Introduction
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Notes Introduction 1. See, for example, Albert O. Wlecke, Wordsworth and the Sublime (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1973); Vincent de Luca, Words of Eternity: Blake and the Poetics of the Sublime (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1990); Angela Leighton, Shelley and the Sublime: An Interpretation of the Major Poems (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1984); and Stuart Ende, Keats and the Sublime (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1976). 2. On the Sublime, ed. David Vallins, Coleridge’s Writings 5 (Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2003). 3. Paul Magnuson, Coleridge’s Nightmare Poetry (Charlottesville: University Press of Virginia, 1974). 4. Seamus Perry, Coleridge and the Uses of Division (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1999), p. 135. 5. On the Sublime, ed. Vallins, p. 1. 6. Raimonda Modiano, Coleridge and the Concept of Nature (Basingstoke: Macmillan, 1985), p. 101. 7. Ibid., p. 122. 8. Ibid., p. 137. 9. Steven Knapp, Personification and the Sublime (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1985), pp. 16–23 and 77–80. 10. Thomas Weiskel, The Romantic Sublime: Studies in the Structure and Psychology of Transcendence (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1976), see pp. 53–9 and 158–62. 11. Perry, Uses of Division, p. 78, my emphasis. 12. David Vallins, Coleridge and the Psychology of Romanticism: Feeling and Thought (Basingstoke: Macmillan, 2000), p. 165. 13. Weiskel, Romantic Sublime, p. 57. 14. Jerome McGann, The Romantic Ideology: A Critical Investigation (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1983), p. 107. 15. Ibid., p. 105. 16. Indeed, sometimes the most relevant context for a poem is a limited and circumscribed one. Whilst I always endeavour to recover whatever I can of Coleridge’s contemporary force, this does not efface the necessity of acknowledging very specific historical backdrops, as in my reading of ‘The Destiny of Nations’ alongside David Hartley and Unitarian radicalism. 17. See Simon Critchley, The Ethics of Deconstruction: Derrida and Levinas (Oxford: Blackwell, 1992) and Dominique Janicaud et al., Phenomenology and the ‘Theological Turn’: The French Debate, trans. Bernard G. Prusach (New York: Fordham University Press, 2000) for seminal texts on the ethical and theo- logical turns respectively. 180 Notes 181 18. Jean-Luc Nancy, ‘Preface to the French Edition’, Jean-François Courtine et al., Of the Sublime: Presence in Question, trans. Jeffrey S. Librett (New York: SUNY Press, 1993), p. 1. 19. Lyotard’s most important works on the sublime are The Inhuman: Reflections on Time, trans. Geoffrey Bennington and Rachel Bowlby (Cambridge: Polity Press, 1991) and Lessons on the Analytic of the Sublime, trans. Elizabeth Rottenberg (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1994). Courtine et al., Of the Sublime, gives a good indication of the range of French writers to cover the sublime. Jacques Derrida offers an analysis of the sublime in The Truth in Painting, trans. Geoffrey Bennington and Ian MacLeod (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1987), and J. M. Bernstein has gone so far as to represent Derrida’s work as a philosophy of the sublime; see The Fate of Art: Aesthetic Alienation from Kant to Derrida and Adorno (Cambridge: Polity Press, 1992), pp. 136–75. 20. Tilottama Rajan, Dark Interpreter: The Discourse of Romanticism (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1980), pp. 249, 263. 21. Susan Eilenberg, Strange Power of Speech: Wordsworth, Coleridge, and Literary Possession (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1992), p. 5. 22. Jerome Christensen, Coleridge’s Blessed Machine of Language (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1981). 23. Jacques Derrida, ‘In Memoriam: Of the Soul’, in The Work of Mourning, ed. Pascale-Anne Brault and Michael Naas (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2001), p. 73. 24. Defined in more precise and technical terms, the departure of my analysis from the ironic norms of high deconstruction of a 1980s type would have to refer back to currents in German Romanticism, notably the work of Friedrich Schlegel. Put schematically, where irony in both Romantic and deconstruc- tive forms takes finitude to be a site of infinite potentiality – a world-creating capacity in the absence of transcendental centres – the sublimity which I analyse in this study divides the finite with an internal limit. This is not an experience of power, but an experience characteristically dualistic and thus characteristically sublime. 25. Paul de Man, ‘Phenomenality and Materiality in Kant’, in The Textual Sublime: Deconstruction and its Differences, ed. Hugh J. Silverman and Gary E. Aylesworth (New York: SUNY Press, 1990), pp. 87–108. See also de Man’s Aesthetic Ideology, ed. Andrzej Warminski (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1996). 26. De Man, ‘Phenomenality’, p. 104. 27. Ibid., p. 105. 28. Derrida, ‘Memoriam’, p. 73. 29. If one was to identify a beyond-of-irony in de Man’s reading of the sublime, it would probably lie in his comments on materiality. See Andrzej Warminski, ‘“As the Poets Do It”: On the Material Sublime’, in Material Events: Paul de Man and the Afterlife of Theory, ed. Tom Cohen et al. (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 2001), pp. 3–31. 30. Richard Kearney, ‘Deconstruction and the Other: Dialogue with Derrida’, in Dialogue with Contemporary Continental Thinkers: The Phenomenological Heritage (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1984), p. 123. 31. Vallins, Psychology, p. 8. 182 Notes 32. See, for instance, the essay collections Who Comes After the Subject?, ed. Eduardo Cadava et al. (London: Routledge, 1991) and Deconstructive Subjectivities, ed. Simon Critchley and Peter Dews (Albany: SUNY Press, 1996). 33. A position explored in (critical) detail by Justin Clemens in The Romanticism of Contemporary Theory: Institution, Aesthetics, Nihilism (Aldershot: Ashgate, 2003). 34. Nancy, ‘Preface’, p. 1. 35. Paul Hamilton, Coleridge and German Philosophy: The Poet in the Land of Logic (London: Continuum, 2007), pp. 7–11. Other Romanticist criticism taking a broadly similar approach would include the readings of Wordsworth’s materialism in Simon Jarvis, Wordsworth’s Philosophical Song (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006) and David S. Ferris’s analysis of aesthet- ics and politics in Silent Urns: Romanticism, Hellenism, Modernity (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 2000). 36. Samuel Taylor Coleridge, Aids to Reflection, ed. John Beer, Bollingen Collected Works 9 (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1993), p. 204. 37. Jean-François Lyotard, ‘The Sublime and the Avant-Garde’, in The Inhuman, p. 93. 38. Peter de Bolla, The Discourse of the Sublime: Readings in History, Aesthetics and the Subject (Oxford: Blackwell, 1989). Chapter 1 1. Longinus, ‘On Sublimity’, trans. D. A. Russell in Classical Literary Criticism, ed. D. A. Russell and Michael Winterbottom (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1989), p. 143. Further references incorporated into text. 2. Theodore Wood, The Word ‘Sublime’ and Its Context 1650–1760 (The Hague: Mouton, 1972), and Andrew Ashfield and Peter de Bolla (eds), The Sublime: A Reader in British Eighteenth-Century Theory (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996). 3. The best studies of the Romantic sublime already do this: see, for example, Frances Ferguson’s reflections on the relations between the rhetorical and natural sublime in Solitude and the Sublime: Romanticism and the Aesthetics of Individualism (New York: Routledge, 1992), pp. 42–53. 4. See John L. Mahoney, ‘The Classical Tradition in Eighteenth Century English Rhetorical Education’, History of Education Journal 9 (1958): 93–7, and, for an enquiry into the specific classical texts studied in an undergraduate course such as that pursued by Coleridge, Russel M. Wyland, ‘An Archival Study of Rhetoric Texts and Teaching at the University of Oxford, 1785–1820’, Rhetorica 21 (2003): 175–95. 5. The ‘cloud-climb’d rock, sublime and vast’ in ‘Epistle IV: To the Author of Poems published anonymously at Bristol’, l.19, Poems on Various Subjects (London: G. G. and J. Robinson, 1796), pp. 125–8. 6. Samuel Taylor Coleridge, ‘Effusion V’, l.4, Poems on Various Subjects, p. 49. 7. Jacques Derrida, Writing and Difference, trans. Alan Bass (London: Routledge, 2001), p. 17. 8. Another aspect of this genealogy of the genius is Longinus’s analysis of the sublime tradition: ‘When we are working on something which needs Notes 183 loftiness of expression and greatness of thought, it is good to imagine how Homer would have said the same thing, or how Plato or Demosthenes or … Thucydides would have invested it with sublimity’ (pp. 158–9). 9. Michel Deguy, ‘The Discourse of Exaltation: Contribution to a Rereading of Pseudo-Longinus’, in Courtine et al., Of the Sublime, p. 22. 10. Ibid., p. 7. 11. Ibid., p. 23. 12. Orrin N. C. Wang has identified a similar chiasmus affecting Kant’s concep- tion of genius in the Critique of Judgment, claiming that ‘genius’s grounding in nature merely begs the question of genius’s ability to give the rule to art … what enables artistic beauty? – genius. What is genius? – that which enables artistic beauty.’ See ‘Kant’s Strange Light: Romanticism, Periodicity, and the Catachresis of Genius’, Diacritics 30 (2000), p. 26. 13. Paul de Man, Allegories of Reading: Figural Language in Rousseau, Nietzsche, Rilke and Proust (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1979), p. 37. 14. Ibid., pp. 59–67 and 178–87. 15. Ibid., p. 36. 16. Rei Terada, Feeling in Theory: Emotion after the ‘Death of the Subject’ (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2001). 17. Sir Richard Blackmore, ‘from Essays upon several subjects’ (1716), in Ashfield and de Bolla (eds), The Sublime, pp. 41–2. 18. James Burgh, The Art of Speaking (London: T. Longman/J. Buckland/W. Fenner, 1761), p. 29. 19. Ibid., pp. 32–46. 20. Ibid., p. 30. 21. Ibid., p. 31. 22. John Lawson, Lectures Concerning Oratory (Dublin: George Faulkner, 1758), p. 165. Further references incorporated into text. 23. Suzanne Guerlac, ‘Longinus and the Subject of the Sublime’, NLH 16 (1985): 275–89. 24. A point made by David Fairer, in ‘Coleridge’s Sonnets from Various Authors (1796): A Lost Conversation Poem?’, Studies in Romanticism 41 (2002): 585–604.