1. Jerome J. McGann, The Beauty of Inflections: Literary Investigations in Historical Method and Theory (Oxford: Clarendon P, 1988), 137–38.
2. Chris Baldick, Criticism and literary Theory, 1890 to the Present (New York: Longman, 1996), 7–8.
3. Kenneth Burke, The Philosophy of Literary Form: studies in Symbolic Action (N.p.: Louisiana State UP, 1941), 110.
4. The most influential defense of intention remains that by E. D. Hirsch, Jr., Validity in Interpretation (New Haven, CT: Yale UP, 1967). His argument depends on his fundamental assumption that meaning requires not only a stable but a mastering subject. That assumption is reflected in his rhetoric throughout: “when critics deliberately banished the original author, they themselves usurped his place” (5; emphasis added).
5. See David Simpson, Irony and Authority in Romantic Poetry (Totowa, NJ: Rowman and Littlefield, 1979); Susan J. Wolfson, The Questioning Presence: Wordsworth, Keats, and the Interrogative Mode in Romantic Poetry (Ithaca, NY: Cornell UP, 1986), and Formal Charges: The Shaping of Poetry in British Romanticism (Stanford, CA: Stanford UP, 1997). Wolfson's more recent book also seeks to counter deconstructive and new historicist readers' pervasive “equation of poetic form with harmony, symmetry, and unity, and so a categorical insulation from the conflicts discovered and contemplated by” such readers, who also—mistakenly, she rightly argues— “tend to limit accounts of poetic form to the organic, the unified, the achieved, the