Introduction: Placing Lamb
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Notes Introduction: Placing Lamb 1. For the poem, see Graeme Stones and John Strachan, Parodies of the Romantic Age, 5 vols (London, 1999), I: 269–85; for more details on Gillray, see Richard T. Godfrey and Mark Hallett, James Gillray: The Art of Caricature (London, 2001). 2. For a full discussion, see Winifred F. Courtney, ‘Lamb, Gillray and the Ghost of Edmund Burke’, CLB 12 (1975), 77–82. 3. Edmund Spenser, Book I: canto i, stanza 20, The Faerie Queene, ed. A. C. Hamilton, 2nd edn. rev. eds, Hiroshi Yamashita and Toshiyuki Suzuki (Harlow, 2007), 36. 4. C. C. Southey, ed., The Life and Correspondence of the Late Robert Southey, 6 vols (London, 1849), I: 345. 5. Thomas Noon Talfourd, ed., The Works of Charles Lamb, 2nd edn, 2 vols (London, 1850), I: 72. Cited by Burton R. Pollin, ‘Charles Lamb and Charles Lloyd as Jacobins and Anti-Jacobins’, SiR (1973), 633–47 (633), who gives a full account of how Lamb has been viewed as apolitical. 6. E. V. Lucas, The Life of Charles Lamb, 2 vols (London, 1921), I: 165. 7. See Denys Thompson, ‘Our Debt to Lamb’, in Determinations, ed. F. R. Leavis (London, 1934), 199–217 (205), and Cyril Connolly, Enemies of Promise, rev. edn. (Harmondsworth, 1961), 23. Thompson’s complaint, to which I will return in Chapter 1, also encompasses readers of Lamb. 8. Joseph E. Riehl, That Dangerous Figure: Charles Lamb and the Critics (Columbia, SC, 1998), 93. 9. See also Jane Aaron, ‘Charles and Mary Lamb: The Critical Heritage’, CLB 59 (1987), 73–85. 10. Courtney’s work includes a full description of Lamb’s work in the Albion, and culminates in her strong, politically informed biography, which covers Lamb’s life to 1802. See ‘New Lamb Texts from the Albion’, CLB 3 (1977), 6–9, and Young Charles Lamb, 1775–1802 (London, 1982). 11. Jane Aaron, A Double Singleness: Gender and the Writings of Charles and Mary Lamb (Oxford, 1991), 6. 12. For an intriguing recent reading of Mary Lamb, see Adriana Craciun, Fatal Women of Romanticism (Cambridge, 2002); she has also been the subject of two recent biographies, by Kathy Watson, The Devil Kissed Her: The Story of Mary Lamb (London, 2004), and Susan Tyler Hitchcock, Mad Mary Lamb: Lunacy and Murder in Literary London (New York, 2005). Lamb’s relationship with the London Magazine has been re-examined by Mark Parker, Literary Magazines and British Romanticism (Cambridge, 2000), and Gerald Monsman, Charles Lamb as the London Magazine’s ‘Elia’ (Lewiston, 2003). 13. Karen Fang, ‘Empire, Coleridge, and Charles Lamb’s Consumer Imagination’, SEL 43.4 (2003), 815–43. 14. Denise Gigante, Taste: A Literary History (New Haven, 2005), 90. 15. Judith Plotz, Romanticism and the Vocation of Childhood (New York, 2001), 87–128. Plotz’s striking account, however, does have some parallels with 215 216 Notes those earlier critics: she presents a duplicitous, at times ‘willful, tendentious’ Lamb, who (as in Thompson’s account) shies away from engagement with real childhood suffering. 16. Anya Taylor, Bacchus in Romantic England: Writers and Drink, 1780–1830 (New York, 1999). 17. Mary Wedd, ‘Dialects of Humour: Lamb and Wordsworth’, CLB 19 (1977), 46–54 (46). 18. Alison Hickey has very interestingly tackled the importance of Lamb’s interlinked readings and friendships in this decade, and offers a fine account of the ways in which his relationship with Coleridge shaped his collaborations with Mary. See Hickey, ‘Double Bonds: Charles Lamb’s Romantic Collaborations’, ELH 63.3 (1996), 735–71. 19. Joseph Nicholes, ‘Politics by Indirection: Charles Lamb’s Seventeenth- Century Renegade, John Woodvil’, WC 19 (1988), 49–55. 20. Even the sociable underpinnings of Haydon’s iconic image of solitude have recently been exposed by Christopher Rovee, in ‘Solitude and Sociability: Wordsworth on Helvellyn’, Literature Compass 1 (1), 2004: doi:10.1111/j.1741- 4113.2004.00091.x. 21. Gillian Russell and Clara Tuite, Romantic Sociability: Social Networks and Literary Culture in Britain, 1770–1840 (Cambridge, 2002), 4. 22. See Nicholas Roe, Wordsworth and Coleridge: The Radical Years (Oxford, 1988); John Keats and the Culture of Dissent (Oxford, 1997); and The Politics of Nature: William Wordsworth and Some Contemporaries, 2nd edn (Basingstoke, 2002). Excellent work has recently been done in uncovering the friendships of the Godwin and Wollstonecraft circle, and patterns of religious affiliation amongst Unitarians such as Anna Letitia Barbauld and John Aikin. Mark Philp and Pamela Clemit, for instance, have untangled the networks of Godwin’s acquaintance in their editions of The Political and Philosophical Writings of Godwin, 7 vols (London, 1993). Work such as Daniel E. White’s fine study Early Romanticism and Religious Dissent (Cambridge, 2006)) demonstrates growing scholarly interest in the sociability of the Dissenting circles of the 1790s. 23. Roe, Politics of Nature, 27. 24. See Jeffrey N. Cox, Poetry and Politics in the Cockney School: Keats, Shelley, Hunt and Their Circle (Cambridge, 1998), 87. 25. See, for instance, Julie A. Carlson, ‘Hazlitt and the Sociability of Theatre’, 145–65, and Deidre Shauna Lynch, ‘Counter Publics: Shopping and Women’s Sociability’, 211–36, in Romantic Sociability, ed. Russell and Tuite. 26. Russell and Tuite, Romantic Sociability, 19. 27. See Lucy Newlyn, Reading, Writing, and Romanticism: The Anxiety of Reception (Oxford, 2000). 28. Harold Bloom, A Map of Misreading (Oxford, 1980), 19. 29. Lucy Newlyn, Coleridge, Wordsworth, and the Language of Allusion, 2nd edn (Oxford, 2001), xiii. 30. Ibid., xvi. 31. Paul D. Sheats, The Making of Wordsworth’s Poetry, 1785–1798 (Cambridge, MA, 1973), 163; Thomas McFarland, Romanticism and the Forms of Ruin: Wordsworth, Coleridge, and Modalities of Fragmentation (Princeton, 1981), 79; Paul Magnuson, Coleridge and Wordsworth: A Lyrical Dialogue (Princeton, 1988), x. In addition, there are a number of studies which deal with the Wordsworth-Coleridge Notes 217 relationship in detail. An essay by John Beer brilliantly discusses the ‘productive’ aspects of the friendship, focussing on their fluid, fluent use of ‘unstable’ water imagery – rivers, streams and brooks – as a way into their thinking about ongoing questions of fluency and stasis, unity and diversity, individuality and mutuality. In some ways my close focus on the room or bower image has been informed by Beer’s stimulating account, since it too is a nicely ambiguous emblem, both real and metaphorical. The place it occu- pies in the thoughts of the friends also shows it to be a way of approaching questions of influence, of mutual reading and writing. See John Beer, ‘Coleridge and Wordsworth: Influence and Confluence’, in New Approaches to Coleridge, ed. Donald Sultana (London, 1981), 192–211. For more discussion of the literary interplay – sometimes possessive, sometimes generous – between Wordsworth and Coleridge see Gene W. Ruoff, Wordsworth and Coleridge: The Making of the Major Lyrics, 1802–1804 (London, 1989). The focus has been broadened by the nuanced psycho-biographical account of Richard E. Matlak, The Poetry of Relationship: The Wordsworths and Coleridge, 1797–1800 (Basingstoke, 1997), which restores Dorothy to the dialogue. Similarly, John Worthen’s The Gang: Coleridge, the Hutchinsons and Wordsworths in 1802 (New Haven, 2001) opened the conversation to others. 32. The term ‘symbiosis’ is from McFarland, Romanticism and the Forms of Ruin, 56–103. 33. Christopher Ricks, Allusion to the Poets (Oxford, 2002), 147, 90. 34. Ricks, Allusion to the Poets, 159. 35. Leigh Hunt, ‘Preface’, Foliage; Or, Poems Original and Translated (London, 1818), 11. 36. Benjamin Robert Haydon, The Diary of Benjamin Robert Haydon. ed. by Willard Bissell Pope, 5 vols (Cambridge, MA, 1960), II: 173–6 (176). Although, admittedly, this sociability has its savage side, as a drunken Lamb ‘roared out, Diddle iddle don’ to mock the ‘mild namby pamby opinions’ of another guest John Kingston, Wordsworth’s superior as a commissioner of stamps (175). 1 Frendotatoi meta frendous: Constructing Friendship in the 1790s 1. Joseph Cottle, Reminiscences of S. T. Coleridge and R. Southey 1847 (Highgate, repr. 1970), 150–1. 2. First draft of ‘This Lime-tree Bower’ in letter to Robert Southey, 17 July 1797 (Griggs, I: 335–6). 3. I have followed Marrs’s scrupulous rendering of the varieties of the Lambs’ hands, where large writing is rendered in boldface and large underscored writing in boldface italic. Misspellings have not been corrected. 4. Edmund Burke, Reflections on the Revolution in France (London, 1790), 68–9. 5. E. P. Thompson, ‘A Compendium of Cliché: The Poet as Essayist,’ in The Romantics: England in a Revolutionary Age (New York, 1997), 143–55; Jerome Christensen, ‘ ‘‘Like a Guilty Thing Surprised”: Deconstruction, Coleridge, and the Apostasy of Criticism’, Critical Inquiry 12 (1986), 769–87; Charles Mahoney, ‘The Multeity of Coleridgean Apostasy’, in Irony and Clerisy, ed., Deborah Elise White, Romantic 218 Notes Circles Praxis Series (1999) <http://www.rc.umd.edu/praxis/irony/>. (Electronic source, University of Maryland. 6. Christensen, ‘Guilty Thing’, 772. See also Jerome Christensen, ‘Once an Apostate Always an Apostate’, SiR 21 (1982), 461–4. 7. James K. Chandler, Wordsworth’s Second Nature: A Study of the Poetry and Politics (Chicago, 1984). 8. This is not to suggest that Godwin did not also have an interest in friendly affections and their connection with social structures; after all, the ‘true philosopher’ described in Political Justice must have witnessed and under- stood the feelings when ‘the soul pours out its inmost self into the bosom of an equal and a friend’ (PJ, 211). 9. Nigel Leask, The Politics of Imagination in Coleridge’s Critical Thought (Basingstoke, 1988), 15. 10. See Leask’s argument that Wordsworth and Coleridge write within ‘a Unitarianism which verged on radical deism,’ drawing on ‘the ideas of the English ‘Commonwealthmen’ of the seventeenth century’ (The Politics of Imagination, 10–11).