'False, fleeting, perjured Clarence': pseudonymity and criminality in the writings of James Clarence Mangan

This article explores the significance of the adopted partial pseudonym “Clarence” to James Clarence Mangan (1803-1849), who is increasingly regarded as the most important Irish poet before W. B. Yeats. Tracing the literary history of “Clarence” from Shakespeare to Maria Edgeworth, this essay argues that the intriguing adoption exposes a preoccupation with themes of unlawful textual copying that is at the centre of Mangan’s imagination. These tropes assume singular significance when appreciated alongside Mangan’s profession as a scrivener. While literary criticism has separated Mangan the poet from Mangan the legal scribe, his hitherto under-explored assumption of “Clarence” provides a clue to their close and crucial connection. These themes of pseudonymity, copying, and criminality combine with particular resonance in his quasi-translation “The Man in the Cloak” (1838) to open up new perspectives on Mangan’s writing and its participation in wider European cultural contexts and concerns. The essay will conclude with a salient comparison of Mangan’s story with Nikolay Gogol’s seminal story “The Overcoat”, or, “The Cloak” (1842).

Kingship by Descent or Kingship by Election? The Contested Title of James VI and I

Throughout the reign of Elizabeth I, a steady stream of tracts appeared in English print to vindicate the succession of the most prominent contenders, Mary and James Stuart of Scotland. This article offers a comprehensive account of the polemical battle between the supporters and opponents of the Stuarts, and further identifies various theories of English kingship, most notably the theory of corporate kingship, developed by the Stuart polemicists to defend the Scottish succession. James's accession to the English throne in March 1603 marked the protracted end of the debate over the succession. The article concludes by suggesting that, while powerfully renouncing the opposition to his succession, over the course of his attempt to unify his two kingdoms, James and his supporters ultimately departed from the polemic of corporate kingship, for a more assertive language of kingship by natural and divine law.

Accounts of debates in the House of Commons, March– April 1731, supplementary to the diary of the first earl of Egmont

John Perceval (1685–1748), 1st Viscount Perceval and (from 1733) 1st Earl of Egmont, was an assiduous recorder of his own life and times. His diaries, published by the Historical Manuscripts Commission from manuscripts in the British Library, are the best source for parliamentary debates at Westminster in the 1730s. For the years 1730-1733, when Perceval sat in the Commons (as an Irish peer) they are remarkably full. His practice seems to have been to prepare two versions (presumably on the basis of notes taken in the House), the first attributing speeches to individuals, and the second, entered up in the diary, which listed speakers and summarized all arguments on each side. His letterbooks for 1731 contain accounts of five debates that embody his first editing process, with speeches attributed to individuals. They were sent to an Irish correspondent, Marmaduke Coghill, and largely omitted from the diary because Perceval had already transcribed them elsewhere. They are new to historians and cast light on two main issues: the unsuccessful attempts by Perceval and the ‘Irish lobby’ to persuade the British parliament to settle the Irish woollen trade, a question bedevilling Anglo-Irish relations in this period; and an attempt by the opposition to stir up anger against perceived Spanish aggression against Gibraltar. One of the most interesting features is the insight afforded into the Commons performances of Sir Robert Walpole: his management of debates, his own style of speaking, and his sharp exchanges with opponents like William Pulteney.