D,/t,l/r

-
F^rlaoB ll 0x,,11
#t: In our first classthis weekyou mentionedthat therearetalesthat seemasif they
werewritten for us: that we--andnot others--aretheintendedaudience.You mentioned
that readingKafka felt like that for you, but you alsomentionedthat this tale no longer
"speaksto you." Presumablythough,whenit did speakto you, you probablythought
therewasmuchthat wastnre--andnot simply true foryou,but universally,eternallytrue-
-in the tale. 'oChristabel"
doesnot readto me asif I wereamongits natural,intended
audience(thoughreadingsomeof Coleridge'sessays,I mustsaythat,moreoftenthan
while I agreethat part of maturingis
not, he doesspeakto me). Perhapsthis is because,
bringingto consciousawareness anhonestaccountof how thingsfeel, including,if true,
arealizationthat what othersmight deemasentirely repulsiveI find, at leastin part,
pleasurable,I feel that this is, thoughmiraculous,only the first step--settingthe stagefor
real growth. I believethat I maturenot by thenlearningto smbracewhat I find most
repellant,but by disablingthe ability of what I now perceive,ffid experience,andwhat I
haveperceivedandexperienced, from beingableto repulseme (goodriddance!:you
shouldnot havebeentherein the first place). This is not a retreatto previous
unawareness or denial: I amjust not like Blakeandoffer a role for that I oppose,andsee
a kind of "death" (an inhibition to energeticliving) in untaintedpleasure.(When I am at
my best,praiserelanesme, asit doesBlake (or so he says,but if feelingrelaxedbrings
aboutfearsof poeticimpotence,thendoeshe tnrly know what it is to be relaredwithout
this statebeingcoupledto, andfollowedby, feelingsof anxiety?),but I bestattendwhen
I am relared. Not all praiseis from this fount,but praisecanbe an indicationof having
company,andhopefor humane
an appreciativeand sympatheticaudience--humane
citizenry. Amidst loving company,it is easyto imaginereal supportfor the difficulties
you might encountershouldyou boldly explorethe world; which amountsto a "spuro'for
living life largely.)
Christabelhasa "vision of fear" whensheseesGeraldineerrbracedby Leoline,where
of this
"bosomold"--her'bosomcold." But whenthe senses
sheseesagainGeraldineos
vision passawaysheseesa new andnow comfortingvision wheresheis in this same
Geraldine'sarmswhich '?ut a rapturein her [Christabel's]breast." It is a couplingof
most feaxfulwith the mostpleasurable--that
experiences--the Coleridgeseemsto imply is
a necessarycovpling:onecannolexperienceonewithout the other: "Suchgiddinessof
heartandbrain/ Comesseldomsavefrom rugeandpain"(675-676).In Christabel'scase,
andjuxtaposedin mgmory(I think its
the fear of Geraldine'soneold breastis associated
a memory,shesayssheis strickenwith a vision) with Geraldine'scomfortinganns. But
shemust also
do we agreethat for Christabelto experiencewhat is mostpleasurable,
endureterrible pain? And if we suspectshemust,do we feel, do we "intuit," that what
we believetrue for Christabelappliesto ourselvesaswell? Doesthe poemspeakto us as
a tluth felt sopowerfully thatwe feel Coleridgehas,"perhaps,"throughnot beingafraid
to recognize andarticulatethe tnrths of experienceno matterhow discomforting ("(O
us with a universaltuth of
sorrowandshameshouldthis be true!" (674)),presented
humanexperience,ratherthan a personaltruth that canbe quite difficult for us to
acknowledgeor uncover. If we do, andif we acceptthat this kind of truttris a difficult
oneto accept(we must be brave)thenperhapsnay Sayersseemeitherimmaflne (they
pleasurefrom pain, or
haven't,like the'tirgin" Christabel,yet experienced
acknowledgedto themselvesthat they havefelt this way), and/orcloistered. However,
thosewho do not experiencethe poemasif they wereits intendedaudiencesmay be
more likely to exploreif ,"perhaps,"thetrearethingsthat arefirre (unfortunately)for
Christabelandotherswhich may not hold true for themselves.
his feelingsof
Coleridgegivesus the sensethat Leoline,asa father,likely expressed
of rage. This
love for Christabelalongwith--or, aswe aretold, eventhrough--feelings
shouldcometo our mind sinceLeoline,like Geraldine,presses"His gentledaughterto
his breast"(397)in the poem.But since,unlike aswith Geraldinewherean ernbrace
seemsto us asrxlquestionablya kind of "illicif' first for Christabelandtherefore
appropriatelywalranting a senseof real transformationin her from the experience(which
we areofferedwith her hissing,her silence,andin her voicedcomments("SureI have
with her fatherof
sinned!"(381)),Christabelhashad a full childhoodof experiences
these"miss-matched"emotionsmatchedtogether.Of courseChistabelwould find
combinationof pain with love is how she
pleasurein Geraldine'sembrace!--the
experiencesher relationshipwith her father. It is likely, for her, the fundamentalway of
experiencinglife. What maybe universalfor us HomoSapiens,if we tnrst the wordsof
(and,takeit from me, we really should),is that "[t]he capacityfor
StanleyGree,lrspan
intimacy andthe interestandpleasurederivedfrom the companyof othersarethe earliest
 that indicatereal desire"(Growthof theMind,1997). Painmustbe good,
phenomena
with somethingwe mostneed,our mostfundamentaldesire:the
becauseit is associated
that pain is not a goodthing, is
love of our parents.To denythat pain shouldbe accepted,
unlikely for someonefor whom this poemspeaksbecausepain really is good for them
in their mindswith feelingsof parentallove (or at least
becauseit is likely associated
attention). Sowe acceptthatpain pairedwith pleasuremay be like a kind of Kantian
aprioritruth abouthow we experiencethe world that we might cometo
inescapable
from a first readingof "Christabel"(andthushaveit speakto us)
consciousawareness
andChristabelwas ableto or camecloserto realizingthroughher experiencewith
Geraldineandthe "fortunate" failure of "Jesu,Maria" to "shield her well" (and sincethis
"recognition,"this bringlngto consciousawareness, canleadto furtherrefinements,
furtherexplorationsof her self it alsoqualifiesasan "enlightenmenf'),but only if our
own privateway of experiencingthe world we believeit alsofirre that we live "in a world
of sin" (673). This is the pairingI believelikely to be inseparable.
of the world asif they were
Coleridgedoesdescribechildhoodexperiences
universallythe same.Childrenwho "alwaysfi"{} andnever,""q' (659) delighting
fatherswith pleasure.This is presentedasa universaltnrth: Coleridgefollows, but does
not precede,this descriptionof a child andfather'sperceptionandfeelingswith a series
of "perhaps"which seemto follow naturallyfrom the earlierlisting of truttrs. Yet
Coleridge,throughChristabel,is offeringus an exampleof a very particularkind of
childhood:shegrewup without a mother(shedoeshavethatmotherspirit "alter,'in her
headthough,hmmm). Presumablyif pain andlove arenecessarilyintertwinedthenwhat
holds true for the fatherwould havebeentrue for the motherhad shelived: the delight
shehad for Christabelwould havebeenexpressed in 'bnmeantbitterness"(665).Yet
Coleridgedoesnot offer us senseof sucha mother. Shegaveher last prayerfor
Leoline'shappiness(throughthe gift of the child), sothe poetcanusethis to challenge
Leoline: "And wouldstthou wrongthy only child, I Her child andthine?"(634'635).
The poet asksLeolineif he shouldfreatChristabelasif shewereonly his, or if he should
treat her in a mannerappropriateto her being the child of this holy mother. Yet,
presumably,if Leolinetreatsher ashis wife intendedhe wouldnot t:eatChristabelwith
'lmcontaminated"careandlove. I
bitterness,andinsteadfieat her by-and-largewith
supposeit is possiblethat Coleridgeimaginesthat if the motherhadnot died shewould
havetreatedChristabelwith love, andher fatherwould havetreatedChristabelwith
bitterness,andthusthroughtwo differentpeopleChristabelwould haveexperiencedthe
"forc[ing] together"of oppositeemotions,andit is only becausethe fatheris the sole
parentthat he mustbe both loving andbitter--howeverI doubtthis is the case: Coleridge
doesnot seemto integratethe motherandher likely behaviortowardsChristabelhad she
lived with the "moral of the story," andis savedfrom this beingmore apparent,
presumablyeitherowing to the motherseeminghalf mythicalto us, andthuswe naturally
look for humantnrthsfrom ChristabelandLeoline,or becausewe comepreparedto
accept'the moral of the stoqy''--it "feels" right to us, so we acceptandmoveon, or, if
"seeing" this for the first time, experiencean enlightenmentandbe forever changed.(I
know, I shouldbe more carefulhere:I know that "the moral of the stoqy''could probably
be takenasimplying what the work amountsto, andI think that the overall experienceof
the poemmay not be in completeaccord,or may amountto somethingmore for the
to part two.)
in the moralizingc,onclusion
reader,thanits encapsulation
If Christabelhad experienceda motherwho had embracedher in childhood,andkept
her warm to her youthful breast,I doubtvery much that Christabelwould havehad an
enlighteningexperiencethroughGeraldine'sernbrace(again,I acceptthat given the
natureof her father,understandingthat "sinful" behaviorcanbe connectedwith
pleasurablefeelingswould havebeenan enlighteningrcalizationfor her). Shemay
insteadhavebeenleft with the new understandingthat sheshoulddo her bestto avoid
suchexperiencesin future. If her experienceof the world wasthroughan eady
relationshipwith a loving motherandfatherwho did not provide"mixed messaget"--..9.,
I punishyou becauseI love you--shewould not readilyconcedethat the world shelives
in is "a world of sin": it neverwould havefelt that way to her. Shemay not take
pleasurein Geraldine'sembracebecauseshewould havebeenfortunateenoughto know
what it is like to experiencerapttrous love without it being coupledwith crushing,snake-
againsta wann andloving breast).As is, with her
like, pain (a lovely e,mbrace
with her fatherof theseoppositesseemingnecessarilyeovpledtogether,she
experiences
quite believably experiencespleasure;but had shehad a firm conception,from
of beingwarmly lovedwithout needingto integrate,becauseof
continuousexperiences,
their absence,feelingsof hatredaswell, a couplingof a wann ernbracewith a cold breast
would at leastfeel like a couplingof oppositesthat couldbe imagined,as being
disentangled--withtheentiretyof the experienceimaginedandunderstoodasbeing all
the bettersansthe "cold, old breast"i.e.,had Geraldine'sembracebeenunambiguouslya
loving one. Fromher new experiencewith Geraldineshecouldconcludethat the
combinationof hateandlove amountsto--atbest--a'fuateringdown" of an experienceof
true love, becauseshewould havea conceptionof love availablein her memorythat is
unavailableto her assheis in the poem.
This, I suspect,ffi&ybe misinterpreted,ffid thereforeseemunimaginative--butwhat I
am not saytngis that what we sometimestakeasbeingugly cannotbe envisionedby
someoneelseassomethingbeautiful. I am not sayingthat an old woman,with only one
breastcannotbe beautiful. But this is not what Coleridgeis telling us. Coleridgeis not
trying to tell us that Leolineexpressinghimselfwith unmeantbitternessis, seenfrom a
new light, somethinggood,asan olderwomanwith onebreastmight be if we focused
(like a goodPtatonist)on highertruthslike the stateof her soul. No--heis sayingthat the
only way we experiencethe good,*re father'slove, is throughhis realbrutality. To
experiencelove, we must alsoexperiencepain. This is the trutt! of a sinful world.
The ramification of acceptingthis asfiuth is that we may not feel compelledto route
out the "ugly'' (the truly ugly like child abuse(not snails,slimy things,or onebreasted
women--allthingsI am readilyequippedto seeasbeautifuD)in our world. Indeed,
anyonewho hasexperiencedparentinglike Christabelhaslikely cannotdo sobecausethe
lossof the ugly, coupledasit is to his or her attachmentto her parents,would feel like the
who's
lossof parentallove. It is not a frameof mind congenialto a progressive--someone
concernis to route out miseryfrom our experientiallives. This may be why asmuch as I
onceenjoyedChristopherLasch,I turn to his workslessandlessoften. He is a Freudian
in the sensethat he thinks it impossibleto transcendor dramaticallyimprove the human
condition:we arestuckwith the id, the ego,andthe superego.The bestwe cando is
figure out the properbalance;with our choicenecessarilyinvolving somesacrificeand
somebenefit. I imagine"Christabel"speakingto Lasch. It doesn'tspeakto me:
the unanrbiguous
better:they dese,lne
Christabel,Leoline,Geraldineall dese,nre love of
admiringparents,not the 'tnmeant bittsrness"of anrbivalentones. I'll be part of the
eftort (ZEROTO THREE: let's eliminatethe seductiveappealof "Geraldines"--aghost
from our own nursery)to fiansformour human"soul" so we no longer contentourselves
to seebeautyin a sinful world. We mustnot "Passaslightly asyou will"(155). We must
not heedadviceto "O softly fread"(160)out of a fearof awakeningthe sleepingparents
in our own mind who, thoughwenvepassedthe "hall" of childhoodwith its inescapable
of our parentsandtheir behavior
immediacyof the good,bad,or mixed experiences
towardus, still "echo" in, still haunt,orn minds.We musttnrly'?ass . . . the hall, that
echoesstill" (154)which canonly be doneby eliminating,or silencingthe echoes--and
of our pastearly childhoodexperienceswith an
not by framing our remembrances
or homage.Kudosto us for bravelyfollowing
attitudeof reverential,fearfirl,acceptance
the echoesto their source,but the tnrly wiseknow that theseechoes,like the omnipresent
stereomusicin my apartmentbuilding,is a form of anxietyproducingnoisepollution
to.
that we shouldmakeall eflort not to acquiesce

#2: In my first essayI tippedmy hat to the Restorationpoets,ffid I cannotleaveyou

with the impressionthat I think lessof the Romanticpoets. I don't--in fact I takemy hat
offto them. Thereis a real senseof exhilarationin reading,in encountoitg, the bold,
andthereforeexpansive,imagtningsof thesewriters. The willingnessof Coleridgeand
(
beingpossessed,
Shellyto imaginetheir protagonists(andthereforesurelythemselves)
A
requiresa more stable"ego"
losin! their volition andconfiol, andliking this experience
anda senseof order. The
thanthosewho policetheir imaginingswith cleardemarcations
Romanticmoveto reconcileoppositesis surelya liberationfrom the "firewalls" needed
by lessevolvedsortslestthey experienceinternalchaos.

is
arguesthat "the ability to form abstractions
#3: I shouldnotetoo that Greenspan
actually the ability to fusevariousemotionalexperiencesinto a single,integrated
concepf' (Growthof theMind,26). I agreewith him, andI agreethat the Romanticswho
delight in the new thoughts,ttrenew feelings,generatedby the cornbinationof opposites,
fc
aremoving closerto a fulfillment of the humanpromise.W Coleridgedoesin
"Christabel,"Greenspan commentson the natureof hugsandkisses,andI keepit in mind
while reading,and seeits tnrth within, "Christabel"--myotherimpassionedcomments
 notwithstanding.He writes: "To the concretethinker,love is hugsandkissesand
happiness.To the abstractthinker,it is far lesssimple,amany-layeredformulation
(27). BecauseI conceivealongwith
acquiredgraduallyfrom life's experiences"
asundeniablehumantruthsthat "[a]s our smotionalexperienceandthe
Greenspan
richnessandreachof the loveswe canfeel continueto grow, so doesour understanding
of love" (27),andthat"if we limit our concept[ion]of . . . love. . . to just a few
the conceptualrichnessthat is
cognitivelyfamiliar dimensions,we seriouslyshortchange
generatedby considering. . . love . . .in the contextof the enonnousspectrumof affective
experiences that relatesto eachof them" (36), andthat "[t]he basicelementof thinking--
the true heart of the creativitycenftalto humanlife--requireslived experience"(39; my
emphasis),Iwantto embraceColeridge'spoem"Christabel."But I cannotignorewhat
of suchambivalentparentingI
he tells us aboutLeoline,andthe all to real consequences
experiencedanlyin the still far from perfecthumancommunityaroundme, andthus will
not acceptthat the realbeautyof the poemcouldnot havebeenofferedshornof its
disquietinglelements.

+// er, rea/Crru Vrk 2 l 'tl l"ll F- N 6'"1(

M,.

t
"Coletidge early recognized the disquieting elementsin the appeal of the Satanic-Napoleonic-Byronic
figrrre, and . . . he wamed his age against it; but in vain. This personage immensely affected the life, the
art, and even the philosophy of the 19th century. He became the model for the behavior of avant-garde
young men and gave focus to the yearnings of emancipatedyoung women" (M.H.Abrams, Norton
Anthologt of English Literature, 1968,p.704).