<<

. 33
( 41 .)



>>

Pindarique Ode (London, ±·°), p. i.
µ The appeal to a ˜secret connexion™ was also made by Abraham Cowley
whose talk of ˜Invisible Connexions™ was picked up by Coleridge. See Paul
Magnuson, Coleridge and Wordsworth: A Lyrical Dialogue, (Princeton University
Press, ±), p. ±·. See also H. J. Jackson, ˜Coleridge™s Lessons in Transi-
tion: The “Logic” of the “Wildest Odes”™, in Thomas Pfau and Robert F.
Gleckner (eds.), Lessons of Romanticism: A Critical Companion (Durham, N.C.:
Duke University Press, ±), pp. ±“.
 Beattie, Essays, p. .
· Samuel Johnson, The Rambler, (eds.) W. J. Bate and Albrecht B. Strauss,
 vols. (New Haven and London: Yale University Press, ±), ©©©, p. ··.
 The Art of Poetry on a New Plan, Illustrated with a Great Variety of Examples from the
Best English Poets,  vols. ( London, ±·), ©©, p. °.
 Hugh Blair, Lectures on Rhetoric and Belles Lettres,  vols. (London, ±·), ©©,
p. µ.
Notes to pages µ“ °µ
±° Jane Austen, Northanger Abbey, (ed. ) Anne Henry Ehrenpreis (Harmond-
sworth: Penguin, ±·; repr. ±), p. °.
±± Johnson™s campaign against the offences of ˜lax and lawless versi¬cation™ is
saluted in Robert Potter, An Inquiry into some Passages in Dr. Johnson™s Lives
of the Poets: Particularly his Observations of Lyric Poetry, and the Odes of Gray
(London, ±·), p. ±±. See also Robert Potter The Art of Criticism as Exempli¬ed
in Dr Johnson™s Lives of the Most Eminent English Poets (London, ±·). For a later
defence of ˜abruptness of transition, and a peculiar warmth of impetuosity
and diction™, see Nathan Drake, Literary Hours or Sketches Critical and Narrative
(London, ±·), p. ·.
± The Life and Works of William Cowper, (ed.) Robert Southey,  vols. (London:
Henry G. Bohn, ±µ), ©©, p. xvi.
± Naomi Schor, Reading in Detail: Aesthetics and the Feminine (New York and
London: Methuen, ±·), p. .
± For discussion of the links and connections of Sensibility, see David Fairer,
˜Sentimental Translation in Mackenzie and Sterne™, Essays in Criticism . 
(±), ±“µ±.
±µ An Inquiry Concerning the Human Understanding, note to Section ©©©, ˜Of the Asso-
ciation of Ideas™; quoted in Martin Kallich, ˜The Associationist Criticism of
Francis Hutcheson and David Hume™, Studies in Philology  (±), “·;
p. .
± John Wolcot, The Works of Peter Pindar . . . To which is pre¬xed Some Account of his
Life,  vols. (London: Walker and Edwards, ±±), ©, p. .
±· For Helen Maria Williams™s use of a ˜desultory™ form to feminise the history of
Revolution, see Gary Kelly, Women, Writing, and Revolution ±·°“±· (Oxford:
Clarendon Press, ±), pp. ±“.
± ˜New Morality™ appeared in The Anti-Jacobin, or Weekly Examiner on
 July ±·. See William Gifford, The Anti-Jacobin, or Weekly Examiner
(±·),  vols. (Hildesheim and New York: Georg Olms Verlag, ±·°), ©©,
p. µ.
± James Mackintosh, Vindiciae Gallicae. Defence of the French Revolution and its
English Admirers, against the accusations of the Right Hon. Edmund Burke (London:
G.G.J. and J. Robinson, ±·±), p. vii.
° CPW, ©, p. ·.
± See Bennett, Romantic Poets, pp. ±·“. Digressive similarities between
Churchill and Byron are discussed brie¬‚y in Thomas Lockwood, Post-
Augustan Satire: Charles Churchill and Satirical Poetry ±·µ°“±°° (Seattle and
Washington: University of Washington Press, ±·), pp. “±.
 CPW, ©, p. ·.
 See Bennett™s discussion of the way in which payment and repayment are
bound up with the construction of posterity (Romantic Poets, pp. ±µ“).
 RR, B: ©©, p. ·°.
µ Peter J. Manning, ˜Byron™s English Bards and Scotch Reviewers: The Art of
Allusion™, Keats-Shelley Memorial Bulletin ± (±·°), ·“±±.
° Notes to pages “µ
 The Poetical Works of Charles Churchill with Explanatory Notes and An Authentic
Account of His Life, (ed.) William Tooke,  vols. (London: C. & R. Baldwin,
±°), ©, p. xiv.
· Review of the ±° edition of Churchill™s poems by Robert Southey in the
Annual Review, and History of Literature, (ed.) Arthur Aikin, Vol. ©©© (±°;
London: Longman, Hurst, Rees and Orme, ±°µ), pp. µ°“µ; p. µ.
 Ibid. Southey quotes from Churchill™s ˜The Conference™, ll. ±“±µ.
 ˜Churchill wrote with great rapidity, and generally published his composi-
tions directly they were ¬nished. This may account for the involved sentences
and lengthy parentheses, which are the most obvious, if not the worst, blem-
ishes of his style™ (The Poetical Works of Charles Churchill, With a Memoir by James
L. Hannay and Copious Notes by W. Tooke,  vols. (London: Bell and Daldy, ±),
©, p. ±).
° Ibid., ©, pp. xxx; xxxi. Dyer discusses Churchill very brie¬‚y as a Neo-
Juvenalian satirist in British Satire and the Politics of Style, pp. ± “; ; ±°.
± The Poetical Works of Charles Churchill (±°), ©, pp. “µ. There are differences
between this edition and the ± Tooke edition, particularly in the way
that literary allusions are signalled, suggesting that the reception of allusion
changed in the course of the nineteenth century.
 The Poetical Works of Charles Churchill (±°), ©, pp. xxv; xxix.
 BLJ, ©©, p. °·.
 One notable exception to this general neglect is Lockwood, Post-Augustan
Satire, pp. ·“.
µ On the speci¬city of Byron™s satire (of which quotations from other texts
form a signi¬cant part), see Claude M. Fuess, Lord Byron as a Satirist in Verse
(New York: Columbia University Press, ±±), p. ·±.
 Lockwood, Post-Augustan Satire, p. °.
· The Poetical Works of Charles Churchill (±°), ©©, p. . For a consideration of
Churchill™s stylistic excess and refusal to polish in the context of eighteenth-
century formal verse satire, see Howard D. Weinbrot, Alexander Pope and the
Tradition of Formal Verse Satire (Princeton University Press, ±), pp. “µ.
 Tooke™s negative assessment of The Ghost contrasts markedly with contempo-
rary reviews of the poem which he quotes in his edition. The Monthly Review
applauded ˜this heterogeneous production of a sportive, wild, and arbitrary
fancy . . . this Shandy in Hudibrastics™ (The Poetical Works of Charles Churchill
(±°), ©©, p. ±).
 John Lennard, But I Digress: The Exploitation of Parentheses in English Printed
Verse (Oxford: Clarendon Press, ±±); A.B. England, Byron™s Don Juan and
Eighteenth-Century Literature: A Study of Some Rhetorical Continuities and Discontinu-
ities (London and Cranbury: Associated University Presses, ±·µ), especially
pp. ±± “.
° Lennard, But I Digress, p. ±°.
± Laurence Sterne, The Life and Opinions of Tristram Shandy Gentleman, (ed.)
Graham Petrie, (introd.) Christopher Ricks (Harmondsworth: Penguin,
±·; repr. ±), p. ·.
Notes to pages µ“ °·
 Ibid., p. ; Jonathan Swift, Gulliver™s Travels and Other Writings, (ed.) Louis
A. Landa (Oxford University Press, ±·), p. ±.
 Sterne, Tristram Shandy, p. µµ.
 See, for example, Churchill™s interest in ˜indelicate™ terms in The Ghost ©©©, ll.
± “ and the lucus a non lucendo ¬gure in The Ghost ©©, ll. µ“ which Byron
also enjoyed enough to use twice in Don Juan at ©. µµ and ©. ±.
µ John Mullan, Sentiment and Sociability: The Language of Feeling in the Eighteenth
Century, nd edn (Oxford: Clarendon Press, ±; repr. ±°), p. ±µ.
 For a more extensive discussion of the complex relationships between
satire and sentiment, see Claude Rawson, Satire and Sentiment ±°“±°
(Cambridge University Press, ±). In his brief discussion of Byron™s poetry
Rawson claims that its self-conscious or Shandean dimension ˜is either a
corrupted or debased form of Augustanism or something else altogether™
(p. ).
· For a recent discussion of generic mixture in Prior™s pastoral lyrics, see Faith
Gildenhuys, ˜Convention and Consciousness in Prior™s Love Lyrics™, SEL
µ (±µ), ·“µµ. See also Germaine Greer, ˜Hours of Idleness: The Poet™s
Voice™, The Newstead Byron Society Review ( July °°°), “.
 Alma; or the Progress of the Mind ©, ll. µ±“, in The Poetical Works of Matthew
Prior (Edinburgh: James Nichol, ±µ).
 Gildenhuys, ˜Convention and Consciousness™, p. .
µ° Blanford Parker, The Triumph of Augustan Poetics: English Literary Culture from
Butler to Johnson (Cambridge University Press, ±), p. °.
µ± Ibid., pp. °·“.
µ For earlier considerations of stylistic tension in Byron™s early verse, see
McGann, Fiery Dust, pp. ±“±; °“±, Beaty, Byron the Satirist, p. ±;
Andrew Rutherford, Byron: A Critical Study (Edinburgh: Oliver and Boyd,
±), p. ±µ; Willis W. Pratt, Byron at Southwell: The Making of a Poet with New
Poems and Letters from the Rare Books Collection of the University of Texas (Austin:
University of Texas Press, ±), p. . See also Fuess, Lord Byron as a Satirist
in Verse.
µ For a psychological discussion of Byron™s deferred valedictions, see Paul
Elledge, ˜Chasms in Connections: Byron Ending (in) Childe Harold™s Pilgrimage
± and ™, ELH  (±µ), ±± “.
µ These two lines in MS. M are missing from CPW. Their presence makes more
sense of the following lines which were obviously intended as a crescendo:
˜Be these the themes to greet his faithful Rib, / So may thy pen be smooth,
thy tongue be glib!™ The mention of the Pox was probably the reason for the
omission of the lines from Murray™s Magazine.
µµ For the private sexual code of ˜old Horatian way™, see Louis Crompton,
Byron and Greek Love: Homophobia in ±th-Century England (London: Faber and
Faber, ±µ), p. ±.
µ The Poems of Alexander Pope, (ed.) John Butt (London and New York: Routledge,
±; repr. ±), p. µ°±.
µ· BLJ, ©©, p. ±; CPW, ©, pp. µ“µ.
° Notes to pages “·
µ ˜A Discourse Concerning the Original and Progress of Satire™, in The Essays
of John Dryden, (ed.) W.P. Ker,  vols. (New York: Russell and Russell, ±±),
©©, p. ±°µ. The identi¬cation of Hudibrastic rhymes as a ¬‚aw in Byron™s verse
is exempli¬ed by the Eclectic™s review of The Siege of Corinth (RR, B: ©©, p. ·).
µ BLJ, ©©, p. °.
° BLJ, ©, p. .
± Roger Lonsdale classes him as ˜much less of a borrower™ when it came to
writing poetry. See, The Poems of Thomas Gray, William Collins, Oliver Goldsmith,
(ed.) Roger Lonsdale (London: Longman, ±; repr. ±·), p. xvii.
 For the argument that allusion is a more ˜powerful™ ¬gure than metaphor,
see Michael Riffaterre, ˜Compulsory Reader Response: The Intertextual
Drive™ in Michael Worton and Judith Still (eds.), Intertextuality: Theories and
Practices (Manchester University Press, ±°), pp. µ·“·. Riffaterre argues
that the text controls closely the reader™s response but that the ˜lure™ of
transgressing the distance between the two texts of intertextuality offers the
reader ˜an enormous return for a modest investment™ (p. ·). He identi¬es
the ˜lexical Janus™ which holds the distance between the two texts by the
¬gure of ˜syllepsis™: a word which has two mutually incompatible meanings
(one in the context and the other in the intertext). It is this paradoxical
force, according to Riffaterre, which allows allusion to outweigh metaphor.
Metaphor cannot generate an equal dynamic of incongruity as it relies on
something being in common to both tenor and vehicle (p. ·±).
 Jonathan Bate, Shakespeare and the English Romantic Imagination (Oxford:
Clarendon Press, ±), pp. °; “; ·µ. Bate discusses the currency of
Shakespearean allusion in the visual arts in ˜Shakespearean Allusion in En-
glish Caricature in the Age of Gillray™, Journal of the Warburg and Courtauld
Institutes  (±), ±“±°.
 The Dramatic Works of Richard Brinsley Sheridan, (ed.) Cecil Price,  vols. (Oxford:
Clarendon Press, ±·), ©©, p. ·, ll. ±·“±.
µ See ˜On Some of the Old Actors™, in The Works of Charles and Mary Lamb, (ed.)
E.V. Lucas, · vols. (London: Methuen, ±°“µ), ©©, p. ±°.
 BLJ, ©©, p. ±°.
· Third Lord Holland, Further Memoirs of the Whig Party ±°·“± With Some
Miscellaneous Reminiscences (London: John Murray, ±°µ), p. ±.
 Ibid.
 For the modi¬cations to Byron™s ˜Address, Spoken at the Opening of Drury-
Lane Theatre™, see CPW, ©©©, pp. ±·“± and notes and Lansdown, Byron™s
Historical Dramas, p. ±.
·° CPW, ©©©, pp. °; ±.
·± Curran has discussed genre as ˜the most consistent conceptual syntax in-
forming literature™: see Poetic Form and British Romanticism, p. . See also Alas-
tair Fowler, Kinds of Literature: An Introduction to the Theory of Genres and Modes
(Oxford: Clarendon Press, ±), pp. µ“±.
· Thomas De Quincey, Recollections of the Lakes and the Lake Poets, (ed.) David
Wright (Harmondsworth: Penguin, ±·°; repr. ±µ), p. .
Notes to pages “·± °
· Shelley™s Poetry and Prose, (eds.) Donald H. Reiman and Sharon B. Powers
(New York and London: W.W. Norton, ±··), pp. ·“.
· William Wordsworth, The Excursion (±±); facsimile of ±st edn (Oxford:
Woodstock Books, ±±), p. xi.
·µ Byron, Complete Miscellaneous Prose, p. ±°.
· Prose writers such as Charles Lamb and William Hazlitt did sustain a high
frequency of signalled allusion. See George L. Barnett, Charles Lamb: The
Evolution of Elia (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, ±), pp. ±“°;
Jonathan Bate, ˜Hazlitt™s Shakespearean Quotations™, Prose Studies · (±),
“·; James K. Chandler, ˜Romantic Allusiveness™, Critical Inquiry 
(±± “), ± “·.
·· Peter J. Manning, Reading Romantics: Texts and Contexts (Oxford University
Press, ±°), p. ±µ. Critical reviews of Byron™s time were another discourse
loaded with literary allusion.
· Among the various accounts of different modes of allusion, I have found
work by the following critics helpful: Herman Meyer, The Poetics of Quotation
in the European Novel, (transl.) Theodore and Yelta Ziolkkowski (Princeton
University Press, ±). Meyer locates the ˜charm™ of the quotation ˜in a
unique tension between assimilation and dissimilation: it links itself closely
with its new environment, but at the same time detaches itself from it, thus
permitting another world to radiate into the self-contained world of the
novel™ (p. ). Meyer™s comments on the difference between the parodies
of Immermann and Hoffmann are also highly suggestive: ˜we sense that
the quotation is dragged in much more at random and that, very much
in contrast to Hoffmann, it accomplishes little or nothing functionally™
(p. ±µ). This sense of disturbing arbitrary use of quotation is very close
to my reading of English Bards and Scotch Reviewers. See also Carmela Perri,
˜On Alluding™, Poetics · (±·), “°·. Perri builds on Meyer™s work to
offer a list of conventions used in literary allusion, stressing that the source
text must be ˜some discrete, recoverable property™. Although this idea is not
developed in the article, the physicality of the other text is an important
feature of Byron™s digressive allusion. See also Lucy Newlyn, ˜Paradise Lost™
and the Romantic Reader (Oxford: Clarendon Press, ±). Newlyn™s work on
allusion as a focus for indeterminacy, qualifying the stability of the source
text (in this case, Paradise Lost ) has contributed to my understanding of the
way allusion invites choice on the part of the reader, although the Romantic
allusions discussed by Newlyn uncover an indeterminacy she believes to be
already present in Milton™s text rather than setting up a tension between
source and new context.
· For a discussion of Byron™s satire, particularly its af¬nity with Gifford™s criti-
cism, see Mary Clearman, ˜A Blueprint for English Bards and Scotch Reviewers:
The First Satire of Juvenal™, Keats-Shelley Journal ± (±·°), ·“.
° Fuess traces the allusive history of these lines from Young on Pope to
Canning, Hodgson, and Byron on Gifford (Lord Byron as a Satirist in Verse,
pp. µ“).
±° Notes to pages ·± “··
± Manning, Reading Romantics, p. ±µ.
 Roland Barthes, Roland Barthes cited in Worton and Still, Intertextuality, p. ±±.
 Harold Bloom, The Anxiety of In¬‚uence: A Theory of Poetry (Oxford University
Press, ±·; repr. ±·µ).
 Harold Bloom, The Visionary Company: A Reading of English Romantic Poetry
(Ithaca: Cornell University Press, ±·±; repr. ±), pp. µ; °.
µ Bate, Shakespeare and the English Romantic Imagination, p. .
 Bloom, The Anxiety of In¬‚uence, p. ±µ.

 ER R ING W ITH PO PE : HINT S F R OM H OR A CE AN D T H E
TR O UBL E WI T H DE C EN C Y
± For the eighteenth-century criticism of English mixed or monstrous genres,
see Stuart M. Tave, The Amiable Humorist, A Study on the Comic Theory and
Criticism of the Eighteenth and Early Nineteenth Centuries (Chicago and London:
University of Chicago Press, ±°), pp. ±“µ.
 Alan B. Howes (ed.), Sterne: The Critical Heritage (London and New York:
Routledge, ±·), p. .
 Ibid., p. °.
 Michel de Montaigne, The Complete Essays, (ed. and transl.) M.A. Screech
(Harmondsworth: Penguin, ±±; repr. ±), p. °.
µ Horace on Poetry: The Ars Poetica, (ed.) C.O. Brink (Cambridge University Press,
±·±).
 RR, B: ©©©, p. ±.
· Reynolds, Discourses, p. .
 Hazlitt, Complete Works, ©©©, p. ±.

<<

. 33
( 41 .)



>>