emprison[ed],” and indeed she stabs her children soon thereafter;
and rather than have her lover gaze “deep, deep upon her peerless eyes,” she
“¬x[es]¦her eye on Asdrubal” (line 39), trans¬xing him with her words
and deeds of horror. Like Gulbeyaz, she is an Eastern queen, but her “thirst
of blood” is pointedly not “quenched in tears” but rather in the ¬‚ames that
engulf her. Unlike the beautifully enraged mistresses of Keats, Byron, and
Moore, this angry women curses (she delivers a sixteen-line imprecation
against Asdrubal) and kills, suggesting Hemans™s commitment to the
contours of domestic tragedy and the sublimity of feminine wrath.
The signs of arousal still play a key role in Hemans™s description, and
she focuses on the countenance of Asdrubal™s wife in her state of “terri¬c
ire”: her cheek is ¬‚ushed, her eye reveals a “strange and ¬erce ascendancy,”
and “The dark profusion of her locks unbound, / Waves like a warrior™s
¬‚oating plumage round,” this last simile a heartbreaking allusion (given
the infanticidal sequel) to Hector™s plumage that frightens his infant son
Astyanax in the Iliad; these children have every reason to beware her
¬‚ashing eyes, her ¬‚oating hair. The connection to Coleridge™s “Kubla
Khan” suggests, however, that Hemans also intends to evoke the ¬gure of
the inspired poet here, aligning (like Keats) her own vocation with
energetic outbursts of anger. Mixing the language of transcendence,
prophecy, and power with the rhetoric of wrath, she rehabilitates the
ancient trope of rage-as-inspiration, the one that gave Coleridge trouble in
the anxious 1790s. Put another way, Hemans™s bold description of the
wife of Asdrubal goes beyond a tragic tableau: it repeatedly asserts the
angry wife™s sublime power in language that evokes the Romantic rhetoric
of inspiration.
Hemans presents a similar moment in “The Indian City,” from Records
of Woman. “Struck down by sorrow™s might” following the murder of her
son, the heroine Maimuna ¬nds a means to rise in anger:
And what deep change, what work of power,
Was wrought on her secret soul that hour?
How rose the lonely one? “ She rose
Like a prophetess from dark repose!
And proudly ¬‚ung from her face the veil,
And shook the hair from her forehead pale,
Epilogue 173
And ™midst her wondering handmaids stood,
With the sudden glance of a dauntless mood.
Ay, lifting up to the midnight sky
A brow in its regal passion high,
With a close and rigid grasp she press™d
The blood-stain™d robe to her heaving breast,
And said “ “Not yet “ not yet I weep,
Not yet my spirit shall sink or sleep,
Not till yon city, in ruins rent,
Be piled for its victim™s monument.”15

Like the wife of Asdrubal, Maimuna becomes a proud, regal prophetess
under the in¬‚uence of anger, and Hemans™s focus on her “sudden glance
of a dauntless mood” and her unbound, shaken hair aligns her with the
inspired-poet ¬gure of Romantic tradition. Indeed, she stands “™midst her
wondering handmaids,” like Keats™ eagle-eyed Cortez on his peak in
Darien, when “all his men / Stared at each other with a wild surmise,”
the node of a magic circle of attention compelled by the presence of one in
a state of visionary intensity “ one who has drunk the milk of paradise.16
But the emotional register is utterly different: rather than building a dome
in the air, she will tear down a city, reversing the creative force of
Coleridge™s poem with a commitment to vengeance and destruction.
In her turn to the domestic tragedies of history, Hemans presents
women™s anger in ways that counter the work of male poets like Keats,
Byron, and Moore. The argument is centered in aesthetics “ is the angry
woman a ¬gure of safely erotic beauty or of dangerously vengeful sublimity?
“ and involves the political consequences of that aesthetic choice. In
addition, Hemans links states of passionate rage to poetic inspiration,
depicting forthrightly and repeatedly a connection that the Romantics
before her often circled nervously. Part of the difference has to do with
the changing historical frame, in which anger became a less violently
contested emotion; another part concerns the genre in which Hemans
presents such ¬gures, in which dramatic distance is preserved between poet
and the angry character. Furthermore, by narrating stories of distant places
and times, Hemans apparently keeps anger at a safe remove from the
precincts of English womanhood, except for those with eyes to see the
parallels she means to draw to England™s own domestic situations. Ultim-
ately, her work suggests that the post-Romantic representation of anger will
involve a turn away from the confessional lyric mode and towards the
dramatic and the melodramatic, towards spectacles of wrath that do not
directly implicate the poet. In the 1820s and 1830s, the imagery of Romantic
Anger, Revolution, and Romanticism
174
rage migrates from the lyric to the verse narrative, the three-volume novel,
and the drama and dramatic monologue, ¬nding more comfortable Vic-
torian homes therein.
Yet the legacies of the years of Revolution and reaction did not end here;
the angry ghosts of the 1790s were not immediately given rest.
The Victorian poets remained wary of that emotion for the most part,
typically choosing to put their angry rhetoric in the mouths of madmen
(e.g., the speaker of Tennyson™s Maud ), comic characters (e.g., the speaker
of Browning™s “Soliloquy of the Spanish Cloister”), or tragic ¬gures
in extremis (e.g., the speaker of Barrett Browning™s “The Runaway Slave
at Pilgrim™s Point”). Indeed, only in the twentieth century, with the rise
of Modernism, would anger move decidedly back into lyric forms of
expression; one thinks ¬rst of Yeats, perhaps, or the Vorticist invective of
Blast! “ and then of all the protest lyrics that came out of the wars and
struggles of that dark century. In addition, the sharply polarized positions
that emerged from the Revolution debates were an ongoing function of the
new media of anger “ the popular press “ which, in times of crisis, continues
to make a monster of dissent. With us or against us, indignant or enraged,
loyalist or terrorist: the end of moderation signaled by the rhetoric of the
Revolution debates may be the most troubling of the legacies of the 1790s,
and the one the Romantics struggled with most vehemently.
Anger is generally thought of as a painful emotion, born of af¬‚iction, and
yet it wonderfully concentrates the mind, forging scattered portions into a
weapon of retaliation. In a time of terror, many cling to it to avoid falling
into the total disorganization of shock, grief, and confusion otherwise
enjoined upon them. Furthermore, because anger is typically a prelude to
action, nursing it temporarily assuages some of the awful, passive helpless-
ness and fear that loss in¬‚icts as collateral damage on those who can only
watch the destruction unfold. Indeed, there are many sound psychological
reasons for the anger so many felt during the Terror of the 1790s and our
own century™s September massacres, and during the sequels to both. But
the writing of Romantic-period England makes clear the importance of
allowing both vehemence and thoughtfulness to determine our reactions to
upheaval and loss; rather than shutting down debate, anger best energizes
it, bringing to the table urgency and strength without precluding an
ultimate ¬‚exibility. Reading Romantic anger, we ¬nd ourselves engaged
by a complex history of such negotiations regarding power, justice, and the
creative self, carried out in their best moments in what Keats recognized as
states of grace: spirited conversations, passionate quarrels.
Notes




introduction : ¬ts of rage
1 For an introduction to the effects of revolutionary violence on the development
of Romanticism, see Robert Maniquis, “Holy Savagery and Wild Justice:
English Romanticism and the Terror,” Studies in Romanticism 28 (Fall 1989),
365“95. As Maniquis puts it, “nineteenth-century writers never forgot the
French Revolution “ both its hope and the challenge its violence posed to the
imagination” (394). Alan Liu™s Wordsworth: The Sense of History (Stanford:
Stanford University Press, 1989) also engages this theme, as does John Kerrigan™s
“Revolution, Revenge, and Romantic Tragedy,” Romanticism 1 (1995), 121“40.
2 Martha Nussbaum, Upheavals of Thought (Cambridge: Cambridge Univer-
sity Press, 2001); Philip Fisher, The Vehement Passions (Princeton: Princeton
University Press, 2002); William Reddy, The Navigation of Feeling: A
Framework for the History of Emotions (Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press, 2001); David Punter, Writing the Passions (New York: Longman,
2001); and Robert C. Solomon, Not Passion™s Slave: Emotions and Choice
(Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003).
3 Barbara H. Rosenswein, ed., Anger™s Past: The Social Uses of an Emotion in the
Middle Ages (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1998).
4 Gwynne Kennedy, Just Anger: Representing Women™s Anger in Early Modern
England (Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press, 2000).
5 Peter Gay, The Cultivation of Hatred: The Bourgeois Experience, Victoria to
Freud, vol. i i i (New York: Norton, 1993). See also Christopher Lane, Hatred
and Civility: The Antisocial Life in Victorian England (New York: Columbia
University Press, 2003); and Daniel Karlin, Browning™s Hatreds (Oxford:
Clarendon, 1993). In Keats and Embarrassment (Oxford: Clarendon, 1974),
Christopher Ricks states that “Indignation is a feeling particularly strongly
incited and thought about in nineteenth-century literature” (2), but his
interests lie elsewhere. Gesa Stedman™s Stemming the Torrent: Expression and
Control in the Victorian Discourses on Emotions, 1830“1872 (Aldershot:
Ashgate, 2002) provides a synoptic overview but says nothing particular
about anger.
6 Recent works in this vein include Esther H. Schor, Bearing the Dead:
The British Culture of Mourning from the Enlightenment to Victoria

175
Notes to pages 2“3
176
(Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1994); Guinn Batten, The Orphaned
Imagination: Melancholy and Commodity Culture in English Romanticism
(Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 1998); and David Punter, Gothic
Pathologies: The Text, the Body and the Law (London: Macmillan, 1998).
7 John Mee, Romanticism, Enthusiasm, and Regulation: Poetics and the Policing
of Culture in the Romantic Period (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003), 5.
See also his earlier book on Blake, Dangerous Enthusiasm: William Blake and
the Culture of Radicalism in the 1790s (Oxford: Clarendon, 1992). On this
theme in the eighteenth century, with its different cultural rami¬cations, see
Clement Hawes, Mania and Literary Style: The Rhetoric of Enthusiasm from
the Ranters to Christopher Smart (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,
1996); and Shaun Irlam, Elations: The Poetics of Enthusiasm in Eighteenth-
Century Britain (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1999).
8 Three books essentially brought New Historicist methodologies to the
Romanticists: Marilyn Butler™s Romantics, Rebels, and Reactionaries (Oxford:
Oxford University Press, 1981), Jerome McGann™s The Romantic Ideology
(Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1983), and Marjorie Levinson™s
Wordsworth™s Great Period Poems (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,
1986). See also Alan Liu™s Wordsworth and James Chandler™s England in 1819:
The Politics of Literary Culture and the Case of Romantic Historicism (Chicago:
University of Chicago Press, 1998). These critics are themselves following
trails blazed by prior historically minded scholars of the period, particularly
E. P. Thompson in The Making of the English Working Class (New York:
Pantheon, 1963), and David Erdman in Blake: Prophet against Empire
(Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1954).
9 One might place Olivia Smith™s The Politics of Language, 1791“1819 (Oxford:
Clarendon, 1984) at the headwaters of such a current. Also important have
been Iain McCalman™s Radical Underworld: Prophets, Revolutionaries and
Pornographers in London, 1795“1840 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,
1988), and James Epstein™s Radical Expression: Political Language, Ritual and
Symbol in England, 1790“1850 (New York: Oxford University Press, 1994).
10 Francois Furet, Interpreting the French Revolution, trans. Elborg Foster
¸
(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1981). In this still-dominant line of
studies are Mona Ozouf, Festivals and the French Revolution, trans. Alan
Sheridan (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1989); Lynn Hunt,
Politics, Culture, and Class in the French Revolution (Berkeley: University of
California Press, 1984); Keith Michael Baker, Inventing the French Revolution
(Cambridge : Cambridge University Press, 1990) ; Maurice Agulhon,
Marianne into Battle: Republican Imagery and Symbolism in France, trans.
Janet Lloyd (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1981); Simon Schama,
Citizens: A Chronicle of the French Revolution (New York: Knopf, 1989);
Colin Lucas, ed., The French Revolution and the Creation of Modern Political
Culture, 4 vols. (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1987“89); and Laura
Mason, Singing the French Revolution: Popular Culture and Politics, 1787“
1799. (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1996).
11 Simon Bainbridge, British Poetry and the Revolutionary and Napoleonic Wars:
Visions of Con¬‚ict (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002); Philip Shaw,
Notes to pages 3“6 177
Waterloo and the Romantic Imagination (New York: Palgrave, 2002); Gillian
Russell, The Theatres of War: Performance, Politics, and Society 1793“1815
(Oxford: Clarendon, 1995).
Some of the more important recent studies of English literature and culture
12
of the 1790s (not already cited) include Saree Makdisi, William Blake and the
Impossible History of the 1790s (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2003);
Angela Keane, Women Writers and the English Nation in the 1790s
(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000); Paul Keen, The Crisis of
Literature in the 1790s: Print Culture and the Public Sphere (Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 1999); Kevin Gilmartin, Print Politics: The Press
and Radical Opposition in Early Nineteenth-Century England (Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 1996); Marcus Wood, Radical Satire and Print
Culture, 1790“1822 (Oxford: Clarendon, 1994); and David Worrall, Radical
Culture: Discourse, Resistance, and Surveillance, 1790“1820 (Detroit: Wayne
State University Press, 1992).
In other words, anger seems to have effectively shut down the public sphere
13
¨
that Jurgen Habermas describes as evoked by the popular press in The
Structural Transformation of the Pubic Sphere: An Inquiry into a Category of
Bourgeois Society, trans. T. Berger and F. Lawrence (Cambridge, MA:
Massachusetts Institute of Technology Press, 1989). Geoff Eley™s critique is
apt: “[Habermas] misses the extent to which the public sphere was always
constituted by con¬‚ict.” See Eley™s “Nations, Publics, and Political Cultures:
Placing Habermas in the Nineteenth Century,” in Habermas and the Public
Sphere, ed. Craig Calhoun (Cambridge, MA: Massachusetts Institute of
Technology Press, 1992), 306.
Useful studies of the intersections between Romanticism and the popular
14
press include Jon Klancher™s The Making of English Reading Audiences, 1790“
1832 (Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1987); and Michael Scrivener™s
Poetry and Reform: Periodical Verse from the English Democratic Press, 1792“
1824 (Detroit: Wayne State University Press, 1992). Also relevant in this
context is Kim Wheatley™s Shelley and His Readers: Beyond Paranoid Politics
(Columbia: University of Missouri Press, 1999), which takes as its starting
point “the language of defensiveness and persecution” (1) that characterized
the reception of Shelley™s work in the journals of the day.
Particularly important anthologies of satiric poetry of the Romantic period
15
are John Strachan and Steven E. Jones, eds., British Satire, 1785“1840, 5 vols.
(London: Pickering and Chatto, 2003); Betty T. Bennett, ed., British War
Poetry in the Age of Romanticism: 1793“1815 (New York: Garland, 1976), and
Michael Scrivener™s Poetry and Reform. Critical studies of satire of the period
include Thomas Lockwood™s Post-Augustan Satire: Charles Churchill and
Satirical Poetry, 1750“1800 (Seattle: University of Washington Press, 1979),
Frederick Beaty™s Byron the Satirist (Dekalb: Northern Illinois University
Press, 1985), Steven Jones™s Shelley™s Satire (Dekalb: Northern Illinois
University Press, 1994) and Satire and Romanticism (New York: St. Martins,
2000), Marcus Wood™s Radical Satire and Print Culture 1790“1822 (Oxford:
Oxford University Press, 1994), and Gary Dyer™s British Satire and the Politics
of Style (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997).
Notes to pages 6“17
178
16 Steven Jones, “Reconstructing Romantic Satire,” American Notes and Queries
(April, July 1993), 130“34.
17 Juvenal, “First Satire,” The Satires, trans. Niall Rudd, ed. William Barr
(Oxford: Clarendon, 1991), 3“8; lines 77“80.
18 R. Wiesen, “Juvenal™s Moral Character: An Introduction,” Latomus 22:3
(1963), 440“71; 440.
19 E. J. Kenney, “Juvenal: Satirist or Rhetorician?” Latomus 22:4 (1963), 704“20;
706.
20 William Kupersmith, “Juvenal as Sublime Satirist,” PMLA 87 (1972), 508“11;
510.
21 Alvin Kernan, The Cankered Muse: Satire of the English Renaissance (New
Haven: Yale University Press, 1959), 248.
22 John Marston, “Proemium in Librum Tertium,” The Scourge of Satire, ed.
G. B. Harrison (New York: Barnes and Noble, 1966; facs. rpt. of the 1599
London edition), lines 3“12; qtd. in Kernan, The Cankered Muse, 96.
23 The Poems of John Cleveland, ed. Brian Morris and Eleanor Withington
(Oxford: Clarendon, 1967), 72; lines 1“4 of “On the Pouder Plot.”
24 Jonas Barish, “Exhibitionism and the Antitheatrical Prejudice,” ELH 36:1
(1969), 1“29; 10.
25 William Wordsworth, The Prelude 1799, 1805, 1850, ed. Jonathan
Wordsworth, M. H. Abrams, and Stephen Gill (New York: Norton,
1979), 10: 312“26.
26 William Wordsworth, The Poems, ed. John O. Hayden, 2 vols. (New Haven:
Yale University Press, 1981), i i :739“40.
27 Ibid., i i : 881. This poem was written in 1842, in response to Carlyle™s The
French Revolution (1837).
28 Jean-Jacques Rousseau, Emile, trans. Barbara Foxley (London: J. M. Dent,
1993), 37“38.
29 See also Chris Jones, Radical Sensibility: Literature and Ideas in the 1790s
(London: Routledge, 1993), which demonstrates how “The debates of the
1790s were characterized by a politicizing of issues raised within the school of
sensibility to the extent that one™s stand on matters such as the conduct of the
private affections¦became political statements, aligned with conservative or
radical ideologies” (13).
30 Unless otherwise noted, all citations to Coleridge™s poetry refer to thePoetical
Works, edited by J. C. C. Mays as volume x v i of The Collected Works of
Samuel Taylor Coleridge (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2001).
31 S. T. Coleridge, Shorter Works and Fragments, ed. H. J. Jackson and J. R. de J.
Jackson, 2 vols. (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1995), i i : 1500;
Coleridge is alluding to Ephesians 2.3.

1 towards romantic anger
1 William Harris, Restraining Rage: The Ideology of Anger Control in Classical
Antiquity (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2002).
Notes to pages 17“26 179
2 Plato, The Republic, trans. Paul Shorey, 2 vols. (Cambridge, MA: Harvard
University Press, 1953), vol. i , book 2, section 15.
3 Aristotle, The Nicomachean Ethics, trans. H. Rackham, (Cambridge, MA:
Harvard University Press, 1945), book 4, section 5, paragraph 3.
4 Plato, Republic, vol. i i , book 10, section 7; Aristotle, The Poetics, trans.
W. Hamilton Fyfe (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1965), book
4, section 12.
5 W. Hamilton Fyfe, “Introduction,” Aristotle: The Poetics, xiii.
6 For a modern challenge to this “hydraulic” metaphor, and its implications of
passivity, see Robert C. Solomon, Not Passion™s Slave, 76“91.
7 Seneca, De Ira ( On Anger), Seneca: Moral Essays, trans. John W. Basore
(Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1970), book 1, section 1.1.
8 Gordon Braden, Renaissance Tragedy and the Senecan Tradition: Anger™s
Privilege (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1985), 23.
9 See Braden for an excellent survey of Seneca™s in¬‚uence on Renaissance
drama.
10 See De Ira, 3.4.1“3 for a similar description of one possessed by anger.
11 This is the translation of Wentworth Dillon, Earl of Roscommon, as reprinted
in Selected Poems of Horace (New York: Walter Black, 1947), lines 119“27.
12 For more on the rhetoric of anger, see W. S. Anderson, “Juvenal and
Quintilian,” Essays on Roman Satire (Princeton: Princeton University Press,
1982), 396“486, esp. 423ff.; and S. H. Braund, Beyond Anger: A Study of
Juvenal™s Third Book of Satires (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,
1988), 1“23.
13 Seneca, Tragedies, trans. Frank J. Miller (New York: G. P. Putnam™s Sons,
1917), lines 406“25.
14 Longinus, On the Sublime, trans. W. Rhys Roberts, 2nd ed. (Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 1907), section 1, paragraph 4.
15 Neil Hertz, The End of the Line: Essays on Psychoanalysis and the Sublime
(New York: Columbia University Press, 1985), 1.
16 Thomas Weiskel, The Romantic Sublime: Studies in the Structure and Psychology
of Transcendence (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1976), 3.
17 E. R. Dodds, The Greeks and the Irrational (Berkeley: University of
California Press, 1951), 8“10.
18 W. H. Auden, The Dyer™s Hand, and Other Essays (London: Faber and Faber,
1975), 383.
19 Suzanne Guerlac, “Longinus and the Subject of the Sublime,” New Literary
History 16: 2 (1985), 275“89; 285.
20 See Samuel Holt Monk, The Sublime: A Study of Critical Theories in XVIII-
Century England (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1960), 10“85,
esp. 63; A. F. B. Clark, Boileau and the Classical Critics in England (Paris: E.
Champion, 1925), 361“79; and Roberts, Longinus, On the Sublime, 247“51.
Roberts notes: “It is a remarkable fact that the Treatise on the Sublime is not
quoted or mentioned by any writer of antiquity” (2), and Longinus had no
reputation at all in England until the eighteenth century.
Notes to pages 26“29
180
21 “The Author™s Apology for Heroic Poetry and Poetic Licence,” Essays of John
Dryden, ed. W. P. Ker, 2 vols. (Oxford: Clarendon, 1926), i : 179.
22 See also Thomas R. Preston™s Not in Timon™s Manner: Feeling, Misanthropy,
and Satire in Eighteenth-Century England (University, AL: University of
Alabama Press, 1975) for a survey of the importance of the Juvenalian
“benevolent misanthrope” to the satire of the period.
23 Neill Rudd and W. B. Carnochan have both pointed out that such a view of
Juvenal™s scabrous persona involves some selective perception; see Niall
Rudd, “Dryden on Horace and Juvenal,” University of Toronto Quarterly 32
(1963), 155“69; and W. B. Carnochan, “Satire, Sublimity, and Sentiment:
Theory and Practice in Post-Augustan Satire,” PMLA 85 (1970), 260“67, on
the selective perception of Juvenal™s persona. Furthermore, William
Anderson, who has written several valuable studies on anger in Juvenal,
holds that, for his Roman audience, the Juvenalian satirist was “an essentially
comic dramatic type,” a purposefully exaggerated and inconsistent caricature
(Essays on Roman Satire, xiii).
24 Inez G. Scott, The Grand Style in the Satires of Juvenal (Northampton, MA:
[s.n.], 1927), 48.
25 Rudd agrees that Juvenal™s “object is to provoke the same rage, indignation,
and disgust as he feels himself ” (“Dryden on Horace and Juvenal,” 160). E. J.
Kenney is even more convinced that Juvenal intends “to induce his own
feelings of indignation, horror, disgust, contempt, pity, amusement,
sympathy. He has survived and been read . . . because of his success
in communicating emotion.” See E. J. Kenney, ed., Latin Literature
(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1982), 718.
26 Quoted in Howard Weinbrot, Alexander Pope and the Traditions of Formal
Verse Satire (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1982), 323.
27 This argument has a metrical basis as well. Methodical, regular verse of
the kind Pope and Horace championed, was deemed by followers of
Juvenal from the Renaissance onward (such as Marston and Cleveland)
incompatible with the angry passions of satire.
28 X. J. Kennedy, ed., The Tigers of Wrath: Poems of Hate, Anger, and Invective
(Athens: University of Georgia Press, 1981), 11.
29 Donald Davie, Trying to Explain (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press,
1979), 61“2.
30 On comic and tragic satire, see Harold Weber, “˜Comic Humour and Tragic
Spirit™: The Augustan Distinction between Horace and Juvenal,” Classical
and Modern Literature: A Quarterly 1:4 (1981), 275“89; and “˜The Jester and
the Orator™: A Re-Examination of the Comic and Tragic Satirist,” Genre 13
(1980), 171“85.
31 “To Matthew Prior, Esq.: Upon the Roman Satirists (1721),” in The Critical
Works of John Dennis, ed. Edward Niles Hooker, 2 vols. (Baltimore: Johns
Hopkins University Press, 1943), i i :219.
32 John Milton, Paradise Lost, ed. Alastair Fowler (New York: Longman, 1971),
v . 860.
Notes to pages 29“38 181
33 Harold Bloom, Poets of Sensibility and the Sublime (New York: Chelsea
House, 1986), 8. On sensibility and its relation to Romanticism, both in
terms of literature and politics, see Jerome J. McGann, The Poetics of
Sensibility: A Revolution in Poetic Style (Oxford: Clarendon, 1996); Chris
Jones, Radical Sensibility; and Janet Todd, Sensibility: An Introduction (New
York: Methuen, 1986).
34 Quoted in David Morris, The Religious Sublime: Christian Poetry and Critical
Tradition in 18th-Century England (Lexington: University Press of Kentucky,
1972), 108“09.
35 See Monk, The Sublime, 44“54; and Morris, The Religious Sublime, 47“78 on
Dennis.
36 The Works of William Collins, ed. Richard Wendorf and Charles Ryskamp
(Oxford: Clarendon, 1979), 27“29. Future citations to Collins™s poetry will
refer to page and line numbers in this edition.
37 Steven Knapp, Personi¬cation and the Sublime (Cambridge, MA: Harvard
University Press, 1985), 4.
38 Adam Smith, Theory of Moral Sentiments, ed. D. D. Raphael and A. L.
Mac¬e (Oxford: Clarendon, 1976), 48.
39 Lord Kames, Elements of Criticism, 3 vols. (London, 1762; reprint: New York:
Johnson Reprint Corp., 1967), i : 221.
40 Edmund Spenser, The Faerie Queene, ed. Thomas P. Roche, Jr. (New York:
Penguin, 1978). Future citations to this text will be by book, canto, and
stanza from this edition.
41 Armstrong: Miscellanies (1770): A Machine-Readable Transcript (Chadwyck-
Healey English Poetry Full-Text Database, 1992), lines 414“28. Coleridge
owned a copy of this work.
42 Gray and Collins: Poetical Works, ed. Austin Lane Poole (New York: Oxford
University Press, 1937), 1:1:1“8.
43 That this speech is one made more in bitter sorrow than anger is supported
by James Macpherson™s appropriation of it in his Ossianic Comala, in which
Comala, mourning the apparent death of her beloved Fingal at the hands of
“the king of the world,” exclaims: “Confusion pursue thee over thy plains!
Ruin overtake thee, thou king of the world! Few be thy steps to the grave;
and let one virgin mourn thee! Let her be like Comala, tearful in the days of
her youth.” See The Poems of Ossian, ed. Malcolm Laing, 2 vols. (Edinburgh:
Archibald Constable, 1805; rpt. AMS Press, 1974), i : 221.
44 Patricia Meyer Spacks, The Poetry of Vision: Five Eighteenth-Century Poets
(Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1967), 218.
45 Cowper: Verse and Letters, ed. Brian Spiller (Cambridge, MA: Harvard
University Press, 1968), book 3, 443, lines 58“70.

2 burke, coleridge, and the rage for indignation
1 Edmund Burke, Letters . . . on the Proposals for Peace with the Regicide
Directory of France (London: F. & C. Rivington, 1796); 123“24.
Notes to pages 38“42
182
2 Juvenal, “First Satire,” The Satires, 3“8; lines 30“31.
3 John Milton, Paradise Lost, i v .1; Homer, Odyssey, trans. Alexander Pope
(London, 1802), 12: 436.
4 “Introduction,” Gregory Claeys, ed., Political Writings of the 1790s, 8 vols.
(London: Pickering and Chatto, 1995), i : xviii. This valuable edition reprints
128 titles from the 1790s, focusing on the years 1791“95. As Claeys notes,
G. T. Pendleton estimates that approximately 4,000 publications appeared in
Britain during these few years on questions related to the Revolution. See
“Towards a Bibliography of the Re¬‚ections and Rights of Man Controversy,”
Bulletin of Research in the Humanities 85 (1982), 65“103.
5 Mark Philp, “The Fragmented Ideology of Reform,” in The French
Revolution and British Popular Politics, ed. Philp (Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, 1991), 50“77; 72.
6 As John Barrell writes, “Virtually without exception, those who reply to the
Re¬‚ections in the early years of the decade, even if they admire Burke™s
imagination, represent it as inappropriately exercised” “ that is, overheated
and intemperate; see “˜Fire, Famine, and Slaughter,™” Huntington Library
Quarterly 63:3 (2000), 277“98; 277, incorporated in Imagining the Death of
the King: Figurative Treason, Fantasies of Regicide, 1793“1796 (Oxford: Oxford
University Press, 2000).
7 Re¬‚ections on the Revolution in France (1790), in The Writings and Speeches
of Edmund Burke, gen. ed., Paul Langford, 9 vols. (Oxford: Clarendon, 1989“
96), i :117, i :122. Burke uses the term “indignation” frequently in the
Re¬‚ections to describe the emotions of right-thinking men in the face of the
events in France.
8 “Satire i ,” The Satires, lines 11, 15.
9 On Seneca™s reputation amongst the Romantics, see Evelyn A. Hanley,
Stoicism in Major English Poets of the Nineteenth Century (New York: Haskell
House, 1964).
10 Seneca, De Ira, book 1, section 1.1
11 William S. Anderson, Anger in Juvenal and Seneca (Berkeley: University of
California Press, 1964), 160; 170.
12 Gary Dyer, British Satire and the Politics of Style, 42ff. (for a survey of
Juvenal™s reputation in this period, see p. 2); W. B. Carnochan, “Satire,
Sublimity, and Sentiment,” 260“67; and William Kupersmith, “Juvenal as
Sublime Satirist,” 508“11.
13 Robert Whitford, “Juvenal in England 1750“1802,” Philological Quarterly 7:1
(1928), 9“16; 9.
14 Gilbert Highet, Juvenal the Satirist (Oxford: Clarendon, 1954), 219“20.
15 Mary Wollstonecraft, A Vindication of the Rights of Men (2nd ed., 1790), in
Political Writings of the 1790s, ed. Claeys, i : 11; i : 14.
16 Weinbrot, Alexander Pope and the Traditious of Formal Verse Satire, xiv“xv.
17 For more on Paine™s rhetorical use of indignatio, see Jeffrey Walker,
“Enthymemes of Anger in Cicero and Thomas Paine,” in Constructing
Notes to pages 42“47 183
Rhetorical Education, ed. Marie Secor and Davida Charney (Carbondale:
Southern Illinois University Press, 1992), 357“81.
18 Quoted in the “Introduction” to Tom Paine™s Rights of Man, ed. Gregory
Claeys (Indianapolis: Hackett, 1992), xvii.
19 Edmund Burke, A Discourse on the Love of our Country (5th ed., 1790), in
Political Writings of the 1790s, ed. Claeys, i i i : 3“22; 21.
20 Isaac Kramnick, The Rage of Edmund Burke: Portrait of an Ambivalent
Conservative (New York: Basic Books, 1977), 3, 26.
21 M. Dorothy George et al., Catalogue of Political and Personal Satires . . .
in the British Museum, 11 vols. (London: Trustees of the British Museum,
1870“1954), v i : 792“93.
22 Tom Furniss, Edmund Burke™s Aesthetic Ideology (Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, 1993), 129.
23 In a similar vein, David Williams (1737“1816) describes Burke™s method of
writing in the Re¬‚ections: “He has taken large draughts of the ¬ery spirit
produced by his own infernal alembic “ and in the paroxysms of holy fury,
applied every infamous and horrible epithet of the English language, to . . .
the Philosophers and Economistes of France”; Lessons to a Young Prince,
By an Old Statesman (1791), in Political Writings of the 1790s, ed. Claeys, i i i :
23“110; 97.
24 Thomas Christie, Letters on the Revolution in France (1790), in Political
Writings of the 1790s, ed. Claeys, i : 154“269; 276. Paine objects to Burke in
similar terms in Rights of Man i : “There is scarcely an epithet of abuse to be
found in the English language, with which Mr. Burke has not loaded the
French Nation . . . The pen is let loose in a frenzy of passion” (12).
25 Strictures on the Letters of the Right Hon. Mr. Burke . . . (1791), in Political
Writings of the 1790s, ed. Claeys, i i : 183“257; 257.
26 In another anonymous pamphlet from the period, Moderate Politics, Devoted
to Britons (London, 1791), we ¬nd the author adopting this metaphor
precisely: “I take my stand between the two hostile bands, who have each
sounded the trumpet of de¬ance” (viii).
27 Francois Furet, Interpreting the French Revolution, 61.
¸
28 See “Introduction,” note 10, for critics and historians who have traced the
discursive and cultural forms of the French Revolution.
29 Liu, Wordsworth, 159.
30 See also Jacques Guilhaumou, “Fragments of a Discourse of Denunciation
(1789“1794),” in The French Revolution and the Creation of Modern Political
Culture. Volume 4: The Terror, ed. Keith Michael Baker (Oxford: Elsevier
Science, 1994), 139“55. Guilhaumou ¬nds that “denunciation and censure
constituted the privileged and permanent domain of pamphlet literature
´
from 1789 on. A glance at newspaper titles “ the Denonciateur National, the
Censeur Patriote, the Furet Parisien, etc. “ makes this clear” (140).
31 Mark Philp, “Introduction,” The French Revolution and British Popular
Politics, 1“17; 13.
Notes to pages 48“52
184
32 Yet see Colin Lucas, “Revolutionary Violence, the People, and the Terror,” in
The French Revolution and the Creation of Modern Political Culture. Volume 4:
The Terror, ed. Baker, 57“79, in which Lucas describes the ways that the
revolutionaries tried to separate “good” violence from “bad” through the use
of rhetoric, in an attempt to avoid the extremities of the Terror.
33 Benjamin Bous¬eld, Observations on the Right Hon. Edmund Burke™s Pamphlet
. . . (1791), in Political Writings of the 1790s, ed. Claeys, i i : 92“117; 93.
34 Joseph Priestly, Letters to the Right Honourable Edmund Burke . . . (3rd ed.,
1792), in Political Writings of the 1790s, ed. Claeys, i i : 316“85; 321.
35 Short Observations on the Right Honourable Edmund Burke™s Re¬‚ections (1790),
in Political Writings of the 1790s, ed. Claeys, i : 59“120; 63, 71.
36 “Drunk with choler” is the Shakespearean formulation, applied to Hotspur
in I Henry IV (i .iii.129). It is interesting that anger can be ascribed to three of
the “humors,” perhaps indicating a deep-rooted association of that emotion
with bodily imbalances.
37 Catharine MaCaulay, Observations on the Re¬‚ections of the Right Hon.
Edmund Burke . . . (1790), in Political Writings of the 1790s, ed. Claeys,
i :121“53; 121.
38 Charles Piggot, Strictures on the new Political Tenets of the Rt. Honourable
Edmund Burke (1791), in Political Writings of the 1790s, ed. Claeys, i i : 118“53;
134“5.
39 Desultory Thoughts on the Atrocious Cruelties of the French Nation (London,
1794), vii.
40 The Beauties of the Anti-Jacobin; or Weekly Examiner (London, 1799), 100.
41 The Argus; or General Observer, ed. Sampson Perry (London, 1789“91;
1795“96), November 1795, 44.
42 Ronald Paulson, Representations of Revolution 1789“1820 (New Haven: Yale
University Press, 1983), 97“99.
43 See Liu, Wordsworth, 140ff, on the depiction of the French Revolutionaries as
“savage” and “bestial.”
44 William Wordsworth, “The 1805 Prelude,” in The Prelude 1799, 1805, 1850, ed.
Wordsworth, Abrams, Stephen Gill, 10: 80“02.
45 Edward Young, A Vindication of Providence: or, A True Estimate of Human
Life, ed. and intro. David R. Anderson, reprint of the 2nd ed., 1728 (Los
Angeles: Wm. Andrews Clark Memorial Library, 1984), 28.
46 Sir Walter Scott, The Life of Napoleon Buonaparte, Emperor of the French, 3
vols. (New York: Collins, Keese, 1839; orig. pub. London, 1827), i : 49.
47 The Tomahawk! or Censor General (London, 1795“96), 84 (1796), 336.
48 John Bowles, Re¬‚ections at the Conclusion of the War . . . (2nd ed., 1801), in
Political Writings of the 1790s, ed. Claeys, v i i i : 369“416; 400.
49 Paine is also associated with the diabolic; see Intercepted Correspondence from
Satan to Citizen Paine (1792), in Political Writings of the 1790s, ed. Claeys, v :
412“13.
50 “The Warning,” The True Briton (London, 1793“1803), no. 112 (May 21,
1793).
Notes to pages 52“60 185
51 T. Moore, Address to the Inhabitants of Great Britain on the Dangerous and
Destructive Tendency of the French System of Liberty and Equality (1793), in
Political Writings of the 1790s, ed. Claeys, v i i i : 28“48; 48.
52 Michael Scrivener, “John Thelwall™s Political Ambivalence,” in Radicalism
and Revolution in Britain, 1775“1848, ed. Michael T. Davis (London:
Macmillan, 2000), 69“83; 78.
53 “Sober Re¬‚ections on the Seditious and In¬‚ammatory Letter of . . . Burke, to
a Noble Lord (1796),” in The Politics of English Jacobinism: Writings of John
Thelwall, ed. Gregory Claeys (University Park: Pennsylvania State University
Press, 1995), 329“87; 332.
54 James Nohraberg, The Analogy of the Faerie Queene, 301.
55 These lines are from a 1792 satire by W. Roscoe, quoted in The Writings and
Speeches of Edmund Burke, v i i i : 26.
56 For this speech by Thelwall, see Political Writings of the 1790s, ed. Claeys, i v :
383“402.
57 Simon Bainbridge, British Poetry and the Revolutionary and Napoleonic
Wars, 79.
58 Notebooks of Samuel Taylor Coleridge, ed. Kathleen Coburn and Merton
Christensen, 4 vols. (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1957“1990), i :
1577.
59 Unless otherwise noted, all citations to Coleridge™s poetry refer to the Poetical
Works, edited by J. C. C. Mays as volume x v i of The Collected Works of
Samuel Taylor Coleridge (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2001).
60 Collected Letters, ed. E. L. Griggs, 6 vols. (Oxford: Clarendon, 1959“71),
i i : 483.
61 Richard Holmes, for example, calls the poem “a ghastly outpouring of
suppressed guilt and fears,” in Coleridge: Early Visions, 1772“1804 (New York:
Pantheon, 1989), 355.
62 The Prose Works of William Wordsworth, ed. W. J. B. Owen and J. W. Smyser
(Oxford: Clarendon, 1974), i i i : 81“82; my emphasis. The poem quoted here
is Waller™s “Of Love” (1645).
63 Oxford English Dictionary, 2nd ed., ed. J. P. Simpson and E. S. C. Weiner, 20
vols. (Oxford: Clarendon, 1989), x i i i : 117.
64 One exception involves a new use of the term “rage” that began in the late
eighteenth century: the phrase “all the rage” enters the English language in
1785. Coleridge uses the term in this sense in an early poem, “The Taste of
the Times,” and we ¬nd the young Byron, for example, writing to a friend in
1811 that Coleridge himself “is a kind of rage at present” (BLJ, 2:149). The
new usage reveals further links in English consciousness between rage and the
violent passions of crowds, and thus falls in line with newly emergent
conceptions regarding anger in the Revolutionary and Napoleonic eras.
65 Coleridge, Shorter Works and Fragments, i i : 1419“53; 1431“32; 1440.
66 Coleridge might also have noted that Gabriel and his “angelic squadron
bright / Turned ¬ery red” with the increase of their level of anger against
Satan (Paradise Lost 4: 977“8). See also Seneca, De Ira, i : 20:1“3.
Notes to pages 61“71
186
67 Coleridge, Biographia Literaria, ed. James Engell and W. Jackson Bate, 2
vols. (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1983), i : 38; i : 31.
68 On this episode, see Richard Holmes, Coleridge: Darker Re¬‚ections,
1804“1834 (New York: Pantheon, 1998), 83ff.

3 in¬‚ammatory reactions
1 The Parliamentary History of England, from the earliest period to the year 1803
(London: Hansard, 1814), i x x : 523.
2 On the rhetoric of “contagion, plague, disease, intoxication, pollution,
poison, venom, [and] con¬‚agration” in the discourse of the Revolution
debates, see Don Herzog, Poisoning the Minds of the Lower Orders (Princeton:
Princeton University Press, 1998), 97ff.
3 “Address to the King [January 1777],” The Writings and Speeches of Edmund
Burke, i i i : 264“65.
4 Parliamentary History of England, x v i i i : 695“96.
5 L. J. Rather, Addison and the White Corpuscles: An Aspect of Nineteenth-
Century Biology (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1972), 5; John
Hunter, Treatise on the Blood, In¬‚ammation, and Gun-shot Wounds (London,
1794).
6 Peter H. Niebyl, “The English Bloodletting Revolution, or Modern
Medicine Before 1850,” Bulletin of the History of Medicine 51 (1977), 464“83.
7 W. F. Bynum, “Cullen and the State of Fevers in Britain, 1760“1820,” Medical
History, Supplement 9 (1981), 135“47; 145.
8 For more on the ways in which political attiudes affected medical concepts
and practice during this period, see Ian A. Burney, “Medicine in the Age of
Reform,” Rethinking the Age of Reform: Britain 1780“1850 (Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 2003), 163“81.
9 “Letter to William Elliot (1795),” Writings and Speeches of Edmund Burke, i x :
40“41.
10 On Burke and medical metaphors for the French Revolution, see Tom
Furniss, Edmund Burke™s Aesthetic Ideology, 122“37.
11 Richard Price, A Discourse on the Love of our Country (5th ed., 1790), in
Political Writings of the 1790s, ed. Claeys, i i i : 3“22; 22.
12 Quoting the 1850 Prelude from The Prelude 1799, 1805, 1850, ed. Wordsworth,
Abrams, and Gill, 6: 445“7.
13 Alan Liu, Wordsworth, 178.
14 Wordsworth, Descriptive Sketches (1793), in Wordsworth: Poetical Works,
ed. Thomas Hutchinson (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1981), 481; lines
774“77.
15 The Early Letters of William and Dorothy Wordsworth, ed. Ernest De
Selincourt (Oxford: Clarendon, 1935), 121.
16 Seneca, De Ira, 1.1.3“5.
17 The Argus, October 1795, 4.
18 Ibid., February 13, 1796; 346.
Notes to pages 72“81 187
19 Sherwin™s Political Register (London, 1817“19), April 1, 1817; 12.
20 Hone™s Reformist Register, and Weekly Commentary (London, 1817), April 5,
1817; 326.
21 Robert Southey, “[Review of Propositions for ameliorating the Condition of the
Poor . . . by P. Calquhoun],” Quarterly Review 8 (December 1812), 348“51.
22 S. T. Coleridge, Collected Letters, i : 115; i : 145. Coleridge would republish
this address in The Friend (1818); see The Friend, 2 vols., ed. B. E. Rooke
(Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1969), i : 337“8.
23 S. T. Coleridge, Lectures 1795, On Politics and Religion, ed. Lewis Patton and
Peter Mann (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1969), 48“49.
24 The Prose Works of William Wordsworth, i : 321.
25 During the Napoleonic wars, Coleridge wrote in terms that echo
Wordsworth™s, “Of the French Revolution I can give my thoughts most
adequately in words of scripture: ˜A great and strong wind rent the
mountains, and brake in pieces the rocks before the Lord; but the Lord was
not in the wind.™” The Political Thought of Samuel Taylor Coleridge, Part 2
(London: Jonathan Cape, 1938), 40.
26 Quoted in Joel Morkan, “Wrath and Laughter: Milton™s Ideas of Satire,”
Studies in Philology 69 (1972), 475“95; 479.
27 Quoted in Jeanne Moskal, Blake, Ethics, and Forgiveness (Tucaloosa:
University of Alabama Press, 1994), 120.
28 A survey of Blake™s uses of “revenge” and its cognates reveals its
overwhelming association with things Blake abhors: secrecy, hypocrisy,
cruelty, and self-destruction. In the fragment, “then she bore pale Desire,”
Revenge is the child of Strife and the grandchild of Envy (E, 446“48). In
“The Grey Monk,” the “hand of Vengeance” succeeds in crushing “the
Tyrants Head,” only to become “a Tyrant in his stead” (E, 489“90);
see David Erdman, Blake: Prophet Against Empire, 416“20, for a discussion
of this poem in relation to revolution and reaction in France. Finally,
in Blake™s late work, The Ghost of Abel (1822), the world rejoices
at the banishment of a vengeful Abel, who calls himself “the Accuser &
Avenger / Of blood” whose “soul in fumes of blood / Cries for vengeance
(E, 270“72). Revenge seemed to Blake a development directly opposed to
imaginative and creative action.
29 Ferdinand Brunot, Histoire de la Langue Francaise des Origines a 1900, 3rd ed.,
`
¸
13 vols. (Paris: A. Colin, 1924), i x : 843“44.
30 George Lefebvre, The French Revolution, trans. Elizabeth Moss Evanson, 2
vols. (London: Routledge, 1962“64), i : 139.
31 J. M. Thompson, The French Revolution (New York: Oxford University
Press, 1945), 517.
32 Oxford English Dictionary, x i i i : 257.
33 Northrop Frye, Fearful Symmetry: A Study of William Blake (Princeton:
Princeton University Press, 1972), 401.
34 Emanuel Swedenborg, The Wisdom of the Angels Concerning Divine Love and
Divine Wisdom [trans. N. Tucker] (London, 1788), 55“56.
Notes to pages 82“89
188
35 Milton also ends with a scene of apocalyptic wrath, as “Los listens to the Cry
of the Poor Man: his Cloud / Over London in volume terri¬c, low bended in
anger,” as “All Animals upon the Earth are prepard in all their strength / To
go forth to the Great Harvest & Vintage of the Nations” (E, 144).
36 Homer, Iliad, trans. Richmond Lattimore (Chicago: University of Chicago
Press, 1951), Book 1, lines 44“49.
37 Compare Blake™s notebook poem, “Day,” which employs a similar image:
“The Sun arises in the East, / Cloth™d in robes of blood & gold; / Swords &
spears & wrath increast / All around his bosom roll™d, / Crown™d with
warlike ¬res & raging desires” (E, 473).
´
38 Francois-Rene Chateaubriand, The Genius of Christianity, trans. and ed.
¸
Charles I. White (New York: H. Fertig, 1976), 357.
39 John Milton, Paradise Lost, Book 3, lines 80“87.
40 Morton Paley, Energy and the Imagination: A Study of the Development of
Blake™s Thought (Oxford: Clarendon, 1970), 45.
41 Vincent A. De Luca, Words of Eternity: Blake and the Poetics of the Sublime
(Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1991), 55.
42 Longinus, On the Sublime, 59.

4 provocation and the plot of anger
1 Philip Fisher, “Thinking about Killing: Hamlet and the Paths among the
Passions,” Raritan (Summer 1991) 43“77; 57.
2 See chapter 2. On this aspect of medical history and its relation to
revolutionary ideologies, see Peter H. Niebyl, “The English Bloodletting
Revolution,”; and W. F. Bynum, “Cullen and the State of Fevers in Britain,
1760“1820.”
3 Jeremy Horder, Provocation and Responsibility (Oxford: Clarendon, 1992), 86.
4 Peter Marshall, William Godwin (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1984),
155; and Gary Kelly, The English Jacobin Novel 1780“1805 (Oxford:
Clarendon, 1976), 211.
5 See Ian Ousby, “˜My Servant Caleb™: Godwin™s Caleb Williams and
the Political Trials of the 1790s,” University of Toronto Quarterly 44 (1974),
47“55; Marilyn Butler, “Godwin, Burke, and Caleb Williams,” Essays in
Criticism 32:3 (July 1982), 237“57; Kelvin Everest and Gavin Edwards,
“William Godwin™s Caleb Williams: Truth and ˜Things as They Are™,” in
1789: Reading Writing Revolution, ed. Francis Barker et al. (Essex: University
of Essex, 1982); Ronald Paulson, Representations of Revolution, 230“39; and
Kenneth Graham, The Politics of Narrative: Ideology and Social Change in
William Godwin™s “Caleb Williams” (New York: AMS Press, 1990).
6 For the only other consideration of Alexander™s function in Godwin™s novel,
see Nancy A. Mace, “Hercules and Alexander: Classical Allusion in Caleb
Williams,” English Language Notes 25:3 (1988), 39“44.
7 S. T. Coleridge, Biographia Literaria, i : 10.
Notes to pages 89“92 189
8 William Godwin, The Adventures of Caleb Williams or Things as They Are, ed.
David McCracken (New York: Norton, 1977), 109.
9 The relevant passage is Prideaux™s judgment that “in Reality, were all his
actions duly estimated, [Alexander] could deserve no other Character, than
that of the great Cut-throat of the age in which he liv™d”; Caleb paraphrases
several other of Prideaux™s comments in the conversation that follows. See
Humphrey Prideaux, The Old and New Testaments Connected in the History of
the Jews and Neighbouring Nations, 2 vols. (London: 1716“19), i : 700ff.
10 Although Caleb mentions Jonathan Wild in this passage, he may also be
referring to Fielding™s “A Dialogue between Alexander the Great and
Diogenes the Cynic,” Miscellanies by Henry Fielding, Esq., vol. 1, ed. Henry
Knight Miller (Middletown, CT: Wesleyan University Press, 1972), 226ff.
The Life of Mr. Jonathan Wild the Great was published as volume i i i of the
Miscellanies, and does begin with disparaging remarks on Alexander, whom
Fielding despised.
11 William Godwin, Enquiry Concerning Political Justice, ed. F. E. L. Priestly, 3
vols. (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1946), i : 8.
12 Mace notes similarly that “The ambiguous reputation of Alexander is closely
related to Caleb™s confused attitude towards Falkland” (“Hercules and
Alexander,” 42). Furthermore, Caleb and Falkland here seem to present the
two halves of Godwin™s own view of Alexander. As Rudolf Storch says of
Caleb and Falkland, “the two characters are not separate and interacting, but
aspects of one and the same soul.” Of course, this is true insofar as the “soul”
is Godwin™s. See “Metaphors of Private Guilt and Social Rebellion in
Godwin™s Caleb Williams,” ELH 34:2 (1967), 188“207; 192.
13 Mace elides all of these distinctions regarding Tyrrel when she writes, “Like
Alexander, Falkland is capable of turning on those most loyal to him and
destroying them when they least expect it” (“Hercules and Alexander,” 41).
However, her point is well taken in regard to my identi¬cation of Caleb with
Clitus.
14 Godwin owned Plutarch™s Lives of Noble Grecians and Romanes, trans.
Thomas North (1612), and Curtius™ Actes of the Great Alexander, trans. John
Brende (1561). See Seamus Deane, ed., “William Godwin,” Sale Catalogues of
Libraries of Eminent Persons, vol. v i i i (London: Mansell, 1973), 296, 316.
Godwin was admittedly reading Plutarch in the early 1790s (Marshall,
William Godwin, 87). For the relevant passages in later editions, see Plutarch,
“Alexander,” Plutarch™s Lives, trans. and ed. A. H. Clough and W. W.
Goodwin, 5 vols. (New York: Centenary Co., 1905), i v : 226; and Quintus
Curtius Rufus, The History of Alexander the Great, trans. Peter Pratt, 2 vols.,
rev. ed. (London: 1821), i i : 217. Arrian is the other important historian of this
episode of Alexander™s life; see William Harris, Restraining Rage, 235“37.
15 Euripides, Children of Heracles, Hippolytus, Andromache, Hecuba, trans. and
ed. David Kovacs (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1995), 337
(lines 693ff.).
Notes to pages 94“99
190
16 Karen Weisman, “Provocation and Person-hood: Romanticism In Extremis,”
European Romantic Review 9:2 (Spring 1998),177“86; 182.
17 A Complete Collection of State Trials¦from the Earliest Period to the Present
Time, ed. T. B. Howell, vol. x i (London, 1813), 1224.
18 This was Thomas De Quincey™s reading of the case, as he put it in an essay on
Godwin written from a Victorian vantage: “no man could severely have
blamed [Falkland], nor would our English law have severely punished him, if,
in the frenzy of his agitation, he had seized a poker and laid his assailant dead
upon the spot. Such allowance does the natural feeling of men¦make for
human in¬rmity when tried to extremity by devilish provocation.” “William
Godwin,” in The Collected Writings of Thomas De Quincey, ed. David
Masson, 21 vols. (New York: AMS Press, 1968), x i : 329.
19 Plutarch, “Concerning the Cure of Anger,” Essays and Miscellanies, ed. A. H.
Clough and W. W. Goodwin, 5 vols. (New York: Colonial Co., 1905), i : 43.
20 Samuel Johnson, in “The Folly of Anger,” in The Rambler, ed. W. J. Bate
and A. B. Strauss, 3 vols. (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1969), i : 67.
21 S. T. Coleridge, Notebooks, i : 979; “Recantation, Illustrated in the Story of
The Mad Ox,” Complete Poetical Works of Samuel Taylor Coleridge, ed. E. H.
Coleridge, 2 vols. (Oxford: Clarendon, 1912), i : 301.
22 Seneca, De Ira, 2.12.6; 3.5.4“5. It is worth noting that Seneca cites the
Alexander“Clitus story in illustration of kings whose tyrannous anger
corrupted their judgement (3.17.1).
23 Edward Young, A Vindication of Providence, 28“29.
24 It should be remembered that Alexander consciously adopted as a role model
Homer™s Achilles, the original of all reputation-conscious, angry men whose
rage leads to tragic consequences.
25 S. T. Coleridge, Collected Letters, i : 145.
26 On Godwin™s fear of the consequences of the “progressive polarization of
political con¬‚ict” in England of the 1790s, see Mark Philp, “Thompson,
Godwin, and the French Revolution,” History Workshop Journal 39 (1995),
89“101; 93.
27 Coleridge, Lectures 1795, 283; 285.
28 Senator x i i i (1795), 213.
29 Quoted in Coleridge, Lectures 1795, 286.
30 James Gillray™s famous image entitled French Liberty and British Slavery
(1792) illustrates this conservative fantasy, depicting a plump British subject
dining on a mammoth slab of beef while exclaiming, “Oh! this cursed
Ministry¦They™re making Slaves of us all, & starving us to Death!” His
outrage at the government seems to be a mere echo of radical rhetoric (linked
to French principles), bearing no relation to the physical world wherein
insurrectionary violence takes place.
31 Coleridge is also at pains to identify the mob as “ignorant” and their
indignation as “misplaced.” In so doing, he reveals the con¬‚icted attitude of
the middle-class radicals towards popular anger, an energy they both courted
and feared.
Notes to pages 100“106 191
32 Paulson, Representations of Revolution, 49, 55.
33 A. J. Greimas, “On Anger: A Lexical Semantic Study,” in On Meaning:
Selected Writings in Semiotic Theory, trans. Paul J. Perron and Frank H.
Collins (London: Frances Pinter, 1987), 148“64; 148“49.
34 For more on this episode, see Peter Marshall™s biography of Godwin, William
Godwin, 141ff.
35 William Godwin, Considerations on Lord Grenville™s and Mr. Pitt™s Bills,
concerning treasonable and seditious practicies, and unlawful assemblies
(London, 1794), 21.
36 See, for example, Maggie Kilgour, The Rise of the Gothic Novel (London:
Routledge, 1995), 47ff.; and Devendra P. Varma, The Gothic Flame (London:
Arthur Baker, 1957), 135ff.
37 Joanna Baillie, A Series of Plays: 1798, facsimile with an introduction by
Jonathan Wordsworth (New York: Woodstock, 1990), 10.
38 A suggestive psychoanalytic reading of anger in Mary Shelley™s life and
her novel is U. C. Knoep¬‚macher™s “Thoughts on the Aggression of
Daughters,” in The Endurance of Frankenstein, ed. George Levine and U. C.
Knoep¬‚macher (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1979), 88“119.
39 For a brief comparison of the novels, see A. D. Harvey, “ Frankenstein and
Caleb Williams,” Keats“Shelley Journal 29 (1988), 21“27.
40 James O™Rourke, “˜Nothing More Unnatural™: Mary Shelley™s Revision of
Rousseau,” ELH 56:3 (Fall 1989), 543“69; 550.
41 Lee Sterrenburg, “Mary Shelley™s Monster: Politics and Psyche in Franken-
stein,” in The Endurance of Frankenstein, ed. Levine and, Knoep¬‚macher,
143“71; 152“53.
42 Jane Blumberg, Mary Shelley™s Early Novels (London: Macmillan, 1993), 33.
43 Ronald Paulson, “Gothic Fiction and the French Revolution,” Journal of
English Literary History 48 (1981), 532“53; Anne Mellor, Mary Shelley: Her
Life, Her Fiction, Her Monsters (New York: Routledge, 1988), 82“83.
44 On this theme, see David Marshall, The Surprising Effects of Sympathy:
Marivaux, Diderot, Rosseau, and Mary Shelley (Chicago: University of
Chicago Press, 1988).
45 Mary Shelley, Frankenstein, or The Modern Prometheus: The 1818 Text, ed.
Marilyn Butler (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1993), 111.
46 Thomas Brown, Lectures on the Philosophy of the Human Mind, 20th ed.
(London: Tegg, 1860), 435.
47 An exception is Roswitha Burwick, “Goethe™s Werther and Mary Shelley™s
Frankenstein,” The Wordsworth Circle 24:1 (Winter 1993), 47“52. On the
importance of reading in the novel, see chapter 3 of Chris Baldick™s In
Frankenstein™s Shadow: Myth, Monstrosity, and Nineteenth-Century Writing
(Oxford: Clarendon, 1987), as well as Anne McWhir, “Teaching the Monster
to Read: Mary Shelley, Education and Frankenstein,” in The Educational
Legacy of Romanticism, ed. John Willinsky (Waterloo: Calgary Institute for
the Humanities, 1990), and Lee E. Heller, “ Frankenstein and the Cultural
Uses of the Gothic,” in Mary Shelley: Frankenstein, Case Studies in
Notes to pages 106“113
192
Contemporary Criticism, ed. Johanna M. Smith (Boston: Bedford, 1993),
325“43.
48 Johann Wolfgang von Goethe, The Sufferings of Young Werther and Elective
Af¬nities (The German Library, vol. 19), ed. Victor Lange (New York:
Continuum, 1990), 15.

5 shelley and the masks of anger
1 William Butler Yeats, A Vision (New York: Macmillan, 1965), 138“39.
2 Gerald McNeice, Shelley and the Revolutionary Idea (Cambridge, MA:
Harvard University Press, 1969), 38.
3 Donald Reiman, “Shelley and the Human Condition,” in Shelley: Poet and
Legislator of the World, ed. Betty T. Bennett and Stuart Curran (Baltimore:
Johns Hopkins University Press, 1996), 3“13; 6. For more on this quality of
Shelley™s imagination, see Art Young, Shelley and Nonviolence (The Hague:
Mouton, 1975).
4 Steven Jones, Shelley™s Satire: Violence, Exhortation, and Authority, 5, 15.
5 As G. Kim Blank has remarked, the “new picturing of Shelley” in
contemporary criticism often involves “dialectical constructs” such as this
one, being a study of Shelley™s attempts to “poetically and intellectually . . .
negotiate . . . con¬‚icting and contrary pulls”; see her “Introduction” to The
New Shelley (New York: St. Martin™s, 1991), 2. Similarly, William Keach, in
“Shelley and the Revolutionary Left,” in Evaluating Shelley, ed. Timothy
Clark and Jerrold E. Hogle (Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 1996),
75“90, makes a case for the “indeterminacy” of Shelley™s political poetry,
which combines “powerful political protest” and “complications and
contradictions and fears” (85“86).
¨
6 The formulation is based on Jurgen Habermas™s analysis of the changing role
of discourse in the formation of the bourgeois public sphere. See The
Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere.
7 On this theme in satire, see Howard Weinbrot, “Masked Men and Satire and
Pope: Toward a Historical Basis for the Eighteenth-Century Persona,”
Eighteenth Century Studies 16:3 (1983), 265“89, esp. 279ff.
8 Shelley™s Prose, or The Trumpet of a Prophecy, ed. David Lee Clark (New York:
New Amsterdam Press, 1988), 350.
9 For more on Shelley™s turn from Christianity to Grecian ideologies, see
Timothy Webb, “Shelley™s Religion of Joy,” Studies in Romanticism 15 (1976),
357“82.
10 Horace, Book i i , Satire i , The Satires of Horace in Latin and English, trans.
Philip Francis, 8th ed. (London, 1778), 147.
11 See for example Jonson™s “apologeticall Dialogue” to The Poetaster, ed.
Herbert S. Mallory, Yale Studies in English 27 (New York: Henry Holt,
1905), lines 145ff.; and Pope™s Horatian “Epilogue to the Satires. Dialogue 2,”
in Pope: Poetical Works, ed. Herbert Davis (Oxford: Oxford University Press,
1966), lines 415ff.
Notes to pages 113“115 193
12 Letters of Percy Bysshe Shelley, ed. Roger Ingpen, 2 vols. (New York: Scribner™s,
1909), i i : 383.
13 These lines survive only in an extremely rough“draft state. Quotations are
from the diplomatic transcription in Steven Jones, “Shelley™s Fragment of a
˜Satire upon Satire™: A Complete Transcription of the Text with Commen-
tary,” Keats“Shelley Journal 37 (1988), 136“63; 141. The “Parthian arrow”: the
ancient Parthians were known for shooting arrows from horseback while in
¬‚ight from their targets (the “Parthian shot”), and Shelley uses this as a ¬gure
for Southey™s cowardice. In a cancelled passage from the preface to Adonais,
Shelley again speaks of Southey as a “Parthian” who “discharged . . . the
shaft” at Keats and at Shelley himself. See “Adonais”: A Critical Edition, ed.
Anthony D. Knerr (New York: Columbia University Press, 1984), 187.
14 Jones, “Shelley™s Fragment,” 142.
15 In The Fictions of Satire (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1967),
Ronald Paulson makes the point that having a “task” or “job” is “a sine qua
non of satire” (4). It must endeavor to instruct and blame, and “to the extent
that satire attacks, it is rhetorical” (3).
16 For more on Shelley™s recasting of the romance tradition, see David Duff,
Romance and Revolution: Shelley and the Politics of a Genre (Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 1994); and Stuart Curran™s Poetic Form and
British Romanticism (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1986).
17 Edmund Spenser, The Faerie Queene, i .8.45.
18 John Milton, Paradise Lost, i v .800“19.
19 Whether Ithuriel™s tolerance makes him an ineffectual angel is a nice
question. His spear does unmask Satan, but it takes the “grave rebuke” and
angry threats of Zephon and Gabriel to evict Satan from the garden
(i v :844ff.). Like Ithuriel, Shelley wants to avoid anger while denouncing evil;
yet like Gabriel, he can also relish the thought of (someone else™s) “anger
in¬nite provoked” against his enemies (i v :916). Both amount to a rhetorical
deferral of personal rage.
20 See, for example, Earl R. Wasserman™s Shelley: A Critical Reading (Baltimore:
Johns Hopkins University Press, 1971), 260. I take my text from Shelley™s
Poetry and Prose, ed. Donald H. Reiman and Neil Fraistat, 2nd ed. (New
York: Norton, 2002), act I, line 53. All further quotations are from this
edition, unless otherwise speci¬ed.
21 This notoriously dif¬cult passage has been variously construed. Charles
Vivian, in “The One ˜Mont Blanc,™” in Shelley™s Poetry and Prose, ed. Donald
Reiman and Sharon Powers (New York : Norton, 1977), 575, and
Donald Reiman read the pronouns in lines 47“48 (“till the breast / From
which they ¬‚ed recalls them”) as referring to the “shadows” and “Ghosts” of
lines 45“46. Closer to my interpretation is Wasserman, in Shelley: A Critical
Reading, who sees that the pronouns refer to the “legion of wild thoughts,”
although he reads the “breast” of line 47 as belonging to the “One Mind,” not
the poet himself (227“28). In Shelley™s Mythmaking (Ithaca: Cornell
University Press, 1969), 29“30, Harold Bloom recognizes that the “breast”
Notes to pages 115“124
194
belongs to the poet, but asserts, like Vivian and Reiman, that the pronouns
“they” and “them” refer to the “shadows” and “Ghosts.”
22 For example, see his early poem, “To Death” (1810), which reads in part:
“Tremble, ye Kings whose luxury mocks the woe / That props thy column of
unnatural state, / Ye, the curses deep, tho™ low, / From misery™s tortured
breast that ¬‚ow, / Shall usher to your fate” (lines 39“43). My text is from
Shelley™s Esdaile Notebook, ed. K. N. Cameron (New York: Knopf, 1964),
74“76.
23 Quoted in N. I. White, Shelley, 2 vols. (New York: Knopf, 1940), i : 38.
24 For the background of this aspect of satire, see Robert C. Elliott™s Power of
Satire: Magic, Ritual, Art (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1960).
25 Matthew Arnold reports this oath as, “Here I swear, and as I break my oaths,
may In¬nity, Eternity, blast me “ here I swear that never will I forgive
intolerance”; see his essay “Shelley,” from the Essays in Criticism, Second
Series, in The Works of Matthew Arnold, 15 vols. (London: Macmillan, 1903),
i v : 151“85; 159.
26 Thomas Medwin, Conversations of Lord Byron, ed. Ernest J. Lovell
(Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1966), 238.
27 Maynard Mack, “The Muse of Satire,” Yale Review 41 (1951), 80“92; 91.
28 Jonathan Swift, Gulliver™s Travels, ed. Peter Dixon and John Chalker (New
York: Penguin, 1967), 325.
29 “To Sidmouth and Castlereagh: Similes for Two Political Characters
of 1819,” in Shelley: Poetical Works, ed. Thomas Hutchinson and G. M.
Matthews (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1991), 573, lines 16“20.
30 Steven Behrendt calls this poem and others like it “battle cries” that exhibit “a
savagery not ordinarily associated with Shelley”; Shelley and his Audiences
(Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 1989), 192.
31 Other Shelley poems that follow this trajectory are Queen Mab, “The Crisis,”
“Ode to Liberty,” and Hellas.
32 Wasserman (Shelley: A Critical Reading), Stuart Curran (Shelley™s Annus
Mirabilis: The Maturing of an Epic Vision [San Marino: Huntington Library,
1975]), Michael Scrivener (Radical Shelley: The Philosophical Anarchism and
Utopian Thought of Percy Bysshe Shelley [Princeton: Princeton University
Press, 1982]), and Morton Paley (“Apocapolitics: Allusion and Structure in
Shelley™s Mask of Anarchy,” Huntington Library Quarterly 54 [1991], 91“109)
all consider Shelley™s interest in masque and anti-masque. Other consider-
ations of Shelley™s use of the masque genre include Jerrold E. Hogle, Shelley™s
Process (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1988), 136“38; Richard Cronin,
Shelley™s Poetic Thoughts (New York: St. Martin™s, 1981), 51“53; and Kenneth
Neil Cameron, Shelley: The Golden Years (Cambridge, MA: Harvard
University Press, 1974), 346“47.
33 Stephen Orgel, The Illusion of Power: Political Theatre in the English
Renaissance (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1975), 40.
34 “Pleasure Reconciled to Virtue,” in Ben Jonson™s Plays and Masques, ed.
Robert M. Adams (New York: Norton, 1979), lines 105“12; my emphasis.
Notes to pages 124“133 195
35 On Milton™s transformation of the masque genre in this manner, see,
most recently, Barbara K. Lewalski, “Milton™s Comus and the Politics
of Masquing,” in The Politics of the Stuart Court Masque, ed. David
Bevington and Peter Holbrook (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,
1998), 296“320.
36 John Milton, “A Mask Presented at Ludlow Castle (Comus),” in Poems:
Selections, ed. Jonathan Goldberg and Stephen Orgel (Oxford: Oxford
University Press, 1994), 62, lines 696“98.
37 Curran observes that the poem accomplishes a “purposeful transcendence” of
its satiric beginnings by presenting, as the second half of the poem, “the main
masque, the codi¬cation of true authority and harmony through
the stripping of the masks of power that conceal its abuse” (Shelley™s Annus
Mirabilis, 191). Lisa Vargo agrees, and would include the monarchical
masque genre itself as one of those masks of power; she sees that Shelley™s use
of “the mask/masque pun subverts the pageantry and ¬‚attery of the masque”
by revealing the deception and corruption at the heart of English rule
(“Unmasking Shelley™s Mask of Anarchy,” English Studies in Canada 13:1
[1987], 49“64; 53). Jones sees this masque of unmasking as having analogues
in popular forms of satiric entertainment, such as the pantomime, “in which
dark grotesques are stopped, unmasked, and the scene transformed . . .
sometimes from the dark into a sublime display of an illuminated apotheosis”
(Shelley™s Satire, 116). As Jones puts it, the “stripping away of masks” is an
“inherently satiric” activity (115). Vargo and Jones also assert that Shelley
wrote the poem “in a spirit of aggression” (Vargo, “Unmasking Shelley™s
Mask of Anarchy,” 51) and indignation inspired by the Peterloo massacre
(Jones, Shelley™s Satire, 5; 99).
38 Carl Woodring, Politics and English Romantic Poetry (Cambridge, MA:
Harvard University Press, 1970), 266.
39 As Reiman and Fraistat note, the “bloodhounds” accompanying Castlereagh
recall “the pro-war advocates in Pitt™s administration,” who “had been
popularly known as the ˜bloodhounds™” (Shelley™s Poetry and Prose, 316n.2).
40 Reprinted in R. Brimley Johnson, ed., Shelley“Leigh Hunt: How Friendship
Made History, 2nd ed. (New York: Haskell House, 1972), 77.
41 W. B. Yeats, “The Philosophy of Shelley™s Poetry,” in Ideas of Good and Evil
(London: A. H. Bullen, 1907), 140“41.

6 byron™s curse
1 See for example Claude M. Fuess, Lord Byron as a Satirist in Verse (New
York: Columbia University Press, 1912); Frederick L. Beaty, Byron the Satirist ;
Thomas Lockwood, Post-Augustan Satire and Jerome Christensen, “Marino
Faliero and the Fault of Byron™s Satire,” Studies in Romanticism 24:3 (Fall
1985), 313“33. The title of Robert Gleckner™s important essay, “From Sel¬sh
Spleen to Equanimity: Byron™s Satires,” Studies in Romanticism 18 (1979),
173“205, de¬nes a trajectory of development towards the “equanimity and
Notes to pages 133“141
196
poise of spirit” of Don Juan and away from Byron™s angry poetry. Steven
Jones, in Satire and Romanticism, focuses on Byron™s “The Blues” and Don
Juan (which he connects to the pantomime), and Jane Stabler, in Byron,
Poetics, and History (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002),
concentrates on digression in the satires, especially Don Juan.
2 Jerome McGann, Towards a Literature of Knowledge (Chicago: University of
Chicago Press, 1989), 39.
3 Jerome McGann “Hero with a Thousand Faces: The Rhetoric of Byronism,”
Studies in Romanticism 31 (1992), 295“313; 295.
4 Jerome Christensen, Lord Byron™s Strength: Romantic Writing and Commercial
Society (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1993), xviii.
5 Jerome McGann “Byron and the Anonymous Lyric,” Byron Journal (1992),
27“45 ; “Byron and ˜the Truth in Masquerade,™” in Romantic Revisions, ed. R.
Brinkley and Keith Hanley, (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992),
191“209; “Rethinking Romanticism,” ELH 59:3 (1992), 735“54; “˜My Brain is
Feminine™: Byron and the Poetry of Deception,” in Byron: Augustan and
Romantic, ed. Andrew Rutherford (New York: St. Martin™s, 1990), 26“51; and
the chapter of Towards a Literature of Knowledge entitled “Lord Byron™s Twin
Opposites of Truth.” McGann™s individual essays on Byron have been revised
and collected in Byron and Romanticism, ed. James Soderholm (Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 2002).
6 Pope: Poetical Works, 337, lines. 326“33.
7 See John Kerrigan Revenge Tragedy: Aeschylus to Armageddon (Oxford:
Clarendon, 1996).
8 Charles Lamb, in Jonathan Bate, ed., The Romantics on Shakespeare (New
York: Penguin, 1991), 114.
9 Robert Langbaum, The Poetry of Experience: The Dramatic Monologue in the
Modern Literary Tradition (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1957; rpt.
1985), 72; 52.
10 See Suzanne Guerlac™s “Longinus and the Subject of the Sublime,” 285.
11 John Fawcett, An Essay on Anger, 2nd ed. (Philadelphia: W. Duane, 1809),
45“46.
12 Thomas Brown, Lectures on the Philosophy of the Human Mind, 20th ed.,
435.
13 Joanna Baillie, A Series of Plays: 1798, 10.
14 Thomas Carlyle, in“Burns (1828),” Critical and Miscellaneous Essays, 5 vols.
Centenary Edition (London, 1899), i : 269.
15 Thomas Carlyle, “Corn-Law Rhymes (1832),” in Critical and Miscellaneous
Essays, i i i : 153, 166.
16 Letter of April 28, 1832, quoted in Charles Richard Sanders, “The Byron
Closed in Sartor Resartus,” Studies in Romanticism 3 (1964), 77“108; 101.
17 Samuel Johnson, “The Folly of Anger,” in The Rambler, i : 59.
18 See, for example, Derrida™s discussion of writing as a supplement to memory
in “Plato™s Pharmacy,” in Dissemination, trans. Barbara Johnson (Chicago:
University of Chicago Press, 1981), 61“171. For speci¬c application to the
Notes to pages 141“154 197
Romantic scene of writing, see Tilottama Rajan, The Supplement of Reading:
Figures of Understanding in Romantic Theory and Practice (Ithaca: Cornell
University Press, 1990), esp. chapter 1.
19 Peter Manning, Byron and His Fictions (Detroit: Wayne State University
Press, 1978), 93.
20 Daniel McVeigh, “Manfred™s Curse,” Studies in English Literature 22 (1982),
601“12; 603“4.
21 McGann “Byron and ˜the Truth in Masquerade,™” 16“17.
22 My text is from the original stone tablet erected over the dog™s grave at
Newstead Abbey, as recorded in Andrew Stauffer, “Byron™s Monumental
Epitaph for His Dog Boatswain,” The Byron Journal 26 (1998), 82“90. The
quoted lines correspond to lines 15“20 in CPW (1:225).
23 Philip Fisher, “Thinking about Killing: Hamlet and the Paths Among the
Passions,” 43“77; 57, 66.
24 Like Stabler in Byron, Poetics, and History, but with darker overtones, I take it
that one of Byron™s great strengths is his ability to elaborate reciprocal
relationships with speci¬c contemporary audiences.
25 G. Wilson Knight, Poets of Action (London: Metheun, 1967), 280.
26 Byron also has the “Nemesis” passage from Childe Harold canto 3 on his
mind; as he darkly gloated to Lady Byron regarding Romilly™s suicide, “It
was not in vain that I invoked Nemesis in the Midnight of Rome from the
awfullest of her Ruins. “ ” Fare you well” (BLJ, v i : 80“1).
27 Lady Blessington™s Conversations with Lord Byron, ed. Ernest J. Lovell, Jr.
(Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1969), 156“57.
28 Theresa Guiccioli, My Recollections of Lord Byron: and Those of Eye-Witnesses
of His Life, 2 vols. (London: R. Bentley, 1869), i i : 131.
29 The Complete Plays of Ben Jonson, ed. G. A. Wilkes, 4 vols. (Oxford:
Clarendon, 1981), i i :226, lines 156“65.
30 lan Donaldson, “Jonson and Anger,” in English Satire and the Satiric
Tradition, ed. Claude Rawson (Oxford: Blackwell, 1984), 56“71; 57.
31 “The Mourning Bride (1697),” in The Complete Plays of William Congreve, ed.
Herbert Davis (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1967), 317-88; act 3,
line 457.
32 The Works of Lord Byron: Poetry, ed. E. H. Coleridge, 7 vols. (London: John
Murray, 1898-1904), i i i : 60. On the textual history of this poem, see Andrew
Stauffer, “Byron, Medwin, and the False Fiend: Remembering ˜Remember
Thee,™” Studies in Bibliography 53 (2000), 265“76.
33 The Works of Lord Byron: Letters and Journals, ed. R. J. Prothero, 6 vols.
(London: John Murray, 1898“1904), i i : 451.
34 Lady Morgan™s Memoirs: Autobiography, Diaries, and Correspondence, 2 vols.
(New York: AMS Press, 1975), 2: 207.
35 William Wordsworth, “Ode: Intimations of Immortality,” The Poems, 529,
lines 178“79.
36 Wordsworth, “Lines Composed a Few Miles above Tintern Abbey,” The
Poems, 358, line 41.
Notes to pages 154“167
198
37 Thomas Medwin, Conversations of Lord Byron, 142. Byron also remarked in
his journal for 1813, “[I] was not easy till I had vented my wrath and my
rhyme, in the same pages, against every thing and every body” ( BLJ, i i i :
213).
38 W. B. Yeats, The Poems, ed. Richard J. Finneran (London: Macmillan, 1984),
197, lines 119“20.

<<

. 6
( 7)



>>