<<

Appendix: “To Mrs. Barbauld, at Geneva”

From ’s Poems (London: Joseph Johnson, 1791); reprinted here from ’s Memoir of John Aikin, M. D. (Philadelphia: Abraham Small, 1824).

From Yare’s low banks, where through the marshy plain He leads his scanty tribute to the main, On sea-girt Albion’s furthest Eastern bound Where direful shoals extend their bulwark round,— To thee I turn, my sister and my friend! On thee from far the mental vision bend. O’er land, o’er sea, freed Fancy speeds her flight, And now the chalky cliffs behind her fly, And Gallia’s realms in brilliant prospect lie; Now rivers, plains, and woods and vales are cross’d, 10 And many a scene in gay confusion lost, ’Till ’mid Burgundian hills she joins her chase, And social pleasure crowns the rapid race.

Fair land! by nature deck’d, and graced by art, Alike to cheer the eye and glad the heart, Pour thy soft influence through Laetitia’s breast, And lull each swelling wave of care to rest; Heal with sweet balm the wounds of pain and toil, Bid anxious, busy years restore their spoil; The spirits light, the vigorous soul infuse, 20 And, to requite thy gifts, bring back the Muse. For sure that Muse, whose far-resounding strains Ennobled Cyrnus’ rocks and Mersey’s plains, Shall here with boldest touch awake the lyre, Soar to new heights, and glow with brighter fire. Methinks I hear the sweetly-warbled note On Seine’s meand’ring bosom gently float; Suzon’s rude vale repeats the charming voice, And all around the vine-clad hills rejoice: Now all thy grots, Auxcelles! with music sound; 30 From crystal roofs and vaults the strains rebound: Besançon’s splendid towers the song partake, And breezes waft it to the Leman lake. Delightful lake! whose margin gay and green 164 Appendix

Smiles in soft contrast to the rugged scene Of stern brow’d , where storms eternal roll, How must thy varied charms entrance the soul! With what high passions must thy prospect move The heart that beats to liberty and love! Around, fair Freedom builds her lofty throne, 40 And rocks and valour guard it for her own; While deep within embowering shades conceal’d, To none but Cupid’s mystic band reveal’d, Clarens! Thy roofs ascend, with turrets crown’d, And love and Julia fill th’ enchanted ground. Such, my Laetitia, on thy ravish’d eyes Bursts the bright scene, the vivid landscape rise; While from my sight the air-drawn pictures fade, And Fancy’s glass bedimm’d denies its aid; The colours melt, the lines dissolve in space, 50 And cold realities usurp the place. What different scenes succeed!—a steril shore, Long level plains, the restless ocean’s roar, The rattling car, the shipwright’s sturdy toil, The far-spread net, and heaps of finny spoil, Keen Eurus here sweeps o’er th’ unshelter’d land, Shakes the strong dome, and whirls the loosen’d sand: Fair Flora shrinks, the trees averted bend, While their thin boughs a scanty shade extend: And, for the flowering thicket’s cheerful notes, 60 Here hungry sea-fowl stretch their clamorous throats. And yet, e’en here, the soul-directed sight, Which nature’s views in ev’ry form delight, May catch, as o’er the brighten’d scene they gleam, Grandeur’s strong ray, or beauty’s softer beam. Frequent along the pebbly beach I pace, And gaze intent on ocean’s varying face. Now from the main rolls in the swelling tide, And waves on waves in long procession ride; Gath’ring they come, till, gain’d the ridgy height, 70 No more the liquid mound sustains its weight; It curls, it falls, it breaks with hideous roar, And pours a foamy deluge on the shore. From the bleak pole now driving tempests sweep, Tear the light clouds, and vex the ruffled deep, White o’er the shoals the spouting breakers rise, And mix the waste of waters with the skies: The anchoring vessels, stretched in long array, Shake from their bounding sides the dashing spray; Lab’ring they heave, the tighten’d cables strain, 80 And danger adds new horror to the main. Then shifts the scene, as to the western gales Delighted Commerce spreads her crowded sails. A cluster’d group the distant fleet appear, Appendix 165

That scatt’ring breaks in varied figures near: Now, all illum’d by the kindling ray, Swan-like, the stately vessel cuts her way; The full-wing’d barks now meet, now swiftly pass, And leave long traces in the liquid glass: Light boats, all sail, athwart the current bound, 90 And dot with shining specks the surface round. Nor with the day the sea-born splendours cease: When evening lulls each ruder gale to peace, The rising moon with silvery luster gleams, And shoots across the flood her quivering beams. Or if deep gloom succeeds the sultry day, On ocean’s bosom native meteors play, Flash from the wave, pursue the dipping oar, And roll in flashing billows to the shore. ’Tis thus, within this narrow nook confined, 100 I strive to feed with change th’ insatiate mind, But surer aid the Muses’ stores impart, With each new world of science and of art; And, more than all, the joys of sacred home Forbid my heart to pant, my feet to roam. Yet one dear wish still struggles in my breast, And points one darling object unpossess’d: How many years have whirl’d their rapid course Since we, sole streamlets from one honour’d source, In fond affection as in blood allied, 110 Have wandered devious from each other’s side; Allowed to catch alone some transient view, Scarce long enough to think the vision true; O then, while yet some zest of life remains, While transport yet can swell the beating veins, While sweet remembrance keeps her wonted seat, And fancy still retains some genial heat, When evening bids each busy task be o’er, Once let us meet again,—to part no more! Notes

Preface 1. Cf. Stuart Curran, “Romantic : Why and Wherefore?” in The Cambridge Companion to British , ed. Stuart Curran (Cambridge UP, 1993): “Ages are marked by literary fashion as much as by their political settlements of upheavals” (216). For another view on the range of genres published during the Romantic period, see Rajan and Wright, Romanticism, and the Possibilities of Genre (Cambridge UP, 1998). 2. See also Helen Waddell, The Wandering Scholars of the Middle Ages. 1932. Mineola, NY: Dover, 2000. 3. David Richard Jones, Great Directors at Work: Stanislavsky, Brecht, Kazan, Brook. Berkeley, CA: UC Press, 1987. p. 6. 4. I derive this idea of a mediating network from the plenary talk given by Clifford Siskin during the “Contesting Creativity: 1740–1830” conference at the University of Leeds on September 12, 2008. 5. See William McCarthy’s forthcoming biography, Anna Letitia Barbauld: Voice of the Enlightenment (JHU Press, 2008). 6. See William McCarthy, “The Celebrated Academy at Palgrave: A Documentary History of Anna Letitia Barbauld’s School.” The Age of Johnson: A Scholarly Annual 8. Ed. Paul J. Korshin. New York: AMS Press, Inc., 1997. 7. The poem in question was most certainly written for an intimate, occasional context, the conventions for which encouraged effusions of sentiment that would in other contexts appear clumsy and ill-fitting. Wollstonecraft must not have acknowledged such context, and she simply could not understand how a poem like “To a Lady, with some painted Flowers” could stand side-by-side in the same collection with a poem like “To Mrs. P(riestley), with Drawings of and Insects,” a poem she actually praises. But that, it seems to me, is exactly the point with Barbauld: she was capable of negotiating a wide range of audiences without ever being disingenuous (see the introduction to SPP for a discussion of Barbauld’s ingenuousness). 8. See Vargo, who asserts that fabricated the story about his response to Barbauld’s criticism of “The Rime of the Ancient Mariner” in order to bury her career forever. 9. The most current title that intersects with this study at a number of points is Michelle Levy’s Family Authorship and Romantic Print Culture (Palgrave, 2008). Other titles include Literary Couplings: Writing Couples, Collaborators, and the Construction of Authorship, ed. Marjorie Stone and Judith Thompson (University of Wisconsin Press, 2006); Ruth Perry’s Novel Relations: The Transformation of Kinship in and Culture 1748–1818 (Cambridge, 2004); Carol Sherman’s The Family Crucible in Eighteenth 168 Notes

Century Literature (Ashgate, 2005); and Jane Spencer’s Literary Relations: Kinship and the Canon 1660–1830 (Oxford, 2005). 10. Selections from the Letters of . Ed. John Wood Warter. 4 Vols. 1856 (London). New York: AMS Press, 1977. (2.17). 11. McCarthy and Kraft’s comment refers to the oft-cited but inadequately understood rift between Barbauld and Coleridge, but the comment is equally applicable in this instance. 12. Composed on the occasion of the Barbaulds’ trip to in 1785. First published in Poems (1791). London, Joseph Johnson. Here, the excerpt is taken from Lucy Aikin’s Memoir of John Aikin, M. D. Philadelphia: Abraham Small, 1824. The poem is reprinted in its entirety on pages 64–66. 13. See Jung’s Aion: Researches into the Phenomenology of the Self (Part III), excerpted in The Portable Jung, ed. Joseph Campbell. New York: Viking, 1971. (148 ff.); I owe this observation to a recent discussion with Pat Hoy III, director of expository writing at NYU and one of the most influential teachers of my life. 14. See Locke’s discussion of the transferability of consciousness between indi- vidual persons (or “souls”) in Book II, Chapter XXVII, §12 ff. of Concerning Human Understanding. I am gratefully indebted to David Fairer of the University of Leeds for suggesting this connection.

1 Collaborative Dissent: Barbauld and Aikin’s Sibling Pamphlets 1. They had been apart since Anna married and left the Academy in 1774. John remained at the Academy as an instructor while Anna and Rochemont settled in Palgrave, Suffolk, and began oversight of the Palgrave School. 2. Letters that might have illuminated this remarkable period are believed to have , been destroyed during World War II. 3. McCarthy, personal correspondence. The paper’s date was March 25–27, 1790. 4. The third stage, as I have conceptualized it, results as the logical outcome of two long and active careers in writing—creative, critical, educational, and political. I have chosen not to explore this period in depth because the collab- orative connections are difficult to trace. There is no extant correspondence between the siblings from this period, which is most certainly attributable to their having lived across the street from each other. That they discussed their respective works cannot be doubted, for they had long practiced habits of sharing work and offering each other advice. My intent in focusing on the first two stages in greater depth is to expose the dialogic patterns in their work and to explicate their significance. Although this type of methodology could be brought to bear on works in the third phase, the scope of those works, namely the two major collections, represent a different kind of dia- logue altogether, one belonging to the rhetoric of cultural production, not aesthetic, social, or political discourse. 5. The students, too, were from diverse backgrounds, and the quality of the was so high that it even attracted sons of Anglican fami- lies. Nonconformists disagreed with the Anglican Church on a number of grounds, ranging from the use of vestments, which established rank among the clergy, to the swearing of oaths to the Church itself. The Notes 169

basic principles on which Dissenters stood in opposition to the Church of are recounted by Baptist minister John Evans in A Sketch of the Several Denominations into which the Christian World is Divided (London, 1795): “The principles on which the Dissenters separate from the . . . may be summarily comprehended in these three; 1. The right of private judgment. 2. Liberty of Conscience, and 3. The perfection of scripture as a Christian’s only rule of faith and practice” (73). Many expo- nents of “enlightened” or rational Dissent took issue, too, with the con- cept of the trinity, believing instead that Jesus Christ was either, on the one extreme, fully human (a Socinian position) or, at the other, a lower ranking being than God, a being whose existence preceded manifesta- tion in the human body of Christ, but who was by no means an incarnate extension of the Godhead. The best study of the intersections of Dissent and Romanticism is Daniel White’s Early Romanticism and Religious Dissent (Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 2006). For other consideration of eighteenth-century Dissent, see Knud Haakonssen, ed., Enlightenment and Religion: Rational Dissent in Eighteenth-Century Britain (Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1996). See also James E. Bradley, Religion, Revolution, and English Radicalism: Nonconformity in Eighteenth-Century Politics and Society (Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1990); and Richard Brown, Church and State in Modern Britain (London: Routledge, 1991). 6. Aikin concludes his Address to the Dissidents with the following postscript: “I have addressed you by an unusual title, but one which I should be glad to see adopted in your public proceedings. The effects of the different asso- ciations frequently annexed to words of nearly the same import, will not be neglected by those who are attentive to the various circumstances which oper- ate upon the mind; and I think in the present instance that difference would be advantageous to your cause. Yourselves and the public in general might thereby be led to form juster ideas of your condition; and that court, which, in the beginning of the present reign, thought fit to offer a strong memo- rial to the Polish nation in favour of the restoration of the DISSIDENTS OF to all the right of citizens, might possibly be induced to blush at an unwillingness to render the same justice to the DISSIDENTS OF ENGLAND.” 7. The was the House of Commons’ response to Charles II’s Declaration of Indulgence, which endorsed Catholic participation in the public sector. 8. The Substance of the Speech delivered by Henry Beaufoy, Esq. in the House of Commons, Upon the 28th of March, 1787, on his Motion for the Repeal of the Test and Corporation Acts (London: Cadell and Robinson, 1787). Excerpts of this text are printed in Barbauld’s Selected Poetry and Prose, ed. William McCarthy and Elizabeth Kraft (Peterborough, Ontario: Broadview, 2002). 9. From the report of Burke’s speech during the Debate on the Army Estimates, February 5, 1790. The Parliamentary History of England (London: Longerman et al., 1816), 28: 351–71. Qtd in SPP, 492. 10. From William Pitt’s speech in The Debate in the House of Commons, on the Repeal of the Corporation and Test Acts, March 2d, 1790 (London: John Stockdale, 1790), p. 15. Qtd in SPP, 493. 11. Regium donum: “king’s gift”—high party money used, as Aikin, points out, to pacify dissenters willing to accept it and to divide the opposition (as Aikin indicates it did). 12. Emphasis in the original. One underlying message here is that Dissenters were indispensable to the national economy precisely because they were so fully invested as members of the burgeoning middle class. For the most 170 Notes

comprehensive discussion of this topic, see White, Early Romanticism and Religious Dissent, especially chapter three. 13. Braithwaite is probably thinking also of Aikin’s other pamphlet from 1790, The Spirit of the Constitution and that of the Church Compared (London: J. Johnson). Johnson included this title in his list of works dealing with the Parliamentary debate over repeal of the Test and Corporation Acts (p. 42 of the third edition of Barbauld’s An Address to the Opposers). 14. See Le Breton, A.L. 4–5. 15. I am indebted here to Toni Bowers (University of Pennsylvania) for her questions during the 2007 annual conference of the America Society for Eighteenth-Century Studies (ASECS) in Atlanta, GA, which caused me care- fully to think through Lucy Aikin’s account of this episode in her family’s life. Although she portrays her father has having shouldered most of the decision- making and therefore the psychological burdens experienced in Yarmouth, we cannot overlook the possibility that the decisions leading to the dispossession of home, friends, and livelihood were as much influenced by Martha as by John. Moreover, it could well be the case that the family as a whole willingly, even readily, accepted dislocation as a matter of principle. Nothing in the his- torical record discounts this possibility. My tendency to focus on John as the decision-maker, and on the negative effects of his decisions on the family, depends almost exclusively on inference. First, I infer that John Aikin, as the family’s primary source of income, and as the Dissenting voice singled out by loyalists in the Yarmouth community, felt an especial sense of responsi- bility for any alienation experienced by his wife and children, regardless of the degree to which they were willing to suffer the loss of friendships and standing in the community. Second, I also draw inferences from Lucy Aikin’s critically overlooked Memoir of her father. Her language clearly points to dif- ficult and trying times for everyone, not just her father. Given that literary and social decorum seems to have induced LA and other memoirists, in particular Le Breton, to remain highly circumspect about revealing details of physical and/or emotional pain and suffering within the family (evidenced especially in the euphemistic allusions to domestic abuse and insanity), inference leads me strongly to conclude that LA’s descriptions serve merely to gloss what were far more taxing episodes of family endurance. 16. Of course, this presumption is utterly dismantled in the Birmingham riots just a year later, July 14, 1791. Milton’s Treatise on Civil Power, in Ecclesiastical Causes; shewing that it is not lawful for any Power upon Earth, to compel in Matters of Religion (1659), reprinted, sits right alongside the others on Johnson’s shelves. 17. Qtd in Gerald P. Tyson, Joseph Johnson: A Liberal Publisher (Iowa City: U of Iowa P, 1979), 163. 18. The two are: A Vindication of [The Test Act] by Capel Lofft, Esq. and A Letter to the Right Rev. the Archbishops and Bishops of England, pointing out the only sure Means of preserving the Church from the Dangers that now threaten her, by an upper graduate. Helen Braithwaite recently argues that Johnson’s reputation as a liberal publisher has been overstated, that in fact the many medical and scientific publications, along with some politically conser- vative titles such as those mentioned earlier, indicate a much more politically moderate stance, one that gave voice to both sides of issues. Braithwaite, Romanticism, Publishing, and Dissent: Joseph Johnson and the Cause of Liberty (Houndsmills, Basingstoke, Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan, 2003). My sense, however, is that Johnson was being shrewdly radical by allowing a Notes 171

trickle of to fend off government attention. The imbalance of liberal to conservative tracts advertised suggests as much. Including Milton, too, serves as a brilliant means of putting the pamphlets in a long national tradition of religious debate—a way of placing the imprimatur of England’s greatest poet on the entire catalogue. 19. Qtd in Braithwaite, Romanticism, Publishing, and Dissent, 96. 20. William McCarthy’s notes that “nothing is known of this or any play by JA . . . Probably ‘The Man of Pleasure’ was written for private production at ” (PALB 251 n. 29). It should be noted that these kinds of theatrical or musical performances may have been more common than we realize. 21. McCarthy notes that the tutors “seem officially to have disapproved of stu- dent plays” (PALB 251 n. 29). 22. The extent to which the Beaumont-Fletcher model of collaborative author- ship influenced John’s own tendencies cannot be ascertained with any cer- tainty, but Lucy Aikin felt her father’s interest in the dramatists significant enough to mention in her father’s Memoir: “His correspondence with his sister was thickly interspersed with critical remarks on the and English poets, not forgetting, among the latter, our early English dramatists, Massinger, Shirley, and Beaumont and Fletcher, whom some happy chance had introduced to his acquaintance, and for whom he had the courage to express all his admiration, at a period when the French taste had banished them almost entirely both from the stage and the closet” (15). Unfortunately no such correspondence has thus far surfaced; it may well have been lost with other family correspondence and papers during the World War II bombings of London. 23. On the character of the brother-sister relationship in nineteenth-century liter- ature, see Valerie Sanders, The Brother-Sister Culture in Nineteenth-Century Literature, from Austen to Woolf (Houndsmills, Basingstoke, Hampshire: Palgrave, 2002). Oddly, in providing some background on the names we might associate with this culture, Sanders reaches back to the Fieldings but skips over without so much as a footnote the names Barbauld and Aikin. The Wordsworths receive limited attention from Sanders as the real start- ing point for the emergence of this phenomenon. The strength of the study lies in its consideration of the Victorians and early-twentieth- century Americans. Naomi Tadmor’s Family and Friends in Eighteenth-Century England: Household, Kinship, and Patronage (Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 2001) provides excellent insight into the terms governing ties of both kinship and friendship, especially as manifested through occupational and economic relationships—and how that complex of relational ties defined and redefined the household. 24. First published in PALB, 17–19. 25. “To Mrs. Barbauld, at Geneva,” written in 1785, published in Poems (1791). See appendix A for entire poem. 26. London: Joseph Johnson, 1777, pp. 7, 9. 27. See, for instance, “To Mrs. Barbauld, at Geneva.” Poems. London: Joseph Johnson, 1791. 28. Not to mention one of Britain’s. See Elizabeth Eger, “Representing Culture: ‘The Nine Living Muses of Great Britain,’ (1779).” Women, Writing and the Public Sphere, 1700–1830. Ed. Elizabeth Eger, et al. (Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 2001), 104–132. It refers to ’s painting, The Nine Living Muses of Great Britain and the Bluestocking Circle’s cultural influence. 172 Notes

29. This passage has been singled out by Daniel White as symbolic of the Aikin- family model of collaboration that informed a sub-species of the public sphere he calls the “Dissenting public sphere” by bringing to it a middle-class, domestic (and philanthropic) ethos that could then be disseminated through national discourses of political and social reform. See “The ‘Joineriana,’ ” p. 511 ff. and White, Early Romanticism and Religious Dissent. 30. We have only Lucy Aikin’s brief description of this time in her Memoir of her father. She includes an excerpt of one letter in which John mentions the on songwriting and confides in Anna his desire to become an author (p. 15). 31. During the same year, John edited William Enfield’s Hymns for Public Worship, which included five of Anna’s hymns (Hymns I–V). As the work represents group effort, it can, in a broad sense, be called a collaboration, but it does not feature the kind of sibling cooperation, nor the signposts of authorship, evident in Essays on Song-Writing. 32. This quotation comes from an undated edition of Essays on Song-Writing (London, printed for Joseph Johnson). Discussion with William McCarthy confirms our suspicion that this is a copy of the first edition printed by Eyres in 1772. 33. Various publishers had long requested that JA put out a new edition of the work. Consumer demand was high, especially after the exhaustion of the 1774 edition. For whatever reason, JA did not pursue this option until 1810. His doing so was in response to R.H. Evans’s unauthorized 1810 republica- tion of Essays, which included “original” verse spuriously attributed to ALB, presumably to enhance sales. 34. See Tyson, Joseph Johnson, 58–59. 35. See headnote to the poem in SPP (59). 36. London: Joseph Johnson, 1772 (24–25). 37. Personal correspondence (October, 2003). Though John’s writing includes an essay on epigraphs (“On Mottoes”) and a number of Latin translations, I have no doubt, given their shared educational experience, that Anna could have selected the mottoes herself. Her Latin skills at this point would have been on a par with John’s; moreover, that John casually included Latin sen- tences in his correspondence to Anna argues for linguistic parity. 38. From Tacitus, Annales XVI. 35: “In these times to which you have been born, it would be useful to fortify your spirit with steadfast examples” (trans- lation mine). Source: www.thelatinlibrary.com/tacitus/tac.ann16.shtml. Aikin mistakenly wrote “est” for “es.” 39. PALB (253 n.) 40. Loeb translation. The choice of this motto seems to have in view the failed action by General Paoli in Corsica. 41. Personal copy. Cautley inscribed his name on each work in 1780. The spine simply reads, “Aikin’s Songs.” 42. Gerald Tyson accounts Aikin instrumental in forming the Johnson circle. Joseph Johnson: A Liberal Publisher (Iowa City: U. of Iowa Press, 1979), 58 ff. 43. Conveniently advertised are the new edition of Anna’s Poems and twelve titles from John, including his own Poems (1791), the Essay on the Application of Natural History to Poetry, and the View of the Character and Public Services of the late Mr. Howard. 44. The Poetical Works of William Collins, with a Prefatory Essay, by Mrs. Barbauld (London: T. Cadell, Jr. and W. Davies, 1797). 45. Reprinted in Selected Poetry and Prose. Ed. McCarthy and Kraft (495–96). Notes 173

46. The publication of Sins was announced in The London Chronicle for May 25–28, 1793. The Royal Proclamation had appeared in the London Chronicle for March 2–5, 1793. The full text of the Royal Proclamation can be found in Appendix C of SPP, 495–96. 47. In his prefatory address of Parliament, Milton writes: “Of civil libertie I have written heretofore by the appointment, and not without the approbation of civil power: of Christian liberty I write now; which others long since having don with all freedom under heathen emperors, I should do wrong to suspect, that I now shall with less under Christian governors, and such especially as profess openly thir defence of Christian libertie” (7: 243). Complete Prose Works of , 8 Vols, ed. Don M. Wolfe et al. (New Haven: Yale UP, 1953–1982). Subsequent references cited as YP (Yale Prose). 48. White, Early Romanticism and Religious Dissent, chapter three. 49. Aikin’s phrasing seems to recall Wollstonecraft’s A Vindication of the Rights of Men: “Time may shew, that this obscure throng knew more of the human heart and of legislation than the profligates of rank, emasculated by heredi- tary effeminacy” (74). 50. About Aikin and Barbauld’s “Dialogue,” Dickson Preston writes, “Frederick soon knew the entire dialogue by heart. It described his own situation so precisely that it brought tears to his eyes, and much of his useful thinking on slavery was drawn from it almost word for word.” Young Frederick Douglass: The Maryland Years (Baltimore: JHU Press, 1980), 99. I discussed the trans- atlantic importance of “Dialogue between a Master and Slave” and its influ- ence on Douglass during a panel presentation at the 2008 annual conference of the North American Society for the Study of Romanticism (NASSR) in Toronto. For more on this topic, see chapter two. 51. Letter from John Aikin to Anna Barbauld, February 3, 1779 (qtd in Rodgers, 205). Henry Laurens was the president of Congress in 1777–1778 (Rodgers’ note). 52. Here is Burke on prejudice: “You see, Sir, that in this enlightened age I am bold enough to confess that we are generally men of untaught feelings, that, instead of casting away all our old prejudices, we cherish them to a very con- siderable degree, and, to take more shame to ourselves, we cherish them because they are prejudices; and the longer they have lasted and the more generally they have prevailed, the more we cherish them. We are afraid to put men to live and trade each on his own private stock of reason, because we suspect that this stock in each man is small, and that the individuals would do better to avail themselves of the general bank and capital of nations and of ages. Many of our men of speculation, instead of exploding general preju- dices, employ their sagacity to discover the latent wisdom which prevails in them. If they find what they seek, and they seldom fail, they think it more wise to continue the prejudice, with the reason involved, than to cast away the coat of prejudice and to leave nothing but the naked reason; because prejudice, with its reason, has a motive to give action to that reason, and an affection which will give it permanence. Prejudice is of ready application in the emergency; it previously engages the mind in a steady course of wisdom and virtue and does not leave the man hesitating in the moment of deci- sion skeptical, puzzled, and unresolved. Prejudice renders a man’s virtue his habit, and not a series of unconnected acts. Through just prejudice, his duty becomes a part of his nature.Your literary men and your politicians, and so do the whole clan of the enlightened among us, essentially differ in these points. They have no respect for the wisdom of others, but they pay it off by a very 174 Notes

full measure of confidence in their own. With them it is a sufficient motive to destroy an old scheme of things because it is an old one. As to the new, they are in no sort of fear with regard to the duration of a building run up in haste, because duration is no object to those who think little or nothing has been done before their time, and who place all their hopes in discovery. They conceive, very systematically, that all things which give perpetuity are mischievous, and therefore they are at inexpiable war with all establishments” (183–84). 53. Cf. Burke’s Reflections: “People will not look forward to posterity, who never look backward to their ancestors. Besides, the people of England well know that the idea of inheritance furnishes a sure principle of conservation and a sure principle of transmission, without at all excluding a principle of improve- ment. It leaves acquisition free, but it secures what it acquires. Whatever advantages are obtained by a state proceeding on these maxims are locked fast as in a sort of family settlement, grasped as in a kind of mortmain forever. By a constitutional policy, working after the pattern of nature, we receive, we hold, we transmit our government and our privileges in the same manner in which we enjoy and transmit our property and our lives. The institutions of policy, the goods of fortune, the gifts of providence are handed down to us, and from us, in the same course and order. Our political system is placed in a just correspondence and symmetry with the order of the world and with the mode of existence decreed to a permanent body composed of transitory parts, wherein, by the disposition of a stupendous wisdom, molding together the great mysterious incorporation of the human race, the whole, at one time, is never old or middle-aged or young, but, in a condition of unchange- able constancy, moves on through the varied tenor of perpetual decay, fall, renovation, and progression. Thus, by preserving the method of nature in the conduct of the state, in what we improve we are never wholly new; in what we retain we are never wholly obsolete. By adhering in this manner and on those principles to our forefathers, we are guided not by the superstition of antiquarians, but by the spirit of philosophic analogy. In this choice of inheritance we have given to our frame of polity the image of a relation in blood, binding up the constitution of our country with our dearest domestic ties, adopting our fundamental laws into the bosom of our family affections, keeping inseparable and cherishing with the warmth of all their combined and mutually reflected charities our state, our hearths, our sepulchres, and our altars” (119–20). 54. The only date given in Rodgers’ reprinting is “Feb 28th”; without the cor- roborating evidence of John’s letter or some other piece of temporal context, I can only conjecture that the year is 1791, Burke’s Reflections having been printed on November 1 of 1790, just four months earlier. The subtext seems to be that Wollstonecraft responded so quickly (and heatedly) that anything in her wake already seems tardy. 55. According to Farrell’s formulation of the stages of development in collaborative groups, this convergence on London, ca. 1791–1792 mimics the seventh and final “Nostalgic Reunion” stage (which typically occurs ten– twenty years after the initial stage of collaborative production). However, as I have been demonstrating throughout, this is a collaborative relationship unlike those fitting Farrell’s model, for it simply adapted itself to life changes and never truly ended. This is why I have identified my stages according to the type of work done, not a generic phase in the life cycle of collaboration. Collaborative Circles: Friendship Dynamics & Creative Work (Chicago: U of Notes 175

Chicago P, 2001). Farrell’s seven stages are: Formation, Rebellion, Quest/ Creative Work, Collective Action, Disintegration/Individuation, Reunion. His chapter on the French Impressionists is probably the most illuminating for this theory. 56. Qtd from The British Critic in SPP, 298. 57. Burke’s later reference to France as home to “that voluptuous climate and that seductive Circean liberty” (238) seems to complete the allusion. 58. Braithwaite sees moderation (“tempered views”) as being responsible for the popularity of Sins, 138–39. 59. By mentioning the army estimates, Barbauld remembers Burke’s speech before Parliament in February of 1790, during the debate on the army esti- mates. It was during his speech that Burke warned of “our present danger” in England being “an imitation of the excesses of an irrational, unprinci- pled, proscribing, confiscating, plundering, ferocious, bloody, and tyrannical democracy” (qtd in SPP, 492). 60. Through her signature “A Volunteer,” ALB arguably genders herself male. Once revealed, however, her gender could serve to dissuade the kinds of retributive actions taken against men. 61. Men such as John Cartwright and Dr. James Currie wrote what were essen- tially antiwar tracts, but they did so in subtler tones, through alternate dis- courses such as homeland defense and economics. Even so, Currie, who wrote his work pseudonymously, suffered once he was exposed as the author. Cartwright, in The Commonwealth in Danger (London: Joseph Johnson, 1795), argues against foreign invasion, but uses martial and patriotic “hearth and home” rhetoric to advance his position : “It will be time enough to give the reins to our fury, when upon British soil we shall be called on to con- quer or to die. If we are to meet the war at our own gates; if Britons are to bleed defending their own lands and laws, families and firesides, I trust that we shall be found equal to . Men with a free constitution in their hearts, and swords in their hands, are not to be conquered” (15–16). Currie relies on, among other things, ’s economic theories to argue that the future is being mortgaged to pay war’s exorbitant costs today. A Letter, Commercial and Political, Addressed to the Rt. Hon. William. Pitt . . . , by Jasper Wilson, Esq. (London: G.G.J. & J. Robinson, 1793). Rpt in Memoir of the Life, Writings, and Correspondence of James Currie Vol 2, ed. William Wallace Currie (London: et al., 1831). On Currie’s in August, 1805, John Aikin wrote his memoir for the Monthly Review. Aikin gives some sense of the risk involved in writing such a pamphlet if one’s identity were exposed: “One of the respondents took the unwarrantable liberty of directly addressing Dr. Currie, in print, as the author, at the same time affecting on very slender grounds the familiarity of an intimate acquaintance. It can scarcely be doubted that this infringement of the rules of liberal controversy was prompted by the malignant purpose of exposing Dr. Currie to popular odium, and injuring him in his profession” (qtd in Lucy Aikin’s Memoir, 478).

2 “The Aikin School”: Adopting an Aesthetic 1. The Wild Irish Girl (1806; Oxford: Oxford UP, 1999). Horatio, about to pursue the sound what he thinks is Glorvina at her harp, narrates, “ ‘It is Glorvina then,’ said I, ‘and alone!’ and down I sallied; but not with half the 176 Notes

intrepidity that Sir Bertram followed the mysterious blue flame along the corridors of the enchanted castle” (67). 2. Ironically, Lucy Aikin made the same mistake as Sydney Owenson (see previ- ous note) in her own father’s Memoir, accidentally referring to the fragment as “Sir Bertram.” 3. Citations are from the 1773 edition (London: Joseph Johnson). Cf. Burke’s Enquiry (Part I, sections 2 and 3 on the relationship of pleasure and pain). 4. Cf. Burke’s Enquiry (Part I, sections 2, 3 on the relationship of pleasure and pain). Burke uses the term “positive pleasure”; he asserts that the cessation of pain does not induce the experience of positive pleasure. In the context of John Aikin’s essay, the relief of suspense can be followed by sharper pain, or it can be released in the pleasure of the imagination’s creation of something approximating the fantastic. In the latter instance, the result comes not from the mere cessation of pain but by the accompanying influx of imagination. Cf. Todorov, Tzvetan. The Fantastic. Trans. Richard Howard (Cleveland: Case Western Reserve, 1973). 5. See note 19 in chapter two. 6. Lucy Aikin identifies the work as being the Devotional Pieces in a footnote (Works 2.4). 7. François de Salignac de la Mothe-Fénelon (1651–1715). French prelate who alienated himself by embracing Quietism, characterized by the soul’s deep contemplation of God, rather than external objects. His liberal thoughts on education are expressed in a treatise specifically dealing with the education of girls, which may also account for the choice of this particular authorial allusion. De l’education des filles (Paris: Auboin, Emery, Clousier, 1687). Rpt Paris: Librairie Hachette, 1926. [The Education of Girls. Trans. Kate Lupton (Boston: Ginn, 1891).] 8. Qtd in SPP (222 n.) from , Theological and Miscellaneous Works. Ed. John Towill Rutt. Vol. I (New York: Kraus Reprint, 1972), i:281. 9. She is already beginning to answer Burke at this point. See especially Burke’s discussion of “Vastness” in Part 2, Section VII of A Philosophical Enquiry into the Origin of our Ideas of the and Beautiful (Oxford: Oxford UP, 1990), 66. It would not be long before Barbauld would, on the political front, part company with Burke. 10. Francis Hutcheson, A Short Introduction to Moral Philosophy (Glasgow: R. Foulis, 1747). 11. And to Plato’s Republic before that; the work of the poet contributed to soci- ety by inspiring moral reflection and ethical action. 12. The brief introduction to the collection itself occupies just a few paragraphs at the end of the 1775 edition’s prefatory essay. When “Thoughts” was later republished separately, that portion of the essay was omitted. Thus it does not appear in Barbauld’s Works or in the fourth edition of Miscellaneous Pieces in Prose. 13. For comprehensive discussion of the intellectual shift in critical theory from treating poetry as an imitative to an expressive art, see M.H. Abrams’ foun- dational study, The Mirror and the Lamp: Romantic Theory and the Critical Tradition (New York: Norton, 1958). 14. Commenting on Jones’s essay, M.H. Abrams says that, in combining theories from “Longinus, the old doctrine of poetic inspiration, recent theories of the emotional and imaginative origin of poetry, and [the] emphasis on the lyric Notes 177

form and on the supposedly primitive and spontaneous poetry of Oriental nations, Jones earned the distinction of being “the first writer in England to weave these threads into an explicit and orderly reformulation of the nature and criteria of poetry and of the poetic genres” (Mirror 87). 15. John’s letter was never published in the Monthly Review. 16. See McCarthy “Mother of All Discourses” (passim). 17. John had been editing the Monthly Magazine since 1796, routinely using “my influence among my friends to favour the work,” through which effort “Mrs. Barbauld has enriched the miscellany with several contributions” (qtd in Rodgers 221). His son Arthur, who had published his Journal of a Tour through North Wales in 1797, was editor of the Annual Review from 1802 to 1807. The younger Charles was pursuing interests in the science of vaccina- tion and had published A Concise View of all the most important Facts which have hitherto appeared concerning the Cow-Pox in 1800. And Lucy, later dis- tinguished as a historian, had edited Poems for Children in 1801. 18. “Lost Needles, Tangled Threads: Stitchery, Domesticity, and the Artistic Enterprise in Barbauld, Edgeworth, Taylor, and Lamb.” Re-Visioning Romanticism: British Women Writers, 1776–1837. Ed. Carol Shiner Wilson and Joel Haefner (Philadelphia: U of Penn Press, 1994), 167–90. Carol Shiner Wilson, whose own collaborative work serves as a model for current scholarship, treats Barbauld’s life and career a bit too restrictedly, placing her in an oppressive marriage where, relegated to domestic servitude, she writes works that reinscribe that subjugation as a lot to be accepted: Although not biological mothers, Barbauld, Edgeworth, and Taylor were trusted as surrogate mother-teachers because of their reputation as writ- ers of moral tales. Parents, then, could feel confident in choosing one of these texts as itself a safe domestic space from which children could learn in the actual domestic space of their homes . . . These writers . . . constructed an instructional present within the texts that would equip the girls—those in the stories and those who read the stories—for meaningful futures of hab- its, qualities, and values that would strengthen home and state” (171–72). It is surprising that Shiner Wilson does not acknowledge Barbauld’s status as adoptive mother to her nephew Charles. The article cites Anna’s story “The Flying Fish” as promoting the stoical view of “holding to class boundaries” (178), including gender boundaries, yet she does not credit a companion story, written by John—“The Discontented Squirrel”—which inculcates pre- cisely the same lesson for a male who finds himself in trouble by venturing too far beyond his natural sphere. This sentiment is articulated even by John himself in “To Mrs. Barbauld, at Geneva” (appendix A): ‘Tis thus, within this narrow nook confined, I strive to feed with change th’ insatiate mind, But surer aid the Muses’ stores impart, With each new world of science and of art; And, more than all, the joys of sacred home Forbid my heart to pant, my feet to roam.” 19. Lessons and Hymns were available for student use at Palgrave. Of the fifteen pieces Anna contributed to Evenings at Home, just three contain female fig- ures. The rest are either fables or model a father-son dialogue. 20. The Vindications. 1790. Ed. D.L. Macdonald and Kathleen Scherf (Toronto: Broadview, 1997). I take the idea of this new male subject from Davidoff 178 Notes

and Hall’s invaluable study, Family Fortunes: Men and Women of the English Middle Class, 1780–1850 (Chicago: Chicago UP, 1987). 21. This theme is revisited in Amy Weldon’s “ ‘The Common Gifts of Heaven’: Animal Rights and Moral Education in Anna Letitia Barbauld’s ‘The Mouse’s Petition’ and ‘The Caterpillar.’ ” Cardiff Corvey. Electronic Journal V2.I.2 2002. (http://www.cf.ac.uk/encap/corvey/articles/cc08_n02.html). Barbauld’s mouse has garnered a disproportionate amount of critical attention in light of her overall corpus. 22. The work was collaborative. Although Charlotte Smith’s is the name on the title page, her sister, Catherine Anne Dorsett, also contributed to the collec- tion. She authored the two poems mentioned here. 23. See P. O’Brien, Eyres’ Press (1756–1803): An Embryo University Press (Wigan, Lancashire: Owl Books, 1993), an incredibly valuable yet scarcely acknowl- edged resource on the history of this fascinating provincial press. I take this bit of family history from pages 19–20. 24. As in the case of Miscellaneous Pieces, none of the short readings in Evenings received attribution until Lucy Aikin published Barbauld’s Works. There, in the memoir of her aunt, she (somewhat regrettably) identifies the fourteen pieces she understood to have been authored by Barbauld (Works 1.xxxvi– xxxvii). I say this is somewhat regrettable because it belies the lack of concern Barbauld and Aikin always showed regarding attribution: one of the hall- marks of their egalitarianism as collaborative partners. Moreover, the identi- fication seems almost to deny the possibility that any number of entries were not the result of shared intellectual effort. 25. In 1740 Rousseau tutored for approximately one year and then gave it up for lack of enthusiasm and ability. 26. Emile; or On Education. Trans. Allan Bloom (New York: Basic Books, 1979): “Thus, the first education ought to be purely negative. It consists not at all in teaching virtue or truth but in securing the heart from vice and the mind from error. If you could do nothing and let nothing be done, if you could bring your pupil healthy and robust to the age of twelve without his knowing how to distinguish his right hand from his left, at your first lessons the eyes of his understanding would open up to reason. Without prejudice, without habit, he would have nothing in him which could hinder the effect of your care. Soon he would become in your hands the wisest of men; and in beginning by doing nothing, you would have worked an edu- cational marvel (93). 27. A second volume followed in 1799, similarly reprinted well into the nine- teenth century. 28. The Athenaeum only survived for two years (1807–1809); prior to this endeavor, John was editor of The Monthly Magazine for a decade (1796–1806). 29. Discourse on the Origin of Inequality (1755). Trans. Donald A. Cress (Indianapolis, IN: Hackett Publishing Co., 1992). 30. The letter is predicated on the assumption that people develop different skill sets that subsequently divide them along hierarchical lines. As long as human beings gather in large masses, there will be haves and have-nots: “Men, therefore, by the constitution of their nature, will ever tend to unite in large masses; and these masses will fall into the grand divisions of rich and poor, high and low, governors and governed. This is absolutely unavoid- able, for even abolishing at once all the arts and conveniences of civilized life would not restore men to equality. Distinctions of power and influence subsist in the savage horde as well as in the luxurious city. But taking society Notes 179

with this necessary condition, there is still ample room for the operation of human wisdom in increasing its advantages and diminishing its evils” (203–204). 31. See McCarthy and Kraft’s detailed notes and commentary on Barbauld’s proto-Marxism (SPP 345ff.) 32. The article was printed in the Gentleman’s Magazine for January 1788. I quote from Betsy Rodgers (105–106). 33. From Lucy Aikin, Correspondence with Dr. W. E. Channing (1874), p. 154. Letter of November 19, 1832. Baillie was a member of Rochemont Barbauld’s congregation. 34. See “The Celebrated Academy at Palgrave.” 35. Important work has been and is being done in the area of the transatlantic book trade, but we have not fully comprehended the logistical, social, and political networks that must have been active in order to facilitate the repub- lication of a work such as “Dialogue Between a Master and Slave” in such relatively short order. 36. I have been able to locate only one accurate citation of authorship for the “Dialogue.” In an article called “The Active Virtue of The Columbian Orator,” Granville Ganter provides a footnote that identifies the source as Barbauld and Aikin’s Evenings at Home. The New England Review 70.3 (1997): 463–76 (p. 475). 37. In Douglass’s later accounts—in My Bondage and My Freedom, e.g.—he amends the error. 38. Bingham did not reprint Miller’s entire speech. 39. Cf. Solomon: “One generation passeth away, and another generation cometh: but the earth abideth for ever” (Ecclesiastes 1:4).

3 Walking “Backwards And Forwards”: The Wordsworths in 1802/1807 1. Composed as a verse epistle in 1785, the poem was later published in Aikin’s Poems (London: Joseph Johnson, 1791). The excerpts here are taken from Lucy Aikin’s Memoir of Dr. John Aikin (64–66). 2. “Aikin household” in this context refers to John and Anna when living and writing under one roof; “Barbauld” will refer to her domestic situation with husband Rochemont. Contrasting childhood and early youth with adult- hood will necessitate the use of both names. 3. Studies in Romanticism 42 (2003): 75–98. 4. PALB, pp. 17–19. 5. For consideration of the term “childhood” and its conceptions in this period, see Linda Pollock, Forgotten Children: Parent-child Relations from 1500 to 1900 (Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1983); Robert Pattison, The Child Figure in English Literature (Athens: U. of Georgia P, 1978). Lawrence Stone, The Family, Sex, and Marriage in England, 1500–1800 (London: Weidenfeld & Nicolson, 1977); and Philippe Ariès, L’Enfant et La Vie Familiale sous l’ancien régime (Paris: Librairie Plon, 1960). Trans. Robert Baldick in Centuries of Childhood (New York: Knopf, 1962). It seems fitting that in the Aikin household, imbued as it was with such classical knowledge, the chil- dren both remained “dependents” until their late twenties, John marrying at twenty-six. He considered eighteen, the age at which he began medical school, an “immature age” (Memoir 12). Anna lived with her parents until the age of thirty. 180 Notes

6. In this context, Anna’s line seems aware of Isaiah 11, the prophecy of a coming savior (cf. also ’s Fourth Eclogue); specifically, the encircling with a band recalls 11:5, “Righteousness shall be the belt around his waist, and faithful- ness the belt around his loins.” The Vulgate, with which they were undoubt- edly familiar, employs the substantive of the verb cingo, to be encircled. 7. Date of composition is conjectural. The poem first appears in Works (1825). Because the poem laments that John is “Too seldom seen” (l. 2), we can infer that Barbauld wrote it before moving to in 1802. McCarthy guesses 1801, based first on the poem’s proximity in Works to “On the Death of Mrs. Martineau,” written in late 1800, and second on Lucy Aikin’s remark that the frontispiece engraving to her Memoir (1823) was taken from a portrait drawn “about twelve years since” (qtd in PALB 300). There was, however, another portrait painted of Aikin by J. Donaldson, which has not been found (PALB 300). The poem’s impassioned final lines bespeak, I argue, some measure of fear and palpable distress; moreover, the countenance she describes bears “a happier air,” presumably because John was recovering somewhat from his prolonged illness, which began in 1796, began to improve by 1798, but did not fully abate until 1801. Depression appears to have attended his apparently liver-related affliction, as “the usual effects of similar maladies on the spirits, were in his case dis- tressingly manifest” (Memoir 121). The air of the 1823 engraving is actually somber, not happy, but I am in possession of an early-nineteenth-century engraving by “Thompson” in which a younger Aikin’s air is indeed happy, without the sternness of the “Englehart” engraving used in the Memoir. It is certainly possible that the “Thompson” engraving is taken from the portrait referred to in the poem. I suggest 1798 as the year of composition because that is when John moved from Hampstead to Stoke Newington, for the express purpose of improving his health. The departure from London after six years near Anna, coupled with his uncertain health and depressed state of mind (the death of their friend William Enfield in 1797 only made matters worse) probably put Anna in the reflective mood that occasioned the poem. 8. Cited in Robert Gittings and Jo Manton, (Oxford: Clarendon P, 1985), 256. 9. See, e.g., “To Mr. Barbauld, with a Map of the Land of Matrimony,” given to Rochemont with a copy of said map in the mid-. (PALB 88). The scant record shows no detail concerning domestic unrest or abuse during the first few years of marriage. See note 10. 10. Accounts from inside the family, where the secret appears to have been kept, are characteristically guarded in their references to the situation. See Lucy Aikin’s “Memoir” in Works I and Le Breton, A.L., pp. 41–45. 11. Betsy Rogers excerpted the poem at length in her Georgian Chronicle: Mrs. Barbauld and Her Family (London: Methuen, 1958) (88–89). 12. In this way, the poem gestures toward the Greater Romantic Lyric as defined by M.H. Abrams. 13. Biographical facts are from Gittings and Manton, Dorothy Wordsworth; Mary Moorman, : A Biography: The Early Years, 1770–1803 (Oxford: Oxford UP, 1957), 2 vols; John Worthen, The Gang: Coleridge, the Hutchinsons & the Wordsworths in 1802 (New Haven: Yale UP, 2001); Ernest De Selincourt, Dorothy Wordsworth: A Biography (Oxford: Oxford UP, 1933); and Stephen Gill, William Wordsworth: A Life (Oxford: Clarendon P, 1989). Notes 181

14. See, e.g., pages 139 and 103 of the Journals. 15. For an account of both Taylor’s and Thomas Bowman’s influence on Wordsworth at Hawkshead, see Gill, William Wordsworth: A Life, 27–31. Taylor is memorialized in the 1805 Prelude:

While we were schoolboys he had died among us, And was born hither, as I knew, to rest With his own family. A plain stone, inscribed With name, date, office, pointed out the spot, To which a slip of verses was subjoined— By his desire, as afterwards I learned— A fragment from the Elegy of Gray. (10.493–8)

Taylor’s son, William Jr., was a student of Barbauld’s at Palgrave and became best known for his translations of German poetry and plays, includ- ing Goethe’s Iphigenia in Tauris and Bürger’s Leonore, the latter of which Barbauld read before a Scottish audience in Edinburgh in 1794; her read- ing, so he claimed, inspired to become a poet. As a side note, Barbauld had edited popular editions of both Akenside and Collins. 16. All references are to of 1805 unless otherwise stated. 17. Dorothy’s use of the reflexive is a notably self-effacing gesture here, as though she and her grief ought not to stand out in the crowd of orphans. For a dis- cussion of Dorothy’s self-effacing habits in the Journals, see Susan M. Levin, Dorothy Wordsworth and Romanticism (New Brunswick: Rutgers UP, 1987), 17–18, 36–38. 18. William Withering’s Arrangement of British Plants, According to the latest improvements in the Linnean System, with an easy introduction to the study of Botany. 4 vols (London: G. J. G. and F. Rivington, 1796). 19. Fancy, often gendered female in the eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries, is associated with rapid shifts in the noumenal landscape; the phrase “fancy work” also signifies typically domestic arts such as needlework. Imagination, considered in the same period to be more sophisticated, and thus often gen- dered male, is an associative and combinatorial faculty able to make the vio- lent yoking together of ideas appear almost natural; its skill is being able to see the grand in the fragmentary or minute. See Julie Ellison: “ ‘Nice Arts’ and ‘Potent Enginery’: The Gendered Economy of Wordsworth’s Fancy.” Centennial Review 33 (1989): 441–67. See also her essay, “The Politics of Fancy in the Age of Sensibility.” Re-Visioning Romanticism: British Women Writers, 1776–1837. Ed. Carol Shiner Wilson and Joel Haefner, Philadelphia: U of Pennsylvania P, 228–55. In the latter she discusses Anna Barbauld’s “A Summer Evening’s Meditation” according to a model in which female fancy competes with and is cowed by male omnipotence. She does not distin- guish Barbauld’s use of fancy from her use of imagination, the latter receiv- ing no mention at all. The essay furthermore inadequately considers the ramifications of the religious and scientific context embodied in this poem. Fancy actually functions, in part, as an instrument of scientific investigation in “A Summer Evening’s Meditation,” exploring the universe but coming face to face with its own inadequacies before God. Barbauld’s prose writings at this time, especially Thoughts on the Devotional Taste, On Sects, and On Establishments, help establish the context, which is powerfully informed at this point by her relationship with Joseph Priestley. Barbauld’s poem offers an excellent contrast between the work of Fancy, which brings her into the 182 Notes

realms of the universe, and that of Imagination, which turns the margins of the solar system into its “suburbs.” 20. “Dynamics” (221–22). 21. Thomas DeQuincey’s explanation for the rumors of incest is well known: “It is Wordsworth’s custom whenever he meets or parts with any of the female part of his own relations to kiss them” (qtd in Gittings and Manton, Dorothy Wordsworth, 105–106; see same for fuller quotation). 22. Ibid., 233. This may sound simplistic, but it rings true. We cannot discount Dorothy’s expressions of happiness. Moreover, we might see her self-sacrifice today as a way of gaining control over the instabilities that plagued her child- hood environment. The survival mechanisms she employed early on—adapt- ing to new households and making herself both useful and unobtrusive—are behaviors carried on well into adulthood and rarely changed without therapy. In this case, the child was the mother of the woman. 23. I refer specifically to the critical tendency to put Dorothy in competition with William, as if there were no other way of discussing their relationship. Their model of collaboration was clearly noncompetitive, and I am not convinced that Dorothy ever considered herself, either in prose or verse, as William’s foil. Different from William, surely, but signifying what? If the respective halves of a collaborative pair opt to write on a similar topic, as Barbauld and Aikin did in their respective Addresses concerning the failed Repeal of the Corporation and Test Acts, or as William and Dorothy do in their poems regarding , it is only fitting that one, being fully aware of the oth- er’s work, seek to address the topic from a different, though not necessar- ily antagonistic, perspective. Yet the very terms of critical inquiry have, at times, turned conversation into competition: “These revisions of William’s poetics are in part strategies of evasion” [Susan J. Wolfson, “Individual in Community: Dorothy Wordsworth in Conversation with William.” Romanticism and Feminism. Ed. Anne K. Mellor (Bloomington: Indiana UP, 1988), 146] and “Setting her poetic concerns against William’s” (Levin, Dorothy Wordsworth and Romanticism, 144). 24. Cf. Elizabeth Fay, Becoming Wordsworthian (Amherst: UMass Press, 1995). 25. My primary interest is with the Grasmere Journals, to a lesser extent the Alfoxden Journal. The travel journals receive mention only in passing. 26. Kurt Heinzelman discusses the work of writing in the - hold in relation to the georgic and pastoral traditions. Though he does not use the term “collaboration,” he sees their domesticity as a product of the “mutual labor” of writing. He also emphasizes Dorothy’s various roles in managing the domestic economy and improving their plot. “The Cult of Domesticity: Dorothy and William Wordsworth at Grasmere.” Romanticism and Feminism. Ed. Anne K. Mellor (Bloomington and Indianapolis: Indiana UP, 1988), 52–80. 27. European Magazine 40 (1787), 202. 28. Wordsworth did not meet Williams until 1820 (Gill 341), although he did intend to meet her when went to France in 1791, for he had procured an introduction to her from Charlotte Smith. 29. See p. 109, Journals. 30. Published as “Written in March, while resting on the bridge at the foot of Brother’s Water.” 31. See pages 2 and 31 of Journals. 32. Under collaborative circumstances such as that of the Wordsworths and Coleridge (or Barbauld and Aikin for that matter), where the habits of life Notes 183

and language are fully enmeshed, it is “absurd,” says Worthen, “to try and determine who originated a phrase” (56). Intersecting flashes of intertex- tuality can help establish connections, familiarity, and participation in a tradition; but tracing lines of intertextuality or determining who did what to whom contributes little to our understanding of the generative intima- cies of authorial collaboration, nor of their manifestation in the poetry itself. 33. The Collected Letters of . Ed. Earl Leslie Griggs. 6 vols (Oxford and New York: Oxford UP, 1956–71). (1.330). Hereafter cited parenthetically as CL. 34. Gittings and Manton, Dorothy Wordsworth, 47. 35. T. Cadell Jr. and W. Davies republished Barbauld’s edition of Akenside several times between 1795 (the first edition) and 1825, the final, revised edition. I cite from , The Pleasures of the Imagination to which is pre- fixed a Critical Essay on the Poem, by Mrs. Barbauld (London: T. Cadell Jr. and W. Davies, 1796). 36. Cf. Ann B. Shteir, “Botany in the Breakfast Room: Women and Early Nineteenth-Century British Plant Study.” Uneasy Careers and Intimate Lives: Women in Science, 1789–1979. Ed. Pnina G. Abir-Am and Dorinda Outram (New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers UP, 1987), 31–43. This work informed her later Cultivating Women, Cultivating Science: Flora’s Daughters and Botany in England, 1760–1860 (Baltimore: JHU Press, 1996). 37. Compare Shklovsky’s well-known argument that art should remove objects from the “automatism of perception”; though related, the concerns expressed by Aikin and Shklovsky are divergent. Aikin wants to slow perception in order to see nature more clearly; Shklovsky wants to slow perception in order to see art more clearly. For an excellent genealogical survey of defamiliariza- tion, see Carlo Ginzburg’s “Making Things Strange: The Prehistory of a Literary Device.” Representations 56 (1996): 8–28. Ginzburg begins with the stoicism of Marcus Aurelius and then generates a wonderful bridge to modernism by way of linkages from Montaigne through Bruyére to , who comes to Shklovsky through Tolstoy. 38. OED, 1a. 39. At least by the seventh edition of 1830. 40. The word “celandine” does not appear in the journals before April 30, 1802, when it had become the subject of Wordsworth’s poem (“To the Small Celandine”). 41. The full name is “ranunculus ficaria.” 42. Cf. Worthen (45). By “passive” here, I do not mean inactive, for she was active in many material ways; rather, I mean passive in the sense that her journals, for example, were culled for material without her direct, composi- tional input to the poetry. The viewpoint is generally accepted that she was not active in the composition, editing, or revision of poems. 43. Granted, William might have felt especially obliged on this occasion to allow Dorothy final say, given what that particular poem signified and the emo- tions it was stirring in her. Nevertheless, that she exercised such privilege at this time, on a poem equally important to him, hints that perhaps what is unique about this instance is simply that she made it a point to record it in the journal. 44. Again, see Levin’s discussion of Dorothy’s reluctance to use the first-person singular pronoun, typically choosing instead to elide herself in the communal “we” (Dorothy Wordsworth and Romanticism, 17–18, 36–38). 184 Notes

45. Compare her lackadaisical behavior on the day of William’s departure for Gallow Hill at the opening of the Grasmere journals (15–16). 46. Worthen, The Gang, 49. 47. The Ruined Cottage and The Pedlar. Ed. James Butler (Ithaca: Cornell UP, 1979), 454–55. 48. The exact date is debatable because Dorothy included the story about a week later, after having left off writing for a short period of time. She reconstructs the last two weeks of September 1800 from memory, and by that account they met the Leech-Gatherer on the 26th, the day, she says, when they “returned from accompanying [Reverend Robert] Jones [home].” 49. For a detailed account of the collaboration, involving input from Coleridge, Mary and Sara Hutchinson, and, by way of the Journals, Dorothy, see Worthen, The Gang, 197–201. 50. For discussion of sympathy in this context, see Adam Smith’s The Theory of Moral Sentiments. 1759. Ed. Knud Haakonssen (Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 2002). 51. Susan Levin sees this as a moment of self-deprecation in which Dorothy “fears she has not created a ‘faithful’ record and uses her brother’s words to deni- grate her effect” (Dorothy Wordsworth and Romanticism, 48). Now evident, however, is that the irony with which both brother and sister employed this word was only heightened by the occasion of Sara Hutchinson’s criticism. 52. Used also in the epigraph to Coleridge’s “Dejection: an .” 53. William and Dorothy met the Leech-Gatherer on the Friday, September 26, 1800. The first part of the Preface was sent to Biggs and Cottle in a let- ter postmarked Tuesday, September 30, 1800: Keswick. The second part of the Preface was sent on or about October 2 (Letters 1.302–303). Letters to Cottle dating back into August 1800, in which William successively promises short arrival of the Preface, indicate that he may have been procrastinating with the writing. See, e.g., August 13: “The preface is not yet ready: I shall send it in a few days” (Letters 292). 54. William’s letter of September 15 requests that “if no part of the poem of is already printed off, the poems which I now send should be inserted before Christabel” (Letters 1.302). 55. See Journals (43). 56. I allude here to the famous lines Wordsworth penned on the manuscript of Barron Field’s biography of the poet: “I never cared a straw about the theory, and the Preface was written at the request of Mr. Coleridge out of sheer good nature. I recollect the very spot, a deserted quarry in the Vale of Grasmere, where he pressed the thing upon me, and but for that it would never have been thought of” (qtd in ’s introduction to his edition of the . London: J.M. Dent & Sons, 1956. p. ix). 57. “Multum in Parvo: Wordsworth’s Poems, in Two Volumes of 1807.” Poems in Their Place: The Intertextuality and Order of Poetic Collections. Ed. Neil Fraistat (Chapel Hill, NC: U of NC P, 1986), 234–53 (p. 236). 58. Qtd in Curran, “Multum in Parvo,” 236. 59. See especially Ross’s Introduction (pp. 3–14), wherein repetition bespeaks a disorderliness of desire that must in turn be checked by ideology. 60. See the following dates in the Grasmere Journal: October 15, 1800; November 16, 1801; and the following from 1802: March 17 (two separate times); March 23; April 17, 25, 28, 30; May 1, 14, 26; June 2, 12, 15; and July 7 (her last recorded entry from Grasmere before William and Mary’s wedding). Notes 185

61. I draw from the military source for the term, inherited by the marching band. A tradition still carried on today at West Point involves the assessment of “hours” to be walked as punishment for regulatory violations. Cadets so pun- ished must walk backwards and forwards in a confined area, literally marking time for their offenses. 62. Qtd in Levin, Dorothy Wordsworth and Romanticism, 201–202. 63. From “I gave” to “fervently” is erased in the MS (Moorman’s note). 64. Home at Grasmere. Ed. Beth Darlington (Ithaca, NY: Cornell UP, 1977). (MS. D. 211–16). All subsequent quotations from MS. D. unless otherwise specified. 65. I refer here to the 1793 version of the poem, in which the male is trailed by the “meeker” female [An Evening Walk. Ed. James Averill (Ithaca: Cornell UP, 1984)]: I love beside the glowing lake to stray, Where winds the road along the secret bay; By rills that tumble down the woody steeps, And run in transport to the dimpling deeps; Along the “wild meand’ring shore” to view, Obsequious Grace the winding swan pursue. He swells his lifted chest, and backward flings His bridling neck between his tow’ring wings; Stately, and burning in his pride, divides And glorying looks around, the silent tides: On as he floats, the silver’d waters glow, Proud of the varying arch and moveless form of snow. While tender Cares and mild domestic Loves, With furtive watch pursue her as she moves; The female with a meeker charm succeeds. (ll. 195–209) 66. The Shorter Poems. Ed. Richard A. McCabe (New York: Penguin, 1999). Written in 1596, the poem celebrates the forthcoming “double wedding of the two daughters of the Earl of Worcester, Elizabeth and Katherine ” (Editor’s note 727). 67. Cf. Hollander, J. “Spenser’s Undersong.” Cannibals, Witches and Divorce: Estranging the Renaissance. Ed. Marjorie Garber (Baltimore: JHU Press, 1987), 1–20. If there is something about the impending marriage in “Prothalamion,” that occasions an odd keening in Spenser’s “undersong” (l. 110), we might compare that to (i) Dorothy’s sadness under similar cir- cumstances, (ii) their reading of the “Prothalamion” together, and (iii) the idea that female friendship suffers irrevocable severing, as often lamented in nineteenth-century American women’s poetry, through marriage. Exemplary of this last is Emma Embury’s “Stanzas Addressed to a Friend on Her Marriage.” American Women Poets of the Nineteenth Century. Ed. Cheryl Walker (New Brunswick: Rutgers UP, 1995), 85–86. 68. “Stepping Westward,” 1807 (188–89). 69. “ ‘Nice Arts’ and ‘Potent Enginery’: The Gendered Economy of Wordsworth’s Fancy.” Centennial Review 33 (4): 1989. 441–67. 70. By transporting this poem into the realm of feminist film theory (Kristeva’s male gaze), the critic contorts fancy into something it has not, at least yet, become. Such insight does support a genealogy of the male gaze; however, the choice of this particular poem, in the context of the 186 Notes

larger collection, undermines not only such a genealogy but also, and most important to this study, the collaborative and bi-gendered aspect of that gaze. 71. Ellison attributes this stanza to Wordsworth’s “fancy,” but in fact he does not use the word in this poem, as he does in 1, e.g.: “How sweet it is, when mother Fancy rocks / The wayward brain.” 72. I prefer the term barometer over Coleridge’s electrometer, as it more appropri- ately suggests changes in emotional pressure that might lead to the shedding of tears or the shouts of joy. 73. “Dorothy’s account of their discussion,” writes Spencer, “suggests they were exchanging memories of childhood experiences not shared. In the poem past separation is transformed into imagined togetherness” (180) 74. See “Wordsworth’s Fancy,” 441–43. 75. “Romanticism and ‘Anti-Self-Consciousness.” Qtd in , ed., Romanticism and Consciousness (New York: Norton, 1970). 76. The infinite possibility is what Schiller called “Bestimmbarkeit.” See “Naïve and Sentimental Poetry.” Trans. Julius A. Elias in Two Essays (New York: Ungar, 1966). 77. “Like the bower of Seward’s Sonnet no. 44, in which the poet sequesters herself to with an imagined , Barbauld’s alcove is explicitly understood to be a female space, on in which the rites of friendship are honored as a shared poetry” (Curran, “Dynamics,” 234). 78. Wordsworth’s allusion is to King Lear 4.6: Edgar has led Gloucester to the “precipice” and tells him, “You are now within a foot / Of th’ extreme verge. For all beneath the moon / Would I not leap upright (25–27). The aes- thetic context here is relevant, though subtle, for Edgar has just convinced his sightless father that he is in the midst of great sublimity: The murmuring surge That on th’ unnumb’red idle pebble chafes Cannot be heard so high. I’ll look no more, Lest my brain turn, and the deficient sight Topple down headlong. (20–24) It is the sublime that threatens “deficient sight” in this scene, and Edgar vows that he would not surrender to its power by jumping up (let alone forward) for all that’s “beneath the moon.” Wordsworth turns this formula around by offering to forfeit everything if only he can revel “half a noon” in the sight- giving beauty of nature’s intimate spaces. 79. Ross mentions few of these poems. The three he does mention, “The Highland Girl,” “Resolution and Independence,” and the “Intimations Ode” do not receive sustained attention. 80. Jeffrey’s review of the 1807 Poems appears in the Edinburgh Review 11 (October 1807) and is reprinted in Donald Reiman, ed., The Romantics Reviewed (New York: Garland Publishing, 1972) part A, vol. 2: 437–38. 81. The poem was written in May of 1802; John embarked aboard the Earl of Abergathenny in September 1800, in service of the East India Company. 82. Othello’s lines begin: O, now, for ever Farewell the tranquil mind! farewell content! Farewell the plumèd troop, and the big wars That make ambition virtue! Notes 187

83. He had “made a Beginning,” writes Coleridge in 1803 (CL 2.1013), but it was not until 1805 that Wordsworth truly dedicated himself to the task. 1805 will also be recalled as the year Wordsworth presented his latest version of The Prelude, which prompted Coleridge to write “,” and this might suggest that Wordsworth’s attention to Coleridge and to phil- osophical poetry was greater during the time period discussed than I have suggested. However, the only references to work on the Prelude between 1799 and 1804 are two entries in Dorothy’s Journals, both in December of 1801, where she calls it “the poem to Coleridge.” Significantly, no further mention of the poem appears, in letters or journals, until early 1804 [see the editors’ discussion of references to the poem’s development in The Prelude 1799, 1805, 1850. Ed. Jonathan Wordsworth, M.H. Abrams, and Stephen Gill (New York: Norton, 1979), 529 ff.]. Wordsworth’s engagement with The Prelude during this time is actually consistent with the larger scheme of conflicting impulses and duties. Mark Reed comments in the Cornell edition of The Thirteen-Book Prelude (Vol. 1) that during 1800–1803 the Prelude saw “halting steps and irregular consolidations,” which probably resulted in the Preamble/post-Preamble of Book I and “a few pencil drafts toward the com- mencement of Book III” (ix, x). Virtually all of the writing occurred, accord- ing to the Cornell edition, during 1804 and early 1805. If the Preamble was in fact composed during 1800–1803, its expressions of internal ambiv- alence, hestitation, and outright resistance to a longer, philosophical work (conceived variously as epic, romance, “philosophic song”) are also consis- tent with the competing impulses toward Dorothy and Coleridge. After con- templating taking up where Milton left off, or pursuing epic options with William Wallace (et al.), Wordsworth writes,

But from this awful burthen I full soon Take refuge, and beguile myself with trust That mellower years will bring a riper mind And clearer insight. (1805 1.235–38)

Rather than debate with himself in “infinite delay,” he resolves, for the time being, because “better far than this,” simply to

stray about Voluptuously through the fields and rural walks And ask no record of the hours given up To vacant musing, unreproved neglect Of all things, and deliberate holiday. (1.252–56)

And as we have seen, the record of at least some of that so-called vacant mus- ing is the 1807 Poems in Two Volumes. 84. Curran, “Multum in Parvo,” 236. The aesthetic contrast between the straight and winding roads carries, aside from its gendered biases, even greater cultural and political weight when put in the context of England’s project literally to straighten roads in , implanting regulatory mile markers along the way. To wander deviously was not simply un-British; it was downright unpatriotic. 85. Cf. Phenomenology of Spirit. Trans. A.V. Miller (New York: Oxford UP, 1977), 263–89, esp. § 457. 86. Qtd in Levin, Dorothy Wordsworth and Romanticism, 203. 87. Dorothy refers to herself as “more than half a poet” on March 18, 1802 (p. 104). 188 Notes

4 Incorporating the Literary Family 1. Naomi Tadmor, Family and Friends in Eighteenth-Century England: Household, Kinship, and Patronage (Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 2001), 133. 2. Paul Magnuson, Coleridge and Wordsworth: A Lyrical Dialogue (Princeton: Princeton UP, 1988); Thomas McFarland, Romanticism and the Forms of Ruin: Wordsworth, Coleridge, and Modalities of Fragmentation (Princeton: Princeton UP, 1981); Wayne Koestenbaum, Double Talk: The Erotics of Male Literary Collaboration (New York: Routledge, 1989). Magnuson relies on Bakhtin’s theories of dialogism to argue that the Wordsworth- Coleridge canon should be understood as a composite work whose inter- nal turns and counterturns signal nothing less than an extended ode. “I have not,” writes Magnuson, “tried to generalize about a moving spirit in their poetic dialogue. I have, rather, tried to trace the variations in appar- ently similar statements to account for the discontinuities by which such a dialogue generates poetry” (10). Magnuson’s comment distances him from McFarland, whose interest in the “deeply symbiotic ties between Coleridge and Wordsworth” (64) sometimes suffers from a stance too reverential and a tendency toward psycho-sexual mystification. His treat- ment of Coleridge’s ability to become subsumed within the personality of another, e.g., marks “his relationship to Wordsworth . . . as a feminine prin- ciple to its masculine counterpart” (65). In the space of just a few pages, however, this unnecessary gendering suddenly results in a “masochistic Coleridge” (69); we are assured, however, that “Coleridge’s masochism did not diminish his luminous intelligence” (70). Koestenbaum’s argument privileges a decontextualized discourse of homoeroticism at the expense of sociohistorical contingency. The homoerotic energies of the Renaissance stage in England are highly informative for work such as Jeffrey Masten’s Textual Intercourse (Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1997), which is implic- itly informed by Mark Breitenburg’s Anxious Masculinity in Early Modern England (Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1996); however, the rise of the fam- ily as both economic and affective unit during the long eighteenth century produced different kinds of energies, sympathies, and collaborative models of production, and not until the late nineteenth century does literary col- laboration once again begin evincing a strong homoerotic consciousness. 3. Jack Stillinger, Multiple Authorship and the Myth of the Solitary (New York: Oxford UP, 1991); Norman Fruman, Coleridge, The Damaged Archangel (New York: George Braziller, 1971). Aside from its thoughtful but not exclusive treatment of Romantic figures, Stillinger’s text includes a valuable appendix enumerating scholarly works focused on collaboration. Fruman’s is a painstaking and repetitive work of intellectual indictment, but it provides invaluable insight into Coleridge the plagiarist, or, to borrow from Levi-Strauss by way of Derrida, the philosophical bricoleur. From his study (and complementary studies), one thing is clear: Coleridge was an inveterate deceiver. 4. Lucy Newlyn, “Coleridge and the of Reception.” Romanticism 1.2 (1995): 206–38. Newlyn expanded this work into Reading, Writing and Romanticism: The Anxiety of Reception (Oxford: Oxford UP, 2000). 5. Harold Bloom, The Anxiety of Influence: A Theory of Poetry (second edition) (New York: Oxford UP, 1997). A more apt title might have been The Anxiety of Reception: A Theory of Poetic Influence, for no true “theory of poetry” can discount the contemporary context. Notes 189

6. Regina Hewitt, The Possibilities of Society: Wordsworth, Coleridge, and the Sociological Viewpoint of English Romanticism (Albany: SUNY Press, 1997), vii–xviii and chapters 3, 5, and 6. 7. Fay pays particular attention to the sibling relationship, asserting that “to the extent that Wordsworthian genius is socially impacted, it must be under- stood as doubly gendered, and collaboratively engendered” (2). Elizabeth Fay, Becoming Wordsworthian (Amherst: U of Mass Press, 1995). Chapter two of this study makes similar claims but focuses on a specific period of col- laborative intimacy and its manifestation in the 1807 Poems, in Two Volumes. Although Matlak begins to establish a larger context, he admittedly remains focused on “the micro-perspectives of biography and ” (3). Richard E. Matlak, The Poetry of Relationship: The Wordsworths and Coleridge, 1797–1800 (New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1997). The preceding chapter is also informed by Worthen’s The Gang: Coleridge, the Hutchinsons & the Wordsworths in 1802 (New Haven: Yale UP, 2001). Worthen’s title itself, by naming Coleridge first in the circle, suggests a response to Matlak, as does his further narrowing of the focus to one important year, 1802. Of such recent works, one, Gurion Taussig’s Coleridge and the Idea of Friendship, 1789–1804 (Newark, DE: U of Delaware P, 2002) stands out by comprehending Coleridge’s various relationships in terms of friendship as a social institution in the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries. 8. Taussig, Coleridge and the Idea of Friendship, 1789–1804. 9. Ibid., 35–37 and passim. 10. Tadmor, Family and Friends, 11–12. 11. F.V. Barry, : Prose and Poetry (London: Humphrey Milford, 1925), xiv. 12. Eve’s intellectual capacity is on a par with Adam’s; she is fully capable of understanding “what was high” (PL 8.50), but reserves her intellectual inter- course for Adam alone, being pleased to be his ideal audience. Milton can be seen as presenting in Paradise Lost his vision of an ideal spouse based on his previous arguments in The Doctrine and Discipline of Divorce, wherein he argues that conjugal happiness is contingent on “sympathy of mind” [qtd in Selected Prose. Ed. C.A. Patrides (Columbia, MO: U of Missouri Press, 1985), 147]. 13. This (of July 22) and the letters that follow are found in Anna Letitia Le Breton, Memoir of Mrs. Barbauld, Including Letters and Notices of Her Family and Friends (London: George Bell and Sons, 1874), 84–106. To my knowledge, this is their only source. All parenthetical references to the letters are from Le Breton, and typos have been corrected (as in this first instance, where the text reads “seheme of my father’s”). 14. H.J. Jackson, ed., Samuel Taylor Coleridge: Selected Letters (Oxford: Oxford UP, 1987), ix: “A third feature of the familiar letter is what might be called the intimacy convention. The familiar letter is generally a private communi- cation and a tribute to friendship: it should evoke qualities both of the absent friend and of the friendship itself. It thrives on candour and minuteness, expressing sympathetic concern in the interests and of the corre- spondent, and taking a reciprocal concern for granted. So Coleridge unaf- fectedly gives accounts of his health, of distresses and successes, and urges his correspondents to write with similar frankness to him.” 15. RLE makes the comment in the letter to ALB quoted from this sequence. On the Aikins, see Betsy Rodgers, Georgian Chronicle: Mrs. Barbauld and Her Family (London: Methuen, 1958); see also chapter one, note 68. 190 Notes

16. Letter is dated August 30, 1804 (Stoke Newington). 17. OED. IV. 6. pl. 18. Dr. , a chemist, was married to Maria’s sister Anna. He advised Coleridge about medicine for gout. 19. RLE’s letter is dated September 4, 1804. There is no consensus as to whether RLE was too controlling an influence on ME and her writing. Scholarship has portrayed ME in two different lights. On the one hand she is a mouthpiece for patriarchy; on the other, she exhibits independence of mind and expresses feminist points of view. As my concern here is not with ME’s works, but with her position as negotiator in the literary marketplace, I do not ground assumptions in the characters of a novel. My reading here, admittedly open to interpretation, attempts to glean nuances from the correspondence and its context, which dictates some imposition of meaning based on what is not said. Some critics who argue for ME’s independence do not necessarily argue for RLE’s benevolence. ME becomes an independent voice, in other words, in spite of her father. Others indeed exonerate RLE of any heavy-handedness, seeing instead a helpful, loving presence. Skillfully addressing the various sides in the debate is Caroline Gonda in Reading Daughters’ , 1790–1834: Novels and Society from Manley to Edgeworth (Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1996). I quote from Gonda’s chapter on Edgeworth to provide some balance: “I have been suggesting in this chapter that ’s uncritical, unconditional, and unquestioning love for her father, her state of perpet- ual daughterhood, is a myth: a myth with elements of truth in it, and one which Edgeworth herself did much to perpetuate in writing about her own life and her father’s, about their relationship and literary partnership . . . The myth of Maria as her father’s mouthpiece, puppet, dummy, creature, or as the dupe of utilitarianism or patriarchal values has been a way of denying her agency, power and responsibility, a kind of infantilization” (237). Cf. also Marilyn Butler, Maria Edgeworth: A Literary Biography (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1972); Mitzi Myers, “My Art Belongs to Daddy? , Maria Edgeworth, and the Pre-Texts of Belinda: Women Writers and Patriarchal Authority.” Revising Women: Eighteenth-Century “Women’s ” and Social Engagement. Ed. Paula R. Backscheider (Baltimore: JHU Press, 2000), 104–46; and Elizabeth Kowaleski-Wallace, Their Fathers’ Daughters: , Maria Edgeworth, and Patriarchal Complicity (New York: Oxford UP, 1991). 20. Cf. also 399–406. 21. ME’s letter is dated September 23, 1804. 22. HCR provides some insight regarding RLE’s character: “June 13th [1813] . . . The Edgeworths have not returned Mrs. Barbauld’s call, and I heard other anecdotes confirming my unfavourable impression concerning the father . . . June 19th . . . Mr. and Miss Edgeworth did, just before they left town, call for a quarter of an hour on Mrs. Barbauld, Mr. Edgeworth saying, on entering the room: ‘Madam, you are indebted to me for this lady’s com- pany’ . . . July 4th . . . Edgeworth and the ladies called on the Godwins, and he behaved with a rudeness which would have been amusing had they been people to whom inattentions were matters of ridicule. He frightened the girls by queer half-jocular speeches, and Mrs. Godwin says Miss Edgeworth was in tears when they went away, and she supposes from vexation.” Henry Crabb Robinson On Books and their Writers. 3 vols. Ed. Edith J. Morley (London: J. M. Dent and Sons, 1938), 1.128–9. 23. This final letter is dated January 28, 1805. Notes 191

24. London: Joseph Johnson, 1791. 25. According to Wordsworth, as dictated to Isabella Fenwick in 1843, “In the spring of the year 1798 [actually fall, 1797], [Coleridge], my Sister, and myself, started from Alfoxden, pretty late in the afternoon, with a view to visit London and the valley of Stones near it; and as our united funds were very small, we agreed to defray the expenses of the tour by writing a Poem, to be sent to the New Monthly Magazine set up by Phillips the bookseller, and edited by Dr. Aikin” (qtd in McFarland, Romanticism and the Forms of Ruin, 66–67). 26. “As this letter of John’s attests, he garnered support for the Monthly Magazine by occasionally [using] my influence among my friends to favor the work by sending gratuitously for insertion any matter fit for the purpose which they might have by them & meant for no other use. Upon this footing Mrs. Barbauld has enriched the miscellany with several contributions which I believe have been of much advantage to its reputation” (qtd in Rodgers, Georgian Chronicle, 221; dated March 20, 1799, Stoke Newington). 27. Donald Reiman, ed., The Romantics Reviewed (New York: Garland Publishing, 1972), part A, vol. 1, p. 12. 28. And in all cases, it should be noted, he worked within dissenting circles only. For John and Anna’s contributions to Enfield’s Speaker and his Hymns for Public Worship, see chapter one. For an account of John Aikin’s edito- rial support of John Howard’s State of the Prisons in England and Wales (Warrington: William Eyres, 1777) and subsequent editions, see John Aikin, A View of the Life, Travels, and Philanthropic Labours of the late John Howard, Esq. (London: Joseph Johnson, 1789). 29. Arthur Aikin and Charles Rochemont. A Dictionary of Chemistry and Mineralogy, with an Account of the Processes employed in many of the most important Chemical Manufactures (London: J. & A. Arch and W. Phillips, 1807). 30. Anna Laetitia Wingate Jennings was born in 1687; Anna Letitia Le Breton, great niece of Anna Barbauld, published her Memoir in 1874. 31. Ann and Jane Taylor, whose collaborative career ran from 1804 until 1812, first cooperated on Original Poems for Infant Minds, which appeared in 1804; Rhymes for the Nursery and Original Hymns for Infant Minds followed in 1806 and 1808, respectively. In all, Ann and Jane produced fourteen dif- ferent publications for children. Over 100 editions of Original Poems and Original Hymns appeared in America and England, and, like the Aikins’ Evenings at Home, these works remained in print until the early twenti- eth century. Works on the Taylors of Ongar include: D.M. Armitage, The Taylors of Ongar: Portrait of an English Family in the 18th and 19th Centuries (Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1939); G.E. Harris, Contributions Towards a Bibliography of the Taylors of Ongar and Stanford Rivers (London: Crosby Lockwood, 1965); and C. Stewart, The Taylors of Ongar: An Analytical Bio- Bibliography, 2 vols (New York: Garland, 1975). 32. As we shall see, Jane did not simply acquiesce to the conservative pressure but wrote against it through satire. 33. At the end of Oedipus at Colonus, when Theseus tells Antigone and Ismene they cannot visit the grave of their father, Antigone remonstrates: “Why not? Majesty, king of Athens!” “Your father forbade it,” explains Theseus, “He commanded me / that no one may go near that place” (ll. 1979–981). Her challenge quelled, Antigone acquiesces: “So be it. If this is father’s will, / we will be content—we must” (ll. 1989–990). Upon arrival in Thebes, however, 192 Notes

Antigone is no longer subject to her father’s will, and she very quickly poses a threat to the social order in her confrontation with human law and its rep- resentative, Creon. Oedipus at Colonus in Sophocles: The Three Theban Plays. Trans. Robert Fagles (New York: Penguin, 1984). 34. Barry, Jane Taylor, xiii. 35. The Family Pen (London: Jackson, Walford, and Hodder, 1867). Perfectly applicable in this context is Sandra M. Gilbert and Susan Gubar’s obser- vation concerning Maria Edgeworth that she “solved the problem of what we have been calling ‘the anxiety of female authorship’ by writing as if she were her father’s pen.” The Madwoman in the Attic: The Woman Writer and the Nineteenth-Century Literary Imagination. 1979. Second edn (New Haven: Yale UP, 2000), 151. Gilbert and Gubar’s point is also noted in Elizabeth Kowalski-Wallace’s Their Fathers’ Daughters: Hannah More, Maria Edgeworth, and Patriarchal Complicity (New York: Oxford UP, 1991), 22. 36. Qtd in Barry, Jane Taylor, 175. 37. See Stuart Curran, “Jane Taylor’s Satire on Satire.” The Satiric Eye: Forms of Satire in the Romantic Period. Ed. Steven E. Jones (New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2003), 139–50. 38. Sentimental Collaborations (62); see the discussion of Barbauld’s “Epistle to Dr. Enfield, on his Revisiting Warrington in 1789” in chapter one. 39. Here and in the subsequent discussion of Josiah and Elizabeth Conder’s later writing, I am distinguishing this particular mode of collaborative mourning from Kete’s in that this poetry, while certainly “attracting the collaboration of the reader in the operation of mourning” (72), facilitates the reconstitu- tion of subjectivity and the “restoration of constitutive bonds” (62) primarily through the collaborative work of shared authorship. 40. Of the fifty-two poems, just eighteen are by Conder. Jane and account for nineteen, and Elizabeth Thomas ten. Susan Conder wrote three and the fathers contributed one each. That the bulk of the volume represents women writers is not acknowledged by Reiman. 41. Josiah Conder, The Associate Minstrels and The Star in the East. Ed. Donald H. Reiman (New York: Garland Publishing, 1977), ll. 88, 268. 42. Sentimental Collaborations. Appendix 2, p. 214. 43. Modified from first line of P.B. Shelley’s “Adonais.” 44. The poem is titled “Competition.” 45. CL (1.132) 46. OED. 4a. 47. It might be objected that I have substituted “intimate partnership” for “affec- tion” here; however, Coleridge at this point in his correspondence (December 9, 1794) was attempting to make Southey feel guilty over the engagement. Coleridge was expressing his own displeasure, and by December 29 was com- plaining that he did not love Sara Fricker. Earlier correspondence, to be sure, belies that stance, but Coleridge was a verbal manipulator and by using “affection” was adopting a juridical posture, already distancing him- self from the very term “love,” so as to better state his case later on. As will become clear, the concept in question, call it affection or love, was an ideal literary familial scene in which intellectual and sexual compatibility coexist in mutual harmony. 48. J. Robert Barth, Coleridge and the Power of Love (Columbia, MO: U of Missouri Press, 1988), 15–16, 21. Barth cites from . Ed. George Whalley (Princeton: Princeton UP, 1984), 1:751. Notes 193

49. See note 12. 50. NRSV. 51. Alison Hickey, “Coleridge, Southey, ‘and Co.’: Collaboration and Authority.” Studies in Romanticism 37 (1998): 305–49. 52. I allude not only to unfinished fragments toward (in theory) the Opus Maximus but also to the organization of the Biographia and to his famously meandering lectures, about one of which Crabb Robinson commented, “his disquisitions . . . were full of paradox” (Diary 1.191). 53. S.T. Coleridge and . Poems. 1797 (Poole: Woodstock Books, 1997), 88. Coleridge goes on to say that despite “occasionally harsh” versi- fication and diction “too frequently obscure,” he deems Wordsworth “unri- valled among the writers of the present day” (88). 54. These lines appear in the “Letter to——” and were subsequently included with portions of that poem in a letter to Sotheby. In the pared down version of “Dejection” printed in The Morning Post on October 4, 1802, these lines were omitted. They return again in the 1817 Sibylline Leaves. 55. Originally published as “Effusion XXXV” in the 1796 Poems, in which there is one unobtrusive reference on page 99 directing the reader to “note 10” in the volume’s endnotes. Cited here from The Complete Poems. Ed. William Keach (New York: Penguin, 1997). 56. Inexplicably, Hickey errs by mistaking the etymology of affiliation, a term prefixed so as in no way to be confused with a shared origin: “Referring to Southey’s mother as ‘our Mother,’ he exclaims, ‘am I not affiliated?’ Reaching back to the etymological roots of ‘affiliation,’ he grasps at a more remote origin for his bond with Southey—an affiliation at the roots, not just ‘in law.’ Like Southey, Coleridge sees the male bond as mediated by the female body, but whereas Southey emphasizes male possession of the woman as a prerequisite to fraternity ‘in law,’ Coleridge wishes to legitimate the fra- ternity by imagining the mother paradoxically as a genetic source ex post facto” (“Coleridge, Southey, ‘and Co.,’ ” 313). 57. The letter quoted is dated August 22, 1794; the newspaper reports from which Coleridge and Southey extracted material for the play appeared on August 16 and 18, 1794. Ashton echoes the consensus that “Coleridge and Southey did little more than transpose these reports into enthusiastic ” (51). 58. Hickey’s superb article explores critical reception and parody of the “new school” of poetry in journals such as the Anti-. However, at this point the article draws a questionable distinction between Southey’s and Coleridge’s views of marriage as it pertains to the scheme. 59. Newlyn cites Tim Fulford, Coleridge’s Figurative Language (Houndsmills, Basingstoke: Macmillan, 1991), 2. In such symbiosis, Newlyn goes on to argue, inheres the dangerous (for Coleridge) potential of collapsing the gap between reader and author, the fear of which Coleridge famously distilled into invective against “the multitudinous public, . . . [which] sits nominal des- pot on the throne of criticism” (BL 34). Most troubling for Coleridge is the anonymity of that public, and it is therefore anonymous criticism that Coleridge routinely decries in his writings. 60. Coleridge’s short-lived, debt-induced stint in the Army as Silas Tomkyn Comberbache is not to be confused with a legitimate choice of profession. 61. A government spy was sent to check out activity at Alfoxden in the fall of 1797. See Stephen Gill, William Wordsworth: A Life (Oxford: Clarendon P, 1989), 127–128. 194 Notes

62. After the suspension of Habeas Corpus, twelve men, including Thomas Hardy of the LCS, John Horne Tooke, Thomas Holcroft, and , a friend of Coleridge (and later of Wordsworth), were arrested on charges of high treason. “The court eventually found there was no case to answer, the defendants not having plotted the overthrow or death of George III, and the accused were released in November and December 1794.” Rosemary Ashton, The Life of Samuel Taylor Coleridge: A Critical Biography (Oxford: Blackwell, 1996), 53. 63. The Plot Discovered; or An Address to the People, Against Ministerial Treason. (, 1795) in Lectures 1795 on Politics and Religion. Ed. Lewis Patton and Peter Mann (London: Routledge & Kegan Paul. Princeton: Princeton UP, 1970), 289. 64. Thomas Cooper, Some Information Respecting America (London: Joseph Johnson, 1794); J.-P. Brissot de Warville, New Travels in the United States of America. Trans. Joel Barlow (London: J. S. Jordan, 1792); Gilbert Imlay, A Topographical Description of North America (London: J. Debrett, 1792). For background on the travel literature and other accounts of America with which Southey and Coleridge became familiar, see Sister Eugenia. “Coleridge’s Scheme of and American Travel Accounts.” PMLA 45 (1930): 1069–84; and J.R. MacGillivray, “The Pantisocratic Scheme and its Immediate Background.” Studies in English by Members of University College Toronto (Toronto: Toronto UP, 1931). Cf. Stuart Andrews, “Fellow Pantisocrats: Brissot, Cooper, and Imlay.” Symbiosis: A Journal of Anglo- American Relations 1 (1997): 35–47. 65. Coleridge wed Sara on October 4, 1795; Southey and Edith followed on November 14. Occasional talk of some form of Pantisocracy lingered in Coleridge’s circles until 1801, when he expressed interest in including William and Dorothy Wordsworth; the new location for the ethereal mini- republic was to be St. Nevis in the West Indies. See Sister Eugenia (1083). 66. Cf. Daniel Malachuk, “Labor, Leisure, and the Yeoman in Coleridge’s and Wordsworth’s Writings.” Romantic Labor/Romantic Leisure. Romanticism on the Net. Issue 27, August 2002. 67. The linking of which represented a restoration of sorts. As Curran notes in Poetic Form and British Romanticism (Oxford: Oxford UP 1986), “the rela- tionship between pastoral and georgic, as between shepherd and farmer, is intimately linked: Virgil subtly acknowledges the fact by repeating the first line of the Eclogues as the last line of the Georgics” (86). 68. Georgics (Loeb). Virgil’s phrase, “stabulo frenos audire sonantis” (3.184), employs the uncommon form sonans, which is specifically used to desig- nate a noisy or harsh sound (Lewis and Short). As such, the translation of “sonantis” into “jangle” (used by L.P. Wilkinson in the Penguin edition, 1982), which also refers to the sound’s effect on the nerves, is more fitting than Fairclough’s use of “jingle” in the Loeb translation. The latter, like Coleridge’s “tinkling,” refers to a softer, more musical sound, and is thus more appropriate to a Pantisocratic poem than to Book III. I have amalgam- ated the translations here. 69. 3.95–98, Loeb translation; “To a Young Ass,” The Complete Works (66). Poetry quotations are from this edition unless otherwise noted. The ass becomes a symbol of in Matthew 21:5: “Tell ye the daughter of Sion, Behold, thy king commeth unto thee, meeke, and sitting upon an Asse, and a colt, the foale of an Asse” (KJV, 1611 rpt). Cf. also the story of Notes 195

Baalam’s ass in Numbers 22 in relation to the “bray of joy” ejaculated by Coleridge’s ass. 70. Lovell, who married another Fricker sister, Mary, collaborated with Southey on Poems: Containing The Retrospect, , Elegies, , etc. (Bath. R. Cruttwell, 1795). The poets signed their respective poems “Bion” (Southey) and “Moschus” (Lovell). 71. Cited by both Sister Eugenia and MacGillivray, “The Pantisocratic Scheme,” 1072; 143. 72. The paragraph in question is blotted by ink stains (indicated by brackets) but appears nevertheless to be an application of his earlier calculations to the group’s population: “Horace would that state of society be happy where [. . . labour . . .] two hours a day at some useful employment, where all were equally [. . .] where the common ground was cultivated by common toil, and its produce laid in common granaries, where none were rich because none should be poor, where every motive for vice should be annihilated and every motive for virtue strengthened?” (NL 70). 73. Cf. Nicholas Roe’s “Pantisocracy and the Myth of the Poet,” which discusses the plan’s efficacy and the desire for a writing community. Romanticism and Millenarianism. Ed. Tim Fulford (London: Palgrave, 2002), 87–102. 74. The discussion of cultus and skhole derives from Josef Pieper’s Leisure: The Basis of Culture. Trans. Alexander Dru (New York: New American Library, 1952). 75. Coleridge refers to Mrs. Fricker and Mrs. Southey. Feelings of disappoint- ment respecting his own mother may well have influenced Coleridge’s remarks. 76. See chapter one and the discussion of the bouts rimés convention (note 27). 77. Also cited by Hickey, “Coleridge, Southey, ‘and Co.,’ ” 319–20. 78. Southey’s charges of Coleridge’s indolence were rejoined with the famous accusations of economic individualism concerning personal property. See Ashton (chapter two) and especially Taussig (chapter three). For Taussig, the collapse of Pantisocracy resulted from an impasse between Godwinian rationalism and Humean sympathy: Whereas sympathy should facilitate the acceptance, indeed the embracing of, personal (including moral) shortcom- ings, rationalism dictates not only pointing out such shortcomings but also rejecting them. The epitome of the former sentiment lies in Christianity, which, as I see it, is why Coleridge eventually returned home to the Church. It was the only family that would accept him with all his blemishes. 79. Also known as the Logosophia, for an account of the “Opus Maximum” scheme, see Fruman, Coleridge, The Damaged Archangel, chapter 13. 80. Inquiring Spirit; A New Presentation of Coleridge from his Published and Unpublished Prose Writings. Ed. Kathleen Coburn (New York: Pantheon, 1951), 68. Cf. McFarland’s discussion of Kant in the introduction to Romanticism and the Forms of Ruin, “Fragmented Modalities and the Criteria of Romanticism.” As noted earlier, McFarland sees this quotation as evidence of Coleridge fulfilling a “feminine principle to [Wordsworth’s] masculine counterpart” in their relationship. 81. Coleridge was of course aware of Kant’s first two Critiques at this time, probably having first read them in (1798–1799). See Biographia Literaria chapter nine. But this is not to suggest that Coleridge was con- sciously responding, though the possibility surely exists. 82. , The Critique of Pure Reason. Trans. J.M.D. Meiklejohn (Amherst, NY: Prometheus, 1990), 138. 196 Notes

83. I quote here from the version published in The Morning Post on October 4, 1802. (CD 48–62). 84. One notable exception is R.A. Benthall’s “New Moons, Old , and Prophetic Dialogues in Coleridge’s ‘Dejection: An Ode.’ ” Studies in Romanticism 37 (Winter 1998): 591–614. Benthall attends more to the sci- entific causes and actual occurrences of this phenomenon, tracking the pos- sible sightings by the Wordsworth circle through Dorothy’s Journals. 85. Benthall offers excellent insight on these lines by reading them in view of Dorothy’s description of the same phenomenon on March 8, 1802, in the Journals: “Both passages seem to describe not merely a new crescent moon with the old moon still visible, which is rare enough. Dorothy’s description is ambiguous, and may suggest two crescents, ‘like a gold ring snapped in two and shaven off at the ends,’ which enclose the old moon in lunulae, or ‘little moons,’ the name Erasmus used for ‘parentheses.’ . . . Coleridge has not only described this appearance, but illustrated it as well, enclosing the ‘swimming phantom light’ of the old moon in graphic lunulae” (603). 86. The war with France was temporarily halted at the time of the poem, the Peace of Amiens lasting from March 1802 until May 1803. 87. Line 13 in both versions. Benthall notes the “feminine personification” but does not mention the image of Mary’s lap in “A Letter to——” (600). 88. William and Dorothy were an early audience for “A Letter to——” (See CD 11–13). 89. “A Letter to——” (134); “Dejection: An Ode” (61). The verse letter’s version of the second line reads, “strange music in the Soul,” the use of “strange” suggesting an unfamiliarity, indeed an alienation that disappears in the pub- lished version. 90. Cf. “”: “Nor, perchance, / If I were not thus taught, should I the more / Suffer my genial spirits to decay” (ll. 112–14). 91. “” (l. 20). Coleridge composed the poem in , Somersetshire, at the site of the couple’s first cottage home. 92. Although “Edmund” refers to Wordsworth unambiguously at line 114, the name can be seen as an “amalgamation of William Wordsworth and Coleridge” (Matlak, The Poetry of Relationship, 85). Support is given this idea by the title of Charles Lloyd’s novel Edmund Oliver (1798), written in response to Coleridge’s attachment to the Wordsworth circle, which was seen as an abandonment of Lamb and Lloyd. Matlak suggests that the novel “con- stituted an attack on the relationship” between Wordsworth and Coleridge. 93. Gill, William Wordsworth, 289. Gill himself is paraphrasing, but these are the words that Wordsworth himself did not deny saying. Of the supposed insults, this one, understandably, stung Coleridge the most, for these were the words (“no hopes of him”) Coleridge virtually insisted that Wordsworth retract. HCR was the go-between in May of 1812, during which the two men exchanged letters of reconciliation. See HCR’s account of the affair in On Books and Their Writers. Ed. Edith J. Morley. 3 vols (London: J. M. Dent and Sons, Ltd., 1938), 1.74 ff. 94. Leo Tolstoy, Anna Karenina (New York: Knopf, 1992). 95. On Books (see note 94). 96. And those who knew Coleridge also knew of his penchant for plagiarism, which Fruman fully investigates in this context. Wordsworth himself told Crabb Robinson after Coleridge’s death that “on many occasions he had begged Coleridge to make proper acknowledgments, to no avail” (Coleridge, The Damaged Archangel, 276). Notes 197

97. The irony here is even deeper because as early as 1802 Coleridge was begin- ning to express disagreement specifically about . See Stephen Maxfield Parrish, “The Wordsworth-Coleridge Controversy.” PMLA 73 (1958): 367–74.

5 Generations: Conflict, Continuity, and the GENIUS FAMILIAE 1. Mark Storey, Robert Southey: A Life (Oxford: Oxford UP, 1997), 156. 2. Donald H. Reiman, ed., The Romantics Reviewed (New York: Garland Publishing, 1972), Part A. vol. 1, p. 12. 3. Selections from the Letters of Robert Southey. Ed. John Wood Warter. 4 Vols (1856 (London). New York: AMS Press, 1977), 2.17. 4. Aikin in 1773; Southey in 1774. 5. The Notebooks of Samuel Taylor Coleridge. Ed. Kathleen Coburn. 4 Vols (New York: The and Princeton UP, 1961–1990), 2.2303. Hereafter cited as CN with volume and entry number 6. From Reiman’s synopsis of the very review Southey was upset about, the Annual Review’s article on Poems, in Two Volumes. Cited in The Romantics Reviewed (New York: Garland Publishing, 1972), Part A. vol. 1, p. 13. 7. Annual Review I (1803), 688–92. See Coleridge’s Notebooks (Vol. 3 4035 n.). See also New Letters of Robert Southey. Ed. Kenneth Curry (New York: Columbia UP, 1965), vol. 1, 327–28, and Diary, Reminiscences and Correspondence of Henry Crabb Robinson (third edition) 1872. Ed. Thomas Sadler (New York: AMS Press, 1967), Vol. 1, 197. 8. Lucy Newlyn, “Coleridge and the Anxiety of Reception.” Romanticism 1.2 (1995): 207. Paul M. Zall argues that writers such as Barbauld and were largely responsible for creating not only the taste by which Wordsworth and Coleridge’s could be appreciated but also the mass reading audience for such literary work. Their reform efforts in educating the poor, combined with works such as Hannah More’s Cheap Repository Tracts, it turns out, helped create Coleridge’s rival, the despotic “multitudinous PUBLIC.” P.M. Zall, “The Cool World of Samuel Taylor Coleridge: Mrs. Barbauld’s Crew & the Building of a Mass Reading Class.” Wordsworth Circle 2 (1971): 74–79. 9. As Gerald Malsbary explains, “the spirit of the agon, or ‘contest,’ ” inher- ent to the Greeks’ conception of pietas, was not individualized but rather communal: “Simply put, each athlete was not competing for himself, but for his family and city-state. The group was already involved.” “Pietas and the Origins of Western Culture.” Logos 4.2 (2001): 93–116. p. 97. Cf. Harold Bloom. The Anxiety of Influence: A Theory of Poetry. Second edn (New York: Oxford, 1997). To isolate and pit one “strong poet” against another is to mis- read—perhaps intentionally—the spirit of the agon as explained by Malsbary: “Pindar’s incessant warnings against pthonos or envy indicate the pub- lic dimension of competition for the Greeks: when someone achieves, the achievement radiates outward to the entire group, and is not meant as the exclusive enjoyment of an individual in isolation. The ideal was not absolute competitiveness, but public-spirited or friendly competition for the sake of excellence itself, understood as a gift of the gods” (102). It should also be noted that “the spirit of the agon or ‘contest’ ” embraces more than ath- letic competition, providing “a key to understanding the common spirit of 198 Notes

the various specialized achievements of the Greeks in mathematics, science, art, literature, morals and . Here, more than anywhere else, can ancient Greek pietas be experienced” (Malsbary, “Pietas and the Origins of Western Culture,” 97). 10. I allude to Thomas McFarland’s discussion of the “significant group” (Romanticism and the Forms of Ruin, chapter three. See especially 148–52). 11. Cf. Stuart Curran, “: The I Altered.” Romanticism and Feminism. Ed. Anne K. Mellor (Bloomington: Indiana UP, 1988), 185–207. 12. Southey wrote his dramatic poem Wat Tyler in 1794. It was anonymously republished in 1817, but the secret of its authorship was soon exposed and widely disseminated. For an account of the episode, see Mark Storey, Robert Southey: A Life (Oxford: Oxford UP, 1997), 253–60. Coleridge’s note- worthy pamphlets are The Plot Discovered and Conciones ad Populum. See Rosemary Ashton, The Life of Samuel Taylor Coleridge: A Critical Biography (Oxford: Blackwell, 1996), 266–68, for the episode with Hunt’s Examiner (November 25, 1810). 13. Coleridge was nearly imprisoned for sounding off at ’s trial for publishing Peace and Union in 1793. See Jonathan Wordsworth’s introduc- tion to Peace and Union (Oxford: Woodstock Books, 1991). 14. Shelley’s Poetry and Prose. Ed. Donald H. Reiman and Sharon B. Powers (New York: Norton, 1977), ll. 9, 101–106. 15. Barbauld’s poem first appears in the 1773 Poems, but McCarthy and Kraft’s estimate puts the author at nineteen when she wrote it ten years earlier, mak- ing her slightly younger than the twenty-year-old Coleridge when he wrote “Song of the Pixies” in 1793 (published in 1796). Qtd in CP, line 54. 16. See chapter one, part one. 17. For a discussion of the term swerve (clinamen) in the context of poetic influ- ence, see chapter one of Bloom’s Anxiety of Influence. 18. The diminutive as beautiful accords with Burke’s Enquiry in particular. Cf. also Robert W. Jones, Gender and the Formation of Taste in Eighteenth- Century Britain: The Analysis of Beauty (Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1998). 19. It is left without annotation by Keach, and I have found no other source sug- gesting the debt to Barbauld. 20. Wordsworth to Biggs and Cottle (October 6 or 7, 1800). Letters 1.305. 21. I refer here to Geoffrey Hartman’s “Romantic Poetry and the Genius Loci” from Beyond Formalism: Literary Essays 1958–1970 (New Haven: Yale UP, 1970), 311–36. 22. The account of Coleridge’s walk to meet ALB is found in CL 1.341 (n. 1). The two met at the home of , a dissenting minister and mutual friend, in August of 1797, and the meeting occasioned Barbauld’s “To Mr. S.T. Coleridge, 1797” (Works 1.209–10). The poem’s earliest manu- script dates from September, and it remained in private circulation until April 1799, when it was published as “To Mr. C—ge” in the Monthly Magazine (PALB 296 n.). 23. See CL 1.201 and CL 6.1013, respectively. 24. Estlin is John P. Estlin. Of the reviews Kenneth Curry writes, “Joan of Arc established Southey’s reputation as a writer and opened to him the doors of literary employment. Three favorable reviews were: , XXIII (1796), 170–177; Monthly Review, Second Series, XIX (1796), 361–68; Critical Review, Second Series, XVII (1796), 182–92” (NL 1.108 n.). Marilyn Butler discusses the power of the literary review from the Notes 199

standpoint of its ability to shape the readerships’ taste and thereby generate cultural capital: “Just as all modern advertising stimulates the public’s appe- tite both to acquire things and to win the prestige that comes from acquiring the right things, so the journal works most effectively at a level on which the interests of the booksellers are not visibly involved.” Coleridge’s letter provides just a glimpse of the invisible machinations that indeed involve the interests of the bookseller and betrays his implicit expectation that readers would purchase books based on reviews. Marilyn Butler, “Culture’s Medium: The Role of the Review.” The Cambridge Companion to British Romanticism. Ed. Stuart Curran (Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1993), 120–47 (123). 25. McCarthy and Kraft. Introduction to SPP (29). 26. Of Wynnstay near Wrexham Denbigshire. 27. As for the rationale behind publishing the poem in April of 1799, two other possibilities can be derived from different contexts. First, Coleridge had vis- ited Barbauld before leaving for Germany and may well have discussed his aspirations for further philosophical inquiry while abroad. Because the poem appeared while he was away, it could serve as a reminder to his readers (and countrymen in general) that they were potentially losing a promising poet to German metaphysics. Rhetorically, the poem’s appearance beckons the poet home. The second possibility can be seen as a more sober plea for Coleridge’s return home, for his son Berkeley had died in February, but Coleridge had not come home for the funeral. Against this backdrop, the poem’s final line—“Now Heaven conduct thee with a Parent’s love”—assumes new significance. 28. In her shrewd critique of contemporary anthologies, whose editors run the risk of subordinating Barbauld to the more recognizable Coleridge when they choose to include this poem, Vargo rightly asserts that the choice ultimately “undervalues” Barbauld: “To select as important a poem written in tribute to Coleridge constructs Barbauld in a role that undermines her own authority” (63). I couldn’t agree more, but I contend that the authority in question is that of the critic, the one epithet Vargo does not apply to Barbauld in this instance. 29. The entry appears in July–November of 1820. Kathleen Coburn’s note explains the “Lord Mayor’s Show”: “From 1298 onward, a procession on Lord Mayor’s Day, Nov. 9, in which the Lord Mayor of London with the aldermen and other dignitaries paraded to and from Westminster to receive the assent of the Crown to his election. Coleridge was objecting to the the- atrical extravagance that accompanied it, making it a travesty on the serious responsibility of public men in government.” Given that Barbauld’s images are essentially paraphrases of scripture, the complaint is an odd one, to say the least. Coleridge’s transcription of Hymn XIV is almost letter perfect. 30. The Letters of Charles and Mary Anne Lamb. Ed. Edwin Marrs, Jr. 3 Vols (Ithaca: Cornell UP, 1975–1978), 1.60–1. Cited in Paul Magnuson, “The ‘Conversation’ Poems.” The Cambridge Companion to Coleridge. Ed. Lucy Newlyn (Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 2002), 32–44 (33–34). 31. The closing lines of “Washing-Day” use the image of the world’s first hot air balloon, flown by Joseph Michel and Jacques Etienne Montgolfier, to level the differences between the sublime and the beautiful, between toil and play:

Sometimes thro’ hollow bole Of pipe amused we blew, and sent aloft 200 Notes

The floating bubbles, little dreaming then To see, Mongolfier, thy silken ball Ride buoyant thro’ the clouds—so near approach The sports of children and the toils of men. Earth, air, and sky, and ocean, hath its bubbles, And verse is one of them—this most of all. (“Washing-Day,” ll. 79–86)

32. Crabb Robinson received confirmation that no one in the Aikin family was responsible during an evening in 1812. “A call on the Aikins,” he writes. “The whole family full of the praises of . The Doctor termed him a brilliant writer. The union of so much eloquence with so much wit shows great powers of mind. Miss Aikin was not less warm in her praise. She asked why he did not write more. I mentioned, as one cause, the bad charac- ter given him by the reviewers. I then spoke of the Annual Review (Arthur Aikin, the editor, was present) as having hurt him much by the notice of ‘John Woodvil.’ She exclaimed, ‘Oh! that Tommy [not identified]; that such a fellow should criticise such a man as Lamb!’ I then mentioned that some persons had attributed the article to Mrs. Barbauld. I was impressed with the sincerity and liberality of the Aikins, in acknowledging a merit so unlike their own. They evinced a universality of taste which I had not supposed them to possess” (Diary 1.197). 33. Annual Review 1 (1802): 688–92 (p. 691). The date should not be mis- leading. The year 1802 represents the year in which all the reviewed works were published; the review itself was not available until well into the fol- lowing year. In this case, the correspondence between Coleridge and Southey suggests late 1803. The Annual’s layout—nearly one thousand double-column pages—and its ambition to review the entire year’s promi- nent publications may offer some hint as to why its arrival grew increas- ingly tardy. 34. CN 2.1848. Coleridge’s transcription begins with “A school of poetry” in the excerpt cited earlier. He quotes in full the remainder of the article, filling nearly a page of Coburn’s Notebooks. 35. Thomas Robert Malthus was a student of the Warrington Academy and friend of the Aikin circle. He is best known for An Essay on the Principle of Population (1798), in which he argued that food supplies increase along a arithmetic progression (1, 2, 3, 4, etc.), whereas population increases along a geometric progression (1, 2, 4, 8, 16, etc.), leading to what he imagined would be crises of overpopulation and starvation. 36. The allusion to Clausewitz is only slightly anachronistic, as he was building the philosophical foundations for his posthumously published masterpiece, Vom Kriege (1832), during the very period under consideration. The work was not translated into English until 1873. 37. The Life and Correspondence of Robert Southey. Ed. Charles Cuthbert Southey. 6 Vols (London: Longman, Brown, Green, and , 1849), 2.275. Interestingly, the second edition of this work, which appeared the next year, omits the second sentence here quoted and adds the following editorial note: “This was written under the impression that Mrs. Barbauld was the author of a very unjust and much censured article in the Annual Review upon Lamb’s John Woodville. Since the first edition of this work was published, I have been informed by a friend who was intimate with all parties, that the review in question was not written by Mrs. Barbauld or any member of the Aikin family” (2.275–6). Notes 201

38. I believe sufficient evidence exists to support that Southey, not Croker, authored the infamous review of Barbauld’s Eighteen Hundred and Eleven, a position I intend to advance elsewhere. 39. See McCarthy and Kraft: Introduction to SPP (p. 30). 40. The , to which are added those of his sister, . Ed. E.V. Lucas (London: J.M. Dent & Sons, LTD. New York: AMS Press, 1968). Lamb was complaining of “Mrs. B’s and Mrs. Trimmer’s [educational] nonsense”: “Damn them!—I mean the cursed Barbauld Crew, those Blights and Blasts of all that is Human in man and Child” (1.326). 41. Perhaps one of the fairest reviews of Poems, in Two Volumes, however, came from Barbauld, who analyzed the work according to the principles outlined in the Preface to the 1800 Lyrical Ballads. Although she finds fault with Wordsworth’s definition of a poet because “one who really deserves the name of a poet, must certainly add another faculty which is not even hinted at in this definition—we scarcely know how to name it, but it is that kind of fancy, akin to wit, which ‘glancing from heaven to earth, from earth to heaven,’ pervading as it were, the whole world of nature and of art, snatches from each its beauteous images combines, adapts, arranges them by a magic of its own, peoples with them its new creations, and at length pours forth in one striking brilliant, yet harmonious whole” [Annual Review VI (1808): 521–29; cited in The Romantics Reviewed Part. A. vol. 1, p. 15]. There are complaints of language that is “prosaic” and “intolerably prolix”; yet there are moments of generous praise, including this, which certainly must be one of the most gracious to have been offered: “But when he takes for his theme the youthful feelings connected with the sight of a butterfly, and the song of the cuckoo, he has struck a right key, and will wake an answering note in the bosoms of all who have mimicked the or chased the insect. There is an exquisiteness of feeling in some of these little poems that disarms criticism” (ibid., 20). 42. The line in question is “In what brown dost thou joy” (l. 38). See McCarthy and Kraft’s note in PALB (p. 264). “He offended me by an unhandsome and unmanly attack upon Mrs. Barbauld” (On Books and Their Writers, 1.62). 43. Qtd in Henry Crabb Robinson, On Books and Their Writers, 3 vols. Ed. Edith J. Morley (London: J. M. Dent and Sons, 1938), 1.62. 44. Of particular note, HCR and Wordsworth spent an evening at Charles Aikin’s with ALB, JA and family, , James Montgomery, and William Roscoe’s son on May 13, 1812. (Diary 1.200). See discussion later. 45. Introduction to Mary/Maria: Mary Wolstonecraft. Mathilda: . Ed. Janet Todd (New York: NYU Press, 1992), xv. 46. Shelley’s Poetry and Prose. Ed. Donald H. Reiman and Sharon B. Powers (New York: Norton, 1977), 96–101. 47. To put the title of Howard Weinbrot’s Britannia’s Issue in familial terms. Britannia’s Issue: The Rise of from Dryden to (Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1993). 48. Discussed in “Romantic Poetry and the Genius Loci.” When the spirit of the place lured the poet, this meant “a meditation on English landscape as alma mater—where landscape is storied England, its legends, history, and rural- reflective spirit” (319). 49. In choosing between gens and familia, I opted for the latter’s stronger res- onance during the period in question with the rise of the household family. And because domesticity is so important to considerations of this and other literary families of the period, the latter choice, though connoting domestic 202 Notes

slaves in ancient Rome, is, I think, more appropriate than a reference to bloodlines, which bears associations with royalty. Godwin wasted no time in adopting , and it is that kind of incorporation that familia accommodates. 50. So far, in fact, that he had believed Godwin dead when he learned otherwise, probably from Robert Southey. The Letters of . 2 Vols. Ed. Frederick L. Jones (Oxford: Oxford UP, 1964), 1.220 n. 2. Hereafter cited parenthetically as PBSL. 51. George Watson, “The Reckless Disciple: Godwin’s Shelley.” Hudson Review 39.2 (1986): 212–30 (214). 52. Letter to Grosvenor Bedford, January 4, 1812. Cited in PBSL (1.219 n.). 53. The Letters of Percy Bysshe Shelley. 2 Vols. Ed. Frederick L. Jones (Oxford: Oxford UP, 1964), 1.219. 54. Introduction ’s Memoirs (22). 55. Cf. Lawrence Lipking, “, the True Story; or, Rousseau Judges Jean-Jacques.” Frankenstein. 1818. Ed. J. Paul Hunter (New York: Norton, 1996), 313–31. It seems to me that, among other things, Frankenstein’s abandonment of the creature results in a Rousseauean educational experiment whose outcome can be nothing but bad, given the human prejudices await- ing him. As with Alphonse Frankenstein’s failure to explain his “prejudices” against the outdated scientists, Victor fails by not imparting a Barbauldian sense of “prejudice” in the form of practical knowledge. 56. Cf. Godwin’s “On Suicide.” Enquiry Concerning Political Justice. 3 Vols. Ed. F.E.L. Priestley (Toronto: U of Toronto P, 1946), 1.138–140. Also reprinted in the Broadview edition of Memoirs. 57. , Essay on Sepulchres: or, A Proposal for Erecting some Memorial of the Illustrious Dead in all Ages on the Spot where their Remains have been Interred (London: W. Miller, 1809), 18. 58. Nicola Trott, “Loves of the Triangle: William, Mary, and Percy Bysshe.” Wordsworth Circle 31.1 (2000): 2–13. 59. C. Kerényi, “Man and Mask.” Spiritual Disciplines: Papers from the Eranos Yearbooks. Ed. Joseph Campbell (Princeton: Princeton UP, 1960), 151–67 (155). 60. William St. Clair, The Godwins and the Shelleys: A Biography of a Family (Baltimore, JHU Press, 1989), 549 n. 2. The inscribed text is in the Carl Pforzheimer Collection in the New York Public Library. The sixteen-year- old Mary proclaimed her love for P.B. Shelley at St. Pancras Churchyard on June 26, 1814 (ibid., 358). 61. Consider this passage from the outset of the essay, which addresses the loss of a hypothetical friend: “I cannot love my friend without loving his per- son. It is in this way that every thing which practically has been associated with my friend, acquires a value from that consideration; his ring, his watch, his books, and his habitation. The value of these as having been his, is not merely fictitious; they have an empire over my mind; they can make me happy or unhappy; they can torture, and they can tranquillise; they can purify my sentiments, and make me similar to the man I love; they possess the virtue which the Indian is said to attribute to the spoils of him he kills, and inspire me with the powers, the feelings, and the heart of their preced- ing master” (6–8). 62. This cannot have been written without some consciousness of his own dis- position in contrast to that of, e.g., Coleridge. See the concluding pages to Notes 203

Hazlitt’s chapter on Coleridge in (New York: Chelsea House, 1983), 55–59. 63. See Memoirs (61). Letters Written in Sweden, Norway, and Denmark. 1796. The Works of . 7 Vols. Ed. Janet Todd and Marilyn Butler (New York: NYU Press, 1989), Vol. 6, 243–348 (272). The letters were writ- ten to Gilbert Imlay; Wollstonecraft was in executing business on his behalf. Of Wollstonecraft’s Letters Godwin wrote, “If ever there was a book calculated to make a man in love with its author, this appears to me to be the book.” Memoirs of the Author of A Vindication of the Rights of Woman. Ed. Pamela Clemit and (Peterborough, Ontario: Broadview, 2001), 95. 64. The Complete Works of Percy Bysshe Shelley. Ed. Roger Ingpen and Walter E. Peck. 10 Vols (New York: Gordian Press, 1965), vol. 1. p. 258. Hereafter cited parenthetically with Canto and line numbers. 65. Stuart Curran, Shelley’s Annus Mirabilis: The Maturing of an Epic Vision (San Marino, CA: The Huntington Library, 1975), 157. 66. Pamela Clemit, “Shelley’s Godwin, 1812–1817.” Durham University Journal. 85.2 (1993): 189–201 (190). 67. Mary Shelley quotes these lines from “Ode to the West Wind”: “His voice, and suddenly grow grey with fear, / And tremble and despoil themselves” (ll. 40–41). Modified from “Thy voice,” the lines refer to the ocean’s vegeta- tion, in sympathy with plant life ashore, reacting to the winds of the oncom- ing storm (275). 68. Stuart Curran, “Valperga.” The Cambridge Companion to Mary Shelley. Ed. Esther Schor (Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 2003), 103–15 (112). 69. Anne K. Mellor, “Possessing Nature: The Female in Frankenstein.” Romanticism and Feminism. Ed. Anne K. Mellor (Bloomington: Indiana UP, 1988), 220–32 (223). Recent feminist approaches to the novel have found important connections to motherhood and Mary Shelley’s own experiences with pregnancy. See Mary Poovey, “My Hideous Progeny: Mary Shelley and the Feminization of Romanticism.” PMLA 95 (1980), also treated in The Proper Lady and the Woman Writer (Chicago: U of Chicago P, 1984), 121–31. 70. Tillotama Rajan, “Between Romance and History: Posibility and Contingency in Godwin, Leibniz, and Mary Shelley’s Valperga.” Mary Shelley in Her Times. Ed. Betty Bennett and Stuart Curran (Baltimore: JHU Press, 2000), 88–102. In a somewhat surprising observation, Rajan suggests that what many see as a reflection of Mary Wollstonecraft is an “androgynously Shelleyan Euthanasia” (89). Although the article suggests that Euthanasia is “the character most like P.B. Shelley” (89), Rajan also acknowledges the influence of Wollstonecraft on her character. 71. Perhaps indicating another instance of Godwin’s footprint in Frankenstein, Plutarch’s Lives is one of the works read by the creature (along with Paradise Lost and The Sorrows of Young Werther). 72. Cf. Shelley’s first letter to Godwin: “I had been accustomed to consider him [Godwin] a luminary too dazzling for the which surrounds him” (PBSL 1.220). 73. Guido is “the painter Guido Reni (1575–1642); the portrait of Beatrice Cenci (which is in Guido’s style but is not by him, nor of her) was a major attraction for visitors to Rome” (Curran’s note, p. 170). Cf. P.B. Shelley’s The Cenci (1820), partly inspired by the painting. 204 Notes

74. Cf. Rajan, who argues that Euthanasia represents unattainable possibility in a world governed by Castruccio’s necessity. 75. Even though her own rhetoric becomes at times filled with emotion. 76. Mary Shelley’s note to the poem identifies this figure as patterned after Dr. Lind, Shelley’s teacher at Eton (Complete Works 1.409); however, Godwin’s presence is also felt. 77. I developed this insight from a conversation with Dr. Elizabeth Samet about Political Justice, property and the genius familiae. 78. The New Century Classical Handbook. Ed. Catherine B. Avery (New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts, 1962), 813. Among the dead buried there are a number of artists, including Raphael, “who stands in general foremost of the first painters,” according to Reynolds (81), and whose School of Athens is germane to the contexts of Godwin’s Essay on Sepulchres and Reynolds’ discussion of light and shade, of which Mary Shelley seems fully aware in her depiction of this scene.

Epilogue 1. Stephen Gill, William Wordsworth: A Life (Oxford: Clarendon P., 1989), 79. 2. Definition taken from Addison (Spectator 60) as cited in the OED. For details on Hymns for Public Worship, see the editors’ note on page 254 of PALB. Dedication page cited from the third edition of Enfield’s Speaker (London: J. Johnson, 1779). 3. In 1783 teaching at the Warrington Academy was suspended; it was closed permanently in 1786. Its successor, the Manchester Academy, eventually became what is today Manchester College, Oxford. The standard works on the Warrington Academy are: Herbert McLachan, Warrington Academy: Its History and Influence (Manchester: The Chetham Society, 1943); P. O’Brien, M.D. Warrington Academy 1757–1786: Its Predecessors and Successors (Wigan, Lancashire: Owl Books, 1989); and Irene Parker, in England: Their Rise and Progress and their Place among the Educational Systems of the Country (Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1914). 4. In her study of collaborative poetic mourning in nineteenth-century America, Mary Louise Kete contrasts traditional elegy and Freud’s conception of ego restoration in “Mourning and Melancholia” with the shared, communal experience of mourning that “is not interested in autonomy or liberation but in the restoration of constitutive bonds, which make subjectivity pos- sible.” Sentimental Collaborations: Mourning and Middle-Class Identity in Nineteenth-Century America (Durham, NC: Duke UP, 1999), 62. 5. See McCarthy and Kraft’s note on the poem in PALB (283–84) 6. The Genius of the Thames: A Lyrical Poem in Two Parts (London: T. Hookham, Jr., 1810), 63. Bibliography

Abrams, M.H. The Mirror and the Lamp: Romantic Theory and the Critical Tradition. New York: Norton, 1953. ———. Natural Supernaturalism: Tradition and Revolution in Romantic Literature. New York: Norton, 1971. Aikin, Arthur. The Natural History of the Year. Being an Enlargement of Dr. Aikin’s Calendar of Nature. Second edn. London: Joseph Johnson, 1799. Aikin, John. An Essay on the Application of Natural History to Poetry. 1777. New York: Garland, 1970. ———. Essays on Song-Writing. Warrington: William Eyres, 1772. ———. A View of the Life, Travels, and Philanthropic Labours of the Late John Howard, Esq. London: Joseph Johnson: 1789. ———. An Address to the Dissidents of England on their late Defeat. London: Joseph Johnson, 1790. ———. Poems. London: Joseph Johnson, 1791. ———. Food for National Penitence. London: Joseph Johnson, 1793. ———. Letters from a Father to His Son. 2 vols. London: Joseph Johnson, 1793, 1799. ———. Letters to a Young Lady on a Course of . London: Joseph Johnson, 1804. ———. Vocal Poetry, or A Select Collection of English Songs to which is prefixed an Essay On Songwriting. London: Joseph Johnson, 1810. Aikin, John and A.L. Barbauld. Evenings at Home or the Juvenile Budget Opened. 1792–1796. London: George Routledge and Sons, Ltd. (ca. 1900). ———. Miscellaneous Pieces in Prose. Third edn. London: Joseph Johnson, 1792. Aikin, Lucy. Memoir of John Aikin, M. D. with a selection of his Miscellaneous Pieces, Biographical, Moral and Critical. Philadelphia: Abraham Small, 1824. Anderson, Benedict. Imagined Communities: Reflections on the Origin and Spread of Nationalism. London: Verso, 1991. Anderson, John M. “ ‘The First Fire’: Barbauld Rewrites the Greater Romantic Lyric.” Studies in English Literature 34 (1994): 719–38. Annual Review 1 (1803). Review of Charles Lamb’s John Woodville. 688–92. Ariès, Philippe. L’Enfant et La Vie Familiale sous l’ancien régime. Paris: Librairie Plon, 1960. Trans. Robert Baldick in Centuries of Childhood. New York: Knopf, 1962. Armitage, D.M. The Taylors of Ongar: Portrait of an English Family in the 18th and 19th Centuries. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1939. Ashton, Rosemary. The Life of Samuel Taylor Coleridge: A Critical Biography. Oxford: Blackwell, 1996. Austin, Linda M. “Children of Childhood: Nostalgia and the Romantic Legacy.” Studies in Romanticism 42 (2003): 75–98. Bakhtin, M.M. The Dialogic Imagination. Ed. Michael Holquist. Trans. Caryl Emerson and Michael Holquist. Austin: U of Texas P, 1981. 206 Bibliography

Barbauld, Anna Letitia. Hymns in Prose for Children. London: Joseph Johnson, 1781. Rpt London: Frederick Warne and Co., ca. 1880. ———. An Address to the Opposers of the Repeal of the Corporation and Test Acts. Third edn. London: Joseph Johnson, 1790. ———. Sins of Government, Sins of the Nation; or, a Discourse for the Fast, appointed on April 19, 1773. London: Joseph Johnson, 1793. ———. Poems. Fourth edn, corrected. London: Joseph Johnson, 1794. ———. “Essay on Akenside’s Poem on the Pleasures of the Imagination.” The Pleasures of the Imagination. Ed. Mark M.D. Akenside. London: T. Cadell Jr. and W. Davies, 1796. 1–36. ———. The Poetical Works of William Collins, with a Prefatory Essay, by Mrs. Barbauld. London: T. Cadell, Jr. and W. Davies, 1797. ———.The British Novelists: with an Essay; and Prefaces, Biographical and Critical, by Mrs. Barbauld. 50 Vols. London: F.C. and J. Rivington et al., 1810. ———. The Female Speaker; Or Miscellaneous Pieces in Prose and Verse. London: Joseph Johnson, 1811. ———. Eighteen Hundred and Eleven: A Poem. Boston: Bradford and Read, 1812. ———. The Works of . With a Memoir by Lucy Aikin. 2 vols. London: Longman, Hurst, Rees, Orme, Brown, and Green, 1825. ———. A Legacy for Young Ladies Consisting of Miscellaneous Pieces, in Prose and Verse. Boston: David Reed, 1826. ———. The Poems of Anna Letitia Barbauld. Ed. William McCarthy and Elizabeth Kraft. Athens, GA: U of Georgia P, 1994. ———. Selected Poetry and Prose. Ed. William McCarthy and Elizabeth Kraft. Toronto: Broadview, 2002. Barbauld, Anna Letitia, ed. The Correspondence of . 6 vols. London: Richard Phillips, 1804. Barker-Benfield, G.J. The Culture of Sensibility: Sex and Society in Eighteenth-Century England. Chicago: U of Chicago P, 1992. Barrell, John. Poetry, Language, and Politics. Manchester UP; New York: St. Martin’s, 1988. Barry, F.V. Jane Taylor: Prose and Poetry. London: Humphrey Milford, 1925. Barth, J. Robert. Coleridge and the Power of Love. Columbia, MO: U of Missouri P, 1988. Bate, Walter Jackson. From Classic to Romantic: Premises of Taste in Eighteenth Century England. New York: Harper & Row, 1961. ———. Coleridge. New York: Macmillan, 1968. Benthall, R.A. “New Moons, Old Ballads, and Prophetic Dialogues in Coleridge’s ‘Dejection: An Ode.’ ” Studies in Romanticism 37 (1998): 591–614. Bingham, Caleb, ed. The Columbian Orator. Boston: Manning & Loring, 1797. ———. The Columbian Orator. Second edn. Boston: Manning & Loring, 1799. Bloom, Harold. The Anxiety of Influence: A Theory of Poetry. Second edn. New York: Oxford, 1997. Bloom, Harold, ed. Romanticism and Consciousness. New York: Norton, 1970. Braithwaite, Helen. Romanticism, Publishing and Dissent: Joseph Johnson and the Cause of Liberty. London: Palgrave, 2003. Bright, Henry A. A Historical Sketch of Warrington Academy. Transactions of the Historic Society of Lancashire and Cheshire. Vol XI. Liverpool: T. Brakell, 1859. Brissenden, R.F., ed. Studies in the Eighteenth Century II: Papers Presented at the Second David Nichol Smith Memorial Seminar Canberra 1970. Canberra: Australian National UP, 1973. Bibliography 207

Bronson, Bertrand Harris. Facets of the Enlightenment: Studies in English Literature and its Contexts. Berkeley: U of California P, 1968. Brooke, Frances. The History of Emily Montague. 1769. Rpt New Canadian Library Edition, 1995. Burke, Edmund. Reflections on the Revolution in France. 1790. Ed. Conor Cruise O’Brien. London: Penguin, 1986. ———. A Philosophical Enquiry into the Origin of our Ideas of the Sublime and Beautiful. 1757. Oxford: Oxford UP, 1990. Butler, Marilyn. “Culture’s Medium: The Role of the Review.” The Cambridge Companion to British Romanticism. Ed. Stuart Curran. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1993. 120–47. Carlson, Julie. England’s First Family of Writers: Mary Wollstonecraft, William Godwin, Mary Shelley. Baltimore: JHU P, 2007. Carringer, Robert L. “Collaboration and Concepts of Authorship.” PMLA 116.2 (2001): 370–79. Chaucer, Geoffrey. The Canterbury Tales. The Riverside Chaucer. Ed. Larry D. Benson. Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1987. 23–328. Chichester, Teddi Lynn. “Shelley’s Imaginative Transexualism in Laon and Cythna. Keats-Shelley Journal 45 (1996): 77–101. Clark, J.C.D. The Language of Liberty, 1660–1832: Political Discourse and Social Dynamics in the Anglo-American World. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1994. Clark, Roy Benjamin. William Gifford: Satirist, Critic, and Editor. New York: Columbia UP, 1930. Clemit, Pamela. “Shelley’s Godwin.” Durham University Journal 85 (2) (1993): 189–201. ———. “From the Fields of Fancy to Matilda: Mary Shelley’s Changing Conception of Her Novella.” Mary Shelley in Her Times. Ed. Betty T. Bennett and Stuart Curran. Baltimore: JHU P, 2000. 64–75. Coleridge, Samuel Taylor. The Collected Letters of Samuel Taylor Coleridge. 6 vols. Ed. Earl Leslie Griggs. Oxford and New York: Oxford UP, 1956–1971. ———. The Notebooks of Samuel Taylor Coleridge. 4 vols. Ed. Kathleen Coburn. New York: The Bollingen Foundation and Princeton UP, 1961–1990. ———. Biographia Literaria. Ed. George Watson. New York: J. M. Dent & Sons, 1965. ———. The Plot Discovered; or An Address to the People, Against Ministerial Treason. (Bristol, 1795) in Lectures 1795 on Politics and Religion. Ed. Lewis Patton and Peter Mann. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul; Princeton: Princeton UP, 1970. ———. Marginalia. Ed. George Whalley. Princeton: Princeton UP, 1984. ———. The Major Works. Ed. H.J. Jackson. Oxford: Oxford UP, 1985. ———. The Complete Poems. Ed. William Keach. New York: Penguin, 1997. Coleridge, S.T. and Charles Lloyd. Poems. 1797. Poole: Woodstock Books, 1997. Colley, Linda. Britons: Forging the Nation 1707–1837. New Haven: Yale UP, 1992. Conder, Josiah, et al. The Associate Minstrels. 1810. New York: Garland, 1977. Crabb Robinson, Henry. Diary, Reminiscences and Correspondence of Henry Crabb Robinson. 3 vols. 1872. Ed. Thomas Sadler. New York: AMS P, 1967. ———. On Books and Their Writers. 3 vols. Ed. Edith J. Morley. London: J. M. Dent and Sons, 1938. ———. The Diary of Henry Crabb Robinson: An Abridgement. Ed. Derek Hudson. London: Oxford UP, 1967. Croker, John Wilson. The Correspondence and Diaries of the Late Right Honorable John Wilson Croker. 3 vols. Ed. Louis J. Jennings. London: John Murray, 1885. 208 Bibliography

Curran, Stuart. Shelley’s Annus Mirabilis: The Maturing of an Epic Vision. San Marino, CA: Huntington Library, 1975. ———. “Multum in Parvo: Wordsworth’s Poems, in Two Volumes of 1807.” Poems in Their Place: The Intertextuality and Order of Poetic Collections. Ed. Neil Fraistat. Chapel Hill, NC: U of North Carolina P, 1986. 234–53. ———. Poetic Form and British Romanticism. Oxford: Oxford UP 1986. ———. “Romantic Poetry: The I Altered.” Romanticism and Feminism. Ed. Anne K. Melor. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1988. 185–207. ———. “Romantic Women Poets: Inscribing the Self.” Women’s Poetry in the Enlightenment: The Making of a Canon, 1730–1820. Ed. Isobel Armstrong and Virginia Blain. London: St. Martin’s P, 1999. 134–66. ———. “Dynamics of Female Friendship in the Later Eighteenth Century.” Nineteenth Century Contexts 23 (2001): 221–39. ———. “Mothers and Daughters: Poetic Generations in the Eighteenth and Nineteenth Centuries.” Forging Connections: Women’s Poetry from the Renaissance to Romanticism. Ed. Anne K. Mellor, Felicity Nussbaum, and Jonathan F.S. Post. San Marino, CA: Huntington Library, 2002. 147–62. ———. “Jane Taylor’s Satire on Satire.” The Satiric Eye: Forms of Satire in the Romantic Period. Ed. Steven E. Jones. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2003. 139–50. ———. “Valperga.” The Cambridge Companion to Mary Shelley. Ed. Esther Schor. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 2003. 103–15. Davidoff, and Catherine Hall. Family Fortunes: Men and Women of the English Middle Class, 1780–1850. Chicago: Chicago UP, 1987. De Selincourt, Ernest. Dorothy Wordsworth: A Biography. Oxford: Oxford UP, 1933. Dickson, Preston. Young Frederick Douglass: The Maryland Years. Baltimore: JHU P, 1980. Donovan, John. “Incest in Laon and Cythna: Nature, Custom, Desire.” The Keats- Shelley Review 2 (1987): 49–90. Douglass, Frederick. Narrative of the Life of Frederick Douglass, An American Slave. Ed. Houston A. Baker, Jr. New York: Penguin, 1982. Eger, Elizabeth. “Representing Culture: ‘The Nine Living Muses of Great Britain,’ (1779).” Women, Writing and the Public Sphere, 1700–1830. Ed. Elizabeth Eger, et al. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 2001. 104–32. Ellis, Grace A. A Memoir of Mrs. Anna Laetitia Barbauld. Boston: James R. Osgood and Co., 1874. Ellison, Julie. “ ‘Nice Arts’ and ‘Potent Enginery’: The Gendered Economy of Wordsworth’s Fancy.” Centennial Review 33 (1989): 441–67. ———. “The Politics of Fancy in the Age of Sensibility.” Re-Visioning Romanticism: British Women Writers, 1776–1837. Ed. Carol Shiner Wilson and Joel Haefner. Philadelphia: U of Penn P, 228–55. Enfield, William, ed. The Speaker: or, Miscellaneous Pieces selected from the Best EnglishWriters. London: Joseph Johnson, 1779. Farrell, Michael P. Collaborative Circles: Friendship Dynamics & Creative Work. Chicago: U of Chicago P, 2001. Fay, Elizabeth. Becoming Wordsworthian. Amherst: U of Mass P, 1995. Feldman, Paula R. and Theresa M. Kelley, eds. Romantic Women Writers: Voices and Countervoices. Hanover and London: UP of New England, 1995. Foucault, Michel. The Order of Things: An Archeology of the Human Sciences. New York: Vintage, 1994. Frend, William. Peace and Union. 1793. Oxford: Woodstock Books, 1991. Fruman, Norman. Coleridge, the Damaged Archangel. New York: Braziller, 1971. Bibliography 209

Fulford, Tim, ed. Romanticism and Millenarianism. London: Palgrave, 2002. Gamer, Michael. Romanticism and the Gothic: Genre, Reception, and Canon Formation. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 2000. Gentleman’s Magazine 45 (1775): 581–83. Review of Anna Barbauld’s Devotional Pieces. Giddens, Anthony. The Transformation of Intimacy: Sexuality, Love & Eroticism in Modern Societies. Stanford: Stanford UP, 1992. Gilbert, Sandra M. and Susan Gubar. The Madwoman in the Attic: The Woman Writer and the Nineteenth-Century Literary Imagination. 1979. Second edn. New Haven: Yale UP, 2000. Gill, Stephen. William Wordsworth: A Life. Oxford: Clarendon P, 1989. Ginzburg, Carlo. “Making Things Strange: The Prehistory of a Literary Device.” Representations 56 (1996): 8–28. Gittings, Robert and Jo Manton. Dorothy Wordsworth. Oxford: Clarendon P, 1985. Godwin, William. Caleb Williams. 1794. Ed. Maurice Hindle. London: Penguin, 1988. ———. Enquiry concerning Political Justice. 1798. 3 vols. Ed. F.E.L. Priestley. Toronto: U of Toronto P, 1946. ———. Memoirs of the Author of A Vindication of the Rights of Woman. 1798. Ed. Pamela Clemit and Gina Luria Walker. Peterborough, Ontario: Broadview, 2001. ———. Essay on Sepulchres: or, A Proposal for Erecting some Memorial of the Illustrious Dead in all Ages on the Spot where their Remains have been Interred. London: W. Miller, 1809. ———. “Of History and Romance.” Caleb Williams. Ed. Maurice Hindle. London: Penguin, 1988. 359–73. Goldsmith, Oliver. An History of the Earth and Animated Nature. 8 Vols. London: J. Nourse, 1774. Gonda, Caroline. Reading Daughters’ Fictions, 1790–1834: Novels and Society from Manley to Edgeworth. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1996. Guillory, John. Cultural Capital: The Problem of Literary Canon Formation. Chicago: U of Chicago P, 1993. Guinn, John P. Shelley’s Political Thought. The Hague: Mouton, 1969. Habermas, Jürgen. The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere: An Inquiry into a Category of Bourgeois Society. Trans. Thomas Burger. Cambridge, MA: MIT P, 1989. Hartman, Geoffrey. Beyond Formalism: Literary Essays 1958–1970. New Haven: Yale UP, 1970. ———. “Romanticism and ‘Anti-Self-Consciousness.” Romanticism and Consciousness. Ed. Harold Bloom. New York: Norton, 1970. 46–56. ———. Wordsworth’s Poetry 1787–1814. Cambridge, MA: Harvard UP, 1971. Hazlitt, William. The Spirit of the Age. New York: Chelsea House, 1983. Hegel, G.W.F. Phenomenology of Spirit. Trans. A.V. Miller. New York: Oxford UP 1977. Heinzelman, Kurt. “The Cult of Domesticity: Dorothy and William at Grasmere.” Romanticism and Feminism. Ed. Anne K. Mellor. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1988. 52–80. Hewitt, Regina. The Possibilities of Society: Wordsworth, Coleridge, and the Sociological Viewpoint of English Romanticism. Albany: SUNY Press, 1997. Hickey, Alison. “Coleridge, Southey, ‘and Co.’: Collaboration and Authority.” Studies in Romanticism (1998): 305–49. Hirschfeld, Heather. “Early Modern Collaboration and Theories of Authorship.” PMLA 116.3 (2001): 609–22. 210 Bibliography

Hogarth, William. The Analysis of Beauty. 1753. Ed. Ronald Paulson. New Haven: Yale UP, 1997. Hollander, J. “Spenser’s Undersong.” Cannibals, Witches and Divorce: Estranging the Renaissance. Ed. Marjorie Garber. Baltimore: JHU P, 1987. 1–20. Holmes, Richard. Coleridge: Darker Reflections, 1804–1834. New York: Pantheon, 1998. Homans, Margaret. Women Writers and Poetic Identity: Dorothy Wordsworth, Emily Brontë, and Emily Dickinson. Princeton: Princeton UP, 1980. Hume, David. A Treatise of Human Nature. 1739–1740. Ed. L.A. Selby-Bigge. Oxford: Oxford UP, 1978. Inge, Thomas M. “Collaboration and Concepts of Authorship.” PMLA 116.3 (2001): 623–30. Jones, Kathleen. A Passionate Sisterhood: The Sisters, Wives and Daughters of the . New York: St. Martin’s, 2000. Jones, Sir William. The Works of Sir William Jones. 13 vols. London: John Stockdale, 1807. Jones, William Powell. “John Aikin on the Use of Natural History in Poetry.” Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism 21 (1963): 439–43. Kant, Immanuel. The Critique of Pure Reason. Trans. J.M.D. Meiklejohn. Amherst, NY: Prometheus, 1990. Keach, William. “A Regency Prophecy and the End of Anna Barbauld’s Career.” Studies in Romanticism 33 (1994): 569–77. ———. Barbauld, Romanticism, and the Survival of Dissent.” Romanticism and Gender. Ed. Anne Janowitz. Cambridge: D. S. Brewer, 1998. 44–61. Keane, Angela. “The Market, the Public and the Female Author: Anna Barbauld’s Gift Economy. Romanticism 8.2 (2002): 161–78. Kelly, Gary. “Feminine Romanticism, Masculine History, and the Founding of the Modern Liberal State.” Romanticism and Gender. Ed. Anne Janowitz. Cambridge: D. S. Brewer, 1998. 1–18. Kerényi, C. “Man and Mask.” Spiritual Disciplines: Papers from the Eranos Yearbooks. Ed. Joseph Campbell. Princeton: Princeton UP, 1960. 151–67. Kete, Mary Louise. Sentimental Collaborations: Mourning and Middle-Class Identity in Nineteenth-Century America. Durham, NC: Duke UP, 1999. Klancher, John P. The Making of English Reading Audiences: 1790–1832. Madison: U of Wisconsin P, 1987. Koestenbaum, Wayne. Double Talk: The Erotics of Male Literary Collaboration. New York: Routledge, 1989. Kowaleski-Wallace, Elizabeth. Their Fathers’ Daughters: Hannah More, Maria Edgeworth, and Patriarchal Complicity. New York: Oxford UP, 1991. Lamb, Charles and Mary. The Letters of Charles Lamb, to which are added those of his sister, Mary Lamb. Ed. E.V. Lucas. London: J.M. Dent & Sons, LTD. New York: AMS Press, 1968. ———. The Letters of Charles and Mary Anne Lamb. Ed. Edwin Marrs, Jr. 3 vols. Ithaca: Cornell UP, 1975–1978. Le Breton, Anna Letitia. Memoir of Mrs. Barbauld. London: George Bell & Sons, 1874. Le Breton, P.H. Memoirs, Miscellanies, and Letters. London: Longman, Green, Longman, Roberts & Green, 1864. Levin, Susan M. Dorothy Wordsworth and Romanticism. New Brunswick: Rutgers UP, 1987. Levy, Michelle. Family Authorship and Romantic Print Culture. Houndsmills, Basingstoke: Palgrave, 2008. Lindenberger. Herbert. On Wordsworth’s Prelude. Princeton: Princeton UP, 1963. Bibliography 211

Lipking, Lawrence. “Frankenstein, the True Story; or, Rousseau Judges Jean-Jacques.” Frankenstein. Ed. J. Paul Hunter. New York: Norton, 1996. 313–31. Livingston, Ira. “The ‘No-Trump Bid’ on Romanticism and Gender.” Romanticism and Gender. Ed. Anne Janowitz. Cambridge: D. S. Brewer, 1998. 161–74. Locke, John. An Essay Concerning Human Understanding. 2 vols. New York: Dover, 1959. Lowth, Bishop. Lectures on the Sacred Poetry of the Hebrews. Vol 1. New York: NYU P, 1995. MacGillivray, J.R. “The Pantisocratic Scheme and its Immediate Background.” Studies in English by Members of University College Toronto. Toronto: Toronto UP, 1931. Magnuson, Paul. Coleridge and Wordsworth: A Lyrical Dialogue. Princeton: Princeton UP, 1988. Mahoney, Charles. Romantics and Renegades: The Poetics of Political Reaction. Houndsmills, Basingstoke, Hampshire: Palgrave, 2003. Malsbary, Gerald. “Pietas and the Origins of Western Culture.” Logos. 4.2 (2001): 93–116. Masten, Jeffrey. Textual Intercourse. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1997. Matlak, Richard E. The Poetry of Relationship: The Wordsworths and Coleridge, 1797– 1800. New York: St. Martin’s P, 1997. McCarthy, William. “The Celebrated Academy at Palgrave: A Documentary History of Anna Letitia Barbauld’s School.” The Age of Johnson 8. Ed. Paul Korshin. New York: AMS Press, 1997. 279–392. ———. “Mother of All Discourses: Anna Barbauld’s .” The Princeton Library Chronicle 60 (1998–1999): 196–219. McDonagh, Josephine. “Barbauld’s Domestic Economy.” Romanticism and Gender. Ed. Anne Janowitz. Cambridge: D. S. Brewer, 1998. 62–77. McFarland, Thomas. Romanticism and the Forms of Ruin: Wordsworth, Coleridge, and Modalities of Fragmentation. Princeton: Princeton UP, 1981. McGann, Jerome J. The Romantic Ideology: A Critical Investigation. Chicago: U of Chicago P, 1983. Mellor, Anne K. Mary Shelley: Her Life, Her Fiction, Her Monsters. New York & London: Methuen, 1988. ———. Romanticism and Gender. New York: Routledge, 1993. Mellor, Anne K., ed. Romanticism and Feminism. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1988. Milton, John. Selected Prose. Ed. C.A. Patrides. Columbia, MO: U of Missouri P, 1985. ———. Complete Prose Works of John Milton. 8 Vols. Ed. Don M. Wolfe et al. New Haven: Yale UP, 1953–1982. ———. Complete Shorter Poems. Ed. John Carey. London: Longman, 1997. ———. Paradise Lost. Ed. Alastair Fowler. London: Longman, 1998. Monthly Review ns I (1790): 460–62. Review of Address to the Opposers of the Repeal of the Corporation and Test Acts. Moorman, Mary. William Wordsworth: A Biography: The Early Years, 1770–1803. Oxford: Oxford UP, 1957. ———. William Wordsworth: A Biography: The Later Years, 1803–1850. London: Oxford UP, 1965. Myers, Mitzi. “Reform or Ruin: ‘A Revolution in Female Manners.’ ” Studies in Eighteenth-Century Culture 11 (1982): 199–216. ———. “Socializing Rosamond: Educational Ideology and Fictional Form.” Children’s Literature Association Quarterly 14 (1989): 52–63. 212 Bibliography

Myers, Mitzi. “Of Mice and Mothers: Mrs. Barbauld’s ‘New Walk’ and Gendered Codes in Children’s Literature.” Feminine Principles and Women’s Experience in American Composition and Rhetoric. Ed. Louise Wetherbee Phelps and Janet Emig. Pittsburgh: U of Pittsburgh P, 1995. 255–88. ———. “My Art Belongs to Daddy? Thomas Day, Maria Edgeworth, and the Pre- Texts of Belinda: Women Writers and Patriarchal Authority.” Revising Women: Eighteenth-Century “Women’s Fiction” and Social Engagement. Ed. Paula R. Backscheider. Baltimore: JHU P, 2000. 104–46. Myers, Peter C. Frederick Douglass: Race and the Rebirth of American Liberalism. Lawrence: UP of Kansas, 2008. Myers, Sylvia Harcstark. The Bluestocking Circle: Women, Friendship, and the Life of the Mind in Eighteenth-Century England. Oxford: Clarendon P, 1990. Newlyn, Lucy. “Coleridge and the Anxiety of Reception.” Romanticism 1.2 (1995): 206–38. ———. Reading, Writing, and Romanticism: The Anxiety of Reception. Oxford: Oxford UP, 2000. Newlyn, Lucy, ed. The Cambridge Companion to Coleridge. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 2002. O’Brien. P., M.D. Warrington Academy 1757–86: Its Predecessors and Successors. Wigan, Lancashire: Owl Books, 1989. ———. Eyres’ Press (1756–1803): An Embryo University Press. Wigan, Lancashire: Owl Books, 1993. Owenson, Sydney. The Wild Irish Girl. 1806. Oxford: Oxford UP, 1999. Parrish, Stephen Maxfield. “The Wordsworth-Coleridge Controversy.” PMLA 73 (1958): 367–74. ———. Coleridge’s Dejection: The Earliest Manuscripts and the Earliest Printings. Ithaca, NY: Cornell UP, 1988. Pater, Walter. “Coleridge.” Appreciations. New York: Oxford UP, 1987. Patterson, Samuel. Joineriana: or the Book of Scraps. London: Joseph Johnson, 1772. Pattison, Robert. The Child Figure in English Literature. Athens: U of Georgia P, 1978. Pieper, Josef. Leisure: The Basis of Culture. Trans. Alexander Dru. New York: New American Library, 1952. Plank, Jeffrey. “John Aikin on Science and Poetry.” Studies in Burke and his Time 18 (1977): 167–78. Pockock, J.G.A., ed. The Varieties of British Political Thought, 1500–1800. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1993. Pollock, Linda, Forgotten Children: Parent-Child Relations from 1500 to 1900. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1983. Preston, Dickson. Young Frederick Douglass: The Maryland Years. Baltimore: JHU P, 1980. Priestley, Joseph. Political Writings. Ed. Peter Miller. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1993. Quarterly Review 16 (June 1812): 309–13. [John Wilson Croker] Review of Anna Barbauld’s “Eighteen Hundred and Eleven.” Rajan, Tillotama. “Between Romance and History: Posibility and Contingency in Godwin, Leibniz, and Mary Shelley’s Valperga.” Mary Shelley in Her Times. Ed. Betty Bennett and Stuart Curran. Baltimore: JHU P, 2000. 88–102. Reiman, Donald H., ed. The Romantics Reviewed. New York: Garland Publishing, 1972. Reynolds, L.D. and N.G. Wilson, eds. Scribes and Scholars: A Guide to the Transmission of Greek and Latin Literature. Second edn. Hong Kong: Oxford UP, 1986. Bibliography 213

Reynolds, Sir Joshua. Discourses on Art. Ed. Robert Wark. New Haven: Yale UP, 1997. Richardson, Alan. “The Dangers of Sympathy: Sibling Incest in English Romantic Poetry.” Studies in English Literature: 1500–1900 25.4 (1985): 737–54. ———. Literature, Education, and Romanticism: Reading as Social Practice, 1780– 1832. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1994. Rodgers, Betsy. Georgian Chronicle: Mrs. Barbauld and Her Family. London: Methuen, 1958. Roe, Nicholas. “Pantisocracy and the Myth of the Poet.” Romanticism and Millenarianism. Ed. Tim Fulford. London: Palgrave, 2002. 87–102. Ross, Marlon B. The Contours of Masculine Desire: Romanticism and the Rise of Women’s Poetry. New York: Oxford UP, 1989. Rousseau, Jean Jacques. Emile or On Education. Trans. Allan Bloom. New York: Basic Books, 1979. Russell, Gillian and Clara Tuite, eds. Romantic Sociability: Social Networks and Literary Culture in Britain, 1770–1840. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 2002. Sanders, Valerie. The Brother-Sister Culture in Nineteenth-Century Literature, from Austen to Woolf. Houndsmills, Basingstoke, Hampshire: Palgrave, 2002. Schiller, Friedrich. Naïve and Sentimental Poetry and On the Sublime. Trans. Julius A. Elias. New York: Frederick Ungar, 1966. Schor, Esther, ed. The Cambridge Companion to Mary Shelley. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 2003. Shelley, Mary. Frankenstein. Ed. J. Paul Hunter. New York: Norton, 1996. ———. Selected Letters of Mary Wollstonecraft Shelley. Ed. Betty T. Bennett. Baltimore: JHU P, 1995. ———. Valperga, or the life and adventures of Castruccio, Prince of Lucca. Ed. Stuart Curran. New York: Oxford UP, 1997. Shelley, Percy Bysshe. The Letters of Percy Bysshe Shelley. 2 vols. Ed. Frederick L. Jones. Oxford: Oxford UP, 1964. ———. The Complete Works of Percy Bysshe Shelley. Ed. Roger Ingpen and Walter E. Peck. 10 vols. New York: Gordian P, 1965. ———. Shelley’s Poetry and Prose. Ed. Donald H. Reiman and Sharon B. Powers. New York: Norton, 1977. Shine, Hill and Helen Chadwick Shine, eds. The Quarterly Review Under Gifford: Identification of Contributors 1809–1824. Chapel Hill: UNC P, 1949. Shiner-Wilson, Carol. “Lost Needles, Tangled Threads: Stitchery, Domesticity, and the Artistic Enterprise in Barbauld, Edgeworth, Taylor, and Lamb.” Re-Visioning Romanticism. Ed. Wilson and Haefner. 167–90. Shiner-Wilson, Carol and Joel Haefner. “Writing against the Romantic Grain.” Common Ground: Feminist Collaboration in the Academy. Ed. Elizabeth G. Peck and JoAnna Stehens Mink. Albany, NY: SUNY Press, 1998. 51–62. Shiner-Wilson, Carol and Joel Haefner, eds. Re-visioning Romanticism: British Women Writers, 1776-1837. Philadelphia: U of Penn P, 1994. Simpson, David. Romanticism, Nationalism, and the Revolt Against Theory. Chicago: U of Chicago P, 1993. Sister Eugenia. “Coleridge’s Scheme of Pantisocracy and American Travel Accounts.” PMLA 45 (1930): 1069–1084. Smiles, Samuel, ed. A Publisher and His Friends: Memoir and Correspondence of the Late John Murray. Vol 1. New York: AMS P, 1973. Smith Adam. The Theory of Moral Sentiments. 1759. Ed. Knud Haakonssen. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 2002. ———. (Books I–III). 1776. Ed. Andrew Skinner. New York: Penguin, 1999. 214 Bibliography

Smith, Charlotte. Rural Walks in dialogues, Intended for the use of young persons. 2 Vols. London: Cadell and Davies, 1795. ———. Conversations Introducing Poetry. London: Whittingham and Arliss, 1810. ———. The Poems of Charlotte Smith. Ed. Stuart Curran. New York: Oxford UP, 1993. Sophocles. Antigone. The Three Theban Plays. Trans. Robert Fagles. New York: Penguin, 1984. Southey, Charles Cuthbert, ed. The Life and Correspondence of Robert Southey. 6 vols. London: Longman, Brown, Green, and Longmans, 1849. Southey, Robert. New Letters of Robert Southey. 2 vols. Ed. Kenneth Curry. New York: Columbia UP, 1965. ———. Selections from the Letters of Robert Southey. 4 vols. Ed. John Wood Warter. 1856 (London). New York: AMS P, 1977. Spencer, Jane. Literary Relations: Kinship and the Canon 1660–1830. Oxford: Oxford UP, 2005. Spenser, Edmund. The Shorter Poems. Ed. Richard A. McCabe. New York: Penguin, 1999. St. Clair, William. The Godwins and the Shelleys: The Biography of a Literary Family. New York: Norton, 1989. Stillinger, Jack. Multiple Authorship and the Myth of the Solitary Genius. New York: Oxford UP, 1991. Stone, Lawrence. The Family, Sex, and Marriage in England, 1500–1800. London: Weidenfeld & Nicolson, 1977. Storey, Mark. Robert Southey: A Life. Oxford: Oxford UP, 1997. Tadmor, Naomi. Family and Friends in Eighteenth-Century England: Household, Kinship, and Patronage. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 2001. Taussig, Gurion. Coleridge and the Idea of Friendship, 1789–1804. Newark, DE: U of Delaware P, 2002. Taylor, Ann and Jane. Hymns for Infant Minds. New York: Robert Carter & Brothers, 1850. ———. Original Poems for Infant Minds. 1804. New York and Boston: C. S. Francis and Company, 1854. Taylor, Ann Martin. Practical Hints to Young Females on the Duties of a Wife, a Mother and aMistress of a Family. Boston: Wells and Lilly, 1816. ———. Correspondence between a Mother and Her Daughter at School. London: Taylor and Hessey, 1817. Taylor, Jane. Essays in Rhime, On Morals and Manners. Boston: Wells and Lilly, 1816. ———. Poetical Remains. Ed. . Boston: C.D. Strong, 1842. Taylor, Rev. Isaac. The Family Pen: Memorials, Biographical and Literary of the Taylor Familyof Ongar. 2 vols. London: Jackson, Walford and Hodder, 1867. Tenger, Zeynep and Paul Trolander. “Genius versus Capital: Eighteenth-Century Theories of Genius and Adam Smith’s Wealth of Nations.” MLQ 55 (1994): 168–89. Thompson, E.P. The Making of the English Working Class. New York: Vintage, 1966. Todd, Janet. Mary Wollstonecraft: A Revolutionary Life. London: Weidenfeld & Nicolson, 2000. Todorov, Tzvetan. The Fantastic. Trans. Richard Howard. Cleveland: Case Western Reserve, 1973. Trott, Nicola. “Loves of the Triangle: William, Mary, and Percy Bysshe.” Wordsworth Circle 31.1 (2000): 2–13. Tyson, Gerald P. Joseph Johnson: A Liberal Publisher. Iowa City: U of Iowa P, 1979. Bibliography 215

Vargo, Lisa. “The Case of Anna Laetitia Barbauld’s ‘To Mr C[olerid]ge.’ ” Charles Lamb Bulletin 102 (1998): 55–63. Virgil. The Georgics. Trans. H. Rushton Fairclough. London: Harvard UP (Loeb), 1935; Trans. L.P. Wilkinson. New York: Penguin, 1982. ———. The Eclogues. Trans. David Ferry. New York: FSG, 1999. Wakefield, Priscilla. An Introduction to Botany, in a Series of Familiar Letters. Dublin: Thomas Burnside, 1796. Ward, Sir A.W. and A.R. Waller, eds. The Cambridge History of English Literature. Vol. XI. New York: G. P. Putnam’s Sons, 1914. Warrington Academy. A Select Catalogue of Books in the Library Belonging to the Warrington Academy. Warrington: William Eyres, 1775. Wasserman, Earl R. Shelley: A Critical Reading. Baltimore: JHU P, 1971. Watson, George. “The Reckless Disciple: Godwin’s Shelley.” Hudson Review 39.2 (1986): 212–30. Wellek, René. “The Concept of ‘Romanticism’ in Literary History.” Comparative Literature 1 (1949): 1–23; 147–72. White, Daniel E. Early Romanticism and Religious Dissent. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 2006. ———. “The ‘Joinerania’: Anna Barbauld, the Aikin Family Circle, and the Dissenting Public Sphere.” Eighteenth-Century Studies 32 (1999): 511–33. White, Gilbert. The Natural History and Antiquities of Selbourne, in the County of Southampton. London: T. Bensley, 1789. Williams, Helen Maria. Letters Written in France. 1790. Ed. Neil Fraistat and Susan S. Lanser. Toronto: Broadview, 2001. Williams, Porter Jr. “The Influence of Mrs. Barbauld’s Hymns in Prose for Children upon Blake’s Songs of Innocence and of Experience.” A Fair Day in the Affections: Literary Essays in Honor of Robert B. White, Jr. Ed. Jack D. Durant and M. Thomas Hester. Raleigh, NC: The Winston P, 1980. Withering, William. Arrangement of British Plants, According to the latest improve- ments in the Linnean System, with an easy introduction to the study of Botany. 4 vols. London: G. J. G. and F. Rivington, 1796. Wolfson, Susan J. “Individual in Community: Dorothy Wordsworth in Conversation with William.” Romanticism and Feminism. Ed. Anne K. Mellor. Bloomington: Indiana UP, 1988. 139–66. Wollstonecraft, Mary. The Vindications. 1790. Ed. D.L. Macdonald and Kathleen Scherf. Toronto: Broadview, 1997. ———. The Works of Mary Wollstonecraft. (Vol. 6). Ed. Janet Todd and Marilyn Butler. New York: NYU P, 1989. ———. Mary/Maria: Mary Shelley Matilda. Ed. Janet Todd. New York: NYU P, 1992. Woof, Pamela. “Dorothy Wordsworth in 1802.” Charles Lamb Bulletin 101 (1998): 2–17. Wordsworth, Dorothy. Journals of Dorothy Wordsworth. Ed. Mary Moorman. Oxford: Oxford UP, 1971. Wordsworth W. and S.T. Coleridge. Lyrical Ballads. 1798. Ed. R.L. Brett and A.R. Jones. New York: Routledge, 1991. Wordsworth, William. Complete Poetical Works. Ed. Thomas Hutchinson. Rev. Ernest de Selincourt. Oxford: Oxford UP, 1936. ———. Poems, in Two Volumes. 1807. Ed. Helen Darbishire. Oxford: Clarendon P, 1952. ———. Home at Grasmere. Ed. Beth Darlington. Ithaca: Cornell UP, 1977. ———. The Ruined Cottage and The Pedlar. Ed. James Butler. Ithaca: Cornell UP, 1979. 216 Bibliography

Wordsworth, William. An Evening Walk. Ed. James Averill. Ithaca: Cornell UP, 1984. ———. The Prelude 1799, 1805, 1850. Ed. Jonathan Wordsworth, M.H. Abrams, and Stephen Gill. New York: Norton, 1989. Wordsworth, William and Dorothy. The Letters of William and Dorothy Wordsworth. Ed. Ernest De Selincourt. Rev. Chester L. Shaver. 3 vols. Oxford: Oxford UP, 1967. Worthen, John. The Gang: Coleridge, the Hutchinsons & the Wordsworths in 1802. New Haven: Yale UP, 2001. Young, Edward. Conjectures on Original Composition. London: A Millar and R. & J. Dodsley, 1759. Zall, Paul M. “Wordsworth’s ‘Ode’ & Mrs. Barbauld’s Hymns.” Wordsworth Circle 1 (1970): 177–79. ———. “The Cool World of Samuel Taylor Coleridge: Mrs. Barbauld’s Crew & the Building of a Mass Reading Class.” Wordsworth Circle 2 (1971): 74–79. Zuckert, Michael P. Natural Rights and the New Republicanism. Princeton: Princeton UP, 1994. Index

Abrams, M. H., 38, 176nn13,14, writes memoir of Dr. James 180n12 Currie, 175n61 Act of Conformity, 106 and Yarmouth community, 7, addiction 169n6, 170nn13,15, 171n23, as castle-building, 127 172n42, 191n28 and Coleridge, 127 Address to the Dissidents on their agon, 96, 136–7, 140 Late Defeat, 5–10 intergenerational, 146 Athenaeum, The (editor), 106 Aikin, Anna Letitia. See Barbauld, Calendar of Nature, 66 Anna Letitia Essay on the Application of Aikin, Arthur, xii, 8, 45, 66, 136 Natural History to editor of Annual Review, 106, Poetry, 13, 65 135, 177n17, 200n32 Essays on Song-Writing, 15–16, in familial advertisement, 19 18–19 Southey calls “King Evenings at Home, 47, 65; Arthur”, 135 “Dialogue Between a Master Aikin, Charles Rochemont, xii, 8, and Slave”, 23, 47–51 35, 177nn17,18, 201n44 Food for National Penitence, adopted by ALB, 40 21–4; signals alliance with ALB’s intended audience, 41–3 ALB in, 21–2 letter requesting adoption of, Letters Written from a Father to 29–30 His Son, 45 Aikin, John, DD, 11, 55 “Man of Pleasure”, 10–11 education of children, 12 Miscellaneous Pieces in Prose Aikin, John, MD (with ALB); anonymity in, authorial aspirations, 10 30; ’s belittles Burke’s Reflections, 24 response to, 30; “On the engravings of, 180n7 Pleasure Derived from Objects in family advertisements, of Terror”, 31–4; responsive 20–1, 28 collaboration in, 33–4; “Sir and Joseph Johnson, 19 Bertrand, A Fragment”, 30–3 moves next door to ALB, 51 Monthly Magazine (editor), prompted to write by ALB, 15 100, 104 review of Southey’s Joan of Poems (1791), 104 Arc, 141 “To Mrs. Barbauld at Geneva”, and RLE’s incorporation 53–7, 88, 163–5 scheme, 100 Vocal Poetry, 16, 19, 21 218 Index

Aikin, Lucy, xii, 7, 18, 25, 30, 41, Devotional Pieces, 35–40 43, 101, 106, 159, 162–3, Eighteen Hundred and Eleven: 170n15 A Poem, 34 Aikin, Martha, 8, 30, 40, 170n15 “Epistle to Dr. Enfield”, “Aikin school”, 41 159–61 Akenside, Mark, 19, 58, 64, “Essay on Akenside’s Poem 181n15, 183n35 on the Pleasures of the Annual Review, 135–6, 145–6, Imagination”, 64–5 177n17, 197n6, 200nn32,37, Evenings At Home (with JA), 15, 201n41 23, 28, 34, 43–5, 47–51, 65, Antigone, 8, 93, 108, 191n33 173n50 Associate Minstrels, 98, 107, 109, Hill of Science, a Vision, 142 111–12, 124 Hymns in Prose, 25, 34, 38–41, Athenaeum, The, 45, 106, 178n28 68, 122, 143 “Invitation to Miss B[elsham]”, Barbauld, Anna Letitia (née Aikin) 80, 88, 160 abolitionist rhetoric, 22–3 Lessons for Children, 40–3, 47; adoption request to JA, 29–30 ALB coordinates printing adopts JA’s son Charles, 40 with JA, 42 breadth of audience, 28 Miscellaneous Pieces in Prose and Burke’s Reflections, (with JA); anonymity in, 30; 24–5, 26 Charles James Fox’s response compared to Dorothy to, 30; “An Enquiry into those Wordsworth, 55 Kinds of Distress which Excite contributes to JA’s Essays on Agreeable Sensations”, 31–4; Song-Writing, 16 responsive collaboration in, in familial advertisements, 33–4 19–21, 28 “Mouse’s Petition, The”, 34, marriage, 56, 180n9 41–2 mistaken as reviewer of Lamb’s “On the Death of Mrs. John Woodville, 145–6, Jennings”, 14 177n18, 199n28 “On the Origin of Song- moves next door to JA, 51 writing”, 60 reviewer of Wordsworth’s Poems, “On Prejudice”, 43–5 in Two Volumes, 201n41 Poems (1773), 10, 15–19, and RLE’s incorporation 41, 54 scheme, 99–107 Poems (1792), 25, 28 teaches young women “Prologue to the Man of boarders, 46 Pleasure”, 10–11, 13, 16, 18 and Wollstonecraft, xi, 167n7 Sins of Government, Sins of the An Address to the Opposers of the Nation, 10, 20–2, 25–8; Corporation and Test Acts, signals alliance with JA’s Food 1–2, 6–8 for National Penitence, 21–2 British Novelists, The, 3 “Thoughts on the Devotional The Correspondence of Samuel Taste”, 35–40 Richardson, 99, 102–3, 105 “Thoughts on the Inequality of “Corsica”, 17, 34 Conditions”, 45–6 Index 219

“To Dr. Aikin, upon his and Pantisocracy, 119–25 Complaining that she relationship with ALB, 136, neglected him”, 12, 17, 54 141–4, 146 “To Mr. S. T. C[oleridge]”, 137, schematism, 125–9 141–2, 198n22 “Songs of the Pixies”, 137–40 “To Wisdom”, 18–19 Coleridge, Sara (Fricker), 115, “Verses Written in an Alcove”, 126, 141 88, 137–40, 144 collaborative consciousness, xiv, 31, “Washing-Day”, 144, 199n41 33, 51, 53–5, 62, 64, 69–70, Barbauld, Rochemont, 2, 3, 40, 74, 77, 88, 98, 137, 150, 56–7 156–7, 161 Barker-Benfield, G. J., 38 collaborative networks, ix Barth, J. Robert, 114 Columbian Orator, 23, 47–51, Beaufoy, Henry, 4 179n36 Behn, Aphra, ix competition, 62, 82, 89, 95–6, Bingham, Caleb 98–9, 103, 112–14, 124, 140, Columbian Orator (editor), 23, 182n23, 197n9 48–50 Conder, Josiah, 98, 107, 109, Bloom, Harold, 96, 137 111, 113 Boswell, James, 17 Conder, Susan, 109, 111 bouts rimes, 159–61 conjugal v. consanguineal families, Bowers, Toni, 170n15 xiii, 40, 114 Braithwaite, Helen, 7, 26, conflicting duties between, 7–8 170nn13,18, 175n58 Cooper, Thomas, 119–20, 122 Burke, Edmund, 4, 22–6, 34, Cottle, Joseph, 75, 121, 126, 43–4, 173n52, 174nn53,54, 141, 143 175nn57,59, 176nn4,9 Cromwell, Oliver, 24 Reflections on the Revolution in Curran, Stuart, 61, 77, 85, France, 6–7, 155 93, 138 Burns, Robert, 46 Currie, Dr. James, 27, 175n61

Carlson, Julie A., xii, 150 Darbishire, Helen, 73 castle-building, 61, 87–8, 126–7 Darwin, Erasmus, 65 Charles II, 3 Davidoff, Leonora, 42, 96–7, 107, Chatterton, Thomas, 120, 122 177n20 Chaucer, Geoffrey, 33 Denman, Thomas, 47 childhood, 53–61, 87–8 De Selincourt, Ernest, 58 Clarendon Code, 4 dissent, 2–8, 10–12, 14, 21, 23, 25, Coleridge, Samuel Taylor, xi, 39, 31, 36, 38, 41, 43–5, 49, 54, 51, 62–4, 66–7, 74–9, 58, 68, 77, 106, 122, 136–7, 92–9, 104 141–2, 144, 149 Biographia Literaria, 147 “Dialogue Between a Master and Christabel, 63, 75–6, 79, Slave”, 48–51 126, 132 reprinted in The Columbian “Dejection Ode”, 128–34 Orator, 23, 47 “Lines Written at Shurton Dorsett, Catherine Anne, 65, Bars”, 115 178n22 220 Index

Douglass, Frederick, 23, 47–51 genius familiae, 148, 151, 156–7, ideal reader of “Dialogue 161, 204n77 Between a Master and genius loci, 140, 148, 157, 161 Slave”, 49 Gilbert, Sandra and Gubar, Susan, Narrative of the Life of Frederick 150, 192n35 Douglass, an American Gill, Stephen, 196n93 Slave, 47 Ginzburg, Carlo, 183n37 Godwin, Mary Jane Edgeworth, Maria, 99–105, (Clairmont), 155 108, 124 Godwin, William, 48, 98, 137–8, Edgeworth, Richard Lovell, 148–57, 202n49 98–100, 102, 104, 121 Caleb Williams, 137, 153–4 relationship with Maria, 190n19 Enquiry Concerning Political scheme for a “Lady’s Paper”, 99 Justice, 48, 149–50, education, 3, 12, 28, 40–3, 46–50, 152, 157 53–4, 58, 60–1, 65, 68, 118, Essay on Sepulchres, 150–2, 157 121–2, 127, 136, 148–50, 157 Pantheon, (Edwin Baldwin), 157 Ellis, Grace, 17 Goldsmith, Oliver, 19, 65 Ellison, Julie, 84, 88, 181n19 Gould, Harriet, 111 Enfield, William, 37, 57, 89, 106, gothic, 30–1, 33, 35, 75–6, 78 159–61 Greville, Frances, 63 Eyres, William, 17, 42–3, 97, 159 Hampstead, 2, 25, 46, 180n7 family, familial Hartman, Geoffrey, 88, 148, 155 conjugal, xii, 117 Haygarth, John, MD, 24 consanguineal, xii, 40 Hegel, G. W. F., 78, 82, 94 household model, x, 159 Heinzelman, Kurt, 182n26 incorporation, xiii, xiv, 95, Hewitt, Regina, 96 97–8, 101–2, 105–7, 111, Hickey, Alison, 115, 117, 122, 113–15, 117–18, 122–3, 128, 124, 127 141–2, 174 Howard, John, 106 lineage model, 106–7 Hutcheson, Francis, 38 fancy, 32, 55, 57, 61, 84–5, 87–8, Hutchinson, Sara, 140–1 101, 139, 181n19 criticism of “The Leech- Farrell, Michael, 174n55 Gatherer”, 72–3 Fay, Elizabeth, 96 relationship with Coleridge, Five Mile Act, 7 125–6, 131–2 Foucault, Michel, 145 Fox, Charles James, 30, 83 Imlay, Gilbert, 119, 203n63 , 6, 24, 93 Inchbald, Elizabeth, 146 Fricker, Edith, 119, 149 incorporation Fricker, Sara, 95, 113–14, 117, 131 Coleridge overtures to friendship coteries, ix ALB, 142 Fruman, Norman, 96, 188n3 Coleridge’s attempts with Pantisocratic family, 95, 115, Gamer, Michael, 76 117–18, 122–3, 128, 141 General Evening Post, 2 defined, 95 Index 221

RLE’s attempt with Aikin fam- London Corresponding ily, 98, 101–2, 105–6; ALB’s Society, 118 rejection of RLE’s effort, 105 Longman, Thomas, 141 Taylors and Conders, 107, Lovell, Robert, 121, 124–5, 111, 113 195n70 intimacy, xiv, 3, 8, 35, 40–1, 51, Lowth, Bishop Robert, 36 53–5, 59, 60, 62, 74, 78–9, Lectures on the Sacred Poetry 83, 91, 95, 97–100, 106–7, of the Hebrews, 38–9 109, 113–14, 119, 125, 137, 149, 160–1, 189n7 Magnuson, Paul, 96, 188n2 complexity of Wordsworths’, 61 Malsbary, Gerald, 197n9 McCarthy, William, xiii, 7, 15–18, Jennings, Rev. John (ALB’s great- 40, 42–3, 45, 47–8, 136 grandfather), 7, 11, 14, 106 McFarland, Thomas, 96, 188n2, Johnson, Joseph, 1–2, 7–8, 10, 15, 195n80, 198n10 17, 19, 22, 35, 40, 64, 141 mediating network, ix, x, 8, Johnson, Samuel, 56 167n4 Jones, Sir William, 36, 39 merger, 95, 98–9, 102, 104–5 Miller, Rev. Samuel, 49 Kant, Immanuel in Columbian Orator, 50, Critique of Pure Reason, 99, 179n38 127–9 Milton, John, 6, 18, 21–4, 28, 77, Keach, William, 121, 139, 198n19 83, 98, 114, 147, 152, 171n18, Kete, Mary Louise, 109, 111, 173n47, 189n12 192n39 advertisement in ALB’s Address Dissenting Academy, to the Opposers, 8–10 11–12 Monthly Magazine, 43, 99–100, Koestenbaum, Wayne, 96, 188n2 104–6, 142 Kraft, Elizabeth, xiii, 7, 45, 136, JA’s editorship of, 106, 177n17 168n11 STC’s denigration of, 136 Moorman, Mary, 58, 87 Lake School, 136–7, 141, 147 More, Hannah, 100, 197n8 Lamb, Charles, 125–6, 136–7, 143, Morning Post, 130, 132–3, 193n54, 145–8 196n83 comments about ALB, 146 Myers, Mitzi, 41, 190n19 John Woodville (review of), 145 Leech-Gatherer, 69, 72–4, 76–7, 83 Newlyn, Lucy, 96, 118, 136–7, 146, encounter with WW and 193n59 DW, 72 and Grasmere Journal, 72–3 Oedipus at Colonus, 191n33 Levy, Michelle, x, 97, 167n9 Opie, John, 155 literary family, x-xii, 8, 11, 19, Othello, 92, 147, 186n82 73, 95–9, 104–7, 112, 114, Owenson, Sydney (Lady Morgan) 118–19, 125, 128, 132, 136, The Wild Irish Girl, 30, 176n2 141–2, 148, 150, 157, 159–62 Lloyd, Charles, 125–6, 196n92 Palgrave School, xii, 11, 35, 41–2, London Constitutional Society, 118 44, 47, 56, 167n6 222 Index

Pantisocracy, 95, 126–8, 131, Rajan, Tillotama, 154, 203n70 140–2, 149, 161, 194n68 Reform Act (1832), 47 as business venture, 121, 123–5 Regium Donum, 5 and Chatterton, Thomas, 120 Reiman, Donald, 136, 192n40, cult, 121–2 197n6 demise of, 115 responsive collaboration, 10, 16–17, as familial incorporation, 97, 28, 53 113–14, 117–18 Richardson, Samuel, 99, as literary community, 98, 113, 102–3, 105 118–19 Robinson, Henry Crabb, 133, 147, Paoli, General Pasquale, 17, 190n22, 193n52, 196n96, 172n40 200n32 Pentateuch, ix Rodgers, Betsy, 12, 174n54, Perry, Ruth, xiii, 167n9 179n32 Petrarch, ix, 83 Roe, Nicholas, 195n73 Pitt, William, 4, 6, 24, 27, 118, Rogers, Samuel, 30, 101, 104 175n61 Ross, Marlon, 78, 89–90 plagiarism, 96 Rousseau, Jean-Jacques, 43–5, 122, Poe, Edgar Allan, 31 178n25 “Imp of the Perverse,”33 education of children, 44 “William Wilson,”33 Emile, 122, 178n26 Polish Dissidents, 3, 169n6 Royal Proclamation of 1793, 10, Pollard, Jane (later Marshall), 58, 20–1, 25, 27 60, 64, 68, 79, 81, 127 Pollard, Julia, 81 Samet, Elizabeth, 204n77 Poole, Thomas, 92, 121–2, 126 schematism, 98, 113, 125–7, 131 prejudice, 6, 22, 25, 46, 150 scheme, 98–105 ALB’s response , 26 Schiller, Friedrich, 186n37 ALB’s views, in “On Prejudice”, sentimental, 31, 33–5, 43–4 109, 155 Burke’s usage, 173n52 Septuagint, ix, x in JA’s Letters from a Father to Shelley, Mary, xiv, 137–8, 148, Son, 45 150–8 JA’s response to Burke, 24 Frankenstein, 138, 150–1, Preston, Dickson, 47–8, 50, 153–4, 158 173n50 Valperga, 156–8 Price, Richard, 6, 24, 83 Shelley, Percey Bysshe, xiv, Priestley, Joseph, 8, 17, 25, 36, 41, 112, 150 46, 137, 159 “Dedication to Mary ______,” disapproval of ALB’s Devotional 137–8, 151, 157 Pieces, 36 Laon and Cythna (Revolt of and Pantisocracy, 119–20, 122 Islam), 148, 152, 156 Priestley, Mary, 17, 159 “Ode to the West Wind”, public v. private sphere, 2, 153, 158 30–1, 41 seeks out Godwin, 149 Shklovsky, Victor, 183n37 Quarterly Review, 146 Sidney, Sir Philip, 39 Index 223

Smith, Adam Unitarian, 3, 58, 142–4 Theory of Moral Sentiments, 184n50 Vargo, Lisa, 142, 144, 199n28 Wealth of Nations, 102, 104, Virgil, 66, 120, 180n6, 194nn67,68 121, 175n61 Smollet, Tobias, 31 Wakefield, Gilbert, 8, 25 Southey, Margaret Edith, 135 Wakefield, Priscilla, 65 Southey, Robert, xiii, 51, 95, 106, walking, 59 113–26, 131, 135, 144–6, backwards and forwards, WW 149–50, 195n78, 198n12 and DW, 60, 75, 77–9, 80–1, and “Aikinish” label, xiii, 136 83, 88 antipathy for Aikin family, while composing, WW, 75, 135–7, 142 79–80 Joan of Arc, 141 Warrington Academy, xii, 2–3, Spencer, Jane, 88, 186n73 10–12, 15, 17–19, 23, 25, 30, Spenser, Edmund, 81 34, 37, 42, 47, 49, 54, 56–8, “Spy Nozy” incident, 118, 159 80, 106, 120, 122, 159–61 St. Clair, William, 150, 155, 157 White, Daniel, xii, 22, 31, 168n5, Stoke Newington, 3, 51, 55–6, 170n12, 172n29, 173n48 123, 180n7 White, Gilbert, 65 Wickens, Charles, 109–12 Tadmor, Naomi, x, 106–7 Wikipedia, ix defines incorporation, xiii, 95 Withering, William Family and Friends, x, 96–7 An Arrangement of British Taussig, Gurion, 96, 118, 189n7, Plants the next words accord- 195n78 ing to the latest Improvements Taylor, William of Norwich, 58, of the Linnean System, 66–8 104–6 Wollstonecraft, Mary, xi, 6, 41, Taylors of Ongar, 51, 95, 97–8, 65, 83, 98, 137–8, 148–52, 107, 118 154–8 Ann (daughter), 107, Female Reader, The, 30 110–13, 123 Letters Written in Sweden, Ann Martin (mother), 107–8 Norway, and Denmark, family advertisement, 162 152, 158 Isaac, Jr. (brother), 108, 162 Vindication of the Rights of Isaac, Sr. (father), 98, 107–9 Men, 25, 155 Jane (daughter), 107–9, Vindication of the Rights of 112, 127 Woman, 153, 156 teaching, 23, 41, 43, 56, 68 Woof, Pamela, 77–8 ALB takes in young women Wordsworth, Christopher, 59 boarders, 46 Wordsworth, Dorothy, 51, 53, Thomson, Heidi, 62 55–84, 87–9, 91, 93, 96, Threlkeld, Elizabeth, 57, 88 125–7, 132, 140, 149, 161 Threlkeld, Thomas, 58 Grasmere Journals, 60–5, 67, 69, Todd, Janet, 148 72, 74, 77, 79, 83 Toleration Act (1689), 4 “Irregular Verses”, 81–2 Trott, Nicola, 150–2 Wordsworth, John, 59 224 Index

Wordsworth, William, x, xi, xii, celandine poems in, 66–9, 81, 36, 39, 51, 53–7, 95–7, 99, 84–7, 91–2 104, 116–18, 125–8, 130–7, Prelude, The, 59–60, 74, 79, 83, 147–8, 159 89–91, 181n15, 187n83 “”, 85, 92 Ruined Cottage, The, 70–1, 74 An Evening Walk, 82 “Sparrow’s Nest, The”, 67, 87 Home at Grasmere, 82, 88, “Tintern Abbey”, 36, 51, 53, 55, 92, 95 57, 59, 61–2, 69, 72, 74–7, 79, “Louisa”, 85–9, 92 99, 148, 161 Lyrical Ballads, Preface to, 36, “”, 68, 87–9 69, 72, 74–7, 99, 184nn53,56; “To the Daisy”, 84–5 Christabel’s disharmony with, 75–6; DW’s involvement in, Yarmouth, 2, 25–6, 57, 170n15 75–7 JA and family forced to leave, Pedlar, The, 69–74 7–8 Poems, in Two Volumes (1807), 66–9, 77–9, 83–5, 87–92; Zall, Paul, 197n8