British Association for Romantic Studies: Stephen Copley Award Research Report
Leanne Stokoe, Newcastle University
Thesis Title: ‘”Poetry, Facts and Calculating Processes”: The Political Economy of Shelley’s
Prose’
Between 3 and 8 July 2010, I undertook a research visit partially funded by BARS. The
purpose of this was to consult archive material relating to my PhD, which focuses on Percy
Bysshe Shelley’s approach to political economy in his prose. In 1819, Shelley aligned ‘moral
and political science’ with his concept of ‘Poetry’, or that term which unites all enlightening
disciplines. However, I illustrate how Shelley’s aesthetics and empiricism can be regarded as
reciprocal. Although Shelley’s philosophy can be seen as influencing his critique of Thomas
Robert Malthus’s population principle, his admiration for Adam Smith’s fusion of
imaginative sympathy with self-interest, implies that political economy is intrinsically
progressive. Shelley was not concerned with re-imagining the world, but identifying how
such ‘imagining’ works within established constructs. My third and fourth chapters explore
Shelley’s prose of 1818-21. Chapter Three focuses on A Philosophical View of Reform
(1819), specifically Shelley’s engagement with Malthus and Jeremy Bentham.
I visited Special Collections at University College London, and UCL’s Bentham Project,
working on Bentham’s Plan of Parliamentary Reform (1817). Like Shelley, Bentham
revered Smith’s enlightened view of self-interest, and condemned its ‘sinister’ distortion by
the ruling classes. However, Bentham’s manuscript confirmed his deployment of Smith’s
theories in order to establish alternative legislation – his ‘pannomion’, or utilitarian law. I
also explored two lesser-known manuscripts, ‘Political Economy – National Prospects or a
Picture of Futurity’ (1800) and ‘Paper Against Gold’ (1819). This material revealed
Bentham’s authoritarian outlook in relation to reinstating the gold standard. Although this
proposal appears radical, it is fused with the belief that ‘Liberty’ is detached from ‘Security’.
Whilst Shelley appreciated Bentham’s distinction between ‘moral’ and ‘political’ truths
(expressed in A Philosophical View of Reform), the latter’s political radicalism fails due to his
inflexible view of morality. Bentham’s works validate how Shelley distinguishes nineteenthcentury political economists from their predecessors, in that they adopt a deductive, rather
than progressive approach. Nevertheless, my research supports Shelley’s belief in the
potential within economic constructs.
I also undertook research for my fourth chapter, which will explore Shelley’s engagement
with utilitarianism in A Defence of Poetry (1821). Contrary to generalisations that he either
approved of the ‘pleasure/pain’ view of morality, or distrusted such mathematical legislation,
I provide a more balanced analysis. I aim to illustrate how Shelley admired much of David
Ricardo’s scepticism towards Smith’s philosophy, yet disapproved of the former’s overreliance upon empirical ‘facts’. I obtained access to Ricardo’s letters in the British Library,
notably his correspondence with Malthus. Whilst Malthus’s letters validate his rhetorical
skills and belief in the permanence of natural law, Ricardo’s replies illustrate his dynamic
approach to capitalism. Malthus attributes value to ‘labour alone’, due to the agricultural bias
of his theory of rent. Ricardo emphasises ‘labour and profits’, which upholds my assertion
that Shelley was fascinated by his progressive approach to finance.
To conclude, my research visit was valuable in terms of supporting a reading of Shelleyan
political economy as containing intrinsic enlightenment. I am very grateful to BARS for their
award.