ENGL268FINALESSAY

NATHANROYTERS3447017

Q3)EpochsseparateadreamappearedtomefromIdreamed.Butwhichismore true?Itisnotthegodswhosendthedream,butitisnottheEgothatdreamseither (TheodorW.Adorno,MinimaMoralia) Therealityisthat,evenifweweretoattempttoseparatethevastlydisparateepochsof dreamtheoryasrepresentedbythegreatwritersofantiquity(Cicero)andtheRomantic dreampoets(Byron)weareinevitablytofindthatthereisafatalcollapsebuiltinto Adornosdelineation.ItisbothandneithertheEgoandthegodsthatraisethemselvesto theroleassoleprogenitorandarchitectofthedreaminSomniumScipionisandByrons TheDream.Bothagentsthoughtresponsible(theEgoandthegods)dissolveinto inconsequenceintheutter,permeatinguncertaintythatthedreameractuallyhas concerninghisdreamsorigins.Atsomepointintheirtrajectorythedreammustbe recognisedasexternalandthusindecipherable.Thus,theexternalisticconclusionswhich wesupposetohavebeentoohastilyacceptedandpetrifiedinthereligious interpretationsoftheRomans,andthewayinwhichtheywererepulsedandreplacedby theatheisticandEpicureanpsychologisminthepostEnlightenmenteraareboth illegitimate.Forus,theseconclusionsareunsatisfactory,andweshallexplorewhythis mustbethecasethroughanexegesisofthedreamsandthehistoricalcontextoftheir writers. Tounderstandthewayinwhichthegodsarepresentedtousasthefocalpointand inspirationofthedreamwemustalsounderstandtheirrelationtoScipio,toCicero,and indeedtomankindingeneralinthetimeofSomniumScipioswriting.Accordingtothe accountgivenbyCicero,ScipiospendstheeveningtalkingabouthislatemasterAfricanus, intowhosehouseholdhehasbeenadoptedandwhosenamehehasbeenbestowedwith (consequently,alongwithhismilitaryhonour;Africanaswasexaltedasthatmost invincibleofmenwhofirstborethenameI).Thisisaninterestingpoint,asitrepresents Cicerosattempttonavigatetheintellectualdivisioninhisepochindreamtheory.Some heldthephysiologicalAristotelianviewwhereonesmaterialandmentalstatehadinertia thatdreamsoperatedon,andsomeheldthatdreamswerespacesinwhichmystical(and rare)communionwiththegodsoccurred.Ciceroattemptstosatisfybothschools, betrayingthehighlycraftednatureofthistext.Aspartofhisgenius,themilitary personhoodofAfricanusisinperfectconformity(nottomentionconvenience)withthe centraltheologyespousedbythetext,wheretheepitomeoftheRomangodsisthesun;a celestialglobe,theoutermost,embracingalltherest;thesupremegodhimself.(Heis)

leader,princeandruleroftheotherlights,themindandregulatingpoweroftheuniverse, sovastastoilluminateandfloodallthingswithhislight(IV).Thesunispositionedeven aboveJupiter,whowasthechiefgodoftheRomanstatereligionduringthetimeofthe textsconceptioninfirstcenturyBC,asthesunsdutytosustaintheearthismoreclearly understoodthanJupiters,makingitsimplerforthesuntobeconceptuallyintegratedinto Romanreligiousciviltheory.Thus,insofarasthesunistheepitomeofmilitaryand politicalorganisationanduniformity(theimpulseandmotionoftheglobesthemselves, softeningshrillerbydeepertonesproducingadiversityofregularharmoniesV) Africanuspedigreeasatacticianjustifieshisbeingthemouthpieceofthegods.Heisthus qualifiedtoremindScipioofhishumandutyassignedbygod,toguardtheglobewhich youseeinthemidstofthistemple(III);thatistosay,earth.InSomnium,Godliness becomesdutifulness,anditwouldappearveryplainlythatthegodsweresolely responsibleforthisdream(andforalldreams,byextension)ifitwerentforthedubious politicalmotivesthatlurkaroundthedreamsimplications. Wehaveseenthatthegodsaredefined(andindeedbound)bytheirunswerving allegiancetotheircelestialduty,sowhatismansrelationtothecosmos?The interpretabledistinctionbetweenthegods,thevictoriousdead(Africanus)andtheliving (Scipio)breaksdownintoanexaminationoftheextenttowhichonegoverns,restrains andmovesthebodyoverwhichheismaderulerevenasthesupremegodholdsthe universeunderhissway(VIII).Tobegodlikeisnotmerelytomasteroneselfthough,itis alsotoexpandthatruletosocietyingeneral;topoliticallymasterothersinpaternalistic benevolence.Thisrationaleisthebasisofnaturalorderintheuniversewhichman,along withallelse,simplyfollows.Indeed,thecelestialglobesandmenalikecandolittleelse butletvirtueherselfbyherowncharmsdrawyoutotruehonour(VII).ForCicero,virtue isbestsymbolisedbyScipioscallingtoreestablishthestateasdictator;toshowhis countrythelightofhisenergy,geniusandwisdom(II),andissummedupinthelawof nature,whereintheuniverseisavastcitystatewithoneconstitution,whichistheright reason;contrastedwiththemerepositivelawsofthevariousstates(Horsley,p37).We arebeginningtoseetherationalcontinuumofexistanceonwhichbothmanandgod reside,whichisrevealingitselfasthelocusofthedream.InSomniumAfricanusinforms Scipio;knowalsothatyouareagod(VIII),whichisaderivationofCicerosphilosophy.If thisistobetakenliterally,thenthegodsmayaswellhavegivenScipiothedream;itis inconsequential.Inthistranscendentmoment,werealisethatallwhopartakeintherule oftheuniverse,ornaturallaw,aregodlike.AshearticulatesinDeLegibus,reasonisthe firstcommonpossessionofbothmanandgod(Cicero,I.24),anditisreasonthatisthe

modalitybywhichmanfirstorderedcommunity.Unfortunately,thistheologicalpointis toocomplexforthescopeofthisessay,sufficetosaythatitisredundanttoannouncethe godsasprogenitorsofdreamsifthereissuchaseamlesstransitionbetweenthenatureof manandgod. Thedreamarisesfromthenaturallawoftheuniverse,whichbindsmanasitbindsgod. Thedreamcanthusonlybedescribedasqualitativelyexternal,whichisAdornos supposition.Cicerosupposesthatthedreamoriginatesfromthedeepestlevelofbeing;it isincommunicationwiththeontologicalcandouroftheuniverse.Itseemsthatthedream isonlyincidental,forCicero,initsroleasavesselforatrueencounterwiththeuniversal law.AshewritesinDeDivinationethesoulisseparatedbysleepfromunionwiththe bodyandthecontagion(distraction)itderivesfromthere.Then,itremembersthepast, seesthepresentandforseesthefuture.Thebodyofasleepingmanlieslikethatofadead man,butthesoulisaliveandactive(Cicero,p66).Intruestoicfashion,therevelationof thedreamisnotgivenbythegods,itisfirstandforemostbecausethesheathandstupor ofphysicaldistractionisdrawnbackfromoverthesoulwhereitonlyobfuscates.Agency isclearlyplacedinthehandsofmanandhissoul.Ifthesoulcouldbebaredinanyother physicalcontextorpractice,thensuchapracticewouldbeequallyvaluableand fascinatingtoCicero.Thequestionnowbecomes,indreamsorotherstatesofbeing,what movesthesoultodiscloseitselfandtheuniversetoitselfinsuchatranscendentmoment asSomniumScipiosis?Conversely,ifthesoulisgod,andthegodsrevealedthedreamto Scipio,thenwhatisholdingthesoulback?Whataretheconditionsforrevelation?This surelysupportsAdornosskepticismaboutthenatureofdreamsbeingofthegodsorof theego;theyareutterlyexternaltous. ThisquestionofdreamoriginarisesinByronsTheDream.Whilstthepoemistragicin itsoverarchingstructure(theestrangedloversendinginmadness;bothinmiseryVIII, ln206)thereisadeeperquestionasthereasonsforthisfatalisticdeterminismtohave comeabout,whichleadsustoanexplorationofthedreamsoriginitself.Thereasonlies inByronsconceptionofthehumansoul.Amostpowerfulimageofthisinbuilt,even preordainedfatalismthatrelentlesslyhoundstherelationshipbetweentheboyandthe maidenistheeventsthattranspireintheOratory.Thesettingisheavilysymbolic,asitis aninstanceofnatureyieldingtothemanmade(Elledge,p108),oftheEdenicfreedomof thegentlehill,green,andofmilddeclivity(Byron,II,ln28)metamorphosisingintothe greyness,deadness,harshness,andmassedheavinessofadynasticcastle(Elledge, p108).Thestricturesasrepresentedbythephysicalboundariesofthissettingare

analogousoftheartificialscaffoldingthathassomehowbeenbuiltintotheheartsofboth ofthelovers;thestructurethatforcestheboytohavegivenhimselfsotoherwithout mutuality,againstherwill.Itisakintothestructurethatpreventshimfromactingin accordancewithhisownwill,aswhenhedroppedthehandheheld,andwithslowsteps retired,butnotasbiddingheradieu(Byron,III,ln99).AsElledgeremarks,thisact adequatelycapturesmentalcancellationofbodilyaction,andanticipatesasimilardenial inthecivilsmileswhichgracebothcountenances;mockingitselfinmarkingdivorce (p110).Thewilloftheboyprotagonistinthisdreamiscleaved,makingthesoulclearly schizophrenic,constantlysecondguessingitsownresolutions,withnofaithinitsown composition.TheallegationByronispotentiallymakinghereisthatthesoulis,atits deepestlevel,inchoate;fragmented.Toascertainthisforsure,weneedtounderstand howByronconceivesthedreamspace. AccordingtoCicero,aswehavealreadyseen,thedreamspaceispotentiallyoneinwhich thesoulisloosedfromthebondsandlimitationsoftheflesh,whichwouldpresumethatit isthespacereservedfortheid;fortheidealunfetteredsoulandself.Byronpositshis frameworkatthebeginningofthepoem,statingthatourlifeistwofold;sleephathits ownworld,aboundarybetweenthingsmisnamed;deathandexistance,andawiderealm ofwildreality(Byron,I,ln1).Thisistosaythatsleepistheliminalspacebetweenthetwo ultimatelocationsoftheself;indeathorexistance.Besidesexplainingthephysical conditionsinwhichonesbodylieslikethatofadeadman(Cicero,p66)thepsycho spiritualconditionsofsleeparesuchthatonecanunderstandnotonlythedivision betweenexistanceanddeathbuttheblurringofthetwo,andforByronthisblurringtakes placeinthevenueofthehumansoul,wherevoicesfromthedeepabyss(are)revealed (Byron,VIII,ln200).TheequivalentofCicerostranscendentapprehensionofdivinelawis torectifythefactthatdeathandexistancearemisnamed;tobetterclarifythem.Thisisto saythatthefreedomandvirtuethatScipioseesinhabitthesoulinhiscelestialvisionof theafterlifeisexchangedforByronwithavisionofthesoulstruestate,hereinour currentexistance.Andthetruestateofthesoulispervadedbydeath.AsintheJewish accountsofthehumansoulintheTorah,deathhasclimbedinthroughourwindows (Jeremiah,9:21).ItisaptlysummatedinByronsChildeHaroldwherehewritesthatour lifeisafalsenature;tisnotintheharmonyofthings,thisharddecree,thisineradicable taintofsin.Allthewoeswesee,andworse,thewoesweseenot,whichthrobthroughthe immedicablesoulwithheartachesevernew(IV,ln126).Thesewoesthatweseenotare thewoesthatcomefromthesoulsprematuredeath,asdemonstratedinTheDreamby theselfcripplingofthetwolovers.

Itisnotclearatthispointwhetherthesoulisdisclosingitselfselfreferentially,butaswill bemadeclearinthefollowinggodandnatureareexcludedaspossibleagentsof disclosure.Asignificantfeatureofthepoemthatgivesitanegoisticinterpretationisthe youngmansfailedascenttothefullnessofmanhood.Asheventuresintothewilderness, thefieryclimesinwhichhemadehimselfahome(Byron,IV,ln107)heisimmersedinan allnaturalmilieuoflifeandvitality,returningsomewhattothesymbolictouchstoneof theEdenicgentlehillfromthebeginningofthepoem.Ashissouldrinkstheirsunbeams weareremindedofthesustenancethatthesunprovidesinSomniumthatilluminates andfloodsallthingswithitslight.Buttherecanbenoreligioussentimentmusteredeven inthesplendorofthisnaturalchapelofthegodsfortheprotagonist.Thepoetdrawsus awayfromthepotentialsolaceofnaturebackintotheirreparablepsycheoftheboy,who isnowassaultedwithamassofmanyimages,crowdedlikewavesuponhim(IV,ln112). Ofcourse,theimagesarethatofthetorturouslyunfinishedloveaffairhehadinhisyouth. Aswemoveawayfromthesunthematically,wearemetaphoricallyrejectingtheroleof theApollonicgodsthatCiceroattemptstoapproachinSomnium,andsympathisingwith Adornosclaimthatforsomedreamstheegoappearsresponsible.Andwemoveintothe metaphysicaleventthatoccurredsimultaneousandsubterraneantotheoldmansion, andtheaccustomdhall,therememberedchambers,andtheplace(VI,ln160). Wemovefromthenaturalisticortheisticattributionofexistentialblametorelational transgression.Theloverseventuallyreuniteinthepoem,butitisamarriageoffutility, becauseofmetaphysicalwoundthatByronfeelsinthedeathofthesoul.Hence, communicationisimpossiblebetweenthetwoasevennowshelovedanother;looking forhissteed(Byron,II,ln71)andatthesametimetheboyknewthatshewashissight; hehadceasedtolivewithinhimself,shewashislife(ln53).Therewassomespiritor forceorimpulsethatmovedtheboytofallsodeeplyinlovewithherwithouther reciprocation;tosustainanunfeasiblelove.Thisspirit,perhapsthisspectreofthe(pre existent)past(V,ln143)isatoddswiththeartificialstructuresthatareeverpresentin thetwo,climacticallyfeltinthefailureofthemarriagescene,whereoerhisfacethe tabletofunutterablethoughtsweretraced(VI,ln153).Astheybothtrytoamelioratethe existentialagonythathasharanguedthemthroughtheentiretyofthedreambyfinally concedingto(whattheythinkarethe)ultimatecosmicdictations,theyfindthatthereis animmedicablesoulwithinthemboth. Thisisthepenultimatemomentsealingthetragicnatureofthepoem,asitisaprofound resolutionthatiscosmicallyirreversible.Theconditionsforsatisfyingthesoul,asin

Somnium,areexternal,thoughforByrontheyarefarlessobviousthanforScipiowho merelyhastoupholdtheRomanempire.Thisisexemplifiedinthepersistentmyopiathat thereadershareswiththepoetwhoisexcludedfromknowingthesoulswound,unable toseethewords(theboyinscribed)thatIcouldnotguessof(III,ln82).Inthecontextof thepoem,thesoulhassofarbeendeniedsatiationbyGod(Whoseheaventheboyhad vividlyseen,cloudlessclearandpurelybeautifulIV,ln125),bythebouquetofnature (canopiedbytheblueskyIV,ln123)andindeedbyattainingwhatheperceivedwasthe objectofhisdesire,hisbride(whowasnowforgivenofherroleinhisillrepressed afflictionbyherrecreationasagentlebrideV,ln139).Theonlypossiblerealminwhich satiationcanbedeniedisinandofhewhowould(not)besatiated;thedreamer.Inan almostempiricalfashion,Byronhassystematicallyworkedthroughthepossiblecauses forexistentialagonythatthedreamerfeelsandhasarrived,finally,attheveryorigin;the ego;thesoul.Thereisnobetterexampleofthepureexternalityofdreamsthanthefact thateventhesoulistorturedbysomethinginexplicable,unnameable,bywoesunseen. NodoubtByronsegoisresponsibleforthisdream(cedingautobiographicalreadingsof histrialswithMaryChaworth)butwhat,then,isresponsibleforhisdividedego?Forthe deathinhissoul?Metaphysically,theremustbeanexternalinfluencethatunderlies Byronsdreamformation,whichsupportsAdornospointthatneitherepochhasafull graspontheircollectiveorinstantialorigin. ThetheologicalpremisesofCicerosdreamleadustounderstandthat,insofarasthe godsaredelineated,theyareconqueredbythesoulofmanandhebecomesgod.Thisisa moveonlypossiblethroughthepeculiarmodalityofthedreamwherethesoulis particularlyarousedinitsactivity.Nevertheless,itisevidentthatunlessthegodthatis theprogenitorofthedreamissufficientlyincomprehensibleandalterior(sic)tothe dreamer,thedistinctionAdornomakesbetweenrevelationandcreativeimaginationwill collapseaccordingtothestrengthoftheego,lestwefindourselvesinapositionofbeing unabletoaccountforthelatencyofthesoulsselfrevelation.Itcannotbetruethatyou aregod,bytheverysubdoxasticstructureofthedreamassomethingcomingfrom without,notwithin.Likewise,Byronsdreamexemplifiesforustherealitythatthedream mustcomefromwithout.Heapproacheshistheoryfromtheoppositedirection;the dreambeinganostensiblycatharticexperiencemeanttoalleviateandexplainthe psychologicalframeworkofafailedrelationship.Butinsofarasthegoalofthedreamis todiscernthecreationsofthemind(I,ln19),Byronfindstheheraldsofeternity(I, ln11)whichcannotbeplacatedorreconciledandwhichdrivethem,andinevitablyus also,tomadness.Theonlywaythewillcanbedividedisifitisbeingoperatedonfrom

without;if,likeSocrateswouldhold,evilisinvoluntary.Hence,despitetheattemptsof bothCiceroandByrontoplacethedreamsoriginfirmlyinthehandsofthegodsorthe ego,botheffortsfailinthenecessityofanewandrobustexternalisticconception.Both theSelfandGodneedtobereconceptualisedintheirrespectivemonumentalcomplexity. BIBLIOGRAPHY Atkins,E.,1926,PointsOfContactBetweenByronAndSocrates,PMLA,vol.41,no.2 Byron,Lord,1816,TheDream,SelectedPoetry,1904,WilliamBlackwoodAndSons, Edinburgh&London Cicero,Q.,SomniumScipios Cicero,Q.,CiceroOnDivination,DeDevinitione,2006,ClarendonPress,Oxford Cicero,Q.,DeLogibus Elledge,W.,1987,DividedBeing;TheMindInByronsTheDream,TheCastOf Consciousness;ConceptsOfTheMindInBritishAndAmericanRomanticism,Greenwood Press,NewYork Freud,S.,1985,TheMeansOfRepresentation,TheInterpretationOfDreams,Penguin Publishing,London Horsley,R.,1978,TheLawOfNatureInPhiloAndCicero,TheHarvardTheological Review,vol.71,no.1 Harris,W.,2003,RomanOpinionsAboutTheTruthfulnessOfDreams,TheJournalOf RomanStudies,vol.93,no.1