Politics, Petitions, and Violence in Shelley’s Posthumous Fragments of Margaret Nicholson

IF 0.1 4区 文学 0 POETRY
Matthew C. Borushko
{"title":"Politics, Petitions, and Violence in Shelley’s Posthumous Fragments of Margaret Nicholson","authors":"Matthew C. Borushko","doi":"10.1080/09524142.2020.1822012","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT This essay examines Percy Bysshe Shelley’s 1810 work Posthumous Fragments of Margaret Nicholson. By returning to the political moment of the work’s composition and publication, I establish a new and formative context for the work (which is often considered juvenilia and consequently less closely read than it could be): the political turmoil surrounding petitions in 1810. As I demonstrate, the poem, from its choice of Nicholson as a subject to its thematic and formal gestures, dramatizes the political dead-end of the liberal faith in petitions and, ultimately, offers a radical critique of the ideology from which they derive and their consequent violence. Indeed, what emerges in the Posthumous Fragments is a typology of violence linking the structural violence of monarchy with forms of empirical violence such as war and suffering. And finally, to show the sustained relevance of this dynamic in Shelley’s political imagination, I conclude by briefly discussing the role of petitions in The Cenci.","PeriodicalId":41387,"journal":{"name":"KEATS-SHELLEY REVIEW","volume":"34 1","pages":"97 - 106"},"PeriodicalIF":0.1000,"publicationDate":"2020-07-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/09524142.2020.1822012","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"KEATS-SHELLEY REVIEW","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/09524142.2020.1822012","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"POETRY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

ABSTRACT This essay examines Percy Bysshe Shelley’s 1810 work Posthumous Fragments of Margaret Nicholson. By returning to the political moment of the work’s composition and publication, I establish a new and formative context for the work (which is often considered juvenilia and consequently less closely read than it could be): the political turmoil surrounding petitions in 1810. As I demonstrate, the poem, from its choice of Nicholson as a subject to its thematic and formal gestures, dramatizes the political dead-end of the liberal faith in petitions and, ultimately, offers a radical critique of the ideology from which they derive and their consequent violence. Indeed, what emerges in the Posthumous Fragments is a typology of violence linking the structural violence of monarchy with forms of empirical violence such as war and suffering. And finally, to show the sustained relevance of this dynamic in Shelley’s political imagination, I conclude by briefly discussing the role of petitions in The Cenci.
雪莱玛格丽特·尼科尔森遗作中的政治、请愿与暴力
摘要本文考察了雪莱1810年的作品《玛格丽特·尼科尔森的遗言》。通过回到作品创作和出版的政治时刻,我为这部作品建立了一个新的、形成性的背景(这部作品通常被认为是幼稚的,因此读起来没有那么仔细):1810年围绕请愿书的政治动荡。正如我所展示的,这首诗从选择尼科尔森作为主题到主题和形式姿态,都戏剧性地展现了自由主义信仰在请愿书中的政治死胡同,并最终对请愿书所源自的意识形态及其随之而来的暴力进行了激进的批判。事实上,《遗言碎片》中出现的是一种暴力类型,将君主制的结构性暴力与战争和苦难等经验暴力形式联系起来。最后,为了展示这种动态在雪莱政治想象中的持续相关性,我最后简要讨论了请愿书在《岑词》中的作用。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
0.10
自引率
0.00%
发文量
15
期刊介绍: The Keats-Shelley Review has been published by the Keats-Shelley Memorial Association for almost 100 years. It has a unique identity and broad appeal, embracing Romanticism, English Literature and Anglo-Italian relations. A diverse range of items are published within the Review, including notes, prize-winning essays and contemporary poetry of the highest quality, around a core of peer-reviewed academic articles, essays and reviews. The editor, Professor Nicholas Roe, along with the newly established editorial board, seeks to develop the depth and quality of the contributions, whilst retaining the Review’s distinctive and accessible nature.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信