The Pennsylvania State University the Graduate School
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
The Pennsylvania State University The Graduate School College of the Liberal Arts SPONTANEOUS OVERFLOW: INTERNALIZATION AND EXCESS IN BRITISH ROMANTICISM A Dissertation in English by Jacob A. H. Hughes © 2014 Jacob A. H. Hughes Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy December 2014 ii The dissertation of Jacob Hughes was reviewed and approved* by the following: Garret A. Sullivan, Jr. Professor of English Director of Graduate Studies, English Co-Chair of Committee Nicholas A. Joukovsky Emeritus Professor of English Dissertation Advisor Co-Chair of Committee Anne C. McCarthy Assistant Professor of English Philip Jenkins Edwin Erle Sparks Professor of Humanities *Signatures are on file in the Graduate School iii ABSTRACT Spontaneous Overflow fixates on comic corporeality in the literature of British Romanticism: the bodily movements and moments that make the Romantic Movement move. Byron complains of a nausea induced by reading too much Wordsworth; Blake grumbles of a bowel complaint which nearly killed him while reading the Excursion. These moments read Romanticism differently. Odd articulations of aesthetic experience, they expose the comic contingencies written on the underside of Romantic sincerity, and give a glimpse of a different history of Romanticism: one in which the aesthetic impulse towards idealism contains and conceals corporeality as part of its poetic structure and style. A doctrine of sincerity, Wordsworth’s famous articulation of all good poetry as the “spontaneous overflow of powerful feelings” takes on a surprisingly somatic force when re-read by Blake’s bowels and Byron’s nausea. Tracing the intestinal tract of Romantic internalization, writers in the history of what I call “Inside Out Romanticism” create counter-flows and blockages with their bodies that disrupt and redirect a totalizing discourse of Romanticism at the very moment of its inception. While critics have often turned to “internalization” as shorthand for the imaginative work attempted by Romanticism’s aesthetics of transcendence, I argue that sudden convulsions of the body create spontaneous counter-flows that expose something somatic embedded in aesthetics and re-write the inward-turn of Romanticism as a physiological phenomenon. Attending to the stylistic subtleties of Wordsworth, Coleridge, Byron, and Thomas Love Peacock, my project interrogates the hidden presence of corporeality at the core of an ostensibly disembodied aesthetic tradition, and ultimately resituates Romanticism’s radicalism in and around the excesses and evacuations of the body. iv Table of Contents Acknowledgments v Introduction: Critical Excursions 1 Chapter 1: Inside Out Romanticism 49 Chapter 2: The Factitious Air: A Romantic Metaphor 100 Chapter 3: Byron’s Nausea 159 Chapter 4: Headlong Fall: Thomas Love Peacock’s Gravitational Aesthetic 239 Conclusion: Byron’s Pooh!, Blake’s Shit!, and the Collapsurgence of Criticism 289 Bibliography 300 v ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Coffee at Irving’s, beer at Zeno’s, afternoon runs on the Arboretum trail. Rinse and repeat. I would never have made it through all this without the patience of family, friends, and mentors who indulged me in my many excesses. I am forever in debt to Nicholas Joukovsky, without whose constant support, guidance, and patience my dissertation would still be a collection of haphazard and poorly formatted notes. Anne McCarthy indulged my penchant for excessive alliteration, bad puns, and worse jokes, all while offering astute commentary that continually breathed new life into the project. Garrett Sullivan graciously gave his time to this project with his characteristic blend of good humor and rigorous intellect. I owe all of my professors a profounder debt of gratitude than can possibly be repaid. I am blessed with an over-abundance of friends, all of whom contributed to this project in one way or another. The hours spent playing basketball with Matt Price inspired some of my best writing. Paul Zajac’s sense of humor and unwavering faith in my project got me through the worst of it. That joke is still funny. Patrick Chappell, constant friend and reveler, kept my energy alive with a steady stream of Pickwick quotations. The White Oak Villains—Ethan Mannon and Kris Lotier—indulged more of my excesses than I can remember. Nate Redman came late to the party, but brought some good beer and endless conversation. Josh Tendler hung on with me until the end: they can’t take our PhDs away! Susan Weeber and Erica Stevens—fellow appreciators of absurdity—have been kinder to me than I deserved, and I owe them both a great deal more than I can give. My family has loved and supported me every step of the way, and inspired much of this project. I developed my sense of humor and a fine appreciation for physical comedy playing in vi the yard with my four sisters: sledding in the winter, slip n slide in summer, the swingset all the year round. My parents must wonder how such a quiet kid grew up to be so noisy: it’s because you made us watch It’s A Mad, Mad, Mad, Mad World, and I haven’t stopped laughing since. Granny and Granddad remained more interested in my project over the last several years than I have: I owe them my love and thanks. Finally, and most profoundly, I am grateful to Caroline Ainsworth for her patience, support, and what must have seemed like six years of “little, nameless, unremembered, acts of kindness and of love.” I have remembered all of them. “Thy firmness makes my circle just, / And makes me end where I begun.” vii A serious and good philosophical work could be written consisting entirely of jokes. —Ludwig Wittgenstein 1 Introduction: Critical Excursions I had the pleasure of reading to Blake in my best style (& you know I am vain on that point & think I read W[ordsworth]’s poems peculiarly well) the Ode on Immortality. I never witnessed greater delight in any listener & in general Blake loves the poems. What appears to have disturbed his mind, on the other hand, is the preface to the Excursion. He told me six months ago that it caused him a bowel complaint which nearly killed him. —Henry Crabb Robinson, letter to Dorothy Wordsworth (1826)1 I Odd sorts of materiality infiltrate the experience of Romantic aesthetics. Lord Byron quips to Thomas Medwin that “Shelley, when I was in Switzerland, used to dose me with Wordsworth physic even to nausea.”2 William Blake grumbles to Henry Crabb Robinson of “a bowel complaint which nearly killed him” upon encountering the Preface to William Wordsworth’s Excursion. Byron writes of John Keats’ poetry as “a Bedlam vision produced by raw pork and opium”: “such writing is a sort of mental masturbation—he is always frigging his imagination.”3 What wisdom is there in such strange reactions to Romantic writing? Seemingly comic footnotes to the larger discourse of Romanticism, they offer serious critical insights into what it means to be “Romantic”: a difficult thing to pin down, it turns out.4 Some of Romanticism’s most evocative formulations for aesthetics oscillate between metaphor and material, making it a difficult discourse to describe. Take Wordsworth’s well-known definition of all good poetry: “the spontaneous overflow of powerful feelings.”5 Straightforward enough, but is it in fact a 2 definition?6 Or isn’t it really a metaphor, and as such open to endless articulation and interpretation? Notice how the reactions with which I began all hint at their own sorts of spontaneous overflow: physiological responses to an experience of aesthetics which question the affective register for “feelings” in Wordsworth’s formulation, redefining it in more tactile terms.7 Emphasizing the aberrational as a bodily phenomenon, these writers interrogate the material underpinnings of the irrational kernel of imaginative life so often exalted in Romantic poetics, showing how a history of Romantic internalization may be just as intestinal as it is imaginative. This dissertation fixates on such odd bodily phenomena as Byron’s nausea and Blake’s bowels, arguing that they have their own peculiar history that must be read alongside the development of Romantic aesthetics in order to arrive at a critical interpretation of Romanticism that more fully integrates body and mind within a comic context. Attending to the conversations such hidden materialities create with broader, more canonical conceptions of Romanticism opens up new interpretive angles for observing the physical comedy and perverse materiality that underwrite stylistic nuances and imaginative aspirations in Romantic aesthetics. From the start this is a project about zooming in on the small moments of Romanticism, almost unworthy of mentioning but in passing, that begin to slowly add up to something larger when carefully considered. Byron’s nausea is a good example: apparently a tossed-off comment, merely recollected in Medwin’s Conversations of Lord Byron (1824), should we even take it seriously at all? Perhaps not, but it initiates a critical conversation with Wordsworthian poetics that becomes a useful heuristic for negotiating the physiological problems of poetic transcendence. Others appear to have adopted it: notably Blake with his bowel complaint, but witness also Francis Jeffrey’s attempt, upon encountering the sheer bulk of the Excursion, to purge the Bard of the Lakes of his own aesthetic excess: 3 This small specimen, however, and the statements with which it is prefaced, have been sufficient to set our minds at rest in one particular. The case of Mr. Wordsworth, we perceive, is now manifestly hopeless; and we give him up as altogether incurable, and beyond the power of criticism. We cannot indeed altogether omit taking precautions now and then against the spreading of the malady;—but for himself, though we shall watch the progress of his symptoms as a matter of professional curiosity and instruction, we really think it right not to harass him any longer with nauseous remedies,—but rather to throw in cordials and lenitives, and wait in patience for the natural termination of the disorder.8 Even Wordsworth himself sickens on a system of transcendence, Jeffrey suggests.