The panel convenes several of the most distinguished scholars in the field, all of whose careers suggest that Byron’s works remain central to new developments in literary criticism, theory, and technologies—particularly in the fields of Textual Studies, Book History, and the Digital Humanities. More broadly, the papers demonstrate how Byron remains significant within the fields of Literary History, Publishing History, Print Dissemination, Poetic Influence, Celebrity Culture, and Life-Writing.

At the same time, the panel first offers a nuanced, diverse survey of new approaches—approaches that have been recently been advanced during the past year of commemorations for the Byron Bicentennial. These approaches include new interpretations concerning historiography (see Susan Oliver’s summary); linguistics (see Tom Mole’s description); and poetics (see the approaches described by Angela Esterhammer and Michael Macovski). In each of these cases, panelists first reconsider existing scholarship advanced during the bicentennial year—and then go on, both to build on this foundation and offer new, original exegesis.

The session will also locate Byron’s oeuvre in relation to both literary history and discoursal networks—by reconsidering (and often introducing) his dialogic connections. Throughout the session, Byron will emerge as a critical focal point, poetic innovator, social catalyst—and fulcrum of an ongoing literary dialogue. In this context, the panel demonstrates that Byron’s circle—including both contemporaries and antecedents—is remarkably more expansive, global, influential, and inter-cultural than has heretofore been suggested.

In this context, Angela Esterhammer’s current work contributes to our proposed, “new approaches” session by demonstrating that Byron’s circle actually includes John Galt—which again proves that this discoursal circle is intratextual, intertextual, and cross-cultural. In this context, Professor Esterhammer’s discussion of how Galt—who knew Byron well—both extended and reconceived Byron’s poetics and biography. Her insights into this relationship are new, original, and genuinely significant within the fields of Literary History, Publishing History, Print Dissemination, Poetic Influence, Celebrity Culture—and Life-Writing.

Susan Oliver’s proposed paper also investigates how Byron, in CHP and letters, enables a “new approach” to Byron--one that re-reads the environmental impact of the Napoleonic wars, and also directly invokes several other Romantic poets. At the same time, she analyzes how Byron re-reads the actual writers whom he saw during his European travels.

Tom Mole’s proposed paper demonstrates that Byron often deploys curses, and argues that Byron’s curses often emerge from a sense of being oneself cursed – which leads to a doom loop of cursing and being cursed, from which only the ‘forgiveness curse’ in CHP can provide an escape. In terms of our overall panel, the paper demonstrates how Byron both invokes and extends the cursing form used by Byron’s contemporaries—including its deployment by Percy Shelley and other Romantic-era writers.

Finally, Michael Macovski’s proposed paper analyzes Byron’s extended associations within the Romantics’ discoursal networks and dialogic communities. In this context, Byron’s poetry often incorporates the discourse of his antecedents, exemplars, and publishers—including a lineage extending from Horace, through Pope, through Thomas Creech—and then encompassing references to John Murray and William Murray (Pope’s editor). Such lineages later link the textologies of Byron, Creech, Moore, Rogers, and Scott—and thereby uncover a palimpsest of linguistic, thematic, and historical dialogues.

Each of these papers represents a different stage of Byron’s career—and together they will constitute a compelling, dialogic conversation. Taken as a whole, the papers will form a vibrant colloquy, not only showing ongoing excitement for the bicentennial year, but providing new material for future work in literary and textual studies—and demonstrating how this work matters in our classrooms, our scholarship, and our public lives.

It is such diverse engagements that this panel seeks to represent and celebrate—looking at the past two hundred years—and beyond.

As far as our session diversity is concerned, we are glad to say that our panel participants have considered gender diversity (inasmuch as we are featuring two women and two men)—as well as geographic diversity (inasmuch as we feature speakers from three distinct countries: Canada, England, and the U.S.). What is more, our proposed papers locate (and re-textualize) Byron in relation to several distinct, intercultural topics—including Byron’s multi-lingual and multi-dialectal discourse; his place in European history; and his influence on gender identity.