Susanna Pearson and the “elegiac” Lyric1
Sandro Jung
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/00393270601020823
2006-01-01
Studia Neophilologica
Abstract:Click to increase image sizeClick to decrease image size Notes 1. I would like to thank Kevin Binfield for reading an earlier version of this essay and for providing helpful comments on it. 2. The collection was published in her native Sheffield and printed by J. Gales. The dedicatee of her collection, the Countess of Fitzwilliam, was Lady Charlotte Ponsomby, the second daughter of William, the Second Earl of Besborough and Lady Caroline Cavendish, who married the Fourth Earl of Fitzwilliam in 1770. The couple lived at their Wentworth estate where Pearson was given a cottage, as well as an annuity of £25, in 1817. Pearson also published a second collection, entitled Poems on Various Subjects, in 1800. 3. In Smith's sonnets, these sorrows usually have to be interpreted in autobiographical terms. See, Sandro Jung, “Some Notes on the ‘Single Sentiment’ and Romanticism of Charlotte Smith,” Connotations: A Journal for Critical Debate, 9.3 (1999/2000), pp. 269–84. Although Smith occasionally chooses the Petrarchan form of the sonnet, she “appears to miss the consolatory light of heaven that Petrarch gains from the death of Laura.” See Daniel Robinson, “Elegiac Sonnets: Charlotte Smith's Formal Paradoxy,” Papers on Language and Literature, 39:2 (2003), p. 204. According to Robinson, “death [for Petrarch] is a step into a larger, perfect existence—a progression. But for Smith, death is a vacuous end to her pain” (p. 203). 4. From the 1750s Shenstone had been a very popular poet who provided patronage and instruction to working‐class poets such as James Woodhouse and Mary Whateley. See Sandro Jung, “Mentorship and ‘Patronage’ in Mid‐Eighteenth‐Century England: William Shenstone Reconsidered,” Bulletin de la société d'études anglo‐américaines des XVIIe et XVIIIe siècles, 54 (2002), pp. 187–98. Shenstone's works, apart from the 1768 Dodsley edition, were available in cheap pocket editions. 5. William Shenstone, The Works, in Verse and Prose of William Shenstone, Esq., In Two Volumes. With Decorations (London: Printed by H. Woodfall, for J. Dodsley, 1768), I, p. 16. 6. The Works, in Verse and Prose of William Shenstone, I, p. 18. 7. The Works, in Verse and Prose of William Shenstone, I, p. 20. 8. Pearson, Poems, p. 33 9. Edmund Burke, A Philosophical Enquiry into the Origin of Our Ideas of the Sublime and Beautiful, ed. by James T. Boulton (London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1967), p. 44. 10. Thomas J. McCarthy, Relationships of Sympathy: The Writer and the Reader in British Romanticism (Aldershot: Scolar Press, 1997), p. 1. See also William Richey, “The Rhetoric of Sympathy in Smith and Wordsworth,” European Romantic Review, 13:4 (2002), pp. 427–43. Richey points out, however, that Smith in most of her so‐called “humanitarian” (p. 427) sonnets intends to “elicit sympathy from her readers, but she adapts her approach to best exploit what the poetic form will allow,” keeping the “focus squarely on herself” (p. 432). In other words, these sonnets are not primarily about figures such as the Woodman or the Laplander, but she uses these representations of suffering “to provide analogies” to her own “plight” (p. 433). 11. McCarthy, Relationships of Sympathy, p. 3. 12. Adam Smith, The Theory of Moral Sentiments; or, An Essay towards an Analysis of the Principles by which Men naturally judge concerning the Conduct and Character, first of their Neighbours and afterwards of themselves, 2 vols (London: Printed for T. Cadell and W. Davies, 1804), I, p. 2. 13. Smith, The Theory of Moral Sentiments, I, p. 3. 14. Smith, The Theory of Moral Sentiments, I, p. 3. 15. Smith, The Theory of Moral Sentiments, I, p. 5. 16. Smith, The Theory of Moral Sentiments, I, p. 6. 17. David Hume, A Treatise of Human Nature (New York: Dolphin Books, 1961), pp. 334–35. 18. Hume, A Treatise of Human Nature, p. 325. 19. McCarthy, Relationships of Sympathy, p. 152. 20. Pearson, Poems, p. 36. 21. For a discussion of ‘grace’ in the eighteenth century, see Samuel Holt Monk, ‘A Grace beyond the Reach of Art’, Journal of the History of Ideas, 5 (1944), pp. 131–50 as well as Sandro Jung, ‘Introduction’, The Works of Aaron Hill (London and Bristol: Thoemmes Continuum, 2004), pp. x–xix. 22. Poetical Amusements, 4 vols, II. I am grateful to Dr Annick Cossic for drawing Garrick's poem to my attention. 23. James Kinsley, ed., “Veni Creator Spiritus,” The Poems and Fables of John Dryden (London and New York: Oxford University Press, 1961), p. 486. 24. Joseph Spence, Crito: or, A Dialogue on Beauty (London: Printed for the Author, 1752), p. 19. 25. William Warburton, The Doctrine of Grace (London: A. Millar, 1763), p. 16. 26. Warburton, The Doctrine of Grace, p. 31. 27. For the notion of ‘sweetness’, see Sandro Jung, ‘“Sweetness” in the Poetry of William Collins’, English Language Notes, 41:3 (2003), pp. 36–43; Also, Sandro Jung, ‘Some Notes on the Hellenism of Mary Robinson's Odes’, Eighteenth‐Century Women, 3 (2002), pp. 185–97. 28. Pearson, Poems, p. 34. 29. Pearson, Poems, p. 48. 30. McCarthy, Relationships of Sympathy, p. 147. 31. Hume, A Treatise of Human Nature, pp. 333–34. 32. Pearson, Poems, p. 56. 33. Hume, A Treatise of Human Nature, p. 333. 34. Pearson, Poems, p. 58. 35. Robinson, “Elegiac Sonnets: Charlotte Smith's Formal Paradoxy,” p. 192. 36. Pearson, Poems, p. 59. 37. Pearson, Poems, p. 52. 38. Pearson, Poems, p. 49. 39. Pearson, Poems, p. 57. 40. Pearson, Poems, p. 51. 41. McCarthy, Relationships of Friendship, p. 148. 42. Stuart Curran, ed., The Poems of Charlotte Smith, Women Writers in English, 1350–1850 (Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press, 1993), pp. 34–35. 43. Robinson, “Elegiac Sonnets: Charlotte Smith's Formal Paradoxy,” p. 203. 44. Robinson, “Elegiac Sonnets: Charlotte Smith's Formal Paradoxy,” p. 205. 45. Robinson, “Elegiac Sonnets: Charlotte Smith's Formal Paradoxy,” p. 203.