The Past Jumps Up: British Radicals and the Remaking of Literary History, 1790-1870
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
The Past Jumps Up: British Radicals and the Remaking of Literary History, 1790-1870 by Casie Renee LeGette A dissertation submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy (English Language and Literature) in The University of Michigan 2010 Doctoral Committee: Associate Professor Adela N. Pinch, Chair Professor Marjorie Levinson Emeritus Professor Martha J. Vicinus Associate Professor Daniel S. Hack Associate Professor Kali A. K. Israel Acknowledgments I would like first to thank Adela Pinch, whose importance to this project is impossible to put into words. Without her, this dissertation would not exist. My thanks also to Danny Hack, who has lent this project his considerable expertise. The particular blend of criticism and support with which he has nurtured this project has proved invaluable. I will sorely miss my conversations with Marjorie Levinson, which have challenged, sustained, and inspired me for the past six years. Through Marjorie’s eyes, I can glimpse what my work could be, at its very best. I would like to thank Martha Vicinus for her meticulous feedback and her remarkable generosity. She is the kind of mentor I hope to be. Kali Israel’s enthusiasm for this project has motivated me to expand its scope and its stakes. All literary scholars should be lucky enough to have such a historian in their corner. And my thanks to Yopie Prins, for years of support and encouragement. This dissertation owes a great deal to the generosity of the archivists at the Labour History Archive of the People’s History Museum, the Bishopsgate Institute, the Working Class Movement Library, and the National Co-operative Archive. I would like to thank them as well. I have been astonishingly lucky to have had the support of an extraordinary group of colleagues while writing this dissertation. Angela Berkley, Sarah Allison, Jenny Sorensen Emery-Peck, and Taryn Hakala have listened patiently as I have talked through the ins and outs of this project for the past three years, over beers and fries at Ashley’s, on long walks through Ann Arbor, at Espresso Royale, over lunches, over dinners, in all times and all places. They have offered their intellectual brilliance and their constant support, and I cannot thank them enough. Last but not least, I would like to thank Charles, Sandy, Ben, and Melissa LeGette. Their support has made this dissertation possible. ii Table of Contents Acknowledgements………………………………………………………………………..ii Abstract…………………………………………………………………………………...iv Introduction………………………………………………………………………………..1 Chapter 1. Of Waste Paper, Prisons, and Incest: Caleb Williams in the Nineteenth Century…………………………………...20 Chapter 2. The Past Jumps Up: Wordsworth and Southey in the Radical Press………..66 Chapter 3. The View from Gaol: British Poetry and Radical Prisoners……………….112 Chapter 4. George Eliot, George Jacob Holyoake, and the Politics of Quotation……..161 Coda…………………………………………………………………………………….203 Bibliography……………………………………………………………………………213 iii Abstract This dissertation argues that radical editors and publishers transformed nineteenth- century literary history, hauling the texts of the recent past directly into the present and undoing literary chronology in the service of political change. The radical, political periodical press of the nineteenth century was filled with excerpts of literary texts from the recent past. We might call this publication practice nostalgic, except for the fact that these editors and publishers, not content with idealizing the radical past, pulled these texts directly into the present, excerpting them, reprinting them, and making them do new political work. By re-circulating the texts of the 1790s, radicals wrote a powerful alternative history of the nineteenth century. Robert Southey and William Wordsworth might have been considered conservatives by the 1810s, but not on the pages of the radical press, where they emerge as lifelong radical poets. The first two chapters of this dissertation trace the afterlives of works by William Godwin, Robert Southey, and William Wordsworth, including Caleb Williams, Wat Tyler, and Wordsworth’s Liberty Sonnets. These chapters examine how these texts appeared in important periodicals, including Thomas Wooler’s The Black Dwarf and William Thomson’s Chartist Circular. The third chapter hones in on radical print culture by turning to a central site for practices of reading, writing, and publishing: the prison. This chapter analyzes a series of letters and poems written from prison, including the extended prison correspondence between Henry Vincent, a Chartist, and Francis Place. This chapter’s treatment of poems, written iv from prison and published in the radical press, has significant implications for our conception of the “solitary” lyric speaker of early nineteenth-century poetry. The dissertation’s final chapter turns to the second half of the nineteenth century, to examine George Jacob Holyoake’s repeated deployment of excerpts of texts by George Eliot, including Felix Holt: The Radical. By carefully excerpting and reprinting Eliot’s novels, poems, and plays, Holyoake turned her into a dedicated supporter of his various political initiatives. Ultimately, this dissertation demonstrates that the re-circulation of literary texts can be a surprisingly effective means of rewriting history and of advancing political movements. v 1 Introduction My story of nineteenth-century literary history is a story of gaps in time, of belatedness, of reprinting, of remembering, and of forgetting. Despite recent attention to questions of reprinting and reception, historicizing literary texts too often means historicizing the moment of production. This over-privileging of the time of production can elide the fact that texts rarely moved from author to reader with any kind of immediacy, or the fact that—as we all know—texts are rarely fixed to their moment of publication. The question of whether or not texts are bound to a single historical moment proved to be a topic of some debate in the nineteenth century. For example, conservative commentators assured their readers throughout the century that both William Godwin and his novel Caleb Williams had lived only a very short public life, finding “universal success for the day, [but then] being flung into contemptuous and returnless oblivion.”1 Although the Tory magazine Blackwood’s could thus argue for Godwin’s total disappearance from public attention in 1839, his novel Caleb Williams was in print continuously from 1793 to 1915, a fact that supports the ardent cry of a poet writing in the Chartist National Vindicator in 1841: “Dead! is he dead? stern advocate of truth, / Godwin the just, the generous, the good? / No! Godwin lives.”2 Radical political commentators, like this poet, one Francis Baunock, often turned to the texts of the recent past. We might term this practice of looking back to the radical 1790s a kind of 1 George Croly, “Bannister the Comedian.” Blackwood’s Vol 45 (March 1839) 403. 2 Francis Baunock, “To the Memory of Godwin.” The National Vindicator 4 (December 1841). 2 nostalgia, except for the fact that radical editors and publishers, not content with idealizing the radical past, hauled these texts directly into the present, excerpting them, reprinting them, and making them do new political work. Attending to the literary practices of radical editors and publishers upends our sense of literary history, particularly since literary history has been so much more likely to follow the dictates of the conservative Blackwood’s, busy sounding Godwin’s death knell, than the Chartist National Vindicator. By the mid-nineteenth century, radical editors and publishers could still insist, not only that Godwin was alive and well, but that Robert Southey and William Wordsworth were radical poets. By the 1820s, Southey and Wordsworth were public conservatives, apostates known for abandoning their early enthusiasm for the French Revolution. But the radical journals of the 30s and 40s blithely ignored the contemporary politics of Wordsworth and Southey, reprinting only their more radical early work and treating them both as lifelong radical poets. In an act of sheer political will—and in the face of much evidence to the contrary—nineteenth- century radicals created their own versions of Wordsworth and Southey, and actively co- opted their poetry for their own political ends. My project demonstrates that the re- circulation of literary texts can be a surprisingly effective means of rewriting history and of advancing political movements. By reprinting the literature of the recent past, the radical editors of the nineteenth century transformed lost causes into utopian politics. The writers, editors, and publishers of the radical and Chartist presses regularly recycled the political texts of the recent past, excerpting classic radical texts like Caleb Williams (1793) and Wat Tyler (comp. 1794, pub. 1817) well into the 1840s and 50s. Radical publishers reprinted texts at much lower prices, and the radical press made such 3 texts—albeit in their excerpted forms—available to a significantly wider audience. In fact, “the radical press was the pacesetter in terms of newspaper circulation throughout much of the period 1815-55.”3 As Kevin Gilmartin, among others, has demonstrated, the radical press was the main organ for the expression and organization of the various radical movements of the early nineteenth-century.4 Thomas Laqueur calls the printing press the “most prevalent icon of late eighteenth- and early nineteenth-century