<<

. 34
( 41 .)



>>

 Graham, Byron™s Bulldog, p. ±.
±° Bernard Blackstone, Byron: A Survey (London: Longman, ±·µ), pp. µ“.
See also Beaty, Byron the Satirist, pp. µ± “ and Mary Rebecca Thayer, The
In¬‚uence of Horace on the Chief English Poets of the Nineteenth Century (New Haven
and London: Yale University Press, ±±).
±± See, BLJ, ©©, pp. ; ; µ; ±±.
± For a discussion of imitations and allusions to Horace, see Jane Stabler, ˜The
Genesis of Byron™s Hints from Horace™, Translation and Literature  (±), ·“µ.
± Thayer, The In¬‚uence of Horace, p. .
± Mikhail Bakhtin characterises Horatian satirical and epistolary genres as
˜novelistic™ discourse but also links Horace with Aristotle and Boileau as the
main advocates of ˜organic poetics™, writers who were ˜permeated with a
deep sense of the wholeness of literature and of the harmonious interaction
of all genres contained within this whole. It is as if they literally hear this har-
mony of the genres™ (The Dialogic Imagination: Four Essays by M.M. Bakhtin, (ed.)
Michael Holquist, (transl.) Caryl Emerson and Michael Holquist (Austin:
University of Texas Press, ±±), p. µ).
±µ Here, I disagree with McGann™s view of the poem™s form as ˜the perfection of
modesty™ and his claim that in the Hints, Byron ˜[effaces] himself ™ (McGann,
Don Juan in Context, pp. ±“±·).
Notes to pages ··“· ±±
± Anne Barton, Byron, Don Juan, Landmarks of World Literature Series
(Cambridge University Press, ±), p. ·.
±· In Childe Harold™s Pilgrimage canto ©©©, references to the act of reading are fre-
quent because of the poem™s central concern with ruin and inscription, but
see the note to stanza ± on ˜the difference between what we read of the emo-
tions then and there produced, and those we ourselves experience in the pe-
rusal in the closet. It is one thing to read the Iliad at Sigaeum . . . and another
to trim your taper over it in a snug library “ this I know™ (CPW, ©©, p. ±°).
± Lovelace Deposit ±µ, fol. ±·; second epigraph.
± Hazlitt, Complete Works, ©©©, p. . An interesting discursive link between the
improvisatori poets and Pope occurs in William Hazlitt™s ˜On the Past and
Future™. Here Hazlitt records the dominance of rhyme over the mind of a
performer: ˜The rhymes keep running in their head in spite of themselves,
and will not let them rest™ (Ibid., ©©©, p. °).
° For a sophisticated discussion of the continuities between Pope and Byron,
see Bernard Beatty, ˜Continuities and Discontinuities of Language and
Voice in Dryden, Pope, and Byron™, in Andrew Rutherford (ed.), Byron:
Augustan and Romantic (London and Basingstoke: Macmillan, ±°),
pp. ±±·“µ.
± Mac Flecknoe, ll. ±°°“±; BLJ, ©©©, p. . I am grateful to an anonymous
Cambridge University Press reader for suggesting this point.
 The long prose note incorporating the ˜“alacrity of sinking”™ of Southey™s
latest work, a trial of Southey and the Edinburgh Annual Register (CPW, ©,
pp. “°), was reduced in ±± as Byron planned The Vision of Judgement.
 BLJ, ©©, p. °. A concise account of these exchanges is available in Byron,
Complete Miscellaneous Prose, pp. µ“°; .
 See Byron™s reference to Southey™s ˜quarterly over¬‚owings political and lit-
erary™ (Byron, Complete Miscellaneous Prose, p. ±°).
µ BLJ, ©©©, p. ±·.
 MS., John Murray Archive. See BLJ, ©©, p. µ: ˜I think my translation of
Pulci will make you stare . . . you will see what was permitted in a Catholic
country and a bigotted age to a Churchman on the score of religion.™
· Hazlitt, Complete Works, ©©, p. ±·.
 See p. · above.
 The Works of Beaumont and Fletcher with an Introduction and Explanatory Notes by
Henry Weber, Esq., ± vols. (Edinburgh: James Ballantyne & Co. , ±±), ,
p. ±.
° Ibid., ©, pp. lxxxv-lxxxvi.
± Murray shared Byron™s reservations about Hobhouse™s political af¬liations.
In a letter of ± November ±± (discussing Don Juan cantos ©©© and ©), Murray
had written: ˜There is apprehension of Revolution I assure you “ Reforms
of various kinds we ought & must have “ & Ministers can not stand more in
their own light than by opposing themselves to the March of the Intellect “
the progress of Society. “ Hobhouse will make nothing of his politics I am
afraid™ (MS., John Murray Archive).
 Letter of ± April ±°; Graham, Byron™s Bulldog, p. °.
± Notes to pages ·“·
 Hobhouse™s journal in the Broughton Papers. BL Add. Ms. µµ, ±°v.
 MS. letter from Kinnaird to Byron (±°); John Murray Archive.
µ For the presence of the Italian Revolution in Byron™s dramatic writing as a
form of historical self-consciousness, see Lansdown, Byron™s Historical Dramas,
pp. “··.
 Cronin, In Search of the Pure Commonwealth, p. ±±.
· See CPW, ©, pp. ±µ“·.
 For recent analysis of the Pope/Bowles controversy, especially its impact on
the constructions of Romanticism and nationalism, see James K. Chandler,
˜The Pope Controversy: Romantic Poetics and the English Canon™, Critical
Inquiry ±° (±), ± “µ° and Robert J. Grif¬n, Wordsworth™s Pope: A Study in
Literary Historiography (Cambridge University Press, ±µ).
 Smiles, A Publisher and His Friends, ©, p. °.
° MS., John Murray Archive. Another complicating factor was that Keats™s
death led Byron to instruct Murray to ˜omit all that is said about him in any
M.S.S. of mine “ or publication™ (BLJ, ©©©, p. ±).
± Gifford also began to express reservations about the continuation of the
Pope/Bowles controversy. On ±± May ±± Murray wrote to Byron to ac-
knowledge safe receipt of
the Second Letter on Pope “ which I immediately sent to Mr. Gifford “ upon whom
I called this morning and he told me he thought it very interesting & exceedingly
clever “ there were parts certainly wch could not be published, but he desired me to
get it set up instantly in print & then he would go over it with great care & give your
Lordship his opinion. (MS., John Murray Archive)
Gifford wrote his response to Murray from Pimlico on  May. On  May
±±, Murray extracted a passage in a letter to Byron:
I have added a Copy of the Second Letter with Mr Giffords remarks “ he says ˜I
hope however Lord B will not continue to squander himself away thus “ when will he
resume his majestic march, & shake the earth again.™ (MS., John Murray Archive)
The fuller context of Gifford™s remarks are as follows:
I send Lord B. with a good deal cut out “ but it will be unsafe to publish it “ a little
more may yet be spared, but that he will probably see himself. The <letter> matter
is not very re¬ned, but it is vigorous & to the purpose. Bowles requires checking. I
hope however Lord B. will not continue to squander himself away thus. (MS., John
Murray Archive)
 The Hints were eventually caught up in the row between Byron, Murray and
John Hunt over the publication of The Vision of Judgement. The Hints were
sent to Hunt, but ˜Slips of Letters to Pope, Blackwoods &c™ were ˜mislaid™
(Murray to Byron, µ September ±; MS., John Murray Archive).
 Upali Amarasinghe, Dryden and Pope in the Early Nineteenth Century; A Study of
Changing Literary Taste, ±°°“±° (Cambridge University Press, ±).
 See Byron, Complete Miscellaneous Prose, p. ° for the printer™s query on the
±° proofs about incorporating ˜all that relates to Pope™ from the Letter to
Blackwood ˜as a Note [at?] the ¬rst place where Pope is mentioned™.
Notes to pages “±°µ ±
µ William Crowe, A Treatise on English Versi¬cation (London, ±·), p. ±.
 Samuel Taylor Coleridge, Biographia Literaria; or, Biographical Sketches of My
Literary Life and Opinions, (eds.) James Engell and W. Jackson Bate,  vols.
(London: Routledge and New York, ±), ©©, p. ±°·; The Letters of William
and Dorothy Wordsworth, (ed.) Ernest De Selincourt, nd edn, The Middle Years,
±±“±°, (rev.) Mary Moorman and Alan G. Hill (Oxford University Press,
±·°), ©©©. , p. µ.
· Letter of ± May ±±; MS., John Murray Archive.
 Graham argues that Byron ˜makes [the Horatian matter] peculiarly En-
glish, and peculiarly his own, by pinning a particular British identity (that
of his publisher) on his reader, casting the matter in terms of English lit-
erature, and transforming the translation™ (Don Juan and Regency England,
p. ±·).
 BLJ, ©, p. µ.
µ° Hugh J. Luke, Jr, ˜The Publishing of Byron™s Don Juan™, PMLA ° (±µ),
±“°; p. °.
µ± RR, B: ©, p. ±µ.
µ Ibid., p. ±.
µ Byron, Complete Miscellaneous Prose, p. ±±·.
µ BLJ, ©©, p. °.
µµ BLJ, ©©©, pp. °°; °.
µ Byron, Complete Miscellaneous Prose, p. ±·°.
µ· Ibid., p. ±.
µ Henry Crabb Robinson on Books and Their Writers ±··µ“±·, (ed.) Edith J.
Morley,  vols. (London: J.M. Dent, ±), ©©©, p. ±µ; Lovell, Lady Blessington™s
Conversations of Lord Byron, p. °.
µ Byron, Complete Miscellaneous Prose, pp. ±“µ·.
° ˜Concluding Observations on the Poetic Character of Pope™; quoted in Jacob
Johan Van Rennes, Bowles, Byron and the Pope-Controversy (New York: Haskell
House, ±), p. .
± Byron, Complete Miscellaneous Prose, pp. ±°“±.
 Joseph Andrews, (ed.) R.F. Brissenden (Harmondsworth: Penguin, ±··; repr.
±), pp. “±°°.
 Rev. William Bowles, ˜Two Letters to the Right Honourable Lord Byron
in answer to his Lordship™s letter . . .™ in The Pamphleteer µ (±±), °“µ;
p. .
 See also Byron™s anecdote about Johnson, Garrick and the samphire gatherer
in King Lear in which he seizes on the interruption of human activity: ˜I am
speaking of a description in which nothing is introduced from life to break
the effect™ (Byron, Complete Miscellaneous Prose, p. ±).
µ Roland Barthes, The Pleasure of the Text, (transl.) Richard Miller (Oxford: Basil
Blackwell, ±°), p. ±°.
 Byron, Complete Miscellaneous Prose, p. ±; Pope, An Essay on Man, ©, l. .
· Reynolds, Discourses, p. ±.
 Barthes, The Pleasure of the Text, p. ±.
± Notes to pages ±°“±±µ
 UNC ER TA IN BL I S SE S: DO N JU A N , D I GR E S SI V E
I NT E R T E XTU ALI TY AND TH E R I S KS OF R EC E P TI O N
± Andrew Rutherford (ed.), Byron: The Critical Heritage (New York: Barnes and
Noble, ±·°), p. ·µ.
 Wilfred S. Dowden (ed.), The Journal of Thomas Moore,  vols. (Newark: Uni-
versity of Delaware Press, ±“±), ©©, p. .
 For the history of the quotation mark in English printing, see M.B. Parkes,
Pause and Effect: An Introduction to the History of Punctuation in the West (Aldershot:
Scolar Press, ±).
 Newlyn ˜Paradise Lost™ and the Romantic Reader, pp. ± “.
µ De Selincourt (ed.), The Letters of William and Dorothy Wordsworth, p. µ.
 William Wordsworth, The Prelude: ±·, ±°µ, ±µ°, (eds.) Jonathan
Wordsworth, M.H. Abrams and Stephen Gill (New York and London: W.W.
Norton, ±·), ©©©, ll. ·“ (±°µ).
· Elizabeth Barrett Browning, Her Novel in Verse, Aurora Leigh and Other Poems,
(introd.) Cora Kaplan (London: The Women™s Press, ±·; repr. ±), ©,
ll. ·°µ“·.
 G. Wilson Knight, Byron and Shakespeare (New York: Barnes and Noble, ±),
p. µ·.
 Bate, Shakespeare and the English Romantic Imagination, p. .
±° Peter Manning, Byron and his Fictions, (Detroit: Wayne State University Press,
±·), p. °±. John Hollander, The Figure of Echo: A Mode of Allusion in Milton and
After (Berkeley: University of California Press, ±±), p. µ. See also Chandler,
˜Romantic Allusiveness™, ± “·.
±± Bate, Shakespeare and the English Romantic Imagination, p. .
± Ibid., p. .
± Ibid., p. °.
± Anne Barton, ˜Don Juan Transformed™, in Rutherford (ed.), Byron: Augustan
and Romantic, pp. ±“°; p. ±.
±µ CPW, , p. ·±·; Barton, Byron: Don Juan, p. µµ.
± Truman Guy Steffan and W.W. Pratt (eds.), Byron™s Don Juan: A Variorum
Edition,  vols. (Austin and London: University of Texas Press, ±µ·; rev.
edn, ±·±), ©, p. ±.
±· Ibid.
± Barthes, The Pleasure of the Text, p. .
± Barton, ˜Don Juan Transformed™, pp. ±“±·.
° Ernest J. Lovell, Jr, (ed.), Medwin™s Conversations of Lord Byron (Princeton Uni-
versity Press, ±), p. ±.
± See Wolfson, ˜“Their She Condition”™, pp. µµ“±·.
 Ibid., p. µ±.
 See Othello ©©©. . ll. µ“; ©©©. . l. µ; . . ll. ±µ“.
 Lovell, Medwin™s Conversations, p. ±.
µ For the newspaper defences of Caroline as ˜driven snow™ in ±°, see CPW,
, p. ·. The ˜driven snow™ image recalls (ironically) Hermione in The
Winter™s Tale.
Notes to pages ±±·“±· ±µ
 Trelawny was to play Othello and Mary Shelley Desdemona. See Ernest
J. Lovell, Jr (ed.), His Very Self and Voice: Collected Conversations of Lord Byron
(London and Basingstoke: Macmillan, ±µ), p.  and The Journals of
Mary Shelley ±±“±, (eds.) Paula R. Feldman and Diana Scott-Kilvert
(Baltimore and London: Johns Hopkins University Press, ±·; repr. ±µ),
p. .
· Perri, ˜On Alluding™, pp. “°·.
 See Tim Fulford, ˜Coleridge and the Royal Family: The Politics of Androg-
yny™, in Coleridge™s Visionary Languages, (eds.) Tim Fulford and Morton D. Paley
(Cambridge: Brewer, ±), pp. ·“; pp. “.
 For a defence of Caroline that hinges on ˜odd instances of strange coinci-
dence™, see CPW, , p. ·.
° For an opposing view of seduction as a dissolution of identity and difference
in Don Juan™ see Charles Eric Reeves, ˜Continual Seduction: The Reading
of Don Juan™, Studies in Romanticism ±· (±·), µ“.
± Lovell, Medwin™s Conversations, p. ±.
 See Anthony Giddens, The Consequences of Modernity (Stanford University
Press, ±°); another crucial result of modernity, according to Giddens,
is ˜the transformation of intimacy™ which could also be explored through
Byron™s relationship with his female readers. See Anthony Giddens, The
Transformation of Intimacy: Sexuality, Love and Eroticism in Modern Societies
(Cambridge: Polity Press, ±).
 See Robert F. Gleckner, ˜Gambling and Byron™s Poetics™, Nineteenth-Century
Studies ± (±·), ± “±±.
 Peter Cochran, ˜Byron and Castelnau™s History of New Russia™, The Keats-Shelley
Review  (±“), “·°; p. ±. See also Manning, Byron and His Fictions,
pp. °·“±°.
µ Michael G. Cooke discusses the ambivalence of Byron™s ˜“ or “™ constructions
in The Blind Man Traces the Circle: On the Patterns and Philosophy of Byron™s Poetry
(Princeton University Press, ±), p. ±.
 W.H. Auden, The Dyer™s Hand and Other Essays (London: Faber and Faber,
±; repr. ±·µ), p. ·
· Galignani™s Messenger, no. °. For more detailed discussion of this newspa-
per, see Chapter Five.
 Lovell, Lady Blessington™s Conversations of Lord Byron, p. °.
 Unexpectedly we can see a similar treatment of scale in relation to chance in
the writing of Mary Wollstonecraft. Her scathing attacks on the massive
injustice of the arbitrary power of the monarchy or the ˜hazard™ of the crim-
inal justice system contrasted with her loving remonstrance of Godwin™s
fallible ˜chance-medley™ system of contraception. See Mary Wollstonecraft,
Political Writings, (ed.) Janet Todd (Harmondsworth: Penguin, ±), p. ±µ;
Mary Wollstonecraft, A Short Residence in Sweden, (ed.) Richard Holmes
(Harmondsworth: Penguin, ±·), p. ±; Claire Tomalin, The Life and
Death of Mary Wollstonecraft (Harmondsworth: Penguin, ±·; repr. ±),
p. µ.
± Notes to pages ±“±
° See Bernard Beatty, ˜Byron and the Paradoxes of Nationalism™, in Vincent
Newey and Ann Thompson (eds.), Literature and Nationalism (Liverpool Uni-
versity Press, ±±), pp. ±µ“; p. ±µ.
± See David Fairer™s discussion of slime as a ¬‚eshly condition, the opposite
of divine imaginative creativity, in Pope™s Imagination (Manchester University
Press, ±), pp. ±±“µ.
 BLJ, ©©, p. ±.
 Shelley™s Poetry and Prose (eds.) Reiman and Powers, p. ±.
 Minutes of Proceedings in the Westminster Election ±±. BL Add. Mss.
·µ. v.
µ Virginia Woolf, To the Lighthouse (London: Collins, ±··; repr. ±), pp. ±°;
±; ±.
 The importance of uncertainty in relation to a sense of stability in Don
Juan is illuminated in Michael G. Cooke, ˜Byron™s Don Juan: The Obsession
and Self-Discipline of Spontaneity™, Studies in Romanticism ± (±·µ), µ“
°. See also the comparison between Byron and Shelley in John Watkins,
˜Byron and the Phenomenology of Negation™, Studies in Romanticism  (±°),
µ“±±.

<<

. 34
( 41 .)



>>