Material from the Romantic Circles Website may not be downloaded, reproduced or disseminated in any manner without authorization unless it is for purposes of criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, and/or classroom use as provided by the Copyright Act of 1976, as amended.
Unless otherwise noted, all Pages and Resources mounted on Romantic Circles are copyrighted by the author/editor and may be shared only in accordance with the Fair Use provisions of U.S. copyright law. Except as expressly permitted by this statement, redistribution or republication in any medium requires express prior written consent from the author/editors and advance notification of Romantic Circles. Any requests for authorization should be forwarded to Romantic Circles:>
By their use of these texts and images, users agree to the following conditions:
Users are not permitted to download these texts and images in order to mount them on their own servers. It is not in our interest or that of our users to have uncontrolled subsets of our holdings available elsewhere on the Internet. We make corrections and additions to our edited resources on a continual basis, and we want the most current text to be the only one generally available to all Internet users. Institutions can, of course, make a link to the copies at Romantic Circles, subject to our conditions of use.
All quotation marks and apostrophes have been changed: " for “," for â€, ' for ‘, and ' for '.
Any dashes occurring in line breaks have been removed.
Because of web browser variability, all hyphens have been typed on the U.S. keyboard
Em-dashes have been rendered as #8212
Spelling has not been regularized.
Writing in other hands appearing on these manuscripts has been indicated as such, the content recorded in brackets.
& has been used for the ampersand sign.
£ has been used for £, the pound sign
All other characters, those with accents, non-breaking spaces, etc., have been encoded in HTML entity decimals.
Forgery studies have developed rapidly in the past few years. No longer confined to “fakelit”—the “original” literary forgeries of Chatterton, the controversies surrounding Macpherson’s Ossian and W. H. Ireland’s Shakespeare, and the cultural hoaxes of eighteenth-century antiquarianism—forgery has moved into such areas as the law and character impersonation. The current work of Lionel Bently, as well as that of Simon Stern, is, for example, scrutinizing notions of copying within the legal frameworks of intellectual property and copyright legislation in the eighteenth century, a field tackled in a different way by Richard Terry’s recent book on literary accusations of plagiarism. Jack Lynch, meanwhile, has approached the subject from the opposite perspective, focusing on the practice of detection. In contrast, Margaret Russett, Debbie Lee, and others have focused attention on the proliferation of impostors and fraudsters in the Romantic period.
The activities of these variously fraudulent writers and performers—these “texts”—may have been hinted at in earlier work on forgery, but it is most heartening to see it is now bearing rich fruit. And the papers collected here reveal that, influenced in part by the work of Mary Poovey and Margot Finn, another, significant area of forgery studies is emerging in literary finance and forgery. These four essays all, in very different ways, examine the implications that the anxieties and politics surrounding financial fraud had in the early part of the nineteenth century.
It is notable that this work concentrates on the first two decades of the century. As Ian Haywood argues, the Bank Restriction Act, which released the Bank of England from issuing metal currency in exchange for paper banknotes, precipitated a credit crisis that exposed “Britain’s system of paper money as tantamount to a form of legalized counterfeiting”, with the result that the entire political system risked becoming effectively a “fraud.” Restriction undermined the system of credit, but it also led to a huge increase in the number of executions for forgery. As Phil Handler puts it, these trials and hangings “provided a stark public reminder of the evils of the paper system and the unreliability of Bank of England notes.” They also galvanized opposition to the government’s financial controls. As Alex Benchimol points out, radical publications such as
There is perhaps a striking parallel for today’s readers to jokes made about the
recent Bank of England’s policy of “quantitative easing”, which has been compared
with counterfeiting—and also caricatured. See Michael S. Rozeff, “Quantitative
Easing Aka Counterfeiting Money”. As an example of the sort of jokes that have circulated on
the internet, this comic parable derives from http://www.edugeek.net, but is
apparently much older than the current crisis: It’s a slow day in a little Scottish town. The sun is
beating down, and the streets are deserted. Times are tough, everybody
is in debt, and everybody lives on credit. On this particular day a
rich tourist from down south is driving through town. He stops at the
motel and lays a £50 note on the desk saying he wants to inspect the
rooms upstairs in order to pick one to spend the night. As soon as the man walks upstairs, the owner grabs the
note and runs next door to pay his debt to the butcher. The butcher takes the £50 and runs down the street to
repay his debt to the pig farmer. The pig farmer takes the £50 and heads off to pay his
bill at the supplier of feed and fuel. The guy at the Farmer’s Co-op takes the £50 and runs to
pay his debt to the local prostitute, who has also been facing hard
times and has had to offer her “services” on credit. The hooker rushes to the hotel and pays off her room
bill with the hotel owner. The hotel proprietor then places the £50 back on the
counter so the rich traveller will not suspect anything. At that moment the traveller comes down the stairs,
picks up the £50 note, states that the rooms are not satisfactory,
pockets the money, and leaves town. No one produced anything. No one earned anything. However, the whole town is now out of debt and now
looks to the future with a lot more optimism.
The credit crisis (with its attendant language of forgery) also pervaded the
politics of the time. Benchimol himself considers the production, representation,
and circulation of radical knowledge to show that there was an explicit radical
campaign against the system of paper money. William Cobbett energetically exposed
the mystifications of the financial system, which, he argued, was spectral: it had
no bodily existence and paper money had merely imaginary value. The system was,
according to Cobbett, “profoundly immoral, unjust, and constructed upon an
unsustainable foundation of monetary abstractions.” His response was to outline a
mass campaign of active resistance. Cobbett argued that it was the act of
This shift in forgery studies towards legal property and financial forgery also offers opportunities to reconsider authenticity. In legal and financial areas the definitions of forgery and counterfeit are conflated and wholly entangled, and this informs recent work by Robert Hopkins, who argues that aesthetic meanings of forgery should be governed by establishing artistic intentions, in essence mimicking the legal definition of the crime of forgery. Yet it is clear that the distinction between forgery as an “original” composition attributed to another, and counterfeit as an exact copy of a pre-existent work remains a valuable distinction—if only in aesthetics.
In one of two essays of literary criticism here, Robert Miles pursues the relationship between aesthetics and economics by usefully arguing that forgery is a “hinge” linking the two systems. Focusing on Jane Austen’s
Miles’s earlier work on impostors encourages Alex Dick to analyse the figure of the Byronic rogue Sir Gregor MacGregor as an impostor or fraudster inspired in part by Walter Scott’s
These four essays therefore indicate some of the directions that this field may take. There will be others: more work is needed for example on the Gold Standard and the national debt (Haywood reveals that by 1821 it was 2.7 times the national income), and it would be good to see legal historians, economic historians, and literary historians work together to trace, for example, counterfeiting, plagiarism, and the emergence of copyright through the eighteenth century and into the nineteenth century. In the meantime, these studies afford a new opportunity to reassess literary finance and forgery in the period.