Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 14-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

Liberty and Independence: The Shelley–Byron Circle and the State(s) of Europe

Liberty and Independence: The Shelley–Byron Circle and the State(s) of Europe Paul Stock Introduction How did Byron, the Shelleys and their circle react to the political reconstruction of Europe following Napoleon’s final defeat in 1815? How did they understand the ‘state’ or ‘condition’ of Europe after twenty-six years of ideological and military conflict? This article investigates how the Shelleys, Byron and John Cam Hobhouse analyse the European political situation in the eighteen months immediately following Waterloo. In particular, it discusses how they interpret European politics through use of the words ‘freedom’ and ‘liberty’. Sometimes this language of freedom constructs a transnational European community, in which states are connected by their shared commitment to ‘free’ government. Complicating this, however, the circle also associate ‘freedom’ with ideas of state independence; that is, a Europe divided into rival states independent from one another and not necessarily unified by any common tradition. In this respect, the idea of ‘freedom’ both evokes and challenges notions of a common European identity. These different usages might appear to be straightforwardly contradictory, but they can be connected, I want to suggest, using the argument of William Hazlitt’s essay ‘On Patriotism’ (1814), which argues for a patriotic politics that can legitimise transnational collective identity. The European Tradition of http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png Romanticism Edinburgh University Press

Liberty and Independence: The Shelley–Byron Circle and the State(s) of Europe

Stock, Paul
Romanticism , Volume 15 (2): 121 – Jul 1, 2009
Download PDF
10 pages

Loading next page...
 
/lp/edinburgh-university-press/liberty-and-independence-the-shelley-byron-circle-and-the-state-s-of-lqDiXBDfll

References (11)

Publisher
Edinburgh University Press
Copyright
© Edinburgh University Press 2009
Subject
Literary Studies
ISSN
1354-991X
eISSN
1750-0192
DOI
10.3366/E1354991X09000609
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

Paul Stock Introduction How did Byron, the Shelleys and their circle react to the political reconstruction of Europe following Napoleon’s final defeat in 1815? How did they understand the ‘state’ or ‘condition’ of Europe after twenty-six years of ideological and military conflict? This article investigates how the Shelleys, Byron and John Cam Hobhouse analyse the European political situation in the eighteen months immediately following Waterloo. In particular, it discusses how they interpret European politics through use of the words ‘freedom’ and ‘liberty’. Sometimes this language of freedom constructs a transnational European community, in which states are connected by their shared commitment to ‘free’ government. Complicating this, however, the circle also associate ‘freedom’ with ideas of state independence; that is, a Europe divided into rival states independent from one another and not necessarily unified by any common tradition. In this respect, the idea of ‘freedom’ both evokes and challenges notions of a common European identity. These different usages might appear to be straightforwardly contradictory, but they can be connected, I want to suggest, using the argument of William Hazlitt’s essay ‘On Patriotism’ (1814), which argues for a patriotic politics that can legitimise transnational collective identity. The European Tradition of

Journal

Romanticism – Edinburgh University Press

Published: Jul 1, 2009

There are no references for this article.