'KUB.EA KHAN'AND THE F..(:lLL OF JERUSALEM THE MYTHOLOGICAL SCHOOL IN BIBLICAL CRITICISM AND SECULAR LITERATURE 1770-1880 E. S. SHAFFER , ,, Lecturer in Comparative Literature 蹈oolof European Stud还， Universityof East心glia s`t' ) If CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY PRESS CAMBRIDGE LONDON• NEW YORK·MELBOURNE 畸 i j 泊｀ .` , I. 飞· 1ii , ． 一 ． 卢 恤l - Published忖theSyndics of the Cambridge University Press IN MEMORY OF F. K. N. The Pitt Building, Trumpington Street, Cambri弛e'cB2 IRP Bentley Hpuse; 200 Eusto,n Road, l:pnclo沁WI 2DB . 296 Beaco3n2s fEiealsdt P5a7rtahd eS,t rMeeitd, dNlee wPa-Yrko, rMk, eNlbYo utronoe式 32U0S6A, Australia iii`i'~ I I , , ~l Library of Congress Catalogue Card Number: 74节正 袒严 『｀书 , ＇ ISBN: o 521 20478 x r ， 甘 First published 1975 Printed in Great Brit社nby Western Printing Services Ltd, Bristol 户尼斗升%7 ．伈'-I S 5 J $ ` 4 } 俨 ． ） ' ?3\4\ 哪 ＼ ＇ n` 产 a ,. 、 ,, ` .. , , CONTENTS Acknowledgements ix I726 Introduction, I2 I69 The 如flof Jerusalem: Coleridge's unwritten epic The visionary character: Revelation and the lyrical ballad 34 The oriental idyll Holderlin's'Patmos'ode and'Kubla Khan': mythological doubling 145 56 Browning's St John: the casuistry of the higher criticism 191 Daniel Deronda and th~conventions of五ction 225 Appendix A: Eichhorn's outline of the poetic action of the Book of Revelation 292 Appendix B: A translation of Holderlin's'Patmos' 296 ,P atmos' 3句 Notes 沪9 Select Bibliograp勿 346 Index 357 . ，昼 vii , . 1'＇_ i_1，」ii,d ' i i ; t I ' i f , 令 I t ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 卜 山 ” 4;'＇|_，．\． . • I\ -,r_II4!, ； i I should like to thank Clare Hall, Cambridge, where I have been a 1j Research Fellow during the writing of this book. I should also like to thank Peter and Ursula Dronke for their several fertile suggestions in the earliest phase of this book; and John Beer for many kindnesses and Coleridgean'aids to reflection'during the time I have been in ：：＊ Cambridge. John Rosenberg sympathetically read and indispensably criticized the manuscript in its first, most tentative form. I am equally t indebted to Michael Black for his painstaking and constructive reading of a later dra归巠sM平rl<!_nd kindly gave abundant advice on a number of points both before and after the publication of his own book on Coleridge. P. H. Gaskfll generously permitted me to consult ) a portion of his thesis, then in progress, on Holderlin's pietist milieu. Peter Dronke checked the accuracy of the translations from the Latin. The editors of Coleridge's Lectures z又95 On Poli五'cs and Rel~耍 on, Peter Mann and Lewis Patton, and the English publish~rs of The C必cted Coleridge,R outledge and Kegan Paul, were kind enough to make the text available to me before publication. Acknowledgement should also be made to the Librarian of Reading University, who permitted me to consult the microfilm copies of the Victoria MSS; and to the Librarian of Jesus College, Cambridge, who permitted me access to copies of Coleridge's notebooks. Mr A.H. B. Coleridge gave permission to quote from unpubl_ishedm anuscript sources. George Whalley, the editor of the marginalia for The Collected Colerid;_胚 generously helped to check my readings against the originals and his transcripts. I should like to thank him also for his kind permission to consult his thesis on Coleridge's reading (London, 1950). Kathleen Coburn kindly checked my readings of the MS notebooks against her authoritative transcripts. Some of the material in Chapter 3 was given as a paper delivered to the Congress of the Federation Internationale ix 仆， ．匮亡， Li_ t"＇，．｀ A忐owledgements ＇_r_! 倡｀ d5e ws aLsa pnugbuleiss heet dL iitnter昨atutroersi aMn Sodtuedrnieess (iDn e1c9e6m9b;a e br r1ie9f7 v2e)r.s Mioinc hoafe Cl Lhoaepwteer . ｀畛十，．｀1!i e职ntr耻ustmedJ omnees .w iIt hs hhoisu lhda nadlssoo mliek ef irtsot eedxiptiroenss omf yT hgerat肮itudrek stoof t岛he INTRODUCTION ，亡'~- 1_lm_ Reverend Professor C. F. D. Moule, the Reverend John Sturdy, Dr Ernst Bammel, the Reverend Stephen Sykes, and especially Father Reginald Fuller, for their assistance on Biblical critical problems. Finally, to Lionel Trilling my debt of gratitude is longstanding and 111 nL| all-encompassing; any thanks I can render must be understood as _|I,' truly apocalyptic abbreviation referring to the accumulated wisdom of This nook proposes, in effect, a new method of literary criticism, or, r ,'L theI Fwa出ishe rsal.sroy -mtoh oalcaoke nnoigwmleadtigceo . gratefully th,e help of Mrs Mildred acrti tain七sy. rTathee, ai nmteunttaitoino n-iosf toex iesxtipnlgo rper atchteic ep oasmsiobnigli tiEens gloifs ha-s pleitaekrainryg 'h,_E,r+｀甘 ,,_, Pickett, who typed out, against her conscience; the blasphemous matter critici~m which can absorb and bring to bear on literature the work of of the higher criticism, and of Mrs Betty Sharp, who carried on when 亟r disciplines. A 和11 history of the higher criticism as such is n征 i， I conscience struck again. , intended; there is, however, every re部on, both conventional and What I owe to the positive and present aid of my husband Brian novel, to treat the higher criticism. Surprisingly, no full history of th}e I Shaffer I might itemize at length; the depths of'his for'bearance I cari higher criticism exists in English, and no full history of the higher only g组tefully surmise. critical movement in England exists in any language. Even the most — ! autporitative English accounts are sketchy and partial, rely on Victorian r Camhridge E. S. S. I sources, convey inadeqµate knowledge of the major German sources, i 1972 show little grasp of the place of the higher criticism in a general 、 1 European movement of ideas and equally little of the very specific local history of its reception and practice in England. They place thefr em汕asis largely on'the late, that is, the mid-nineteenth-century history of the·movement without any indication of its lively'earlier history in England: Accounts of c1,1rre1v).ite ws. are largely a-historical. From the literary point of view, the situation is, if anything, even less satisfactory: the!e is no treatment whatsoever of Coleridge's relation to the higher criticism, though he was, if not an innovator, one of its subtlest exponents, and his religious thought in general cannot be understood without it; !}Or is·there any adequate treatment of the 壶cts of the movement on George Eliot's·practice as a novelist. Indeed, there is ho satisfactory account of its effect on any English ,'_ ` a呻or, despite cdnstant glancing allusions·to it in critical and scholarly j 氐吐nents of the Victorians. N 0 single book could hope to remedy all these defects at once-. I shall b e content if the present book does something to bring out the rec叩tionin England in the second half of the eighteenth century of the x I · i_ \ 、 .. mythological school of GermIanntr ocdriutcictiiosmn as it was shaped by Herder 磕dentlyautonomous wholeIn ttoro pd七uocvtiiodne such a framework, he points t','｀｀｀ll_'，'． dut; biography in particular is'of historical interest only to a Yery and Eichhorn, and the continuity with the more familiar history of 年i1_' \ Vagecn'ltnrroiitetotciwTeaitutrruhto,neai diro rdasieynman' sh ,nd b iis s looaoiitftecoonc uorkhdiaoy n a vl.tosn oire sfoogbr ,v tyyTea ete ' hihsrnfnwiisees mynwot r,,irp e sskolao a ypwft e e ofhihdrattfiohsi r ls v aeatlapa,oroe strsraf, .i yf diootet ihin urnnre os gets lfihmyc u tpoe spio ad'rgelsaniienrnttcdafe ittizps_riics;meatr i iuesraoiay gsltnt st geheiamen rensssgr diti.egn i d vlpheeaperet,teo l idyrobi ef lnltulvbeousnemy mnc cw t Ciooinibnnortaeh ysnct i'itbrdnitaianeetgricrert cm iknistt sttehhamidceel ,I巾 , iflm驾attadihihfrmeeefieel；soar di伍 aetrssdedtl, ty odosde飞 u ifmG,o rbdv~efoupile oiydtlntgnhlde uirfdoemvdaeo g,leier lasyr cipwtnst,eaoeeinsnotrrr y tadrhe ktr awdhys pi et naosua wr rdnin tonayhdstnrsh e ku pe( .fmulio 3fanpsvi wodY ceesiir,rrefet ste uptnyoc croc-nnottsylh aemitw etlaroiiimrrctac flyayyk o lt't en, hhoa nh ealf cilf ts ao'toconthsrorftoe eih rnt,oy wei teauc,rl h uii.rs eea tmch xtIierfonp oiv ristewfeni,ur crtiefi omafts h incmmcetedlhina oe ettrwnrva itefhcrelhia_ay icetsdpb asotnis oettf yieiyr oboiceyotnonhah n tacoeodhilh rft ，ti'itI_l_1``．`｀`4t,ii!｀;`1l`I'r,'＇， \ critics, by Luk缸s everywhere in his WX>rkb,y Sara,, in La Cri,;qu, Je c: etc.), is concerned with a sufficiently autonomous / la raison dialectique, translated in part as The'Question of M.巫 od, by Goldmann's problem, the relation of the whole and its parts, belongs Lucien Gol如1ann in Le-Dieu ca啦， and by Roland Barthes, in a succession of works, especially Critique et veri戊， in a scintillating、and to diale七tical thinking, and his perception of it as a problem comes challenging, rather than definitive or acceptable, fashion. English and froni his adherence to 如t school; nevertheless, the problem can he ＾葛 Alikmee frhicea nd eCp五tht iocsr hraavneg ea popr rsoyasctheemda ttihce sinet eqnuteiostni onosf tthoeos,e bwurt itienr sn. othing soof ldvieadl,e c如tic imtsaenlfy, mpuorrpeo sdeirse catplyar·at nfdro wmi tthh ele sstsr iacptplya rpahtuilso sthoapnh ihcea lh cimrusceelsf 4:t1+3t,+, employs and without resort to the terminology of a particular school. As Goldmann has said., To clarify what is nieant for our purposes by the·isolation of'a In non-dialectical'works, the chapters 9evoted to theory in sociologicala nd ··d;.t. sufficiently autonomous subject matter', we may cite the successful historical studies, and conversely, the chapters devoted to social and l example offered by Michel Foucault's Histoire de lafolie, in which the historical reality in histories of ideas or of literature'and the~rts; are treated history of views of madness in the Enlightenment impinges directly on as.e xtraneous bodies; they are usually inspired oy an interest in pure erudi tion or o乐red merely in the interest of general information. For the dia-, literature and yet belongs genuinely to the subject-matter of both lectical thinker, however, doctrines form the integrating part ,of the social psychology and medicine. 5 Foucault is enabled by his disentanglement reality itself and can be detached from it only by makeshift abstractions; the of just this subject-matter to exercise a literary criticism of su中assing study of them is an indispensableel ement of thee枭ctivestudy of the problem interesf and ,origiefality, and to produce at the s扣e time·a critique not in the same ways that social and historical reality constitutes one of the most simply of outmoded medical theories but of modem psychology at its important elements for understanding the spiritual life of an age.1 ro。三迦exemplifies 出e unsolved antinol!! gh, It is not necessary·to be an avowed dialectical·thinker (nor, ·like at t e centre o n 1ght'ehn ment t ou t th·eu ls 1m taneous 血stence 芷3 Goldmann, to equate·this with'marxist') to be-persuaded of the justice 芒釭 t and_uMiiti@母 I of this analysis; the history of ideas appears in·our literary c_riticism, l 字ecttve or intui亟至竺泛he if式 all, deplorably impoverished, mechanical, and trivial. 1so atton o e su c1ent y autol)omous. whole', then, implies se ection -In Le Dieu ca啦， Goldmann stated the problem succiqctly: of a subje七t-mattet which cuts across the boundaries of the traditional The methodologicalp roblem, as fruacs the humanities or the scienceo f man ;, 亟iplines, yet which in practice, to be manageable, must be smaller concerned, is principally this: that of dividing the immediately'availablef acts than any traditional discipline; it implies a subject-matter which can be into relative wholes which are sufficientlya utonomous to provide·a frame as clearly defined as a discipline, although defined uniquely ano for this work for scientifici nvestigation.2 purpose 叫one, in order to illuminate the peculiar qualities of the period. It-may he helpful to think of this subject-matter as an activity, Neither the individual work nor the personality'of the author forms a 2 3 iI' I Ti ` 义＼． '、.I' ， “i. Introduction Introduction ,r deliberately chosen the hardest case:'Kubla Khan'(and, in the second 中 { instance, the odes of Holderlin), poetry often claimed to be'pure~ 心 i_I _|,I i , poetry', poetry of extreme lyricism, emergin? unwilled from a con-/ / l, I . sciousness炉loosed from considerations of rat10nal order, is brought 1, 1 into relation with Biblical criticism, a body of highly technical infor- '` 3 1 mation and intricate, specialized, restricted practice. But this is only an apparent opposition. Northrop Frye, in a well known passage calling for a new literary criticism in our own time, has 1户 written, _ ，？ The absence of any genuine}yl iterary criticism of the Bible in modern times 1i (until very recently) has left an enormous gap in our knowledge of literary symbolism as a whole, a gap which all the new knowledge brought to bear on it is quite incompetent to fill. I feel that historical scholarship is without ex ception 1lower'or analytic criticism, and that'higher'criticism would be a quite different activity. The latter seems to me to be a purely literary criticism which would see the Bible, not as the scrapbook of corruptions, glosses, redactions, insertions, conflations, misplacings and misunder sta~dings revfaled by the analytic critic, but as the typological unity which all these things were originally intended to help construct. .. A genuine higher criticism, of the Bible, therefore, would be a synthetizing process which would start with the assumption that the Bible is a definitive myth, a , single archetypal structure extending from creation to apocalypse. 7 Frye seems to be unaware of the fact that precisely what he is pleading for was accomplished by the higher criticism from Herder to Strauss; ！兰iterary criticism is the hip;匣 宁守m of literature, and 巠_ is o严priri_c主 that in every age of literature there tends to be some kind of central encyclo paedic form, which is normally a scripture or sacred book in the mythical mode, and some'analogy of revelation'... in other modes is a principle available to him because so much romantic literature 乒 ｀， adopted and is based upon it. t; S 呻严止cmght in this perio~w~se产inal 汇牛尸一空 ，＇ \ 尸vemen氐 of Eu~()pe_R; ene Wei ek as s own e e ect of this _in itera对 history, and his views have been extensively corroborated in ,R omantic'and Its Cognates: the European"!'Jl众tory of a 阮rd.8 The history of Biblical criticism exhibits in a very well-defined way the relations between German and English thought. The local dispute over 4 5 n llll,. } '3?．＇勹' lI ..`' ' 今令 ＼, 咖咖喻 ＇ ， 寸 加roduction Introduction 已马 , Coleridge's indebtedness pales into insignificance; it is only another g .and contribution·w, the higher·criticism: German histories of the Apfar nomcoifoe vdeo tmfo ebAnetn cguollfop -taAhbimlsy e sariilgconaninef i cinap nahcriose,c dahneipdael insscdmoe pnecth eca aot nnn CTooet luebtroein drigeced supscehecoduu ltlaodt iothbnee. 1·, ·l'1riftl,,云' ,，咖` mtthraoen vshelimasttieoonrnty odofo fS ,nttvhoaetu msmso'esvn-Detimoanse L nht必 imienn; jEEensngug;llaiLnshdif esb toeufgdJ ieinesssu s-w.t eiTtnhdh e户tG oineaaocsrsgcueems sEeibl iitolhitat'syt __, .'I-＿＿＿＿＿＿二＿＿＿， I mechanics (or the moralities) of transmission. The'collapse of the \ of some of his·,most interesting work, which still lies concealed in ontological foundations of religion'(Luk知s's phrase) arid the conse ·,ij' marginalia on German theological works and in his late unpublished ',';·_,',.! I' quent reinterpretation of the major religious text of the W.est is a l,1 hotebooks and manuscripts, has doubtless played a part in this neglect. communal event. It is, of course, also a private event, and proceeds ~ ., 召 It is certain, however, that his early knowledg~of_th~J:!~W-~r坤cism tehmroburagche s tbhoet hi nansepre cststr uogfg ltera nosmf isinsidoinv,i dpuualb licco nasncdi enpcriev.a'Itnef.l uHenacreo'l d ,ili,i~i 熏．， _竺wasv ery gr~ 卫叫e mthoavtedit icna nd uhrein cgl atr卢ified~-hrh廷血i型c逵h堕twheerrea dfuicllay! I1 lB loom has charac:;terizedt he history of English poetry since Milton as aware o the new Contin~ntal work and among the first to espouse it ·`, an effort of each·succeeding poet to grapple with a forebear whom he 心管雪 without subterfuge; to text-critical work that was largely carried on \in· Ii' experienced as greater than himself. Coleri9ge's sense of subjectipn to I Latin rather than German; to translations of such important works as greatrtess in others was one of many ways in which his·sensibility 止 ．心、打 J. D. Michaelis's Einleitung in das Neue Testament, Introduction to the 喻，心 见 尸 fostered the growth of a genuinely new literary and religious aestheti<;s New Testament; and to his contacts with Germany through Dr Thomas in which he himself is a figure of European stature. ＂熏，, Beddoes in Bristol. By the time he encountered Eichhorn personally .4,' ` heJ ?!_o于op_e an拉呾_significanc~_?f~n i_ti竺! 皿竺竺卫 in Gottingen in 1798, he was already an adept: I have by no means 心 however, do not exempt us from~nowing t e mode of its transmission. 1 essayed a complete investigation of these ear!y contacts; but I hope the 霆 ·archety严匝fory favoured by some~xcell~n.t literary c五ticS'i; notes offer some'useful indications of them. ` 、．屯... impotent to render the fine shades of experience. . M. H. Abrams has German philosophy has always been known to stand in the immediate written of the importance of the Bible in the period: background of Coleridge's criticism and even his poetry; yet it has never seemed possible to display the interrelations without appearing 'fhe concurrence in topics and design among these very diverse writers was 叩 to over-systematize, and so to draw further from, rather如nnearer to, less the result of mutual influence than it was of a'common climate of如 ｀ 只 Coleridge's poetic and critical habits. 卫迳 higher criticism provides a post-Revolutionary age, and of a grpunding in a~础 monbody of materials- ｀ 呻tion to this perennial P,roblem, for it is an intermedia巧 hetwefn 'I区 above all in the Bible, especiallya s expotinded by radical~rotestant vision:. aries, many of whon: had assimilated~modicum of N eoplatonic lore. 艺_and literary critic;sm: ~shaped 切 philos_o~ll.ical co:t'.ls妇 9 产~at every S!妇 yebinko v启in the closest po~sible·analysis吐 旦tis precisely the common experience .of the~ible that was a~e_d 1terary,t exts it moves ac an orth between the two worlds with 色） i兰oiigh_a sp~cifi~series of work_s妇 ，写二竺沪三三三竺 笃e'known t矗ery diyerse writer吐逵吐皿止竺 凇s, were en碑卢n主皿ing that 如 s釭e~tht bel()言犀芒 w ose :experience of the'post-Revolutionary ag七'was.much more mythology: The new harmonizing of the Bible with ot er myt o og1es \ diverse than their experience of revaluations of the Biblical text). The t諒百孟d from the struggle between the claims of a scientific 血portance of precise knowledge of the critical te文tsand their diffusion scholarship and the claims of traditional religion yielded at last a series is'血ply that the mood or tone of an.age; as of an individual, is. the of vital answers i:o the question of what system of the supernatural iridirect expression of what questions of truth五nd falsity are held to 三could be made viable in二 modern poetry. As the二 Renaissance ar ument be at stake. Despite the central importance for all of Coleridge's thinking of the eptc to ot er genres a tered, new contertt became available, and the poet \J nature of religious verity, there is no study of Coleridge's interest in, was in some sort restored to his o伍ce as bard and seer. f'' 7 , 6 .. .. 昙觯., "'"" ,_,_,, ,,, "! -----. -:::i -II / ,r.L'i, <.,, Too often Coleridge's religIniotruosd uvcietiwosn, fike his philosophical view丫4s, .r- whoomrkeewdo io:lnc . bHitiss 扣jocdossec raan恼tiquIpnaetrrrifoaodnruicscem:ti,o Lndo iwsmesi sssiinmgp lays difi do nn opt ridnoc iphlies ,1I'I'|Il,I' .!_____, have been interpreted with a literalism completel'f foreign to the higher ，一． critical movement. The style of the apologists for Christianity partook ) the immediate intellectual mllieu, belongs to what Philippe Sollers has called the'needle-work class'of literary criticism. We must tum of the subtle obliquities of their ironic Enlightenment opponents; often l afresh to 、Coleridge's intellectual biography. both the critical apologists and the Enlightened sceptics ran the•same 'Kubla Khan'spans Coleridge's early intellectual'history, never rbmiysok'trh eoe i fn dd cieronemuctnmicooinan t iaotnhnda n bt hywe i tththoe n theoe r touhfno'ttdhhoeix n.ko, ipnTpgho esoiirtr i otahnre g uwzmeitaehlno twuss h wtormeard eit thiaeofynfea lch酝taedd `噜 『皿「一， 知satigslfaicctaonriislym tdheast crroibdeed u. nTthhien kfiinrgst tiannfdlueemn cwesi thw ethree odfo mthien acnot mNfeowrttaobnle '_I！|，，叶 ianism of the English eighteenth century; the second were of the more As R. P.'Blackmui has written, corrosive Enfightenment sort: Coleridge while still at school became ：飞·户，卜卜俨_i Those who seem to be the chief writers ofpur time have found their subject~ an'infidel sceptic', under the aegis of Voltaire's Philosophical Dictionary. i i in attempting to dramatise at once both the culture and the turbulences it At the same time, we hear, in Lamb's famous description, he was I.lIi I was meant to control and in doing so they have had partially to create - as it orating out of Iamblichus. At Cambridge began his Unitarian associa- .,“`, happens,.t o recreate - the terms, the very symbolis=i; ubstanceo f the .culture I • tionr~()_ man _wa~educated as a'pre-romantic', that barb叩卢 as they went along. 覂c1_ry 恤吨型~The collocation of Voltaire, and neo- "!00 从 叶 The apologetical style is a form of romantic irony. The literary per "' atorusm, and Unitarianism, we shall see, makes sense in its true ”!”,I;'' _1“4 豆;J.'hepubli呻on of Coleridge's early lectures and sermons a~d spective opens for us aspects of the'higher criticism that havt:! been largely lost sight of, by accident and by desigh, in出epretensions of the the e'diting of The 阮tchman have thrown light on the years until ：＇ I nineteenth century to make of it a'positive'science and in the attempts 1796; the present work does something to clarify the crisis of 179归 in which Coleridge cast off as inadequate the post-Newtonian defences of the present century to incorporate its unavoidable results in as of revealed religion and moved towards an idealist solution. bland and a-historical a mariner as p6ssible into orthodoxy. The fact that those histories如tdo exist of the high釭criticismand its reception Goldmann, in expanding Luk知s's notion of the tragic vision, deliberately discovered his own method in those of whom he writes: in England come from theological and ecclesiastical circles has ensured the dialectical element he locates in Kant and reacls back to Pascal is for lth~e loss of this per三spective.声 uall 酰the et三s ective =of criti~a骂l' 岫 comfortably at one with his marxist'dialectics. I am noeaftogether 吁亡 persuaded by this as a method of analysis, though it is undeniably 画ticing as a mode of critical empathy and a way to a unified style. In him如m his'style. No style exists j,er se. J. L. Lowes's imppsingly wr6ng-headed book Ihe Road to Xanadu the present case, the kind of philosophica1 thinking which lies behind the achievements of Biblical criticism at the beginning of the nineteenth has for forty years stood in the way of comprehension·of Coleridge's century also forms part of the history of the analysis of'consciousness' poetry. Lowes's associative theory of the imagination, belied by Coleriqge's theory and practice alik~, has been rightly dismissed; yet at which Luk盆s and Goldmann have practised; ,indeed, Feuerbach's critique of religion, treated here as the major influence, with Strauss, the satne t血， illogically, his account of Coleridge's sources and his 4 on George Eliot, brings us straight to Marx himself. way of deploying them has been largely 知cepted and widely imitated. It becomes evident too that the emergence of a modern form of But if his theoretical account of Coleridge's imaginative proce'ss ,is religious belief within and'through the higher criticism is one of'the wrong, as it egregiously is, we cannot accept his tale of how the'h.ooks most·conspicuous·illustrations of the Hegelian conception of "false I and-eyes'of half-remembered-phrases of charmingly exotic old folios consciousness', a study in the meaning of that phrase. Such conceptions arranged themselves into a g元atpoem. We must even doubt that these were his sources. It was Lowes, not Coleridge, whose imagination can have their full meaning now only within a theory like Luk盆s's of 8 9· r `l_l,L' `$'·,f'13,_ Introduction Introduction commentaire est entre clans le texte': this is Sainte如uve,speaking of Ballanche." - 卜鲁矗舅，＇． For'Goldmann, the'possible consciousness'of a period (a notion I' he is prepared to. call'the principal instrument of scientific thinking , , , ,l_nri!1l_ in the human sciences'), is expressed in its highest artistic works: . these are the limits of a class's achievement. Lukacs, more interestingly, I , I ha'cowlal虹dssse -nctehosansts'ccolifao suass -ncceloasnssss'ic sai otf uoasrnn yLe sugsk'iiv缸tseesnl' fa tpimocieasl y-opptaipsco 'sG.edoIt l dtsome eatmnhnes tpaoco timunatesl msoeoulstf,t- E_r.ri1?i5_TI'」.l'l useful to think of'possible consciousness'as what mi?ht have been accomplished by any parti吐lar class without altering tts nature; and 值俨卜十 this can be read at die margin~.of a period, as Georges Bataille and ,＆·卜 Barilies have read Bahac's story'Sarrasine'as a'limit-text'in which ( ，＇， extreme possibi1itieso pen out into the futu夕把钮ne竺竺气竺 t·! 杲 , nt霄竺ot o兰nly 飞thee s,fiisxtheifed ,v thtihoisele snseut nmo~umet btahfr~三izminyg 三, tahnea竺 lcyesnis勹tr oalf,t e早bnu tt,吽 三theh et玉seno血n歪 tvhee, 1叶_＇，＇｀'+,III'I' 邕;皮 genre proble s o more tra ition literary history, for in these forms . @ 气a-~t~best如al?窃 with the oter s严三五三工匼 T`I· ana ys1s. e contmum concern wit enres ma be seen as the 盂~of 1江!ary des卢te rev芦 ，斗 ,` Fret'J.ch history, the to:e of the 蓝mod~rn purveyed by Harthes, and indeed as the continuity .o f aesthetic idealism, where genres are strictly parallel to, and expressive of, the development of consciousness, whether paradigrriatically analysed as in Schelling or historically emergent as in Hegel. If this traditional approach is maintained and justified historically by its link with the poets here under discussion in a way that may seem theoretic ,_ _ ally unjustified (in so far as I have said that after all one's terminology I ,. ..•• must not be cont伍uous with the·situation under analysis),— at 归 ✓✓ we shall examine ilie genres at their moments of greatest flux and 书· 画er血nty, as fuattes and densi归h 庄竺1is of transfor呾 , 声 closest t逞olition. 三not to say that I一;spouse Raymond Williams's notion that 卜 'changing structures of feeling'normally precede more recognizable ,' changes of fo如al ideal, belief, and institution.,.!._doubt v.r邑归 ＄芒言竺气玉separable from formaJiz~~ha~and if they are, w e er the qudtion of priority is capable of solution. In practice, moreover, Williams's view leads to an all too fam出ar evasion of the IO II 艾~， ' ;" 4;i, " 谥泌， I l