Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Daniel K. Muhlestein
ntil the mid-1980s Samuel Taylor Coleridges poem Christabel was typically interpreted in one of two ways: as a Gothic
tale of vampires and demonology (the so-called Nethercot reading) or as an allegory of vicarious suffering and Christian atonement
(the Siegel approach). In the last twenty years, however, the center of
gravity of critical opinion has shifted from Christian to anti-Christian
readings of the poem. Today, the closest thing to a standard interpretation of the text is probably that developed by Camille Paglia, who concludes that Coleridge the Christian was the first misreader of
Coleridge the poet (218), that no poem in literary history has been so
abused by moralistic Christian readings (217), and that far from
demonstrating the success of Christian aspiration, [the poem] abolishes
Christianity
and
returns
the
psyche
to
a primitive world of ethical opacity and sexually malignant spirit-presences (218). In Christabel, Paglia writes, Piety is blasted by a daemonic night wind. Heaven is conquered by hell. Virtue does not and
cannot redeem the poem. The greatness of Christabel arises from its
lurid pagan pictorialism. It is an epiphany of evil (218).
L&B 27.2 2007
Many critics do not like Paglias conclusions. But they cannot refute
them either. Still, a new, alternative reading of the poemwhile it does
nothing to reinstate Christabel as a Christian allegory of vi-carious
sufferinghas two modest virtues: it shifts the focus of critical inquiry to
the part of the text that Paglia cannot adequately explain; and it reconceptualizes the poem in terms of an issue which isor should beof particular interest to Christians. That issue is the extent to which cultural
processes of gender differentiation undermine the relations between
parents and children, especiallyin this casethe relationship between
a father and his daughter.
I
The Conclusion to Part II of Christabel is a puzzling stanza. It
introduces an entirely new narratorone more akin to Coleridge than
to the pious gossips of the earlier sections (Gaskins 4). It also shuts
down the plot so abruptly that some critics dismiss it as an unfortunate late addition which has little or no relationship to the rest of
the work (Hunting 171). Arthur Nethercot, for example, complains
that the lines add nothing to help solve the mystery which [Coleridge] here left dangling to baffle posterity (qtd. in Barth 84), while
Charles Tomlinson asserts that the description of Sir Leolines embrace of Geraldine completes the psychological fable with a succinctness in juxtaposition with which Coleridges tacked-on conclusion to
the second part sticks out uncomfortably from the rest (111).
To other critics The Conclusion to Part II has less to do with the
plot of the poem than with the linguistic tools with which plots are
constructed. For example, Jean-Pierre Mileur says that the coda confronts the poem itself as a word-surprise (66); Jane A. Nelson argues
that the stanza includes an actant designed to mediate binary oppositions (38691); and Richard A. Rand calls the lines a meditation on
the sign-structure which stands in relation to the poem as a sign
stands in relation to its meaning. It means the poem, but in a way
that we cannot rationally analyze. And the meaning of this meaning is
. . . a sign (82).
To most critics, however, The Conclusion to Part II is a meditation not on a sign system but on a character. In a notebook entry Coleridge wrote, A kindhearted man obliged to give a refusal, or the
like, that will give great pain, finds relief in doing it roughly &
fiercelyexplain this, & use it in Christabel (Notebooks 1: entry
1392). On one level the poems coda serves as that explanation. It is
Coleridges attempt to explainand perhaps explain awaythe psychodynamics behind Sir Leolines rough treatment of his daughter. It is
what Roy P. Basler calls an analysis of the psychology of human emotion (43). Why is it, Coleridge asks, that when a father like Leoline
looks at his child, he has two contradictory reactions: his heart is
filled with pleasure, and he expresses that pleasure with words of unmeant bitterness:
And pleasures flow in so thick and fast
Upon his heart, that he at last
Must needs express his loves excess
With words of unmeant bitterness . . . ?
(Christabel ll. 66265)
In an attempt to explain why fathers yoke feelings of love to expressions of bitterness, Coleridge draws an implicit comparison between procreators of the flesh and creators of the word. It may be, he suggests, that
fathers feel the same desire to reconcile opposites as do poets. The ideal
poet, he observes in Biographia Literaria (1817), has an imaginative creativity which reveals itself in the balance or reconciliation of opposite or
discordant qualities (16). Perhaps fathers act upon the same impulse:
Perhaps tis pretty to force together / Thoughts so all unlike each
other (Coleridge Christabel ll. 66667).
But while the impulse to yoke opposites may be the same for a father
as for a poet, the results are very different. What in poetry may produce
ideal perfection (Coleridge Biographia 15) tendswhen applied to
father-child relationsto debase and defile. Knowing that, Coleridge restates his explanation in language and imagery which convey a sense of
uneasy defensiveness: To mutter and mock a broken charm, / To dally
In an obvious sense, then, The Conclusion to Part II of Christabel is an attempt to undo or to mitigate Sir Leolines treatment of
his daughter (Chayes 314). Leoline, Constance Hunting declares, is
being excused (17475). The basis for that excuse is Coleridges theory
of human nature, his belief that there is a necessary connection between love and wrath (Beer 236). To Robert H. Siegel this connection is
part of the mystery of iniquity (183). To Walter Jackson Bate it is an
expression of natural perversity (7374). But regardless of what one
calls it, one thing is clear: in essentializing the link between love and
hate Coleridge transforms Leolines anger into a symbol of what may
well bein his view, at leasta universal problem: What occurred between Sir Leoline and Christabel could happen in any father-child relationship (Yarlott 192).
Of course, not everyone accepts Coleridges assumption. Not everyone believes that the link between love and hate depicted in the poem
is a natural condition (Radley 540), a fundamental part of human
natureat least human nature after the Fall. Indeed, some critics and
theorists believe precisely the opposite. To them the link between love
and hate described in Christabel has been produced neither by
Adam nor by nature but by culture. One of the most articulate proponents of this view is Nancy Chodorow. Like Freud, Chodorow analyzes how culture shapes personality; like him, she believes that gender
differentiation (the process by which a child develops a sense of identity as a gendered being) plays a critical role in identity formation; and
like him, she is convinced that most children define their gender identities in terms of their mothers. But while Freud argues that girls learn
to view their mothersand so themselvesas incomplete men,
Chodorow concludes that it is boys, not girls, who must define their
core gender identity in terms of absence and difference. Why? Because (historically, at least) most children have been reared primarily
by women, and when a male child who is being reared by a woman begins to define himself as a gendered self, as a boy, he must base that
core gender identity upon difference: because women mother, the
sense of maleness in men differs from the sense of femaleness in
women. Maleness is more conflictual and more problematic. . . . A
boy must learn his gender identity as being not-female, or not-mother
(Chodorow 1213). In the process, most boysand men after them
learn to equate masculinity with autonomy, separation, difference,
and violence: The males self . . . becomes based on a more fixed
menot-me distinction. Separateness and difference . . . become
more salient (13).
From Chodorows perspective, then, the condition described in
The Conclusion to Part II is a result neither of biology nor heredity
nor even of a fall from grace. Rather, it is a product of the gendered division of labor in childrearing. A child whose sense of self has been defined in terms of similarity will exhibit what isin Coleridges
descriptionan almost perfect unity of relationality and independence.
On the one hand, the child will be self-contained and autonomous,
Singing, dancing to itself (Coleridge Christabel l. 657). On the
other, the childs autonomy will engender a corresponding relationality that is as complete as it is unintended: A fairy thing with red
round cheeks, / That always finds, and never seeks (ll. 65859).
To a father like Sir Leoline, however, such a combination of relationality and autonomy is almost impossible to achieve, for [t]he
bel was originally written to describe Coleridges outbursts of temper at his son (Mileur 63) simultaneously personalizes and universalizes the coda. On the one hand, awareness of the circumstances under
which the lines were written leads one to interpret them as a case study
in authorial angst. The poet, declares Geoffrey Yarlott, uses Christabel as a vehicle (a safety-valve almost) for the imaginative exploration
of his feelings about his children (191), and he does so in order to explainor explain awaya painful-pleasurable experience which is a
kind of sadism or close to it (Bostetter 191). But on the other hand,
the link to Hartley also carries the coda beyond poem and biography
alike. It identifies family relationships, not witchcraft, as the source of
the conflict; it implies that fathers feel much the same ambivalence toward their sons as their daughters; it expands the discussion to include
historical figures as well as fictional characters, biological sons as well as
literary daughters; and it invites readers to ponder the magnitude of the
problem, to make the connection between the particular and the general, the fictional and the real. When they do so, they see at once that
the problem described in the coda is repeated elsewhere in the text or,
to be more specific, that it is earlier dramatized in precisely such a way
that once they read The Conclusion to Part II aright, what was before
merely a foreshadowing now confronts them in the form of a belated
repetition.
II
This refers, of course, to the relationship between Sir Leoline and
Roland de Vaux. When the two were children, they were inseparable,
best friends, soulmates. Each was the others hearts best brother
(Coleridge Christabel l. 417). That closeness, however, did not survive the rigors of youth and maturation: Each spake words of high
disdain / And insult to his hearts best brother: / They partedneer
to meet again! (ll. 41618). To the narrator this conflict was unfortunate but not entirely unexpected. It was perpetrated by all the usual
suspectsslander, vanity, anger, and the like:
As Warren Stevenson points out, these lines seem to refer to the altercation between [Coleridge and Southey] following the Pantisocracy debacle (19). While Coleridge and many of his contemporaries greatly
admired the stanza, most feminist critics now view it as a tool of patriarchal oppression. This panegyric to male bonding, declares Diane
Long Hoeveler, reminds one of the fact that within the patriarchy the
important relationships are between men, not between women or men
and women (185). As such, the passage is, as Karen Swann wryly observes, of course suspicious (544).
What Chodorows model suggests, however, is that the description
of Sir Leolines break with Roland de Vaux is less an expression of patriarchal power than evidence of the high cost of traditional methods
of gender differentiation. What the narrator tentatively advances as the
causes of the break, in other words, is perhaps better understood as its
occasion, and the dreary sea of difference that now separates the two
men is perhaps best read as a manifest symptom of a latent cause (Coleridge Christabel l. 423). The symptom, that is to say, is the determinate break between two characters who are making the transition from
adolescence to manhood, while the cause is a turbulent process of gender development based upon a vision of autonomous male identities which Swann callsin a clever reversal of Freudan expression of
masculine hysteria (545).
Certainly, the results of the fight support such a finding. Aloof-ness
has replaced love; autonomy has replaced brotherhood. Leoline and
de Vaux have been permanently emotionally scarred: They stood
aloof, the scars remaining, / Like cliffs which had been rent asunder
(Coleridge Christabel ll. 42122); and neither one has ever been
able to recreate the primal unity that once characterized their youthful
relationship: But never either found another / To free the hollow
heart from paining (ll. 41920). Sir Leoline, especially, has been
marked for life:
According to the narrator, the Barons cutting efforts leave him
internally scarred. The space between is also a mark within, from
which no shield can protect him. Like the hysteric he is always
vulnerable to a recurrence of swelling confusion, a revival of the
already-internalized mark, to which he responds with another legislative cut. (Swann 54950)
But if the Barons mark is a cut, it is also a sign. The fact that Leoline
neer found . . . a friend again / Like Roland de Vaux of Tryermaine
(Coleridge Christabel ll. 51718) clearly points the way to the coda.
It simultaneously anticipates and dramatizes what will be stated there.
In that sense, too, it is a mark: an exclamation mark.
This is not to suggest that Sir Leoline does not try to bridge the gap
between himself and his childhood friend. Just the opposite. His initial response to Geraldine is based upon his own contingent nostalgia for his friendship with Sir Roland (Mileur 62). As he gazes into
her eyes, he sees Rolands face and swears vengeance on Geraldines
ravishers. He embraces her and, in proxy, Roland, for as Rolands
daughter she is also his property, an extension of him (Hoeveler
185). To Leoline, Geraldine thus becomes a tool with which to recover his earlier emotional involvement with Roland de Vaux (Voller
119). His goal is to transform her into a material signifier. Lvi-Strauss
points out that men often transform women into repositories of
meaning and then use them as a means for communicating with
other men. One woman may be forced to embody economic value; another may become the medium of political exchange; a third may be
used as a sign of communal relations and personal obligations. The
process by which such communication occurs is often that of gift-giving. Marriage, for example, has been in Lvi-Strausss view a most
basic form of gift exchange, in which it is women who are the most
precious of gifts (Rubin 173). The significance of such gift-giving is
that
hail. She is the body upon which he inscribes his desire, but she is not
his medium, not his mouthpiece. For that, he turns to a man: bard
Bracy. Geraldine is to be the trace of Leolines desire, but Bracy is to
be the authorized interpreter of that trace, and control of the symbolic order is to remain firmly entrenched in male hands:
And with such lowly tones she prayed
She might be sent without delay
Home to her fathers mansion.
Nay!
Nay, by my soul! said Leoline.
Ho! Bracy the bard, the charge be thine!
(Coleridge Christabel ll. 48084)
III
From the perspective of Chodorows theory, then, Christabel is neither a Christian allegory of vicarious suffering nor an anti-Christian
polemic which abolishes Christianity and returns the psyche to a primitive world of ethical opacity (Paglia 218). Rather, it is a parable about
families. It is a cautionary tale depicting the tragic consequences of traditional methods of male gender socialization. It uses Leolines actions
to highlight three characteristics of the kind of masculinity produced by
such socialization: an inability to maintain close relationships, a tendency to use hailing to transform women into material signifiers of
male desire, and a stubborn unwillingness to accept the view that interpellation is never unidirectional and that a reciprocal hail produces a
mutual obligation. Finally, it leaves readers with Leolines wish to be reunited with de Vaux. It leaves them, that is to say, with the very bad expression of a very good desire: the desirefelt by many mento
reestablish the kind of relational unity experienced by boys but denied
to men. In doing so, the poem leaves readers with the hope that someday, some way, brotherhood will become as common as sisterhood, and
that both will flourish together under the fatherhood of God.
WORKS CITED
Althusser, Louis. Ideology and Ideological State Apparatuses. Lenin and Philosophy, and Other Essays. Trans. Ben Brewster. New York: Monthly Review P, 1971. 12788.
Barth, J. Robert. Coleridge and the Power of Love. Columbia: U of Missouri P,
1988.
Basler, Roy P. Sex, Symbolism, and Psychology in Literature. New York: Octagon
Books, 1967.
Bate, Walter Jackson. Coleridge. New York: Macmillan, 1968.
Beer, John B. Coleridges Poetic Intelligence. London: Macmillan, 1977.
Boothby, Richard. Death and Desire: Psychoanalytic Theory in Lacans Return to
Freud. New York: Routledge, 1991.
Bostetter, Edward E. Christabel: The Vision of Fear. Philological Quarterly
36 (April 1957): 18394.
Chayes, Irene H. Coleridge, Metempsychosis, and Almost All the Followers
of Fenelon. English Literary History 25 (December 1958): 290315.
Chodorow, Nancy. Gender, Relation, and Difference in Psychoanalytic Perspective. The Future of Difference. Ed. Hester Eisenstein and Alice Jardine. Boston: G. K. Hall, 1980. 319.
Coleridge, Samuel Taylor. Biographia Literaria. Ed. James Engell and W. Jackson Bale. 2 vols. Princeton, NJ: Princeton UP, 1983. Vol. 2.
. Christabel. English Romantic Writers. Ed. David Perkins. New York:
Harcourt, 1995. 52937.
. The Notebooks of Samuel Taylor Coleridge. Ed. Kathleen Coburn. 5 vols.
London: Routledge, 1957. Vol. 1.
Delson, Abe. The Function of Geraldine in Christabel: A Critical Perspective and Interpretation. English Studies 61 (1980): 13041.
Fields, Beverly. Realitys Dark Dream: Dejection in Coleridge. Chicago: Kent
State UP, 1967.
Fogle, Richard H. The Idea of Coleridges Criticism. Berkeley: U of California P,
1962.
Gaskins, Avery F. Dramatic Form, Double Voice, and Carnivalization in
Christabel. European Romantic Review 4 (Summer 1993): 112.
Griggs, Earl Leslie, ed. Collected Letters of Samuel Taylor Coleridge. 6 vols. Oxford: Clarendon P, 195671. Vol. 2.
Henderson, Andrea. Revolution, Response, and Christabel. English Literary History 57 (Winter 1990): 881900.
Hoeveler, Diane Long. Romantic Androgyny: The Women Within. University
Park: Pennsylvania State UP, 1990.
Hunting, Constance. Another Look at The Conclusion to Part II of
Christabel. English Language Notes 12 (March 1975): 17176.
Mileur, Jean-Pierre. Vision and Revision: Coleridges Art of Immanence. Berkeley:
U of California P, 1982.
Nelson, Jane A. Entelechy and Structure in Christabel. Studies in Romanticism 19 (Fall 1980): 37593.
Paglia, Camille. Christabel. Samuel Taylor Coleridge. Ed. Harold Bloom.
New York: Chelsea House, 1986.
Radley, Virginia L. Christabel: Directions Old and New. Studies in English
Literature 15001900 4 (1964): 53141.
Rand, Richard A. Geraldine. Glyph 3 (1978): 7497.
Rubin, Gayle. The Traffic in Women: Notes on the Political Economy of
Sex. Toward an Anthropology of Women. Ed. Rayna R. Reiter. New York:
Monthly Review P, 1975. 157210.
Siegel, Robert H. The Serpent and the Dove: Christabel and the Problem of
Evil. Imagination and the Spirit. Ed. Charles A. Huttar. Grand Rapids.
MI: William B. Eerdmans, 1971. 15986.
Spatz, Jonas. The Mystery of Eros: Sexual Initiation in Coleridges Christabel. PMLA 90 (January 1975): 10716.
Stevenson, Warren. Nimbus of Glory: A Study of Coleridges Three Great Poems.
Salzburg: Universitat Salzburg, 1983.
Swann, Karen. Christabel: The Wandering Mother and the Enigma of
Form. Studies in Romanticism 23 (1984): 53353.
Tomlinson, Charles. S. T. Coleridge: Christabel. Interpretations: Essays on
Twelve English Poems. Ed. John Wain. 2nd ed. London: Routledge,
1972. 86112.
Voller, Jack G. The Supernatural Sublime: The Metaphysics of Terror in AngloAmerican Romanticism. DeKalb: Northern Illinois UP, 1994.
Yarlott, Geoffrey. Coleridge & the Abbyssinian Maid. London: Methuen, 1967.
Jacobs Ladder
William Blake, 1806