<<

. 32
( 41 .)



>>

±± Ibid., p. °.
± Jerome Christensen, Lord Byron™s Strength: Romantic Writing and Commercial So-
ciety (Baltimore and London: Johns Hopkins University Press, ±).
± Ibid., p. ·.
± McGann, Fiery Dust, p. ; Don Juan in Context (London: John Murray, ±·),
p. ±±.
±µ McGann, Don Juan in Context, p. ±±.
± Ibid., pp. ·°; .
±· Ibid., p. ±°.


±
Notes to pages ± “±° ±
± James Chandler, England in ±±: The Politics of Literary Culture and the Case
of Romantic Historicism (Chicago and London: University of Chicago Press,
±), pp. ·“.
± Ibid., p. .
° William H. Galperin, The Return of the Visible in British Romanticism (Baltimore
and London: Johns Hopkins University Press, ±), p. .
± Ibid., p. ·±.
 Moyra Haslett, Byron™s Don Juan and the Don Juan Legend (Oxford: Clarendon
Press, ±·), p. ·.
 Irving Babbitt, Rousseau and Romanticism (Boston and New York: Houghton
Mif¬‚in, ±±), pp. µ“.
 For a recent discussion of Romantic writers anticipating an audience, see
Lucy Newlyn, Reading, Writing, and Romanticism: The Anxiety of Reception (Oxford
University Press, °°°).
µ Anne K. Mellor, English Romantic Irony (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard Univer-
sity Press, ±°), pp. ±; ±.
 Ibid., p. ±.
· Tilottama Rajan, Dark Interpreter: The Discourse of Romanticism (Ithaca and
London: Cornell University Press, ±°), p. .
 Frederick Garber, Self, Text and Romantic Irony: The Example of Byron (Princeton
University Press, ±), p. µ.
 Ibid., pp. µ; µ.
° Ibid., pp. ; ±.
± Ibid., pp. ±; °.
 William Empson, Seven Types of Ambiguity (±°; Harmondsworth: Penguin,
±±), p. ·.
 Michael G. Cooke, Acts of Inclusion: Studies Bearing on an Elementary Theory of
Romanticism (New Haven and London: Yale University Press, ±·), p. ±°.
 Hermione de Almeida, Byron and Joyce Through Homer: Don Juan and Ulysses
(London and Basingstoke: Macmillan, ±±), pp. ; ±°.
µ Andrew Bennett, Romantic Poets and the Culture of Posterity (Cambridge Univer-
sity Press, ±).
 CPW, , p. ·.
· Frederick L. Beaty, Byron the Satirist (De Kalb: Northern Illinois University
Press, ±µ); Stephen C. Behrendt, Shelley and His Audiences (Lincoln and
London: University of Nebraska Press, ±); Steven E. Jones, Shelley™s Satire:
Violence, Exhortation, and Authority (De Kalb: Northern Illinois University Press,
±); Satire and Romanticism (New York: St Martin™s Press, °°°); Gary Dyer,
British Satire and the Politics of Style, ±·“± (Cambridge University Press,
±·).
 Andrew Elfenbein, Byron and the Victorians (Cambridge University Press, ±µ),
pp. ; ±°.
 Thomas Carlyle, Sartor Resartus: The Life and Opinions of Herr Teufelsdröckh
(London: Chapman and Hall, ±·), pp. “·; The Works of John Ruskin,
°° Notes to pages ±± “±
(eds.) G.T. Cook and Alexander Wedderburn,  vols. (London: George
Allen, ±°“±), ©, pp. xxxiv“xxxv.
° Edward Dudley Hume Johnson, ˜Lord Byron in Don Juan: A Study in
Digression™ (unpublished doctoral dissertation, Yale University, ±);
William T. Ross, ˜Digressive Narrator and Narrative Technique in Byron™s
Don Juan™ (unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Virginia, ±·°);
Joel Dana Black, ˜The Second Fall: The Laws of Digression and Gravitation
in Romantic Narrative and their Impact on Contemporary Encyclopaedic
Literature™ (unpublished doctoral dissertation, Stanford University, ±·).
± Wolfgang Iser, Prospecting: From Reader Response to Literary Anthropology
(Baltimore and London: Johns Hopkins University Press, ±), pp. “±.
See also Wolfgang Iser, ˜Indeterminacy and the Reader™s Response in Prose
Fiction™, in J. Hillis Miller (ed.), Aspects of Narrative: Selected Papers from the English
Institute (New York: Columbia University Press, ±·±), pp. ± “µ.
 John Whale, Imagination Under Pressure, ±·“±: Aesthetics, Politics and Utility
(Cambridge University Press, °°°).
 Johnson, ˜Lord Byron in Don Juan™; McGann, CPW, , p. ·; Peter
W. Graham, Don Juan and Regency England (Charlottesville: University of
Virginia Press, ±°).
 Caroline Franklin, Byron™s Heroines (Oxford: Clarendon Press, ±); Haslett,
Byron™s Don Juan; Susan J. Wolfson, ˜“Their She Condition”: Cross-dressing
and the Politics of Gender in Don Juan™, ELH µ (±·), µ“±.
µ See Marjorie Perloff, The Poetics of Indeterminacy: Rimbaud to Cage (Princeton
University Press, ±±), pp. “.
 BLJ, ©, p. .
· Julia Kristeva, Desire in Language: A Semiotic Approach to Literature and Art, (ed.)
Leon S. Roudiez, (transl.) Thomas Gora, Alice Jardine and Leon S. Roudiez
(Oxford: Basil Blackwell, ±°), p. .
 See, for example, ˜La “ The (Feminine)™ and ˜The Book of Promethea™,
in The H´l`ne Cixous Reader, (ed.) Susan Sellers (London and New York:
ee
Routledge, ±), pp. µ“·; ±± “; Luce Irigaray, ˜This Sex Which is
Not One™, (transl.) Claudia Reeder, in New French Feminisms: An Anthology,
(eds.) Elaine Marks and Isabelle de Courtivron (Brighton: Harvester, ±±),
pp. “±°.
 Jerome J. McGann, Towards a Literature of Knowledge (Oxford: Clarendon
Press, ±), p. µ.
µ° Ibid., p. µ.
µ± Jacques Derrida, Acts of Literature, (ed.) Derek Attridge (London and New
York: Routledge, ±), p. µ. Although it does not discuss Byron, the
critical neglect of texture in Romantic writing is addressed in the introduc-
tion to Thomas McFarland, Romanticism and the Heritage of Rousseau (Oxford:
Clarendon Press, ±µ).
µ Terry Eagleton, The Signi¬cance of Theory (Oxford: Basil Blackwell, ±°), p. µ;
Frank Kermode, History and Value, The Clarendon Lectures and the
Northcliffe Lectures ±· (Oxford: Clarendon Press, ±), p. ±.
Notes to pages ±“ °±
µ Andrew Bowie, Aesthetics and Subjectivity: From Kant to Nietzsche (Manchester:
Manchester University Press, ±°), p. ±·.
µ J. Paul Hunter, ˜Form as Meaning: Pope and the Ideology of the Couplet™,
in David H. Richter (ed.), Ideology and Form in Eighteenth-Century Literature
(Lubbock: Texas Tech University Press, ±), pp. ±·“; p. ±±. I am
grateful to Susan Wolfson for this reference.

± ˜ SCO R C HING AN D DR E NC H I NG ™: DI S C OU RS E S
O F DI GR ES SIO N AM ON G BYR ON ™S R E AD E RS
± See, for example, the Byron entry in Iain McCalman (ed.), An Oxford Com-
panion to the Romantic Age: British Culture ±··“± (Oxford University Press,
±), p. .
 For the readers™ internalisation of contemporary reviews, see Jon P. Klancher,
The Making of English Reading Audiences, ±·°“± (Madison: University of
Wisconsin Press, ±·).
 Lara, ©, ±°; W.B. Yeats quoting Mme Blavatsky. Cited in Geoffrey Hartman,
Beyond Formalism (New Haven and London: Yale University Press, ±·°),
p. °.
 M.H. Abrams, Natural Supernaturalism: Tradition and Revolution in Romantic
Literature (New York and London: W.W. Norton, ±·±), p. ±.
µ Thomas Humphry Ward (ed.), The English Poets: Selections with Critical Intro-
ductions by Various Writers, µ vols. (London: Macmillan, ±°; repr. ±±±), ©,
pp. µ“.
 For a discussion of juxtaposition in the expurgated stanzas, see Martin, Byron:
A Poet Before His Public, pp. “ and Beaty, Byron the Satirist, p. .
· For a recent examination of critical discourse focusing on Byron™s ability to
enthral the public, see Ghislaine McDayter, ˜Conjuring Byron: Byromania,
Literary Commodi¬cation and the Birth of Celebrity™, in Frances Wilson
(ed.), Byromania: Portraits of the Artist in Nineteenth- and Twentieth-Century Culture
(London and Basingstoke: Macmillan, ±), pp. “. My argument seeks
to modify McDayter™s contention that style was not a focus for hostility in
Byron™s early reviews (p. ).
 Maria Edgeworth, Letters from England ±±“±, (ed.) Christina Colvin
(Oxford: Clarendon Press, ±·±), p. .
 See James Beattie, Essays (Edinburgh: William Creech, ±··), p. °.
±° The Complete Works of William Hazlitt, (ed.) P.P. Howe, ± vols. (London:
J.M. Dent, ±°“), , pp. µ“). For a discussion of the relationship be-
tween wit and allusion, see John Sitter, Arguments of Augustan Wit (Cambridge
University Press, ±±), pp. ±·µ“.
±± RR, B: ©©, p. ·°·.
± For a different reading of Byron™s ˜urbane Voltairean detachment™ in his
notes, see Marilyn Butler, ˜The Orientalism of Byron™s Giaour™, in Bernard
Beatty and Vincent Newey (eds.), Byron and the Limits of Fiction (Liverpool
University Press, ±), pp. ·“ (p. ·).
° Notes to pages “°
± Samuel Smiles, A Publisher and His Friends: Memoir and Correspondence of the Late
John Murray, with an Account of the Origin and Progress of the House, ±·“±,
 vols. (London: John Murray, ±±), ©, p. °.
± Dyer, British Satire and the Politics of Style, pp. ±±; “.
±µ For Byron™s political closeness to Lady Oxford, see David V. Erdman, ˜Lord
Byron and the Genteel Reformers™, PMLA µ (±±), ±°µ“.
± Journal of the Hon. Henry Edward Fox (Afterwards Fourth and Last Lord Holland)
±±“±°, (ed.) The Earl of llchester (London: Thornton Butterworth,
±), p. ±µ.
±· Malcolm Kelsall has identi¬ed the proximity between Byron™s poetic style
and the traditional Whig rhetoric of ˜checks and balances™. See Malcolm
Kelsall, Byron™s Politics (Brighton: Harvester, ±·), pp. “µ.
± RR, B: , p. ±µ; BLJ, ©©©, p. .
± John Barrell, The Political Theory of Painting from Reynolds to Hazlitt (New
Haven and London: Yale University Press, ±), p. ±µ.
° Sir Joshua Reynolds, Discourses on Art, (ed.) Robert R. Wark (New Haven and
London: Yale University Press, ±·µ), p. ±.
± Chris Baldick, In Frankenstein™s Shadow: Myth, Monstrosity and Nineteenth-Century
Writing (Oxford: Clarendon Press, ±·), p. ±°; Edmund Burke, Re¬‚ections on
the Revolution in France and on the Proceedings in Certain Societies in London Relative
to that Event, (ed.) Conor Cruise O™Brien (Harmondsworth: Penguin, ±;
repr. ±), pp. “.
 Reynolds, Discourses, p. ±.
 See pp. “° below.
 See George Cruikshank™s ˜Management “ or Butts & Hogsheads™ (Decem-
ber ±±), associating Byron with the political party of Lord Holland. The
cartoon is discussed in Richard Lansdown, Byron™s Historical Dramas (Oxford:
Clarendon Press, ±), p. .
µ In ˜Edmund Kean and Byron™s Plays™, Peter J. Manning registers the similar-
ity between the ˜discontinuous effects™ of Edmund Kean™s acting and Byron™s
oriental tales (Keats-Shelley Journal ± “ (±·“), ±“°; p. ±±).
 Lady Blessington™s Conversations of Lord Byron, (ed.) Ernest J. Lovell, Jr (Princeton
University Press, ±), p. ±±.
· Ugo Foscolo, ˜Narrative and Romantic Poems of the Italians™, (transl.) Francis
Cohen, Quarterly Review ± (±±), “µ.
 Palgrave was identi¬ed as the translator of Foscolo™s article by R.D. Waller
in his introductory essay to John Hookham Frere, The Monks and the Giants
(Manchester University Press, ±), p. °.
 Foscolo, ˜Narrative and Romantic Poems™, pp. “°. For discussion of
Byron™s in¬‚uences in Italian medley verse, see Jerome J. McGann, ˜“Mixed
Company”: Byron™s Beppo and the Italian Medley™, in Kenneth Neill
Cameron and Donald H. Reiman (eds.), Shelley and his Circle ±··“±,  vols.
(Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, ±·“), ©©, pp. “µ·.
° Foscolo, ˜Narrative and Romantic Poems™, pp. “µ.
± Dyer, British Satire and the Politics of Style, pp. ±“·.
Notes to pages °“° °
 The Notebooks of Samuel Taylor Coleridge, (ed.) Kathleen Coburn, Bollingen
Series µ°,  vols. (Princeton University Press, ±µ·“°), ©, ±±. See Robert
W. Jones, Gender and the Formation of Taste in Eighteenth-Century Britain: The
Analysis of Beauty (Cambridge University Press, ±), pp. ·“±±.
 Foscolo, ˜Narrative and Romantic Poems™, p. µ°µ.
 MS., John Murray Archive. I am grateful to Andrew Nicholson for checking
this and all my transcriptions from the Murray Archive. I am grateful to ®
µ for permission to quote from the archive.
µ For Holland™s holding of Byron™s proxy, see HLRO, Proxy Book ±±·, vol. ,
p.  and HLRO, Proxy Book ±±, vol. , p. ±.
 The Quarterly Review ± (±±), p. µ.
· MS., John Murray Archive. A transcript of this letter was published for
the ¬rst time by Peter Cochran in ˜Francis Cohen, Don Juan and Casti™,
Romanticism .± (±), ±°“.
 See David Simpson, Romanticism, Nationalism and the Revolt Against Theory
(Chicago and London: Chicago University Press, ±); Clifford Siskin,
˜The Year of the System™ in Richard Cronin (ed.), ±·: The Year of the Lyrical
Ballads (London and Basingstoke: Macmillan, ±), pp. “±.
 James Joyce, A Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man (London: Granada, ±··;
repr. ±), p. ±µ.
° G.M. Matthews (ed.), Keats: The Critical Heritage (London and New York:
Routledge, ±·±), p. ±.
± Haslett, Byron™s Don Juan, p. ±±.
 RR, B: ©, p. .
 ˜Don John™ or ˜Don Juan Unmasked™: Being a Key to the Mystery Attending that
Remarkable Publication; with a Descriptive Review of the Poem and Extracts, rd edn
(London, ±±).
 Peter W. Graham (ed.), Byron™s Bulldog: The Letters of John Cam Hobhouse to Lord
Byron (Columbus: Ohio State University Press, ±), p. µ·. Hobhouse™s
objections to Don Juan are discussed in Elizabeth French Boyd, Byron™s Don
Juan (London and New York: Routledge, ±µ), p. ±.
µ The Yale Edition of the Works of Samuel Johnson, (eds.) E.L. McAdam Jr, with
Donald and Mary Hyde, and others, ± vols. (New Haven and London:
Yale University Press, ±µ“°), ©©, p. .
 Byron, The Complete Miscellaneous Prose, (ed.) Andrew Nicholson (Oxford:
Clarendon Press, ±±), p. ±µ°.
· See Richard Cronin, ˜Keats and the Politics of Cockney Style™, SEL 
(±), ·µ“°; Nicholas Roe, John Keats and the Culture of Dissent (Oxford:
Clarendon Press, ±·); Jeffrey N. Cox, Poetry and Politics in the Cockney School:
Keats, Shelley, Hunt and their Circle (Cambridge University Press, ±).
 T.S. Eliot, On Poetry and Poets ( London: Faber and Faber, ±µ·; repr. ±·±),
p. °±.
 Presbyter Anglicanus, ˜Letter to the Author of Beppo™, Blackwood™s Edinburgh
Magazine  (±±), “; p. .
µ° Barrell, The Political Theory of Painting, p. ±±.
° Notes to pages °“µ
µ± Reynolds, Discourses, pp. ±°; ±; ±µ.
µ Rollins (ed.), The Letters of John Keats ±±“±±, (ed.) Hyder Edward Rollins,
 vols. (Cambridge, Mass., Harvard University Press, ±µ; repr. ±·), ©©,
p. µ.
µ For a detailed account of Moore as a biographer, see Joseph W. Reed Jr,
English Biography in the Early Nineteenth Century ±°± “±, Yale Studies in
English vol. ±° (New Haven and London: Yale University Press, ±),
pp. ±°“. For Hunt™s use of psycho-biography when reviewing Don Juan,
see RR, B: ©©©, p. ±°°.
µ The Works of Lord Byron: With His Letters and Journals, and His Life, (ed.) Thomas
Moore, ±· vols. (London: John Murray, ±“), ©, pp. µ“·.
µµ E.L. Griggs, ˜Samuel Taylor Coleridge and Opium™, Huntington Library Quar-
terly ±· (±µ“), µ·“·; p. ·. I am grateful to Seamus Perry for supplying
this reference.
µ William Butler Yeats (ed.), The Oxford Book of Modern Verse, ±“±µ (New
York: Oxford University Press, ±), pp. xxiv“xxv.

 ˜ BR E AC HE S I N TR AN SI T I O N ™:
EIG HT EE NTH- CE NTU RY D I GR E S S IO N S AND BYR ON ™S
E ARL Y VE R S E
± See Walter Jackson Bate, From Classic to Romantic: Premises of Taste in Eighteenth-
Century England (New York: Harper & Row, ±±), pp. “.
 Mark Akenside, The Pleasures of Imagination to which is Pre¬xed a Critical Essay
on the Poem by Mrs. Barbauld (London: T. Cadell Junior & W. Davies, ±·),
p. .
 Richard Terry, ˜Transitions and Digressions in the Eighteenth-Century Long
Poem™, SEL  (±), µ“µ±°; p. µ°.
 A Pindarique Ode, Humbly offered to the Queen to which is pre¬x™d a Discourse on the

<<

. 32
( 41 .)



>>