Monday, 30 April 2012

Reading Between the Lines: workshop on eighteenth-century journals and romantic letters

NENC members may be interested in a forthcoming one-day workshop, 'Reading between the Lines: Eighteenth-Century Journals and Romantic Letters, 1740-1830'. It is hosted by the North East Forum in Eighteenth-Century and Romantic Studies, and will take place at St. Chad's College, Durham, on Saturday 23 June.

Jane Rendall (University of York) will discuss the correspondence of three Edinburgh authors, Elizabeth Hamilton, Eliza Fletcher, and Anne Grant in the keynote address, entitled "'Excellent women and not too blue': Letters from Edinburgh, 1790-1820" and the day will conclude with a round table of postgraduates and academics. Registration before 1 June is £15 for students and £20 for staff; afterwards the fee is £20/£25. Registration forms and further information on the workshop, including the programme, can be found here.

Wednesday, 25 April 2012

'Moving Towards Science in the Long Nineteenth Century': NENC symposium

We are delighted to announce that NENC has been awarded funding from the British Society for Science and Literature for a one-day symposium entitled 'Moving Towards Science in the Long Nineteenth Century'.

The symposium, which will be held in Newcastle in early September 2012, will provide an exciting opportunity for delegates to discuss how literary culture of the period approached, adopted, adapted and rejected the emerging scientific discourses and practices in the long nineteenth century, and more broadly to consider how and why literature and science might move together in the contemporary academy.

The announcement can be viewed here. Further details, along with a call for papers, will be circulated in due course.

Reading Group Report: ‘The Self-Conscious Artist: Debating Literature at the Fin-de-Siècle’

19 April 2012

                                            Led by Naomi Carle, Durham University


Texts Discussed:

Henry James, 'The Art of Fiction' (1884)
Robert Louis Stevenson, 'A Gossip on Romance' (1882); 'A Humble Remonstrance' (1884)
Andrew Lang, 'Realism and Romance’ (1886)  

 

For the first time, NENC was delighted to hold its reading group session at Durham University.  This session focused upon the last decades of the nineteenth century, and the rise of literature as a critical discipline.  In this respect, it can be viewed as one of the first reading groups to concentrate upon the history of literary theory, as well as thematic and social issues.

We opened the session by thinking about the outlook of each of the authors.  Whilst Henry James was a novelist, he also came from a more critical background, and this is reflected in both the tone and structure of ‘The Art of Fiction’.  This essay is concerned with defining the formal rules of literature, and is suspicious towards its more leisurely and imaginative attributes.  In contrast, both Andrew Lang as a poet and Robert Louis Stevenson as a self-confessed Romantic, believed that there is value in every form of literature.  They thus found James’s preoccupation with systematizing genre to be restrictive.  Nevertheless, both James and Stevenson can be seen as adopting different critical approaches to their own work.  Whilst James asserted the necessity of a theory of literature, Stevenson contemplated the possibility of ‘art for art’s sake’.

James’s literary theory was then analysed in detail.  We were particularly interested in how his essay addressed realism as both a genre and theme, in terms of his belief that the novel was a ‘trivial’ form of literature.  The biting satirical wit of ‘The Art of Fiction’ becomes especially evident in James’s criticism of writers that focussed upon provincial themes.  Notwithstanding the comedic effect of his derisive attitude towards Trollope’s novels, we identified his underlying concern as the way that such literature compelled the reader to ‘believe’ in such trivialities.  An interesting point was made about the way James considers art and history in relation to the novel.  He views the ‘story’ as paramount to the success of a novel, and criticises the view of Walter Besant, that great literature seeks to encompass an enlightening whole, rather than a series of chronological events.  We considered how Besant’s position can be seen as both anticipating, and undermining aspects of postmodern literary theory.

Extending this consideration of literary ‘types’, we turned our attention to Stevenson’s essays.  Like James, Stevenson seeks to construct specific categories of literature, although he is much more accommodating in terms of the merits of different forms.  James views the novel as containing the potential to document the universality of experience, and engages with the idea that such an all-encompassing narrative was possible.  In contrast, Stevenson argued that art should not attempt to compete with life itself, and the ‘impressions’ it conveyed to individuals.  It was suggested that Stevenson may have gained his views on the importance of experience and impressions from a receptiveness to the Scottish Enlightenment.  In this tradition, all knowledge of reality is subjective and depends upon the strength of ideas upon the individual.  However, we agreed that Stevenson situates such views firmly within a literary, rather than philosophical context. 

Stevenson regards characterisation in a novel as different to the ‘incidents’ it describes, a trait he shares with James, but not with Lang.  In ‘Realism and Romance’, we observed how Lang regards the two as interchangeable, another example of how these texts can be seen as anticipating modernism.  However, part of the reason why Stevenson seeks to define character and incident relates to his understanding that he is consciously writing romance, a genre that we felt to impact upon his identity as a writer of children’s literature.

We then thought about how our discussion of literary criticism related to Stevenson’s novels, Treasure Island (1883) and Kidnapped (1893).  Stevenson associates immersive reading with childhood, and refers to this frequently in ‘A Gossip on Romance’.  We considered how the value Stevenson places upon the imaginative child, could be contradicted by the reliance upon archetypes in his novels.  It is interesting that he presents such literature as evoking the memory of childhood in the reader, yet this is a carefully constructed illusion that compels him to believe it.  We found his comme
nts on James in this regard quite comedic, in wondering whether James was ever a child, since he did not recall hunting for treasure.  Stevenson  criticises his lack of imagination and accuses him of being a deficient reader.

Stevenson’s comments on the literary canon are interesting.  It was remarked that his criticism is infused with the same scientific and exploratory methodology that characterises his novels.  For example, Stevenson stresses the importance of temporality and space within literature and its construction, and incorporates this into his discussion of the epic poem and contemporary drama.  We found this to be a distinctive approach.  Although we were familiar with Romantic theories of poetry and autobiography, such as in Coleridge’s Biographia Literaria (1817) or Shelley’s A Defence of Poetry (1821), we regarded Stevenson’s critical view of the novel to be ahead of its time.

We concluded the session by returning to the importance that James and Stevenson place upon impressions.  For both, true art relates to the whole of experience, and false art depicts only a section of experience.  We were especially drawn to how Stevenson believed that only one creative thought could determine the entire structure of the novel.  In this respect, he can be viewed as defying concepts of genre for all he creates them.  This led us to consider how genre itself could be defined in the twenty-first century.  Are Stevenson’s views on the inspired artist more compatible with our contemporary outlook, or is James’s idea of the novel’s didactic purpose more viable? The general consensus was that both have merits, and attest to developments in, and anxieties about literary criticism at the fin de siècle.


 - Leanne Stokoe, Newcastle University.         



Wednesday, 18 April 2012

'Viewer, I married him': registration open

Registration is now open for the Viewer, I married him': Reading (Re) Productions Conference on Friday 29 June 2012 at the University of Hull. Delegates from all fields are welcome to the event, which aims to acknowledge and assess the continuing importance of period drama in contemporary culture across the world.

Dr. Sarah Cardwell from the University of Kent will give the keynote address, ‘From adaptations to period dramas: genre, style and critical evaluation’, and Professor Mark Llewellyn, Director of Research for the AHRC, will lead a postgraduate training session focussed on career development and adapting to an academic career.  

More information, including registration details, can be found here.

Monday, 16 April 2012

Romantic Connections registration now open

Registration is now open for Romantic Connections: Networks of Influence c.1760-1835, the 2012 BARS Early Career and Postgraduate Conference, which will be held at Newcastle University on Friday 1 June. 

The conference fee is £25 waged/£15 unwaged - this includes lunch as well as tea and coffee throughout the day and wine to conclude.  Enrollment on the day will be from 9am; the programme will commence with an introduction at 9:45am and end with the wine reception at 7pm. 

The conference will feature a keynote address by Jon Mee (Warwick) and a roundtable on collaboration and partnership in the field of Romanticism featuring Kerri Andrews (Strathclyde), Jeff Cowton (Curator at Dove Cottage) Matthew Grenby (Newcastle), and Gary Kelly (University of Alberta). Gary Kelley will also be hosting a seminar on 'Sixpenny Romanticism' in association with the conference the night before the main programme (May 31st).  This will take place between 5 and 6pm in Room 2.20 in the Research Beehive, and delegates who are able to arrive in Newcastle the day before the conference are encouraged to attend. There is also likely to be an informal dinner following Professor Kelley's seminar which all are most welcome to join.

The conference is co-organised by Helen Stark, who is a BARS Postgraduate  Representative, and a number of NENC members will be presenting papers. We encourage everyone who is able to attend what promises to be a great conference.

Registration details and the conference programme can be found here. We look forward to seeing many of you at the conference. 

Wednesday, 11 April 2012

Calls for papers: a weekly round up

Women’s Scientific Travelling, 1750-1850
A Panel at Borders and Crossings/Seuils et Traverses: An Interdisciplinary Conference on Travel Writing, 2-5 July 2012, Centre for Quaker Studies, University of Birmingham, UK

It is often assumed, in both scholarly and popular accounts of travel and travel writing, that scientific travel and exploration was a male preserve until at least the twentieth century. The same received wisdom, moreover, usually suggests that the many women travellers of earlier eras typically travelled in a more desultory and dilettante fashion – as devotees of the picturesque, for example, or as ‘sentimental’ tourists. Yet recent scholarship has begun to question and problematize these stereotypical views, especially in relation to many women travellers of the late 19th century. As several studies have shown, travellers such as Isabella Bird and Mary Kingsley undoubtedly made important contributions to contemporary science, although the gender norms of their day usually required them to be self-deprecating and to disclaim the highly esteemed label of ‘explorer’. Less well-known, however, are Bird and Kingsley’s many precursors in the late 18th and early 19th centuries. Maria Graham, for example, became in 1824 the first woman to publish in the Transactions of the Geological Society, when she contributed a report on an earthquake she had witnessed in Chile. Sarah Bowdich, meanwhile, accompanied her husband on an expedition to the Gambia river in 1822, and made numerous scientific discoveries in her own right; she is credited, for example, with being the first woman to discover a whole new genera of plants.

Women’s Scientific Travelling, 1750-1850 is intended as an interdisciplinary panel which can shed further light on these precursors to Bird and Kingsley. We accordingly welcome papers exploring any aspect of the intersections between women, science and travel and travel writing in this period. This can include topics such as:

  • women who travelled in scientific spirit, conducting fieldwork or other forms of research
  • women who used travel writing as means of engaging with, or contributing to, contemporary scientific debate
  • the discursive and rhetorical difficulties faced by women in adopting a scientific persona on the page
  • the wider intellectual and cultural networks which enabled and assisted women’s participation in contemporary science.

Please email Dr Carl Thompson with a short abstract and biographical details by 30 April 2012.

Victorians Institute 2012: "Victorian Mixed Media", 19-21 October 2012, Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, Virginia

The Victorians Institute, an interdisciplinary scholarly organization founded in 1972, invites proposals for papers for the 2012 meeting, to be held at Virginia Commonwealth University in downtown Richmond. The deadline for proposals is 1 May 2012.

The full call for papers, including contact details, can be found here, and information about the Institute and the scholarly annual Victorians Institute Journal can be found here.

Dickens Day 2012: Dickens and Popular Culture, 13 October 2012, Senate House, London

Dickens Day, now in its 26th year, is celebrating 2012 with a theme that explores Dickens’s popularity and his engagement with non-elite cultures from his own time to the present. On the evidence of bicentenary Dickens fervour, the author is as popular now as he has ever been. This year has been punctuated by Dickens serials on TV, heartfelt tributes from popular writers, mass-selling biography, collective reading projects, Dickens hip-hop performances, and a global read-a-thon. How can we account for this continuing engagement, across different genres and various cultural contexts? What is it that allows Dickens’s work its particular “portability” (to use Juliet John’s term)? And what are the political and personal investments in forms of Dickensian popularity? How does this relate to Dickens’s own aspirations, and to the forms in which his work first appeared? These are some of the questions that the day seeks to address.

Proposals are sought for 20-minute papers from Dickensians of all backgrounds and career stages. There will be a panel featuring research inspired by that of the late Sally Ledger, whose book Dickens and the Popular Radical Imagination is an important foundation for our thinking about this event. Please indicate on your proposal if you would like to be considered for this panel.

Topics might include, but are by no means limited to, the following:
  • Popular entertainment and culture, fairs, circuses, street performers, Astley’s, ‘The Amusements of the People’, Hard Times;
  • Theatre, film, television, adaptations in all media;
  • Neo-Dickensiana, re-tellings and re-imaginings, Drood completions;
  • Public Readings (by Dickens and others), Penny reading groups;
  • The Press, journalism, editing, reporting;
  • Charitable activities, Urania Cottage, Hospital for Sick Children, Working Men’s Institutes;
  • Christmas;
  • Schools and education;
  • Literary festivals, Dickens tourism, museums, homes, walking tours, the ‘Dickens World’ theme park;
  • Global impact, the reception of Dickens abroad, Dickens in non-Western and colonial and postcolonial cultures and contexts;
  • Celebratory exhibitions and events;
  • Advertising; technological developments;
  • Rap, hip-hop, dance, performance art: non-literary mediations of Dickens’s work;
  • Bicentennial representations and interpretations of Dickens, his life and his work.

Please send proposals (maximum 500 words) to Bethan Carney, Holly Furneaux and Ben Winyard. The deadline for paper proposals is 31 May 2012.


Thursday, 5 April 2012

NENC Summer Speakers' Series 2012

We’re very pleased to announce the NENC Summer Speakers’ Series, and to invite expressions of interest in presenting at this new monthly event. The Speakers’ Series will take place in addition to the regular reading group. Although at this stage it is only planned to take place over the summer, there is a possibility that it will be extended into the autumn semester should there be sufficient demand.

The provisional dates are:

·         Friday 8 June
·         Friday 6 July
·         Friday 10 August

The seminar locations will be finalised once we have a provisional programme, however it is likely that at least two seminars will be held in Newcastle. Each seminar will host two to four speakers, depending on the length and style of paper, and along with refreshments there will be space for questions and broader discussion afterwards. We are seeking proposals for 20-minute conference-style papers, or for shorter (10-15-minute) papers which explore work-in-progress ideas. Papers can be on any aspect of the literature and culture of the long nineteenth century (1748-1914).

The Speakers’ Series will give postgraduates the opportunity to share their research and receive feedback from peers in a supportive and friendly environment. If you are interested in giving a paper, please send us a brief email indicating when you’d like to speak. Further details, such as a title and full abstract, will be sought from speakers by May 15th.

Wednesday, 4 April 2012

‘The Love of Distinction is Capable of Different Directions’ – William Godwin and Defining Utilitarianism

I am currently finalising my PhD on Percy Bysshe Shelley and Political Economy. The following essay reflects my research on how the principles of Adam Smith in both The Theory of Moral Sentiments (1759) and An Enquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations (1776), was both interpreted and developed by Godwin in the revolutionary decade, and by utilitarian political economists in the 1810s. All feedback welcome!

‘The Love of Distinction is Capable of Different Directions’ – William Godwin and Defining Utilitarianism

Leanne Stokoe, Newcastle University


William Godwin’s Enquiry Concerning Political Justice and its Influence on Modern Morals and Manners (1793) is often overlooked as the proponent of a different kind of utilitarianism to Jeremy Bentham’s concept of a moral ‘code’. However, its approach to utility was influential upon those who sought to develop this outlook in an alternative manner to the so-called ‘philosophical radicals’. Godwin was one of the first to respond to Bentham’s systematic view of pleasure and pain in the 1798 edition of Political Justice. This text, as John P. Clark has illustrated in his important study of Godwin and utility, was amended significantly from its 1793 and 1796 editions, in order to encompass Godwin’s belief in the potential of utility.[i] Godwin was familiar with the sources that had inspired Bentham’s view of the ‘pannomion’, the utilitarian code that reduced human morals to the calculation of pleasure and pain. This encompassed the philosophy of Helvétius, that benevolence derives from self-interest, and Hobbes’s speculation that charity depends upon this emphasis upon the self. However, Godwin’s approach to such theories was more progressive than Bentham’s view of self-interest as the prime motivator behind human nature. Criticising Bentham’s doctrines, he writes, ‘to rest in general rules, is sometimes a necessity which our imperfection imposes upon us [...] but the true dignity of human reason is, as much as we are able, to go beyond them’.[ii] This suspicion towards perpetuating ‘general rules’ and emphasis upon progress, can be seen as undermining Bentham’s reductive methods. However, Godwin’s celebration of ‘reason’ not only reflects his valuation of philosophy above the poetry venerated by Romantics. It also signifies how he shares Bentham’s eighteenth-century concept of utility.

Godwin admired Bentham’s philosophical approach, as can be observed in the calculative methodology he adopts in relation to the latter’s concepts of pleasure and pain. There are instances in Political Justice that uphold this. For example, Godwin insists that, ‘morality is nothing else but a calculation of consequences’ (I, 342), and suggests that ‘it is not difficult to form a scale of happiness’ (I, 395). Such a mathematical approach to morals can be aligned with Bentham’s insistence that the utilitarian code was the only consistent theory of ethics.[iii] In this respect, Godwin’s approach to moral questions can be aligned with Bentham’s determination to devise a just ‘scale’ through which to judge virtue. Nevertheless, there are indications that suggest that Political Justice engaged with the same philosophical tradition as Bentham, rather than being influenced directly by the latter’s doctrines. Godwin was not only convinced that benevolence derived from within the principle of self-interest; he also believed that such a quality could be developed in order to achieve what he termed a ‘disinterested’ society.

Political Justice was influenced by Adam Smith’s views on human sympathy in The Theory of Moral Sentiments (1759). This is evident in its subtitle’s profession to ‘enquire into’ the ‘influence on morals and happiness’. Such a manifesto is significant in that Godwin connects such treatises on ‘morals’ with the emphasis upon ‘happiness’ in utilitarian doctrines. This suggests from the outset how his concept of ‘utility’ goes beyond Bentham’s inflexible model. As John Whale considers, ‘an older, eighteenth-century form of sensibility is grafted onto Godwin’s utilitarian philosophy, in a manoeuvre which inverts the dominant version of popular Benthamite utilitarianism’.[iv] Such emphasis upon ‘sensibility’, in terms of Godwin’s receptiveness to Enlightenment precepts, can be observed by exploring his approach to self-interest. Godwin did not believe that social ‘happiness’ is achieved indirectly through the individual’s pursuit of their own desires. Instead, he countered that ‘benevolence’ for fellow man was possible, by engaging with Smith’s concept of the tendency within self-interest to extend outwards to others.

Godwin contemplates that ‘the good of our neighbour’ is at first ‘pursued for the sake of its advantage to ourselves’ (Political Justice, I, 425). Although this appears to parallel Bentham’s maxims, Godwin’s receptiveness to elements of Smithian moral philosophy is evident in thoughts he expressed in The Enquirer. This was published significantly between the 1793 and 1798 editions of Political Justice. He suggests that ‘one of the best practical rules of morality that ever was delivered, is that of putting ourselves in the place of another, before we act or decide anything respecting him’.[v] Such insistence upon envisaging ‘the place of another’ shares similarities with Smith’s concept of imaginative sympathy. However, it was on this issue of ‘imagination’ that Godwin and Smith differed. Unlike Smith’s belief that man can identify with the desires of others from within his own self-interest, Godwin aligns this ‘extending out’ to others with reason, rather than with imagination.

Having outlined Godwin’s valuation of reason above the imaginative faculty, it is necessary to explore how this impacts upon his view of utilitarianism. Godwin interprets Smith’s precepts along rationalistic lines. He regards Smith’s conclusions relating to imagination as beneficial, but secondary to its ability to inspire intellectual progress. The process that underpins Political Justice is well known; the concept of mankind as developing gradually through the powers of human reason. What is less acknowledged is how this theory both shapes and limits Godwin’s assessment of utilitarianism. His emphasis upon reason as being the progressive faculty persuaded him that Smith’s view of an outward-reaching self-interest was merely a transient stage in human development, rather than reflecting the moral potential of imagination. Godwin concluded that the final stage in social happiness was instead the gradual superseding of self-interest itself, as society became rationally aware of the natural ‘disinterestedness’ of human motives. Therefore, although Godwin admired Enlightenment precepts, he believed ultimately that ‘benevolence’ rested upon a more evolved understanding of human motives that displaced the self altogether.

Godwin describes how ‘no man so truly promotes his own interest as he that forgets it. No man reaps so copious a harvest of pleasure as he who thinks only of the pleasures of other men’ (Political Justice, I, 395). This statement reveals how Godwin’s view of utilitarianism presents a challenge to Bentham’s doctrines. On the one hand, Godwin’s alignment of ‘pleasures’ with this concept of ‘disinterestedness’ signifies how he is challenging Bentham’s inflexible view of self-interest. However, on the other, his insistence upon man as ‘forgetting’ his ‘own interest’ indicates that his rational view of progress overlooks the crucial role of imagination in the doctrines of his predecessors. In addition, he fails to acknowledge how his determination to invalidate such dependence upon the self is engendered within self-interest itself. Godwin’s conviction that ‘universal benevolence was only the final goal, requiring extensive changes in society’, encountered difficulties in his later works. The belief that ‘benevolence’ could only be achieved by ‘change’ and the phasing out of self-interest, troubled Godwin. It also undermined his determination to prove that man is capable of having conscious, disinterested motives. As Clark suggests, his later essays ‘are especially sceptical’.[vi]

Godwin’s appreciation for the role of exception and hypothesis (a characteristic of his Dissenting education) indicates how his view of utility rests upon the role of the intellect and historical change. This draws attention to how Godwin’s concept of self-interest defies Bentham’s permanent categorisations. Godwin rejected Bentham’s belief in ‘absolutes’ of good and evil, defined in terms of pleasure and pain. He believed instead that such motives were by-products of reaching one’s goals, and that these were often confused with the goals themselves. As a result, not only did he believe that what we view as ‘happiness’ was both individually and historically subjective; he also implied that Bentham’s conclusions on pleasure and pain were more complex than the latter suggested. In Political Justice, and his later works, Godwin maintained that Bentham’s calculation of pleasures and pains, was also influenced by other pleasures and pains that led to their production. For example, he identified that the realisation of ‘absolute’ happiness depended also upon ‘relative’ pleasures such as virtue, knowledge and liberty.[vii] Crucially, such ‘relativity’ depended upon the historical stage in which they were produced.

Godwin viewed of historical development as a series of interplays between ‘progress’ and ‘decline’. However, instances can be seen in Godwin’s thought, of an even greater understanding of human perfectibility. Certainly, Godwin’s theory that ‘disinterestedness’ can become acknowledged as a result of society’s recognition of the errors of selfishness, never suggests that man could place another before himself in the first instance. Nevertheless, Godwin draws close to acknowledging the potential of imaginative sympathy, when he describes how ‘the love of distinction is capable of different directions’ (Political Justice, II, 427). This contemplation that such ‘distinctions’ may contain the potential to develop in ‘different directions’ than his own concept of a rational perfectibility, draws close to Smith’s moral philosophy. As a result, Godwin’s elevation of reason over imagination is perhaps less clear-cut than it initially appears, even if he never developed this aspect of his philosophy to its full extent. As John Whale argues, ‘Godwin reminds us of the variety within the conflict between utility and imagination in this period, and of how imagination has the capacity to re-articulate itself in the face of utility’.[viii] Nevertheless, Whale’s comment about imagination having to ‘re-articulate itself’ when confronted with these doctrines is revealing. It suggests that, for all his contemplations on the different ‘directions’ of benevolence, Godwin maintained that imagination was secondary to a progressive, utilitarian philosophy.

I will conclude this exploration of Godwin’s view of utility, by suggesting that his outlook was particularly significant in the way that it emphasises the mutability of Bentham's moral ‘codes’. This progressive approach to utility led Joseph Priestley, in his introduction to the 1798 edition of Political Justice, to deny that Godwin could be viewed as a utilitarian. This was due to the distinction he made between pleasures and pains, and his claims that people could pursue the pleasures of others as their goal (III, 15-16). Nevertheless, Godwin’s views on self-interest were influential amongst the younger utilitarians. Bentham, David Ricardo and James Mill have been looked upon as the figureheads of utilitarianism, while Godwin has been given little attention. However, I suggest that his ideas on ‘disinterestedness’ became crucial to the form utilitarianism would take in the progression of the nineteenth century.



[i] In fact, John P. Clark illustrates how Godwin ‘eliminated the non-utilitarian sections of the work’ in 1798. The Philosophical Anarchism of William Godwin (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1977), p. 110.
[ii] William Godwin, An Enquiry Concerning Political Justice and its Influence on Morals and Happiness, 3 vols, ed. by F. E. L. Priestley (London: G. G. and J. Robinson, 1798; photographic facsimile edition, Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1946) I, 345.
[iii] David Baumgardt, Bentham and the Ethics of Today (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1952), p. 33.
[iv] John Whale, Imagination Under Pressure, 1789-1832: Aesthetics, Politics and Utility (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005), p. 99.
[v] The Enquirer, or Reflections On Education, Manners, And Literature (London: G. G. and J. Robinson, 1797), p. 298.
[vi] Clark, Philosophical Anarchism, pp. 88, 70.
[vii] Ibid, pp. 88, 94.
[viii] Whale, Imagination Under Pressure, pp. 99-100.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This content is attributed to, and was posted originally by Leanne Stokoe on
http://lstokoe.blogspot.co.uk/

http://lstokoe.blogspot.co.uk/2012/04/love-of-distinction-is-capable-of.html