Abstract
A protean conception, ‘Romantic Irony’ has been invoked in various forms to interpret the writing of the age excluded by the central paradigms of theory and criticism. One kind is based in ontological and epistemological skepticism: Romantic irony as defined by Anne Mellor refers to the artist’s recognition and embrace of the fictiveness of ideas of order. The art of the Romantic ironist embodies an ‘enthusiastic response to process and change,’ and thus this form of ironic vision is celebratory in function. It does not encompass writing wherein ‘the perception of a chaotic universe arouses either guilt or fear.’1 Where the celebratory mode of Romantic irony leaves off, another begins, described by Stuart Sperry as a variable, but often perplexed and angst-ridden response to ‘indeterminacy.’ Sperry finds a representative moment of Keatsian irony in the visionary speaker’s awakening within the domed sanctuary of The Fall of Hyperion, where its mysterious interior impresses on him ‘a blinding sense of unfathomability.’ Sperry locates Shelleyan irony in his radically contrasting perspectives on the human condition, emphasizing Shelley’s habitual swerving between representations of high idealism (Prometheus Unbound) and reality (The Cenci). Works like The Witch of Atlas seem composed as a deliberate effort to escape the latter in a realm of supernatural play.2
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
Notes
‘Towards a Definition of Romantic Irony in English Literature,’ in Romantic and Modern, ed. George Bornstein (Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press, 1977), pp. 5, 8, 12–17.
On Byron’s doubts about reform, see Erdman, ‘Byron and “the New Force of the People”’ Keats—Shelley Journal, 11 (1962), 59–61.
For a study of Byron’s involvement with the Italian revolutionaries, see Richard Lansdown, ‘Byron and the Carbonari,’ History Today, 41 (1981), 18–25.
See Erdman, ‘Byron and Revolt in England, Science and Society, 11 (1947), 246–7.
Robert Southey, Life and Correspondence, ed. Rev. Charles Cuthbert Southey, 6 vols (London: Longman, 1850), IV, 298–9.
William St. Clair, ‘The Impact of Byron’s Writings: An Evaluative Approach,’ in Byron: Augustan and Romantic, ed. Andrew Rutherford (Basingstoke: Macmillan [now Palgrave Macmillan], 1990), 14–19.
Quoted in Charles E. Robinson, ‘The Devil as Doppelganger in The Deformed Transformed: The Sources and Meaning of Byron’s Unfinished Drama,’ Bulletin of the New York Public Library, 74 (1970), 187.
Madame de Stael, Germany, pp. 361–3, 178. Critics in Byron’s day noticed the influence of Goethe: the Universal Review described the Stranger as ‘the same dry sneerer as Goethe’s Mephistopheles, but higher bred and more melancholy than Faust’s familiar’ (Reiman, The Romantics Reviewed, Part B, I, 140). Byron could not read German but still managed to become well acquainted with Faust, through Madame de Stael’s book, oral translations by Matthew Gregory Lewis and Shelley in 1816, and the series of designs by August Moritz Retzsch which Murray sent to the Pisan circle in 1822. These designs are reproduced in William Vaughan, German Romanticism and English Art (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1979), pp. 128–9, 132, 141, 151–2.
Arnold regards himself as the Devil’s likeness because he has a cloven foot. Byron explained that he added the congenital deformity to develop the character’s autobiograpical meaning (see Lady Blessington’s Conversations of Lord Byron, ed. Ernest J. Lovell, Jr., Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1969, pp. 80–1). Byron carried the comparison further, noting elsewhere his affinities with the deformed devil in Le Sage’s novel, Le Diable Boiteux: ‘I am Le Diable Boiteux, — a soubriquet, which I marvel that, amongst their various nominis umbrae, the Orthodox have not hit upon’ (BLJ, X, 136).
Goethe, Faust, trans. Walter Arndt (New York: Norton, 1976), 11. 283–4; p. 7.
J.C.L. Sismondi, A History of the Italian Republics (Garden City: Anchor Books, 1966), p. 329.
Copyright information
© 2003 Peter A. Schock
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Schock, P.A. (2003). Ironic Modes of Satanism in Byron and Shelley. In: Romantic Satanism. Palgrave Macmillan, London. https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230513303_6
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230513303_6
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, London
Print ISBN: 978-1-349-51085-6
Online ISBN: 978-0-230-51330-3
eBook Packages: Palgrave Literature & Performing Arts CollectionLiterature, Cultural and Media Studies (R0)