Mellor and Matlak attempt something similar in insisting, in the "General Introduction" to , that their anthology is "," and any novel by Jane Austen (p. 3, italics in original). As Mellor pointed out during the question period after this paper was presented, is currently the most taught of any Romantic-era literary work. This may represent significant change in the category of British Romanticism that my survey of anthologies necessarily missed.
Works of British Neoromanticism
This dissertation traces the role of unauthorized publication in the posthumous construction of British Romanticism as a literary movement. It argues that Romantic ideology emerged from conflicting claims about the nature of intellectual property and the circulation of political and artistic ideas, apparent in the texts and paratexts of pirated books. I examine how these disputes play out in reprints of the works by Percy Bysshe Shelley and Robert Southey that became cornerstones of radical culture. The dissertation goes on to discuss how the underground economy of literary piracy affected Sir Walter Scott and Lord Byron's publication strategies, the significance of foreign reprints to copyright ideology and canon formation, and the relationship between unauthorized publication and the culture of appropriation apparent in radical periodicals and graphic satire. This study thus contributes to the history of the book and print culture in the early nineteenth century while illuminating the economic and legal underpinnings of the body of literature that came to be known as Romantic. It situates British Romanticism as an important moment in the ongoing discourse around intellectual property, emphasizing the contingent and ideologically fraught nature of any such concept.
French/ British Romanticism Art, Smithsonian Washington D.C.
How does canonical Romanticism constitute its "others," and to what extent has the category "British Romanticism" resisted wholesale incorporation of these "others," even in a period of widespread canon revision? In pursuing these questions, I find myself in fundamental agreement with Laura Mandell, who analyzes the resistance of British Romanticism to fundamental change in her recent essay "," remarking in passing on the "unconscious" kind of canonizing that goes on in the heads both of anthologists and of the classroom teachers for whom they anthologize. However, I wish to pursue the notion of an "unconscious" sort of canonizing in a quite different manner, drawing on the growing body of research that seeks to elucidate our largely nonconscious repertoire of scripts and models, concepts and categories. Discussions of how British Romanticism has conventionally been defined and delimited have made surprisingly little use of the large body of research and theory on categorization and cognition that has appeared over the past twenty-five years, and yet a cognitive approach may have much to tell us about the endurance of canonical British Romanticism and the manner in which canon revision—at least in relation to this field—has tended to proceed.
The Visual Threshold of British Romanticism