Abstract
It is one of the greatest paradoxes in the history of English literature that a country most conservative should have had a poet of the revolution. And it is even more paradoxical to think that England, so thoroughly established in the conservatism of her nobility, should have had one of her aristocrats, a member of a noble house which was able to trace its lineage back to the days of the Norman Conquest, become the favorite poet of anarchy and rebellion and of men in revolt against the religious and the moral and the social standards of God and man.