|
We live in a time of rapid changes at the turn of this new millennium. Because of rapid technological advances, the world is changing at an alarming rate. What was once considered normative is slipping away, as the new and "better" trend replaces it. This time of rapid change has placed us into the postmodern period, where much of what characterized the period of modernity has fallen. In this essay, I wish to examine how the Romanticism of Samuel Taylor Coleridge relates to our postmodern world. I also want to attempt to apply his ideas for use in dealing with certain problems in the Church that have arisen in the postmodern era. While postmodernism is rather hard to define, Thomas Oden provides a simple definition: whatever outlasts modernity [1]. Oden also describes postmodern people as those who "refuse to take modernity as the final expression in history"[2]. I wish to focus on two important aspects of postmodernity: Chaos and the loss of objective rational truth [3]. In some ways, postmodernity is the world of modernity falling apart. It is ambiguity where there was once order. It is variety, where there was once homogeneity. However, many theologians see postmodernism as a chance to reassert the message of classical Christianity, which could only be done in the past against the prevailing notions of modernity. In modernity Christianity was forced to constantly be "relevant," but the philosophers and theologians often kept telling us what was relevant to them, rather than what was relevant to us! Modernism, with an air of superiority, offered hope of improvement by our own abilities, while the world got seemingly worse. Chaos ScienceThe philosopher Heraclitus remarked in the 6th century BC that, "everything flows" [4]. Indeed it seems as if modern science has caught up with Heraclitus. Postmodern scientists and philosophers tell us that the world is not as orderly as we once thought. This trend toward disorder is called "Chaos theory." Chaos theory is that, contrary to Newtonian and Enlightenment science, the world, from subatomic level to humans and beyond, is random [5]. Chaos Theory, unlike its Newtonian predecessor, recognizes "the unknowing quality of life." In other words, it is now scientifically valid to say that, "there are levels of understandings and linkages that are simply beyond human comprehension" [6]. The result is that, the wind from a butterfly's wings in Japan will affect weather in New York. Even in this case, the results of such an influence are not entirely predictable [7]. However, despite this lack of order, Rev. Frederic Burnham points out that, "...the study of chaos has also revealed that nature is never wildly unpredictable" [8]. In other words, the universe is not going to fall apart. This structure has been called paradoxically, "ordered freedom" and "deterministic disorder" [9]. Giuseppe Caglioti says that we as humans have always been instinctively searching for something that remains the same while it changes [10]. Indeed it seems as if the nature of the universe mimics such an instinct. |
|
|
Report Offensive Ad Privacy Policy |
Ultimately, this science tells us that, "it's the connections between things, their relationships, that moderate freedom and maintain some semblance of order." Scientists have discovered that, "everything in creation is free, and yet simultaneously and paradoxically bound by its relationships to everything else that is" [11]. This means that the universe boils down more to relationships than it does to some rational structural order. In other words the universe retains its meaning through a network of relationships.
This realization has implications for Christians in many ways. First, it means that miraculous events, such as the resurrection, are, hypothetically scientifically possible, rather than events necessarily outside the realm of science. Second, it means that Christians can stop trying to change the relational God of the Bible, who loved the world so much that He gave his only Son, into the God of the enlightenment universe. However, as I will discuss later, Chaos Theory has other ramifications.
We have lost objectivity. The constant barrage of ideas, coming quickly and readily, has taught us that most claims to truth are subjective, where "you have your truth, and I have mine." We have learned that research, observation, formulation, and other "hard scientific pursuits" all result from an individual perspective influenced by bias. One only need go onto a Christian chat-room to see people from ten different religious denominations all asserting that truth belongs to them and them alone. Each one has "researched objectively" and "looked deeply into the matter," yet all disagree violently. It's enough to make a person question the objectivity of any truth claim.
As N.T. Wright observes, "postmodernism has reminded us that there is no such thing as neutral knowledge" [12]. David Lyon points out that naive positivism and empiricism have failed. We "spent decades escaping from the clutches of an impossible dream of perfect knowledge" [13]. As postmodernism continues, we must accept the fact that our "metanarrative," or our story of reality, is simply, to most people, one competing story among many. Our metanarrative will not only be one of many, but undoubtedly will be examined suspiciously by many as oppressive [14].
For Christians all of this has many implications. Our metanarrative, once assumed in Western countries, is now no longer secure. In modernity, theologians, and Western peoples took the value and authority of the Christian narrative seriously. While many questioned the literal interpretation of the narrative, nobody could really deny its significance. Today we are not permitted to simply explain our narrative as objective fact. However, now that we have less optimism about the value of knowledge, Christians can operate outside of academic intellectual trends without fear or shame.
Before relating Romanticism to postmodernism, the thought of Coleridge needs to be examined. Samuel Taylor Coleridge was born in 1772, and despite being born when he was, he seems to have foreseen the reality of postmodernity during his lifetime. Coleridge, and other Romantics such as Horace Bushnell, recognized that the world was indeed deeper than the empiricist dullness of the rationalists. Rather than advocating a strict rationalism, which many Enlightenment thinkers embraced, Coleridge insisted that reason is truly connected to the imagination.
Coleridge redefines Reason radically. For him, Reason is the complement to the imagination. Reason is the, "organ of the supersensuous."[15] What many define as reason, the "faculty of judging according to sense," Coleridge calls "Understanding" [16]. I have made the table below (Table 1) from Basil Wiley's summary of the difference between Reason and Understanding in Coleridge's thought[17]:
Table 1: Reason and Understanding
| Reason | Understanding |
| Views particulars as one | Arranges and Generalizes phenomena |
| Seeks ends | Studies means |
| Eye of the spirit | Mind of the flesh |
| The source of truth above senses | Limited to sense perception |
Coleridge saw that Europe was paying the price for living under a system governed primarily by Understanding. He saw materialism, atheism, and utilitarianism as the results of Understanding's primacy in society [18]. This is not to say that Coleridge has no place for Understanding. Rational thought certainly is useful and necessary, but much like Kant, Coleridge believes that the important aspects of life, such as God, freedom, and moral consciousness, lie beyond the scope of Understanding. These are understood solely in the faculty of Reason [19].
So what exactly is "Reason" to Coleridge? Unfortunately, Coleridge left no systematic definition of "Reason." However, he does generally define it as unique to humans and as a moral imperative. He also sees Reason as more of a power than a separate faculty. He believes this because reason is much more dynamic than just a thought. According to Livingston, apprehension of the supersensuous is, "the fruit of feeling and will in unity with sense and intellect; the heart acting upon and in union with the head" [20]. Reason, unlike Understanding, comprehends both the eternal and the temporal, thus allowing us to grasp a truth that is ourselves and yet not ourselves [21]. According to Bernard Reardon, Coleridge sees Reason as, "neither sense, nor understanding, nor imagination, but containing within itself all three" [22]. Coleridge proposes a form of knowing that is not dependent on pure rational reasoning.
Thus for Coleridge the Imagination is of vital importance, and of course directly connected to his ideas of Reason and Understanding, since he essentially believes that Reason stems, at least in part, from the imagination. The Imaginative mind stands in contradiction to the mechanical mind, which Coleridge says can only perceive oppositions and juxtapositions of separate realities. However, in the imagination, two separate realities may "interpenetrate," or be recognized as sharing the same being.[23] This works perfectly with a doctrine like the Trinity where three are said to be one.
Coleridge divides the Imagination into two parts: Primary and Secondary. The "Primary Imagination" is the imagination of our common human experiences. It is where we make sense of the world around us, and where we perceive the symbols that encounter us all the time.[24] Without the primary imagination, the symbols of the world would just be a scary, swirling mess. The "Secondary Imagination" is where we advance from recognizing symbols, to actually creating our own symbols in a different medium. When we use our Secondary Imagination, we break down the unity we know; then new chaos emerges, and we mold it. Thus we participate in the eternal creating of God, who is the "I am," through our finite creating [25].
Another prime tenet of Coleridge's Romantic Thought is his notion of symbol. When we speak of symbol today, we often mean a mere representation, as if the symbol is naturally, by being a symbol, inferior and other than what it is conveying. Coleridge believes that, Above all [Symbol is characterized by] the translucence of the eternal through and in the temporal. It always partakes of the reality it renders intelligible; and while it enunciates the whole, abides itself as a living part in that Unity of which it is the representative [26].
This one quote generally summarizes Coleridge's view of symbol. Coleridge, like the early Church Fathers, believes that the symbol is distinguished from the reality it conveys, but is not separate from it [27]. Symbols in some way allow us to see into the eternal from the temporal, much like glass allows us to see inside mansions we otherwise could not enter into. The question inevitably arises, "how can a symbol be both one with and distinct from the object it symbolizes?" A good analogy is the way in which light passes through a stained glass window. When the light passes through the window, the light and window, no matter how distinguishable, are also unified. The light must be seen through the stained glass or else it would be too bright to behold. The stained glass, by its translucence, gives us an appropriate analogy for Coleridge's notion of symbol [28].
Coleridge believes that symbols partake of the reality in which they convey, but he does not believe that symbols are arbitrarily chosen to represent the reality by a particular culture or person. These changing images are simply "signs," mere allegory that will change.[29] However, symbol is lasting and universal. Each symbol is directly connected to God and to other symbols, by participating in the nature of the Divine Word [30]. The term to describe the union of all being is "consubstantial" [31]. Thus, Coleridge holds that there is a common predication among all things "analogously, but not really" [32]. For instance beauty is ascribed to many objects, such as humans, plants, rocks, etc, albeit in different ways. His notions hearken back to Platonic and Patristic thought, the latter which decided on the word "homoousios," meaning consubstantial, to define the Trinitarian relationship [33]. Coleridge also asserts that allegory and signs may be unraveled by criticism, while symbol, due to its universality may not [34]. Thus, symbols are unified and enduring, while allegory is ephemeral.
Symbols are perceived by both Reason and Understanding working together in the Imagination. Symbol is perceived in the Primary Imagination, and created in the Secondary Imagination. For Coleridge, the best symbol is one that has the widest possible meaning and the widest reach of reality [35]. The narrower a symbol is, the more starved it is. Remember, it is our notion of Understanding that bids us narrow down meaning to a symbol. Reason, being supersensuous, allows multiple meanings and perceived contradictions to interpenetrate.
Coleridge believes that perception of symbol is generally a religious act predicated on some type of faith by the perceiver and faith community. It takes faith to perceive the consubstantiality of seemingly disparate symbols, and by perceiving, we participate with God's creating power [36]. This is known as the "fiduciary nature of symbolic language." While not requiring a religious faith per se, one must admit the existence of the transcendent, and believe in an ideal world beyond the self. This requires some degree of faith. Once one opens up to the possibility of the "numinous," one is able to truly perceive ideas, since according to Coleridge, ideas in the highest sense are only perceived by symbol [37]. Despite the necessity of faith on the part of the perceiver, Coleridge emphasizes that, while we do discover symbols, in another way they discover us. Now, the importance of Coleridge's thought for today must be discovered.
Chaos Theory, as has previously been elucidated, recognizes the mystery of the universe. The linear quality of Newtonian physics has been replaced. Now that science has recognized the universe is no longer linear, then why should the world be perceived in linear way? Peter Ainslie makes the point,
In a world that contains chaos, all we can say from our experience is that God is ubiquitous, holistic, numinous, and contains compassion. Words leave us empty before the grand mystery [38].
Thus many have rejected the dull God of rationalism that came with the Enlightenment worldview. To use Coleridge's terms, this effectively amounts to rejecting the God of mere Understanding in favor of adopting the God of Reason. Ainslie even suggests that Theology guided by chaos theory, will be done in the imagination. He believes that the older fascination with systematic theology is based on outdated Newtonian science and Cartesian rationalism. Unlike its mechanistic predecessors, "a theology of imagination encapsules chaos, takes it into itself, and emerges with a creative and always flexible approach to God."[39] God Ainslie says, "can be compared to mother, lover, and friend…[because] these are descriptive metaphors rather than descriptive analyses" [40]. Like Coleridge believes, Chaos scientists recognize that in order to perceive the reality of a chaotic universe, one must be able to perceive in a non-rational way. Coleridge's notion of interpenetration seems very appropriate for postmodern chaos theories, because we can know longer simply perceive mechanistically, where relationships are juxtaposed one after the other. This is because, as Chaos theory asserts, the universe is simply not purely mechanistic, and to approach the universe mechanistically will not give us a full sense of the universe's reality and possibility. Events such as the physical Resurrection of Jesus, or Christ's Real Presence in the Eucharist, are, in Chaos Theory, scientifically possible. The mechanistic mind cannot wrap itself around these ideas though, which is why imaginative perception is perhaps the most important form of thought in postmodernity.
Chaos Theory also includes the notion that that world is held together not by order, but by relationships. Coleridge recognizes the importance of relation, because everything stands in relation to God in that God creates all things. While I am not sure that the relationships of Chaos Theory completely correspond to those of Coleridge, certainly both have a sense that the universe's relationship to itself and God is of prime importance. Ainslie continues, The emphasis [of Chaos Theory] is on a holistic, integrative view of God. Since we are part of the world, we are constantly in interaction with God. It is a participatory relationship [41].
In other words, as Frederic Burnham believes, science is finding that nothing can be studied outside of relationship [42]. While Coleridge seems to have envisioned a more Platonic notion of interconnectedness, certainly a more relational connectivity is not too far away from Coleridge's ideas. Either way, I am fairly sure that Coleridge would be pleased that the general unity of the universe is now being affirmed.
As has been previously discussed, confidence in rational thought has waned in recent times. We all have our biases, and these biases can never be placed on hold when trying to be objective. Therefore nobody can speak of objective truth. Let me say that I agree that nobody can reason to objective truth. I do believe that objective truths do exist in the universe, but that we can only come close to discovering these truths, and never fully intellectualize them. Either way, what is an individual or the Church to do in the era of widespread relativism?
As the primacy of rational thought breaks down in postmodernity, Coleridge's notion of Reason might be able to take the forefront. Remember that Coleridge offered a strong critique of rational thought almost 150 years before postmodern thought offered a similar critique. Coleridge's description of a world living under Understanding held true in modernism, and holds on in those who still advocate modernist thought: materialism, atheism, and utilitarianism. I would add individualism, mechanical dullness, and arrogance of thought. Regardless, Coleridge revolts against the same systems that postmodernism opposes. Before I discuss Romanticism's possible "answer" to postmodern thought, let me provide an example of theological modernist thought in order to demonstrate the primacy of rational thought in that system.
Recently Bishop John Spong published his "12 theses" in an attempt to "revolutionize" the Christian faith in order to render it relevant. While many consider Spong to be "cutting edge" in his theology, his ideas are actually quite stuck in the theological fads of the 1960s. I have listed a few of Spong's theses below, and some postmodern commentary on them [43].
First Spong says that, "God can no longer be conceived in theistic terms," and then goes on to say that this "fact" renders the Incarnation is irrelevant. He also says that the physical resurrection must be denied. Finally, he says that in our "post-Newtonian" world, miracles can no longer be conceived of as performed by a supernatural deity. It is important to note that in each example Bishop Spong makes a statement about what can and cannot be conceived. Contrary to what Spong strongly asserts, many people are able to conceive of God theistically. What Spong really means is that one cannot rationally conceive of God, "theistically under late 20th century modernist Newtonian/Cartesian assumptions, taken to an extreme." By failing to recognize his own particular biases, he shows modernist thinking at its best (or worst perhaps). Observe also that he says that miracles and physical resurrection "must" be denied. Two points should be raised here. The first point is that Spong's use of "must" when defining something applicable to everyone is quite modernist. Spong's certainty, and the pronouncements that follow, rival those of most fundamentalists. The second point is that Spong misunderstands current scientific theory, assuming perhaps that "post-Newtonian" means "hyper-Newtonian." Miracles, physical resurrection, virgin births, etc, are all possible in current scientific theories, although they are by no means probable. The "12 Theses" are yet another attempt at relevance by a modernist Theologian. However, in postmodernity, since the value of rational knowledge has eroded, a new way of understanding theology needs to be developed.
Ironically, perhaps the most relevant new way of understanding theology is that of the Early Church. Thomas Oden makes this very leap, considering himself a "Post-modern Paleo-Orthodox" theologian [44]. The early Church had a great sense of the symbolic, a sense that was carried further in Romantic Thought.
Now we must ask, "if rational thought, or Understanding is so unstable today, then why not give Reason a try?" In a sense, the very nature of Reason is subjective and ambiguous. Remember that Coleridge believes that the best symbols are those that hold the widest reach of reality. This means that the best symbols are subjective, as perceived by Understanding, because they cannot be narrowed down to one empirical meaning [45]. However, this does not mean symbols are in themselves subjective, something that Coleridge would never affirm. Symbols are themselves objective, although presumably only when they are perceived by Reason in the Imagination, because perceiving by Understanding would demand a strictly linear perception [46].
Essentially I am arguing that symbols are both subjective and objective. In some ways Coleridge's idea of Reason seems to subvert the entire system of subjective versus objective. It is important to remember that subjective and objective seem to be arguments based on Understanding. In other words symbols, being perceived by Reason and Imagination, are able to carry a broad and deep objective meaning while still being subjective when grasped or explained by Understanding. Think of the symbol of the bread and wine in the Eucharist. When we partake of them in the setting of Eucharist, a meaning is conveyed, a meaning that is given through symbol and experienced by Reason in the Imagination. The body and blood in the symbols of bread and wine were thus objectively experienced, as true symbols, conveying grace, not mere signs. However, if a Catholic is pressed to explain empirically what happened at his or her Eucharist experience, there will likely be some differences in explanation. However, it is possible for different (and subjective) explanations to all be true, since The Eucharist symbols speak to the Imagination, where reconciliation of separate realities is possible [47]. An example of this is the creeds, in that their language is often ambiguous, paradoxical, and non-precise in order not to sacrifice the truth of the symbol for the explanation necessary to combat heretical understanding of the symbol's action. The paradoxical Christian creeds are themselves best perceived in the Imagination [48].
Such a Theology as this is of course new and in its beginnings, and my ideas are by no means intended to be the solution. Rather I think that Romantic thought offers perhaps the best possible background for theological pursuit in postmodernism. However, until modernist theologians and Church leaders hand over authority to the postmodernists, modern "relevant" theology will still be taught at the seminaries and in the Church.[49] When this new day comes, the worship experience, art, music, paradoxical creeds, and other creative imaginative acts will be the media in which theology is done. As a Romantic and postmodernist, I certainly can imagine the day when this will happen.
To see a world in a grain of sand,
And a Heaven in a Wild Flower
Hold infinity in the palm of your hand
And eternity in an hour.
From "Auguries of Innocence" by William Blake [50].
With other ministrations thou, O Nature!
Healest thy wandering and distemper'd child:
Thou pourest on him thy soft influences,
Thy sunny hues, fair forms, and breathing sweets,
Thy melodies of woods, and winds, and waters,
Till he relent and can no more endure,
To be a jarring and a dissonant thing,
Amid this general dance and minstrelsy;
But, bursting into tears, wins back his way,
His angry spirit heal'd and harmoniz'd
By the benignant touch of Love and Beauty.
From "The Dungeon" by S.T. Coleridge [51].
Ainslie, Peter. "Chaos, Psychology, and Spirituality." In Chaos Theory in Psychology and the Life Sciences, eds. Allan Combs and Robin Robertson. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1995. Allan, Frank. "Theological Foundation of Coleridge on Imagination." Lecture to CH 698. Emory University, Atlanta, GA. 6 Mar. 2002. Applebaum, Stanley, ed. English Romantic Poetry. Mineola, NY: Dover, 1996. Barth, J. Robert. The Symbolic Imagination. New York: Fordham University Press, 2001. Burnham, Frederic. "Chaos: A New Theology." Mundi Medicina 4, no.1 (1992): 3-5. Caglioti, Giuseppe. The Dynamics of Ambiguity. New York: Springer-Verlag, 1983. Livingston, James C. Modern Christian Thought. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1997. Lyon, David. Jesus in Disneyland. Malden, MA: Polity Press, 2000. Moloney, Raymond. The Eucharist. Collegeville, MN: Michael Glazier Books, 1995. Oden, Thomas. After Modernity…What? Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1990. _____. Requiem: A Lament in Three Movements. Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1995. Perkins, Mary Anne. Coleridge's Philosophy. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1994. Reardon, Bernard M.G. Religious Thought in the Victorian Age. New York: Longman, 1980. Shedd. The Complete Works of Samuel Taylor Coleridge. New York: Harper and Brothers, 1853. Spong, John. "A Call For A New Reformation." Online. Available @http://www.dioceseofnewark.org/jsspong/reform.html. Wiley, Basil. Nineteenth Century Studies. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1981. Wright, N. T. "The Resurrection and Postmodern Dilemma." Sewanee Theological Review 41, no.2 (1998): 141-156.
[1] Thomas Oden. After Modernity…What? (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1990), 74. For Oden, modernist movements, such as Marxism, Freudianism, and Nietzsche's nihilism have fallen, and therefore have not lasted into Modernity. [2] Ibid, 76 [3] Perhaps simply by the nature of post-modernism, a clear definition is virtually impossible. [4] Giuseppe Caglioti. The Dynamics of Ambiguity (New York: Springer-Verlag, 1983), 11. [5] Frederic Burnham, "Chaos: A New Theology," Mundi Medicina 4, no.1 (1992): 3. [6]Ainslie, Peter. "Chaos, Psychology, and Spirituality," In Chaos Theory in Psychology and the Life Sciences, eds. Allan Combs and Robin Robertson (Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1995), 309. [7] Burnham, 4. [8] Ibid. [9] Ibid, 4-5. [10] Caglioti, 11. [11] Ibid, 5. [12] N.T. Wright, "Resurrection and the Postmodern Dilemma," Sewanee Theological Review 41, no.2 (1998): 142. [13] David Lyon. Jesus in Disneyland (Malden, MA: Polity Press, 2000), 141. [14] Wright, 142. [15] James C. Livingston. Modern Christian Thought (Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1997), 87. [16] Ibid. [17] Basil Wiley. Nineteenth Century Studies (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1981), 29. [18] Livingston, 87. [19] Ibid, 88. [20] Ibid. [21] J. Robert Barth. The Symbolic Imagination (New York: Fordham University Press, 2001), 126. [22] Bernard M.G. Reardon. Religious Thought in the Victorian Age (New York: Longman, 1980), 68. [23] Barth, 24. [24] Barth, 18, 38. [25] Ibid. [26] Barth, 32. [27] Raymond Moloney. The Eucharist (Collegeville, MN: Michael Glazier Books, 1995), 99. [28] Barth, 123-124. [29] Allan, Frank. "Theological Foundations of Coleridge on Imagination," lecture to CH698, Emory University, Atlanta, GA, 6 Mar, 2002 [30] Mary Anne Perkins. Coleridge's Philosophy (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1994), 48. [31] Barth, 33. [32] Ibid, 36. [33] Perkins, 48. [34] Barth, 12. [35] Ibid, 44. [36] Ibid, 37-39. [37] Ibid, 144-145. [38] Ainslie, 311. I find it fascinating that Ainslie mentioned many of Coleridge's themes and words without even mentioning him. [39] Ibid, 311. [40] Ibid, 311-312. [41] Ainslie, 311. [42] Burnham, 4. [43] John Spong. "A Call For A New Reformation," online, available @http://www.dioceseofnewark.org/jsspong/reform.html. [44] Thomas Oden. Requiem: A Lament in Three Movements (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1995), 109-139. [45] Barth, 44. [46] Shedd. The Complete Works of Samuel Taylor Coleridge (New York: Harper and Brothers, 1853), 5:622. [47] Of course, this raises the issue of whether there are unlimited possible explanations of the Eucharist experience. I would suggest that the experience of the individual is best interpreted through the lenses of the collective experience of the Church. In other words, the Church defines the boundaries of how many subjective meanings can be applied to objective experience. [48] See above footnote. In other words, the Church has defined, when forced, what explanations of the experience are within bounds and which are outside. An example of the creed's ambiguous language, is that it is used by East, West, Catholic, and Protestant alike, all who have different conceptions of the Trinity, the West's being more mechanistic. [49] I would consider many seemingly opposite groups, such as Spongian liberals and Protestant Fundamentalists as all adhering to a Modernist philosophy. Despite what any Romantic influence any of these groups had, they have slipped into a mechanistic understanding of the Church and the Faith. [50] William Blake, "Auguries of Innocence," in English Romantic Poetry, ed. Stanley Applebaum (Mineola, NY: Dover, 1996), 11. [51] Samuel Taylor Coleridge, "The Dungeon," in English Romantic Poetry, ed. Stanley Applebaum (Mineola, NY: Dover, 1996), 62.
Last updated 09-08-2008
More Catholic Essays and Articles
Ancient and Future Catholics